A MANVELL Or brief volume of Controversies of Religion between the Protestants and the Papists: wherein the Arguments of both sides are briefly set down, and the adversaries Sophisms are plainly refuted. Written in Latin in a brief and perspicuous method by LUCAS OSIANDER, and now Englished with some additions and corrections. At London Printed by Humphrey Lownes. 1606. TO THE READER. AS their part is the chiefest in defending the truth who do sift the full state of Controversies, explicating the question, maintaining reasons for the truth, and answering the opposite arguments at large, as the nature of every one doth require for the full settling of men's judgements, who with singleness of heart desire to be thoroughly satisfied; so is their labour requisite also, who do contract those larger disputations into a brief and compendious sum. For it helpeth the memory, in calling to mind that which hath been read in larger discourses before; it furthereth the judgement, by giving grounds of arguments & answers, which may afterward by the learned Reader be further enlarged by his own meditations as occasion shall require: it may serve for some good taste in the knowledge of controversies for such as have not the leisure & other opportunities & means to read the larger disputations; and lastly being comprised in a small volume, it may easily be carried abroad, if ●e desire to read such things, where we cannot have not the greater volumes. Which reason's moved our Author to pen this brief Manuel in a perspicuous method, and it were to be wished that some of our Country men, whom God hath furnished with judgement and other necessaries for such a purpose would endeavour to do the like in our vulgar tongue, in this brief and plain order, In the mean time the translation of this present work shall be, I trust, neither unprofitable nor unwelcome. Some things are altered, which I judged might be offensive, or otherwise hinder the Reader; but they be such a●d no more, than, I hope, who so shall compare the translation with the Original with indifferency, will confess there was reason to do so. Some things also, where need seemed to require, I have added, and whereas the Author in testimonies alleged out of the Scripture quoted the chapter only, I have generally throughout for the ease of the reader annexed the verses also, as the case required. The censure hereof I leave to the indifferent reader, and commend the success to God, whose Name be glorified for ever, Amen. A Table of the Chapters and Questions. CHAP, (1) Of the holy Scripture, 1 Whether it be unsufficient. 2 Whether it be obscure. 3 Whether it be uncertain or pliable to any sense. CHAP, (2) Whether the Scripture be to be read of the lay people. CHAP. (3) Of the interpretation of the holy Scripture. CHAP. (4) Of Traditions. CHAP, (5) Of the Letter and the Spirit, CHAP. (6) Of councils. CHAP, (7) Of the Church, 1 Whether our Church or the Church of Rome be the true Church. 2 Whether, it be to be granted, that there is an invisible Church. 3 Whether the church may err. CHAP, (8) Of the Bishop of Rome. 1 Whether Christ have need upon earth of any Vicar or visible head. 2 Of the power and authority of Peter. 1 Over the rest of the Apostles. 2 In the rule and dominion of faith. 3 Whether Peter were at Rome, and there instituted an ordinary succession, 4 Whether the Bishops of Rome be Peter's successors, 1 In Doctrine. 2 In Manners, 5 That the pope is Antichrist. CHAM (9) Of free-will. 1 Whether vnregenerat men can of themselves by virtue of their free-will b●gin their conversion▪ 2 Whether Original sin have in it the nature of sin▪ 3 Of the works of Infidels. 4 Of Grace. CHAP, (10) Of justification. 1 Of imputed righteousness, or of the signification of the word justification. 2 Whether the grace of justification be equally alike in all. 3 Whether we be justified by good works. 4 Whether we be justified by Fa●th alone 5 Whether Paul do deny justification by the works of the Ceremonial law only. (1) CHAP. (11) Of the true conditions of faith. 1 Whether Faith be taken respectively or habitually. 2 Whether Faith be only a bare knowledge and assent. 3 Whether Faith be also in wicked men. 4 Whether true Faith may be void of good works. 5 Whether Faith be informed by charity. CHAP, (12) Of good works. 1 Whether good works please God, ex opere operato. 2 Of Will-worship in general. 3 Of works of supercrogation or councils in particular. 1 Of Poverty. 2 Of single life. 3 Of Obedience. 4 That good works cannot be communicated to others. CHAP, (13) Of Renovation or imperfect Obedience. 1 Whether our obedience begun in this life be perfect. 2 Whether Concupisceace remaining in the regenerate be a sin. (1) CHAP, (14) Of the Number of the Sacraments in general. 2 A particular examination of the five falsely supposed Sacraments. 1 Of Confirmation, 2 Of Penance, 3 Of Orders, 4 Of Matrimony. 5 Of extreme unction, CHAP, (15) Of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. CHAP, (16) Of enclosing, carrying about and adoring of the Sacrament. 1 Whether the Eucharist out of the use thereof be a Sacrament. 2 Whether the Eucharist be to be adored. 3 Whether the Eucharist be to be enclosed & carried about. (1) CHAP, (17) Of the Mass in general: whether it be a propitiatory Sacrifice. 2 An appendix of the abuses in the mass. 1 Private mass. 2 The wresting of the mass to other affairs. 3 Simony in the Mass. 4 The mingling of water with wine, 5 A sink of Ceremonies. 6 The novelty of their ceremonies. 7 The errors and fooleries of the canon of the Mass. 8 The mass said in Latin. 9 Mass for the dead. CHAP, (18) Of Communion under both kinds. CHAP, (19) Of Purgatory, 1 Whether there be a purgatory. 2 Whether the dead be relieved by the suffrages of the living. GHAP. (20) Of Invocation of Saints. 1 Whether Latria be given to Saints in popery. 2 Whether Saints be to be prayed unto, 3 Whether Papists commit idolatry in worshipping of images, CHAP, (21) Of the Vow of single life in ecclesiastical persons 1 Whether marriage be a state, that defileth a man. 2 Whether single life have any prerogative in God's sight before marriage. 3 Whether it be in a man's choice to vow single life. CHAP, (22) Of the errors of popish fasts. 1 Of choice of meats 2 Of the tying of fasts to certain and set times, 3 Whether fasting be meritorious 4 Of the fast of Lent. 5 The keeping of fasts is more straightly urged by the Papists then the keeping of God's commandments, 6 Mockeries in popish fasts. 7 The judgement of the holy ghost of the fasts of hypocrites, CHAP. (23) Of Repentance, and of the errors, which the papists bring into this place of Repentance, 1 Of the merit of contrition. 2 Of the sufficiency of contrition, 3 Of popish satisfaction. 4 Of omission of faith. 5 Of Auricular confession, (2) Conclusion, A Manuel or brief volume of Controversies, between the Protestants and the Papists. CHAP. 1. Of the holy Scriptures. The holy Scripture alone is the judge of all controversies which arise in the Church, and the most certain rule of truth. REASONS. THE Prophet isaiah sends us in deciding of controversies of Religion, to the law and to the testimony. Isai. 8. 20. that is, to the holy Scripture. Christ in the controversy of his person ●nd doctrine, saith to the pharisees: Search ●he Scriptures, etc. they, are they, which testify of me. joh. 5, 39 Saint Paul greatly commendeth the holy Scriptures unto us, saying: The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct and instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto every good work. 2, Timoth: 3; 16, 17. The Citizens of Beraea judged of Paul's Sermons & opinions out of the Scriptures; whether Paul taught such things, as were agreeable to the holy Scriptures; and are for that cause commended. Act: 17, 11. Christ answered out of the Scriptures to the questions of the pharisees. Matthew, 19, 4, etc. of the Sadducees. Matth, 22, 31, etc. of the perfect fulfilling of the law. Luke, 10. 26, 27. of his divinity out of Psalm, 110, Matthew, 22, 43, 44. Whereas he might have confuted and confounded them with his miracles alone. The Apostles confirmed all their assertions out of the Scriptures, as did also the Evangelists. Matthew speaketh often of the fulfilling of the Prophets, and so decides the greatest controversy, that ever was, concerning the Messias, out of the writings of the Prophets. So Peter also proveth out of the holy Scripture, that jesus is the promised Messias, the Saviour of the world. Acts, 2, 25, etc. And Chapter, 3. verse, 18, etc. and Chapter, 4, verse, 11, 25, etc. and Chap. 10, verse, 43, Stephen fighteth against his adversaries, the Priests, pharisees, & Scribes, with the weapons of the Scripture. Acts, 7. Paul in the controversy of Religion, which he had with the jews, provokes to the law and the writings of the Prophets. Acts, 24, 14, and 26, 22, 27. The same Paul gathered the doctrine of justification out of the Scripture Romans, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10, Chapters. Galath. 3, and 4, Chapter: and cleareth the controversy of the person of our Saviour out of the Scriptures. Ephesians, 4. Peter draweth Baptism (1, Peter, 3. 21) And other controversed points betwixt the jews and the Christians out of the Scripture of the old testament. The Epistle to the Hebrewesis wholly herein occupied, to prove the greatest controversy of his time, concerning Christ the only & true high Priest, out of the Scripture of the old Testament. The same did likewise the ancient Fathers in the Church of God; who confuted the Heretics out of the holy Scripture, and the ancient godly Counsels overthrew the Heretics, not by the opinions of men, but by testimonies of the holy Scripture duly weighed. The Position of our Adversaries. The holy Scripture alone cannot be the judge of controversies. Their reasons are. Because it is insufficient, and containeth not all things, which pertain to faith. Because it is obscure. Because it is uncertain, and may be drawn either to this or that side. Hence arise these questions following. The first question. Whether the Scripture be insufficient. They affirm, we deny that it is insufficient: and that for these testimonies following. These things are written (saith john) that you might believe, that jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that in believing you, might have life through his name. joh. 20. 31. Therefore those which believe, may attain everlasting life by those things which are left written in the holy Scriptures: and so the Scripture is sufficient for the salvation of men. Thou hast known the holy Scriptures of a child, (saith Paul to Timothy) which are able to make thee wise to salvation. 2. Timothy, 3. 15. All things, that I have heard of my Father, have I made known to you. john, 15, 15. The holy Scripture doth m●ke ●he man of God absolute, and perfect to every good work. 2, Timo: 3, 17. I kept back nothing, but showed you all the counsel of God. Act: 20, 27. There can be moved no controversy of Religion, for which the Scripture hath not afore hand provided a deciding or determining sentence: therefore Saint Paul in the controversy of justification calleth the Scripture provident, or foreseeing. Galath. 3, 8. Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus. (1) The Apostles taught many things, which are not written. Answer, 1. This is a begging of the question; for this same thing is it, which is denied. Now a doubtful thing ought not to be proved by an other as doubtful. 2, The contrary hereto is contained in the places of Scriptures before alleged. 3, The Apostles should hereby be convinced of unfaithfulness, as having kept back things necessary to salvation. 4, Moreover, there is extant, not one only writing of an Apostle or Evangelist, but more: that that, which is not contained in one, may plainly be seen in other of the Apostles writings. (2) I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. joh. 16, 12: Answer. 1. It is a fallacy, from that which is said in some particular respect, to the same spoken absolutely and generally, in all respects: for Christ speaketh of his Apostles not yet illuminated by his holy Spirit; but he speaks not of them, as being endued with the holy Ghost in the day of Pentecost: That which the word Now doth plainly declare. 2. While our Adversaries argue from the Apostles not enlightened, to the Church instructed by the writings of the Apostles, there arise in the Syllogism four terms. 3, Besides, it was one manner of knowledge, which the Apostles had before the day of Pentecost, and an other after the receiving of the holy Ghost: therefore these different things ought not to be confounded. (3) Other things (saith Saint Paul) will I set in order, when I come. 1, Corinthians, 11, 34▪ therefore Paul did not write all things. Answer. Paul speaks of indifferent Ceremonies in the Church, not of articles of Religion necessary to salvation: Their Argument therefore (as the saying is) is from the staff to the corner. (4) Many things are not contained in the holy Scripture, which are necessary to faith: Ans. 1. This we deny. & it is the very thing in question: therefore it is a begging of the question, 2. Our adversaries play with the word Faith: for they mean not a true and saving faith, whereof our question is, but in a large sense they take the word Faith (unfitly wrapping in the word Faith, every frivolous toy, long after the Apostles time, as it were yesterday obtruded upon the Church of Christ): and so from the twofold signification of the word, Faith: there arise four terms, which hinder that there can be no just conclusion. (5) The Scripture saith nothing of Christ's descension into hell. Answer. That is most false: for the Scripture saith, thou wilt not leave my soul in hell. Psalms, 16, 10. The sorrows of hell compassed me about. Psalm:: 18. But that these Psalms speak not of David but of Christ, our Adversaries themselves cannot deny, seeing the former is alleged of Saint Peter expressly in his Sermon of Christ. Acts: 2, 27. (6) The Scripture saith nothing of the perpetual Virginity of Marie of a certainty. Therefore it is insufficient. Ans. 1. Be it never so much, that the scripture say nothing at all of the perpetual Virginity of Marie, yet might it not therefore be said to be insufficient to our salvation for we are not hereby saved, because we believe that Marie after the birth of Christ remained a Virgin; but because we believe in Christ, who according to the Scripture (Isai 7. 14) was borne of a Virgin. 2. The perpetual Virginity of Marie may be showed by the phrase of Scripture where it saith: And he knew her not Until She had brought forth: The word Until doth note also perpetuity: as the Raven returned not until the waters were dried up upon the Earth. Genesis 8. 7. which Raven yet never returned at all. (7) Many things are rightly believed, although they be not contained in the Scriptures, as the words, Trinity, Essence, Person, etc. Ans. 1. A thing is said to be contained in the Scriptures two manner of waves, according to the letter, and according to the s●nse by a good consequence. Or sometimes the things only, sometimes together with the things the words signifying the things are expressed also. So the thing of Trinity and Persons in the Deity, the Scripture expresseth Mat, 3, 16, 17, 28, 19 Although the very words be not contained there 2, We are not hereby saved for that we use and approve these words, which were invented for a more easy and plain way of teaching, but for that we steadfastly believe the thing itself, which is found in the scriptures. (8) There are many books lost, as the Epistle to the Laodiceans etc. Therefore the Scripture cannot be sufficient to salvation. Ans, 1, There are yet remaining other books which are sufficient. 2, S. john saith of his Gospel alone, that it containeth all things necessary to salvation, Ioh, 20, 31, (9) The Canon of the holy Scripture (which is a thing necessary to salvation) is not contained in the holy Scriptures. Ans. 1. The Canon is a thing necessary not of itself, but by an accident, to wit, because heretics had forged certain counterfeit books; which if they had not done, there had been no need of a Canon. 2, The true Canon is the perpetual rule of truth which is comprised in the Scripture. For therefore false & counterfeit books are not received, because they contradict the Scripture and the truth, neither do agree with the authentic & Canonical books. 3, And the Church of Christ could (for 300. years almost) discern the true Scriptures from the counterfeit, before the Fathers had composed the Canon, and catalogue of holy writ. The Canon therefore is not simply necessary and is contained after a sort in the Scripture. (10) He shall be called a Nazarite (Mat, 2, 23.) but this is not contained in the writings of the old Testament. Ans, Yes; this is typically spoken of Christ in the person of Samson. judge 13, 5. And our Adversaries (if they be well in their wits) will not reject the types of Christ, set out in the old Testament. Question 2. Whether the Scripture be obscure. We deny, they affirm. We say it is plain for these reasons. The Law of the LORD is perfect converting the soul; the testimonic of the Lord is sure, and giveth Wisdom to the simple. Psalms, 19, 7, Nothing of all which the Scripture could effect, especially to the simple, if it were obscure. The commandment of the Lord is pure, and giveth light to the eyes, verse, 8 Thy Word is a Lantern to my feet, and a Light unto my path Psal, 119, 105. We have a most sure word of the Prophets, to the which you do well, that you take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place etc. 2 Pet. 1. 19 Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus. (1) Many sayings in the Scripture are very obscure. Ans. 1. We may not dispute from a part to the whole, saving only particularly; and of mere particulars no conclusion will follow: 2. Some things be obscure in the Scripture not of themselves, but accidentally: and the vail that covers the eyes of the jews, and other infidels is the cause thereof, the word 2, Co, 3, 15 is not the cause. 3. That which is spoken more obscurely in one place, is explained more clearly in an other. And so by conference of places, the clearness of the Scripture appeareth. (2) Saint Peter saith that in Paul's Epistles there be some things hard to be understood, 2. Pet. 3. 16. Ans. 1. Some things are hard to be understood, therefore not all. Hear the former answer fits this objection, that is, that those things which are written of Paul more briefly and some what obscurely in one place, are in other places most fully explained. 2. Peter lays the fault of the obscurity upon the unlearned and unstable, which wrist and pervert the Word of God. Now nothing was ever so plainly delivered, which may not be wrested by the froward to a wrong sense: which is apparent in the outrageous dealings of Heretics. Neither yet is the Scripture for that cause to be accused of obscurity. 3. Over and beside the greek text saith not, that either the Epistles of Saint Paul or the manner of his teaching, which he useth in his Epistles is obscure; but only thus much it saith, that Paul doth entreat of, not only such things as are plain and easy for every one to conceive, but that he doth not let pass, in handling of things necessary to beknown, such things as have in them some difficulty. Which to be so the nature of the Greek Article En Hois, which cannot answer or agree with the Antecedent En autais, but with peri Toutoon: accordingly also as Xantes Pagninus, and Arias Montanus, both of them Papists and Men very skilful in the tongues have translated this place. 3 In the Scripture are handled many things most obscure and such as cannot be found out by the wit of man, & to reason seem very absurd. Ans. 1. They be obscure & absurd to the reason of the natural man, but not to faith, 2 It is not all one to say obscure things are handled in the scriptures; & things are handled in the scriptures obscurely. For then by the same reason every explication of an obscurity should be itself nothing else but obscurity. (4) The Greek & Hebrew Phrases breed obscurity. Ans, 1, To them that know not the tongues, they be obscure. Therefore that is but accidentally. 2, This inconvenience is easily remedied by the knowledge of the tongues. 3, Therefore the Primitive Church had the gifts of tongues. And at this day by the singular blessing of God, there are many excellent men, endued with the knowledge of the tongues, who do fitly & properly expound the Phrases of the Scriptures. (5) There be some customs of the former ages unknown unto us, as that which is said (1, Cor. 15, 29.) of them, which are baptised for dead. Ans. 1. Some: therefore not the whole Scripture. The argument therefore goes from a part to the whole. 2, Those things pertain not to faith, but to some special Ceremonies of the Ancients: which faith is never a whit the worse, if it know not. (6) The Scripture handleth heavenly and high matters, such as our reason cannot comprehend. Ans. 1. By faith we believe the heavens were made, Heb, 11, 3. 2. The Scripture, as much as may be, descendeth down, and apply itself to us and our capacity. 3. Many things are simply to be believed, which in this life we know but in part, but in that which is to come, we shall know fully. (7) Some things are handled mystically, as the Revelation. Ans. 1, Such are not Articles of faith, & therefore we may be ignorant of them without loss of Salvation. (8) Some cannot bear strong meat. Therefore in the Scripture some things are plain and some things are not plain. Ans. 1. This is an Argument from a particular to a General; on this fashion: Some things are not understood of all, therefore all the Scripture is to be accused of obscurity. 2. Because the weaker sort cannot bear strong meat, the fault is not in the meat, but in their weakness. Therefore here is the fallacy, which Logicians call fallacia accidentis. And the stronger in tract of time may expound the obscure things to the weaker. Question, 3. Whether the Scripture be uncertain, and pliable to any sense. Our Adversaries affirm, & we deny it. Because, If the Scripture be pliable to any side, than it will follow, that either God could not, or would not speak more distinctly, that his mind might be understood. Neither of which can be said without great blasphemy. We have a most sure word of the Prophets (not flexible and uncertain) 2, Peter 1. The Word of our God shall stand for ever. Isay, 40, 8. But we could not rely upon the word of God, as most true & most certain, if the Scripture were flexible. Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. Luke, 21, 33. If we must believe this word, then doubtless it must not be flexible, doubtful, and mutable. Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus. (1) In expounding of the sayings of Scripture, the best Interpreters & the fathers of the church do not agree: therefore the Scripture may be drawn into divers senses and meanings. Answ. The Scripture is not the cause thereof, which remains always the same both for Simil. As if the motion of the stars should therefore be said to vary & to change for that Alphonsus & P●olomie have not hit upon the truest motion. words & meaning: but the cause is the weakness of man's judgement. Whence it cometh, that one understands more than an other, that one hath more clearness of judgement than an other, that one is more or less furnished, with knowledge of tongues than an other, or doth less diligently compare places of Scripture together, and weigh the things themselves by their necessary circumstances, antecedents, & consequents, what went before, & what comes after: so than the Scripture is not flexible, but man's judgement is divers: therefore let us choose the better and refuse the worse. (2) But all Heretics do allege for themselves the Scriptures. Ans. I answer, 1, as to the former objection. 2, That happens not by the fault of the Scripture, but the fault is in Heretics, as S. Peter saith, for that they wrist, and offer violence to the Scriptures, haling their opinions into the Scriptures. 3, Unless the Scripture were certain, and free from flexibility, it could not confute any heresy, therefore it is not uncertain. (3) The Copies of the books of Scripture might be corrupted by the Scriveners, and such as copied them out, or by the jews. Answer. From what may be, to what is, is no good argument. 2, By comparing of ancient Copies, as also by the Analogy of faith if any be corrupted, they may be amended. 3, Again, here is the fallacy, which they call fallacia accidentis, whereas the Scripture seems to be flexible and uncertain, but of itself it is not, but by an accident, to wit, through some men's negligence. (4) But the Hebrew Copy in many places agrees not with the translation of the seventy Interpreters: therefore it is corrupted by the jews. Ans. That disagreeing hinders not the certainty of the Scriptures: for the translation of the seventy Interpreters, is not of absolute authority in the Church of God: neither is to be compared or opposed to the Hebrew Bible, whereto as to the fountain in the diversity of translations, we must ever have recourse. And who can assure us, that that which commonly goes now a-daies under their name, is the right translation of the seventy whereas it may evidently be showed, that a great part of the Latin translation of the Bible is not Hieroms, which notwithstanding is thrust upon the Church of God under the name of S. Hierome: for this, the barbarousness of the Latin translation, and ignorance of the Hebrew tongue, as also the diversity of the style in divers places compared together, do apparently in many places convince. CHAP. 2. whether the Scriptures ought to be read of the Lay-people? Our Adversaries deny, and we affirm it, for these reasons. Because the Scripture doth make a man ●bsolute & perfect to every good work. Lay men have need of it for this purpose, as well ●s the Clergy. 2, Timoth: 3, 17. The Lord commanded that the King who is a civil person, should read in the book of the law all the days of his life. Deut. 17. The Epistles of the Apostles were written, not only to Bishops and Clergy men, but to Lay men too, as appeareth by the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, wherein he warneth his Hearers that they discern between false and true teachers: So both the former and later Epistle to the Corinthians speaketh many things to Lay men. So likewise the Epistle of S. john, where the Apostle saith, I writ unto you little children, etc. I writ unto you fathers, etc. I writ unto you young men. I writ unto you Babes, etc. 1, john: 2, 12, 13, 14. Peter wrieth to the Elect strangers dispersed abroad. If therefore Epistles be written to Lay men, why should they not also be read of Lay men? The brethren of the rich glutton were Lay-men, whom notwithstanding Abraham sendeth to Moses and the Prophets. Luke, 6. 29. This was foretold by Isay, They shall be all (& so Lay men too) taught of God. Isai, 54, 13. We have examples hereof in the Scriptures▪ 1, of the Eunuch, who read Isai the Prophet. Act: 8, 28. 2, Then of the Beraeans, Act: 17, 11. Christ bids all in general, search the Scriptures. Neither did he give this charge to the Priests alone, but to others his hearers also: Ioh: 5 39 S. Peter willeth all even Lay men too, to be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the hope, that is in them. 1, Pet: 3, 15. which that they may do, it is needful that they learn it out of the Scripture. Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus: (1) The Scripture hath many obscure things, therefore the Lay people can read it with profit. Answ. 1. Although all things be not to every man plain: yet the people always find such things, as they may understand. 1, those things, which seem hard, by often reading become more easy. (2) The Lay people by reading the Scriptures misunderstood, do easily fall into heresy, it were better therefore they should refrain. Ans. 1. If they fall into heresy, that comes accidentally, not because they read the Scriptures, but because they read them not in such manner, as they should do, and do prefer ●heir formerly conceived opinions before the Scripture, and wrest it to them. 2, On the contrary side, good men and well minded, having been delivered from heresy by reading the Scriptures, have returned to the truth. (3) To whom it belongeth not to judge of controversies, to them neither doth it belong to read the Scriptures, but it belongeth not to Lay-men to judge of controversies, therefore neither to read. Ans. 1, The Minor or second proposition is most false. 2, Then had the Beraeans done amiss in reading, and from thence deciding a controversy, then newly sprung up. 3, Seeing every one is bound to answer to God for himself, it is needful for every Lay-man to prove all things, and keep that which is good. 1, Thessa: 5, 21. (4) So should the order, which discerneth between teachers, & learners, be confounded. Ans. This we deny: for a Lay hearer may try and examine those things he heareth by the Scripture, & remain for all that a hearer still: for he doth not therefore take upon him the office of teaching in the church, because he examineth the things, which he hath heard of his teacher by the touchston of the holy Scriptures. As likewise the Beraeans became not therefore of the order of teachers, because they judged of the Sermons of Paul and Silas. CHAP. 3 whether the interpretation of the holy Scriptures be to be sought for from the Church of Rome. This question arose from hence, that the Papists seeing, that we did esteem more of the holy Scripture, than that we would suffer the authority thereof to be diminished, and that the letter of the Scripture did manifestly make for us, did strait change the state of the question, and said, that the question was not of the authority of the Scripture, but of the interpretation thereof: the right of which interpretation they make to be so peculiar to the Church of Rome, that they would bind us to receive any interpretations, that should come from thence, be they never so absurd and false. But we gainsay them herein, and reject the forged power, whereby the Bishops of Rome make claim to the key of knowledge and interpretation, as committed to them alone. Reason's proving our opinion. Because the interpretations of the Papists contradict the evidences of holy Scripture, as shall be most plainly proved in his due place. Because the greatest part of them are most vain, as for example, that the eight Psalm is expounded by the Canonists as meant of the Pope, which notwithstanding speaks of Christ alone, as the Apostles and Christ himself have interpreted it. Because they affirm (as by name Cusanus doth) that if the mind and opinion of the Roman Church be changed, that then the holy Ghost doth change his mind in the Scriptures too. What an impious & mad absurdity is this? Many times they explain not the Scripture, but wrist it violently & shamefully to uphold their own toys, contrary to the text of Scripture. The gifts of God (such as the interpretation of the Scripture is one) are not tied to certain persons & places: for God distributes these his gifts to every man as he will. 1, Corinth: 12, ●1. It is no where read, that the whole Church is tied to the meaning of the Roman Church, but to the meaning of the holy Scripture, which doth expound itself most clearly. Contrariwise our Adversaries do argue. (1) If we believe the Roman Church, that it hath conveyed unto us the true & proper books of the Bible, and not counterfeit and forged, them must we believe her also in the interpretation, which she bringeth of the holy Scripture. Ans. 1. It is one thing to bear witness of the truth of the sacred books, and an other thing Simil ●t is one thing to acknowledge the Seals hanged to a Testament and another to expound it contrary to the Tevor of the letter to expound them, So the jews are witnesses of the Canonical books of the old Testament, & yet we accept not of their talmudical interpretations. 2, Moreover the interpretations of the Papists do contradict that same Scripture, whereof they bear witness. (2) The Scribes and pharisees sit in Moses chair, all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, Matthew, 23, 2, 3. Ans. 1, The pharisees were to be believed, not simply in all things, but when they sat in the chair of Moses, that is, when they taught the truth out of the law of Moses. It is therefore a fallacy from that, which is spoken but in part and some respect, to that which is absolutely spoken. 2, They were to be harkened unto, when they taught Moses, but in the mean while Christ said also, Take heed of the leaven of the pharisees. Now Christ by the leaven of the pharisees meant their false doctrine, as S. Matthew expressly witnesseth cap. 16, v. 12. that is, Christ did reject the pharisees false interpretation of the Scripture. So then we must distinguish between the scripture itself, which the Papists handle, & their false interpretation or human traditions wherewith they defile it. (3) God would have them punished with death which would not obey the judgement of the high Priest, Deuter, 17, 12. Ans. 1, Moses speaketh not of matters of faith, but of civil government, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between plague, and plague (as the words of Moses are, verse, 8) in which matters for public peace sake, it was necessary there should be some order appointed for ending of controversies. For the high Priest at that time was the highest judge, from whom no man might appeal. 2, It was not in the high Priests choice to judge as he pleased, but he was tied to the law of the Lord, according to which he gave sentence: In like sort is the Popetyed to it too. (4) The Priest's lips shall preserve knowledge, & they shall seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts, etc. Malach, 2. 7. Ans, 1, Malachi there shows what is the duty of the Priests. But that the Priests did not their duty the very next words following declare. But you are gone out of the way, you have caused many to fall by the law, etc. verse, 8. 2, This argument changeth the manner of the speech; for the words are a commandment, teaching what the Priests should do, but the Papists do unjustly turn them into words of promise, just as if a man should say; God hath said, thou shalt not steal, therefore no man stealeth. CHAP, 4. Of Traditions. THE word Tradition often times is simply taken for any kind of doctrine, whether it be written or delivered by word of mouth. But by the name of Traditions are such things also meant, which were not written but only delivered by word of mouth, and so have been from hand to hand conveyed to our age: These kind of Traditions are of two sorts: Some contain Ceremonies of nature indifferent and changeable according to the circumstances of place and time, which though they be not expressed in Scriptures, yet because they are not contrary to the same, and are retained in the Church as things indifferent, are not called into question. But there be other sort of Traditions in Popery, which are contrary to the Scriptures, and whereof there appears not so much as one step in the Scriptures, (such as are the Canon of the Mass, Holy water a set number of prayers, holy Candles, and an infinite number more) which are commended to the World under the glorious name of Apostolic Traditions, to the observing whereof as being Apostolic, all Christians are bound, if we will believe the Papists, The question The state of the question than is. 1. Whether besides the Scriptures the Apostles delivered some things by word of mouth only, 2, Whether they delivered those things by word of mouth only which at this day the Papists brag of as of, Apostolic Traditions. We deny both: the former whereof we prove by the sufficiency of the holy Scripture, which contains all things necessary to salvation. Whereof we have entreated before: the later we prove by these reasons following. Because these their Traditions are contrary to the Scriptures which we will prove clearly hereafter. But we may not think that the Apostles writ some things, and delivered by word of mouth other, and those contrary to their writings. Because in Paul's time such Traditions began to be suspected in the Church which appears by the words of S. Paul. 2. Thessaly, 2, 2. Be not suddenly moved from your mind nor troubled, neither by Spirit, nor by word nor by letter as sent from us. Because it may be proved out of histories, that such traditions had their first beginning some ages after the Apostles death. Whereof see in particular Polidor Virgil, especially concerning the Canon of the Mass. de Inuererum lib, 5, cap, 11, etc. It is proved by many & manifest reasons, that those books and Canons, whereby they endeavour to procure authority and credit to their Traditions, are forged and counterfeit (such as are the Canons of the Apostles, the decretals, the Decrees of Popes, the books of Clement and Dyonisius Areopagita. Neither do our adversaries doubt, but that many such Canons & books are counterfeits. Such Traditions of men are condemned by the holy Scripture. 1, Because they are in cause (as Christ witnesseth) that in the mean time the Commandments of God are neglected. Mat 15, 3: 2, Because God is worshipped in vain by the doctrines and precepts of men, verse, 9 3. Because the Traditions of men cannot reach into the mind of God: for my thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are your ways as my ways (saith the Lord). For as the Heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. Isay, 55, 8, 9 Whence it cometh to pass, that those things which men admire for their singular holiness, do most of all displease the Lord God. 4. Because such plants as are not planted of the heavenly Father shall be rooted out, Mat, 15, 13. Because we must rely ourselves wholly on the Word of God, in worshipping of God, and that only must we do, which he hath commanded. Neither may we add, or diminish, any thing there from, Deut, 12. 32 neither may we decline from the commandments of God, either to the right hand or to the left, Deuter, 28, 14. Because the Traditions of men are deceits or traps, Beware (saith Paul) lest there be any man that spoil you through Philosophy, and vain deceit, through the Traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the World, and not after Christ, Colos, 2, 8. Contrariwise our Adversaries do argue. (1) Brethren stand fast and keep the traditions, which you have been taught, either by word or by our Epistle. 2, Thessaly, 2, 15. Therefore our Traditions (to wit the Papistical) are to be received and kept as Apostolic Traditions. Ans, 1. All the Propositions are particular, and it is such a kind of absurd reasoning as this: The Apostles delivered some things by word of mouth; we have some Traditions, therefore our Traditions are Apostolic. 2. It is a fallacy from a part to the whole for when Paul wrote these things, few of those ●hings which appertain to the Canon of the New Testament, were then written. That ●herefore, which Paul meant in respect of ●hat time, when as all were not yet written, that the Papists understand simply, even of that ●ime, when the Canon was perfected: when as ●ow we have all things in the Apostles writings, which are needful to be known for valuation. 3. There are four terms in the syllogism, in the Mayor are understood Traditions doctrinal & Apostolic; in the minor, forged Traditions, invented long after the Apostles time. 2 Christ did not altogether reject the Traditions of the Fathers where he saith, these things ought you to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Luke, 11, 42. answer. Christ there opposeth the strict observance of Moses his law, (not of men's Traditions) in outward small matters, (as in ●ithing of cumime & mint) & the neglect of the principal duties of the first & second Table, both which should have been joined together & observed, as being both the commandments of God. This reason therefore (6) is like a rope of land. (3) When Paul and Timothy went through the Cities, Tradebanteis, they delivered, or gave them for Traditions, the decrees to keep, which were ordained by the Apostles & Elders, which were at jerusalem, Act, 16, 4. Ans, 1, It follows not: The Apostles (7) delivered somethings, therefore the Papistical Traditions are Apostolic. There is no coherence in this reason. 2, Paul and Timothy delivered not unwritten verities, but those things, which were decreed of the Apostles, and then comprised in writing, & sent to the Church of Antioch. The Papists therefore dispute from a written to an unwritten Tradition. (4) Paul saith, that he delivered certain precepts to the Corinthians, which they did well that they observed them. 1, Corin. 11, 2. Answ. The same answer, which was given to the first objection, fits this too, that is, that there is no sound proof of all particulars. The Papists should prove, that those Traditions proceeded from the Apostles, which they brag so fast to be Apostolic. (5) The Fathers testify, that certain Traditions came from the Apostles to them. Answ. 1. The Fathers many times by the name of Traditions understand such things, as are contained in the Scripture, according to the sense and meaning thereof, though not according to the Letter. And in this sense there be in the reason four terms: the Father's understanding Traditions contained in the Scriptures, & the Papists, Traditions not at all there contained. 2, The Fathers by Traditions Apostolic, understand sometimes, general customs and rites of indifference, which was in the liberty of the Church to alter as occasion should require. 3. If any of the Fathers have maintained other sort of Traditions as Apostolic, than the question is, whether they did well in accepting such Traditions for Apostolic, which were not Apostolic, neither did consent with the holy Scripture. (6) That infants should be baptised, that the Eucharist should be delivered to women, etc. we have received from unwritten Tradition only. Answ. 1. The Antecedent is not true: for concerning the former, we have Scripture that Baptism is needful for all, and that it doth belong unto Infants. john, 3, 5. Mark 10, 14, 15, 16. 1, Corinthians, 1, 16, etc. 2, The Trent Catechism proveth the Baptism of Infants by divers places of Scripture Part: 2. cap. 2, quaest. 26. As for the latter, that the Eucharist belongeth to the whole Church, and so unto women, we have Christ's commandment. Math: 26, 26, 27, 28. Mark, 14, 22, etc. Luk, 22, 19, 20. 1, Cor: 11, 26, 27, 28. (7) The observation of the Lords day, is not found in the Scripture. Ans. Seeing it is acknowledged by both sides, by the Papists as well as by the Protestants, that to set a certain time a part for God's service is a moral and immurable law, and that the Apostles left to the Church the first day of the week, which is the Lords day, in part terti●, ca 4, quaest: 4. steed of the seventh day, which the jews observed, (as the Trent Catechism proveth out of 1, Corint. 16, 2, and Revel. 1, 10:) We ought to acknowledge it as a precept of God grounded on the Scriptures. CHAP. 5. Of the Letter and the Spirit. THE Papists seek themselves an other starting hole (when as they cannot prove See Fran. Coster in his Enchiridion of Controversies. Cap 1, of th● holy Scripture. out of the holy Scripture many their Idolatrous and superstitious opinions;) to say that the Scripture is a dead and kill letter, but the Spirit, that is the meaning of the Scripture, is contained in the living tables of the heart of the Church: & that therefore all things ought to be judged & determined not out of the Scrip: but by the consent of the Church. So, for example's sake, whereas nothing is found in the letter of the Scripture concerning the worshipping of Images, that, say they, is to be sought for in the hearts of the faithful (that is, of the Pope, Cardinals, &c:) Wherein the holy Spirit hath written it, that Images are to be worshipped. As for us we acknowledge no other Scripture, wherein God doth by writing reveal his will, beside the sacred books of the Bible, and this spiritual Scripture of the Papists we reject. Because the holy Scripture, described and comprised in letters, deserveth this praise, that it can make a man perfect: therefore unto There is one manner of Spirit in the outward Scripture, & another in the inward, which are contrary one to another concerning the authority of the Scripture. Note here the Spirit of Christ and Antichrist. perfection, there is no need of any other new spiritual Scripture. (2) Because that spiritual Scripture, which the Papists forge, doth disannul the authority of the holy Scripture penned in paper by the instinct of the holy Ghost. But the holy Ghost cannot be so contrary to itself, as to commend highly the Scripture by the Apostles and Prophets, and to diminish the authority of the same by an inward Scripture. (3) Because this inward Scripture is manifestly proved to be often ontrarie to the outward: Therefore the hol● Ghost, if he be the Author of both, should ●● convicted either of falsehood or inconstanie. By this means we should it open a wide gap to all errors, whiles euey man would brag of the inward writing o● the holy Spirit, and would compare it wit● and prefer it before the holy Scripture. Besides, this savours strongly of the error of the Enthusiasts, and Schweneldians, on this wise. This inward Scripture or writing is either mediate, or immediate if mediate, than the Scripture keeps his old standing, to be the means and Rule of this inward writing: if immediate, than they manifestly fall into the error of the Enthusiasts: but our Adversaries accept not of the former; therefore of the later. All the pains, which the Evangelists and Apostles did take in penning the Scriptures, were bootless, if we should take no more heed to their writings, than to such a like inward Schwenfeldian writing. Contrarily our Adversaries do argue. (1) The Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. 2, Corin: 3●. Therefore we are not to heed the Scripture w●tten with ink, but the inward Scripture of th● Spirit, sealed in the heart of the Church. Ans. 1. T●●t Paul doth not speak of any inward or outward distinction of writing, but of the diference of the law and the Gospel, the w●rdes immediately going before A view of a Doctor▪ like exposition, proceeding from the inward writing of the heart, do show: ●od (saith S: Paul) hath made us able Minister's of the new Testament, not of the ●etter b●t of the Spirit. 2, So then there are five ter●es, taking the word Letter in the Antecedent or former proposition, according to Paul's meaning for the Law, and in the consequent or later proposition for the whole body of the holy Scripture, according to the Papists meaning: and understanding the word Spirit in the Antecedent for the Gospel, and in the consequent for Enthusiasm, or immediate inspiration from God: the argument therefore hangeth together like sand. Now S. Paul calleth the law a kill letter, because that no man can be justified and saved by the law: but the Law doth rather condemn, and spiritually kill. But he calls the Gospel, Spirit, because the Gospel received by faith, doth give the holy Spirit, which doth quicken our hearts create them a new, & stir them up to good works. (2) I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, etc. jerem: 31, 33. therefore the will of GOD is to be learned, not out of the outward but inward Scripture or writing. Answer. 1. The Epistle to the Hebrews (cap: 8, vers, 10;) doth so expound these words, that he compareth together the constraint or coaction of the law of Moses, to wit, the involuntary and enforced obedience, and the renovation of the mind by the Spirit of the Gospel, whereby the believers, by the Sanctification of the Spirit, wrought by the preaching of the Gospel, do perform a willing & voluntary obedience to God (the will of man being set at liberty by the Spirit of God) and do delight in the Law of ●od, and have no more stony hearts, but fleshly & tractable to perform obedience unto their Lord. 2, What privilege soever is granted by this gracious promise, the Pope, Cardinals, and the rest of that Hierarchy, have no reason to challenge it, as proper to themselves, seeing the Apostle applies it, as doth also the Prophet to all, even the least of God's children. They shall no more teach every man his neighbour, saying, know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest of them, as it followeth in the next words. jerem. 31, 34, and Heb. 8, 11. (3) Ye are the Epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart: 2, Corinthians, 3, 3. Answ. 1. Paul compares the commendatory letters, whereby some of the fal●e Apostles did glory in their ministery, and the work itself, which ought to commend the workman▪ and shows that he hath no need of letters of commendation, because the effect of his preaching in the Corinthians did testify, that his ministery joined with the holy Spirit, was powerful and effectual. It will by no means therefore hence follow, that there is one inward, and an other outward Scripture. 2, The contrary doth rather follow hereof, because the holy Ghost was powerful by the means of Paul's ministery, that therefore it was a mediate and not immediate word, whereby it pleaseth him to save those that believe. Rom, 1, 16. (4) Ye have no need that any Man should teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you all things etc. and you have an ointment from him, which is holy, and ye have known all things. 1, Ioh, 2, 20, 27. Therefore we must have recourse not to the Scripture but to the anointing of the Spirit. Ans, 1, That Saint john speaketh of the anointing, which Christians receive by the preaching of the Gospel, these words do show, Let therefore abide in you the same, which ye have heard from the beginning, verse, 24. Also, I writ no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye have had from the beginning, etc. verse, 7. Therefore S. john doth not teach that there is a twofold Scripture, but declareth that they were enlightened by the public ministry of the Word, & endued with the Holy ghost, that now they do know, by those things, which they had heard, how they ought to behave themselves in all things. 2, It is therefore no good conclusion from the public mediate ministery to the immediate writing of the Spirit, seeing there be four terms. 3. If such an inward writing had been sufficient, what need had there been of john's outward writing? (5) All thy Children shall be taught of God, Isai, 54, 13. Ioh, 6, 45. Ans, 1. The Prophet & Christ do speak of the knowledge of Christ, which should be more plentiful in the new Testament, than is was in the old: but never a whit of the inward and outward Scripture 2. If they mean an immediate teaching, then fall they into the absurdity of the Enthusiasts & Schwenfeldians: if they mean a mediate teaching, let them know that the holy Scripture is that medium, that means, which is able to instruct us to Salvation, 2, Timoth, 3, 17. 3. It were strange If the Papists would attribute, this inward writing and gift of understanding Scriptures, which they claim by these places to the common lay people among them: & yet all these places are meant of all the faithful under the gospel, as it is evident by the words & circumstances of the places cited. CHAP. 6. Of councils. THE Papists in defence of their errors object unto us the authority of certain councils, as sacred, and such as may not be gain said. We willingly embrace those councils, whose decrees speak out of the holy scripture, alleged in his true meaning: but if any where they serve from the truth, we think they ought to be examined by the rule of the holy Scripture, and do believe that no faithful man is bound to stand to their authority, if they decree any thing against Scripture. But above all we detest their Idolatrous councils. And that which I have said, is built on these grounds following. We read in the holy scriptures that some councils have erred. 1, The Council which was for the condemning of Christ, Mat, 26, & 27. 2, The Council which condemned Peter and john, Act, 4, & 5. 3, The council which condemned Stephen, Act, 7. 4 The Council that was gathered against Paul Act, 22, & 23. Certain councils celebrated in the time of the ancient Fathers and afterwards, have erred; for example: 1, Many councils forbade the Ministers of the Church to marry contrary to the express Word of God. 2 The Council of Constance admitted the mangling of the Lords Supper. 3 The Trent Council hath confirmed Cart loads of errors. So some other councils (which for brevity sake. I pass over in silence) have either decreed false opinions, or have approved them being invented of others before, Which to be so our Divines have plainly proved in their several Treatises. because some Counsels disagree, one with an other in their whole constitutions: which See Erasmus in his annotations on the 1, Corinth, 7 no man can deny who hath read and compared together the decrees of all the councils. Read but the decrees of Gratian, and thou shalt often times find divers and contrary Canons concerning one and the same matter, alleged of him in the same distinction The Papists themselves receive not all things, nor all Canons in all councils. Take for example the Canons, which are carried about under the name of the Apostles. Many Canons of councils are countersaite. For the Bishops of Rome have been convicted of forgery, for corrupting the Canons of the Council of Nice. In one and the same Council in diverse copies the words & number of the Canons are different. Look the Tomes of the councils. They be men, that are gathered together in councils: and seeing they be men, why may they not be deceived, and lie, as the Scripture speaketh? Psalm. 116, 11. for neither is the Spirit of God tied to those persons. Contrarily thus our Adversaries reason thus. (1) All the faithful were bound to the observation of the Council of jerusalem, Acts, 15. Therefore they be bound to keep the counsels of Bishops. Ans, There is great difference between the Council of the Apostles and the Papal counsels. In that there were witnesses without all exception, but in these, men do meet, among whom there be many unlearned, wicked, in part Epicures, and such as have sworn homage to the Pope. In the council at jerusalem the decrees were made out of the Scripture, but the papal councils make constitutions very often against the Scripture. This is therefore a lose reason. (2) In the council of the Priests and Scribes, Caiaphas by the holy Ghost prophesied, that it was better that one should die for the people, than that all the people should perish. Ioh, 11, 50, Therefore councils speak by the holy Ghost, and are therefore to be obeyed. Ans. 1. Although Caiaphas unnwittingly spoke the truth, that that it was better that one man should die then all the people perish, yet the mind and meaning of Caiaphas was nothing so. But the definitive sentence of the High Priest and the Council was, that Christ was an heretic, a blasphemer, a seducer of the People; a wicked man, and such as well deserved the shameful death of the cross. This was the decree of that council; which if the Papists will subscribe unto, they shall be reckoned impious, and blasphemous Men. And by alleging this devilish council they shall gain small credit to their own, 2, This argument proceeds from a particular to an universal, Caiaphas minding an other thing, and unwittingly spoke a few true words, therefore all the decrees of their councils are simply in all things from the Holy Ghost, and cannot in any case err, 3. They might with as much truth and better reason conclude that Soothsayers, when they are sought unto to speak for a reward cannot speak an untruth, Because that Balaam being consulted with of Balak to speak against Israel, did on the contrary side by inspiration bless them, and which is more than is said of Caiaphas could not do otherwise: and whereas the prophesy of Caiaphas was only in his words, which he spoke in an other sense, Balaams' prophesy was both in his words and his meaning, Numb, 22, and 23. (3) Thou shalt not remove the ancient bounds, which thy Fathers have made, Pro. 22, 28. Therefore the decrees of councils are to be kept. Ans, 1, We have to deal with Counsels, whose decrees are contrary to the holy Scriptures, the ancientest bounds of all: Therefore are the councils themselves tied to this precept. 2, This is an argument drawn from the not changing of ancient things well ordained unto new things constituted the last day, & that against right too: 3 And this do we at this day against the Papists: we show men the ancient limits and bounds, which the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles have set; but the Bishops of R●me have overturned and cover those most anti●t bounds with their newfangled opinions, & human Traditions. (4) Which he commanded our Fathers to teach their children, that the posterity might know it, Psal, 78, 6, 7. Therefore councils declare to us those things which they were enjoined by this commandment to teach their children. Answ. 1. There is more in the Conclusion Simil. A Prince bid● his servant● be faithful, therefore none of the can be unfaithful. than in the premises: for it followeth not, God commanded our Elders to derive the truth to us, therefore of certainty they did so. 2, It is a changing of the manner of speech, for the Antecedent containeth a commandment, the consequent a story or narration of the fulfilling of that commandment. (5) Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Math: 18, 20. Therefore the decrees of Counsels are sacred, etc. for they are gathered together in the name of Christ. Answ. 1. Hear be four terms. To be gathered together in the name of Christ, is to be gathered according to his word and will, but this they apply to the companies of them, which decree contrary to the word and will of Christ: 2, It is a begging of the thing in question, for this is the special doubt, whether Counsel's decreeing contrary to the Scripture, may be said to be gathered in the name of Christ: for it is not enough in counsels to brag, and make show of the name of A protestation contrary to thei● deeds. Christ, and to recite the words of the Apostolic Counsel; It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, etc. (6) In the assemblies of Counsels invocation is made to the holy Ghost, that he would be their guide: Answ. 1. That is done with Idolatrous rites It is as if a man should hear one ask advice of a wise man, but would not obey his advice. of the Papistical Mass, therefore their prai●rs are not heard: nay, such as their service is, that is Idolatrous, such is the Spirit, which ruleth them. 2, They obey not the Spirit, whom they pray unto, neither do they rest content with his pleasure comprised in the Scripture. (7) But who would say that so many, so great, and so worthy men could all err at once? Answ. 1. The Scripture saith, that every man is a liar, therefore it is not a thing impossible, Psa. 116, 11 that so many and so worthy men should err. 2, We cited before examples of famous Counsels, which have erred. 3, There is no respect of persons with God. 4, I give thee thanks, O Father (saith Christ) because thou hast hid these things from the wise. (Matthew, 11, 25,) 5, Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1, Corinthians, 1, 26, 27,) 6, Only one Prophet Micha spoke the truth, when in the mean time four hundred false Prophets consented together in a lie, 1, King, 22. (8) All heresies at what time soever they have sprung up, have still been overthrown by Counsels, therefore this honour is as yet due to Counsels. Answer. This is a fallacy, putting that for the cause, ●hich is not the cause, for councils, not as For example so the Sam●ritans speak unto the woman, we do not now believe because of thy words, but because we have heard him ourselves. joh. 4. 42. Counsels barely considered under the name of councils, but as proving the truth by the word of God, have trodden under foot and overthrown heresies Had the Papists such councils, we would of our own accord willingly give them the honour due unto them for their ●rue and right alleging and expounding of Scriptures. CHAP. 7. Of the Church. further yet the Papists seek an other shift for the defending of their human Traditions and Doctrines; whiles boasting of the name of the Church, with open mouth they tell us, that the true Church was of old time at Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome with his band, are at this day that Church; and that the Church cannot err, and that therefore all whatsoever is delivered unto us from the Church of Rome, is to be held for most certain and infallible, as being received from heaven. Hear therefore we are to handle three questions. 1, Whether the Church of Rome, or our Church be the true Church. 2, Whether we ought to grant, that there is an invisible Church. 3, Whether the Church can err. First of all in the entrance we must obserue● that there may many ways arise ambiguity in the word, Church. First it doth signify indefinitely Ambiguity in the word Church. every Church or congregation and is taken both in the good and bad pa●● for any kind of assembly or congregation whence also the Scripture maketh mention of the malignant Church. Secondly, it is t●ken for the company of them, which a● called by the outward ministery of th● word and Sacraments, wherein are gathered both good and bad. Matthew, 13. thirdly, it is taken for the invisible Church, or the company of them, which use the ministery of the Word and Sacraments to their salvation, and are truly believers: which also may be called the company of the Elect. Fourthly, it is taken four manner of ways in respect of the four fold outward face of the Church. 1, For the most pure Church of the Apostles. 2, for the Church of the Fathers; wherein there was a more sincere state of doctrine, than in afterages, yet it was not altogether void of superstition. 3, For the Church of Antichrist, which is overflown with horrible Idolatry, as with a kind of deluge. 4, For the reformed Church, restored according to the conformity of the Apostolic Church. A fift signification the Papists have made us, understanding by the Church, not a company of teachers & learners, but the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Monks, etc. By observing of these distinctions, we shall detect many stratagems of the Papists, seeing they play continually with the ambiguity or equivocation of the word Church, and in their arguments they bring sometimes five terms. But now let us come to the questions. Question. 1. (Whether the Church of Rome (which at this day blasphemes the Gospel of Christ, curseth and persecuteth the professors thereof) or ours be the true Church. We deny that the Church of Rome is the true Church for these reasons. Because they want the true notes, and the true definition of the Church: therefore neither have they the definitum, that is the Church. 1. The Church heareth the voice of Christ. (john. 10, 27,). Which is revealed in the Scripture, which the Papists do not hear, and that 1, in refusing it for their judge. 2, in making decrees in many things against it. 3, In giving it but cold and slender commendation. 2. Because they have not the sincere ministration of the Sacraments, and that. 1, in forging new Sacraments. 2, in defiling Baptism with human superstitions. 3, in making Monastical habit & state equal to it 4, In changing the Lords supper into a sacrifice. 5, And in the C●munion of lay people, in maiming it of the one kind, that is by taking the cup from the people: they have not therefore an uncorrupt ministery, and consequently their Church may not be called a true Church. Because they have not so much as the notes, which the Papists themselves require in the definition of a Church. 1. Their Church hath not unity. 1 Because they strive amongst themselves about many things▪ 2, They have not unity by reason of the fourfold face and condition of the Church before noted. 2. Their church is not holy. because they trust in their own holiness, which before god is not holiness, but as filthy clouts. Isai, 64, 6. 3. It is not Catholic. 1, Because they have not the consent of the whole world: for the Greek Church hath always dissented from them in divers points. 2, because they defend not the universal true doctrine of all times, therefore they neither agree with the Church of the Apostles, nor yet with the Church of the Fathers. 4. It is not Apostolic, because they agree not with the Apostles doctrine, seeing very many of their things are not Apostolic, but superstitions raked together and compiled of sundry Authors. Take for example there of the Canon of the Mass; and the mangling of the Lords Supper, which was unknown for many ages, and at length established by the Counsel of Constance. Likewise Indulgences, the feast of Corpus Christi & other more without number, concerning which look Polidor Virgil. lib. 4. cap. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, As also the whole. 5, 6, 7, 8, books. But of such like superstitions of the Roman Church, (that they be contrary to the Scripture) shall hereafter be spoken in their proper places sufficiently. Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus. (1) The Church of God hath had the name of the Church ever since the Apostles time: therefore it is the true Church. Answ. 1. It followeth not; It was long ago, Simil. This woman was long since a Maid, therefore now she cannot be an harlot. therefore now it is. 2, There is no good argument from the bare name of a thing to the thing itself. 3, Neither yet do we deny, but that there doth at this day remain some Church in the City of Rome, to wit, of such as be young children, girls and simple men, which simply believe in Christ their Saviour, and trust nor in their own merits. Neither is it to be doubted, but that there be some intelligent and wise men in Rome, who with all their hearts dearest the Pope's impiety and tyranny. But all these are not that Roman Church, with the authority whereof our Adversaries do seek to oppress and bear us down. (2) The Fathers themselves did account the Roman Church for the true Church. Ans. 1, Here be four terms. For in the Antecedent the word Church is taken for that face or condition of the Church which was in the Father's time, in the consequent for that state, wherein Antichrist doth reign Now it follows not, it was so twelve or thirteen hundred years ago or upward, therefore it is so now. (3) The state of the Roman Church is most ancient, therefore the Roman Church by reason of his antiquity is the true Church. Ans. 1, We deny the Antecedent, for the testimonies alleged before out of Polidor Vergill. 2, not simply that which is ancient is to be received, but that which is most ancient. For the Devil is ancient, but God is more ancient. 3, Antiquity cannot make that good, which in itself is bad. (4) The Church of Rome is the Universal and Catholic Church: therefore it is the true Church. Ans. We deny the Antecedent. For if by the word Catholic be meant that, which agreeth with the Catholic and so with the Apostles doctrine, than the Antecedent is absolutely false. But if the Church of Rome be called Catholic by reason of the multitude of those, that take part and cleave to that side, than the multitude of them that ere is no just defence for the error. Otherwise in the time of Arrianisme, the Apostolic, CHURCH as being brought to a great paucity, should not have been the true and Catholic Church; but the Arrians should have been the Catholic Church for that they far exceeded in number the rest, which were the true Christians. In this sense therefore we deny the consequence. The Antecedent also is not true, because (as before I said) the Church of Rome doth not consent with the Church of the Apostles, nor yet with the Church of the Fathers. And therefore they have not that universality of multitude whereof they boast. (5) If the Church of Rome be not the true Church, then for some ages together Christ had been without a spouse, but Christ never was without a spouse, Therefore, etc. An, 1. From a special to a general; arguments are drawn only affirmatively. It is no good consequence therefore; the church of Rome consisting of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and others of the same rank, who withstood the heavenly truth, were not the spouse of Christ, therefore Christ had no spouse. 2. I deny the mayor or first proposition. For there were also other Churches, as the Greek Church, which always gainsaid the Bishop of Rome, and wherein Christ might have his spouse. The argument therefore proceeds from an insufficient enumeration or reckoning up of the parts to the whole. 3, In the visible erroneous Church of Rome, there was the spouse of CHRIST hidden to the eye of the World (all glorious within Psal, 45, 13) or the invisible company of believers. Ans. so Christ nevertheless had his Spouse. On the contrary side that we have the Church of God with us we prove Because to us agreeth the definition of the church: therefore the church which is the thing defined, agreeth to us also, 1. For in our Church the uncorupt ministery of the word and Sacraments doth flourish; for witness whereof we have the holy scripture, nay our adversaries themselves who hither to could never show out the Scripture, that there is any thing in our ministery, doctrine or administration of the Sacraments contrary to Christ, or his Apostles. Therefore we are the true Church. Because our Church in respect both of the Word and Sacraments is conformable to the Church described in the writings of the New testament under the Apostles. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason thus. (1) The Protestants believe not all things, which the Church of Rome doth. Therefore they are not the true Church. Ans. 1. There is more in the Conclusion, than in the premises For no more followeth thence, than that we do not agree with the Church of Rome in all things: which who will deny? But we may not for that cause be thought not to be the true Church 2, It is a begging of the question. For whether they which gainsay the Church of Rome, do gainsay the true Church, that is the thing in controversy. (2) The Protestants Church doth not agree with the Church of the Fathers in all things. Therefore they are not the true Church of Christ Ans, 1. This argument is too common, and agrees to both sides. For by the same reason it may be proved, that the Papists are not the Church; because their Church (which they cannot deny) hath much fallen away from the Church of the Father's 2, the church of the Fathers is not the sampler of Churches, but the Church of the Apostles; to which it is sufficient that our Church is like. (3) The Prodestants doctrine is new; It is but few years ago, since it first saw the light: Therefore their Church is not the true Church. Answ. 1. This is a begging of the question. For that same is the matter in controversy, 2. Our doctrine is not new, but renewed, 3. There are therefore four terms in the Argument. For in the Mayor proposition the word New, is taken for that which is simply and altogether new: in the Minor, for the refined and renewed ministery of the Word, reform according to the rule of the most ancient doctrine of the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles. (4) The Church ought to have unity, but so hath not the Church of the Protestants; for it is rend and divided into parts and schisms. Ans. 1 Hear be four terms. For in the Mayor proposition by the word Church are meant those, which in truth and deed are the Church: in the minor those which are in the outward company of the Church, or those which have mingled themselves amongst our Church, when as in truth they be not of our opinion: And these sever themselves from the true Church of them who maintain the truth, and stir up Schisms. Of such sort of men Saint john saith: They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (1, john 2, 19) 2, It is a fallacy taking that for a cause, which is not a cause. Because the Church is not the cause of tumults and schisms, but schismatics are the cause thereof. Otherwise the Church of Corinth had not been the true church, seeing Paul writeth. There must be heresies among you. 1, Corinth, 11, 19 Question, 2 Whether we must grant that there is an invisible Church. The Papists acknowledge only a visible Church, which same they tie to the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. rather than to the hearers: But we, in this visible company of them that hear the Word, and use the Sacraments, do believe that there is an other company invisible to the eyes of men (not in respect of the members & persons themselves, but in respect of the intent of their heart, and their faith) which is only known unto God. And that for these reasons: Because we believe the holy Catholic Church: but faith is the ground and evidence of things, which are not seen. Heb, 11, 1. Because those which are in the visible Church, may a great part of them be hypocrites, between such and the true believers God alone doth discern, unto us the hearts of men are not known, and the Church doth judge of secret ●gings. 1. Christ knows his sheep, Ioh 10. 14, 27, 2 The foundation of God remaineth sure, and hath this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his, Timo. 2. 19 Because we have the thing itself, the invisible Church deciphered by examples in the holy Scriptures. 1 For a long time hath Israel been without the true God, and without priest to teach, and without law, but there Christ was not altogether deprived of his Spouse, but though the ministery were corrupted, he had his invisible Church, 2. Chron. 15. 3. 4. 2 I will leave unto me (saith the Lord) seven thousand men in Israel, which have not bowed the knee unto Baal. 1. Ki. 19 18. But this company could not then be perceived with bodily eyes, but was invisible, and only known unto God, as is gathered out of verse, 10, and 14. ● At the time of Christ's coming into th● world, when the public ministery of the Word was corrupted, God had his invisible Church, Marie, joseph, Zacharie, Elizabeth, the wise men that came from the East, Simeon, Anna, etc. He is not a jew, which is one outward. neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a jew, which is one within, and the circumcision is of the heart, whose praise is not of men, but of God. Rom. 2, 28, 29. Now how God in the time of Popery, the public ministery of the word being corrupted, had his invisible Church, is thus declared. There were a company of baptised Infants, which were a great part of the Church: but Note. By this declaration it appears, t●at we do not condemn our godly ancestors, who lived in the time of Popery. the Church was never at any time without baptised children, seeing that Baptism even under the reign of Antichrist remained in the Church. There were always godly & intelligent men, which gainsaid the Pope, sometimes openly, sometimes secretly: (See the book, entitled Catal●gus testium veritatis): and those who gainsaid him, had them which approved their judgement, although by reason of the tyranny of the Bishops of Rome, they durst not openly make profession thereof. There were also many simple men, whose hearts were more pure, than were the mouths of their teachers. The simpler sort had the chief fundamental points of Christian Religion in the Lord's prayer, the Creed and the ten Commandments, whereby they might be instructed to a true faith, a right invocating of God, and an holy life. They heard the Passion of Christ read out of the stories of the Evangelists, as also the rehearsing of the Gospels. They might therefore out of the text, (neglecting the glosses of their Preachers) learn those things which are necessary to salvation. They confirmed their faith by receiving the holy Supper of the Lord: which though it was maimed of the one kind, (the cup being quite taken from them) yet were not they in fault, who were constrained to endure that tyranny. The Mass and other idolatrous service by the special providence of God, were celebrated in the Latin tongue; for which cause the Lay people, were the less partakers of their idolatry, which understood not what was done. They had Christ the foundation: It is credible therefore, that in their agony, the stubble that was built upon the foundation, was consumed, but themselves saved, as it were by the fire of tentation & tribulation. 1, Cor. 3. Contrariwise our adversaries reason. (1) Ye are the light of the World; & a City that Note 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 our Adversaries should prove, that the church is only visible, but they prove nothing else, but that the church is visible, which is not questioned. is set on an hill cannot be hid: also, no man lighteth a candle, and putteth it under a bushel, etc. Mat. 5, 14, 15. therefore the Church is visible. Ans. 1. I grant the whole reason, if by the Church be meant the external public ministery. 2, It is a fallacy from that which is spoken in some respect to the same taken absolutely: for in that the Church is said to be visible, that is true in some respect only, that is, not in respect of the inward man, but of the outward public ministery. (2) That the Church is visible, and that the Church is invisible, be contradictories, therefore if it be granted that the Church is visible, the invisible is overthrown. Ans. Contradictions are not, unless they be spoken of the same things, and in the same respect: but that Church is called visible in one respect, and invisible in another: for it is visible in respect of the external company of them that hear the Word and use the Sacraments: but it is invisible in respect of the inward man and true faith, which is known to God alone, as before I said. (3) Unless the Church be visible, there will not be an apparent and free access to the Church for any man, which ought notwithstanding continually to be so. Answer. 1. There is an equivocation in the word Church: First, it is taken for the public ministery of the Word and Sacraments, and so I grant the whole reason. Secondly, it is taken for those, which do truly believe the Word and rightly use the Sacraments; and so the conclusion is to be denied. 2, By that, which hath been sai● it appeareth, that the Antecedent speaketh of the former, the consequent of the later acception of the Church: and so there be four terms in the Syllogism. (4) Christ bids us hear the Church. Matthew, 18. Which if it be invisible, cannot be found out. Answer. 1. I answer to this reason as to the former. 2, Our Adversaries have more in the conclusion, than in the premises. For thus much followeth, that there is a certain visible church, or that in some meaning the church is visible: but that there is only a visible Church, there is never a word in the place cited. (5) The Fathers did oppose the authority of the visible Church, against Heretics; therefore there must needs be a visible Church. Ans. 1. It is a fallacy, supposing that for a cause, which is not. For they did not oppose the authority of the Church against the Heretics, for that it was either visible or invisible; but because at that time it preserved the sacred books, and the sincere profession of the Doctrine. 2, Neither did the Fathers seek to repress the Heretics by the only authority of the Church: but strove against them with the authority of the Scripture. Question. 3. Whether the Church may err. Our Adversaries deny it, hoping that if it appear (as in truth it doth) that the Church in ancient times was at Rome: and if that the Church cannot err, that they shall easily without any ado, free themselves from all crime of falsehood by the bare name of the Church, being free from all error. But we deny it for these reasons. Because the promises of preserving the purity of the Church are conditional, and not absolute: as, if ye continue in my word, ye are verily my Disciples. Ioh 8. 31. Because, where the thing doth testify the contrary, there no plea hath place. But we have examples ready at hand, both in the old and new Testament, that the Church hath erred. 1. The Church of the old Testament (a● concerning the public ministery) hath often erred: as in the Wilderness, when i● worshipped the Calf; in the time of the judges, it oftentimes fell away from the true service of God. The like happened under the government of King Ahab, i● the time of jeremy, and of Christ's coming in the flesh. 2. In the new Testament the Church erred. 1, In the Church of Corinth many doubted of the Resurrection of the dead. 2, The Galathians swerved from the Apostolic doctrine of Paul in the article of justification. 3, The Church of Pergamus favoured the Nicholaitans. Revelation, 2, 15. 3. At this day the Church of Rome doth err in many things, which hereafter shall be made to appear as clear as the noon day. The particular members of the Church are not free from error, as it is plain that Peter erred. Galath: 2, 11, 14. All admonitions and predictions of the changes of the Church, of taking heed of 1: john, 2, 18, etc., 1 cor, 11, 1● Math, 7. 15 Act, ●0, 28, 29, etc., 2, Thessaly, ● 2. 15. false teachers, of diligent keeping of sound doctrine. etc., were frivolous & superfluous, if ●t were impossible that the church should ere. And why above all other Churches, the Church of Rome (whereof we now treat) ●hould have this special privilege, that it cannot err, there is not one syllable or title in ●he holy Scriptures. Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus. (1) The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. 1, Timothy, 3. 15. Therefore it cannot err: and consequently the Church of Rome never did err. An. 1. There are here four terms: because the Antecedent speaks of the true Church, in which alone is Salvation to be had, and which is the keeper of the writings of the Prophets and Apostles: but the consequent speaketh of the Church of Rome, which is indeed the company and Church of Babylon. 2, It is a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect only, to the same taken absolutely. Because the Church is the pillar and ground of truth; that is, so long as it maintaineth the truth, & follows the direction of God's word. But and if it serve aside from the word of God, it can no longer be called the pillar of truth. (2) Christ promised to the Church the Spirit of truth. john, 14, 16, 17, Therefore the Church cannot err. Answer. 1. This promise did principally pertain to the Apostles, in whom it was most exactly fulfiled, and secondarily to the Church, which holdeth the doctrine of the Apostles; such as the Church of Rome is not at this day 2, It followeth not, the holy ghost was given to the Church, therefore the Church shall retain it forever. Or the spirit was given to the Church, therefore the Church doth always follow the direction and guiding of the Spirit. For neither did Christ so promise his holy Spirit, that needs it must abide with the Church, howsoever the Church behave itself, and turn aside from the revealed Word of God. For so the Church of the Galatians could never have been seduced. (3) Christ prayed for the Church: Father, sanctify them with thy truth etc., Ioh, 17, 17. therefore it cannot ere. Ans, 1 Here be four terms. The Antecedent speaks of the company of the Elect, or the invisible; as is plain by the whole text, the consequent of the visible Church. 2. It is a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect to the same taken absoly. For Christ speaks so, adding withal a condition: Thy Word is truth. Therefore this promise is tied to the observance of that word, as to a certain condition. (4) My Spirit which is upon thee, and my words, which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed from henceforth for evermore, Isai, 59, 21. Ans. 1 If this promise had been made without condition, than it would follow that God had not kept his promise. For these words do immediately go before: They shall fear the name of the Lord from the West, and his glory from the rising of the sun, or the East: but the Eastern Churches have had a most miserable downfall long ago. This promise therefore is condtionall, as if God should say, I will not forsake thee for ever, if thou forsake not me. It is therefore a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect to the same taken absolutely. 2, This promise belongeth to the Church which obeyeth the word of God, unto which God will never be wanting with his spirit. (5) The Comforter shall abide with you for ever, Ioh, 14, 16. therefore the Church of Rome cannot err. Ans, 1, What agreement is there between the Apostles, witnesses against whom no exception can be taken, & the present Church of Rome, as now it is under the kingdom of the Pope which differeth so much from the Church which Paul taught at Rome, as light doth from darkness. 2 There is no good consequence from that which is spoken indefinitely, to the same spoken definitely or determinately, but in the Antecedent the speech is indefinite, in the consequent definite. There be therefore in this reason four terms. (6) Christ saith that he will abide with his Church until the end of the World. Mat, 28, 20. Therefore the Roman Church cannot err. Simil. The Husband promised that he would be faithful to his wife all his life long therefore she ca●not become an adultere Ans. 1 There is more in the conclusion, than in the Premises; for it followeth not, Christ remaineth with his Church, therefore the Church can in nothing serve from Christ. 2, Besides the Argument is from that which is spoken indefinitely to the same taken definitely, 3. And there be four terms. For Christ speaks of the true Church wherewith the present Church of Rome (to which our Adversaries wrest this promise) hath no agreement besides the bare and naked name only. (7) The gates of Hell shall not overcome the Church Mat, 16, 18. Ans. 1, Hear be four terms. In the Antecedent the Church is meant, which is built upon Christ, his Word and Sacraments: but in the consequent such a Church is meant, as is built upon the Pope and Traditions of men, 2, As long as the Church remaineth upon this Rock that is, Christ, it is invincible: but not so, if it make defection from the Gospel of Christ. CHAP 8. Of the Bishop of Rome THe Papists being driven from their holds, which have now been treated of, do flee to the authority of the Pope, as to a sure & sacred anchor. For they imagine 1, that Christ appointed Peter as his Vicar in the Church, 2. And gave unto him both the dominion over the whole Church, and also the dominion of faith. 3, that Peter was Bishop at Rome, and gave the same authority of dominion to that sea or place. 4, That the Bishops of Rome are his successors both in Power and Office. And that therefore whatsoever proceeds out of their mouth of any point of Religion must needs be infallibly true, and that all the faithful or all Christians are bound to obey them. From this rope plaited of sand arise moreover these questions. 1, Whether Christ have need of any such Vicar on earth 2, Whether Christ gave Peter authority & power, whereby he should bear rule over the rest of the Apostles and have the dominion of faith. 3. Whether Peter were at Rome, and did there constitute this order. 4, Whether the Bishops of Rome be the successors of Peter the Apostle. Question, 1 Whether Christ have need of any visible head or Vicar in his Church on Earth. The Papists affirm, and we deny it for these reasons. Christ had ill provided for his Church, if he had ordained a man universal Vicar, which might err, as being a man (as Peter also erred Galat, 2, 11, 14.) Neither could be present in all places. Christ only is the head of the Church, Eph. 1, 22, & 4, 15. But the Church is not a two headed monster. The Heavenly Father commended only Christ unto us, that we should hear him, Matt, 17, 5. Contrariwise our adversaries reason. 1 From a similitude. A Prince that goes into an other Country, hath need to leave some man behind him furnished with full and absolute power: so we must believe that Christ did, when he was to departed from us. Ans, Hear be many falsehoods, and ridiculous toys. 1, Similes do some times illustrate, but never prove, 2 If it were never so true, that Christ had appointed a Vicar, yet it would not follow that the Pope should be he. 3, Neither is there absolute authority such as is falsely ascribed to the Pope) granted to any vicar, but authority only, which is bounded and limited by laws. 2 It is needful, that some one watch for the whole Church. Ans. 1. Christ watcheth for the whole: and for the parts and special members, let every Bishop watch amongst his Clergy. 2. It is a thing impossible, that any one man should watch over and for the whole: this reason therefore supposeth an impossibility. 3, In the old Testament God appointed a Vicar, in deciding controversies, to wit, the high Priest, that he might be a visible head in the Church, Deut, 17. An, 1, They argue from a type, (the signification whereof was accomplished & ended in Christ) to the Pope. Which maketh four terms in the Syllogism; for the high Priest was not the type of the Pope, ●ut of Christ. 2, The Priest was judge in civil affairs (between blood and blood, etc.) therefore from civil affairs to Ecclesiastical, no good consequence can be drawn: unless perhaps from the type of Christ to the Pope. (4) It is needful that there should be some Vicar of Christ to interpret controversies which arise or fall out in the holy Scriptures. Ans. If this were granted to be never so true, (which yet may not be granted) it would not therefore follow, that the Pope should be that interpreter. 2. The Holy Ghost sendeth us back to the Scriptures which is that our firm word of the Prophets (2, Pet, 1, 19) 3, We do not reject any Interpreter, which shall speak according to the law and the testimony, that is, which shall interpret the Scriptures according to the Analogy of faith. But the Pope will never suffe● himself to be tied to this condition. (5) It is certain there should be one and a certain visible head for the preserving of the unity of the Church. Ans, 1 Christ is that head which governeth his Church by the ministery of the Word and Sacraments; to whom whosoever joineth himself, is made one body with the Church under one head. 2, The Pope draweth us from this unity, whilst he sends us away from the Scripture to the closer of his breast, which doth very often cross the holy Scripture directly. 6. A Monarchy is the best state of government; but we must think that the Church is to have the best state of government: therefore a Monarchy. Ans. 1. As concerning a visible head, there ●s great difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical government. And Christ him●elfe showeth a very great unlikeness between ●hem, when he saith, The Kings of the Gentiles reign over them: but you shall not be so: Luk, 22, 25, 26.) 2, But as concerning an invisible head, we have Christ the only & true Monarch of his Church. 7, In the Church all things ought to be done Corinth. 1. 14, 40. ●● order: but all Ecclesiastical Order is contained under the Pope. Ans. In the Antecedent proposition Paul ●eats not of the order of inferior or superior persons: but of the outward order of Ceremonies, which is to be observed in the assembly of the Church for comeliness sake. Such an order every Church ought to observe, (as the circumstances of time, person; and place shall require,) though they submit not themselves to the yoke of the Bishop of Rome. The alleging therefore of that saying of Paul, makes nothing at all for the establishing of the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome: and so here be four terms in this argument. Question. 2. Whether Peter received 1, power of Dominion over the rest of the Apostles, and 2, the dominion of faith: We deny both, and first we deny that Peter received Dominion over the other Apostles, for these reasons. Because it is no where taught in the holy Scriptures. Because Peter doth no where testify, that he received such power, but behaved himself as equal to the rest in power. 1. I which am a fellow-elder (Consenior) and witness of the sufferings of Christ. 1, Pe. 5, 1. 2. Not as Lords over gods heritage, but that ye may be ensamples to the flock. 3. Therefore he suffered himself to be sent of the other Apostles into Samaria, with john as his fellow & equal. Act. 8. 14. 4. He suffers himself to be accused, for that he had gone in unto the Gentiles, & as being their equal, cleareth himself before them. Act: 11. 2, 3, etc. 5. He endured himself to be reproved of Paul. Galat: 2▪ 11, 14. 6: Who is Paul? who is Apollo? 1, Cor: 3, 5, which words do show that there was no authority, no superiority among the Apostles, one over another. 7. When james, and Cephas, & john knew Note. 1. Paul placeth Iame● in the first place. 2, He saith not, pillar, but pillars. 3. H● calleth them fellows. of the grace of God that was given unto me, which are counted to be pillars, they gave to me, and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, etc., Galat: 2, 9 Christ saith, the Kings of the Gentiles reign over them; but ye shall not be so. Luk, 22, 25, 26. When the Apostles strove for superiority, Christ never preferred Peter, but exhorted all, (and so Peter also) to equality & humility. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1. Math: 10, 2. Where the Apostles are reckoned up in order, Peter is said to be the first. Ans. There be four terms: in the Antecedent the word, first, is taken for the order of counting or reckoning, and in the Consequent for the order of dignity or authority. 2, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. therefore Peter is the foundation of the Church; and thereupon hath power over the rest. Ans. It is a fallacy of Composition, because in the Papists argument, those things jointly are spoken of Peter, which Christ spoke distinctly, and severally of himself & of Peter. 2, Because Christ spoke to all the Apostles under the person of Peter, it would follow (arguing as the Papists do) that every one of the Apostles was the Prince of the Apostles. Now what an absurdity were this? 3, Christ saith to Peter, feed my sheep; etc. Ioh: 21, 17. Therefore he made him head of the Apostles. Ans. 1. Hear is the changing of an indefinite proposition, (which in this place is but a particular) into an universal, thus: feed my sheep, therefore feed all my sheep▪ 2, Hear are four terms: The word feed; in the Antecedent is to do the office of a Minister of the Gospel: but in the Consequent it is to be a Prince, and to exercise dominion. 4, Christ paid tribute for Peter and not for the rest of the Apostles, Matth: 17, 27, Therefore Peter was Prince of the Apostles. An. This is a Doctor like exposition to pay tribute, that is, to make a Prince; for Peter, that is, Peter. These dotages of the Papists declare, how absurdly, for want of proofs, they scrape together any thing, to blear the eyes of the unlearned. 5, Peter after the manner of a Prince lifted up his voice on the day of Pentecost, when the rest of the Apostles held their peace, as it were for reverence sake to him: Act: 2, 14, & 4, 8. Ans. This is a fallacy, putting that for a cause, which is not a cause, because the Apostles might give Peter this honour, either for his age, or eloquence, and not because they acknowledged him for their Prince and head. 6, In the Counsel of the Apostles, Peter first of all gave his voice: Act: 15, 7: Therefore he was Prince of the Apostles. Ans. 1, The voice of Peter is described but whether he first of all gave his voice, or some other before him, that is not written: therefore there is more in the Consequent, than in the Antecedent, on this wise. Peter's voice is the first, that is mentioned, therefore no man gave any voice before him. 2, It seemeth rather that others spoke before him, by these words next going before. When there had been great disputation, etc. Whence it appeareth that some had spoken their minds before Peter. 3, out of this place it might rather be proved, that james was the Prince of the Apostles; for that he, their voices being gathered, gave the definitive sentence: the argument therefore of the Papists is most fond. 7. The Fathers and Writers of the Church have acknowledged Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles. Answer. If any of them did so, they had it from uncertain reports contrary to the meaning of the Scripture. Neither ought the error of a few to be any prejudice to the truth. 2, They gainsaid the Primacy of Peter. Augustine on the 16 of Matthew. Cyprian in his Epistles, Gregory the great & others. Now in the second place, let us treat also of Dominion of faith with the Papists is that power or prerogative, whereby the Pope may as please him determine and judge of articles of Religion. the power of knowledge, or dominion of faith. We deny that such a power was granted by Christ to Peter, or any other man; and that for these reasons. Because it is Christ alone, of whom the heavenly Father hath said, hear him. Math. 3, 17, and 17, 5, and there is one Master or Doctor Math: 23, 8. Though that we, or an Angel from heaven should preach unto you otherwise, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed: Galat: 1, 8. Christ and Paul had not done well in sending their hearers unto the Scriptures, whereas rather they should have sent them unto Peter, if we must stand to the Pope's judgement. Peter himself sends us to the word of the Prophets, and teacheth us to attend to the word, and not to himself, as for any personal privilege: 2, Pet: 1, 19 Peter in his Sermons and Epistles never taught any thing by such an absolute peculiar power or authority, but confirmed all his assertions out of the holy Scripture, as is to be seen. Act. 2, 4, 10, and 15, Chap. By this means there had been no need of the Counsel of the Apostles▪ but Peter alone should have been asked, what he would infallibly define. Paul would not seem to have received any thing from Peter, as concerning his doctrine: wherein he had offended, if the dominion of faith had been committed to Peter. Galat. 1, 11, 12, etc. It may not be thought that such a dominion on of faith was committed unto Peter, because that he was blame worthy, and went not the right way to the truth of the Gospel. Galat. 2, 11, 14. Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus. 1, I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. Matth: 16, 19, Therefore Peter had the key of knowledge, and the dominion of faith. Ans. 1. There is more in the Consequent, than in the Antecedent▪ for it followeth not, the keys were given to Peter, therefore power was given him to appoint and constitute what he pleased in doctrine & faith. 2, There are four terms. In the Antecedent the keys are taken for that part of the ministry, which consisteth in binding and losing of sins: in the consequent it is mistaken for authority to determine and constitute any thing what seemeth good in doctrine. 3 The keys did not only belong to Peter, but to the rest of the Apostles also; unto whom Christ promised the keys under the person of Peter, who had answered for all. And Christ gave authority alike to all to retain & to remit sins, Mar, 18, 18, Ioh, 20, 23, which Panormitan also doth advertise us of. (2) Christ prayed for Peter, that his faith should not fail. Luke, 22, 32, therefore Peter received the Dominion of faith. Ans. 1 Christ speaketh of Peter's denying of him, from which by his prayer for him, he reclaimed Peter, and did not suffer him to perish with judas. To argue then from a particular case to all the actions of Peter, is very absurd. 2, If to pray for a man's perseverance be all one, as to give him the dominion of faith then because Christ prayed for the perseverance of all those, that should hear and believe in him through the preaching of the Apostles, (Ioh, 17, 20,) it would follow that he had committed unto all them the dominion of faith, which is absurd. There are therefore in this argument four terms. 3 Christ said to Peter, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren, Luke, 22, 32. Therefore the dominion of faith was given to Peter. Ans. 1, Christ speaks of such a strengthening, whereby he that hath been tempted, knows how to strengthen them which are tempted, in the like manner. But concerning the dominion of Faith, there is not one title. Again therefore here are four terms: 2, Every man that strengtheneth his brother, should (by the same reason, as the Papists here argue) have the dominion of faith assured unto him. 3, And so also Peter could not have been blameworthy, if he had Gal, 2, 11 14. obtained the dominion of faith, but he ought rather to have chid Paul that reproved him. 4 Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it, Math, 16, 18. Therefore it must needs be, that Peter received an infallible dominion of Faith. Ans. 1, If Peter had been that most firm and sure Rock, then that would follow. But we have showed the contrary thereto before (Chap, 8, quest, 2, object: 2.) this is therefore rotten stuff. 2, Now that Peter is not that rock, and foundation of the Church, whereof Christ speaketh in this place, is proved by these reasons. 1, Because the gates of hell prevailed against Peter. 1, When he denied Christ; in which his So the gates of hell prevailed against Pope Marcellinus, who sacrificed to Idols, & against Liberius, who sell in to Arianisme. denying doubtless he had perished, unless by the merits of Christ, he had been pulled from the jaws of hell, Mat, 26. 2, when he was worthy to be blamed, being deceived of Satan to flatter them that were converted of the jews & to offend them that were converted of the Gentiles Galat, 2 3, When Christ called him Satan, Ma, 16, 23. Then he would have hindered the passion of Christ, which was no small sin. Because Christ is the Cornerstone, & not Peter. 1, Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, elect and precious. Peter speaks this of Christ and not of himself, 1. Pet. 2, 6. 2, Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is jesus Christ, 1, Corinth, 3, 11. 3, Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets, jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Ephes, 2, 20. Isay, 28, 16. Psalms, 118, 22. Matt, 21. 42. Question, 3 Whether Peter left his authority and power behind him to his successors at Rome▪ We deny it. because it cannot be certainly proved, not so much as that Peter was a● Rome. We hold it more probable that he● was never at Rome, for these reasons Because it agrees neither with the accounted of times in the Scripture, nor with the account of other histories. 1. It crosseth the account of the Scriptures. For about the year of Christ, 37. Paul first returned to jerusalem, Galat, 2. 18. and found Peter abiding there. About the year of Christ 51, (fourteen years after. Galat, 2, 1) Paul went up again to jerusalem, and found Peter there. Now add thereunto ●, years only, which Peter should have ●pent in travailing into Galatia, Pontus etc. 37 14 3 25 79 ●not reckoning the years, in which he is re●orted to have governed the Church of An●ioch) and there amounteth the ●4th year of Christ. Add to these 25. years, which he ●s said to have been Bishop of Rome, and ●here ariseth the year of Christ 79. But it is ●eported by the Ecclesiastical historians, that ●eter was martyred in the last year of Nero, ●hich was the 70th year of Christ. So by his reckoning Peter should have been Bishop of Rome 9, years after he was dead. 2. It crosseth the account or chronology of Ecclesiastical writers: but first we pre●ppose See Euseb, lib, 2, cap. 25. & take for granted, that there were ●, years, after which Paul found him at ●erusalem, and so there ariseth the year of Christ, 51. Add then 7, years; for the space ●● which, Ecclesiastical historians do write that Peter was Bishop at Antioch, & 5 more which they say he spent in journeying, and there ariseth the year of Christ, 63. Add hereunto 25, years, and there ariseth the year of Christ 88, and so Peter should have taught & preached 18, years after his death. The Papists will not see these absurdities, but pass over the truth hood winked. 3, If any man shall say that we must reckon backward from the end of the years of Nero & Peter, than it will follow, that Peter was in prison, not at Rome but at jerusalem, in the 24 th', year before his death, and in the second year of his being Bishop at Rome, Act 12. For in the 45 th' year Peter was cast in prison by Herode. After which time Paul found him still as yet at jerusalem. If Peter had gone to Rome, he had done contrary to the covenant, he made with Paul that Paul should preach the Gospel to the Gentills, and Peter to the circumcision, Ga', 2, 9 Paul writing an Epistle to the Romans at that time, when Peter is said to have bin● there, and saluting many brethren by name, maketh no mention at all of Peter. When Paul came to Rome, he was received of the brethren; yet Luke saith nothing that he was received of Peter, the mentioning of whom should not surely have been omittted, if he had been there, Act, 28, 15. When Luke writeth that Paul abode 2, years in his hired house, yet he doth say nothing at all of Peter, that he had any dealing there with Paul in any thing, Acts 28. 30. In the Epistles written from Rome (to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, Philemon) the Apostle Paul doth never mention Peter so much as in one word. I have no man (saith Paul) like minded, who will faithfully care for your matters. For all seek their own, and not that, which is jesus Christ's; Philippians, 2, 20, 21. Hear, if Peter had been at Rome, he had been accused of unfaithfulness. At my first answering, no Man assisted me (saith Paul) but all forsook me. I pray GOD that it may not be laid to their charge, 2, Tim, 4, 16. Which but to suspect, of Peter, were very hard, if he had been then at Rome. Contrariwise our adversaries reason thus. (1) Ecclesiastical writers and the Fathers do with one consent agree that Peter was at Rome. An, 1 Because these Writers do agree neither amongst themselves (for neither do the jesuits deny, but that they disagree very much concerning the time, when Peter came to Rome) seeing I say, that they neither agree amongst themselves, nor with the holy Scriptures, let their authority carry as much weight as may be, so that less be not ascribed to the truth of the Scripture, than to them. 2, One of them transcribed and took it out of an other, as if a man should tell to others the reports which he heard. 3, Irenaeus the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writer of all, whose writings are held for not-counterfeits, doth affirm indeed that Peter was at Rome; but he lived in the year after the birth of Christ 185. that is 150, years after Christ's ascension into Heaven. Neither was he the Scholar of john the Evangelist, (who is held to have lived the longest of all the Apostles) but Polycarps Scholar. Wherefore it is no wonder, if Irenaeus. Who was so far off from the Apostles times, were somewhat deceived in the story of Peter. 2. The Church which is at Babylon saluteth you. 1, Pet: 5, 13, There Peter calls Rome Babylon: Ans. 1. This is to gather every thing of any thing: to change Babylon into Rome. 2, Hieron. in his Epistle to Marcelia. We grant that Rome at this day is Babylon, but that purple coloured whore, as S. Hierom also thinketh. But out of question the Papists will boast but a little of this appellation of Babylon. Question. 4. Whether the Popes of Rome be Peter's successors: this we deny for these reasons. Because this ordinary succession tottereth immediately after Peter, neither can they certainly say who was his successor: the different opinions are these. 1. Platina, Sabellicus, Epiphanius, reckon thus. 1. Peter: 2, Linus. 3. Cletus. 4. Clemens. 5. Anacletus. 2 Eusebius, Irenaeus, Hierom reckon them thus. 1. Peter. 2. Linus. 3. Anacletus. 4. Clemens. 5. Of Cletus they say nothing: 3. Damasus, the Tomes of the Counsels, Maria●● Scotus, Caranza do reckon them thus. 1, Petrus, 2, Clemens, 3, Anacletus. 4. Onuphrius reckoneth them thus. 1, Peter, 2, Linus, 3, Clemens, 4, Cletus, 5, Anacletus. Caranza saith: In a matter so intricate I leave the defining thereof to the judgement of the Reader. Summa council. pa, 13. Amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers some do reckon fewer & some reckon more Bishops; so that they agree not in the number. Because the Church of Rome, in respect of this succession, hath not any where in ●he holy Scriptures any prerogative given her above other Churches. They are not the sons of the Saints (as ●he Canon law confesseth) which possess ●he rooms of the Saints, but they that prac●se their works: neither doth the See make a Bishop, but a Bishop maketh the See: as also the ●ace doth not sanctify the man, but the man both sanctify the place. Distinct, 40, cap, ●ulti Sacerdotes, etc. But the Pope is not the accessor of Peter, neither in doctrine, nor in ●anners. 1. Not in doctrine. Peter taught thus. There is given no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved, but by jesus: Act. 4, 12. The pope hath other names, that men may be saved by the merits of Saints, the virgin Mary, john Baptist, the holy Martyrs, as also Francis, Dominicus, etc. Peter: To him (that is Christ) gave all the Prophet's witness that through his name all that believe in him, shall receive remission of sins: Act 10, 43. The pope: Sins committed after Baptism are not remitted, but are recompensed for by us; not because we believe in Christ, but in our works. Peter acknowledgeth one only foundation of the Church, even Christ the corner stone. Math: 16, 16, 1, pet. 2, 6, The pope placeth himself for the foundation and corner stone of the Church. Peter: Submit yourselves to all manner of ordinance for the Lords sake, whether unto the King, or unto Governors, etc., 1, pe● 2: 13. The pope would have all Kings and emperors subject to him. Peter ascribes unto Christ, that he is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. 1, Pet. 2, 25, and the chief or head Shepheard. 1, Pet. 5▪ 4. The pope takes it to himself that he is the pastor of all souls; and the head Shepheard. Peter: Baptism is the stipulation or taking to witness of a good conscience, 1, pet. 3. 21. The pope: The state of Monkery is equal See Aqui● as lib, 4, 〈◊〉 distinct. 4 art▪ 3. to Baptism and Christians, that have fallen into any sin after Baptism cannot comfort their consciences by their Baptism, although they repent. Peter: If any man speak, let him talk as the words of God, 1, pet. 4, 11. The pope▪ If any man speak, let him speak our Traditions of men. Peter: Feed the flock of God, not for filthy Venalia nobis Templa, Sacerdotes, Altaria, Sacra Coronae, Ignis, Thura, preces, Coelum, est venale deusque Mautu●n. lukers sake, 1, pet 5, 2, The Pope. Wares of all sorts are here to be sold: Buy what ye will for money down told: Churches, Priests, Altars, Offerings & Crowns: We pass for quick sale all Cities and towns. Fire, frankincense, Dirges & pardons from pain, Hell, Heaven, God, the Devil we give all for gain. 1 Peter: not as though ye were Lords over God's heritage 1, Pet, 5, 3. The Pope will be Lord over Angels, Church and Christian Monarchies, etc. Peter; Resist the devil steedfast in the faith, 1, Pet, 5, 9 The Pope: Resist him by consecrated candles, holy water, the sign of the Cross, moonkish weed, etc. Peter▪ Make your calling and election sure (by holiness and good works) 2, Pet, 1, 10. The Pope: seek for your justification before God by good works. Peter: we followed not deceivable fables, when we opened unto you the power and coming of our Lord jesus Christ, 2, Pet, 1, 16. The Pope hath canonised the fabulous Books of Dominick and the conformity of Saint Francis; as also the lying Legends are yet set abroad to sale. And more over he hath gone about to confirm the most of his trash by fables. Peter: we have a most sure word of the Prophets, to which ye do well, that ye take heed, 2, Pet, 1, 19 The Pope doth no otherways run away from the scripture, than the devil is supposed to do from the sign of the cross. But and if we would further compare the Pope's decrees with the doctrines and writings of the other Apostles, we should find that they differ as far as Heaven and hell. 2, Peter and the Bishops of Rome differ very much in manners. Peter inveigheth against them, which live luxuriously, delighting themselves in their deceive &c. having eyes full of adultery, 2, Pet, 2, 13, 14. The Pope feeds a great number of such massing servants of his own. Peter lived in humility. The Pope in more than Ruffianlike riot. Peter carried himself as a Minister or servant to others. The Pope behaveth himself as Lord of Lords. Peter carried about a wife with him, i. Corinthians 9, 5. The pope abhorreth marriage in priests. Peter condemned Simony, Act. 8, 20, &c: The pope, for money selleth Indulgences, bishoprics, Palles, Bulls: and all things are ordered for the scraping of money, and the wiping of others of their substance. See the pope's a A book openly set to sale, wherein is the price of absolution for most hai nous sins whereof Espencaeus complaineth most pitifully in Tit. cap. 1. Digress. 2. taxa paenitentiaria. 6 Peter was godly, holy, honest, chaste, etc. The pope hath in the Genealogy of his succession, thieves, Magicians, Soothsayers, Witches, Adulterers, Whoremongers, Warriors, and what not? Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. The Fathers called the Bishops of Rome the successors of Peter. Answer, 1. They were better Bishops then, than they be nowe a-daies. The ancient Bishops of Rome, the most of them were holy Martyrs, the late ones voluptuous persons. 2, And all godly and good Bishops are the successors of the Apostles in office; & not only the Bishop of Rome, if he were good and godly. 3, The Fathers also called Rome the purple coloured whore. Hieron to Marcelia, and Augustin. ●● Civit. Dei, lib, 8, cap, 22, and other. An other (or the first) Question, coincident with the former. Who the Pope is. I Answer. He is Antichrist. Because all things, which are foretold of Antichrist in the holy Scriptures, are fulfilled in the Pope. He is called in the Scriptures an Adversary, that opposeth himself against Christ. Now the Pope opposeth himself against Christ many ways as for examples sake. 1. Christ commends the holy Scripture, Ioh, 5, 39 The Pope calleth it the matter of strife, & a dead letter. 2. Christ condemneth the Traditions of men, Matth, 15, 3, etc. But the Pope diggeth out of their graves Traditions long since buried, commendeth them highly, and bindeth men's consciences, under the pain of excommunication to observe them. 3. Christ saith: out of the heart proceed evil thoughts: Matth, 15, 19 so that the heart is as a corrupt fountain. The Pope saith: man is not so corrupted by the fall of our first parents, but that he hath still free-will as well to good, as to evil. 4. Christ so expoundeth the law, that it is impossible for us to keep it (Luke 10, 27.) with all thy soul & with all thy strength, etc. But the Pope saith: the law of GOD may be fulfilled by man. 5. Christ received them, which believed: as; Thy faith hath made thee whole, Luke, 7, 50. But the Pope contendeth that faith alone justifieth not, but that we have need of good works to our justification. 6. Christ saith: when ye have done all, that is commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, Luk, 17, 10. The Pope saith; consecrated persons over and above the fulfilling of the law, do also works of supererogation, which they may bestow upon others, as having no need of them themselves. 7. Christ saith: verily verily I say unto you, he that believeth in me, hath life everlasting, loh, 6, 40, 47. But the Pope layeth at him with a curse, who persuadeth himself, that he ought certainly to believe without doubting, that he is the heir of eternal life. 8, Christ saith, that that goes into the mouth defileth not a man, Matth, 15, 11. The Pope saith, that a man is defiled by eating the meats which he hath forbidden. 9 Christ saith: Drink ye all of this, Mat, 26, 27. The Pope saith: Drink not all, but only Priests. So likewise, the life of Christ & the Pope are directly opposite; but we will not treat of that now. Because he exalteth himself against all that is called God. For he takes upon him to alter the Word of God, and the Sacraments: as is proved in this whole book throughout. The Pope sits in the Temple of God, as a tyrant; captivating Emperors, Kings, Princes and the Consciences of men under his tyranny. The Pope showeth himself, as if he were God: which he hath done in accepting of the flatteries of his retainers which are contained in the Canon Law, and in the books of the Canonists, as followeth. 1. That the Pope can do all things above law, contrary to law, and without law. Bald. ad caput cum super num. 1ᵒ. Extr, de cause, possess, et propped. 2. That he hath the same consistory, and the See Baldus in C. cum super de causa Propped, et pos, Lib, cerem, Pon. 1, li. tit, 7. same tribunal seat with God. 3. That to him is given all power in Heaven and in earth. 4. If the Pope neither respecting his own, nor his brethren's salvation should by heaps draw innumerable souls with him into the pit of hell, etc. yet may no man say unto him, what dost thou. Distinct. 40, cap, Si Papa. 5, The Pope is god. Felinus. as also in the Canon law, Distinct, 96, cap. Satis. 6, The Pope is the Christ or anointed of the Lord. 7, The Pope may change the form of the Sacraments delivered by the Apostles. Archidiaconus. 8, The Pope can do those things on earth, which God can do in Heaven. August. Berovius in C. cum tu, num, 1, de usuris. 9, The Pope hath no peer, but God: the same Berovius in Rubric: de office de leg, n. 10. And many other things which it were overlong to rehearse. If the Pope approve not these glozing flatteries, why doth he not condemn them? why doth he not forbid them? why doth he not accurse them? As Herod therefore which rejected not the impious acclamations of the people, was therefore guilty of their blasphemies before God and perished very miserably: so the Pope, in that he condemneth not the impious flatteries of the Canonists, he approveth them, & is guilty of eternal damnation and shall be tormented with Herod for ever in Hell. The coming of the kingdom of Popery is by the working of Satan, with miracles and lying wonders, whereof all Popery hath been, and yet is full: as we read that many such lying wonders have been of old descried and punished by the Magistrates. The Pope worshippeth his God Mauzzim that is the mass with gold, silver & precious stones as Daniel prophesied of Antichrist. And if the hire of money were denied, the mass would fall to the ground of his own accord. The Pope cares not for the desires of Women, but forbiddeth marriage unto Priests. And therefore maintaineth a doctrine of devils, 1, Tim, 4, 3. He hath taken away the daily sacrifice; withdrawing those prayers from Christ, which he hath caused to be offered unto Saints. And hath defiled the true worship of God with men's traditions and superstitions, and intolerable idolatry. This was doubtless to abolish the daily sacrifice. These and such other things declare, that the Pope is not the successor of Peter, nor the Vicar of Christ, but the Antichrist; whom the Lord jesus shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, etc. 2, Thessaly, 2, 8. Hitherto therefore we have maintained the authority of the holy Scriptures, against the vain Traditions of the Papists, against Enthusiasms or inspirations, councils not rightly celebrated, the counterfeit name of the Church and the falsely pretended authority of the Pope of Rome. The Popes themselves then are not the judges of controversies, but the party accused before the tribunal of the Church: the Church is the judge, the voice of the Church is the Scripture, which always speaketh: by the rule whereof ●ll whosoever they be are bound to give unswere, and make their account unto God. ●t is therefore good reason that no other rule ●f truth should be accepted of saving the scripture; according to which all opinions ●nd constitutions are to be examined and ●dged in the Church. CHA. 9 Of free-will. QUESTION 1. OUR Adversaries that they might the more strongly urge justification by works do falsely affirm, 1, that a man not regenerated or converted, 2, even after the fall of Man, hath remaining in him so much power, 3. in his will & understanding, 4. in matters spiritual, and such as pertain to the salvation of the soul, that he can begin his conversion, 5, of and by himself, and so deserve a more plentiful grace of justification. This we deny for these reasons ensuing. Because the Scripture calleth unregenerate men, dead men. 1. And you that were dead in sins and trespasses, etc. Ephesians 2, 1. 2. When we were dead by sins, he quickened us. verse 5. 3. Give yourselves unto God, as they whic● are alive from the dead, Rom, 6, 13. Because the Scripture compares our will unto servitude. 1. Impenitent sinners are holden captive of Satan at his will, 2, Tim. 2, 26. 2. If you continue in my word, ye are verily my Disciples, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. joh. 8, 31, 32. If they were now at length to be freed, them were they before not free men, but captives and slaves. 3. Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. joh. 8, 34. 4. I am carnal, sold under sin: Rom: 7, 14. Because the Scripture bereaves us (so to speak) of all aptness or ability to good, as of ourselves. 1. All the imaginations of the thoughts of man's heart are only evil continually. Gen, 6, 5. 2. The imagination of man's heart is evil, even from his youth. Gen: 8, 21. 3. The natural man perceaveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1, Cor. 2. 14. 4. We are not sufficient of ourselves, to think any thing, as of ourselves. 2, Cor. 3. 5: 5. Therefore God would signify the hardness of our hearts by the tables of the law, made of stone. Jere: 31, 32, etc. 2, Corinth. 3, 3, 7. 6. By grace ye are saved through faith, & that not of yourselves. Ephes. 2, 8. Because the Scripture ascribes to God alone, what good so ever we have either in our understanding or will. 1. Our sufficiency is of God. 2, Cor. 3, 5. 2. God hath quickened us in Christ. Eph. 2, 5. 3, It is God, that worketh in us, both the will and the deed. Phil: 2, 13. 4, No man can come unto me, unless the Father which sent me draw him. john, 6, 44. 5, Without me can ye do nothing. john 15. 5. 6, So God opened the heart of Lydia. Act. 16, 14. Because the doctrine of our adversaries savours of the heresy of the Pelagians. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason thus. 1. God giveth a choice to his people of obeying or disobeying: Deut. 30, 19 josuah, 24, 15. therefore GOD presupposeth freedom of will. Ans. 1. There is more in the Conclusion, than in the Premises: for it followeth not. GOD offereth them choice, and exhorteth them to obedience, therefore they can obey of themselves. 2, Had the Israelites never so much had freedom of will to good; yet they were regenerated, and renewed by the word of God and the Sacraments. Now to argue from them to men unregenerate, is no good consequent: for there arise four terms. 2, God reproveth men in the Writings of the Prophets and other where, for that they would not convert, hear and obey, etc. therefore they had free-will, whereby they might have conver●ed, Math: 23, 37 Luke, 19, 23. Ezech. 18, 31. jere. ●, 19, etc. Ans: 1. There is more in the Conclusion, ●han in the Premises: for it followeth not, ●hey would not convert, therefore they might convert of themselves, 2, It is a fallacy taking that for a cause which is none: for the final cause of these legal Sermons, is not to free the will, but to increase wrath, that the acknowledgement of fin may follow. It followeth not then, The Law requireth this or that at our hands; therefore we can perform it of ourselves: but GOD would have us to learn to acknowledge our own bondage, and to pray, that he would create a new heart within us, and take away our stony heart, and give us in place thereof a heart of flesh. 3. Turn unto me, and I will turn unto you. Zacha. 1, 3, Hear God would have us, to prevent him in our conversion. Answer. 1. The same answer serves for this argument, Simil. The debtor Mat, 18, is reproved for that he paid not his debt to his Masters, therefore he was able to pay. which was given to the former: for the legal words of commandment, upbraiding, reproving, etc., do not make us able to amend that, which is reproved in us, as being amiss. 2, And the meaning of this place is, turn unto me, and I will look upon you in mercy, and do you good. And what makes this for avouching of free will. 3, The conversion of man is ascribed unto God: Convert me and I shall be converted: for thou art the Lord my God, etc. jerem: 31. 18. 4. If there were no freedom of will in spiritual things, than it would follow, that God mocked men, commanding them by the preaching of his word to do that, which were impossible, namely to convert. Answer, If God suffered his word to be preached without giving of the spirit, then that might follow: but because God joineth his Spirit together with his word (whereby the hearts of the hearers are opened) it no way followeth, that GOD doth mock men. 5. God gave David the choice of three plagues. 2, Samuel 24, 12, and the residue shall choose rather death than life. jeremy, 8, 3, and such others. Ans, The freedom of this choice was about outward matters of the World (to wit temporal punishments) and not about spiritual things. There are therefore four terms, 2. There is no controversy betwixt ●s about outward matters. 6, God saith unto Cain: If thou do well, ●halt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door: the desire thereof shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over it. Gen. 4, 7, therefore a man hath free-will. Ans. i: There is more in the conclusion, than in the Premises: for thus much only doth follow; that Cain might have refrained from killing of his brother; neither is there any mention or determination, whether he might have done it by power of his own, or derived from some other where. 2, GOD speaks of an outward thing, that is, the eschewing of manslaughter, therefore it is nothing to the purpose. 3, The latter words of the place alleged are ill translated; for Moses meaneth not any dominion over sin that Cain should have, but over his brother. Therefore the place should be translated thus: his desire shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him, that is, over Abel thy brother. 7, A man may nill, therefore he may will also: An: From nill to will is no good consequence, seeing there is not the like reason of such contraries, as have not the like cause▪ Now to will, proceeds of God, as from the first cause: but to nill comes from Satan & the corrupt flesh: here is a fallacy of composition and division; because those things are joined together, as having the like reason, which nature will not suffer to be joined together for the reason above named. 8: Thou hast done evil (et potuisti) and thou mightest do it: jerem: 3, 5: An. 1: The same answer serveth for this Simile. This man can run into debt, therefore he can pay his debts. argument, which was given to the former: for it followeth not, a man may sin, therefore he may work his conversion. 2, It is a fallacy from that, which agrees to one of itself, to that, which happeneth accidentally or from an other, which is not in his power: For we can sin of ourselves, but we cannot do well but by power received from God. 3: The word here used, translated by the Latin Interpreter (potuisti) signifieth to be able to do any thing, & sometime to be of strength, or to be strong in doing any thing: the meaning of the prophet is, the they kept no measure, but with all their strength and power committed sin. 9 The just man might offend, and hath not offended, and do evil, and hath not done it. Eccl. 31. 10. Therefore, etc. Ans, 1, There is more in the conclusion, than in the premises. For all that follows is this, that the righteous man might reframe from transgressing; but it doth not hence follow, that he could do it of himself. 2. The Author speaketh of an outward matter, name lie the outward use of money. Therefore it is nothing to the purpose. 3, If it be meant of spiritual matters never so much, yet the argument follows not from a righteous and regenerate man (whose will is freed by the holy-ghost) to a man unregenerate. 10, I will sacrifice freely unto thee etc., Ps, 54, 6. Answer, 1, Again this argument proceeds from a regenerate man to an unregenerate, 2, and that this willingness and voluntary service was not in David of himself, it is plain, because he could not of himself acknowledge his sin of adultery and manslaughter, until he was admonished thereof by the Prophet. 11, Cornelius could of his own accord prepare himself to the grace of God, and dispose himself to the acknowledgement of salvation, Act, 10. 4, etc. Ans. Cornelius was before amongst the Jews instructed out of the Scriptures concerning the Messias; so that only he did doubt of the person of the Messias: therefore it is said of him, that he was a devout man, and one that feared God etc. and prayed God continually (Verse, 2) therefore this argument proceeds from a regenerate man to an unregenerate. For Cornelius did already believe the sayings of the Prophets concerning the Messias: but did not yet know that those things were fulfilled in jesus Christ of Nazareth. 12. Every Man that hath hope in God, pargeth himself. 1 john 3. 3. Answer, 1, He speaks of the regenerate, which have hope and trust in God by faith. 2, Neither doth he speak of their conversion, but of their renovation or sanctification, which follows conversion, and hath his growth and increasing in the regenerate until the end of their lives. This argument therefore hangeth not together, but hath four terms. 13. If any man open the door unto me; I will come in unto him, etc. Revela, 3. 20. Therefore a man may aforehand dispose himself unto grace by his free-will Ans. There is more in the Consequent, than in the Antecedent. For this only is said, what the Son of GOD will do to him, which openeth the door unto him: but there is never a word said, by what power the heart of man is opened, whether by his own, or such as he hath received from an other. 14, He that standeth firm in his heart, that he hath no need, but hath power over his own will, etc. 1, Corinthians, 7, 37. Ans. He speaks of things merely external, of marrying or not marrying. Therefore this is impertinent. 15 Every man, as he hath determined in his heart, etc., 2, Corinth, 9, 7. Ans, 1, The speech is of the regenerate, 2. And of external matters, that is of giving of Alms. There are therefore five terms. 16, Yet not I, (to wit, have wrought) but the Grace of God (as the Papists expound it) hath wrought with me. 1, Corinth, 15, 10. Therefore our strength doth work in our conversion, and not God alone. Ans, 1, Paul speaks not of his conversion, but of the labour of his ministery, by which GOD did work, 2. The text speaks of Paul being regenerated. 3, Paul disables himself in respect of all things, (even those that concern his ministery) and ascribes them to God alone in the words going before, where he saith: By the grace of God, I AMTHAT I AM: and his grace which is in me, was not in vain, etc. yet not I, but the grace of God, which is with me. Hear is therefore made a great confusion of the terms or words, 1, with me, that is, I and God by joint working. 2, with me, that is in me. 3. the regenerate, 4, the vnregenerat, 5, conversion, 6. ministery. 17 We are Gods (Cooperarii) fellow-workers. 1 Corinth 3. 9 Ans. 1, He speaks of his ministery not of his convesiron. 2, And if it could be racked to his renewed state, yet were it then an argument from the regenerate to the unregenerate. 3, The Latin and Greek phrase is ambiguous, and may either signify that we are fellow workers with God, or we fellow workers amongst ourselves, are the workmen of God. This later is the plain meaning of the place and therefore, to avoid ambiguity, it is rightly translated we together are Gods labourers. 18. If man be so enthralled unto sin, that he cannot convert of himself; he cannot justly be accused of sin, unless God will accuse nature. Ans, 1, God doth accuse nature, not simply as it is in itself, but in some respect, as it is corrupted. 2, The first man before he fell, had the power of his free-will, which he should have preserved. Man therefore is nevertheless justly accused of his corruption. There remain yet, besides this first, now ended, three other questions more, in this matter of free will; which we must needs discuss. 1, of Original sin, 2. of the works of infidels, 3, of Grace. QUESTION, 1. Of Original sin. The jesuits at this day do deny that Original sin in us is truly and indeed sin; which they do, lest they should be constrained to acknowledge the great and horrible corruption of the power of man's nature. We on the contrary side do affirm that Original corruption is a sin, & that no little or light one, but a very great one, and that for these reasons. Because the holy Scripture giveth plainly the name of sin unto it. 1. Behold I was borne in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me, Psalm, 51, 5. 2. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee and our secret sins (that is, original sin in the light of thy countenance, Psalm. 90 8, 3, I knew not sin, but by the Law, for I had not known lust, except the law had said, etc. Rom, 7, 7. 4. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me. Rom, 7, 20. Because, seeing it is the fountain & wellspring of all actual sins: Original sin by reason of which all the rest are sins, shall much more be such itself. Because Original sin or concupiscence, rebelleth against the Law of GOD, and is not subject thereto, Romans, 7, 23. and 8. 7. But sin is the transgression of the Law, 1, john 3, 4. See more hereof in the 13, Chap, of Concupiscence. Contrariwise our adversaries reason: thus. 1, Sin is not sin, unless it be voluntary; but original sin is not voluntary, therefore, etc. An, 1. We may not leap from one science See Chap. 13, quest, 2 object, 6. to an other, which is done in this argument, whiles in defining what is sin, the Adversary goes from Divinity to Philosophy to fetch the definition thereof from Aristotle, 2, And so here is a confusion of distinct principles and several arts; and a fallacy of many questions as but of one. 3, Original sin, though it be not voluntary in us now, in respect of the present corruption, which we draw by nature from our Parents yet it was and is voluntary, in respect of the beginning, principle, and cause thereof. Adam and all his posterity in his loins committed the first sin of disobedience against God willingly; and thence issued Original corruption. And this is sufficient even in rea●on and philosophy to make an action sinful. For a drunken man, though he know ●ot what he doth, yet if he kill a man in ●is drunkenness, is by the Civil Laws of men guilty of murder, because himself was the cause of his drunkenness. See more in the place of Renovation, Cap, 13, quest. 2. QUESTION 3. Of the works of infidels. The Question is, whether the good works, or virtues of infidels, be so devoid of all fault, that the doers thereof do deserve grace. The Papists affirm they be, we deny it, for these reasons. Without Faith it is unpossible (note that he saith, it is unpossible) to please God. Hebr, 11, 6, but infidels want faith; otherwise they should not be called infidels, therefore, etc. Without Christ there is no salvation, no● eternal life, no favour or acceptance with God, john, 17, 2, 3. Acts, 4, 12. Matthew, 3▪ 17. But Infidels are ignorant of Christ, therefore, etc. The end of the works, which Infidell● do, is not for the glory of God, but most usually for their own glory, or covetousness, or ambition, or pleasure etc. 4 If the person that doth the works be not accepted of God, than neither can the works be, how glorious soever they be; So God had no respect to the sacrifice of Cain; not because for that the sacrifice was not of itself good, but because God hated Cain, for his impiety. See more hereof in the 12, Cap, quest, 1● Contrariwise our adversaries do reason thus, 1 Virtuous actions in infidels are not of themselves Simil: Wine that is of itself very good if it be kept in a corrupt vessel, becometh so distasteful that it may breed loathing or cause vomiting in them that drink of it. evil; therefore they may not be reckoned amongst sins. An. What virtues are of themselves, we are not here to dispute; but how they are to be esteemed by reason of the faultiness of them, in whom they are, 2, It is therefore a fallacy making more questions, where there should be but one: for these two are confusedly shuffled together; what virtues are in themselves & what in respect of the man, in whom they be, It is also a fallacy, from that which is spoken in some particular respect; to the same taken absolutely and simply, for these actions are in the former place taken absolutely, and in the later, as they are considered in respect of him that doth them. 2 Virtues in infidels are the gifts of God, therefore they are not to be accounted for sins. Ans. 1. As they are the gifts of God, so they are no sins: but here they are considered, not as they proceed from god, but as the good and holy gifts of God are polluted in corrupt instruments. 2. There are some gifts of god which sanctify the receiver, and some which do not: of these later sort, are all the gifts of God in infidels. 3. A good thing by abusing of it, may become to be not good. 3. God hath sometimes rewarded the virtues of infidels: therefore they have pleased him, and have not been counted for sins. Ans. God hath commanded outward honesty and civility, and doth bestow temporal rewards on it, but our question is not of temporal, but of spiritual rewards, therefore this is nothing to the purpose. The jesuits in the Article of justification, do expound the word Grace for a gift or habit infused into the soul of man from heaven, whereby he is moved or stirred to work righteously; and by the which his works are accepted with God, and this Grace they divide into the first and second Grace, or into a preventing Grace, (whereby a man may prepare himself to the grace of justification) and a subsequent grace, (whereby a man is actually and habitually made just) and so they go about to shift of by this their explication, all the sayings of the scripture concerning the free justification by faith. But we in the Article of justification acknowledge no signification of the word Grace but such as excludeth all merits of men; and that for these reasons. Because the word Grace (in the article of justification) is opposed to Merits, works, and debt. 1 To him that worketh the wages is not accounted by favour, but by debt. Rom: 4. 4. 2 If it be of grace, it is no more of works: or else grace were no more grace, Rom, 11. 6: 3 He hath saved us, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us through Christ jesus, before the world was. 2, Tim: 1: 9, 4 By grace ye are saved through faith, & that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, etc. Ephes: 2: 8, 9; Because it is opposed to the law which causeth wrath: we are not under the law, but under grace: Rom: 6; 14: Because the Scripture declareth the same by equivalent terms, or words of the same value and signification. 1 They are justified freely by his grace, Rom, 3, 4. 2 When the bountifulness, and love of god our saviour toward man appeared, not by the works of righteousness, which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us, Tit, 3, 4 5: 3 Let us go boldly to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy, Heb, 4, 15. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1 The word grace is oftentimes in the Scripture taken for the gifts of the holy Ghost as. 1: Corin, ●● 4, there are (Divisiones Gratiarum) diversities of graces: Ans 1 The propositions of this reason are mere particulars, and therefore no conclusion follows, 2. Whereas Saint Paul in that place treateth of miraculous gifts, not of justification, and our question is only of justification; the argument is frivolous, and not to the present purpose: 3. Though we deny not, but that the word grace is sometimes in Scripture taken figuratively for the free gifts of God bestowed upon men (for only we deny it to be used in that signification in the article of justification any where in the Scripture) yet neither in this place alleged is the word Charis used, which properly signifieth grace, but Charisma, which signifieth a gift freely bestowed: and therefore the place is fitly and properly translated. There are diversities of gifts. 2 We have received grace for grace, john 1, 16. 1 This is a Doctor like exposition, made of their mere Doctor like authority, without reason: we have received grace, that is the grace of justification: for grace, that is, for the first preventing grace, but the meaning of Saint john is: because the son of God was in highest grace and favour with his heavenly father, therefore the father doth embrace us also with his grace and loving kindness for his sons sake, in whom we believe. 2. That grace in this place is opposed unto merits, the words next following do declare: for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by jesus Christ; Hear Christ and Moses are opposed betwixt themselves, as it were in the proper differences of their offices, that is of wrath by the law and of grace by the Gospel. 3 Grace is the gift of God, Ephes. 2. 8. therefore it is an infused and inherent habit. Answer, 1: It is a fallacy of composition and division, arising from the construction of the words, for the word gift is not simply and alone construed with the word grace, but with salvation by grace, which if it might should have been expressed in one word. Brieffely & plainly, the Apostle saith not, Grace is the gift of God, but that ye are saved by grace, that is the gift of God, 2 and for the same cause the gift in this place is not a habit, for gift is opposed there to works and merits, as being a thing, that is bestowed of mere favour. 4 It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace: Heb, 13, 9: Answer, 1: It is a begging of the question; because this is controversed, whether Grace do in these words signify an infused habit, 2. In that very place the Apostle opposeth Grace to the vain confidence of works, against them who put confidence in meats, drinks etc. Therefore by the nature of contraries it appeareth, that the word grace is here taken for the free favour and mercy of God, & so the argument hangeth not together, for in the Antecedent Grace is taken for the favour of God, in the consequent for an infused habit. CHAP. 10. Of justification. SEeing our adversaries do diverse ways wrap and involve this disputation, let us divide it into certain and distinct members and questions. Question: 1. And first of all, whereas the word justification, wrested to a wrong signification by our adversaries, as if to justify were of an unjust man to make one just habitually or by a habit infused: and seeing they hiss at imputed righteousness, let us consider the true signification of the word, which is no other, but to be absolved from the guilt of sin, that it be not imputed, but pardoned, which appeareth to be so by the reasons following. Because the word justification is a borrowed word from the court and place of judgement; which in his proper and natural signification is used in the Scripture for to absolve & acquit from fault and guilt: as 1 Woe to them that justify the wicked for a reward. Isai. 5, 23. 2 The righteous shall be justified, and the wicked condemned, Deuter, 25, 1, 3 Every man that hath a matter might come unto me, that I might justify him (as the original hath and is translated agreeable to the sense more plainly; that I might do him justice) 2, Sam. 15, 4. 4 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination Note, that the whole act of justification is very lively described in the scripture, as a kind of judicial act & process, the person guilty is called to the bar, is accused, witnesses are brought, he is condemned or acquitted etc. to the Lord, Prov. 17, 15. So doth the same word keep the same signification borrowed from the court and judicial proceed in the Article of justification in the Scripture. 1 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? It is God that justifieth, who shall condemn? etc. Rom, 8: 33, 34, here ye see words and phrases borrowed from the court and judicial proceed to accuse, to condemn, to justify etc. The equivalent terms of justification, or other words used to signify justification, doth prove the same. (1) Reconciliation is taken for justification Rom, 5, 9, 10▪ 2, Corinth, 5, 19, (2) Remission of sins is taken for justification. 1 Blessed is he, whose wickedness is forgiven. Psal, 32, 1, 2 jesus shall save his people from their sins: Matt. 1: 21. 3 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Luke 1: 77: (3) To cover sins is used for justification. Blessed is he whose sin is covered, Psal, 32, 1, 4 The holy Scripture doth describe justification by the words, imputation, reckoning, accounting, &c: as, 1 God was in Christ, and reconciled the world unto himself, not imputing their sins unto them: 2: Corinth. 5: 19 2 Blessed is the man, unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity: Psal: 32: 2: 3 As David declareth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works Rom: 4, 6, 4 Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness: Rom: 4, ● 5 To him, that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, Rom, 4, 5. 6 It is not written for him only, that it was imputed to him for righteousness, but also for us, to whom it shall be imputed for righteousness which believe in him etc. Rom. 4. 23: 24: Contrariwise our adversaries do reason. 1 To justify by force of grammatical composition of the word is all one, as to make a man just, of one, who before was not just, therefore to justify is to make just. Ans. 1 Hear be four terms; in the Antecedent the signification of the word justification is taken grammatically, in the consequent it is taken according to that signification, which belongeth properly to Divinity. 2. The true signification of the word is to be sought for in the proper science, wherein the question is contained. 2 By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many. Esai, 53. 11, therefore he doth justify them by an infused habit. Ans. It is a fallacy called ignoratio elenchi, for the necessary determination or limitation is omitted; which followeth in the next words: for he shall bear their iniquities, which words declare, that justification is to be understood here by imputation, for they are justified by his bearing their sins, as if themselves had borne and wiped away their own sins. 3 Holiness shall preserve and justify the heart, that is shall cause, that the heart be made just. Ecclesiastic. 1. 17. Answer, 1: The book is not Canonical, and therefore in a point of such moment, his authority is not sufficient ● in the Greek text the word justification is not found, 3: Neither if to justify in this place, & some others, should signify habitual or inherent righteousness, would it thence necessarily follow, that it should have the same signification in the article of justification. 4 Defer not unto death to be justified Ecclus. 18. 21, therefore there is habitual righteousness, gotten by many actions. Ans. 1 The meaning is: defer not, to be converted and reconciled with GOD, etc. Therefore this argument hangeth not together. 2. If to justify be all one with the author of that book, as of unjust to make just, than an absurd sense would follow from the same words, in the beginning of this chapter. The Lord only (iustificabitur) shall be justified: that is by the former interpretation, of an unjust God, shall be made a just God by an infused habit. 5 He that is just, (iustificetur) let him be justified still. Revel, 22, 11, therefore justification consisteth of an habit. Ans. 1 The speech is figurative, for by a Synecdoche the whole is put for the part, or the cause for the effect, for he speaks of Renovation, (under the name of justification) which the words next following, added by way of explication, do declare: and he that is holy, let him be made holy still (Sanctificetur adhuc) 2. from Renovation to justification no conclusion can be made, but by four terms. QUESTION, 2, Whether the grace of justification be bestowed equally upon all them, that be justified. In this question the controversy is not about Renovation, which may and aught to receive growth and increasing all our life long, neither is there controversy about the gifts of the holy Ghost, bestowed upon them, who are justified; but about that righteousness, by the which we are said to be just before God, and are reconciled to God through Christ. Our adversaries affirm that this justice or righteousness is not equal and alike in all them, which are justified, and that it doth receive increase, according to diversity of persons and times; but we utterly deny it for these reasons. Because our righteousness, whereby we are just before God, is not our own, but is the righteousness of Christ, for he is made unto us, of God righteousness and sanctification 1, Corinth, 1: 30. Now Christ is received by faith of all them, that truly believe, not in part, but wholly with all his merit. Peter writeth to them which had received like precious faith with him, amongst whom those were also, which were weak in the faith, 2, Pet: 1, 1, So Christ giveth to them which believe, not an half, but a whole and entire justification: for he promised to them, that believe, eternal life; and eternal life is not given to them who are justified in part only, but to them who are wholly justified. Ioh: 3, 15, 36: and 5, 24. and 6, 40, 47. and 17. 2: and 20, 31. Act 4, 12, and 10, 43, and 51, 11 etc. Christ was the same to Peter as he was to Paul, as he was to the father of him that was possessed, Marc. 9; 23: etc. to the Samaritan woman, john 4. Neither is he diverse of one kind or degree to on, & of an other to an other, according to the difference of men and their faith. So the man sick of the palsy was justified wholly and not in part, by one act (so to speak) complete and finished at one and the same instant, Matt, 9, 2; the Publican, Luk, 18. 13, 14. the thief, Luke 23, 40, &c: the sinful woman that anointed jesus, Luke, 7, 38, &c: Contrariwise our adversaries do reason thus 1 To every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ Ephes. 4. 7. therefore etc. Ans. Paul speaks not of justification, but of the gifts bestowed upon them, which are justified, for the adorning, and edifying of the Church, as the words following do declare. There are therefore four terms in this argument, for in the Antecedent the word grace is taken for a gift of the spirit, in the consequent for justification: 2 There are diversities of the gifts of God, 1 cor. 12. 4. Ans; He speaketh of gifts, which are bestowed upon them who are justified; and so justification is presupposed to go before, as already hath been said. And hereof there is no controversy. justification is on thing and the strong and weak apprehending or laying ●ould of it, is an other 3 justifying faith is stronger in some men, and weaker in others. Ans. 1 Yet there is the same object, total and not partial, of faith whether it be strong o● weak; to wit Christ jesus whole & entire with his most holy merits, which is our righteousness. Peter calleth faith like precious, (2, Pet. I, 1) because there is the same object apprehended or laid hold on by all, although without all doubt▪ all, to whom he wrote, had not the like strength and firmness of faith, which Peter had: and Christ yielded himself to be received or laid hold on by a weak faith. Mark, 9, 23, 24, etc. Isai: 42, 3. as was aforesaid. 4. We are commanded to pray for the increase of God's gifts: therefore, etc. Ans: We are commanded to pray for Note. The Papists do still confounded justification with renovation or sanctification. the increase of the gifts of renovation or sanctification, but not of justification. Question: 3. Whereas Renovation doth concur together in justification; and faith cannot be without good works; it is questioned, What that is, whereby the righteousness of Christ is apprehended of us; whether it be faith or good works. The Papists ascribe it to good works; but we prove, that justification may not be granted or attributed to good works, by these reasons. Because good works are not accepted of God, unless they be done by men that are justified: therefore justification goes before good works by the order of nature: which order is inverted, if justification be ascribed to good works. Because good works only in them, which are justified, please God: and so justification goeth before works. Now if we will be justified the second time by works, that come after, what is this else, but to do that which is already done? justification by works doth derogate from Christ so much, as is attributed to our works: for if we could have been justified by our works, what need was there of the merit of Christ, who alone hath made satisfaction for all our sins? 1, I have trodden the Winepress alone, and of all the people there was none with me. Isai, 63, 3. 2, The blood of jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin. 1, Ioh 1, 7. 3, He (not our good works) is the reconciliation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1, joh. 2, 2. 4. Among men there is none other nam● under heaven, whereby we must be saved. Act: 4, 12. justification by works, taketh away the certainty of Salvation, which the Scripture proposeth unto us. 1, Because we know not what, and how many works are necessarily required as sufficient to justification; that we might know that we are truly and sufficiently justified. 2, Evil doers, which are drawn to death and have done none, or without doubt, very few good works (such as the thief was, Luke, 22) should by this means despair: whereas notwithstanding God desireth not the death of him that dieth. Ezech: 18, 32. The holy Scripture doth take away the power of justifying from works, as well by sayings of Scripture, as by examples: (1) In his sayings it takes away justification from works. 1, To him that worketh not, but believeth in him, that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom. 4, 5. 2, By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight. Rom. 3, 20. 3. We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the Law. Rom. 3, 28. 4 If it be of grace, it is no more of works: or else grace were no more grace. Rom. 11, 6. 5, We know that a man is not justified by the works of the law. Gal. 2, 16. 6. As many, as are of the works of the law, are under the curse. Gal: 3, 10. 7, Not of works, lest any man should boast himself. Ephes. 2, 9 8. According to the power of God, who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, 2, Tim. 1, 9: 9 Not by the works of righteousness, which we had done▪ but according to his mercy he saved us: Tit. 3, 5. (2) The same is declared unto us by the examples of others: such as is. (1) The example of Abraham, who was not justified by works. 1, If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to rejoice, but not with God: Rom▪ 4, 2: 2, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh, the wages is not counted by favour, but by debt: Rom: 4, 3, 4 Gal: 3, 6: Now it is not written for him only, but for us, etc. Rom: 4. 23: (2) The example of David: 1. As David declareth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Psa. 32, 1, Rom: 4, 6. 2, Enter not into judgement with thy servant. Psal. 143. 2. Now he is the servant of God, that doth the will of the Lord, and walketh in his ways. Psal. 119. (3) The example of the Patriarch jacob. Not by works, but by him that calleth. Rom. 9, 11. (4) The example of Paul. 1, I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified. 1, Cor, 4, 4. 2, If any other man thinketh that he hath, whereof he might trust in the flesh, etc. touching the righteousness, which is in the law I was unrebukable, but the things which were vantage unto me, the same I counted loss for Christ's sake, etc. for whom I have counted all things loss, and do judge them dung, that I might win Christ, and might be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ. Philip: 3, 4. 6, etc. 3, We (to wit Peter and Paul) which are jews by nature, know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, etc. and we have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. Galat. 2, 15, 16. (5) The example of the man sick of the palsy, to whom without any his good works before done, Christ saith: Thy sins are forgiven thee: Math: 9, 2. (6) The example of the Thief upon the Cross Luk, 23. 43. (7) The example of the Publican. Luke, 18. (8) The example of the sinful woman. Luke, 7. (9) The example of the jews converted by the Sermon of Peter: Acts, 2, 37, 41, etc. Moreover, works do therefore not justify, because they are unperfect in the regenerate also. Contrariwise our Adversaries do argue thus. 1, Evil works do condemn, therefore good works do justify. Answer. The opposition is unperfect: therefore no good consequence can be grounded thereon: for evil works are perfectly evil; but good works are not perfectly good: therefore they cannot justify: for we do not the good thing, that we would; but the evil, which we would not, that do we, Rom: 7, 19 2: Eternal life, (which abideth in them that be justified) is called a reward. Matth. 5. 12. and 20. 1. 2. etc. Luk, 6, 35; therefore by good works we deserve eternal life. Answer, i. The word Reward is taken two manner of ways. 1, In the Antecedent The word Reward is diverse in the Law & in Divinities of this argument for a reward that is due, and answereth in a just and exact proportion to the work wrought. Secondly it is taken otherwise in the Scripture, namely for a free It is as if a father should promise a reward to his son for his pains, where as notwithstanding all the father's goods do bv right of inheritance come to the son, and the son doth owe obedience to his father although his father promise him no reward. gift: and hereof it is, that everlasting life is called a gift. (Ephes. 2, 8) an inheritance (Gal. 4, 7) and that, whereunto no proportion of desert doth answer, but the elect themselves do esteem the reward greater than their labour, or deserving (Matth. 25, 37) there are therefore in this Syllogism four terms. 2, The word reward is understood many times not of life eternal itself, but of the increase of glory in life eternal: as Math 5, and Luke, 6, for the glory of the blessed Saints in the life to come, shall be different. Once again therefore here be four terms: for the middle term (Medius terminus) is one while taken for life everlasting itself, and an other while for a special and singular recompense in life eternal. 3. Christ shall frame the judicial sentence at the last judgement from their good works, Mat. 25, 34. 35, etc. He will reward every man according to his works. Rom 2. 6. Ans, 1. Christ doth reason from sanctification to justification going before, as from that which is better known unto us (for in that last judgement, he will make manifest the faith of his Elect even before men also) & he concludes as it were from the effect to his cause, from the fruit to the tree, & from the later to the former. In this argument therefore they turn the later into the former & the effect into the cause: 2, These very same works, if Faith be not there before, are of none account, neither do they deserve any spiritual blessings: as was before said, when we treated of the works of infidels. 4, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments, Mat, 19, 17. Ans, 1, It is a fallacy from that, which is spoken but in some respect only, to the same taken absolutely and in all respects: for that which Christ spoke in a particular respect, that is, to beat back the persuasion of perfection in the young man, that our Adversaries take as simply & absolutely spoken. 2, And Christ would that the young man should have trial of the weakness of his strength in fulfilling the law. 5 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth my father's will, which is in Heaven, Matthew, 7. 21. Therefore we are justified by works, which we are to do. Answ, 1, This is my Father's will, that every one, that seethe the Son and believeth in him, should have eternal life, saith Christ. The Heavenly Father therefore willeth that we believe in his Son, and by faith obtain eternal life. For this is the work of GOD which is required at our hands, that we believe in him, whom the Father hath sent (Ioh, 6, 29) 2. We deny, that those which brag of their faith in Christ, and yet do no good works, are the heirs of eternal life, because they have not true faith, which worketh by love, Galat, 5, 6. But it doth not hereof follow that we deserve eternal life by our good works. For we are saved by grace, not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph, 2, 8. 9 And good works are not pleasant to God, but only in them, which be justified▪ 6 Work out your salvation with fear & trembling. Philip. 2, 12. Ans, He speaks of sanctification or renovation in men already regenerate. And warneth them, that they do not through security let go the means of their salvation; but enure themselves daily to the exercise of piety, and the works of sanctification. Now to apply this to justification, is to confound justification with sanctification. The argument therefore hangeth not together. 7 With such sacrifices God (Promeretur) is promerited. Heb, 13, 16. Ans, 1, The Author of that Epistle speaketh of men, which are justified, they do then wrongfully wrest it to men which are to be justified. 2, That translation is corrupt. For the text according to the Greek is, with such sacrifices God is well pleased; which is not all one, as to be justified. For good works do please God, as being a begun and unperfect obedience in them, which are justified; although those works do not justify. 8 God is not unrighteous, that he should forget your work, and labour of love etc., Heb 6. 10. An, 1, There is more in the consequent than in the Antecedent; for it followeth not, God will recompense the good works of them which are justified, in the life to come. Therefore those good works deserve justification. 2, It is a fallacy making many questions, where there is but one. For it is one question, whether good works do justify, and an other whether God will reward the good works of the justified. 9 Redeem thy sins by almsdeedes, and thine iniquities by mercy to ward the poor, Dan, 4. 24. Ans, 1, He speaketh of the escaping of temporal punishments, and not of the manner of justification His words have this sense; Repent and be merciful to the poor, that God may turn from thee the temporal punishments of thy sins, which now hang over thy head. 2, His speech is a Sermon of Repentance, which doth include faith in it, by the figure Synecdoche. 3, The place is corruptly translated: The proper signification of the word, & true meaning of the place is rightly rendered thus: Break of thy sins by righteousness, etc. that is, cease thy wonted sins, and begin a new life, etc. 10 Alms do deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to come into darkness, Tobit, 4, 11. Answ, 1, The book of Tobit is Apocryphal, and therefore can prove no point in controversy. 2: He speaketh not of justification, but of temporal death, and of the temporal punishments of sin (which are meant in this place by the word Sin, after the phrase of the Hebrues) And he teacheth here the same, that is in Psal. 41, 1. Blessed is he that judgeth w●●ely of the poor, the Lord, etc. 3. By a Synecdoche faith is included also in the words going before: set the Lord God always before thine eyes, etc. (Verse, 6) 4. The work cannot please God: unless it be done of one that is justified. 11, The hearers of the Law are not righteous before God; but the doers of the Law shall be justified, Rom, 2, 13. An, It is a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect only, to the same taken absolutely and in all respects. For Paul speaks upon supposition: If justification be by the law, than not the hearers, but the dowers of the Law shall be justified: and so he expresseth represseth the insolency of the jews, who would be justified, whereas notwithstanding they kept not the law, as if he should say, If justification be by the law, than not the hearers, but the doers of the law shall be justified: But there can no man be found either amongst the jews or the heathen, which is a perfect doer or keeper of the law; (as Paul, proves it in the first, second, & third Chapters to the Romans) therefore if justification be by the law, no man living shall be justified, look the place● Even as Paul also doth overturn this supposition (Gala, 3.) Therefore this sophism of our Adversaries falleth to the ground. 12 W as not Abraham our Father justified through works? james 2, 21. Ans. If the words be understood as they sound according to the letter, they are repugnant to other Scriptures, 1. in the meaning, because they speak clean contrary concerning the justification of Abraham (Romans 4, 3. Genesis 15. 6.) Secondly in the history. Because james saith, tha● Abraham was justified after the offering up of his son, whereas it appeareth by the former places, that he was justified about some twenty five years before. The meaning then of Saint james is, that they which are justified are not without good works: but that they do so manifest their faith by their works that by the effects they may be known of others to be justified; which is nothing else, but to be declared just or righteous. 13 Love covereth the multitude of sins, 1. Peter 4, 8. Answ. In the proper place whence this sentence is cited (Prou, 10, 12.) it appears, that it is meant of that hiding of sins, which is before men, not before God. Therefore it is impertinently alleged for justification. 14, Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much. Luke 7. 47. Therefore love meriteth forgiveness of sins. Answ. 1. In the Parable going before, Christ showeth that we may gather by the love that followeth in the party, who hath had many sins forgiven, and who few, in their justification going before: seeing he will love more for the time to come, to whom many, than he, to whom few sins have been forgiven. This is therefore a changing of the consequent into the Antecedent and of the effect and that which follows after into the cause, and that which goes before. 15 The chiefest virtue doth chiefly justify. But Charity is preferred before faith, 1, Cor, 13. 13. Therefore Charity doth justify. An. 1, Paul compareth love or charity with faith, not in respect of justification, but of duration and continuance. Therefore this is a fallacy from that, which is spoken in some respect, to the same taken absolutely and in all respects, 2, Faith doth not justify, as it is a virtue or habit for it own worth but as it is considered respectively, in respect of Christ, whose merits it applieth unto us, and so doth justify us for his sake. There are therefore in this argument more than three terms; and it hangeth together like a rope of sand. 16, If justification be taken away from good works no man will thence forward be moved to do good works. Ans: 1. It is a fallacy supposing that for the cause, which is not the cause: for the true doctrine of justification is not the cause, why some men do not good works. 2, Neither may we do evil, that good may come of it, that is, we may not falsely ascribe justification to works, that men may thereby be stirred up to good works. 3, There are notwithstanding many most weighty causes beside, why we should do good works, although justification be not ascribed unto them. Question: 4. Our Adversaries deny, that we are justified by faith alone, but to faith they join hope and charity. We on the contrary side ascribe justification to faith in Christ alone; for these reasons. Because in the former question all works are excluded from the act of justification, and therefore faith only is left. Romans, 3, 4. and 11, Chapter, and a man is not justified but by faith: Galathians, 2: and 3, Chapter. 2, Timoth: 1, Tit: 3, Psalm 32: as the removing of all other things hath sufficiently been proved by these places in the former question. Because the holy Scripture, wheresoever it speaketh of justification, doth so describe it, that it mentioneth none, either work or affection, but only faith in Christ. Let us then briefly run over the places of the new Testament. (1) The Gospel of john. 1. As many as received him, to them h●e gave power to be the sons of God, even Let our Adversaries show aniething, but faith alone in all these sayings of Scripture. to them that believe in his name. john, 1, 12. 2. As Moses lift up the serpent in the wilderness, etc. That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. john, 3, 14, 15. 3, So God loved the world, that he hath given his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. joh. 3, 16. 4. He that believeth in him shall not be condemned. Ioh: 3. 18. 5. He that believeth in the son hath everlasting life. Ioh: 3, 36. 6. The jews demand, what shall we do, that we might work the works of GOD? Christ answereth: This is the work of God, that ye believe in him, whom he hath sent. joh. 6, 28. 29. 7. This is the will of him which hath sent me, that every one which seethe the son and believeth in him, should have everlasting life. Ioh 6. 40. 8. Verily, verily I say unto you, he that believeth in me, hath life everlasting. joh. 6. 47. 9 These things are written, that ye might believe, that jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that in believing ye might have life through his name. joh. 20. 31. (2) The Acts of the Apostles. 1. To him gave all the Prophet's witness, that through his name all that believe in him, should receive remission of sins. Act. 10 43. 2. By him every one that believeth, is justified, Act. 13. 39 3. By faith the heart is purified. Act: 15, 9 4. The jailor asketh; Sirs, what must I do to be saved? and they said, believe in the Lord jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, & thine household. Act. 16, 31, 32. (3) The Epistle to the Romans. 1, The righteousness of God by the faith of jesus Christ, unto all and upon all that believe. Rom. 3, 22. 2, We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Rom. 3, 28. 3, Abraham believed GOD, and it was counted to him for righteousness: Rom. 4, 3. 4, To him that worketh not, but believeth in him, that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom: 4, 5. 5, Therefore it is by faith, that it might come by grace, and the promise might be sure to all the seed. Rom: 4, 16. 6, This is written for us also, to whom it shall be imputed for righteousness, which believe in him, that raised up jesus our Lord from the dead: Rom: 4, 24. 7, Being justified by faith, we have peace toward God. Rom: 5, 1. 8, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom: 10, 11: 9: With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. Rom: 10, 10: (4) The first Epistle to the Corinthians It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. 1, Corinth. 1, 21. (5) The Epistle to the Galatians. 1 We know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but (note that he saith but or except) by the faith of jesus Christ: and we have believed in jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. Galathians. 2. 16. 2, They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Galathians. 3. 7. 3. God doth justify the Gentiles through faith. Gal: 3. 8. 4. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. 3, 9 5. The just shall live by faith: Galathians, 3 11. 6. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by the faith of jesus Christ should be given to them that believe. Gal: 3, 22. 7. The law was our school master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. Gal: 3. 24. 8. Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ jesus: Gal. 3, 26. (6) The Epistle to the Ephesians. By grace are ye saved through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephes. 2: 8, 9 (7) The Epistle to the Philippians. That I might be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ Philip: 3, 9 (8) The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1. By faith Abel obtained witness, that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: by the which faith also he being dead, yet speaketh. Heb: 11. 4. 2. By faith was Enoch taken away, that he should not see death. Heb: 11: 5: 3, He that cometh to God, must believe that God is, etc. Heb: 11, 6, Finally, that whole Chapter is spent in the commendation of faith alone. Now whereas in these sayings of Scripture, there is handled the way and means to attain salvation, justification, everlasting life, forgiveness of sins, a testimony of righteousness, etc. Why if any other thing be required but faith alone, why, I say, is it not, once so much as in one word, at the least insinuated by so great and worthy Authors in so many and so serious sayings of theirs? therefore faith alone doth justify. Contrariwise, Infidelity alone is the cause, that sinners do not obtain forgiveness of sins, and so are condemned: whereas no sin is unpardonable, where faith is: 1, He that believeth not, is condemned already, because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten son of God: Ioh: 3, 18: 2 He that obeyeth not the son (or that * The word in the latin translation is incredulus, that believeth not, the original, H● Ap●●thō signifieth h● that believeth not, or he that obeyeth not, how soever it be taken here it is certain it is opposed to faith and believing as appeareth by the words next going before. believeth not on the son) shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him: Ioh: 3, 36: 3, Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins: Ioh: 8, 2. 4. The holy ghost shall reprove the world of sin (as if this were the sin by an excellency above other) because they believe not in me. Ioh: 16. 8: 9 5, If any man hear my words and believe them not, etc. he hath one that judgeth him: Ioh: 12. 47, 48. 6. He that will not believe, shall be condemned. Mark. 16. 16. 7, The sin of the jews, for which they were rejected, was their unbelief. Rom. 11. 20. 8. Christ is to them that believe not, a stone to stumble at, and a rock of offence. 1 Pet. 2, 8. 9, He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar. 1, joh. 5, 10, 10, He that hath not the son (now the son is had by faith) hath not life. 1, joh. 5, 12. 11. Without faith it is unpossible to please God, Heb, 11: 6: Contrariwise our Adversaries do argue. 1, As a gift is received, not with one finger, but with the whole hand, so we do not receive justification by faith alone, but by hope & charity together with fairh. Ans. Similitudes have no force to prove a thing. And yet a gift may be received with one finger too, as for example, a gold chain may. This is therefore a most fond argument, although it were sometime alleged in a famous place and company by a jesuite, a man of no small authority and account. 2, We are saved by hope, Rom, 8, 24. Therefore we are not saved by faith alone. Ans, 1, Paul speaks not of justification, but of the future possession of everlasting life, which in this life we possess in hope only, and this is all he saith, that we are truly blessed through faith, but we do wait for the revelation of that our blessedness in hope, And therefore, because, to be saved is in this place taken of S. Paul in one sense, and of our Adversaries in an other sense, in the conclusion, there arise in the argument four terms. 3 Go and teach all nations etc. not only to believe but to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. Math. 28. 20. Therefore faith alone sufficeth not. Ans, Unto Renovation (whereof Christ speaketh in the observing of those things h● Our Adversaries make no difference between Sanctification & justification. commanded) it sufficeth not only to believe, but to work is required also. But as concerning justification, in the very same instruction of the Apostles, Christ saith; he that shall believe and be baptised, shall be saved, without making mention of charity, or any other works, Mark, 16, 16. 4 It was not enough for the blind man, that his eyes were anointed, but it was needful Eckius. that he should go to the pool Siloam (joh. 9, 6. 7.) that is, faith sufficeth not, but works are required also to justification. Ans, We may not determine of controversed points by such Allegories, as have no ground in scriptures. 5 If I had all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and had not love, I were nothing &c. 1. Cor: 13, 2. Ans, 1, Paul speaketh of the necessity of love or charity, not as pertaining to justification, but to unity and the profit of the Church. It is therefore a fallacy, from that which is spoken in some respect to the same taken absolutely, and this saying of the Apostle is wrongfully wrested to justification. 2, Neither doth he speak of justifying faith, but of the faith of miracles. Hear be therefore five terms in this argument. 6 To you it is given for Christ, that not only ye should believe in him, but also suffer for his sake. Philippians 1, 29. Hear Paul joineth faith and works together. Answ, 1, Hear is not any thing meant of justification; only the Apostle showeth, that they that believe should bear all things patiently for Christ's sake: and that it is the gift of God, and not of the strength or ability of man, that they do patiently suffer adversity for Christ's sake, 2, He speaketh that of those, that be justified which our Adversaries expound of them, that are to be justified. There are therefore four terms. 7 Faith is effectual (or worketh) by love, Gal, 5, 6. therefore faith alone doth not iustfie, but love or charity together with faith. An, 1. There is more in the conclusion, Roffensis, faith full of good works doth justify before▪ it brings forth the good works. than in the premises. For there doth no more follow, but that faith which is void of charity, is a dead faith: but that charity, which follow faith, doth justify, here is not one syllable. 2, The question is not, what virtues are linked or joined with others; but what is the peculiar property of every one of itself. Hear is therefore a fallacy in works making many questions for one. 8 Seest thou not, that the faith wrought with his works? and through the works was the faith made perfect. james, 2, 22. and ye see then, that of works a man is justified, and not of faith only, Verse, 24. and faith without works is dead, Ver, 26, Show me thy faith by thy works. & I will show thee my faith by my works, Verse 18. Ans, 1. He speaketh of a dead faith, which we reject in the article of justification also, 2, The meaning is, that our justification is to be delared before men by our works, according to that, which our Saviour saith, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, etc. (Mat, 5, 16) 3, works are not good, unless they be done by them, which are justified. 9 This word (Only) by faith, or by faith (alone) is found no where in the Scripture. Therefore we are not justified by it alone. Answ, Exclusive particles, equivalent to the word (alone) are found in the holy Scripture. 1. The word Grace, Ephes, 2, 8, Rom,, 11. 5 6. Tit, 3, 7. 2, Timon, 1. 9 2, The word freely, with other of the same signification Roman. 3, 24, charisma a gift freely bestowed Roma. 6. 23: doron a gift Ephe. 2, 8. kecharistai Ho Theos God gave it freely, Galathians 3, 18. 19 3. The word One: by the grace of one Rom, 5, 15, with one offering etc., Heb, 10, 14. 4, Without the Law, Rom, 3, 21, not by the law, Galat, 2, 21, & 3, 11. 5, The exclusion of works: without works Romans, 4, 6. not by works, Titus, 3, 5, not according to our works 2, Timon, 1, 9 not of yourselves. Ephes, 2, 8. Not having mine own righteousness Philip, 3. 9 going about to establish their own righteousness, have not &c. Rom, 10, 3. 6, The word Imputation which is opposed unto merits, Rom, 4, 3, 4. 6, etc. 7, The forgiveness of sins, and the not recompensing for them by works. Psalm. 32, 1, Rom, 4, 7. 8, Not, but by the faith of jesus Christ, Gala, 3, 16. The force of which exclusive what it is, is plain by the like Phrase and manner of speech. joh. 6, 44. No man cometh unto me, except the Father draw him. and, No man cometh to the Father but by Me. Ambro, in Epist. ad Roma. ca 3, 14. August. in Ps, ●8. et in joh. tract. 42. et de ●empore Ser. 68 Basil homil. de Humil. Chrys. in Epist. ad Gal. cap: 3, etc. Therefore exclusive words (which exclude all things in us, from justification, but faith) are fully contained in Scripture. Neither can it be denied, but the Fathers have used the word only by faith, or by faith alone. 10. If justification be ascribed to faith alone there will be made too too easy a way to eternal life. Ans. 1. To believe is not so easy a thing. For faith is the gift of GOD, and it is not in the power of man to believe when he will. 2, We require good works to salvation, as necessary conditions, but not as causes of justification or salvation, 3, Nay the Papists do make the way to Heaven much more easy, while first they place it in the free-will of man, and then expound it, that Heaven is to be purchased with money. QUESTION. 5. Our Adversaries move us a fift question while they seek for themselves a starting hole, affirming, that by the works of the law in the places before cited, Paul understandeth the Ceremonial law only, and not the moral. And secondly, that the works of the Law are opposed to the works of the Gospel, as if the commandments of the Gospel were diverse from those, which are contained in the ten commandments. The places of the Scripture following, do most manifestly contradict this opinion. The righteousness of the Law is denied unto Abraham. Rom, 4, where doubtless the Ceremonial law cannot be understood. for that it had then no being, but the moral law is meant. Paul useth the word (Works) absolutely without any restraint, as Ephes, 2, 9 Rom, 4, 6. and 11, 6, etc. in which places the nature of the thing will not suffer the word (works) to be restrained to the Ceremonial law only. So in like sort he rejected the works of Righteousness, Tit. 3, 5. He convinceth the jews to be sinful by the moral law, as before he convicted the GENTILES by the moral law written by nature in the heart of man. Paul decreed the moral law to be the rule of good works, even in the regenerate also. Therefore he doth understand not the Ceremonial only. We establish the law, saith Paul, Romans 3, 31. But the Ceremonial law is not established: for it is abrogated by the Gospel. By the law cometh the knowledge of sin, which seeing it is a general speech appertaining as well to us, as to the jews, it cannot be understood of the Ceremonial, but of the moral law, Rom, 3, 20. 8 I knew not sin, but by the law (but what law was that? hear some particular commandment by way of instance, out of that law) I had not known lust, except the law etc. Rom. 7. 7: but the Ceremonial law containeth nothing concerning lust. It is evident therefore that Paul doth speak principally of the moral law, although he do sometimes adjoin the Ceremonial law too, but he bereaveth both moral and Ceremonial of all power to justify. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1 Paul maketh an opposition between the law of works, and the law of faith, Rom, 3. 27. therefore we are to accept of this distinction. Answer, Paul doth in that place use the word law in a general signification, for a doctrine. And whilst he denieth justification to the law of works, he doth certainly deny it to works, therefore this is nothing to the purpose. And our Adversaries do not, or will not understand the phrase and manner of speech of the Hebrews, whereby the word law, Thorah, is taken for a doctrine. 2 Paul speaketh of some things, that are Ceremonial, as of the Sabbaoth, of the new moons, of Circumcision, in the Epistle to the Galatians, therefore he understandeth not the moral law. Ans. 1 Paul passeth sometimes from the particular to the general, and sometime from the general to the particular, that he may make it manifest, that no works of the whole law do justify a man. 2. We have already proved that he speaketh of all parts of the law, and not only of the Ceremonial. 3 In the Acts of the Apostles Chap; 15, the Ceremonial laws only are handled, Ans. 1 Be it never so true, that the Ceremonial law is there only handled, yet we may not argue thus. justification is denied to the Ceremonial law, therefore it is not denied to the moral. Now in that place the mention was of the Ceremonial law; because there was expressly moved a controversy concerning the keeping of ceremonies. 2, And yet that that place doth not only treat of the Ceremonial law, is proved by these words: which we were neither able to bear, neither our fathers (amongst whom, the fathers that lived before Moses without the Ceremonial law may be understood) but we believe through the grace of the Lord jesus Christ, to be saved, even as they (Act, 5, 10, 11.) In which words Saint Peter had reference to the fathers, which were not able to bear the burden of the moral law, so that they might perfectly satisfy and fulfil the same. And Peter doth expressly oppose the grace of jesus christ and faith in Christ to the fulfilling of the law: that which the whole course and order of the place doth manifestly declare to be true. CHAP. 11. Of Faith. Question, 1. IT is no marvel, that our Adversaries do deny justification by faith alone, seeing they do not acknowledge faith, and those which be the necessary conditions thereof. Wherefore now let us treat of the conditions of faith what they be, & wherein our adversaries do dissent from us. We consider faith, not (as our Adversaries do) Condition (1) as a work, virtue, habit or quality: but we understand it relatively, according to the meaning of the Scriptures, as it hath respect and relation unto Christ, and i● grounded upon him: *. : that is, faith is not that righteousness in itself whereby we are just before God; but it is that instrument; whereby we lay hold upon Christ & his righteousness; which being by faith made and accounted with God as ours, we stand just by the righteousness of Christ before God, and this we prove. 1 Because the Scripture speaketh still of faith relatively, as it respecteth and is referred unto Christ: as: He that believeth in Christ; in him; on him; the faith of Christ etc. joh. 3, 15, and 6, 40, 47, Act, 10, 43, and 15, 11, Galat, 2, 16, Rom, 3, 22, 26, and 4, 24, and infinite more such like. Contrariwise our adversaries do reason, 1 Faith is the gift of God: but the gifts of God are qualities: therefore faith is a quality. Ans. 1 We deny not but it is a quality: but it doth not justify as a quality, but because it layeth hold on Christ. 2. Faith is called in the Scripture a gift, not that it should be defined as a quality, but that we might understand, that it is freely given us. 2 Faith is oftentimes in the Scripture used absolutely without determination or reference to any other thing: as, He that shall believe, and be baptised etc. Mark: 16, 16, if ye believe not, surely ye shall not be established: Isai. 7. 9 Ans. The object of faith is always understood by the figure Synecdoche: for without it faith doth neither believe, neither is it faith: 2, The Apostles taught their hearers to believe not absolutely, without reference to Christ, but to believe in Christ, in whom they were bid to believe, and to be baptised in his name. Matt, 28, 19, 3 Faith is a work, john 6: 29: therefore it justifies, as a work. Ans; 1 The question is not, whether faith may be called a work, but how it is considered in the very act of justification. This (how it is to be considered) Christ declareth in the words next following: This is the work of God, that ye believe in him (See there is the relative or respective acception) whom he hath sent. 2, Besides in this argument, there is more in the conclusion, than in the premises: for the collection they make, is such like, as this, faith is in some sort a work, therefore it justifieth as a work. Our adversaries do acknowledge nothing in faith but a bare and general knowledge and assent, Condition (2) making it only an historical faith: but we, as we presuppose knowledge and assent, so we affirm, that in faith there is required a trust or confidence whereby we rely and depend upon God: & that for these reasons. Because trust or confidence is the essential and proper difference, whereby the faith of Christians is distinguished from the faith of Devils; for that Devils; though they certainly believe, that Christ died for the sins of mankind, yet they do not put their trust in him, seeing that benefit doth not belong unto them: Because the Scripture, when it speaketh of faith doth expressly use such words, as be token trust or confidence. 1 By Christ we have boldness and entrance with confidence by faith in him, Eph 3, 12, 2 Let us go boldly unto the throne of grace Heb, 4, 16, 3 Seeing that by the blood of jesus we may be bold to enter into the holy place &c. let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith, Hebrews, 10, 19, 22, 4 Herein is love perfect in us, that we should have boldness in the day of judgement, etc. There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear: for fear hath painfulness and he that feareth, is not perfect in love, 1, Ioh: 4, 17, 18. In this saying the excluding of fear presupposeth a trust in Christ: 5. Son, be of good comfort, thy sins are forgiven thee. Matth, 9, 2. 6 Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole. Matt, 9: 22. 7 Bee of good comfort: I have overcome the world, joh. 16, 33. Contrariwise our adversaries reason, james acknowledgeth no other faith, but that which consisteth of a mere knowledge and assent jam. 2. Ans. 1 This holds not, james found no other faith in the Devils; therefore neither did he find any other in true Christians. 2. Neither doth this follow. james entreateth only of one kind of faith, to wit, of historical faith; therefore the Scripture teacheth none other kind of faith. Our Adversaries affirm, that faith may be in Condition (3) impenitent and wicked men, in Epicures and adulterers, etc. but we deny, that faith can be in such men for these reasons. Being justified by faith, we have peace towards God, Rom. 5, 1, but every one that committeth sin, is of the Devil, 1, Ioh, 3, 8, therefore he hath not peace towards God, & consequently, he wanteth true faith. All men have not faith, 2. Thessaly, 3, 2, The hearts of the believers are purified by faith, Acts, 15, 9: therefore true justifying faith is not in a wicked and impure heart, which is polluted and laden with sin. Paul speaks of the wicked ones after an other manner, than our Adversaries do: 1 That as concerning faith, they have made shipwreck, 1, Timoth, 1: 19, of those, which have bid all conscience farewell, 2 That they have erred from the faith, 1, Tim; 6, 10, of covetous men; 3 That they have denied the faith; 1, Tim, 5 8: of such as are without natural affection, Contrariwise our adversaries do reason thus 1 Wicked men have wrought miracles in the name of Christ, by faith Matt. 7. 22, 23: therefore there is faith in the wicked ones. Ans. They have the faith of miracles, but not justifying faith: 2 Satan himself hath faith: james 2, 19 Ans. Satan hath an historical faith: but our question is of a justifying faith, therefore seeing one kind of faith is meant in the, Antecedent, and an other in the consequent, there be four terms: 3 Simon Magus believed, whose heart notwithstanding was not right: Act: 8: 13. 21, Answer, He was convicted in conscience, that the miracles of the Apostles were not magical but divine: as the forcerers of Egypt acknowledged the finger of God, Exod, 8, 19, Simon therefore believed, as Saint Luke saith▪ but it was an historical faith only, and not a true justifying faith. Our adversaries dream, that true faith may be without works: but we maintain, that a true justifying Condition (4) faith cannot want his fruits: and that for these reasons. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, Matt, 7, 18. Faith worketh by love, Galat. 5, 6, Faith without works is dead, james, 2, 26, Because Christ shall prove our faith by our works, as by the in fallible effects thereof. Matt. 25. Contrariwise our adversaries do reason, 1 Show me thy faith without works, jam. 2. 18 therefore faith may be without works. Ans. That translation is faulty; for according to the Greek it should be translated: show me thy faith by, or out of thy works. 2: unless S. james thought true faith to be effectual & working by love, he would not make comparison between a vain and true faith: and desire to have the true faith to be showed or proved to be such by works, 3. That which he doth derogate from a dead faith is wrongfully wrested to a justifying faith: 2 Yet the Protestants cannot endure this proposition: Good works are necessary to Salvation, therefore they believe that justifying faith is without good works. Ans. That which we deny in some respect and consideration only, that our Adversaries take, as simply and absolutely spoken in all respects. We distinguish between faith & works, as between the cause and effects of justification: we deny good works to be necessary as causes of justification or salvation; but we require them as necessary conditions of them, which are justified and shall be saved. Our Adversaries maintain that faith is informed Condition (5) by charity, but we say that charity is rather informed by faith. Because faith doth not please God in i● self, but for and because of Christ, whom it layeth hold on: In every Relation two things do concur (now faith in that respect, in which it justifieth, is in the predicament of Relation) first the foundation, which is the matter or material part, and secondly the form or formal part, which is the destinating or referring of it to an other thing, which it respecteth. So faith (as it is taken in a general acception) is the foundation or material part, or the thing in which this Relation is: the formal part is the ordaining or referring of it to an other thing, to wit unto Christ. Because the efficient cause doth inform the effect, and not contrariwise: therefore because charity is the effect of faith, and faith the efficient cause of charity, faith cannot be informed by charity. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1 Paul makes faith to be of no reckoning without charity, 1. Corinth: 13: therefore charity doth ●nforme faith. Ans. 1. Paul speaks there of the saith of miracles, not of justifying faith, 2. He doth not say that faith is informed by charity, but commendeth the necessity o● charity in some respect, because that the faith, that hath not charity following it, is not the true and saving faith. 2 Faith worketh by charity, Galat. 5. 6, therefore charity doth inform faith. Ans. 1, Charity is here placed for the means and instrument, by which saith worketh. Now means and instruments are not the form of that thing, by which they are moved: but are said rather to be informed by that, which moveth or worketh by them, 2. Paul here describes a true and justifying faith by the effects thereof. Therefore our Adversaries understand not what faith is. Question: 2. Of the certainty of salvation: Because in the handling of this question, the Author hath many things throughout, which might groove offensive, I thought it better to refer the reader to the writings of our Countrymen, then to leave ●● things scandalous, or to make it up with many patches, which the reader may have exactly done otherwhere, if he please to read Master Perkins in his Reformed Catholic, and in his treatise of Conscience: and Master Downham Christian warfare: book 2: & Chap: 6: 7: 8: etc. CHAP. 12. Of good Works, WHat we are to think of justification by works, hath been declared in the former chapter, there remain yet two principal errors of our Adversaries: one of the work wrought, an other of good works themselves, to the doing whereof Christians are bound. Now let us treat of them in general and in particular. Question: 1. Whether a good work do please GOD, by virtue of the work wrought, though it be done without a good and sanctified mind (as for example, while they use the Sacraments, hear Mass, sing Canonical hours etc. without de●●tion:) Our Adversaries affirm it: but we den●● it, and teach, that the work doth not please go●▪ unless it be done by a man that is justified: and when that the person is in savour with God, then that the work is accepted also. And this is proved by this reasons following. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin: Rom, 14, 23, But that which is by the work wrought only, is not of faith: therefore, etc. Woe be to you Scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, for ye tithe mint, and anise & cummin, and leave the weightier matters of See a work otherwise commanded (tithing) with out mercy and faithfulness. the law, as judgement and mercy, and fidelity. Matt, 23, 23, This people draweth near unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but there heart is far of from me. Matt, 15, 8: Isai: 29; 13. The same thing is proved by the example of the Israelites and others; whereas their works, no not those which were commanded them, did please God any longer, because of want of faith in the persons that did ●hem. 1. Sacrifice was a work acceptable to God: Abel sacrificed; and Cain sacrificed, but his work was not accepted: the reason whereof is given in the Epistle to the Hebrews. cap. 11. ver: 4. By faith Abel offered unto God a greater sacrifice than Cain, by the which faith he obtained witness, that he was righteous, etc. 2. To him will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my words. He that killeth a bullock, See works▪ what they are by the work wrought. is as if he flew a man: he that sacrificeth a sheep, as if he cut off a dog's neck: he that offereth an Oblation, as if he offered Swine's blood: he that remembreth Incense, as if he blessed an Idol. Isa. 66, 2. 3, 4. 3. What have I to do with the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord? I am full of the offerings of rams, and of the fat of the fed beasts: and I desire not the blood of bullocks, nor Hear is a large Catalogue of works done without faith and an honest heart. of Lambs, nor of Goats. When ye● come to appear before me, who required this at your hands, to tread in my Courts? Bring no more oblations in vain: Incense is an abomination unto me: I cannot suffer your new moons, nor Sabbaths, nor solemn days (it is iniquity) nor solemn assemblies. My soul hateth your new Moons, and your appointed feasts: they are a burden unto me: I am weary to bear them. And when ye shall stretch out your hands; I will hide mine eyes from you: and though ye make many prayers, I will not hear: for your The cause why they displeased God. hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean▪ take away the evil of your works from before mine eyes: cease to do evil: learn to do well: seek judgement, relieve the oppressed: judge the fatherless, and defend the widow. And come now & let us reason together, faith the Lord: though your sins were as crimson, they shall be made white as snow, though they were red like scarlet, they shall be as wool Isa, 1, 11, 12, etc. 4. The same is witnessed, Psalm. 50. 8, &c: and 51. 16. Where the true sacrifices are not defined by the work wrought, but such as come from a person, contrite, and humbled, and which is in favour with God. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1. Though the person be not in favour, yet the work itself is good. Answer. The work hath a double respect: either as it is considered in itself, whereof we speak not here: or as it is considered in an other. According to this latter respect the work is considered together with the worker: and so the work which is good in itself, is polluted by the impure and impenitent worker. Whereof we spoke more afore. 2. The work of Ahab, though an hypocrite, pleased God, when he humbled himself. 1, Kin. 21, 29. Ans: As Ahab did not truly repent, so neither was there any thing meant as concerning eternal salvation, but only of the diminishing and mitigating of temporal punishments. Now our question is of works, which (as our Adversaries think) merit everlasting life: they argue therefore very fond. Question: 2. Whether works and services of man's choice and tradition; having no warrant in the holy Note, The state of the Controversy is not of things indifferent, & such as pertain to order in the Church but of the true manner of worshipping God. Scriptures, do please God, and be to be observed, as necessary to justification. Our Adversaries hold this affirmatively, laying so great a necessity upon those traditions, that often times a man shall be judged to have sinned more grievously, for transgressing one of those traditions, than for neglecting some of God's commandments: but we out of the word of God, do reject these will-worships. Hitherto may be applied those arguments, which were brought before, chap. 4. against traditions. Because to appoint and define the service of God, belongeth to God alone, and not to any creature whatsoever. 1, Hence it is, that the Lord doth set this preface before the 10 Commandments, as it were to procure authority to them. I am the Lord thy God. Exod: 20. 2. 2. God (not we) hath ordained good works, that we should walk in them. Ephes. 2, 10. 3, Prove what is the good, and acceptable and perfect will of God, not of men. Rom: 12. 2. 4. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. Math. 28, 20. The will of God is perfectly declared in the holy Scriptures, that we have no need to make choice of new services for him. 1, For the Scripture doth instruct a man, that he may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works. 2, Timothy, 3, 17. God will not have any man to departed from this his revealed will, or to add any thing thereto, or to frame or invent any new things beside. 1. Ye shall not do, every man, whatsoever seemeth him good in his own eyes; but whatsoever I command you, take heed ye do it. Thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught there from. Deut. 12. 8. 3●. 2. Take heed that ye do, as the Lord your God hath commanded you: turn not a side to the right hand, nor to the left: Deut. 5, 32. 3, Seek not after your own heart, nor after your own eyes. Numb, 15, 39 4, Thou shalt not turn away from the law to the right hand, nor to the left. josu, 1, 7. Because GOD doth witness, that such works are very displeasing unto him. 1, By the example of the Israelites, who of a good intent did erect for God's glory, Groves, Temples, high places, Altars, etc. 2, So those, who would, without the commandment of God, imitate the fact of Abraham in offering up his son, are most sharply reproved by God. 2, King 16, 3, and 17, 17, and 21. 6. and 23. 10: &c: 3. Saul, in sacrificing without the commandment of God, offended: 1: Sam: 13. 9 10. 11. 4. In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines, the precepts of men: Matth. 15, 9 By these services of men's choice and devising it cometh to pass, that the commandments of GOD are neglected; as Christ shows by examples; Math; 23; 16; &c. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason: 1. Whatsoever is done with a good intent; cannot displease God; but the service of God; of man's choice and invention is done with a good intention; therefore; etc. Ans: In the first proposition is the begging of the thing in question: for that proposition is not only controversed, but also it is very expressly condemned in the places of Scripture before alleged. 2. The holy Ghost, which is promised to the Church, will not command those things which are contrary to Gods will: but those services of God are delivered of the Church from the mouth of the holy Ghost: therefore etc. Answer, 1. If the CHURCH did ordain those things by the instinct of the holy Ghost, then would we grant them the whole reason: but seeing that this same thing is a matter in controversy, here is a begging of the thing in question. 2, Christ saith of the holy Ghost, he shall bring all things to your remembrance, that I have told you. (john: 14, 26) Now let our Adversaries prove that ever Christ told such things, and we will believe them. Likewise, the holy Ghost shall glorify Christ, john, 16, 14: but these services do obscure Christ with his merits. 3, Neither may we impute that to the Church of Christ, whatsoever certain superstitious men have broached under the title and name of the Church; bringing hereby the true Church of Christ into bondage, and vexing them with the observation of men's traditions. 3. Christ saith of his Apostles, he that heareth you, heareth me. (Luke. 10. 16.) therefore it is all one, as if Christ had delivered those services of God with his own mouth. Ans. 1. What agreement is there between Christ and Belial? between the Apostles and the Prelates of the Roman Antichrist? 2, It is a fallacy of division, because those necessary words, which are part of the instruction that Christ gave to his Apostles, are omitted, to wit, teach them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you. Matthew 28. 4 As the doctrine of the Scribes and pharisees sitting in the chair of Moses, was approved, so the constitutions of the Prelates of the Church, concerning the service of God, are to be approved and ratified. Answ. 1, To sit in Moses chair, is not to frame new devices of GOD'S service, but to teach MOSES. It is therefore a fallacy from that, which is spoken in some respect only to the same taken absolutely and in all respects. For then the pharisees fate in Moses chair, when they taught the law of Moses; but not when they broached superstitious and false conceits, whereof Christ said. Beware of the leaven of the pharisees, meaning their doctrine (Matth 16, 6, 12) 2. There is more in the conclusion, than in the premises. For there followeth no more, but this, that the Ministers of Christ, that teach well and live ill, are to be heard, if in the mean while they teach that which is truth. But what is this to the purpose? 5 Many things are held and defended in the Church (that is of Rome) which are not in the Scriptures. Answ, For this very cause they are forgeries, & deservedly for the reasons before alleged, to be rejected. 6 There are in the most ancient Counsels, which are approved and allowed on both parts, constitutions, which are not comprised in scripture; but are received as being de●●uered by the Church. Ans, 1, These constitutions belong to order and comeliness, and are not matters of faith. Therefore this is nothing to the purpose. 2, Neither are they proposed by the councils as meritorious of eternal life, but as things indifferent. 3 And in councils, which we approve of, we receive those things only, which are not contrary to the Word of God. 7 Christ never commanded to abstain from that which is strangled, which notwithstanding the Apostles commanded, Acts. 15, 29. Nay they were abrogated, and afterward brought up by the Apostles. Answ. It is a fallacy from that which is spoken in some respect to the same taken absolutely and in all respects. For the Apostles did not require this, as a thing necessary to salvation, but did ordain in some respect according to the rule of charity in favour of the weak ones, who might be offended at Christian liberty used unseasonably. But the Papists contend for such constitutions, as they make necessary. It is therefore an argument from that, which is necessary by an accident and special occasion, to that which is of itself absolutely necessary. QUESTION, 3. The question is, what kind of works those be, which our Adversaries do call works of supererogation. Our Adversaries commend them highly, as making men perfect: but we have some things to except against them both in general, and in particular. as, That which they presuppose as a ground is Error: (1) false; that is, that we can perform more, than is required of us by the law. When ye have done all things, which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, Luke, 17, 10. It is contrary to the article of sanctification, which doth not grant to any man in this life, a perfect & plenary fulfilling of the law; much less any works of supererogation. Whereof we shall speak in the next Chapter following. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason thus 1 Christ saith: if thou shalt supererogate any thing, etc. Luke 10, 35. Therefore he had reference here to works of supererogation. Ans, 1, In controversed points of Religion, we may not play with allegories, which have no ground in Scripture, 2. Christ doth there extol the charity of the Samaritan●, who before had given money to the host to make provision for the wounded man, and with all promised him, that if he● spent more in providing for him, he would repay it. But what is this to works of supererogation? 2 I fulfil the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the Church, Colos. 1, 24. Ans, He speaketh nothing of the perfect keeping of the law, much less of works of supererogation, but of that parcel of the Cross, which God layeth upon the shoulders of the Church and the members thereof, to be borne of them, that they may be made like to the image of his Son (Romans, 8, 29). For the meaning of Paul is only this, since that certain afflictions are allotted to the CHURCH, that himself beareth a great part of them, that the measure of sufferings may be fulfilled in the mystical body of Christ. And what is this to the works of supererogation? They feign that Christ hath brought us a Error: (2) new and more perfect law, by adjoining evangelical councils to the law, which is very false. Because many of those things, which they call councils, are indeed commandments, and the explication of the moral law: whereof many also are comprised in the Law of Moses, where the ten Commandments are explained. Christ was not a Lawgiver, but a Mediator. 1, The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth by jesus Christ, Ioh, 1, 17. 2, And therefore (that he should not seem a Law giver) Christ judgeth no man Ioh, 8, 15. 3, Therefore the preaching of the Gospel (not of the Law) is called the preaching of Christ, and the ministery of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians, 5, 18, 19, 20. This false assertion of our Adversaries savoureth of Mahometisme. For Mahomet in his Alcoran saith; that Moses gave not so perfect a law; that Christ gave a more perfect law (for that no man could be saved by the ●awe of Moses:) but that Mahomet hath given a most perfect and absolute law. Change this last name of Mahomet into the name of S, Francis, Saint Dominicke, etc. and it will be the very same thing. Our Adversaries reckon Poverty amongst evangelical councils, and works of supererogation, (3) Poverty. but falsely. Because it is not a council, but a commandment, that when need so requireth, we Mat, 8, 19, 20, etc., &. 10, 37, 38, etc. Lu., 18, 29 etc. should part with all the goods of this life, nay life itself for Christ's sake. But the Moonkish poverty is far from this. The Moonkish poverty is but a mockery. For therein the sweat of the brows (laid upon every man in his calling) is changed for yearly and most certain renenews and pensions for term of life. Contrariwise our adversaries do reason, 1 CHRIST said to the young man, who asked a council of perfection: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all etc., Matt, 19, 21. Mark 10, 20. Ans, The whole text doth make it plain, that Christ would repress and pull down the proud young Pharisee, that swelled with persuasion of his own perfection, and that he meant nothing less, than to teach, that perfection did consist in poverty. Neither would Christ by this answer prescribe a common rule of attaining to perfection. But, as God proved Abraham's obedience, when he commanded him to offer his son (which yet he would not have done) so Christ by enjoining the young man poverty, would bring to light his disobedience, and idolatrous worshipping of money: That so it might appear, that he loved riches more, than God; and that therefore he lied in bragging that he had kept the law. They ground the counsel of vowed chastity (4) Chastity. upon the words of Paul. Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel. 1. Corint: 7, 25, and, he that is able to receive this, let him receive it. Matthew, 19: ●2. Ans, 1. Paul's counsel in this place was not concerning perfection, or of obtaining of eternal life, but his counsel was fitted to the present necessity; that is, for fear of persecution: it is not then to the purpose. 2, Paul left this counsel free at their own choice, neither did he lay a snare on their consciences: Wherein there is no agreement with the moonkish vowed chastity. 3. Christ (Matthew, 19) handleth nothing of the perfection of man, but only teacheth, that the unmarried man wanteth many molestations, whereunto they which live in wedlock, are subject. They call Moonkish obedience, under the rule of their founder, the third evangelical counsel: (5) Obedience. but very shamelessly. For they have no one word, whereby they can prove it us out of the Scripture. Because it is obedience performed not to Christ, but to men, Benedict, Bernhard, Francis, Dominicke: therefore it cannot receive any reward of Christ. True obedience, commanded in the word of God, which is to be performed to God and men is hereby neglected; for by this pretended obedience, the obedience which is by virtue of the fift commandment, due to Parents and Magistrates, is abolished, and hath no place amongst Monks. They teach, that these works of supererogation Error. (6) may be communicated unto others, for a certain sum of money, or lands, or other goods of the laity: which is false. If one man might communicate perfection to another, what need was there of Christ's incarnation? Every man shall give an account for himself, not for another. Rom. 14. 12. Simony is committed, when heaven and heavenly goods are sold for money. Acts. 8. 20. By this means, the poor should be debarred from salvation; because they are not able to buy the Moonkes works of supererogation; whereas notwithstanding Christ preached the Gospel to the poor. Matth: 11, 5. CHAP. 13. Of Renovation, or Regeneration, and the obedience, which is begun in the justified and the regenerate. QUESTION. 1. THE question is not here, whether the regenerated be bound to do good works: (for that is confessed by both sides) but whether the good works of the regenerate, such as they be in this life (in keeping of the law) be so perfect, that if God would deal with them in judgement, he could find nothing in their good works, which he might rightly and justly condemn. Our Adversaries hold the affirmative, we defend the negative part, upon the grounds following. The very nature of the law, wherein the regenerate are exercised, if it be rightly and thoroughly weighed, doth take away perfection from men, even from the regenerate, as they be in this life. 1, The law is a burden, that cannot be born of any, neither regenerate, nor unregenerate as peter saith the law is a yoke, which neither our Fathers, nor we (namely the regenerate, the Apostles) were able to bear Act: 15, 10. 2. Christ did that, which was impossible to the law. Rom. 8, 3. 3, He that keepeth the whole law, and yet faileth in one point, is guilty of all. Iam: 2, 10. 4, The law is spiritual, but I (Paul regenerated) am carnal, sold under sin. Rom. 7, 14, for Paul was not as yet in this life altogether spiritual. 5. The law requireth the whole heart, soul, and all the powers of man: which no man can perform. Luke, 10. 27. Deut. 6, 5. 6. The law reckons Concupiscence in the Catalogue of sins, which is not yet taken away, but remaineth in the regenerate. This is proved also by the complaints of regenerate men in the Scripture, who complain of the weakness and corruption of the flesh, which hindereth the perfection of good works, and do therefore desire to avoid the judgement of God. 1. All our righteousness is as filthy clouts. Isai, 64, 6. 2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant: for in thy sight shall none that liveth, Paul doth not only acknowledge that the first motions of Concupiscence are remaining in the regenerate, but that they were also evils wherewith himself was cumbered; when he saith, the evil that I would not, that do I. be justified. Psal. 143, 2. 3. Who can understand his faults? cleanse me from secret faults. Psal. 19, 12. 4. I allow not that, which I do, for what I would, that do I not, but what I hate, that do I: to will is present with me: but I find no means to perform that which is good: for I do not the good thing which I would, but the evil which I would not, that do I. etc. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? Rom. 7, 15, 18, 19, 24. 5. Not as though I had already attained to it, etc. Philip. 3. 12. 13. Where Paul doth manifestly affirm, that he hath not as yet attained to full perfection. 6, I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified. 1, Corinth. 4. 4. for God seethe many sins in us, which are unknown to us, but are not hid from God. 7, My power is made perfect in weakness. 2, Cor. 12. 9 8. If we say, that we have no sin (we the regenerate, john and his auditors) we deceive ourselves, and truth is not in us. 1, joh. 1. 8. 9 Therefore the children and Saints of God pray, forgive us our trespasses: and, therefore (because thou hast pardoned my sin, in hope of the like, by mine example) shall every one, that is godly, make his prayer unto thee in a time, when thou mayest be found. Psal. 32. 6. Because there remaineth still in the regenerate the flesh, which desireth fleshly and carnal things: but carnal desires do not agree with the law of God. 1, But I am carnal Rom. 7, 14. 2. I do not the evil, but the sin that dwelleth in me doth it. Rom. 7. 17. 3. I know, that in me, that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing. Rom. 7, 18. 4. If I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me. Rom. 7, 20. 5. I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captive unto the law of sin, which is in my members. Romans', 7. 23. 6, I myself (Paul regenerated) in my mind serve the law of GOD, but in my As much as is added to us so much is taken from Christ. Not we, but Christ did those things which belong to the perfect keeping of the law. flesh the law of sin. Rom. 7, 25. Because the doctrine of our perfect fulfilling of the law, is contrary to the full and perfect merit and obedience of Christ: for 1. If we could have perfectly kept the law, what need was of Christ? and why should Paul abandon all his own righteousness: Philip: 3, 8, 9 etc. 2. That that was impossible to the law, in as much, as it was weak, because of the flesh (see our imperfection) God sending his son, in the similitude of sinful flesh, etc. Rom 8. 3. 3. After our first reconciliation with God. Christ should be unto us unprofitable and fruitless: because they who were reconciled and already regenerated, might by themselves satisfy God, that they should not have any more any need of a Mediator and intercessor: which to say, is in Scripture absurd. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1. He that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law; and love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans. 13. 8. 10. but the regenerate have love: therefore they do perfectly fulfil the law. Ans. 1. It is one thing to fulfil the law in a certain manner and after a sort, (that is, according to the measure of begun and imperfect obedience) and another thing to fulfil it perfectly. Whereof this latter agreeth to Christ alone, the other to the regenerate: therefore there is more in the conclusion, than is in the premises. For if our Adversaries can show us perfect love in any of the regenerafe (such a love as is required Luke, 10, 27, Deuteronomium 6. 5.) then will we willingly yield unto them the perfect fulfilling of the law. 2 God commanded not impossibilities: therefore Simile. A rich merchant buyeth a tower of a Noble▪ man at a great pric● Now before the buyer p●i● the money, he looseth all his wealth by gaming, may he that so●ld it now be● accuse●, a● if h●e had made a contract with the merchant, which he● was not able to perform? we may perfectly keep the Commandments of God. Answ, God commanded not impossibilities, but to whom were they not impossible? to man before his fall, in the integrity ●f nature, and endued with the Image of God. But Paul saith that the law was impossible to man, after he had fallen, (Romans, 8, 3.) Therefore God is not to be accused, as is he had commanded things impossible to be done, but we are to be accused, who have lost the ability and power to perform them. 3 His Commandments are not grievous, 1, Ioh, 5, 3. and my yoke is easy, and my burden is light, Matt, 11, 30 Ans, 1, The Commandments of Christ are easy to the faithful, because the regenerate do obey them with a willing motion of the Holy-ghost, and not by constraint, etc. It is therefore a fallacy from that, which is spoken but in some respect only to the same taken absolutely. 2, There is more in the conclusion, than in the premises. For thus much only followeth: the Commandments are easy, therefore Christians do them not with grief. And yet this willing and ready obedience doth not comprise in it absolute and full perfection. 4 Those things, which are burden some and impossible in the law, do not pertain any longer to the regenerate, neither are they tied to them, but to the possible things only. Answer. 1. Seeing, that this is said without Scripture, we may deny it with the same facility, that it is affirmed. 2, Paul acknowledgeth himself to be bound to the Law of Concupiscence, that forbiddeth lust, which is one of the impossibilities in the law. Therefore the Antecedent proposition is false. 5 There be in the Scriptures examples of perfect men: as, Hezekiah walked with a perfect heart. 2. King, 20. 3, the heart of Asah the King was perfect. 2. Chron. 15, 17. Answ, 1, Perfection there is opposed unto hypocrisy. It is therefore perfection not absolutely, but in some respect 2. This perfection of those Kings was imperfect, For Hezekiah is in the same Chapter accused of sin, and the punishments for sin are denounced against him. And of Asah it is recorded, that he cast the prophet of the Lord into prison, and that he trusted more in the help of the Physicians, than in the Lord, etc., It is then a bad sequel, to conclude from perfection in some respect and sort, to absolute perfection, which is without all spot. 6 Zacharie and Elizabeth were both just, and walked in all the Commandments and ordinances of the Lord without reprove, Luke 1. 6 Ans, 1. It followeth not, they are said to be just: therefore they are said to be just by the works and perfect fulfilling of the law. 2, For they are said to be just in some respect, that is for Christ's merit. 3, Their righteousness in a holy conversation is opposed to hypocrisy. 4, They lived without reproof before men, but they were sinners before God. For Zacharie sinned through unbelief, and therefore was made dumb. Therefore this reason is many ways faulty. 7 If thou wilt be perfect, etc. Matth, 19, 21, Simile. A sick man thinketh himself ●ound, and yet cannot stand upon his feet, his Physician, to let him ●ee his disease, bids him walk, therefore he can walk. therefore we may be perfect. Answ. Christ in this place by these words convinceth the young man of imperfection: so far is he from decreeing and saying that perfection is possible; as was declared before Chap, 12. 8 The regenerate are called perfect. Let us, as many as be perfect, be thus minded. Philip, 3, 15. Among them that are perfect, 1, Corin, 2, 6, The Scripture maketh a man perfect, 2, Timoth, 3, 17. Ans, 1, Paul speaketh of them, which do acknowledge Christ, not hypocritically, but truly, and are inflamed, not with an hypocritical, but with a true zeal of amending their life, and he speaks of such a perfection, as befalleth the Saints of God, who yet carry about with them the corrupt flesh. There are therefore four terms; seeing that perfection in this argument is taken two manner of ways, first for sincerity opposed to hypocrisy, and then for absolute and full perfection in every point. 2, As concerning the place, For example, the law is holy, the law is proposed to sinners. Therefore sinners also are holy (2. Timoth, 3, 17.) the Scripture containeth perfect instruction of a holy life. But it doth not hereof follow, that the regenerate are perfect. For no man liveth in all things according to the rule of the Scripture. 9 The sins of the regenerate are venial sins, therefore they hinder not their perfection. Answer, 1, They do not therefore become no sins, because they be venial sins, neither do therefore cease to be contained under sin as their genus, because they become of an other species, than other sins be. 2, They are even hereby convicted of imperfection, because they be venial, & have need of pardon, 2, No sins are venial, in the Papists sense. QUESTION. 2. The fond evasion of our Adversaries doth give occasion to this second question; whilst they deny that Concupiscence, and the first motions thereof be sins, or have the nature of sin; for they cannot but confess that they remain in the regenerate. We on the contrary side affirm, that both Concupiscence itself, and also the first motions thereof, are sins in the regenerate: and that for these reasons following. To whatsoever thing the definition of a thing agreeth, to the same agreeth the thing defined; but the definition of sin agreeth to Concupiscence; therefore the thing defined, which is sin, agreeth to it too. 1, Sin is the transgression of the law, 1, john 3, 4. But Concupiscence swerveth from the law. Therefore Concupiscence is sin. 2. The wisdom of the flesh is not subject to the law of GOD, neither indeed can be Romans, 8, 7. But concupiscence rebelleth against the law of God, Rom. 7, 23. therefore it is a sin. The name of sin is expressly attributed to concupiscence. 1, Whilst it is forbidden in the tenth Commandment. 2, Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof Note. Paul calleth concupiscence sin, Rom. 6 five times. Rom 7. six times▪ Rom, 8, thrice. Rom, 6, 12. 3, I knew not sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust or concupiscence, except the law had said, thou shalt not lust, Rom, 7. 7. 4, Sin took occasion by the commaundedement, and deceived me. Rom, 7, 8, 11. Because terms aequivalent to sin are attributed to Concupiscence. 1. An evil present with us, Rom, 7, 8, 21. 2: A thing not good, Rom, 7, 18. 3. The flesh lusteth against the spirit, Galat, 5. 17. which is enmity against God. Rom, 8, 7. 4, Therefore Paul teacheth us to crucify Concupiscence, or the lust of the flesh Galathians, 5, 25. The first motions of lust or concupiscence, and other bad affections, are condemned as sins. 1, Of anger, Christ saith, whosoever is angry with his brother unadvisedly, shall be culpable of judgement, Matthew, 5, 22. 2. Of hatred: whosoever hateth his brother, is a manslayer, 1, joh. 3, 15, 3, Of the first motion of Concupiscence unto wantonness, Christ saith whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committted adultery with her already in his heart, Mat. 5, 18. Contrariwise our adversaries do reason thus. 1. There is nothing, that bringeth damnation, in them which are in Christ jesus. Rom. 8. 1. But sin is a thing that causeth damnation. Therefore sin is not in the regenerate, and consequently Concupiscence, seeing it is in the regenerate, is no sin. Ans. All sin deserveth damnation, but it bringeth not damnation to any, in whom it is pardoned, as it is in all the children of God, & that is Paul's meaning, that there is nothing that shall cause damnation, in them which are in Christ jesus, because that which is damnable in them of itself, is made venial for Christ's sake. 2 Christ hath purged all our sins. Heb. 1. 3. Therefore concupiscence in the regenerate is not sin. Ans. This is a monstrous and misshapen reason; for by the like argument, because Christ hath purged all sins: therefore neither adultery, nor manslaughter should be sins any more. 3 Christians regenerate are sanctified and washed from their sins and offences. 1: Cor: 6: 11. therefore they have no sin, and consequently Concupiscence in them is no sin. Ans. 1. There is more in the Conclusion, than in the premises, for this only doth follow: they are washed and sanctified: therefore their sins are not imputed to them. For if they were not sins, they had no need to be washed from them, 2. Washing from sins, doth not cause, t●at they should not be, but it respecteth the guilt of sin, which is taken away: otherwise the regenerate should not sin any more, which savoureth of the error of the Anabaptists. And marvel it is, that our adversaries da●e come into the light with such toyish fooleries. The Anabaptisme of the Papists. 4 Concupiscence, if it be overcome, as it is in the regenerate, giveth but matter of victory and glory unto them, therefore it is not sin. Ans. 1 It were a shameful argument, for by the like reason, Satan should not sin, because if he be overcome, he doth but yield us matter of reward, 2. It is a fallacy from that which is a cause by accident; not of itself: for we may not say that Concupiscence is not sin by his own nature, because the conquest of it yieldeth us matter of glory. 5 If concupiscence be sin, than all sins be equal, and be a like sinful. Answer, 1. Though we keep the just degrees of sins, yet sins of the lowest degree, cease not to be sins: and qualities in the smallest degrees do not, because of their smallness, cease to be such qualities, as they by nature are, 2, The consequence of the argument should be this: If concupiscence be a sin, than all men are sinners before God, but this conclusion liketh not our Adversaries. 6 sins are not sins, unless they be voluntary, but Concupiscence is not voluntary: therefore, etc. Ans. 1 The theological knowledge of By this reason original sin should be no sin. sin is not to be learned out of Aristotle, or Baldus, but out of the holy Scripture, which reckoneth Concupiscence and involuntary sins amongst sins. 2, And according to this definition of the Papists, Concupiscence is a sin, for though it be not done by the consent and will of the spirit, yet it is voluntary in respect of the flesh, (Rom, 7, 25,) 3, It is a proposition Ethic. N●. come. lib. ●. c. 5. delivered by Aristotle himself, that those things be done of us willingly, the beginning & cause whereof was in ourselves: as if a drunken man commit any fault in his drunkenness, when he knoweth not what he doth, and cannot avoid it, yet he is to be accounted to do it willingly; because himself was the cause of his ignorance & disability: so by nature God made us able to keep his law, we through our fault have lost this ability, & have brought upon ourselves a necessity of sinning: which is therefore voluntary in us, because ourselves were the cause thereof. 7 Concupiscence, when it hath conceived. bringeth forth sin, james, 1. 15. therefore Concupiscence itself is not sin, but the cause thereof. Ans. 1: james speaketh of actual sin: and in the mean while he doth not acquit concupiscence of the name of sin: for if therefore concupiscence be not sin, because that, which springeth from it, is by Saint james called sin, than neither can concupiscence be a sin in the unregenerate, which is absurd, 2, Seeing every thing doth beget and bring forth his like (to insist in the metaphor of S. james) certainly concupiscence, which bringeth forth sin, is itself sin also. And that which maketh another to be so, is itself much more so: but concupiscence doth tempt and entice us to sin, as saint james saith in the same place, therefore, etc., 8 Concupiscence is in the Scripture called sin improperly; as Christ also is called sin, 2. Cor. 5. 21. Ans. 1. Why we should not take the word sin in his proper signification in the place alleged (2, Cor, 5. 21,) the text giveth us reason, when it saith, That God made him to be sin for us, which knew no sin, but there be no reasons why, when we speak of concupiscence, we should change the proper signification of the word into an improper, 2. Neither is it in the place of Paul, an improper speech, but a manner of phrase borrowed from the Hebrews, wherein the word sin is taken for a sacrifice for sin: therefore our Adversaries do bewray their great ignorance. 9 Blessed is he, in whose spirit there is no guile Psal. 32, ●. therefore Concupiscence is not a sin in the righteous. Ans: 1. To be without guile is opposed unto hypocrisy, and nothing else is meant, but that the righteous are of a single & upright heart. 2. It is a fallacy of division, whiles the things, that go before, are severed from those that follow after, for the whole verse is this. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile: therefore if sins be not imputed, yet they are in the man, though they be not imputed un to him. 10 The fathers deny, that concupiscence is a sin. Ans. They deny it to be sin according to the civil definition, where the will consenting and the act performed and consummated is understood: not according to that definition, which is taken out of Divinity. CHAP. 14: Of the Number of the Sacraments. We deny not, but that the ancient writers did use the word Sacrament some times (but in a very general signification) to note other things by, than Baptism & the Lords supper, partly for reverence, & partly for some mystery in the thing. But the question is of the more strict and most proper signification of the word Sacrament, in such sort as it agreeth to the Lords Supper and to Baptism. hereupon the question is, whether the other five papistical Sacraments (to wit Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order and Matrimony) be to be received unto the number of Sacraments in such sort, as that they may have the like authority, & the same definition of a Sacament with the other undoubted Sacraments, and most properly so called. Our Adversaries contend for the number of their seven Sacraments: but we admit not of that number, for these reasons. Because that number of 7 Sacraments is, no where mentioned in holy Scripture. Neither can there be any of the ancient fathers showed, who did precisely reckon 7 Sacraments; and neither more nor fewer. Whereas it is the power of God to ordain Sacraments, none of the other five Sacraments have the words of Sacramental institution contained in the Scripture. Our Adversaries themselves cannot (although their schoolmen have toiled in it many ways but all in vain) they cannot, I say, give a general definition of a Sacrament, which is not larger than the thing defined (that is, so that it doth not admit within the definition other things besides those 7. Sacraments) or else which is not straighter than the thing defined, (whiles they endeavour to exclude other things, which besides their 7. Sacraments do arise out of their larger definition) that is, which is so framed, that there be not some of the 5, counterfeit Sacraments excluded by that definition. Hear our Adversaries do stick in doubtful plight, whiles they make the definition of a Sacrament either too large or too strait. Seeing those two, undoubted Sacraments, the Lords Supper and Baptism, do admit the same definition, and may be contained under one general definition, so that whatsoever in that general definition agreeth to the one, the same agreeth to the other also; why should the other 5 controversed Sacraments, if they be truly and properly Sacraments, why should they want this propriety of a common definition, and why should they not be partakers of the same definition? Contrariwise our adversaries do reason, 1 As there are 7 spiritual diseases, so there must be 7 remedies and Sacraments. And as there be 7 cardinal virtues; so there must be 7 Sacraments, which confer the same. Answer 1. These diseases and these virtues what ever they be, were in the time of the old Testament also. If therefore 7 Sacraments be necessarily concluded from the 7 diseases and 7 virtues, it will likewise follow, that in the old testament there were neither more nor fewer than seven: but because the consequent is false, therefore the Antecedent is false also. 2, Besides, those diseases and virtues may either be restrained to fewer, or extended to more: these are therefore ropes of sand. 2 The number of seven in the Scripture is an holy number, and is oftentimes used in mysteries the 7, Seals, Revel. 5. 1. the 7 trumpets; Revel. 8. 6, the 7 stars & Candlesticks Revel. 1, 13, 16, the 7 loves, Matt 15, 34. the 7 eyes upon one stone Zachar, 3. 9 and such like both in the old & new testament, concerning the number of seven, therefore there are 7 Sacraments. Answer 1. If our Adversaries would make a perfect syllogism, thus it should be framed: wheresoever in Scripture there is the number of seven, there the 7 Sacraments are prefigured etc. But this proposition, as is cannot be proved, so it is ridiculous, and therefore our Adversaries keep it close. 2, Yea, not 7. but 70 Sacraments might by the same reason be proved, seeing that the number of seventy is often used in Scripture. The captivity of Babylon endured 70 years there were 70 palm trees in Elim, Exod, 15. 27, the patriarchs descended into Egypt with 70 souls, there were 70 Elders of the people, there are 70 years of our life, Psal: 90, 10. Christ chose 70 disciples; we must pardon our brother that sinneth against us, seventy times seven times in one day, &c: It is therefore a fallacy taking that for a cause, which is no cause, whereof followeth no conclusion: 3 There are 7 principal orders in the Church. The first is of them that enter into it, whereto answereth Baptism. The second is of them that war and play the soldiers, and to this confirmation answereth. The third of them that resume strength and refreshing, in the eucharist; the fourth of them that arise after a fall, by penance▪ The fift is of them that depart out, with extreme unction. The sixth of them, that minister and do service in the Church, and hereto belong holy orders. The seventh is of them, that bring in new soldiers, by matrimony: therefore needs it must be, that there be: 7. Sacraments, and neither more nor less: Answer, These distinctions of orders, diseases, virtues, are speculations of idle brains, which cannot beget us any Sacraments, for it should be proved by the holy Scriptures, that all these things have the force and property of Sacraments. 2. Neither may the counterfeit Dionysius in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy rest content with this number of 7, for such reason: as these be: 4 The fathers have given the name of Sacrament unto other things beside Baptism and the Supper Ans: 1. Yet did they never precisely define the number of 7 Sacraments to be necessary, 2. Neither did they name other things Sacraments in the like sort, as they did Baptism and the Lords Supper, but either they called them so, for reverence of the things, or for some mystery in them. A particular Examination of the five Papistical Sacraments. Whether that the other 5 Popish Sacraments be to be called properly & truly Sacraments, (seeing that the word Sacrament is not contained in the Scripture) we can not better learn, than if the true properties of Sacraments be fetched from the definition and nature of the two proper and undoubted Sacraments, baptism and the Lords supper. Whereby afterward, the agreeing or disagreeing of the rest of the Popish Sacraments, will be made manifest. For this is a ground without conrroversie, so that it neither can, nor aught to be refused of either side. Now the properties of a true Sacrament (as they are taken out of Baptism & the Lords Supper) be these. There is required on outward sign, or visible, material and corporal element, which may by a certain and set rite and gesture, be handled used and given. It is required, that the Element and the rite have an assured divine commandment and institution. That it be an institution and commandment of the New testament. That it be such an institution or ordinance, which is to last not only for a time, but to the end of the world. That there be some promise of God, of the grace, fruit and effect of the Sacrament. That that promise be not bare and naked, but joined unto, and as it were clothed with that Sacramental sign. That the promise be not of any fort of blessings either corporal or Spiritual, but of justification, Reconciliation, and the whole benefit of Redemption. That it be not a general promise only, but such as respecteth every one, even every particular man that useth the Sacraments. These properties and conditions, seeing they agree to both the undoubted Sacraments in all things; it must needs be, that the other, if they be true Sacraments agree with them in the properties rehearsed. Contrariwise our adversaries do reason. 1 The Apology of the Augustane Confession doth admit absolution and orders into the number of Sacraments, therefore themselves (the authors of the Apology) do not observe the properties proposed. Ans. 1 They admit them for Sacraments, in a general acception of the word sacrament, according to which acception, the fathers called all those things Sacraments, whereby the general promises of God were applied to every several man; in which the ministery may be called a Sacrament: It is therefore a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect only, to the same taken absolutely in all respects, 2, But because Absolution and Orcers do want the visible Element, the Apology doth protest, that it can endure they should be called by the name of Sacraments, so that they be not made equal to Baptism and the Lords Supper. Therefore the Apology doth not speak of that signification of the word Sacrament, where of we here dispute. And therefore there be four terms in the argument. 2 The same Apology protesteth that they will not contend about the word Sacrament, therefore it is frivolous to dispute thereof so exactly. Ans. Because the word Sacrament is a thing not contained in Scripture, therefore the authors of the Apology do not brawl about the word: In the mean time the controversy of the matter and thing signified by it, is not laid aside: that is, whether there be one and the same reason and dignity of Baptism and the Lords Supper, as of the other, which over and beside these two, are by our Adversaries graced with the name of Sacraments: They do therefore but dally by a fallacy from that is spoken in some respect only to the same taken absolutely: Now then let us compare and examine the 5 popish Sacraments severally every one by itself, by the proposed properties 1 Confirmation: We cannot allow Confirmation for a Sacrament for these reasons following. Because it hath no commandment from God, for there appeareth not so much as any steps of commandment, or example in the holy scripture, whereby it may be certain, that the faithful were anointed by the Apostles with the oil of confirmation, and that magically exorcized or conjured. 1 Philip is not said to have confirmed the treasurer of Candace. Act, 8, 27, etc. 2 Neither is it written that Peter did it to the three thousand jews that were converted, Act, 2, 40, 41, etc. 3 Neither is it read, that Paul confirmed any of the believers with oil or Chrism, in all the story of the acts of the Apostles. ● There are abominations in the Popish confirmation. 1 That Exorcizing or conjuring of Chrism is altogether magical, whereby some legions of Devils are conjured from the oil; superstitions, the sign of the Cross and others, being annexed thereto. 2 It turneth to the disgrace of Baptism, as if more grace were received in confirmation, than in Baptism, according to the doctrine of the Papists. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1, In confirmation there is the matter or element, oil, and the word of the Lord, In the name of the Father, etc. it is therefore a Sacrament. Answer: 1. There is no commandment of God, whereby we are enjoined to use oil, to confirm the minds of the faithful. 2, By the same reason, when we say grace at dinner, there is the matter, meat, and the form, the word of blessing it, or giving thanks: therefore by the same reason we should eat and drink nothing but Sacraments. 3. There wanteth also the commandment of God, whereby the word of blessing and consecration is appointed and tied to the visible element. It is therefore a fallacy taking for a cause, that which is no cause, and here be brought partial causes, not total: part of those things, that are required to a Sacrament, but not all. 2, The Apostles Peter and john confirmed the Samaritans, and Paul the Ephesians. Act. 8, 15, 17, and 19, 6. Ans. 1. We read not one word that they confirmed them with exorcized oil, or giving a blow on the ear, which is the Popish ceremony. 2. The places alleged do speak of the wonderful gifts of the holy Ghost, which are ceased in the Church: but Sacraments ought not to cease, but and if our Adversaries can bestow the admirable gifts of the holy Ghost by their confirmation, we will also receive their confirmation. 3. Christ instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation, and the consecration of the Chrism, the day before he suffered. Ans: 1. Let them, if they can, show us one syllable hereof in the whole story of the Gospel. 2. Certain writings, wherein such traditions are recorded, as being received from Christ, which are thrust upon us under the name of antiquity, are counterfeits: neither are they warrant enough to make a new Sacrament. 4: Certain persons were anointed with oil in the old Testament: therefore Christians ought to be confirmed with it. Ans. 1. Our Sacraments ought by their beginning to be Sacraments of the new Testament. 2. Oil in the old Testament was a shadowing of the holy Ghost: but shadows are already ceased, therefore this is an inconsequent argument. 3, And, if oil may be translated out of the old Testament into the new, why should not also all other the ceremonies of the levitical law, which Christ hath abrogated at his coming? 5. The believers were confirmed by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles. Answer. 1. The Apostles laid their hands on the believers, that they might receive the wonderful gifts of the holy Ghost (as was aforesaid) besides it was to last but for a time, neither was it used towards all: for there were many thousands of Christians, on whom the Apostles laid not their hands: for those wonderful gifts were not bestowed on all Christians. And what is this then to Popish Confirmation? 2. Hear be more terms than three. 1, Confirmation. 2, Sacrament. 3. Laying on of hands. 4: Ceremonies different from laying on of hands. 5, The bestowing of the gifts of the holy▪ Ghost. 6. The bare Popish spectacle of Chrism or oil. 6. Christ confirmed the little children. Mar. 10: 16: therefore Confirmation is a Sacrament. Ans. 1. The Antecedent speaketh of blessing and prayer (such a Confirmation as is used at this day in our Churches) neither is there any mention of oil: but the Consequent speaketh of a quite other thing, altogether different from the action of Christ: there arise therefore four terms. (2) Penance; Repentance, though it be necessary for all men, yet it is not to be counted among the Sacraments, for these reasons. Repentance was commanded, and was necessary in the old Testament also: but our Sacraments ought to be the institutions of the new Testament. Seeing in the old Testament (where also was repentance) it was not reckoned for a Sacrament; why should it now be? It wanteth a visible element, ordained by God for Repentance. Those ceremonies, which the Papists use in their penance (laying on of hands and such like) have no promise, that God will be effectual, in us by those rites: The Popish penance is polluted with many human traditions and corruptions, as shall be declared in his proper place (Chap. 23) for which cause it deserveth not the name of a Sacrament. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1, penance is commanded, Mar: 1, 15: Math: 3, 2. therefore it is a Sacrament. Answer. 1. It is a fallacy, for that there is not a sufficient reckoning up of the causes and parts requisite to a Sacrament: for not some one or other partial cause alone, is a sufficient cause of a Sacrament. 2. By the same reason Charity should be a Sacrament too, for that also hath the commandment of Christ. joh. 13, 34. and in other places. 2, Penance hath an outward element also, as the laying on of hands: therefore it is a Sacrament. Ans. 1. If the ceremonies of actions performed by the hand be elements in the Sacraments; then in Baptism there will be two elements, to wit, water and the laying to of the hands, or the washing of the child by the hand of the Minister: which is absurd: therefore the Antecedent is false. 2. The rite or ceremony of laying on of hands, is not commanded in Scripture. 3. Neither can it be showed, that the grace of God is tied to the ceremony. Neither do we read, that john Baptist laid his hands upon every one of that innumerable multitude of men, whom upon their repentance he baptised. 3. In penance there is an application of the grace of God to every one in particular: therefore it is a Sacrament. Answer. It is a fallacy, from an unsufficient cause: for remission of sins is applied to every one in particular by faith, and yet it is not therefore a Sacrament. And as Papists say, the grace of justification is applied to every one in particular by good works▪ therefore, according to their opinion, the good works of the regenerate should be counted amongst the Sacraments. And by this means what an infinite number of Sacraments shall we have? (3) Order. We deny that Popish Orders are to be accounted a Sacrament) if we speak properly of a Sacrament) for these reasons. Because it hath no outward element. Because the rites, which are there wont to be used, have neither example of the Apostles, nor commandment of Christ; and therefore they have no promise of grace to the receiver. Because those things, which are alleged out of Scripture for their degrees of Orders, are very ridiculous. 1. That Christ was Ostiarius, a doorkeeper, and so thereby did institute this See Durandus in his book called Rationale Divinoru● officioru●. degree of Orders, they triflingly prove, because he said. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved. joh. 10 9 And so their Ostiarij, the door keepers in Popery shall be that door, by which we must enter into heaven. 2. The degree of Lector or Reader they prove, because Christ did read out of the book of Isai. Luk, 4, 17. 3, They prove the degree of Exorciste, because Christ gave power to his Apostles to cast out Devils. Mar. 6. 7, 13. 4, The degree of Acolythites, they prove, because Christ said: He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness. john: 8. 12. 5. The degree of Subdeacon is proved, because Christ when he washed the Apostles feet, was girded about with a linen to well. Ioh: 13. 4. 6, They prove the degree of Deacon, because Christ did distribute the Eucharist or Communion to his Apostles, Math: 26 26, etc. 7, They prove the degree of Priesthood, because Christ was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech: because he offered himself to his Father in his last supper: because there he ordained his Apostles to be Priests. Because the rites of the popish ordination, a great part of them be taken out of the old Testament, where the Priest was anointed with oil etc. Wherefore those belong not to the Sacraments of the new Testament, unless we would bring Christians back again to judaisme. Because the end of the popish ordination is not intended and destinated to the preaching of the Gospel, but to the offering of the sacrifice of the mass, for the living and for the dead. Which how great an impiety it is, shall be declared afterward in the chapter of the mass. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason thus. 1 The institution of the ministry is contained in the Old and New Testament. Therefore it is a Sacrament. Ans. 1. The mayor proposition (which our Adversaries do not set down) is manifestly false, which should be this: whatsoever is instituted in the Old and New Testament, that is a Sacrament. 2; It is a fallacy from an unsufficient reckoning up of the causes; for it is not some one property of a sacrament, that can suffice, unless there be a sufficient cause brought, that is such a one, as consisteth of all the properties, which concur to the making of a Sacrament, 3. There is more in the Conclusion, than in the premises. For there doth no more follow, but that the ministery dependeth not upon human but divine authority. 4, And by the like reason, (to answer them by an instance) the ordination of the Magistrate should be a Sacrament For it hath his institution both in the Old and New Testament. 2 Order hath a visible sign, the imposition of hands as appeareth by the ordination used of the Apostles. Therefore it is a Sacrament. Ans, 1, We answered a little before, that imposition of hands is not the Element or matter of a Sacrament. 2, We do not read that that ceremony was ever commanded of Christ. 3, b * Though there be no certain command●ment for imposition of h●●des, yet because we And it is now in the liberty of the church to v●e it, or not to use it. But sacraments have not Ceremonies which are left to men's liberty. Seeing then here be understood sacramental Ceremonies, both which are see that it was still used of the Apostles their so precise using of it. aught to be unto us in steed of a common dement. Calvin justitut. lib. 4. cap. 3 5. 16. How soever, there is no thing in it to make it the matter of a Sacrament. left, and which are not left to men's choice and liberty, there arise four terms. 3 The order of the ministery hath a promise of grace, that God will work effectually by the ministery. Therefore it is a Sacrament. Ans, 1. That promise respecteth rather the hearers, than him, that is ordained. For he may preach unto others to their salvation and himself be a castaway: but the Sacraments do apply grace to him, that useth them. 4 But we read that in Ordination grace i● bestowed upon them, which are ordained. As we read of Timothy, 2, Timoth, 1, 6. Answer. 1, The Apostles had the gift of miracles, and did give the Holy-ghost miraculously by the imposition of hands, 2, GOD doth usually work by the good means ordained by himself: and so doth bestow his grace upon the person which was ordained at the prayer and request of the whole congregation, gathered together in his name for so holy an exercise. Yet we may not therefore think, that the imposition of hands is a sacramental sign, which conferreth grace. 5 Augustine, writing against the Donatists doth call Order a Sacrament: as do other of the Fathers also. Ans, 1. They did so in some sort and respect, for the excellency and reverence of the ministery, which the Donatists did debase. 2. The Fathers used the word Sacrament in a larger signification, than we here take it, as was said in the beginning of this Chapter. 4. Matrimony. Why we do not account matrimony for a Sacrament, these be our reasons: Because it hath no promise of grace of justification. Because by the same reason it should have been a Sacrament in the Old Testament, which the Papists will not grant. Because if it were a Sacrament, than Sacraments should be amongst infidels, and without the Church▪ which is absurd, Because it hath no visible Element. Because there is there no applying of grace. Because our Adversaries do so speak of Matrimony, that they leave no place for it Pope Syricius. among Sacraments, calling it a carnal state, wherein they that live, cannot please God; they say also that Priests are polluted by this state. How then dare they call Matrimony a Sacrament, seeing their Ecclesiastical persons do abhor it, as a profane thing Contrariwise our adversaries do dispute. Paul calleth matrimony a Sacrament, Ephes, 5, 32. Ans, 1, The Papists translation is corrupt the word in the Greek, signifieth a mystery or secre●●, Paul saith not of marriage, that it is a mystery, but of the spiritual conjunction of Christ & his Church as he expoundeth himself, But I speak concerning Christ and the Church▪ 2 Marriage is honourable among all, and the bed without spot, Hebrews 13, 4. But the bed should not be without spot, if there were not They be the words of Eckius in his Enchiridion. the Grace of the Sacrament. Ans, 1, The ministery, Magistrates, Parents are honourable, and yet no Sacraments. 2, Here is a fallacy taking that for a cause which is not. For the bed is said to be unspotted, not because matrimony is a Sacrament, but because the religious Man and Wife doth not defile the bed with whoredom and adultery; as the next words following do declare. 3, If the grace of the Sacrament do make the bed spotless, why do they not grant matrimony to their priests? why do they esteem it more tolerable, for a Priest to be a whoremonger and adulterer, than a married man? For such Priests have they to lerated many in popery, when as they will not away with honest marriage. 3 Marriage hath the promise of eternal life For the woman shall be saved by bearing of children, 1, Timoth, 2. 15. Ans. 1, By this reason all married persons, even the infidels should be saved. 2, Paul comforteth women; that their sorrows which GOD layeth upon them for a punishment, do turn to them to be offices of their calling, & exercises of the cross, of a Sacrament never a word, 3 Paul speaketh upon supposition and with limitation; If they continue in faith, etc. He doth not ascribe salvation to matrimony, but only doth teach, that those wives shall be saved in the state of wedlock, who keep faith, godliness, charity, and chastity. 4. Godly women, by perseverance in faith, love▪ etc. do sanctify their matrimony; but sacraments are not sanctified by man, but on the contrary side, men receive sanctification from the Sacrament. 4 The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the Wife. 1, Cor. 7, 14 Seeing therefore Matrimony hath the power of sanctifying, it is a Sacrament. Answ. 1. If this sanctifying here spoken of, pertain to salvation, than it followeth, that infidels shall be saved by their believing wines; which is absurd; but if to sanctify here signify an other thing, than the argument falleth to the ground, 2, But there be four terms; For in the Antecedent holy signifieth (after the phrase of the Hebrues) that which is granted and permitted as a thing that is lawful to be used in holy manner (in which sense creeping things are said to be purified, Acts, 10, 15.) but in the consequent it is taken for sanctity or holiness and justification and renovation. 5 Matrimony hath his institution & blessing from God, Gen. 2, 18, 22, 24. Therefore it is a Sacrament. Ans. That promise of blessing is not of the grace of justification and reconciliation, but only of a temporal felicity. It is nothing therefore to a Sacrament, which is conversant only about the grace of reconciliation. 6 Matrimony is a remedy or medicine (as the schoolmen speak) of a spiritual disease, to witfornication, 1, Cor, 7, 2, Ans, 1, This is not sufficient to make it a Sacrament; because it is a remedy against fornication! 2, Faith and prayer are remedies against temptations: shall they therefore be counted Sacraments? (5) Extreme unction. We admit not of extreme unction; because it neither hath the words of institution which is to continue in Church, nor any certain ordination of his rite, described by the circumstances thereof, nor the promise of grace of justification, nor any other property at all of a true Sacrament. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1. Extreme unction hath the outward element of oil; therefore it wanteth not the property of a Sacrament. Ans. Unless to this element there come the word, to destinate it to this purpose, to con maund it, and to promise the forgiveness of sins, and everlasting life (of all which our Adversaries can show nothing in the Scripture) their oil of the sick is no more to be esteemed, than oil Olive, which is provided to be sauce for a salad of herbs. 2. The Apostles did anoint many sick men with oil, and healed them. Mark. 6. 13, therefore Extreme unction is a Sacrament, enjoined by Christ to the Apostles. Ans: 1. That anointing was a temporary thing, neither hath it any commandment, that we should do the like. 2. By the same reason the handkerchiefs of Paul (Act: 19 12. and the shadow of Peter, whereby many sick men were healed (Acts. 15. 15.) should be Sacraments. 3. The text speaketh of miraculous gifts, which because they endured but for a time, do not come within the compass of Sacraments. 3 Is any man sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray for him, and anoint him with oil. etc. james, 5. 14. Answer. 1. It followeth not: james speaketh of oil, therefore of oil of Extreme unction magicallie exorcized. 2. That anointing was not extreme unction, but was for the recovery of health; whereas on the contrary side extreme unction is administered in Popery, to them which are ready forthwith to die, when there is no hope of any recovery. 3, The meaning of Saint james is, that prayer should be made for the sick, that their sins may be forgiven them, whereby they have drawn sickness upon them: but thence ariseth no Sacrament. 4. Caietan no mean Cardinal among the Papists, saith this place cannot be understood of extreme unction, but of the miraculous anointing spoken of▪ Mark, 6. Whereof he giveth three reasons. 1, Because james doth not say: Is any man sick unto death, but simply, is any man sick. 2, The end and effect hereof is the easing of the sick: but of remission of sins he speaketh not but only conditionally: whereas Extreme unction is not administered but at the point of death, & is directly intended for remission of sins. 3, james bids call for many Ministers to one sick man, both to pray for him and to anoint him; which is much different from the rite of Extreme unction. So one of their own pillars hath wiped them of two places at once. (This of james and the sixth of Mark) which are the only shows of authority, the Papists have for this forged Sacrament. CHAP. 15. Of Transubstantiation. Our Adversaries do expound the sacramental union in the Eucharist, to be by manner of Transubstantiation; whereby they imagine, that after the words of consecration, the elements do altogether vanish away, and are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, so that besides the bare accidents, which are seen, tasted and felt, there remaineth no whit of the elements in the Sacrament: but we deny that there needs any such fiction of Transubstantiation for the making of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: and that for these reasons. The nature of a Sacrament requireth, that there be together an earthly and an heavenly lie matter: as Irenaeus saith: or, not that the substance be changed, but that grace be adjoined, as Theodoret speaketh. Because there be other means of Sacramental union, than by Transubstantiation alone: as is apparent in Baptism. Christ saith not; This shall be made my body; or this is changed into my body: but, This is my body; to wit, by sacramental relation and union, as in other Sacraments. Paul, the heavenly Interpreter of Christ's words, doth not admit Transubstantiation, but doth so interpret the sacramental union, that still the visible elements remain, or the bread of the Sacrament after the consecration, he calleth bread still: to give us to understand, that the substance of the bread remaineth still. 1, The bread (saith he) which we break (that is, distribute after the consecration) is it not the communion of the body of Christ. 1, Cor. 10. 16. 2. All we are partakers of one bread. 1. Corinth: 10. 16. 3. As often as ye shall eat this bread. 1, Cor: 11. 26. 4. Whosoever shall eat this bread. vers. 27. 5. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread. verse, 28. So have the Fathers explained this mystery, that they declare, that the elements remain : as, Receive that in the bread (spiritually by faith) which hanged upon the Cross. Augustine. These manner of speeches in the Scripture are almost alike: God is man: This is my beloved son. In which phrases is noted the most near and strait union of the two natures in Christ (far straighter and more near, than this of the Sacrament:) and yet is not concluded the transubstantiation of one nature into another, or the abolishing of either nature. Upon the opinion of Transubstantiation many absurdities do follow. 1, So Christ should be said to have a twofold body or two bodies; whereof the one should be taken from the virgin Marie, and the other should be made of bread. 2. We should not receive the body crucified for us, but a certain other thing, which an hour before was not that body, but bread; nay, which a little before had no being in nature; which is absurd and impious, contrary to the words of Christ, whereby he promiseth us that body, that was given for us, and that blood, which was shed for us. 3. Accidents are hereby made to be without a subject: as if when the snow is melted, the whiteness of the snow, should remain alone with out a subject. 4. Mice, that gnaw the consecrated bread, cannot gnaw bare accidents alone. Therefore either accidents are substances, that they may be subject to the grinding of teeth, or the glorified body of Christ is subject to elementary passions and natural sufferings, both of which are most absurd. The like question may be made concerning the burning of the Eucharist: what it is, that burneth? whether bare accidents? or the body of Christ? 5, Infinite such other gross absurdities may be seen in the Writings of that famous man, Wilhel. Holderus, (de mure exenterato) wherein are recited many other such like things, according to the opinion of the School men. Our Adversaries themselves do not believe that there is Transubstantiation. 1. And therefore they seek out other and more goodly words, as annihilation of the elements, or a ceasing of them to be, desinition they call it. 2. Gerson amongst his reasons for the communion under one kind, bringeth this as a reason, why the cup should be denied to the people; because the wine might be corrupt, and turned into Flies and vinegar. If the wine be truly transsubstantiated, then can it not be corrupted, unless we will say, that Flies and vinegar may be generated of the glorified body o● Christ, or that they are generated of accidents, there being no corporeal matter or substance required thereunto. 3 Transubstantiation was not believed in the whole Church before * I take is, this is a fault in the print, & that the Author meant to say▪ 1300 years, as ● c●tur ● writers also do (Cē●, 13, cap, col, 622) for in the 13th century after Christ, was the Council of Lateran under Innocentius the 3d. whereof the Author here speaketh: which was the 〈◊〉 general Council wherein Transubstantiation was defined & so after generally received, how soever for só-400, or 500 years, before it was disputed of, & maintained by some three hundred years: and this error at the length was spread further, and was confirmed by the Lateran Council. Contrariwise our adversaries do dispute. 1, That which Christ reached to his Apostles, was the true body of Christ. Therefore the bread was turned into his body by Transubstantiation. Ans, 1, There is more in the consequent, than in the Antecedent. For it followeth not, Christ gave his body to his disciples; therefore there was his body in none other manner, than by Transubstantiation. For it was in the sacrament by sacramental relation and union, and received of the believers spiritually by faith. 2 Christ said not: This bread is my body; but he said: This, meaning thereby his body: so that the demonstrative particle, (This) is construed and taken, not for the bread, but for the body. Hereby therefore he insinuated, that the bread was not then in the Eucharist. Ans, 1. Then the speech shall be this: this body shall be my body, which is idle. 2, This explication of Christ's words cannot stand with the doctrine of the Papists. For whereas they say, that the power of Transsubstantiating is contained in those five words pronounced Hoc enim est corpus meu●. (for this is my body) doubtless when Christ took up the bread, and pronounced the word (This) as yet was made no Transubstantiation, and so the speech should have been of a non ens, a thing which had no being. 3 The word (est, is) is a verb substantive, which noteth a being, or subsisting; therefore there must needs be Transubstantiation. Ans. 1, By the same reason, it will as well follow: Christ saith, I am a vine; but the verb (same or I am) is a verb substantive, which noteth the being and subsisting of a thing. Therefore there must needs be Transubstantiation of Christ's nature into a vine. 2, It signifieth the being, but not the manner of the being. There is Christ's body indeed, but not after a natural manner of being by Transubstantiation, but after a spiritual by faith and sacramental union. 4 There must needs be an Identity, that the body may truly be predicated of the bread: (for it were not true that bread remaining the same, and a different thing from the body should be the body:) but an Identity of the bread and body can be no other way made, but by Transubstantiation: Therefore, etc. Ans. There needs no Identity to make the predication true: for this proposition is true, the Lamb is the Passeover, and yet the Lamb and the Passeover be not the same thing. For some things are affirmed of other, because they are really & formally inherent in them: & some things again are affirmed of other, because they have an external union and coherence, which is most usual in all the sacramental speeches both of the old & new Testament. Circumcision is the Covenant, the Rock was Christ▪ etc. 5 As that predication is understood (Matth, 3) This is my beloved Son, that is, whatsoever ye see; is my beloved Son: so are the words of Christ to be understood in the supper: as, This is my body, that is, that which ye see, is my body. So that the bread remaineth no longer bread. Answer, 1, Howsoever the predication be understood (Matthew, 3,) the contrary will rather follow thereof. For by reason of the near conjunction of the two natures in Christ, the one is predicated of the other in Concreto, but there is no Transubstantiation or changing of one nature into the other. 2, Christ was the Son of God both in respect of his deity and of his humanity. And therefore this speech is nothing like those of the Sacrament. 6 Seeing that the predication is changed (so that the bread is afterward not called bread, but the Lords body) it must needs be that the subject; (that whereof it is spoken) must be changed also, & therefore there is Transubstantiation. Answer, There is a great change, but it is of use and quality, not of substance. Therefore after the consecration it is called blessed and holy bread, the communion of the body of Christ, and is not common vulgar bread. But it followeth not, there is a change, therefore by Transubstantiation. 7 Tropes and figures are not to be admitted in the words of the supper. For it is to be supposed, that Christ would then speak plainly without figures) but if Transubstantiation be not granted, there must needs be admttted some figure, Therefore, etc. Answ, All figures and improper speeches are not obscure, but they are, when they be usual and known, most clear and significant. Now there be no other figures or tropes in the Lord's Supper, but such as are, and always were usual in Sacraments, and familiarly known to the Church, 2, How will the Papists avoid a trope in those words of Christ (Luk 22, 20) This cup is the New Testament in my blood? Is the cup properly the New Testament? 8, Bread, before the consecration the Fathers call bread; but afterward they call it the body of Christ. Ans, And so do we. For though it be in nature bread, even after the consecration, as Paul oftentimes calleth it, yet is it sacramentally the body of Christ. 9 In the liturgy of Saint james Transubstantiation is approved. Answer. This is a testimony from a forged and counterfeit writing. 10 All things are possible with GOD; therefore Transubstantiation. Answer. From what GOD can do to what he will, is no good consequence. It is a fond reason, to argue as Papists do, from the absolute omnipotency of GOD, without his Word or Promise. Hear follow certain shifts of our Adversaries. 1 Bread, after the phrase of the Hebrues, is often taken for nourishment, so whereas the body of Christ is the nourishment of the soul, it may well be called bread by Paul, even after the consecration. Ans, It followeth not, bread in some places signifieth nourishment; therefore in the Lord's Supper bread doth not signify bread. All these propositions be mere particulars: and therefore nothing followeth thereof. 2 Some things which have been changed in nature, have kept their old name in the scripture; as the Rod of Moses, that was turned into a Serpent. So may bread after it is transsubstantiated, keep the name of bread. Ans, 1, They should first prove that there is Transubstantiation, but this argument of the Papists presupposeth Transubstantiation, which we deny. It is therefore a begging of the thing in question. 2, They be mere particulars, from which nothing will follow. 3, The Ancient Church admitted of the Phrase (Sub specie) that is under the shape or Accidents. Therefore they intimate hereby, that the bread and wine remain not. Ans, Our adversaries trifle with an equivocation of the word (Species). For the Fathers took it, for the one part or kind of the outward Element in the Sacrament, as it is also meant in that question between us and the Papists, whether the people are to receive (sub utraque specie) under both kinds, that is both the bread and the wine; not under both accidents, which were a senseless speech: but they take the word (Species) for a shape or accident, which the Fathers meant not. CHAP. 16. Of the adoration, inclusion, and carrying about of the Eucharist: as also of the Sacraments out of their use. THe adoring, carrying about, and shutting of the Eucharist in a box, useth to be glossed with this colour especially, among the Papists: for that they say, that the Eucharist is and remains a Sacrament beside and out of the use thereof; turning that into an argument or proof, which is a controversy: therefore are we also to make a question hereof. Question. 1. Whether the Eucharist remain a Sacrament out of the use thereof: We deny it for these reasons. Because, seeing Sacraments are actions, they consist only in use and action, that they may be Sacraments: which action and use ceasing, the Sacrament itself ceaseth also. Seeing our Adversaries themselves do not account, Baptism to be a Sacrament, out of his use, (as in which the words of the action are contained in the institution) and more words of the action do concur in the Lord's Supper, than in the institution of Baptism, much less also may the Eucharist remain out of his use, than Baptism may. Where the whole action is not, neither is there the whole Sacrament: but when the Consecration is rend and separated from the communicating or receiving, there is not the whole action: neither is there therefore the whole Sacrament. Christ doth prescribe a certain end and use; Eat, drink. Christ instituted this use for this Sacrament; wherefore, this use ceasing, the Sacrament ceaseth also. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1. When Christ pronounced these words (This is my body) the Disciples had not eaten as yet; and yet the words of Christ were true then, before they did eat, therefore it was a Sacrament also even before, and without the use thereof. Ans. 1. If we made the action and use only to consist in eating and drinking, than the argument would follow: but we do not define that action to consist only in eating and drinking, but in doing all those things, which Christ either by his example or commandment bids us do: as namely, to receive the bread, to break, bless, distribute and eat it, to give God thanks, and to show the Lords death. It was not therefore out of the use of the Sacrament, when Christ reached the bread to his Apostles. 2. Luke omitteth these words; Take, eat; intimating thereby that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist out of the use thereof. Answer. 1. By a fallacy of Division those things are severed asunder, which ought out of four rehearsals of the institution, to have been joined together: for that which Luke omitted, the other two Evangelists, and Paul have supplied. The whole action than is not to be taken from some one of them alone, but jointly and together from them all. 2: They conclude here any thing of every thing: for what coherence is? Luke omitted some words, therefore he did omit them for none other cause, but to show, that the Sacrament out of his use, is nevertheless a Sacrament. 3. Christ faith: this is; he saith not; It shall be made my body hereafter, to wit in the eating. Answer. 1. It was answered a while ago, that the action and use doth not consist in eating alone; And therefore in the act of the Supper, the bread is rightly called the body of Christ, even before the eating; that it shall not be needful to say; This shall be made the body of Christ. 2, And Christ in these words would simply say this much: I give you my body to be eaten. 4 If the Eucharist be not a Sacrament out of his use, it would follow, that not the words of Christ, but our use doth make a Sacrament. Answer. 1. Christ's will (whom we ought to obey in eating and drinking) maketh the Sacrament, and not our use. The use of the Sacrament therefore relieth upon the words of institution: and how then do we ascribe it to us, and not rather to the word of Christ, while we do that, which is commanded by the words of Christ. It is therefore a fallacy supposing that to be a cause, which is none. 5. In the Primitive Church the Deacons were wont to carry parts of the Eucharist to the sick: therefore the Eucharist remains a Sacrament out of the use. Ans. These parts were carried to the sick, that they should take them and eat them, as Communicants and partakers of the common action, according to Christ's institution: and therefore that was not out of the use of the Sacrament. It is therefore a lose conclusion from the Sacrament in use, to the Sacrament out of his use. 6. Ecclesiastical writers do report, that some were wont to carry the Eucharist home with them, and to reserve it. Ans. 1. And it may be doubted, whether they did well or no: 2. Other men's abuse doth not make a rule for us, and impose a necessity to do or approve the like. And the Reader may here observe that the Papists do usually in their Sophistical reasons suppress that proposition, which is weak and liable to open exception; as knowing that they cannot prove it: but this is not to deal sincerely with the Church of God. 7. But when afterward, some days being passed after the consecration, they did (in the time of persecution) eat the consecrated bread, which they had reserved, who would deny but that they received the body of Christ, especially being, as they were, so devoutly affected? Ans, 1. We may not make rules of those things, which happen in case of necessity. 2. Neither may we think, that those devout Christians, in that agony of persecution did receive the reserved Eucharist without the memory of Christ's passion, without godly prayers, and giving of thanks. All which seeing they belong to the use and action of the Supper, it may not be said that they received the Sacrament out of the use. And the elements, which they used, were destinated to the use of the Lords Supper. Question. 2. Whether the Eucharist be to be adored. Our Adversaries do adore it with divine worship only due to God, not only in the use thereof, but out of the use too, in their Oratories, and in public processions when it is carried about. We say that the Eucharist is to be reverenced, as an holy mystery, but not to be adored or worshippeed; and that fo● these reasons. Because the Sacraments do consist of an earthly and an heavenly matter: therefore when the Sacrament is adored, the element and the earthly matter is adored: which is Artolatria, a worshipping of bread. Out of the use, the worshipping of the Eucharist is more absurd Idolatry: for out of the use, Sacraments cease to be Sacraments; and so they worship bread, which is not so much as holy or sacramental bread. True adoration cannot be without faith. (Romans, 14. 23.) and faith is not without the word of God. (Romans', 10. 17.) Seeing then we have no word, whereby we are bidden to worship the Eucharist, faith falleth, which is the primary ground and stay of adoration. If the Eucharist be to be adored, then by the like reason Baptisine should be adored too, because of the presence and effectual operation of the holy Ghost. But our Adversaries deny this latter, and therefore we the former. When Christ reached the Eucharist to his Disciples; we do not read any where, that the Apostles rose up, and worshipped the Sacrament: which out of doubt they would have done if the Sacrament should have been adored. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1. Transubstantiation takes away all occasion of Idolatry: therefore (say they) we are unjustly accused of Idolatry. Ans. 1. Transubstantiation is a principle simply false: therefore it is a begging of the question. 2. If Transubstantiation were granted, yet it could not be proved that it should have place out of the use of the Sacraments: these are therefore rotten and ruinous foundations. 2. If it be rightly adored in the use, why not rightly also out of the use. Ans, Because the Sacrament out of the use, is no Sacrament. As was declared a while ago. 3, Wheresoever Christ is, there he is to be adored: but Christ is in the consecrated host▪ therefore he is to be worshipped in the host. Answer, 1, We worship Christ in the Eucharist, (for we say at the Communion we praise thee, we worship thee etc.) but we worship not the Eucharist, nor CHRIST as there carnally present. 2, The mayor proposition (as it is proposed by the Papists) is not simply and in all respects true. For Christ was in Peter the Apostle, yet Peter would not suffer himself to be worshipped, Act, 10, 25, 26. 4 If the manhood of Christ, (which yet is a creature) be ●ightly adored because of the hypostatical union, why may not the bread be adored too, because of the Sacramental union. Answer 1, There is great difference between the Sacramental union and the personal union: the one maketh one person and subsistence, the other doth not. 2, The flesh of Christ never subsisted by any proper subsistence of his own before the incarnation, but as soon, as it began to have a being, it subsisted in the person of the Son of God, and that not by any proper subsistence of his own. Hereof it cometh to pass that whosoever doth adore the Son of God, that is, the second person in Trinity, the same doth also rightly adore the flesh of Christ. which things seeing they be nothing so in the bread and wine of the eucharist, the case is nothing alike, 3, The Sacramental union is only by relation, and may be dissolved, the personal union is a most near joining of two natures in one person, which never can be dissolved. 4, Concerning the worshipping of the flesh of Christ, we have the word and examples in the Scripture: but we want both for the worshipping of the Eucharist, as was said a while a go. QUESTION, 3. Concerning carrying about, and enclosing the Eucharist in a box, we deem all those things impious. Because they have no commandment of God. Because they are contrary to the commandment, of eating and drinking the Sacrament. Because in so doing, the sacramental action is pulled a sunder, to wit, the consecration from the use and partaking of it. The use of the Supper, is turned into an action altogether different from the institution of Christ. The feast of Corpus Christi, and the carrying about of the Sacrament were now late brought in and set on foot by the Bishops of Rome, about an hundred and an half of years ago. If the commandment of Christ, concerning the true use of the Sacrament, were performed, there would remain none occasion of shutting up and carrying about of the Sacrament. There be no examples of the Apostles for it. For Paul who writeth to the Corinthians of the Eucharist most exactly, yet doth not so much as in one word mention any shutting of it up, carrying it about or adoring it. Neither can there be showed in the purer primitive Church, any so much as a step and token thereof. CHAP. 17. Of the Mass. THe Papists have turned the sacrament of the Note here the ●nrse is to be observed a-against sun of the Papists who pervert the state of the question in this disputation and say that they strive only for the sacrifice of Eucharist, or thanksgiving, these same are stracken with a curse by the council of trent Lords Supper into a sacrifice; wherein they offer daily, the consecrated bread and win● to God the Father, for the sins of the living and the dead. And more over they contend, that in the Eucharist, there is not only a sacrifice of remembrance and thanksgiving, but that there is also a propitiatory sacrifice. For so saith the Council of Trent (Sess, 6. cap. 2, can. 3.) If any man shall say, that the sacrifice of the Mass, is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed upon the Cross, and not a propitiatory Sacrifice, or that it doth profit him alone that receiveth it, and that it ought not to be offered for the huing and the dead, for their sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities, let him be accursed. But we acknowledge no such visible Sacrifice in the Church, neither do we find in scripture any other propitiatory Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of Christ: and this sacrifice of the Mass, we do re●ect for the reasons following. Because to make of the Lords Suppera propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, is contrary to the institution of our Lord jesus Christ, and it is to disannul & pernert his Testament. 1, Christ did not command to offer his body and blood, but to eat and drink them. 2. And there is not so much as one word in all the action and institution of the supper, which might infer any mention of a Sacrifice. 3, Neither do we read, that Christ offered himself in his supper (as if by his own example he would institute mass) for if he offered himself to his heavenly Father in his supper, then should he not have perfected his sacrifice, with one oblation once made, (Heb, 7, 27, & 9, 26., 28, and 10, 10. 14.) but with a double oblation twice made, namely, once in his supper, & once upon the Cross, which is false & absurd. But if he offered not himself in his supper (as it is most true, he did not) than neither can his example, which we should follow, lay upon us the office of sacrificing. 4. Paul received of the Lord the institution of the Eucharist: but made mention of no sacrifice at all; which the Apostle, (especially seeing he boasteth that he had showed all the council of God. Acts, 20, 27,) ought not to have omitted, if there should have been any respect of a propitiatory sacrifice in the supper. 5, Paul bids us, to show the Lords death, not to represent it by a stagelike spectacle, not to sacrifice, 1, Cor. 11, 26. For to show the Lords death, and to sacrifice are things altogether different. The doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, doth twhart the perfect satisfaction of Christ. For if CHRIST have satisfied for the sins of all men with one sacrifice once offered, and that propitiation of his Bee sufficient. what need is there so often to iterate a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass? 1, He (Christ, not the mass) is the propitiation or reconciliation, not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1, joh. 2, 2. 2, And therefore, upon the cross he cried; It is finished. Ioh, 19, 30. But the mass twharteth also the priesthood The Priesthood of Christ is not common to him with any man. of Christ. (1) For Christ alone could offer himself for a propitiatory sacrifice; neither could any man offer up Christ, but he himself alone. Therefore Popish priests, unless they willingly say that they are new Christ's, can not offer a propitiatory sacrifice, 1, Christ did it once, when he offered up himself, Hebr, 7. 27. 2, Not that he should offer himself often. Heb. 9, 25. 3, Otherwise the massepriestes should be Priests after the order of Melchifedech, which agreeth to Christ alone. 4, Neither doth any man take unto himself this honour, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So likewise Christ took not to himself this honour, to be made the high Priest, but he that said unto him etc., Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchifedech, Heb, 5. 4, 5. etc. (2) It is repugnant also to the doctrine of the Priesthood of Christ, in respect of the perfect and plenary sacrifice, which is not to be iterated. For herein is the priesthood of Christ opposite to the Priesthood of the old Testament, that the sacrifices thereof ought to be iterated, but the sacrifice of Christ had no need to be iterated. 1, Christ needed not daily, as those high Priests (of the old Testament) to offer up sacrifice, for his own sins, and then for the people's: for that did he once, when he offered up himself. Heb. 7. 27. 2. The law having the shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually, sanctify the comers thereunto: for would they not then have ceased, to have been offered, etc. Heb. 10. 1. 2. 3. After he had said: This is the Testament, that I will make with them, etc. and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these things is, there is no more offering for sin. Heb. 10. 16. 17. 18. 4. Christ by his own blood entered once into the holy place: and obtained eternal redemption for us (not such a redemption as is to be iterated every day.) Hebrews. 9 12. 5. Not that he should offer himself often, as the high Priest entered into the holy place every year with other blood, (for then must he have often suffered since the foundation of the world): but now in the end of the world hath he appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men, Once to die, and then cometh the judgement. So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. Heb. 9, 25, 26. etc. 6. By the which will we are sanctified, even by the offering of the body of jesus Christ once made Heb. 10. 10. 7. And every Priest (namely of the old If our Adversaries say, that they offer the same & only sacrifice of Christ: here let them see that there is not granted an iteration of the same sacrifices in the new testament. Testament) appeareth daily ministering & oft times offereth one manner of sacrifice, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God, etc. For with one offering he consecrated for ever them, that are sanctified. Heb▪ 10. 11. 12. etc. The sacrificing Priests, do daily as much as in them lieth, kill and crucify Christ in the Mass: wherefore the Popish Mass is so much the more abominable: which is indeed harsh to man's ears, but that it is true, will appear by the places of Scripture following. 1. Without shedding of blood is no remission. Heb▪ 9: 22. 2. Where a Testament is, there must be the death of him, that made the testament. Heb: 9, 16. 3. If Christ must be often offered, then should he have often suffered. Hebrews, 9, 26. The Mass was unknown in the primitive Church for some certain ages: as shall afterward be declared in particular, and as Master Valentine Vannius hath proved in a several book published, and to this day never touched by any of the Adversaries. Many Massing ceremonies, were of a certain blind zeal brought in out of the old Testament shadows forsooth mingled with the light. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1. It is needful; that the Church have some visible sacrifice, to help man's infirmity withal. Ans. 1 No man denies, that we need visible helps, for the strengthening of our faith: but to feign, choose and appoint such sacrifices, is not in our power, but belongeth to God alone. 2. Such visible helps and stays of our faith, God hath given us in the Sacraments, wherewith it is meet we should rest content, and not frame new ones at our own pleasure. 2; Every Priest is taken from among men. etc. that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for men. Heb. 5. 1. Therefore it is needful that the Priests of the Church have some thing, which they may offer to God for sins. Ans: 1. If the Apostle in this place had compared together the Priests of the old Testament, and the Priests of the new Testament, than the argument would follow. But he makes the comparison between the Priests of the old Testament, and the Priest jesus Christ, which was prefigured by them. This then is all that followeth: that it was necessary that Christ should offer some sacrifice for our sins. And so there is more in the conclusion, than in the premises. 2, We do not read any where in the new Testament that there were Priests appointed, who should offer visible sacrifices: but there were ordained Ministers of the word and Gospel. 3. We have an Altar. Hebrews, 13, 10. therefore it is necessary that we have oblations also and sacrifice. Ans. 1. This is a Paralogism of all Particulars, thus: In our Altar (which is spiritual) is required a sacrifice: therefore it can be no other sacrifice, but that of the Mass. 2, It is a fallacy from that, which is spoken but in some respect, to the same taken absolutely: for the Apostle doth not simply speak of every sort of sacrifice, but treateth expressly of a spiritual sacrifice, saying: let us offer the sacrifice of praise unto God, etc. verse, 15. and, to do good and to distribute, forget not▪ for with such sacrifices GOD is well pleased. verse, 16. 4, Daniel prophesieth of Antichrist, that he shall take away the daily sacrifice: Dan: 8, 11, and 11 31. But that cannot be understood of spiritual sacrifices, of praise and thanksgiving (which Tyrants cannot raze out of the hearts of men) but of the outward and visible sacrifice, which is the Mass. Answer. 1. Daniel speaketh principally of Antiochus, who having defiled the lawful worship of God, did abolish the daily sacrifice for the space of three years and an half: & allegorically he speaketh it of the Antichrist of Rome, who hath abolished the true and sincere public service of God, and in the place thereof hath set his Idol service. 2, There is more in the conclusion than in the premises; for it followeth not: Antichrist shall abolish the daily sacrifice: therefore that sacrifice can be none other, but the sacrifice of the Mass. whereas notwithstanding there be other, and far truer sacrifices of Christians, which are abrogated and corrupted by antichrist, as the daily sacrifice was of old by Antiochus: such as are godly prayers (which are called sacrifices. Heb: 5, 7. Reu: The Popes of Rome are very careful of the fulfilling of this prophecy; which notwithstanding▪ themselves have fulfilled long since very diligently. 5, 8. and 8, 4.) which the Antichrist of Rome hath rob Christ of, and commanded them to be offered to Saints: such as are also the sincere preaching of the Gospel, and the right administration of the Sacraments; all which are in such horrible sort, turned upside down, mangled and corrupted by the Bishop of Rome, that it may well be said, that they are abolished, and that this prophecy of the abolishing of the spiritual, true and most acceptable sacrifices to God, the daily sacrifices of Christians, is of a truth fulfilled in him. 5. The types of the old Testament, of the daily Sacrifice, did decipher the daily sacrifice of Christians, to wit, the Mass. Answer. The Sacrifices were types of that one and only sacrifice of Christ, but not of the ministery of the new Testament, save only spiritually. (Hebr: 7, and 9: and 10, chapter.) But here in this matter of the Mass, there is no strife concerning spiritual sacrifices: therefore the argument is of no force, seeing it hath four terms. 6. Fron the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place Incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering, Malachi: 1, 11. But there can be no purer offering, than the body and blood of Christ: therefore the Prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of the Mass. Answer. Paul biddeth men lift up clean and pure hands in prayer every where: 1, T●. 2, 8. (which is the same with that sacrifice of prayer & invocation of david's. Psal. 141. 2.) There are therefore other spiritual sacrifices, which are also called clean. Hear is then a fallacy, a non distributo ad distributum, arguing by two particulars, as if the one were contained under the other, as a particular under his general: for there be more sacrifices of the new Testament, none of which is that one, which our Adversaries catch at: for beside that one only sacrifice of Christ, there be these also reckoned in the holy Scriptures. 1. The ministery of the Gospel. Rom: 15, 16. 2. The conversion of the Gentiles. Rom. 15, 16. Phil. 2, 17. 3, The Prayers of Christians: Hebr: 5, 7: Revel: 5, 8, and 8, 4. 4, The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving▪ Heb: 13, 15: 5, Liberality towards the poor, and for the maintenance of the ministery, Heb: 13 16, Phil: 4, 18: 6, Mortification of the old man and renovation, Rom: 12, 1. 7, Endurance of persecution, or martyrdom for the name of Christ, Philip, 2. 17. Therefore if there were no where in the World any popish or idolatrous massing sacrifice, yet the prophecy of Malachi should be nevertheless fulfilled among Christians by these spiritual sacrifices. Now the spiritual sacrifices of Christians are called clean, because our heavenly Father doth accept them for clean and perfect for Christ's merits sake. (7) The Paschal Lamb was a type of the holy supper. But the Lamb was not only eaten, but also offered. So it is requisite in the Eucharist also, not only to eat but also to offer. Answ, 1, Thence this only followeth, that our Lamb, CHRIST JESUS, was to be sacrificed. But that we should offer him, that b● the type (which was fulfilled in Christ) cannot be proved. 2, We have before declared that the rite of sacrificing yearly was abolished by the one only sacrifice of the true Lamb. 3, If all things that belonged to this type should be applied to the Lords Supper, then because it was needful that the Lamb should be killed, they shall make themselves a bloody sacrifice in the mass: which our Adversaries themselves hold absurd. 4, Yea, and that which is more, we read no where, that the Paschall Lamb was offered or sacrificed, but that it was killed. For both the Hebrew word, and the Greek word (which Paul useth, 1, Cor, 5, 7) doth not always signify to sacrifice, but to kill. Therefore the Popish argument falleth to the ground. (8) There shall be a handful of corn in the papists in their scarcity of arguments are driven to 〈◊〉 to the Rabbi●●. the earth, even in the top of the mountains, etc. Psal, 72, 16. Rabbi Solomon expoundeth these words of a kind of Cakes in the days of the Messias. Therefore the Psalm speaketh of the elevation of the mass, wherein the bread is lifted up above the shaven crown of the Priest. An, This is a scurvy argument, to draw the spiritual fertility and plentifulness of the Church to the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass. But such as the matter is, such be their arguments. 9 Christ saith: facite hoc, but facere doth sometimes in the scripture signify to sacrifice. Therefore it is all one, as if Christ had said; facite, that is, sacrifice, hoc (this) that is my body. Answ, 1, They be mere particulars, whence nothing will follow. 2, The word (facere) when it is put absolutely without express mention of a sacrifice, doth never signify to sacrifice, except in that verse of Virgil's Bucolics, Cum faciam vitula pro fr●gibus, ipse ve●ito. But Virgil will not 'stablish a massing sacrifice. 3, And if the word facere in the holy supper do signify to sacrifice: and Christ spoke those words to all Christians, Hoc facite in mei Commemorationem (Do this in remembrance of Me) it will follow that all Christians ought to offer the massing sacrifice: and so all shall be Priests, though they be not oiled and shaven. 10 Christ saith: Hoc facite Do this, to wit, that which you see me do. But Christ offered Himself then to his heavenly Father. Therefore he commanded that his body should be offered in the mass. Ans, 1, The minor or second proposition is false, for if Christ offered himself to his Father in his supper after the manner of the mass; and the mass be (as the Trent council defineth it) a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, and satisfaction and other necessities, etc. then was there at that time satisfaction made to the heavenly Father already by a sacrifice in the supper, for the sins and punishments of men: and Christ offered himself the second time upon the altar of the Cross, when there was no further need, which required him so to do: and the heavenly Father would have one and the same debt twice paid unto him: and those debts are paid the third time over at this day, while Christ is offered again in the mass. But if Christ at length offered himself upon the altar of the Cross, it is false, that he offered himself to his Father in his supper. 2, The word facite, do, in these words is referred to a certain action, that is to the reiterating of the celebration of the Lords supper in the Church, of the blessing and distributing of the bread and wine, of the eating and drinking, of the remembrancing & showing CHRIST'S death, and of giving of thanks for God's benefits, etc. 11 Christ was offered in the supper after an unbloody manner, and upon the Altar of the Cross after a bloody manner. Ans, If so, then was he not offered once but twice, which is contrary to the Epistle to the Hebrues, cap, 7, ver, 27, & 9, 28, & 10. 12.) 2, And the scripture doth not any where say, that Christ should be offered after unbloody sort. 12 The distinction between a bloody & unbloody sacrifice, hath the ancient Fathers for authors thereof. Ans, The ancient and purer Fathers distinguish between the bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament, and the spiritual sacrices of christians in the New Testament. But what is this to the visible massing sacrifice of the Papists? 13. He was offered, because he would. Isay 53, 7. Therefore Christ is offered in the mass, and he offered himself in the supper. Ans, Who can choose, but laugh at suc● a reason? first the translation which they follow, is false, quite disagreeing from the original; and then doth it follow, that because Christ was a sacrifice upon the Cross, that therefore he is sacrificed in the supper? 14 Christ is a Priest for ever; therefore that he may for ever be offered, it must needs be, that he did institute in his Supper an eternal sacrifice, that is, such as is daily to be offered. Ans, 1. By this argument it would follow, that it should be necessary, not that the Priests, but that Christ should offer himself daily: for not the massing sacrificers but christ is the Priest for ever. 2, It would follow also (seeing they press the word Eternity or for ever) that the sacrifice should remain to be offered still in the World to come after the last judgement. 3, The Apostle speaketh of eternal efficacy and virtue of Christ's Priesthood, whereby, he one and the same to day and yesterday, hath for ever sanctified them which were to be sanctified. Which while our Adversaries apply to their sacrificers, there arise four terms. 4, And Christ abideth nevertheless a Priest for ever, although there be no where any sacrifice of how Christ is a Priest for ever. the mass. For 1, in sanctifying us, he bringeth us to his Father. 2, He always maketh intercession for us. 3. He is able for ever to save them, that come unto him, which are all the offices of the high Priest. 15 Melchizedeck was a type of Christ: but Melchizedeck offered bread & wine. Gen, 14, 18, Therefore it must needs be, that Christ offered his body and blood in his Supper. Ans, 1, If it were true, that Melchizedeck offered bread and wine, (which yet is not true) nothing else would follow, but that Christ offered bread and wine, which our adversaries themselves would not grant. For they avouch that the bread and wine doth not remain in the holy supper, but that they are annihilated & so transsubstantiated, that nothing remaineth beside the body & blood of Christ. There are therefore 4, terms. 2, But neither did Melchizedeck offer, but brought forth (as the Hebrew word signifieth) bread and wine for the refreshing of Abraham's soldiers, as the text doth clearly teach. 3, Neither is Melchizedeck said to be a type of Christ in this, whether offering, or bringing forth of bread and wine: But first in respect of the name of Melchizedeck, the King of righteousness. Secondly, because he was King of Salem, and Christ is King or Prince of peace. (Isay, 9, 6.) Thirdly because Melchizedeck was together both a King and a Priest, and so is Christ. Fourthly, because the progeny of Melchisedeck is not related, so is Christ a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck (Psalm, 110. 4) All which, whereas the Epistle to the Hebrues doth most clearly and distinctly say, yet it saith nothing of the mass. It is therefore a fallacy from that, which is spoken but in some respect only, to the same taken absolutely and in all respects. 16 The text (Genes. 14, 18.) saith: for he was a Priest, but it is the office of Priests to offer sacrifices. Therefore Melchisedeck then offered bread and wine. Ans, The Hebrew text hath not the particle, for; but readeth thus; and he was a Priest of the most high God: and blessed him, that is, Abraham. There is then no reason of the consequence: Melchizedeck was a Priest, and blessed Abraham; therefore he offered unto God bread and wine: let the Papists at length be ashamed of such paralogisms. 17. Paul compareth together the table of the Lord and the table of Devils: which comparison cannot be entire, (seeing there is an offering in the table of Devils) unless there be also an offering in the table of the Lord 1, Cor: 10. 21. therefore there must needs be a sacrifice in the Lord's Supper. Answer. In the place of Paul cited by our Adversaries, it is not said, that the Heathen did offer on their tables sacrifices to Devils: neither that there was any offering at the table or celebration of the Lords Supper. But this Paul treateth of, that Christians cannot with good conscience both eat the body of Christ at the Lords table, and nevertheless in the banquets of the heathen, eat of those meats, which were offered unto Idols: for all sacrifices were not wholly consumed with fire, but a good part thereof was reserved for costly banquets. And what make these things for the confirming of the sacrifice of the Mass? 2, Be it that at their tables, they offered those meats to Devils; how doth it follow, that there must needs be an oblation at the Lords table too? unless they have some strange Logic to show (contrary to the old received axioms,) that things which are compared together, must needs agree in every particular point. 18. The body and blood of Christ be propitiatory for our sins. In the holy Supper there is the body and blood of Christ: therefore the Mass is propitiatory for our sins. Ans. 1. The body and blood of Christ is not in the sacrament, save only sacramentally and spiritually, and therefore cannot be there offered. 2. By the same reason it would follow, that in every place where Christ was on earth, there should be a propitiatory sacrifice. The virtue and efficacy of Christ's sacrifice doth at all times flow from the flesh of Christ, but it was made a propitiatory sacrifice but once, and that upon the Cross; it is offered and given in the Supper; and received of the believers by faith. 3. There is a changing of the predication: for in the minor it is said: The body and blood are in the Sacrament, in the conclusion: therefore the Mass is propitiatory. Were it granted that their Mass were nothing but the Sacrament duly administered, & that the body of Christ were carnally there, yet there would no more follow but this, that in the Mass there is that, which is propitiatory for sins. And if it be propitiatory in bare being, why needeth it to be sacrificed, that it may be propitiatory. 19 The Fathers of the Church called the Eucharist by the name of a sacrifice: therefore the Mass is a sacrifice. Answer. 1. It is a fallacy heaping up more questions for one: for it is one question, whether the Fathers called the Supper a sacrifice (which is not yet sufficient for the purpose) and another, in what sense they called it a sacrifice, whether as the Papists mean it, or otherwise: 2 It is a fallacy from a thing spoken but in some respect, to the same taken absolutely: for the Fathers called it a sacrifice in some respect only (as namely, 1. because all sacred rites may be called by the common word of the old Testament, sacrificia, sacrifices, quasi a faciendo sacra, from doing holy & sacred actions. 2. Because in the Supper there is a commemoration of that one only and true sacrifice of Christ, they gave that name to the action from the more chief and principal respect. 3, Because of prayers, which were poured out in the celebration of the Supper, which are called sacrifices as was before declared. 4, Because of praise & thanksgiving, which were used in the celebration of the Supper, and are called sacrifices in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 5. Because of their offering of first fruits, and food which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 love-feasts. 6, Because the spiritual sacrifices, faith, hope, charity, etc., are exercised & stirred up by the ule of the Supper.) 3, The Papists should prove, that the ancient Fathers ever taught, that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead: but this they will never do. 20. The Church hath always acknowledged the Mass for a sacrifice: therefore it is a novelty to deny the Mass to be a sacrifice. Answer. The Antecedent is proved false: 1, because there is no Mass in the new Testament. 2, Neither can it be showed in the Primitive Church, as was before alleged out of the book of Valentinus Vannius, who hath plainly proved, that the Popish sacrifice of the Mass was not in the Church of Christ for the space of 600 years or thereabout. 3, Because the chief things in the Mass are new of late invention, and were heaped together at sundry times, one after another. some by one Pope, and some by another. And such novelties are justly rejected by us. 21. The Mass is an application, whereby that, which Christ merited for us, is applied to every man in particular. Answer. 1: It cannot be said to be any application, unless it be thereunto so ordained by God. Now we have a twofold application only of the merits of Christ, recorded in Scripture. Whereof the one is by the word and faith without any external element; and the other by the elements and rites in the Sacraments ordained thereunto. But the Mass is a thing altogether different from the Lords Supper: therefore it maketh nothing for the applying of Christ's merit. Moreover, the Mass hath no testimony from the Scripture of either of these manners of applying. Neither therefore doth it apply the merit of Christ. 2, And, because the Mass hath no commandment of God, it may not be lawful for men to tie the grace of God to man's inventions. 22. In the Mass there is remembrance of the passion and death of Christ: therefore the Mass is to be reverenced. Ans. 1. The remembrance of the passion & death of Christ, aught to be done by the celebration of the Lords Supper, which Christ ordained and instituted, but not by the theatrical celebration of the Mass, which was not instituted by Christ. 2, The Papists strive not only for the remembrance of the Lords death in the Supper, but for a propitiatory sacrifice, as the Canon of the counsel of Trent hath it. There is therefore more in the consequent, than in the Antecedent. 23. There are many good things contained in the Mass: therefore, etc. Ans. And there be very many idolatrous things contained in the Mass. And, Magic is thereby made good, because Magicians use good and holy words: for good mingled with evil doth not make that, which is evil, to become good, but that, which was good of itself, is corrupted by the evil: as when a man mingleth poison with good wine. 24, The Mass is a representation of the death and passion of Christ. Now seeing a representation doth work more strongly than a bare commemoration, the Mass cannot displease God. Answer. 1. Because a representation seemeth stronger and more forcible to men, it doth not therefore seem stronger to God also: for my thoughts are not as your thoughts (Isai: 55, 8.) 2, Seeing that representation is a kind of commemoration, they which contend for a representation alone, are stricken by the Pope with a curse, in the Canon before cited. 3, Neither doth the first Supper of Christ bear a representation, in which Supper our Adversaries themselves do not admit of a representation. 25. Luke maketh mention of the * Liturgy of the Apostles: Act. 13, 2. therefore the Apostles celebrated Mass. Ans. 1. The word Liturgy is understood of any service of God: and therefore their own vulgar Authentical translation rendereth it, ministrantibus illis, and our English 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accordingly, as they ministered to the Lord. 2, Seeing the most of the things in the Popish Mass are new, how, I pray you, doth the Mass suit with this allegation of the Apostles who were dead sundry hundreds of years before the Popish Mass was borne. 26. We read of many miracles, that were done at the Mass of the Papists: therefore it is not to be rejected. Answer. 1. The most of those miracles are such, as If those mir●●les be true, how chanceth it, tha● now the●e be no miracles done about the Mass, 〈◊〉 seldom, and those most false too. the Papists at this day are ashamed of the books, wherein those miracles are reported. 2, The coming of Antichrist shall be with all power, and signs and lying wonders. (2, Thess. 2, 9:) as Paul prophesied of him. 3. Miracles without the word of God are not sufficient to prove articles of religion as we read, Deut, 13, 1, 2, 3. 27 Luther doth confess the devil suggested arguments unto him, against the mass. Therefore to impugn the mass is devilish. Ans, 1, Luther describeth the conflict of Luther dimis●a privata. his conscience, wherein Satan after his manner, laying a truth for his ground, endeavoured to build thereupon falsehood and desperation. Even as the devil tempting Christ, alleged the holy Scripture, which undoubtedly is true. But it doth not therefore follow that simply every thing is a lie, which Satan bringeth in his temptations. For when he objecteth our sins against us, certainly he speaketh a truth. 2, We oppose not against our Adversaries either the authority of Luther or the tentation of Satan, but the Word of God. Now the testimonies of Scripture which overthrow the mass, cannot be termed devilish suggestions. Let them then answer unto them if they can. 28 Our Adversaries seek a shift, to wind themselves out of the danger of the thunderbolts of the Epistle to the Hebrues & say, that Christ's body always remaineth one; & therefore though it be daily offered, yet it is always the same, and but one only, and so it doth not any waiet whart the Epistle to the Hebrues. Answ, 1. That is not the question: whether Christ's body be one and the same. But here is the controversy, whether that body, which is one and the same, be often to be offered to God: seeing the Apostle to Hebrews witnesseth, that that body was once only offered, and that the offering thereof may not be iterated. There is then no connexion of the Antecedent & consequent in this paralogism, 2, But neither do they offer the same body of Christ, which was offered upon the cross, but an other body, which within a moment of time before was bread, if all be true, which they feign of Transubstantiation. But the true body of Christ was not bread. Therefore neither do they offer one and the same body of CHRIST. An appendix of other abuses of the Mass. The followers of Antichrist have transformed 1, Abuse private mass. the Mass into a private action, wherein there is no communion, but the masse-maker only receiveth the sacrament, whilst others, that be present only look on, who are persuaded, that such a mass benifitteth them neucrthelsse, though they communicate not. But we reject this private mass fos these reasons. Because the Lord's supper, by those private masses, which never were instituted by Christ, is changed into an action altogether diverse and different from the first institution. Christ gave not only a bare spectacle to his disciples in his first supper, but distributed his body and blood to them to be eaten and drunken. Private masses therefore have no agreement with the action of Christ. That appellation of the Lords Supper used by the Apostles (the breaking of bread) which is nothing else, but by a Hebrew phrase, the distribution of it, showeth, that in the primitive Church in the celebration of the supper, there was a communicating, & that private mass was altogether unknown. The same is meant by the words of Paul; we are all partakers of the same bread, 1, Cor, 10, 17, If the Corinthians were partakers, then doubtless they were not bare beholders of some private mass. That which Paul speaketh of the abuse of the Supper among the Corinthians: every man taketh his own supper afore, & one is hungry, and an other is drunk, 1, Corin. 11, 21. May not unfitly be applied to the private mass, for a certain likeness betwixt them. For what more like to this abuse than is the private mass, wherein the looker on hungereth: the masse-maker hath his private banquet, though he be not drunken, unless perhaps of the former days riot? Contrariwise our adversaries do dispute. 1, There is mention made of a private communion even in the histories of the primitive Church. Ans, 1, Private communion at that time was a thing much differing from private mass now a days. For from the beginning whilst persecution did still rage, and the Christians were therefore inflamed with great zeal, the whole Church did use to celebrate the Supper every day. But after persecution ceased, the zeal of Christians was by little and little abated, so that afterwards they did communicate only upon the Lord's day. In the mean while they of the clergy and the ministers of the Church kept the custom of the daily communion. And this Communion, when they of the laity were absent, began to be called a private Communion, and that which was celebrated on the Lord's day, was called a public Communion. It is therefore a frivolous argument, & altogether from the purpose, whilst our Adversaries argue from the private receiving of the Lords supper to the private sacrifices of the Mass (so making four terms.) 2 Those which are the lookers on in private mass, do communicate spiritually. Therefore they want not the fruit of the mass. Ans, 1. We speak of the sacrament and sacramental eating, & our Adversaries allege spiritual eating. There are therefore in this argument four terms, 2, That spiritual communion may be by faith alone, even out of the mass and communion. Therefore it is nothing to the mass. 3, This is the nature of the ministery, that the benefits of God be by it applied unto men. But private mass is a part of the ministery. Therefore by it there is application Made to the standers by. Ans, 1, The minor proposition is fal●●, It sufficeth not that a Preacher preach to himself without having any hearers: so neither sufficeth it, that the masse-maker alone communicate for others. because our adversaries cannot free their public mass, much less their private mass from idolatry, and how shall idolatry then be a part of the ministery? 2, Sacramental application doth not consist in a bare spectacle, but in the use and fruition, as it is not sufficient to salvation that an unregenerate man be a beholder of Baptism, unless himself also be baptised. 4 Priests that do mass are the mouth of the Church. Therefore if the Priest communicate, it is all one as if the whole Church had communicated. Ans, 1, The Antecedent hath no ground in the scripture, 2, Neither do the Papists themselves believe this which they say, otherwise the private communion of the Priest would be sufficient for them, that they should never have need of any public communion. 3, The mouth of the Church should be an impure one, when the Priest is polluted with adultery, whoredom, and such other wickedness. The Priests in the Old Testament did sacrifice for others, the laity being present: so in private mass the Priest may communicate for them that stand by. Ans, 1, There is great difference. For the Priest in the Old Testament in sacrificing and offering did give something to God, but he that communicateth doth not give, but receive some thing. There are therefore four terms, whiles for one medius terninus, there arise unto us two, the one whereof is to offer, the other, to receive or communicate. 2, And he that brought the sacrifice to the Priest to be offered, was not excluded from the act of sacrificing, but he also was said to have sacrificed, which also hath no affinity with private mass, in which, the laics which are present at private mass▪ are bare lookers on. They have wrested the mass from the end of 2, Abuse the wresting of the supper to other business. Communion to infinite other affairs, and altogether from the purpose: hence have arisen many kinds of masses: as namely, 1. The Mass of the Crown of thorns, 2. The Mass of the three nails. 3. The Mass of the foreskin of Christ. 4, The Mass for seafaring men. 5, The Mass for travelers on horseback, or on foot. 6. The Mass for women great with child. 7, The Mass for women in travel of childbirth. 8. The Mass for women that be barren. 9 The Mass for those that be sick of a quartan or tertian ague, and others of the like sort: which is nothing else, but many ways to profane the holy Supper. But they do also ●ell those Masses for money to every one that asketh for them. No● our Adversaries 3. Abuse. Simony. themselves do greatly condemns Simony, not marking in the mean while, that the ●ost of their Priests are Simoniacal: In which rout of men the Pope is mos● Simoniacal of all, as by whom, heaven, and God, and all is set to sale, as Mantuan saith. In the Mass they mingle water with wine (perhaps 4, Abuse. The mingling of water with wine. to fulfil the prophecy of isaiah. Thy wine is mixed with water. Isa: 1, 22.) which, were it held as an indifferent thing, might be borne with all; as there be some conjectures, that the Eastern Churches were wont to mingle water with wine, because of the strongness of the wine, and lest they might seem to make feasts in the holy Supper, and as we are not sure that the wine which i● bought for the use of the Sacrament, is not mingled with water by the Vintners: but because our Adversaries hold it as ● thing of necessity to be done, therefore it may not be endured. Because neither the Evangelists, nor Paul makes any mention of this mixture, but mention wine alone. This mixture of water bringeth the Papists into a maze: for they have no word, by which the water with the wine should be transsubstantiated, and in the mean while they may not confess that the substance either of the wine, or of the water beside the bare accidents, do remain after the consecration. Let them look then how they may wind themselves out. The Schoolmen have laboured herein in vain. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1. We read that of ancient time the wine was mixed with water in the supper. Answer. 1: It is a fallacy from that which is true in some respect, to the same taken absolutely: for we said, that the Eastern Churches did it in some respect. 2, It was a custom of the Eastern Church, which laid no necessity on it: but our Adversaries make it a law, and of necessity. 3, The question is not what and of whom, but how rightly it is done. 2, Water and blood flowed out of the side of Christ; therefore water ought to be mingled with wine. Answer. 1. Christ ordained no Sacrament upon the Cross: It is therefore here unfitly alleged. 2, The Scripture doth no where refer this to the Supper. 3, It would thence follow, that not the blood of Christ alone, but water also aught to be in the cup: which crosseth their conceit of Transubstantiation. 4, The ancient Fathers have expounded it of the 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacraments, the blood of the Supper, & water of baptism. 3. In the Revelation the multitude of Nations is compared to water: therefore mystically water is to be mingled with wine in the Sacrament. Answer. 1. That place hath nothing of the Sacrament. 2, The new Testament, especially in matters of the Sacraments, admit not of allegories, especially such, as have no ground in scripture. 3, Neither is it lawful for us to add anything to the Sacraments, upon sandy grounds scraped together here-from. 4, It seemeth, that Christ did mingle water with the wine, in that the Host carrying a Pitcher of water went before them into the Inn. Answer. This is a Doctorlike proof: In the pitcher there was water; therefore the cup must have water mixed in it in the Supper. In the Mass they have brought in a huge heap of ceremonies, which sprung up one after another 5. Abuse. a sink of ceremonies no long while ago; which Sleidan doth briefly describe, speaking of the tumult that was raised at Strasburge because of the Mass, in the 21 book of his history, in these words. There was a great concourse of men, especially, of the youth: for it was to all these a rare spectacle and not heard of before, that many there with shaved crowns, clothed after a new fashion, should sing together such things as no man understood: that candles and torches should burn, as the saying is, at noon day; that smoke and perfumes should be raised up with Frankincense; that the Priest with his Attendants should stand at the Altar; pronounce words in an uncouth language; use diverse bowings & gestures; bend downward with his hands close shut; one while ●ling abroad, another while pull back his arms; ever and anon turn himself; one while cry aloud, another while mutter over some things with great silence; cast his eyes on high; look groveling to the ground; stand in no one place; turn himself now to the right part, now to the left part of the altar; wag with the fingers; breath upon the chalice, and lift it up on high, and after set it down; in certain places name sometimes the living, sometimes the dead; break unleavened bread, & dip it in the chalice; strike his breast with his fist; sigh; make as though he slept with his eyes shut; awake again, eat one part of the bread, and drink up the other whole with the wine, lest any drop should be left; wash his hands; show to the people with his back towards them, and his hand stretched out, the gilded Paten, moo●e the same to his forehead and breast; kiss one while the Altar, another while an Image enclosed in some matter or me●tall: thus far Sleidan. This Mass therefore hath none affinity with that Mass, which some Ecclesiastical Historians do write, that the Apostles, and their Scholars did celebrate without all ceremony, only adding the Lord's prayer: which our Adversaries cannot deny, unless they will reject the witnesses of their own religion. Moreover, how lately those Ceremonies arose, ●. Abuse. The newness of their ceremonies and were unknown to the Primitive Church, we cannot more briefly learn, than by the narration of Polydore Virgil. He writeth on th●● wise. D● in●ent. rer. lib. 5, cap. 11. All mysteries (of Religion) were delivered of Christ amongst his Apostles plainly and simply: the whole order of Ceremonies was naked and plain, having more devotion than gay furniture: for it is evident enough, that Peter, (who either first of all, as being the chief of the Apostles, or together Where was here the offering after the Co●s●● cratio●● with the rest of the Apostles, did eftsoons celebrate divine service, with that rite, which he received from Christ) was wont strait after the consecration to bring in the Lord's Prayer. Afterward Iame● the Bishop of jerusalem, increased these mysteries: Basill also increased them, and others at sundry times instituted other things. Caelestinus the Introitus of the Mass, the beginning whereof is the Psalm; judica me Deus. Damasus ordained the Confession, which is made by the Priest before he ascend to the Altar: yet some there be, who ascribe it to Pontianus. Gregory ordained the Anthem, which followeth the Introitus, and therefore it is commonly called by the same name: as also that Kyrie should be said nine times, & the Anthem after the Epistle, Gospel, & Communion. But the Anthem after the Epistle they call the gradual, because the Deacon ascendeth into an higher place to read the Gospel. Telesphorus ordained the Hymn, Gloria in excelsis Deo. Gelasiu● first invented the Orisons, that is, the clauses of prayers, as they call them. Hier●m the Epistle and Gospel: and Anastasi●s first appointed when it was read, that all which were present at service, should stand crooked and bending down for reverence, that they might be more ready to defend the faith of the Gospel, or to mark and note it, which we use to do rather standing, than sitting. The hallelujah was translated from jerusalem. The singing of the Creed, that it should be sung after the Gospel on festival days, and should be repeated by the people, which were present at service, was the decree of Pope Mark the first. The same decree was renewed afterward by Damasus. Gelasius made the Anthem, which Here Mass was so celebrated, that the people might answer. they commonly call the Tract, and the Hymns: and the prefaces, which go before the Canon, he framed in an elegant speech and song, which, as Pelagius reporteth, are nine in number. Vrbanus addeth the tenth unto the honour of the virgin, the mother of God. And whereas Incense is burned at the Altar, Aaron did that first; as the Lord said unto Moses. Thou shalt set an altar before the vail, and Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense; as it is in Exodus (30, 6, 7) And afterward Leo the third decreed, that the same should be done amongst us; which was also observed of the heathens. Hereof it is, that Virgil saith of Venus in the first of his Aen●ids. Vbi Templum illi, centumque Sab●o Th●re calent arae etc. Where stand her famous seats, And Temple rich, and of incense an hundred altars sweats. The use of washing their hands seemeth to have come from the Old Testament, for that the jews were wont to begin not only divine service, but their banquets also with washing of hands; as holding it wicked to eat bread with unwashen hands, which fault they objected against the Disciples of Christ. Or else this custom was taken from the Heathen, amongst whom those which sacrificed did first of all wash their hands: & as Hesiod saith, there was a charge given, that no man should in the morning ofter wine to jupiter with unwashen hands, lest the glory of the sacred things should be polluted. (And here again he allegeth verses of Virgil's) thus far Polydore Virgil. Who so would see more, let him read Durandus his book entitled Rationale Diuin●rum Offic●orum. Behold the great impudency of our Adversary's, who boast of antiquity in the mass and endeavour to fetch it from the very Apostles, contrary to their consciences and credit to all histories, but lest they here seek a shift and pretend that these things are spoken of the ceremonies only, which are not of the substance of the mass: let us hear what the same Author writeth of the chiefest & the substantial mystery of the mass, of the Canon, I mean in the same book and chapter. Where he saith thus: In the prefaces, that Sanctus, Sanctus, How finely the mass came from the apostles Sanctus, Dominus, Deus Zebaoth should be sung, was first decreed by Sixtus, which was taken from the Prophet Isay. Gelasius made; Teigitur, which afterward was made, the beginning, as before Syricius had made Communicants; which now is set in the third place. Whence it appeareth that the Canon itself, was neither all framed by one man, neither brought into that form, whereof it now consisteth. The certainty whereof hence appeareth, that Alexander the first, who was along time before Gelasius and Syricius, appointed for the memorial of Christ's passion: Qu● pridie, quam pate●eter, etc. unto these words: Hoc est Corpus meum. Wherefore it is clear enough, that then was the beginning of the Canon, when, as hath been said, Gelasius was Bishop of Rome, about 360, years or somewhat more after Alexander. Then Leo added Hanc igilur oblationem etc., unto these words, placitus accipias. Gregory annexed thereto three petitions, Diesque nostras in tua pac● disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione ●o● eripe, et in Electorum t●orum iubeas grege numerary. The same Gegorie the first added, Sanctun● sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam. And in like sort others added other things. Thus far Polydor Virgil. By this narration you see, that they are stark & shameless lies, which the Papists boast of the antiquity of their mass, & of Apostolic traditions of the mass. You have here the history of the beginning of the principal and substantial parts of the mass compiled out of the Ecclesiastical histories, not by some Lutheran, but by a faithful servant of the Roman Church, even by a mass-priest. 7, Abuse. The errors and fooleries of the Can●● of the mass. Now le● us see by one or two examples, how absurd that Canon is, thus patched together by diverse shreds. The Ancients in times past, at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist, brought love-feasts, for the sustenance of the poor, and maintenance of the ministery. At those offerings (which certainly were no propitiatory sacrifice) the Church was wont to pray for preservation and safety, etc. Now that in the Canon before the consecration is applied to the bread and wine at this day, and the bread and wine are offered to God the Father for the salvation of the Church. In the Canon, God is requested to accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and Meschizedeck. If our Adversaries refer these words to the old accustomed offerings, they make mockeries, seeing this manner is now ceased amongst them: and they pray for that, which is no where. But if they refer them to the present sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ in the mass; what is this else, but to make intercession to the heavenly Father for his Son Christ? Again how absurdly is that most precious sacrifice of Christ's own body & blood, compared with the sacrifice of Abel, which, it may be, was a Lamb or a Goat? but these witless men make no more reckoning of Christ's sacrifice, than of a goat or a Lamb. There is comparison made with the sacrifice of Melchizedeck, whereas yet there is An error in the sacrifice of Melchizedeck, who did not sacrifice but brought forth bred and wine. nothing in Scripture (as hath already been showed) that Melchizedeck did offer bread and wine. The sacrifice of Christ is compared with that sacrifice which is not, never was, and never shall be. The Canon saith that they offer the bread of life to the heavenly Father: But where are they bid to offer the bread of life? Whereof we read nothing in the whole course of the scripture, but that the bread of life should be eaten, not offered. The Canon is contrary to the article of Christ's ascension, when it commandeth the Angels to carry the host before the face of God to the high altar. What? And did not Christ ascend unto his Father? And is there need, that he should now after all appear before his Father, that he should be carried from the earth above to his Father? Again seeing Christ is never in his glorified body absent from his Father, what do the Angels carry, according to the Canon of the mass? if bread, than they commit idolatry; if his body, then hath Christ two bodies, one whereof is present in Heaven with the Father; and the other is now after all, carried from the earth by the Angels. And lastly, that we may not seem here to make a large refutation of the Canon, whatsoever praise, prayer, thanksgiving, was wont to be used in the primitive Church in the celebration of the Supper, and offerings of charity, all that (though the manner of those offerings be abrogated, with which that part of the service should rightly have been abrogated too) all that, I say, our Adversaries do so retain, that they have (of a foolish ordinance) trasferred to the bread of the Eucharist present in the Supper, all those which formerly belonged to an action altogether different from this. As any man may easily find more, than be here alleged, if he do but only read the Canon of the mass. In the mean while the Council of Trent striketh all them with acurse, which say there be errors contained in the Canon of the mass. But it is evident how it wanteth no errors, but aboundeth with them. This is also one of the Abuses of the mass, that 8, Abuse. Mass said in Latin. it is celebrated not in a known tongue, and such as the people understand, but in a strange and indeed only in the latin tongue, which we reprove for these causes Because in the supper, there ought to be a commemoration, of the death & passion of Christ which how can it be done in a tongue which the people understand not. And how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not, what thou sayest? 1, Corin 14, 16. Paul writ the institution of the Lords Supper to the Corinthians, rather in their mother tongue, than in an other. Before the receiving of the Supper, to the fruitful use thereof it is needful to admonish and exhort the communicants before hand, that the people may examine themselves. This admonishing hath no place, where the holy Supper is celebrated in a strange tongue. Paul, though he commend the gift of tongues, yet would have all things in the Church ordered to edification, but by a strange tongue, he that understandeth it not, is not edified: neither can the hearers faith be strengthened by that speech, which he knoweth not what it meaneth. I had rather in the Church (saith Paul) speak five words with mine understanding, that I might also instruct others, than ten thousand wor●s in a strange tongue. 1, Cor: 14. 19 for this purpose read that whole chapter. Paul had rather in the public congregation of the Church speak so, that he might be understood: but the Papists had rather in the meeting of the Church speak, that they be not understood. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason thus. 1. Mass is to be said in Latin, that they which come to us out of France, Italy, & England may understand it, and thereby set the unity of the Church. Ans. 1 By the like reason, we should not preach in the Dutch tongue, but in the Latin amongst Dutch men, that strangers, which come unto us may understand and hear the consent of our doctrine: 2, The whole flock and company of the godly are not to be neglected, for the cause of a stranger or two; whereas notwithstanding there is often times never a one present. 3, If there be a necessity, that all strangers should understand Mass, how much more needful, ●●at the whole Church at home should understand? 4, It is not certain that all strangers do understand the Latin tongue. 2. The words of some one language (for example, of the Dutch tongue) are in sund●y places of the land, different and disagreeing, which falleth not out in the Latin tongue. Answer. 1. The Papists may be ashamed of such senseless paralogisms: for by the same reason it should be unlawful to preach in Dutch. 2. And why do not the jesuits at this day, for the same reason, cease to publish their writings in the Dutch tongue? But a fit cover for such a pot: such as is the Popi●● Religion, such are the Popish reasons. 3. If service should be said in the vulgar tongue, then there would be a profanation of the mysteries of Religion. Answer. 1. This is the sore that our Adversaries cannot abide should be touched: for they are afraid, lest the gross absurditities of the Canon of the Mass should be espied even of the Laics. 2, By the like reason, it should not be any more lawful to read the Gospels appointed for Sundays, (wherein are many high Mysteries of faith contained) in the vulgar tongue before the people: but mysteries of Religion, whiles they are proposed to the Church and explained, are nothing at all by this means profaned. unless they account the Church as Swine and Dogs, before whom it is not lawful to cast sacred things. 4. Strangers, which understand not our vulgar tongue, would laugh at our service, which they understand not. Answer. 1. And what if the common people deride the Mass, because they understand it not, being said in Latin? 2. And what if those strangers understand not the Latin tongue neither, will they not therefore deride it too? If when the whole Church is come together in one, & all speak stanrge languages, (that is, if nothing be done in the vulgar tongue) there come in they that are unlearned, or they which believe not, will they not say, that ye are out of your wits? as Paul saith. 1, Cor. 14, 23. (Note that what is here spoken of the saying of Mass in Latin, may also be understood of prayers rehearsed in Latin only,) It is an abuse of the Mass also, that they ●. Abuse. Mass for the dead. offer the Mass not so much for the living, as for the dead, residing (as the Papists think) in Purgatory: and that they persuade themselves, that the Mass doth profit the dead, and that they are helped by the multitude of Masses: the vanity whereof how great it is, shall be declared afterward in the question of Purgatory, and therefore we will surcease from that labour now: let it suffice; that we have rehearsed now some few errors and abuses of the Mass in steed of many. CHAP. 18. Of Communion under one kind●. THE Antichrist of Rome hath moreover mangled the holy Supper of Christ, and hath bereft the people of the one part or kind of the Supper, namely the Cup; which he pretendeth to appertain not to the lay people, but to the Priests only: but we greatly reprove this mangling of the Supper, as a kind of sacrilege, and that for most just reasons. Because it doth directly oppugn the sacred & first institution of the Supper by our Lord jesus Christ. 1. For Christ instituted an entire & whole Sacrament consisting of two kinds, or rather of two parts, and not a maimed Sacrament. 2. Neither did he institute two Sacraments of the Supper; whereof the one, which is for the Priests, should consist of two parts, or, as they speak, of two kinds; the other for the people, but of one. This maiming of the Supper, is repugnant to the express words of Christ's Commandment. 1. Drink ye (a word of the Imperative Mood) all of this. Math. 26. 27. 2. And all of them drank of it, according to his commandment. Mar. 14, 23. This was not barely commanded, but in the virtue of a Testament, which no man may disannul. 1. For the Cup, which our Adversaries bereave the people of, is the Cup of the new Testament. 1, ●o●. 11. 25. Luk, 22, 20. 2. This is my blood of the new Testament. Math. 26. 28. Mark. 14, 24. The Lord tied the commemoration of his death to the Communion of the holy Cup also. therefore the commemoration of the blood Christ shed belongeth equally unto all, and consequently the Cup also. As Christ ordained the bread, as a means to partake his body, which was given for us; that receiving the bread according to his ordinance, we should therewith by ●aith recea●e his body also: so hath he ordained the Cup as a means for receiving his bloud● therefore, seeing the lay people have need to receive the blood of Christ shed for their sins, it is needful also to receive it in the Cup, the ordinary means thereof, and not in the bread. Those things which Christ by the great wisdom of his Father, did sever from them selves in the bread and the wine, those do our Adversaries confound together. It is proved that the ancient and Primitive Church did communicate under both ●indes. 1. By the example of the Corinthians, to Note. The B b in the counsel of Constance, confess that the Communion under one kind, was neither instituted by Christ, nor used by the faithful of the Primitive Church those Papists the whom Paul prescribes the entire institution of the Supper equally to all. 1, Corinth. 11. 26, 27, 28. 2, By the Ecclesiastical Histories in the times of the Fathers. 3, By the confession of our Adversaries in the Canons of the counsel of Constance; which have these words. Though Christ did administer to his Disciples, this venerable Sacrament under both the kinds of bread & wine: yet notwithstanding this, the Communion under which would prove the Communion under one kind by the Scripture, do reprove the counsel of Constance for a lie▪ and do hold that the Counsel may err. one kind only, is to be held for a law. And again, Although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds: yet notwithstanding this, the custom being brought in, etc. (8) Seeing therefore that the Communion under one kind, was neither ordained by Christ, nor used of the Apostles, this constitution of Communion under one kind only, can neither be Divine nor Apostolic, but Antichristian, as having had no place in the Church of Christ for many hundred years. And when as afterward it crept into the Church by little and little, in some places, not every where; it was at length confirmed & brought in publicly by the counsel of Constance. The lightness of those reasons, which they bring for the mangling of the Supper, aught This book was published by Gerson, in the year, 1417. August. 20. to make it justly hated of godly men. Now we will very briefly note the reasons of the counsel of Constance, as Gerson hath explained them in a particular book for that purpose: and these be they. 1, If the cup were granted to the people, there were danger of shedding. 2, Danger in carrying it from place to place. 3, In the silliness of the vessels: which should be Sacred, and not commonly handled and touched by the laics. 4, In men's long beards. 5, In the reserving of it for the sight: For vinegar might be generated in the vessel: add moreover, that in summer time flies might breed● in it, & some times the wine might putrify. 6, Many would abhor to drink it, when many others had dr●nk● before them. 7, In what vessel could there be so much wine consecrated, as would be required at Easter time for some thousands of Communicants. 8, There would be loss in the chargeable providing of wine. For in some places it is hardly gotten, & other where it is sold dear. 9, There would be danger, lest it should congeal. 10, Hereof would arise a danger of a false conceit, as if there were as great worthiness in the laics, about receiving Christ's body, as is in the Priests. 11, It would be thought, that the Communion of the cup hath been heretofore, and now were necessary, and so all the Doctors of the Clergy and the Prelates, which have not opposed themselves against the contrary custom, by their preaching & writing should have offended. 12, The power & virtue of this sacrament, would be deemed to be more in the receiving, than in the consecration of it. 13, It would follow that the Church of Rome did not judge sound of the sacraments, neither were herein to be imitated. 14, It would follow, that the Council of Constance did err in faith & good manners. 15, It would be● an occasion of Schisms in Christianity. Had it been strange, gentle Reader, if this council had been beaten to powder with lightning and thunder from Heaven; which hath mangled, turned up side down, and broken the Testament and last will of the Son of God, given us in charge by the eternal Wisdom of GOD, with such frivolous, foolish, and idle reasons. Thus forsooth the Sacraments are to be handled, so great aught to be the authority of the Son of God in his Church, with what burden of conscience then do our Adversaries defend this mangling. Contrariwise our adversaries do dispute. 1. Christ saith: Do this in remembrance of Me, that is administer the Supper, in remembrance of Me; but this agreeth only to Priests, not to Laics. Therefore neither doth the Cup belongeth unto the Laics, seeing it pertaineth ●ot to them to administer the Supper. Ans, 1, By this reason the Laics should be thrust, not from one but from both kinds of the Sacrament. 2, The word (Do) hath not only reference to him that administereth, but to the communicants too. Otherwise seeing the apostles did not administer in the 1, supper but only received the Sacrament from Christ, they also should have communicated but under one kind. 2 All the Apostles were Priests; therefore the use of the Cup and that precept, Drink ye etc. belong to Priests only. Ans, 1, Then the Primitive CHURCH did amiss, and Paul the Apostle too, who delivered the Supper unto the lay people, not mangling the Communion of the Laics (as they call them) but in such wise, as he had received it from the Lord, that is, so as it was delivered unto him. 2, Again by this reason the latity should be excluded not from the cup only, but from the whole Sacrament. 3, It cannot be, that Apostles were then Priests, that is, sayers or doers of mass: because then the mass had no being at all: & that the Apostles were made priests at the Supper, it is a tale, framed without authority of the scripture. If it be objected, that they were made Priests before, when they were sent to preach, the schoole-divines deny it, who say that they were made Priests at the supper, and reduce the Apostles at the time of their sending forth, into the order of exorcists, not of priests. 6 Christ did not so institute both kinds, that it may not be lawful also to communicate under one kind only. Answ, 1, The Antecedent proposition is most false: for it cannot be showed in scripture, that Christ did institute both kinds as a thing indifferent and arbitrary. 2, The words of Christ are unanswerable: Drink ye all of this. Now unless they can show a restriction or limitation in the scripture of this universal proposition, it remaiveth an universal in his full force. 3. It is a Doctor like interpretation: Drink ye all; that is, it is not needful that all drink. Then those universal sayings shall also be so expounded: Come unto me all ye, that are weary, that is, it is not needful, that all which are weary and heavy laden, should come unto me, etc. A rare kind of Divinity no doubt. 4, The true body of Christ is not without Concomitance. blood, therefore seeing the blood is contained also under hat kind, it is sufficient to communicate under one kind only. Answer, 1, This argument deserveth thunder claps and eternal brimstone. Christ forsooth seemeth foolish to them who (not considering that his blood was contained under his body) instituted unnecessary things in his last will, as not having his wits well about him for fear of death. But Wisdom is justified of her children. 2, And if under the bread there were the body not void of blood, yet we should not so satisfy Christ's commandment, who commanded us not to eat, but to drink, drink, drink his blood. 5 Paul saith: whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink, etc. 1. Corin, 11, 17. there by the disjunctive particle (or) is granted a Communion under one kind. Answer, 1, If that were paul's meaning, than were it lawful to communicate with the cup only without bread which seeing our Adversaries deny, they do thereby expose the vanity of this argument to be derided. 2, Paul when he describeth the institution of the Supper in its proper place, 1, Corinth, 11, 24. 25, 26, 28. Useth no disjunctive particle. 3. Our Adversaries in running to the Greek text, do against the council of Trent, which enjoineth the old vulgar latin translation of the Bible, to be held for authentical in disputations, so that no man may dare or presume to reject it upon any pretence what seever. Sess, 4, Decret, 2. 6 Paul saith in the Greek text: All we are Partakers of one bread: and those words (et de uno chalice, and of one cup) though they be in the old translation, yet they are not in the Greek text. Therefore Paul allowed a Communion under one kind. Answ, 1, It is a failacie of composition and Division, because those words are severed from the entire and perfect reasoning of Paul, by which words he argueth afterward from the communion of the cup, as in the beginning he did from the communion of the bread, saying: ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. From these words, a man might conclude by the same consequence, as the Papists upon their authority do, that it were lawful to communicate with the cup only without bread. 7 Paul saith: let us keep the feast in unleavened bread. 1 Cor. 5, 8. There Paul maketh no mention of the cup, insinuating one kind only. Ans, Paul speaks of the newness of life of the regenerate, by an argument drawn from a rite of the Passeover whereby they abstained from leaven. This is then an idle & inconsequent reason. For these are Paul's words whole and entire: let us keep the feast not with old leaven, neither in the leaven of maliciousness and wickedness: but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. These are nothing to the Lords supper, there are then four terms. 8▪ Christ celebrated the supper under one kind only, before his two disciples in Emaus, Luke, 24, 30. Ans. 1. There is described Christ's usual custom; wherein he used to break bread (at dinner or supper) and to bless it: neither doth there appear any show of the celebration of the Supper in this story. The words are not said: This is my body. they are not bid, eat; or call to remembrance the Lords death: neither is it said, that the two Disciples did eat, but it seemeth rather, that they broke off their Supper straightways for joy▪ 9 Paul celebrated the Supper under one kind only, in the ship. Act. 27, 35. Ans. There is nothing at all of the Supper, but of allaying their hunger: unless our Adversaries would have it, that the heathen and unconverted Soldiers did communicate too, and that they grew to be merry in the celebration of the Supper of the Lord, as at a feast or banquet: for both these are comprised in that rehearsal of Saint Luke. The argument than is this: hunger is allayed with bread, therefore the lay-people may communicate under one kind only. 10. In the Church of the Apostles, the faithful communicated under one kind (of bread) only. Act. 2, 42: Ans. 1. The breaking of bread in that somewhat The connsel of Cōstm●e doth con●es in express words, that in the Primitive Church, this Sacrament was used to be received of the faith full under both kinds. obscure place, may as well be understood of the community of goods, and rereceaving the poor into their fellowship, as of the Communion in the Supper: for by the circumstances it should rather be meant, that their bread was broken in their houses and not in the Church, that is, that the Christians lived of their goods in common: neither is this interpretation or sense absurd. 2, But be it granted, that the speech is there of the Supper: yet it being a synecdochical speech, where the whole is signified by a part, it will not exclude the Cup. 11. Christ bade us pray: Give us this day our daily bread, etc. therefore the lay people ought t● communicate under one kind. Answer. 1. The Priests say the same prayer, let them then abstain also from the Cup. 2, The word (Bread) in the Antecedent is taken for food and raiment, in the consequent for Communion under one kind: so there are four terms. 12. The Fathers, when they speak of the Supper. do oftentimes mention the bread only, and not the Cup also. Ans. 1. They name the Supper so by a figure Synecdoche, from the more principal part signifying the whole: but the figure Synecdoche hath not an exclusive power; but under one part includeth the other two. ●, The counsel of Constance doth grant that in the Primitive Church (in the time of the Fathers) the Communion was used under both kinds. 3, If such sayings of the Fathers do exclude one part of the Sacrament, why doth this exclusive belong to the Laics only, and is not extended to the Priests also. 13. The ancient Canons did thrust bad Priests down to the Communion of the Laics: therefore Communion under one kind● for the Laics, was then in use. Answer. The Communion of the Laics was a punishment for evil Priests, because Th● a godly Laicke & a evil Priest are esteemed of the Papists alike. they were suspended from their office, & the power of consecrating, whereby they did minister and distribute in the holy Supper, was taken from them, and a place was appointed for them amongst the Laics: In which signification the Communion of Laics is taken in the Antecedent; because therefore it is taken otherwise in the consequent, there are four terms. 14. In ancient time, they carried the consecrated bread home with them: but there is nothing said of the carrying of the Cup: therefore, etc. An. The question is not what was done; but whether it were rightly done, and according to the rule of Christ's institution. 15. The Communion under one kind is an ancient Tradition. Ans. 1. The counsel of Constance saith no: as hath been said sundry times. 2, The Tradition of Christ and the Apostle Paul, concerning the Supper, is far more ancient. Let this tradition then, which is of no such antiquity, give place to the more ancient. 16. The Church hath power to change the Sacraments, because at this day all hold, that tha● change is lawful, whereby the Supper is translated from the evening to morning meetings. Answer. 1. The change of the circumstance of time in the celebration of the Lords Supper, belongeth not to the substance of the Sacrament, but to the accidents and circumstances: to reason then from these, to changes in the substance, is against art and reason. 2, And that was spoken to the Church, Turn not aside to the right hand, nor to the lea●t Deut. 5, 32. 17. Of the sons of Eli it is written: Appoint ●e, I pray thee, to one of the Priests offices, that I Eckius in his Enchiridion. may eat a morsel of bread. 1, Samuel. 2, 36 therefore the Communion under one kind is due to the Laics. Answer. I will only reckon up the several Terms that be in this argument. 1, The sons of Eli. 2, Lay Christians. 3, The Priest's office, or maintenance by the revenues of the Priesthood. 4, The Lords Supper. 5, The repulse from the Priest's office. 6, Admission to the Supper. 7. A morsel of bread. 8, The Sacrament under one kind. Is not this a very fertile argument of many terms? and how prodigal are our Adversaries in terms. CHAP. 19 Of Purgatory. Our Adversaries lay it for a ground, that as there be three sorts of men, some good, some bad, and some of a mean sort betwixt both, so there shall be three estates of men's souls after this life; that they are either altogether blessed, or everlastingly damned, or else in the temporal punishment of Purgatory. And this last sort of souls, (to wit those that be in Purgatory) hath much augmented their rents and revenues: for the Papists ●each, that those souls may ●e helped by the prayers of the living, purchased by gold and silver, yea by lands and other revenues also: of these things than let us treat briefly. Question: 1. Seeing that which is not, hath no proprieties, first the question is, whether there be a Purgatory. Our Adversaries say there is, we say, no; for these reasons. Because the Scripture teacheth us nothing of Purgatory, neither in the letter, nor in the sense thereof: but the Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation. Yea, a● often as Christ and the Apostles speak of the estate of souls after this life, they mention only two estates, either of eternal life, or of hell torments. 1, He, that shall believe, and be baptised, shall be saved: but he, that will not believe, shall be damned. Mark, 16, 16. 2, Verily, verily, I say unto you; he that heareth my word, and believeth in him, that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but hath passed from death unto life. joh. 5, 24▪ 3. He that believeth in the son, hath everlasting life, and he that obeyeth not the son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him: Ioh: 3, 36. 4. He that believeth in him, shall not be condemned: but he that believeth not, is condemned already: joh. 3, 18. 5. So in the parable (Luke, 16) there are only two places after death mentioned: everlasting life, (wherein was Abraham and Lazarus) and eternal damnation (wherein was the glutton:) neither is there granted any passage from the one to the other. 6. Christ at his coming maketh only two flocks, to wit, the blessed and the damned Matthew: 25: and Christ saith nothing of the purging of them which are of the mean sort betwixt the other two, by Purgatory; whereas notwithstanding in that congregation of all men, the three sorts of men, the good, the bad, and those of mean sort betwixt both, shall all appear before the tribunal seat of Christ. 7, So Christ, did not send the Thief upon the Cross to Purgatory (though he had done many ill deeds), but calleth him directly to heaven: Luk, 23, 43: Paul would not have Christians to be ignorant of the estate of them, which are dead in Christ: there he doth not only say nothing of Purgatory; but hath arguments also against it, 1, Thes, 4, 13. etc. 1, He saith, the faithful departed do sleep, not they are tormented in purgatory, ver, 13. 2, He speaketh it for our comfort. But there would be no comfort, if we should know that our friends religiously departed, were in pain and torments and such as be extreme, ver, 13. 3, Christ will bring with him at his coming the faithful departed, he will not then at length, call them to him out of Purgatory, ver, 14. The Popish purgatory, whereby we should be purged from sins after death, doth cross and twhart the one only and true purgatory of Christians: which is the merit and blood of Christ, laid hold on by faith. 1, men's hearts are purged by faith, not by the fire of purgatory) Act. 15, 9 2, The blood of jesus Christ the Son of God, purgeth us from all sin, 1, Ioh, 1, 7. 3, Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantonness, etc., shall inherit the kingdom of God: And such were some of you; (now see their purgatory, what it was) but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord jesus, and by the spirit of our God, 1, Cor. 6, 9, 10, 11. It twharteth also the perfect satisfaction, and perfect merit of CHRIST, if no we after all we must make satisfaction in the pains of purgatory. 1, For so the passive righteousness of Christ shall be thrust out of doors. 2, Christ is the reconciliation for the sins of the whole World, 1, joh. 2, 2. 3, Surely he hath borne our infirmities etc. I say doth in one place refute Purgatory by many arguments. He was wounded for, our transgressions etc. with his stripes we are healed, etc. the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all, etc. The chastisement of our peace (the punishment of our sins) was upon him, etc. He hath carried our sorrows. Isay 53, 4, 5, 6. It is contrary to the article of the Christian faith 1, We believe the remission, not the compensation of sins. 2, We believe eternal life. Hear is no mention of Purgatory. The opinion of our Adversaries concerning Purgatory hath no weight. 1, For they confess that there was no purgatory in the time of the old Testament. 2, They cannot avoid the absurdity concerning them which shall be found alive at the latter day, and have deserved Purgatory: what shall be done with them: whether God will pardon them those punishments: or whether they must be tormented for a time after the final sentence of the last ●●dgment. 3, The grounds of this opinion were taken from Plato and Virgil, lib, 6. Aened. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1, Because all men have not perfect and firm faith, therefore all after this life cannot perfectly behaved. Ans, 1, Christ, when he saith, that faith is the instrumental cause of salvation, he speaketh of faith generally, and excludeth neither weak, nor imperfect faith. 2. Christ laid hold on by faith, cannot be deu●ded; that he should be said, to be laid hold on but in part; and they which lay hold on him, to be saved but in part; but whole Christ is apprehended as well by a weak, as by a strong faith. 3, It is a fallacy, taking that for a cause which is no cause. For the strongness or weakness of faith (or an accident of faith) is not the cause of apprehending salvation, but of retaining it, Now that which is spoken of retaining, that ou● Adversaries do wrongfully apply to the apprehending thereof. 2 No unclean thing shall enter into the kingdom of Hea●en, Revel, 21, 27. Therefore needs they must be purged by purgatory. Answ, 1, There be four terms in the argument. For the purging from the filth of sin in the Antecedent is taken for the justification of faith, whereby all that believe, are washed, are sanctified, are purified, (1, Cor, 6, 11, 1, Ioh 1, 7. Acts 15, 9) in the consequent it is taken for a cleansing in purgatory, neither known to God, nor to the Scriptures. 2, There is more in the Consequent, than in the Antecedent. For it followeth not: the heirs of eternal life are unclean, therefore they are purified only by the fire of Purgatory, and not by any other means, such as these which concur together are, faith, the blood & the merit of Christ. 3 In the name of jesus shall every knee bow, both of things in Heau●n, and things in earth, and things under the earth, Philip. 2, 10, Revel. 5, 13. But the devils hate Christ, and do not bow the knees unto him. Therefore there are souls in purgatory; and consequently there is a purgatory. Ans, 1, The bowing of the knees in this place is the same, that subjection, in which sense even the Devils (though they tremble) do in outward carriage confess subjection to Christ. 2, It is an error taking that, which is spoken indefinitely of all sorts of creature's, whether reasonable or unreasonable, as i● it were spoken definitely, of a certain sort of men; of whom notwithstanding there is no certainty in Scripture. 3, As concerning the place (Revelat, 5, 3, 13.) where there is mention made of such as are under the earth, I answer. 1, If there were a purgatory, yet were it not certain, that it were under the earth. 2, Under the earth, are both the creatures under the earth; & also the dead, which are buried, which shall appear before Christ at the resurrection, and shall testify their subjection. 4 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but he shall be safe himself: nevertheless yet as it were by the fire. 1, C●rin, 3, 15. Therefore there is a Purgatory. Ans, 1, It followeth not, the fire shall ●ye it; Therefore purgatory fire shall try it, 2, Paul saith the work shall burn, not the person; but our Adversaries imagine the persons and souls shall burn. 3, If Paul speak of purgatory, than the Saints shall be thrust into purgatory; which is proved by the universal particle Eueri● man's work, etc. 4, He speaketh of the fire of tribulation, affliction, and tentation; against which, stubble may not be opposed, but faith which is more precious than gold, 5. So than while they confound the work that shall burn, and the persons that shall burn, and also the fire of tribulation and the fire of purgatory, there arise not four, but fi●e terms. 5 Of the sin against the Holy-ghost, it is said, it shall neither be forgiven in this World, nor in the World to come. Matth. 12, 32. Therefore there remaineth a place after death wherein sins are forgiven. Answer, 1, CHRIST speaketh of the World to come; but our Adversaries themselves deny, that there shall be any Purgatory in the WORLD to come, unless they will fall into the error of Origen. 2, Christ speaketh of remission in the World to come: but our Adversaries urge not, remission, but satisfaction in purgatory. There are therefore four terms. 3, The phrase of speech (neither in this World, nor in the world to come) in Mark 3, 29. are expressed thus: he shall never have forgiveness 6 Thou shal● not come out thence, till tho● hast paid the v●most farthing, Matth, 5, 26. It must needs be therefore, that there is a purgatory. Answ. 1. Christ in these words doth not speak of the state of the World to come; but admonisneth us, that in this present life we study for peace and quietness, and be reconciled to our Adversaries: lest by our stubbornness we draw upon us greater evils from the civil Magistrate. 2, Were the place never so much to be expounded allegorically; ye● herein it faileth, that we, (who have offended an eternal and infinite God) must neede● be subject to eternal punishments: where no place is granted to temporal punishment. 3, There would follow this absurdity also: that we must agree with our Adversary, that is, with Satan: this end allegories have, which are stretched beside the meaning of the Scripture. 7, We went through fire and water, but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place. Psal. 66. 12 therefore there is a Purgatory. Answer. 1 Our Adversaries allege this out of the old Testament contrary to their conscience; whereas notwithstanding the Schoolmen teach, that in the old Testament there was as yet no Purgatory. 2, That the Psal●ne speaketh of temporal tribulations, is proved by the●e words next following: I will go● into thy house with offerings▪ which cannot agree to souls departed. 3. In the Psalm it is said: Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads: (men, not Devils, as is imagined to be in Purgatory.) 4, A sweet interpretation forsooth, we have gone through water, that is, through fire of Purgatory. 8 I have loosed thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water. Zachar, 9 11, that is, I have freed them out of Purgatory, and consequently, there is a purgatory. Ans, 1, It is a metaphorical speech, wherein is described the deliverance of all mankind after they had fallen. It is then a fallacy from a thing spoken in part and some respect, to the same absolutely taken. 2, There be contradictories in this, and the argument going before, if they be understood of purgatory. In the former argument, water is affirmed to be in purgatory, in this it is denied, that there is any water. 3, If the lake without water be urged, let our Adversaries know, that that place (Luke. 16. 23, 24) is hell, whence is no returning. And so it doth not agree to purgatory neither. 9 He is like a purging fire, and fullers soap; and he shall sit down to try and fine the silver: he shall even fine the sons of Levi etc. Malach. 3, 2, 3. Answ. 1. That they be mere metaphors, the word (like) doth show. It is then a fallacy urging a misconstruction of the words. 2, There is more in the consequent than in the Antecedent. For it followeth not: he shall purge the sons of Levi: Therefore that purgation can be none other, but by the fire of purgatory. 3, The whole text doth speak of the first coming of Christ, and of his ministery, whereby he shall confound and wipe away hypocrites, as dross, and shall institute the true worship of God, and shall consecrate spiritual priests and Levites by his blood. It is nothing therefore to the purpose. 10 Have pity upon me, O my friends: for the hand of God hath touched me. Ioh, 19 21 Therefore there is a purgatory. Answ, 1, Yet again our Adversaries remember not, that the Schoolmen know of no purgatory in the old Testament. 2, job desireth his friends, that they would cease from rebuking an innocent man, and rather pity him, than continue to reprove him. 3, job was alive and how could he be in Purgatory? 11. C●●is●●●nt in his Spirit, and preached to the Spiri●● 〈◊〉 which were in time past disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the days of No●. 1, Pe 〈…〉, 19, 20. therefore there is a Purgatory. Answer. 1. Some of the Popish Doctors (though impertinently too) do expound this place of Limbus Pa●●um, and not of Purgatory. 2, These belong to the old Testament, in which the doctrine of the Papists admitteth of no Purgatory. 12, judas Ma●●habaeus sent to jerusalem two thousand drachmas of ●●●ver for those that were slain: and the Author addeth withal. It was an holy and good thought, to pray for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. 2, Maccab. 12, 43, 45. Answer. 1. The book is Apocryphal, and in the end of the book the Author craveth pardon, saying: If I have done well, and as the story required (note, he wrote as an Historian, and not as one that delivered points of faith it is the thing, that I desired: but if I have spoken slenderly and barely it is that I could▪ ● M●acchab. 15, 39 2, judas had no commandment o●●od to do so: therefore it is no pre●●●ption to us. 3. Once again we must remember our Adversaries, why they would endeavour to prove Purgatory out of the old Testament: seeing themselves deny, that there was any Purgatory in the old Testament. 13. Augustine in some places doth not dislike the mention of Purgatory. Ans. 1. Augustine speaketh of it very staggeringly and doubtfully: adjoining to his dispuration of Purgatory these words: Perhaps it is true. Decivit. Dei. li. 21, cap. 24, & 26. 14, Because there be three sorts of men, good, evil, and of a mean sort betwixt both, it must needs be, that there be three such conditions of souls after this life. Ans. 1. We are not now to deal with the moral and politic principles of Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, etc. but with principles far different from them, namely with the principles of Divinity revealed from heaven. Seeing then, that diverse principles are confounded, it is a fallacy, involving many questions as one. 2, The distinction of men in Divinity is far different from this, and is only twofold; betwixt the Believers and the Infidels: betwixt the Sheep and the Goats: betwixt those which gather with Christ, and those which scatter: betwixt those which are with Christ, and those which are against him. And therefore unto these there are two places only, and no more assigned after death in the Scriptures. 15 Gregory the Great, learned Purgatory from spirits, that appeared unto him, and showed the punishment of Purgatory. Answ. Those spirits were not the souls of men departed, but they are the tricks and mockeries of Satan. 2, The truth should be learned, not of the dead, but of the Word of God, (the law, and the testimony. Isay, 28. 20). 3, Gregory in this uncertain kind of arguments, had a human slip; seeing he ought to have sticken rather to the Scripture, than to visions and spirits. QUESTION, 2. Whether the dead, after their death not having attained the bliss of Heaven, may be helped in Purgatory by the suffrages of the living (especially by the mass, and those services of God of man's in●●ntion & choice. Our Adversaries affirm, we deny it. Because that which is not at all, hath no accidents. Therefore seeing it cannot be proved, that there is a purgatory: but the contrary is proued● it is in vain to dispute of the helping of souls in purgatory. The time of repentance in Scripture is only granted to this present life: after death is left no place for repentance. 1, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, Isay, 49, 8. Behold now the accepted time, behold now the day of salvation, 2, Cor, 6. 2. 2. While we have time, let us do good. Galat, 6, 10. 3, The godly must redeem the time, Eph, 5, 16. 4, The time is short 1. Corinth, 7, 29. as if he should say: He that will do well, let him do it in this life; for in the other life the time of doing good cannot be recalled. 5. Exhort one another daily, while it is called To day. Hebrues 3, 13. To day if you will hear● his voice, etc. let us study therefore to enter into that rest. Heb: 4, 7, 11. and Psal. 95, 7, 8. After death there is none amendment of change to be hoped for. 1. If the tree do● fall towards the South or toward the North, in the place that the tree falleth, there it shall be Eccles, 11, 2. The dead do not after death by any good procure God's favour for the altering of their estate. 1. For every man shall receive the things that are done in his body. 2: Corinth: 5, 10. he faith not, after death, out of the body. Neither are the dead helped by the suffrages or works of other men. 1, Every man shall bear his own burden. Galat: 6, 5. 2. Neither could the wise virgins give of their oil to the foolish virgins: Matth: 25, 9: But especially th● dead cannot be helped by those works, private Masses, works of supererogation, &c: for how impious those be, hath been before declared. And seeing the living by that idolatry deserve hell, how can they help the dead with those works, which God hath rejected? Contrariwise our adversaries do dispute. 1 The works of the dead follow them, Revel, 14, 13. Therefore they are ●ased by good works in Purgatory. Answer, 1, The text is by this argument corrupted and wrested many ways. 1, The place speaketh of the blessed and those that rest from their labours; but our question is of them which are not yet blessed, but are excluded from rest. 2, The text speaketh of the recompense of a man's own works; but our Disputation is of the works of the living, done in favour of the dead. 3, The text speaketh of the increase of glory in the heavenly life: but our disputation is of the diminishing and shortening of pains in purgatory. This argument than is nothing else, but a heap of terms that have no coherence one with another. 2 In the Scripture holy men have mourned for their dead, as Abraham for Sarah, ●acob for Rahel, joseph for his Father. Therefore the dead●●re helped by the works of the living. Answer, 1, It is a fallacy, taking for a cause, that which is no cause. For we no where read, that the cause of their mourning was the relieving of the dead, but sorrow for their friends, parents, brethren severed from them by death was the cause thereof. 2, For the same cause Paul biddeth us to keep a mean in mourning, because those which are dead in Christ, live in rest; not in torments; with Christ, not with the devil. ● In old time, the living were baptised for the dead. 1, Cor. 15, 29. But that had been in vain, v●lesse the works of the living might advantage the dead. Therefore, etc. Answ, 1. The Greek text is, to be baptised over the dead, not for the dead, that is, they would be baptised over their graves, both to show their hope of the resurrection (which was very incredible amongst the Gentiles): and also for a testimony, that they were ready to expect death for Christ's sake, in whose name they were baptized. But that this baptism was used for the dead, to the profit and help of the dead, hereof nothing is said in the text. 4 Liberality pleaseth all men living, and from the dead restrain it not, Eccles, 7, 33. Ans, 1, In the old Testament, our Adversaries confess there was no purgatory: Ecclesiasticus then could not speak of a thing, which had no being. 2, There is more in the conclusion than in the premises, namely, it becometh us to be thankful toward our friends departed. Therefore our thankfulness consisteth herein, that we help them being in purgatory with masses and other such works; whereas notwithstanding we may be thankful to them, in burying them honourably, in doing good to their posterity, and in preserving their good name after their death. 5 power forth tears ou●r the dead, and begin to mourn, as if thou hadst suffered great harm, etc. Eccles, 38. 16. Ans, 1, The whole text speaketh only of an honest desire and remembrance, which our friends departed leave of themselves with us after their departure. There is therefore more in the premises, than in the conclusion. 6 Power out thy bread on the burial of the lust, Tob; 4, 17. Therefore the dead are helped by the works of the living. Ans, 1, Whether the pouring of their bread upon the burial do help the dead, or no, thereof Tobias saith never a word. 2 He speaketh of the burial of the just, and if he were just, then should he not be in purgatory, (if a purgatory were granted) neither should he need good works to be relieved by them, According to the saying in the book of wisdom: The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no hurt shall touch them (Wisd, 3, 1.) 3, And, those which at this day in the reformed Churches, do give alms after the death of their friends do it not, that they may help them being in purgatory (for they do not believe that there is a purgatory) but that they may preserve an honourable remembrance of the dead. Some such thing it was also, that ●obie enjoined his son concerning the pouring of his meat upon the burial of the dead. Or; seeing it appeareth, it was a custom amongst the jews, that the friends and well-willers of the dead, for the love they had to him, used to make a banquet to his children and kindred, to comfort and refresh them at the burial of their friend. As appeareth, ler. 16, 7. It is most probable, that Toby alluded to that custom. 7 Monica the mother of S. Augustin, when she lay a dying, desired a memorial of her to be kept in the celebration of the Eucharist. Answ, 1. She desired a remembrance of her, not a massing sacrifice, thereby to be helped. 2, Augustine praying for his mother saith, he doubteth not, but that God had done that long since, which he desired for his mother. 3, And the examples of christians (which some times slip into a superstition) are not rules to order our life by. 8 In ancient time, there was a remembrance kept of the dead in the celebration of the Eucharist Ans, 1, This antiquity reacheth not so far back as to the Apostles time. Therefore it is not sufficient for us. 2, The memory of them was ordained, not that they doubted of the salvation, and blessed estate of the godly departed: but the examples of the dead were proposed to be imitated, and thanks were given to God for his gifts bestowed upon the faithful departed, while they lived, & grace was begged at God's hands, for imitation of them and the gift of perseverance. The remembrance then which was observed of ancient time, doth not su●e with that, which is now a days kept in popery for the deliverance of souls (which remain in Utopia.) CHAP. 20. Of the Invocation of Saints. QUESTION, 1. IN this Chapter we are enforced to proceed with an other method, than we have done in the former. For whereas the papists cannot clear themselves from the crime of idolatry, very boldly they begin to deny that, which is notoriously known: And (as if the thing itself might be mitigated with milder words) they refrain from the word invocation, & place instead thereof, the word veneration. After the same fashion, they change their doulian or a certain kind of service, with Latria, or the worship due to God. That these things than may be brought to light, & the state of the question truly & rightly set down, let us see out of a few examples, in the prayers directed by Papists unto Saints, and as yet not canceled in their Churches, or disallowed: hereby, I say, let us see, whether it be a bare veneration or reverence, or whether there be divine worship therein, which they give to Saints. That is, whether they pray for any thing to Saints, which is only to be craved of God: and do ascribe unto Saints, that which is proper to God alone. And the first that here offereth itself, is ●, This psalter was printed at Venice in the year, ●476 by ●ohn de halis: and there ●●mai●e yet two other copies, the one printed at Pa●i●● the other at Li● the Lady's Psalter; wherein are contained these things following. 1, Come unto her (that is Marie) all ye, that labour and are troubled, and she shall give refreshing, & comfort to your souls. Come unto her in your temptations & the graciousness of her countenance shall 'stablish you, Psal, 2. 2, Deliver us by thy holy prayers from the gate of hell, and the belly of the depth. Psa, 6. 3, I trust in our Lady, because of the sweetness of the mercifulness of her name, etc., And let her mercy take away the multitude of your sins, & let her fruitfulness acceptable to God, procure to us the plenty of merits. Psal, 10. 4, Arise O Lady, prevent him (that is our adversary) and supplant him, and destroy all his endeavours, Psal, 13. 5, Keep me, O Lady, because I have trusted in thee, and mercifully grant unto me the droppings of thy grace, Psal, 15. 6, Unto thee, O lady, have I lifted up my soul: through thy prayers, let me not be ashamed in the judgement of God, Psal, 24. 7, I will offer unto thee the sacrifice of praise, and devoutly will I exalt thy glory, Psal, 29. 8, In thee O Lady, have I put my trust; let If this be not to worship Sa●●ts with the p●● proper worship of GOD, what then is? Surely this whole psalm is due to GOD, as Christ and Stephen did commend their soul●● unto God. me not be confounded for ever; receive me into thy favour, incline thine care unto me, and make me joyful in my heaurnesse: thou art my strength and refuge, my comfort and protection, unto thee have I cried, when my heart was troubled, and thou heard●st me from the ●opp of the ●uerlasting hills. Into thine hands O Lady, do I commend my spirit, my whole life, and my last day, Psal, 30. 9, Blessed are they, whose hearts do love thee, O Virgin Marie, their sins shall be mercifully washed away by thee, Psal. 31. 10, By thy holiness my sins are purged, by thine integrity incorruptibility is given me. Psal. 44. 11, The Lord said unto my Lady; sit on my right hand, Psal, 〈◊〉. And infinite oth●● more, which the shortness of a Manwell will not permit, to set them down here. But by a few the reader may see, that throughout the whole Psalter, whatsoever the Psalmist ascri●eth to God, and jesus Christ his Son, and such things, as David durst pray for to none, but to God alone, are all ascribed to the Virgin Mary. And the hymn which they use now to sing daily in their Churches very devoutly, doth sufficiently declare, that they give to the virgin Mary the titles of Christ, and do pray to her for such things, as are to be craved of Christ. Now the hymn (in English) is on this wi●e. All hail O Queen of mercy: our life, sweetness, and hope, all hail. Unto thee we banished sons of Eve do cry. Unto thee we sigh g●●aning and ●eeping in this vale of tears: Ah, than our Advocate, turn those thy merciful eyes unto us, and show unto us after this Exile, jesus the blessed fruit of thy womb, O gentle, O sweet, O godly Virgin Mary. a Hereof see the Roman Breviary printed at Antwerp in the year 1579, as also the book called Horculus animae part, 5. Hereto may be adjoined the titles, by which they, salute the Virgin Mary. Advocate, Helper, the gate of Heaven, Enlightner Deliverer, Mediator, Saviour, Comfort, it. adversity, Refuge, Rock, the Fountain of Grace, etc. Which are ascribed every where throughout the psalter to the blessed Virgin Mary, and partly in the Rosaries, and partly in that, which they call Cursus horarum & other prayers. b These fa●e ●●tles are contained in the forecited Breviary, as also in the service of the blessed Virgin (in officio beatae Virgi●s▪) In the litany of the blessed Virgin these titles are given her: the fountain of mercy, the stream of wisdom; the rod of jesse, the tree of life, the orient light & splend●r, the window of heaven, the passable gate of paradise, the true salvation & blessedness, the mother of orphans, etc. c See that notable work called mariale, printed at Strasburge in the year 1493: there ye shall find all these and in some points those that f●●re exc●ede them. Moreover there they crave of Mary, that she would deliver us from all evil: from all evil tentation ●● from the wrath and indignation of God: from danger and despair, etc. That she would vouch safe to keep the holy Church● etc. There is a book extant printed in Italy in Octavo: Wherein he that prayeth speaketh to the Virgin Marie thus: Ora Filium iwm suppliciter, & praecipe sublimiter, etc. pray thy Son humbly, and command him loftily, that in the even tide of the World he would bring us to eternal joys. How great are these abominations? But they have dealt the like with other Saints also, giving unto them the titles of See their Breviaries & hymns▪ yet not canceled in the popish kingdom, you shall mee●e with many such for the things following cannot be denied seeing they are fong in many places until this day: Christ, and craving of them those things, which it is not lawful to crave of any but of Christ alone. 1, O holy Virgin Dorothy; make us happy by thy virtue: create in us a new heart. In the old Missals. 2. He save us from sin, that we may rest with the blessed souls in Heaven. Of Saint George. 3, All hail pre●ate Augustin; hear us calling upon thee, and after death bring us triumphing into the heavenly Kingdom, Of S. Augustin. 4. O Francis, brightsome light, chiefest crucified Martyr, now thou triumphest with CHRIST in the company of celestial wights. Be thou to us the way of life, show thou to Christ for us always thy godly wounds. Of S. Francis. 5, All hail glorious Agnes, keep thou me in the true faith, sweet and dearly beloved Virgin, I hearty beseech thee: gran● to all men religiously to serve GOD by whom thou art elected, with perfect charity. 6, Lose the guilt of my polluted lips, 5. john. 7, O reverend Bishop, a religious and present workman to them, which with a faithful heart do seek to thee in their perils. Take away the damages of death, & give us the wages of life, that after this departing of the flesh, we may be with thee in glory. Of S. Nicholas. 8, Give he unto us the heavenly armour, when tentation is at hand: let him fight for us hand to hand, put the harmful enemy to flight, of S. Martin. In diseases and other perils and dangers, they were wont to pray unto fourteen Helpers or Relievers; whereas these things were to be begged of God. So they assigned saints as so many guardian gods, to every particular art, workmanship and country, wherein the names used in paganism, only were changed, not the things themselves. For as of old time Mars, Mercury, Hercules, Minerva, etc. were worshipped of the Gentiles, so in their steed the Papists do now worship George, Nicholas, Martin, Katherine, etc. Out of this short narration, thus now I reason. Whosoever prayeth to a creature for that, which is to be begged of God alone, he doth not only reverence that creature, but placeth him in the steed of GOD, & committeth idolatry. But the Papists do so. (As was proved a while ago.) Therefore they do not only reverence the Saints, but place them in God's steed, & commit idolatry. And whosoever giveth to a creature the titles of God, and the glory of God signified by the same titles, he committeth idolatry; (as is most certain in the Scripture:) but that the Papists do so, hath been already proved. Therefore they do not barely reverence Saints, but they worship them as Gods, give unto them divine honour and so commit idolatry. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1 We make not Gods of Saints, because we worship them with a lower degree of worship, than is Latrîa, or the worship proper to God: namely the saints we worship with Dulia: the Virgin Mary with Hyperdulîa, etc. Ans, 1, This is the same, as was the divine worship of the heathen; who (as Plato witnesseth) did worship one God, that is I●piter, for the chiefest God: the rest they called lesser Gods, and worshipped them with a lower degree of worship. 2, There needeth no protestation, where the thing itself is evident. Now the thing itself proclaimeth as before was showed, that divine worship is given unto Saints. It is in vain then to make any protestation. 3, Suppose the names of a thing be changed, and if the thing remain the same, no man can hereby defend his fact. 2 Austin brought in the distinction between Dulia and Latria. Therefore the invocation of Saints is justly defended by this distinction. Answ, 1, Augustin by this distinction distinguisheth the obedience of the first and second table, or our obedience towards God, and our obedience toward our parents and Magistrates; granting that obedience is due to both, but in a lower degree to the Magistrate than to GOD as it is Act, 5, 29. Now this is nothing to the invocation of Saint●, whereof Austin saith nothing in this his distinction. Moreover Austin speaketh of obedience to be yielded to the living: but our Adversaries of the invocation of the dead●. 2, The Scripture useth the words Latrevein and doulevein without difference. Doule●ein is referred to God also. Rom, 7, 25, as also 1. Thes, 1, ●. so also doule●●n to ●uri● Acts, 20. 19 and latrevein in the translation of the seventy interpreters is used to signify servile works also. Leu. 23, 8, & 28. 18. 3 We do not pray unto, but mention and name the Saints. Ans, The contrary hath been already proved. 2, This compellation or naming them hath no ground in Scriptures. QUESTION, 2. Whether we may pray unto Saints. Ou● Adversaries hold the affirmative part, but we the negative, for these reasons. By the confession of our Adversaries: who confess that the invocation of Saints hath no commandment of God for it, as appeareth by these words of Eckius. The invocation of Saints (saith he) is not expressly commanded in the holy Scripture. Not in the Old Testament, where the people were otherwise prone to idolatry, and the Fathers were as yet in Limbus not glorified, Isai, 63, 16. Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel knoweth us not. Under the Gospel also it was not commanded, lest the Gentiles converted to the faith, should think, that they were brought again to the worship of earthly things, that a●ter their old manner, they should worship Saints, not as Patrons, but as Gods, as at Lycaonia they would have sacrificed to Paul and Barnabas. Moreover if the Apostles and Evangelists had taught that Saints should be worshipped, it would have been counted arrogancy in them, as if they themselves had sought that glory after their death. The Holy-ghost therefore would not by express scriptures teach the worshipping of Saints, but those which were strong in the faith, he taught them by miracles, and the helps received from Saints▪ when prayers were powered out unto them, that the Saints were to be worshipipped, etc. Thus far E●kius. Ou● of this confession these corollaries following are to be noted. 1, That invocation of Saints w●s unknown in the time of the Apostles, & in the time of Christ's ministery upon earth. Where is now the antiquity of the Apostolic doctrine among the Papists? 2, That the Apostles did not only not write, but that they would not write of the worshipping of saints, lest themselves should seem to hunt after that honour (because in truth it did not belong unto them.) 3, That after the canon of the Scripture was perfected, yet nevertheless the invocation of Saints was unknown: and that yet notwithstanding Christians might beloved, as john witnesseth of his Gospel, ●ap, 20, ver, 31. 4, Seeing the Apostles wrote all things necessary to salvation (Act, 20, 27. Ioh, 20, 31,) and the holy Scripture is such, as maketh a man perfect to every good work (2, Timoth, 3, 17.) It followeth hereof, that either these things are not true, which are here spoken of the scripture, or that it is a lie, that invocation of saints is necessary to salvation. 5, It followeth, that invocation of Saints hath none other grounds, than lying miracles, from which God dehorteth us De, 13, 2, 3. 2, Thes, 2, 9 Isay, 8, 19 6. It followeth also, that all those papists do impudently and against their conscience, which being of Eckius his mind, do go about to prove invocation of saints by sayings of the Scripture. 7, It followeth also, that because invocation of Saints is not contained in Scripture; were it never so voids of sin, yet no man were bound to accept of it. The Scripture biddeth us worship and pray unto God alone. 1, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, & him only shalt thou serve, Mat, 4, 10, Deut, 6. 13. and 10, 20. 2. Call upon Me in the day of trouble. Psa, 50, 15. 3. I will not give My glory unto an other. Isa. 48. 11. 4. Christ bid us pray, Our Father etc. Matt. 6. 9 5, Come vnto●e, all ye, that are weary, etc. Matth, 11. 28. He is to be prayed unto whom we may call upon in faith. But faith is by the Word of God, Rom, 10, 17. Therefore because we have no word, to stir up our faith with promise of being heard, or to command us so to do, nay because it is an horrible sin, and religion forbiddeth us to believe on Saints, doubtless it is unlawful also to pray unto them. But neither may we pray unto Saints, as to mediators; because the holy Scripture doth ascribe the glory of mediation to none, but to Christ alone. 1. So he is called the Mediator of the New Testament. Heb. 9, 15. 2. There is one GOD and one Mediator between God and man, which is the man Christ jesus: who gave himself a ransom for all men (1, Timon, 2, 5, 6.) Now 1, This unity is taken away, if there be erected more Mediators. 2, And the saint● gave not themselves a ransom for us, therefore, etc. ● If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the i●st, 1, Ioh, 2, 1. But Saints are no● jesus Christ the I●st. ● Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My Name, He will give it you. Ioh, 14, 13, & 16, 23. ● No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me, Ioh, 14, 6. By the doctrine of the invocation of Saints, Christians are bereaved of that confidence in the love & mercy of Christ the Son of God, in trust whereof they ought to pray: as if Christ were not truly a brother toward us, as if He were not merciful, and a lover of mankind, but such a one as would not be appeased, and a fearful judge even to the repentant, unless he were first pacified by some Intercessor or Saint. The contrary whereof is proved in Scripture. 1, In all things it became him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be As the Priest was a mediator between God and the people so Christ in one and the same word is called a Priest & a Mediator. Herald 2, 17, 18 merciful, & a faithful High Priest in things concerning God, that he might make reconciliation for the sins of the people for in that He suffered, and was tempted, He i● able to su●●ou● them, that are tempted▪ 2, Seeing then that we have a great high Priest, which is entered into heaven, even It 〈◊〉 ●l●● Son of God, let us hold ●a●● our profession. For we have not an hig● Priest, which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in al● things tempted in like sort, yet without sin. Let us therefore go boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may recei●● mer●y, and find grace to help in time o● need. Heb. 4▪ 14. 1●. 16. 3. Wherefore he is able also perfectly to save them which come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Heb, 7. 25. 4, The Lord is gracious and merciful slow to anger and of great mercy. Psal. 145, 8. Num, 14, 18. Yea and God the Father also is merciful towards repentant sinners, for the intercession of his Son, so that there is no ●●●d● of the intercession of Saints. 1. The Lord is full of compassion & mercy; slow to anger & of great goodness. He will not alway chide, nor keep his anger for ever, He hath not dealt with us after our sins n●r●●warded ●s according to our iniquities. Hear the implacable popish god is not proposed unto us, to whom we should not da●e to come but by the mediation of Saints. For as high as the heaven is above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them, that fe●●e him. As far as the ●ast is from the west, so far hath he removed our sins from us. As a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear him. Psal, 103. 8, 9, etc. 2, Hereto belong all the penitential fermons of the prophets, wherein God openeth his ready and willing mind. Ezech, 18, & 33, chap. and many other places. 3, Paul in the 8 th' to the Romans, is wholly herein busied, to show us, with what confidence we should cometo God by his Son, with the ●ro●●ings of the holy Spirit, ●so that we should nothing doubt of the favour of God toward us. The ●i●●●cation of Saints is for this cause, not to be ●o●n with, be ●●●se the saints hear us not, yea & they know not what is done on earth. 1, Though Abraham be ignorant of us & Israel know us not, yet thou art our Father. Isai, ●3, ●6. ●, Thus doth the Prophet comfort josias: Thou shalt b●● put in thy grave in peace, and thine eyes shall not see all the evil that I will bring upon this place●, King 22, 20. And because the most servant prayers are often made without the voice or motion of the mouth and lips, but in the entrails of the heart, and in the spirit, if prayer be directed to Saints, hereby is divine honour given unto them, as if they understood the thoughts of the heart which is proper to God alone. 1; Thou alone knowest the hearts of all the Children of men, 1, King, 8, 39 2, I the Lord search the heart and try the reins, Ier, 17, 10. and ●0, 12, Reu. 2, 23. There are many also in the popish catalogue of Saints, of whom there is great doubt, they be not glorified in Heaven: And many of them, which now are prayed unto, never were at all; such as George, Christopher, etc. are feigned to have been. We have no examples of the invocation of Saints, and Angels in the Scripture, but we have examples to the contrary. 1, Paul & Barnabas would not be worshipped. Act, 14, 14, 15. 2, So the Angel of the Lord forbade himself to be worshipped▪ Revel. 19, 10, and 22, 8, 9 GOD accounteth all the worship of a Creature according to the worship of God, idolatry, and esteemeth it as an Apostasy from God. 1, By the example of the Samar●tans, who worshipped the creature together with GOD, 2, King, 17, 41. 2, My people hath committed two evils: they have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and digged to themselves broken cisterns. Jere, 2, 13. 3, The Gentiles offended, for that they worshipped and served the creature, paraton ktisan●a, beside the Creator. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason thus. 1 Even as in Prince's Courts, there is need of some mediator to procure access to Princes; so when we would pray unto God, we have need of the Saints to be our mediators Answ, 1, Similitudes prove nothing. 2, A certain widow calling to the Emperor of Rome for justice, when he answered, I am not at leisure to hear thee, then (quoth she) have no leisure neither to be Emperor. It is a similitude ill befitting this thing: for it is a fault, if Princes themselves refuse to hear their subjects, either for negligence or pride. And if they refuse, because promiscuous admittance of all might be dangerous to their persons, or because themselves cannot do all, but leave many things to their officers, these be infirmities which belong to men, but no way to God. For God is not as man 2 It is a point of Christian humility, to seek for a Mediator, when thou judgest thyself unworthy. Hos, 11, 9 Answ. 1. We have need of humility, but of true humility; which is such, that we esteem ourselves, and the merits of all Saints more unworthy than we may obtain mercy for them, but for Christ's sake alone. This is true humility, which doth not lead us from Christ. Seeing then our Adversaries mean another humility than this, by this ambiguity of the word (humility) there arise four terms, 2, The popish humility is repugnant to the commandment of God. For God saith Call upon me in the day of trouble. The Papists will answer: Lord, humility teacheth me, not to call upon thee because I am unworthy. 3 He that honoureth the friends of the Prince, doth that which is acceptable to the Prince. So the worship of Saints may be acceptable to God. Ans, 1, Again our adversaries deal by Similitudes and conjectures in a matter of such difficulty. 2, That saints are to be honoured or reverenced, no man denieth, but they may not so be honoured, as that God be thereby rob of his honour, which is done by invocation, but they are honoured by publishing the virtues, wherewith God endued them, and by imitating the godliness, wherein they flourished. 4 Christ is of greater dignity, than that we may dare to come unto him because he is made higher than the heavens. Therefore we have need of the mediation of Saints. Ans. 1, The Antecedent is false, as hath been showed before. And Christ calleth us, to come unto him saying▪ Come unto me all etc. Mat, 11, 28. 2, This is not humility, but diffidence reproved & condemned by God. 5 Let my name be called upon these children, and the name of my Fathers, Abraham and Isaac. etc. Genes. 48, 16. Therefore the Saints are to be called upon in prayer. Answ. 1. The Papists deny that invocation of Saints was in use in the old Testament, the Fathers (as their fable is) being then in Limbus. Why then do they allege a testimony of the old Testament? 2, It is an Hebrew phrase, to call or name one's name over another, that is, to be reckoned in his family; as, seven women▪ shall take hold on one man, saying; let thy name be called or named over us, that is, let us be called by thy name, and so be thou our husband. Isay, 4, 1. 6 Though Moses & S●amuel stood before me, yet mine affections could not be toward this people. I●r, 15, 1. Ezech, 14, 14. Ans, 1, A conditional speech proveth nothing, unless the condition be first granted. And the sense of the text doth show that these men did not then stand before God, for the people. 2, The Papists themselves do deny, that they t●en stood before God but they say they were in Limbus. Therefore they allege this saying against their conscience. 7 The Fathers in the old Testament, did often pray for the merit's sake of the patriarchs, as jacob, Genes, 32, 9 Moses Exod, 32, 13. Deute. 9, 27. Psal, 132, 10, etc. Ans, Let the places be considered, & it will be manifest, that they provoked not to the persons or merits of the patriarchs, but to the Covenant, which God of his mere favour and mercy had made with the patriarchs & their posterity. The argument than is altogether impertinent. 8 As Absalon, when he was reconciled to his father, was not by and by admitted into his father's presence. (2, Sam, 14, 24.) So sinners reconciled unto God, may not go strait into God's presence, but must use intermediate persons, namely the Saints departed. Ans. 1, There is great difference between the reconciliation with God, and reconciliation with a civil Magistrate, and neither prescribeth any rule unto other. The argument than is unfit, and drawn from things of unlike and different quality. 2, The Heavenly Father is glad of the return of his prodigal son, and goeth out to meet him, not waiting till some days man make way for the son to his father, Luke, 15, 20. 9 As Adonias did not himself go unto Solomon, but sent his mother before, whom the King set at his right hand: so we send before us the mother of Christ, who is placed at the right hand of Christ. 1, King. 2, 19 Answ. 1. The Kingdom of Christ is one thing, and an external politic kingdom is an other: neither can it be proved, that the Kingdom of Christ is to be governed on the same fashion, as politic kingdoms use to be. 2, From this place we may conclude against our Adversaries, that as Adonias obtained nothing by his Mother, so those, which seek for the intercession of Saints seal obtain nothing, nay they shall have the heavenly King, Christ, angry with them. 10 Call now, if any will answer thee: & turn thee to some of the Saints, job, 5, 1. Ans, 1, The right translation is, to which of the Saints wilt thou turn thee? and the meaning is, look and see▪ whom thou canst find to agree to thee: or to which of the saints or holy men thou wilt be take thee, for the defence of thy cause. The godly will not, and the ungodly cannot defend thy cause. Where then shalt thou find any defence? 2, Or, jobs friends bid him look to the examples (not the prayers) of the saints: whether ever God do use to afflict his saints so: but here is nothing of intercession. 3, Moreover our Adversaries confess, that there was no invocation of saints in the old Testament. 11 If there shall be an Angel speaking for him, one of a 1000 to declare the righteousness of man; the Lord will have mercy upon him. job, 33, 23, 24. Ans. 1. The Translation is bad, which should be thus according to the Hebrew verity. If there be an Angel (or messenger or prophet) with him, an interpreter one of a thousand, who may declare unto man his righteousness, them he will have mercy on him, etc. that is, if he, who is corrected of the Lord for his sin, be admonished by an Angel (or a faithful prophet of the Lord) of his righteousness (either of the Lords, how justly he punisheth him, or of his own, what he ought to do, to amend his life,) he shall obtain mercy: Therefore this place is nothing at all to the purpose 12 Intercessions are commanded and approved of, in the Church. 1, Tim, 2, 1. jam, 5, 14, etc., Paul desireth intercession, Rom, 15, 30, Colos, 4, 3. Abraham prayeth for Abimelech, Gen, 20, 17. The Lord biddeth jobs friends to require his intercession, job 42, 8. Ans. 1, To argue from the living to the dead, i● to make four terms. 2, If the Saints pray never so much in general for the Church, yet they are not therefore to be worshipped. And whereas it standeth with reason that the Angels do pray for the Paul did not worsl●p or p●ay ●nto the Ro●●ans, church, yet they would not suffer themselves to be worshipped. (Revel. 19, 10. & 22. 8. 9) 3. To desire the prayers of other men alive, and to pray unto, are things very different. 4, And it is a far different thing, to join the prayers of many men together, whose prayers they being alive, we desire, that the prayer may be the stronger; that is, I say much different from directing our prayers unto them. 13, The Saints departed are said to be equal unto the Angels, Luke, 20, 36, But Angels do from God know things present, and things to come. Therefore the Saints know the same also, and so they know our prayers. Ans, 1, Christ maketh the comparison between the blessed Saints and Angels, not in respect of their offices, but in respect of thei● glorification and state of life in the other World, wherein they shall have no need of Matrimony. It is then a fallacy from a thing spoken but in part and some respect, to the same taken absolutely. 2, The office of Angels is, to be ministering spirits; by reason Heb, 1 of this office, God doth many times reveal to the Angels things present & things to come; but neither doth he reveal all things, nor always. Now because this office is never in Scripture given to the blessed souls departed: doubtless, the cause of this special revelation being denied, both the necessity and certainty of their knowing our prayers, and so of our praying unto them, is denied. 14 Elizeus, though he was absent, yet by the spirit knew the actions of Gehazi. 2, King, 5 26. So the Saints in the spirit may know our prayers and our estate. Ans, Of pure particles nothing followeth. Elizeus being absent, saw the actions of Gehazi. Therefore the Saints hear and see all things, that are done upon earth. What foolery is this? For it is never said in the Scripture, that the dead do in the spirit know our affairs, as Elizaeus being alive did know the deeds of Gehazi, and that in a miraculous manner 15 The Saints do pray for the Church, Revel, 5, 8. and 8, 3. Answer, 1. In that vision it is not certain, that the speech is only of the prayers of the Saints departed, but in general the prayers of the Church are portrayed out by the 24. Elders. 2. It is granted that the Church triumphant doth in general pray for the militant, but that they do in particular prey for certain and definite members thereof, the Scripture saith nothing of it. 3, Neither is there any mention made of invocation of Saints, in the places cited (Revel, 5, & 8.) 16 Yea but the Scripture doth grant adoration to Creatures, in their kind. As Abraham adored the Hittites. Gen, 23, 7. jacob worshipped Esau. Genesis, 33, 3. Nathan did the like to David, 1, King. 1, 23. and Salomo● the King unto his mother. 1, King, 2, 19, etc. Answer, The Phrase is there a Hebrew Phrase, whereby, an external ceremony (bowing of the body) and civil reverence is described: but we speak of the inward spiritual affection & devotion of the heart. Hear are therefore four terms. 17 There is one that accuseth you, even Moses etc. john, 5, 45. Therefore the Saints departed deal for and against the living. Answ, It is a figure called Metonymia, whereby Christ signifieth not the person of Moses, but his law. 18 The rich glutton cometh not with his prai●● to God, but to Abraham as to a mediator, Luk. 16, 24. Ans, 1, Right. We must forsooth learn the invocation of Saints from the desperate & damned souls. 2, There is much difference between the parable of the glutton, and the popish invocation of Saints. 3. These prayers got the glutton nothing; and so may the Papists speed. 19 Onias and jeremias appeared praying for the people, 2, Maccab, 15, 12, 13, 14. Answ. 1. The book is Apocryphal. 2, There is rehearsed a deem, not an article of Religion. 3, We do not read that the jews did for this dream pray unto Onias and jeremias, but they prayed unto God. 20 Hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites. Baru●h, 3, 4. Answ, 1, The book is not canonical. 2, Lyra expoundeth it, not of the prayer of the dead after their death, but of those prayers which the Saints being alive did long since before their death ●owre out unto God, for the preservation of the Church. 21 Miracles have been done, & yet are done at the invocation of Sainrs. Answer, 1, Miracles alone without the Word of God, especially if they be contrary to the Word of God, are not fufficient: as God admonisheth, that we should not believe miracles, without the word (Deuter, 13. 2, 3) 2, And the coming of Antichrist shall be with lying Miracles. 2, Thes, 2, 9 Revel. 13, 13. QUESTION, 3. Our Adversaries deny, that in worshipping images they do commit idolatry: but the contrary is proved by these reasons. Let them Grammatically expound the word Idolatry, and they shall be able to make none other thing of it, but a worship and service of Idols: but that they worship and serve Idols, no man can deny, that hath but once in all his life entered into the popish temples. It is proved by experience▪ For they prostrate themselves before Idols, pray before them, adorn them, they dedicate offerings unto them, light candles, sigh unto them, etc. And they worship one image of one Saint (for example, of the Virgin Mary) more than all other images of the same Saint. Is no● this to worship the image? and to ascribe unto it, some portion of divinity. Their own confession, & their books do witness thus much. 1, Every image is to be worshipped, as that whose image it is, is worshipped. Seeing therefore Christ is worshipped with the worship of Latria (Divine worship) it followeth, that his image is to be worshipped with the worship of Latria. Tho. Aquinas. part; 3, q, 25, art, 3. 2, Because the image of Christ is brought in, to represent him, who was crucified for us, neither doth it show itself to us for itself, but for him: therefore all reverence, that is offered unto it, is offered unto Christ and therefore the worship of Latria ought to be given to the image of Christ. Bonauent, upon the senten. lib, 3, Dist, 9, Quest. 2. 3, In the pontifical the sign of the Cross is consecrated with this prayer: We beseech thee O holy Lord, Father Almighty, Eternal God, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to bless this wood of the cross that it may be a saving remedy to mankind that it may be the strength of Faith, the increase of good works, and the redemption of souls: it may be a comfort, and protection & safeguarde, against the cruel darts of our enemies, etc. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1 As we honour the images of Princes, so it is mee●e we should honour the images of Saints. Ans, 1, He that useth the prince's image with honourable respect, doth not therefore adore him: and all men would count him ● fool, which should put off his hat to the Prince's picture, or kneel thereto, or lying prostrate should utter these words to the picture which should be spoken to the Prince. 2, If any man do not of purpose dishonour or disgrace the Prince's image, he hath honoured it sufficiently. 3, Let us honour the image of GOD in the Saints alive, on that manner, which Christ hath prescribed, Matth. 25, 36. 40. That is by doing good unto the needy saints. 2 The stock or wood or stone is not worshipped amongst the Papists, but the intention is directed unto him whose image it is. Answ, 1, doubtless the Israelites were not so senseless, as to worship the gold, or the ●umpe that was molten of the gold (Exo. 32.) But they worshipped in the sign that which they thought was the true God: nevertheless God condemned them of Idolatry. 2, If they worship not the images, why do they prostrate themselves before one image of the blessed Virgin, rather than before an other? If this only be their purpose, that they may be put in mind of the blessed Virgin Mary; might not a less regarded image pictured at home, or in some more obscure place of the Church be sufficient therefore? Wherefore seeing they are used to do their devotion before one certain particular image, who will ever believe that they give not that worship to the Idol● themselves? And to deny that they worship idols, what is it else, but to desire to pull out men's eyes, that they should not see that, which all that be present, do behold with their eyes. Now it shall not need to refute the worshipping of idols, seeing our adversaries themselves do acknowledge it abundantly refuted, if this worshipping can be proved against them: Therefore they seek to give us the slip, and deny those things, which are most manifest to sense. CHAP. 21. Of the Single life, and Vows of Ecclesiastical persons. THAT the Pope of Rome might make up the full measure of Antichrist, he hath defiled also the sanctity of Matrimony, whilst he accuseth that state of impurity & imperfection, and proclaimeth that those, that live therein, live in the flesh (for so Syric●us and Innocencius say, Dist. 82. cap, 2, & 3.) and for this cause forbiddeth Ecclesiastical persons, as priest's, Monks, and nuns marriage, as being a thi●● not so fit for sanctity and perfection, as they call it; and admitteth no married man to holy orders; and thrusteth him out, that is already in Orders if he do marry; and thinketh it more tolerable for a mass-priest to be a whoremonger and an adulterer, than joined to a wi●e by lawful matrimony. This doctrine of Devils (1, Timo. 4, 1, 3) they go about to hide by three arguments especially: by the first of which, they deprive matrimony of purity and holiness; by the second they deny unto it the excellency of perfection (as they call it:) and in the third, they allege the insolubilitie of their vow; adjoining hereto some few frivolous reasons more. We will, by God's help, examine every of these in their proper place. Question. 1. Whether marriage be a state, that defileth a man, ●nd maketh him unfit for the exercising of sacred offices. Our Adversaries affirm it, and we deny it, for these reasons. Because Matrimony is an holy ordination of the most holy God, instituted before the fall, and renewed and restored after the fall. But and if there were any pollution in Matrimony, that ignominy should certainly redound unto the Author. God will have Matrimony (even after the fall) to be honourable among all, and the bed H●● can that which is honourable and undefiled d●●●le a man? undefiled. Heb. 13, 4. Matrimony was always counted very honourable, both in the old Testament and in the new. (1) In the old Testament take for example the places following. 1. It is not good that man should be himself alone. Gen. 2, 18. 2, Two are better than one, etc. Eccles, 4, 9 3, David gave honourable testimony of marriage, Psal: 127, verse, 3, 4, 5: and 128. 3, Moreover, be compared the mystery of Christ and the Church to marriage Psalm, 45, 9, 10, etc. 4, Solomon wrote a most excellent song in commendation of matrimony and of an happy marriage, Pro. 31, 10, etc. (2) In the new Testament the holiness of the state of Matrimony is maintained. 1, By Christ, when he renu●th the first institution, May we think that Christ would be present at polluted marriages? Math: 19, 4, 5, 6: 2, And he honoured marriage both with his presence, and the first miracle of his ministery. Ioh, 2, 2. 7. etc. 3, The mutual ●●ndnes & the bond of love between Christ and the Church, is compared by Paul to marriage. Ephesians, 5, 25, 32. 4, And the same Paul (1, Cor, 7, 2,) showeth the profit & the necessity of marriage: and likewise defendeth the holiness of marriage against the spirits of error, 1, Tim, 4. 1, 3. There are also in the Old and New Testament examples of most godly men, who though they lived in wedlock, yet retained the name of holiness and sanctity, and that in the sight of God. (1) In the Old Testament we have very many; but these may suffice. 1. Henoch walked with God, after he begot Methuselah, three hundredth years; & begat Sons and Daughters. Gen, 5, 22. 2, Noah was a Just and Upright man in his time, and Noah walked with God, and he begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and japheth, etc. Genes, 6, 9, 10. 3, Abraham the Father of the faithful, was Will any man say that any unmarried man is more pure than was Abraham being married? married, as were also the other patriarchs. 4, David a man after Gods own heart was married, and in state of wedlock composed Psalms most acceptable to God, being endued (in a principal measure) with the Spirit of God. 5, Ezechiel the Prophet was married, Ezech, 24, 16. 18. 6, The high Priest, who offered holy oblations to GOD, might by the law of God marry a wife: neither was he polluted by marriage bed, to be made thereby unfit for the Priest's office. And Aaron was commanded by God to burn sweet● incense every morning in the tabernacle before the Ark of the Covenant, as it is Exodus 30, 7. Neither did the use of marriage bed hinder him in this behalf; For he begat sons. 7. And so were the rest of the Priests married also. 8. Zacharie and Elizabeth were both just before God, and walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without reproof: and yet they were man and wife, & had john Baptist to their son. Luk, 1, 6. (2) In the new Testament also there were Ecclesiastical persons, holy and religious that lived in wedlock. 1, Peter had a mother in law, and therefore a wife. Math. 8, 14. 2, Have we not power to lead about a wife, being a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas. 1, Corinth. 9, 5. 3, Philip the Evangelist, which was one of the seven Deacons, had four daughters, which did prophecy. Acts. 21, 8, 9 4. A Bishop must be unreprovable, the husband of one wife, etc. having children under obedience with all honesty. 1, Tim. 3, 2, 4. 5. Let Deacons be the husbands of one wife, and such as can rule their children well, and their own households. 1, Timo. 3, 12. 6. The like appeareth by the examples of Spiridion, and of others in the Primitive Church: who being holy men, and endued with singular gifts of the Spirit, were married and begat children. And often times the legitimate sons of Bishops succeeded their Fathers in the Bishoprics. Paul doth sharply reprove them, which disgrace marriage, saying: In the latter days some shall departed from the faith, and shall give heed unto spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils, which speak lies through hypocrisy, & have their consciences burned with an hot iron, forbidding to marry. 1, Tim. 4, 1, 2, 3. Finally, if matrimony be a Sacrament, if it do confer grace, and that grace of the Sacrament causeth (as Eckius saith) the bed to be undefiled, why are Ecclesiastical persons polluted thereby? Or why is a state otherwise impure and defiled, reckoned among the Sacraments, as matrimony in the opinion of the Papists is? Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1 The use of Marriage bed after the fall is impure, and not without lust. Therefore priests who ought to be pure, must abstain from wedlock. Ans, 1, If the speech be of the motions of concupiscence remaining after Original sin (whereof the Psalmist maketh mention in his conception. Psal, 51, 5) then is it a fallacy of an accident, and that which agreeth to the accident (to wit, Original sin) is transferred to the use of Marriage bed, which of itself is right, lawful and ordained by God. And if because of this accident, men should abstain from marriage as from an impure state, then should they abstain from all other states and works, because in all of them there concurreth somewhat of Original sin. And because pureness becometh all Christians, therefore all should abstain from marriage, 2, But if the use of marriage bed be compared to unlawful lusts, and equal thereunto; it is manifestly repugnant to these sentences of Scripture. 1, In the Scripture the use of marriage bed & lust are opposed as contraries: but contraries, seeing they destroy one another, are not the same. 2, To avoid fornication let every man have his wife. 1, Cor, 7, 2. and what? may the remedy of lust & impurity, be called lust S● the s●n beams, which are as it were the remedy of darkness, should be called darkness. and impurity? 3, Paul saith; let the Husband give unto the wife due benevolence, he bids them also come together again. 1. Cor. 7. 3, 5. And what? doth Paul bid them follow after impurity? doth he egg them forward to sin? 4, The bed betwixt the godly married couple is undefiled. Heb. 13. 4. 2 If Marriage bed were so pure, then would not Paul bid them abstain in the time of prayer and fasting. Answ. 1, He speaketh not of all sorts of prayers; but of solemn prayers. 2, Neither doth he bid them therefore abstain, because the use of marriage bed is impure, and would pollute their prayers, but that they may give themselves to prayer, and their prayers may be the more fervent, etc. Even as in the time of solemn prayers we leave of the exercise & duties of our proper & honest calling, that we may attend to prayers and sermons. Hear is then committed a fallacy, taking that for the cause, which is not the cause. 3 I was borne in iniquity, etc. Psalm, 51, 5. There David confesseth the impurity of marriage therefore, etc. Answ, 1, He speaketh not of the use of marriage bed in his parents, as if that were of itself a sin: but he showeth that lump or mass, so to speak, of which he was created, even then to have been polluted with sin (for the whole substance of man was corrupt with sin); not by reason of the act of marriage bed, but by reason of original sin, which doth accidentally concur there with: here is then committed the fallacy of an accident. 2, Whereas our question here is not concerning original sin, whether it be in the regenerate, and do concur also in their good works; but whether there be in matrimony of itself any impurity; our adversaries change the state of the question, & play the Sophisters. 4 They that are in the flesh cannot please God, Rom, 8, 8. But those which are married, are in the flesh. Therefore, etc. This is pope Syricius his argument. Answ, 1, What it is to be in the flesh, Paul expoundeth. Gal, 5, 19 Where he reckoneth up the fruits of the flesh, (to wit, sins and crimes) but there is no mention of marriage, but of the contraries thereto. 2, To live in the flesh, with Paul is to live in sin, but with our adversaries, to live in the flesh, is to live in the state of matrimony. Therefore there are four terms in this argument. 5 Yea, but many do use marriage bed intemperately, which is not without impurity. Answ, 1, This is the fallacy of an accident. For this is a thing that accidentally agreeth to marriage besides the right use, and that but amongst some only. ●, Neither is a thing which is of itself lawful, to be condemned, because some use it excessively: Otherwise men should be forbidden wine, because some be drunken. 6 I speak this by permission, or indulgence not by commandment (this to wit, that the married do not defraud one an other, but that they come together again, as man and wife) 1, Cor, 7, 6. But those things, which are honest and good, have no need of permission and pardon. Answ. 1, Paul granteth leave and pardon to those, which are too incontinent, which appeareth by these words going before, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency; but what is this to the lawful use of matrimony, and to them which use the marriage bed moderately? 2, And if permission or leave be granted them, which exceed, how much less shall they be defiled thereby, which use it temperately? 3, If Satan's way be stopped (as Paul here saith) by the use of wedlock, is then Satan driven from us by lust and impurity? 4, For this very reason, the use of marriage bed is lawful and without impurity, even because it is permitted: unless we will say that God permitteth and granteth unhonest things. Neither durst the Apostle of Christ have granted any liberty to sin. 5, And seeing they play with the ambiguity of the word, indulgence, (as sometimes for the pardoning of an offence, and some times for the permitting of a lawful thing) there arise four terms in the argument. 7 These are they which are not defiled with women. Reu, 14. 4. Therefore the company with women is a filthy thing. Answ, 1, If the words be taken properly and without a metaphor, than he speaketh not of defiling by wines, but generally by women, that is, of fornication and adultery, and it is a fallacy from that which is spoken indefinitely and in general; to the same taken definitely and for one set part. 2, But if the place be taken metaphorically, (as the circumstances of the text do altogether evince) than the text speaketh of Idolatry, which the Holy ghost in the Scripture useth to describe by fornications and adulteries. And so the argument is as a rope of sand. 8 If a man's issue of seed departed from him, he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the Even. Leviticus, 15, 16. Therefore the company of man and wife is not without pollution. Answ. 1. The text speaketh expressly, not of the lawful companying of man and wife, but of the issuing out of the seed, which is done in sleep, when the seed is cast forth without the use of marriage bed, as the whole course of the speech doth there declare. There are therefore four terms, seeing the word, issue of seed, is ambiguous. 2, Legal impurities and pollutions by the ceremonial law of Moses are not pollutions in manners, else he should sin, that toucheth a dead corpse, Levit, 21. 1. and Num. 5, 2. Where there is the same commandment concerning uncleanness by touching the dead, as by the issuing of seed. 9 Abi●elech said to David: if the young men be clean from women, they may eat. 1, Sam. 21, 4. Ans, 1, Cleanness in the Antecedent is taken for Levitical cleanness, and the speech was of the hallowed bread, which was lawful for the priests only to eat: in the consequent it is taken for cleanness before God, which as yet hath place among Christians. There are therefore four terms. 2, Now the shadows of the Levitical Law, are not to be brought again into the clear light of the Gospel. 10 David divided the Levites into 24. companies, that they might do their office by course, lest they should be driven to minister when they were polluted. 1, Chro, 24. Answ, 1, It is a fallacy taking that for the cause, which is not the cause, for we do no where read that this was the cause of the division, but it is apparent to be done for excellency, and order and comeliness sake, as also that none of the Levites should be quite excluded from the ministery. 2. Neither do we read that those companies had need to purify themselves before their turns came. 3. And if the Papists be so much delighted, to bring the old Testament into the new; by the same reason let them be circumcised, by the same reason let them forbid their Priests the use of wine, when they have the charge of the ministery. 11 Ye husbands dwell with your wi●●s according to knowledge, etc. that your prayers be not interrupted, 1. Pet. 3. 7. Ans. He speaketh not of the company of man and woman, but of tyrannous husbands, which handle their wives in servile & violent manner, living in continual discord▪ Now that their prayers are hindered by reason of their heart full of anger. hatred and envy, Christ teacheth, Matth. 5. 23 24, 25. It is then a fallacy taking that for the cause, whi●h is not the cause. ●12. Be ye clean. Isal, 52. 11. without spot. Ephes. ●. 27, etc. therefore Priests ought to abstain from marriage. Ans. 1. These places speak of that cleanness, which ought to be common to all Christians, that they be pure and clean from wickedness and sins: If these places than do● rightly conclude, then generally all Christians should abstain from marriage. 2, Or if in the place of isaiah, there be enjoined any levitical purification beside to the Levites, that belongeth not to Christians. Therefore the lawful companying of man and wife is not a polluted thing, and so neither is Matrimony itself impure or polluted, but lawful, holy, undefiled, honourable, and unspotted. Heb. 13. 4. Albeit all men be polluted and infected with original sin: which pollution the holiness of Christ imputed by faith unto us, doth cover, so that the heavenly Father doth acknowledge us for pure and holy. Question, 2. The question is, whether before God (especially in the article of justification) single life be more holy and do deserve more, than the state of Matrimony. Our Adversaries do so much admire and extol single life, that in the mean while they do debase the state of Matrimony. And in former time the School men have taught by writing that the least and meanest works (as standing, sitting, eating, drinking and such as follow hereupon) which are done by Monks in single life, are more acceptable to GOD, than are the greatest works of the first and second table, which are done by married men. We do no way disallow honest single life, neither do we deny, but that it is in many things more commodious and happy than Matrimony, if a man have the gift of continency: but we allow not of that superstitious loud extolling of single life, but we do believe that both the single and the married men are before GOD accepted with like favour, by faith in Christ; and that no man meriteth any thing more by single life, than those that live godlily and faithfully in wedlock. Because, (as before was said) the holy men of God, Abraham, Enoch, Noah lived in married state, and begot children, who were nevertheless most acceptable to God. Because we are not justified by single life, nor any other work, but by faith alone. Doubtless neither single life, nor marriage doth make us either the more or the less accepted with God. Paul doth so compare marriage and single life together, that he doth detract nothing from marriage before God. 1, Cor. 7. 1, It is better to marry, than to burne● verse, 9 2, As the Lord ha●h called every one, so let him walk and so ordain I in all Churches; verse, 17. 3, Let every man abide in the same vocation, wherein he was called. verse, 20. And again, 4, Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. verse, 24. 5. Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. verse, 27. 6, If thou takest a wife, thou sinnest not: and if a virgin marry, she sinneth not. verse, 28. 7, If any man think it is uncomely for his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not. let them be married. verse, 36. 8. So then, he that giveth her to marriage doth well, but he that giveth her not to marriage, doth better. verse, 38. Moreover, when as Paul doth seem to prefer single life before marriage, he doth it not in this respect, that it is more acceptable with God, but in a particular respect, because of the present necessity, and of the impediments of serving God more readily: for at that time persecutions were ri●e, which were more troublesome to the married, than to those which lived single: and this appeareth by th●se places out of the same Chapter. 1, I suppose this be good for the present necessity: I mean, that it is good for a man so to be; verse, 26. 2. Such (that is, those that be married) shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you● verse, 28. 3, I would have you without care, verse, 32. 4. This I speak for your commodity, not to tangle you in a snare, but that ye follow that which is honest, and th●t ye may cleave fast unto the Lord without separation. verse, 35. 5. But she (a widow) is more blessed, if she so abide in my judgement. verse, 40. Now he speaketh here of temporal happiness. There is no difference of respect before God, either of those that be single, or those that be married. 1. God is no accepter of persons: but in every Nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Act: 10. 32. 2. As Circumcision is nothing, nor uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (1, Cor. 7, 19) So is it rightly said of single life and marriage, seeing we do not please God, either because we live single, or because we are married, but because we are in Christ by faith. 3. Their is neither jew, nor Grecian: there is neither bond, nor free: there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ jesus. Galat. 3, 28. Married persons have so great promises in marriage, as our Adversaries will never show were made to single life. 1, The woman shall be saved through bearing of children, if they continue in faith, and love, and holiness with modesty. 1, Tim. 2, 15. 2. Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord, and walketh in his ways, etc. thou Blessings of godly marriage. shalt be blessed and it shall be well with thee, etc. Lo, thus the man is blessed, that feareth the Lord: the Lord out of Zion shall bless thee, and thou shalt see the Spiritual blessing out of Zion. wealth of lerusalem all thy life: thou shalt see peace upon Israel, thy wife shall be as the fruitful vine. Psal. 128. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1. I would that all men were, even as I myself ●m. 1, Cor. 7, 7. Ans. The Apostle doth not say this, as if single men were more perfect or acceptable before God, but as Paul saith, I spare you, because of the tribulation of the flesh. It is therefore a fallacy from that which is spoken but in part and some respect, to the same taken absolutely, and in all respects. 2. It is good for a man so to be, that is unmarried. 1, Cor: 7. 26. Ans: 1. Good is not there opposed to evil: for then this should be the conclusion: Single life is good; therefore marriage is evilll: but this would turn to the contumely of the Author of Matrimony. 2, Hear be four terms: for the Antecedent speaketh of a corporal felicity or good, & the consequent of a spiritual. 3. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 1. Cor. 7, 27. Answer, 1. Paul addeth forthwith; If thou take a wise, thou sinnest not: therefore the single man is not more perfect than the married. 2. Still they commit the fallacy of taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part and some respect only: neither do they consider the words of Paul, where he saith; for the present necessity, not for any future excellency in heaven. 4, They which have wives, let them be as though they had none. 1, Cor. 7, 29. Ans. Paulspeaketh not in this place of the company of man & wife, but admonisheth the married, that in those perilous times, (wherein the confession of the truth of the Gospel is required) they should not have more care of their wives, than of God's glory, and their own salvation. 5. The unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. 1, Cor. 7, 32. Ans. 1. He speaketh not of perfection or imperfection before God, but of commodities and discommodities, or certain Impediments which use to happen in marriage, for that the married hath care and charge of providing necessary things of this life for his family: which care who so might be freed from, without some greater or as great inconvenience on the other side, might have the more time and opportunity to bestow himself wholly on heavenly Meditations: but the like doth befall in all other estates, wherein men have to deal with the affairs of this life: So the Magistrate because of his great business in the commonwealth, hath not so much liberty to apply himself to religion. 2, A married man may also ser●e God nevertheless: Otherwise Zacharie & Elizabeth could not have been called just before God, Luke, 1, 6. Neither doth e●ery conveniency in a state make it by and by a more perfect state, for else riches were a more perfect state, than poverty, because a man hath means to provide necessaries for his profession, the more liberty to intend matters of religion, and may be liberal t● the poor, yet the papists will not say that the state of rich men is a state of greater perfection, than the state of poor men. 6 The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body & spirit, 1, Cor, 7, 34. Answ, 1, This objection is all one with that, which went next before, & therefore let the former answer serve for it also. 2, In the mean time, let the unmarried papists, which vaunt so of their single life, remember that they are commanded to be holy in body and Spirit; that they do not burn with lustful cogitations. 7 He that giveth her to marriage doth well, but he that giveth her not doth better, 1, Corinth, 7, 38. Ans, 1, It is a fallacy taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part and some respect. For it is not of itself & simply better, but with a restriction, it is better and more commodious, for the present necessity, that they may cleave to the Lord without hindrance. In the mean while it is said to all Christians. He that cannot contain, let him marry; and it is better to marry than to burn: 8 She (a widow) is more blessed, if she so continue. 1, Cor, 7, 40. Answer, She is more blessed with a temporal blessing, as Christ calls the barren blessed, Luk; 23, 29. There are therefore ●oure terms. 9 The barren is blessed, which is undefiled, & knoweth not the sinful bed: she shall have frui● in the visitation of souls. Wisd, 3, 13. Therefore single life is before God more blessed, than matrimony. Ans, 1, The text speaketh of a married woman that is barren: but our Adversaries speak of one that is unmarried: for there ca● be known no barrenness, where there hath not been the company of man and woman. 2, The text speaketh of a woma● which refraineth from adultery: this is showed by the words: She knoweth ●ot the sinful bed: Our adversaries speak of a woman, which abstaineth from lawful marriage: There is therefore a confusion of many terms, which ●ang not together, and a fallacy taking that absolutely, which is spoken in part only. 3, And the book is Apocryphal. 10 Let not the Eunuch say, Behold I am ● d●y tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, & choose the thing that pleaseth me, and take hold on my covenant, as if priests & monks were eunuchs, & did not rather fill the world with bastards. even unto them will I give in mine house & within my walls a place, etc. Isay, 56, 3, 4, 5. Therefore single life is before God more excellent tha● marriage. Ans. 1, It is a fallacy taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part only. In the old Testament those that were barren thought themselves neglected of God. These the Prophet comforteth, because before GOD there is no difference between the barren and the fruitful, for that all which believe, are indifferently received into the Kingdom of God. Now that which the Prophet saith shall not hinder them, that our Adversaries do fond turn into a prerogative. 2, The contrary rather followeth from this place, to wit, that both the fruitful and the barren, the married and the unmarried are alike esteemed of God, if they believe on the Messias, and take hold of the Lords covenant. 11 There is no weight to be compared to the continent mind. Eccles, 26, 15. Ans, The whole text speaketh of an honest & chaste married woman, who doth not defile her bed with adultery. This is then a rope of sand. 2, And the book is Apocryphal. 12 Who said to his Father and to his Mother, I know you not, and to his brethren, I am ignorant of you; and they knew not their own sons etc., These have kept thy Word, Deut, 33, 9 Answ. 1. The translation is false. Which according to the Hebrew is thus: Who, (that is Levi) said unto his Father and to his mother, I have not seen him, neither knew he his brethren, nor knew his own children. For they observed thy Word and kept thy covenant; they shall teach jacob thy judgements. That is the Levites were inflamed with such a zeal against the transgressors of God's law, that they neither spared kindred, no● parents, nor brethren, nor their own sons, but killed them as though they had not seen them, or known them. And that for this exploit, whereby God was appeased, they were fit men, to whom the ministry should be committed in their generations for ever. As the story, whereunto Moses alludeth, is at large described (Exod, 32, 26, 27, 28. etc.) 2, He saith not, they begat not sons, but they knew them not, that is, they had no respect of persons. 3, And with all, this is taught us, that those are fit ministers & worthy commendation, that thoroughly & manfully do their duty in the Church with great zeal, not passing for it, that they bring sorrow or loss of goods (by reason of persecutions arising thereupon) to their parents, wife, or children. But what is this to popish single life? This argument than hangeth together like sand. 13 Marie saith, I know not man, Luke, 1, 34. as having respect to the vow of perfection, to wi●, single life. Ans, 1, The text showeth the contrary, saying that she was affianced to a man, (Luk, 1, 27.) and so that Mary and joseph should have come together (Matthew, 1, 18.) unless God had forbidden it, because our Saviour was to be borne of Mary. 14 Some have made themselves chaste for the Kingdom of Heaven. Matth, 19, 12. Answ, The Kingdom of God signifieth the dispensing of the Gospel, in performing whereof that they might be less hindered, some remained unmarried, as Paul. But this is nothing as concerning any prerogative with God: neither is single life therefore of itself more holy before God, than is honest matrimony. Hear follow certain other general arguments of our Adversaries for the prerogative. of single life. 1 Paul biddeth the married to abstain from companying together for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer. 1, Cor, 7, 5. But priest's and monastical persons ●ught to give themselves at all times to prayer: Therefore they ought always to abstain from marriage. Answ. 1. Paul there speaketh not of ordinary and daily, but of solemn prayers in the time of perils of imminent persecutions: For which prayers sake the married priest may abstain for a time, no less than the laic. 2 Though the laics also aught as well to pray always, (for, pray always, continually, saith Paul, Ephes, 6, 18. 1, Thes, 5, 17.) yet they are not bidden therefore to remain always unmarried. 3, Hear is a fallacy, taking that for the cause, which is not the cause, For Paul bids them not abstain for a time, by reason of any uncleanness in matrimony, but that being hindered with none other outward or worldly thing, they might more conveniently give themselves to prayer. 2 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, because he would please him, that hath chosen him to be a Soldier, 2, Timon, 2, 4. But priests are Gods Soldiers. Answ, 1. Hear only is reproved that carefulness, whereby Christians do over much meddle with worldly affairs. 2, Married men also are Gods Soldiers, though they live not single. For which warfare Paul doth arm all Christians with spiritual weapons (Ephesian, 6). 3 And that the Minister of the Church be not compelled to care at home for the things of this life, he may be ●ased of this care by his wife. 3 The Woman is bound by the law while her husband liveth. Rom, 7, 2. 1, Corin, 7, 39 But Christ, who is the Husband to priests, liveth forever. Therefore priests may never be joined in matrimony. Ans, 1, It is an argument from a spiritual conjunction to a corporal: therefore there are four terms: 2, Spiritual marriage with Christ doth not take away corporal matrimony: otherwise all married Christians should be spiritual adulterers: which our Adversaries dare not in such gross manner utter, though perhaps they think not much better. 4. I have prepared you for one husband, to present you a pure virgin unto Christ. 2, Corinthians, 11. 2. Answ. 1, Paul writeth here to all the Corinthians, whether single or married, whether Lay men or Ministers of the Church; all them he calleth a pure virgin. Therefore this text is nothing to the single life of Priests. 2, It is a metaphorical speech, which besides the metaphorical signification concludeth nothing: but marriage and single life are used of our Adversaries without any metaphor: therefore they dispute by four terms. 5. The Father hath right to keep his virgin unmarried, as please himself. 1. Cor. 7, 36, 37. 38. But the Church hath the right and authority of a Father, over Ministers; therefore it hath right to forbid Priests to marry. Ans. 1, That the Church hath not power simply at her own pleasure, but a limited & restrained power, was proved in the common place of the Church. 2, The right and power of a Father also is limited so, that Parents are bound to have consideration of their children, that they constrain not them to contain, which have not the gift of continency, and by this occasion expose them to unchaste lusts. Which seeing it is not observed by the Church of Rome, they do not rightly use their right of fatherhood: but they use the right, or rather the wrong of tyrants. Then the mayor proposition is not universally true, especially seeing it is contrary to the saying of Paul: He that cannot contain, let him marry. 3, In the same place Paul leaveth all this matter at men's liberty: Seeing then the Church of Rome doth in this matter bereave such, as belong unto her, of that liberty, contrary to the doctrine of Paul, the place of Paul hath not affinity or coherence with the purpose of the Papists. Question. 3. The question is, Whether it be lawful for every one to vow continency or single life. Our Adversaries affirm, and we deny it for these reasons. The nature of vows is this, that first they be not contrary to the word of God: then that they be of things, which are in our own power; but continency is not in our own power, but is a peculiar gift of God. 1, All men cannot receive this thing. He that is able to receive this, let him receive it. Math. 19, 11 12. 2, Every man hath his proper gift of God (not of himself, or of his own free will) one after this manner, and another after that. 1, Cro. 7, 7. Where the Apostle doth expressly speak of continency. 3, As God hath distributed to every man. 1, Cor. 7, 17. where he speaketh of the same matter. Paul's doctrine of continency is such, that he would have it to be free, & not bound It is very clear, that in Paul's time; the vows of single life were altogether unknown: by vow. 1, If they cannot abstain, let them marry: for it is better to marry, than to burn. (1, Cor. 7, 9) Contrary to this our Adversaries teach thus. If they cannot contain, yet let them not marry; for it is therefore the vows, which Priests now vs●, are not Apostolical. better that Priests should burn, and become who remongers & adulterers, than that they should be joined in honest matrimony. 2. This I speak for your commodity, not to tangle you in a snare. 1, Cor. 7, 35, but our Adversaries lay snares upon men's consciences. 3. If any man think it is uncomely, &c: let him do what he will 1, Corinth. 7, 36. Note if the Father thought it but uncomely, he was bound no further. Because by this vow of continency many thousand souls are thrust down into eternal destruction, while they vow continency, which they cannot keep. This vow doth cause many hidden sins to be committed and many other foul close crimes, which it is a shame even to report. Concerning these things read Balaeus of the visitation of English Monasteries: as also the Balaeus in the preface to the lives of the Bishops of Rome. verses of Mantuan, who himself was a Papist, and of jacobus Actius Sannazarius, of Marcellus Palingenius, of Franciscus Petrarcha● as also the book of john Della Casa, ●e Sodomiae encomio: all which the day of the Lord shall once disclose, and shall repay them upon their heads, who have been the Authors and maintainers of this tyrann●ussi● imposed vow. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1. Vows are to be kept. And here they heap up many sayings to no purpose, Deut. 23, 21. Levi▪ 27; 2, 10. Numb: 6, 2, Psal: 75, 12, Eccles, 5, 3; Ans. 1. There be four terms in the argument, because the Mayor speaketh of vows, which are not out of our own power, but of lawful and approved vows, which were not repugnant to the rules delivered, Numb. 6. & 30 Chapter; such as were the vows of the Nazarites, of offerings, etc. but the minor meaneth a vow not allowed of, nor commanded, and such a vow as is not in our power to keep. 2. Though every one have not the gift of continency, yet we may obtain it by prayers; for what soever ye shall ask, ye shall receive. john, 16. 23, 24. Ans. 1. If God had appointed, the praying for the gift of continency, as an effectual and sufficient remedy against burning, than the argument would follow: but because God hath appointed another remedy, for the avoiding of fornication, to wit, lawful matrimony (according to these sayings: It is better to marry, than to burn: if they cannot contain, let them marry: and for avoiding of fornication, let every man have his wife:) therefore there is no consequence in the Papists argument 2, We have an assured promise to obtain those things by prayer, which do directly pertain to the salvation of our souls; but seeing we may be saved in honest Matrimony, without the obtaining of the gift of continency, God is not tied to hear our prayers, when we desire the gift of continency. 3, And if every man may obtain by prayer the gift of continency, why not also the gift of tongues? or, why not the gift of healing also? 3. Refuse the younger widows: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation because they have broken the first faith (that is their vow.) 1, Timo. 5, 11. 12. Therefore the vow of continency cannot be broken, upon any pre●ense of not being able to contain. Answer. 1, It cannot by any one word be proved, that these widows made vows, that they would not afterward marry: this place than is wrongfully wrested to Popish vows of continency. 2, These widows are not reproved, for that they marry, but for that they secretly play the harlots, and then seek for marriage for a pretence to cover their naughtiness. 3, The first faith is not any vow, but the first faith that was given to Christ in Baptism: this is the first faith, which they break, while they make the members of Christ, the members of an harlot. 4, And Paul biddeth these younger widows marry, in the same place: he should then bid them break their vow, if these widows had made any vow: which our Adversaries will not willingly grant. 5, If this place be understood of vows, it followeth against the Papists, that they offend, in laying vows upon them, which are not yet come to three●core years of age: for Paul would have such chosen, as be threescore years old. 4. The vow which Priests make of chastity, is a free vow of their own accord; neither doth any man compel them to it. Ans. 1. This we deny: for those that will be admitted into holy Orders, have none other entrance, but by vowing. A man that is admitted, if he marry, is removed from his calling, and is punished in his body: what a kind of liberty is this? It is therefore a loud lie. 5, Paul (1, Timo. 4, 1, 3.) doth not speak of the Pope, that he holdeth the doctrine of Devils, but he meaneth the Tatian● and Encr●ti●ae her●tikes. Ans. 1. Paul saith of them: forbidding to marry, but the Pope forbiddeth to marry: therefore etc. 2, It followeth not, the Tatiani forbade marriage: therefore the Pope, which forbiddeth it too, is not to be reproved. There is the like judgement of like things. 3, Though the Pope do not forbid marriage to all persons▪ yet he forbiddeth it; and therefore he is rightly condemned by Paul with the Tatiani and Encratitae. CHAP. 22. Of the Popish Fasts. IN this chapter the controversy is not, whether Christians ought to fast. (For none of our side doth deny that) but the question is, whether the popish fasts, such as are in use amongst our Adversaries, be to be approved and necessary to be observed. But because so many things meet together in the popish fasts, which are repugnant to the holy Scripture, let us treat of them all severally. (1) Error 1 And first of all, our Adversaries do place their fasts, not in sobriety, or temperance in meat and drink; neither in a total absta●ing from all meat and drink for a certain time, which was used of the Ancients; but in abstinence from flesh, and white meats, etc. only putting a difference betwixt meats. And they press that difference to be observed with such severity, that amongst them he is accounted to commit a more heinous crime, who should taste flesh upon the days forbidden; than he that should be taken in adultery, or other wickedness: And in some places (especially of Italy and Spain (men are in greater danger for tasting flesh upon the days inhibited, than for committing capital crimes. We disallow and reject this observation and preposterous choice of meats, for these reasons. Because there is not any either commandment or example, in the whole Scripture of the new Testament, of this difference and choice of meats: and therefore it is rightly rejected, as a mere will-worship. 1, Teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you, Matt, 28, 20. 2, Of such like observations Christ saith: In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines, men's precepts, Matth, 15, 9 In the New Testament those Levitical differences of meats are taken away, which after a sort are brought in again of our adversaries. 1, The things that God hath purified, pollute thou not, Act, 10, 15. 2, Whatsoever is set before you, eat, 1, Cor, 10, 27. 3, That which goeth into the mouth, defileth not the man, Matth, 15, 11. 4, Meat maketh us not acceptable to God: for neither if we eat, have we the more: neither if we eat not, have we the less. 1, Cor, 8, 8. 5, The Kingdom of God is not meat nor drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy ghost, Rom, 14, 17. 6, It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, and not with meats, which have not profited them, that have been occupied therein, Heb, 13, 9 By this difference and choice of meats laid upon the Church, as if it were necessary, Christian liberty is impugned. 1, In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, and shall give heed unto spirits of errors, and doctrines of devils, which speak lies through hypocrisy, and have their consciences burned with an hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with giving thanks of them that believe & know the truth: for every creature of God is good, and nothing aught to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. 1. Tim, 4, 1, 2. etc. 2, Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, & let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth, Rom, 14, 3. 3, Let no man condemn you in meat or in drink, etc. Colos, 2, 16. 4, If ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances of the World, why as though ye lived in the World, are ye burdened with traditions? As, touch not, taste not, handle not. Which all perish with the using, and are after the commandments & doctrines of men: which things have indeed a show of wisdom, in voluntary religion and humbleness of mind, and in not sparing the body: neither have they it in any estimation to satisfy the flesh, Coloss, 2, 20, etc. 5, Unto the pure are all things pure, Titus. 1, 15. 6, Whatsoever is sold in the shambles eat ye, and ask no question for conscience sake, 1, Corinth, 10, 15. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1 Obedience is due to the Church but the Church hath ordained such fasts. Therefore, etc. Answer, 1, In customs and indifferent ceremonies for order's sake, obedience is to be performed to the Church, but not in matters of necessity and articles of our belief, unless it be upholden by the authority of the scripture, whereof we have spoken in the beginning of this book. Thither we refer the Reader. 2, Neither is that rightly ascribed to the Church, which is tyrannously obtruded to be observed of Christians by superstitious men under the name of the Church. 2 He that is weak, eateth herbs, Rom. 14. 2. Therefore the eating of flesh may rightly be forbidden for the weak ones sake. Answ, 1, Paul speaketh of those that be weak: but the Church respecteth not the weak, but only their own tyranny, which they would establish by such superstitious precepts. 2, Paul addeth presently upon it, let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, etc. Now if our Adversaries think he spoke these words of the choice and difference of meats, why do they not leave the use of meats in men's liberty? and, why do they not take away the difference between him that eateth, and him that eateth not? 3, Seeing Paul speaketh of a thing, which he leaveth in free choice, and our Adversaries of a thing not left at liberty, this allegation of Paul is impertinent. And there be 4. terms. 3 It is good not to eat flesh, Rom, 14▪ 21. Ans, 1, Paul speaketh of the moderating of Christian liberty, (whereof there is no controversy) which seeing our Adversaries do wrest to the abrogating of Christian liberty, there is more in the conclusion than in the premises, and there is committed the fallacy of taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part only. 2, If these words of Paul do bind us to a choice of meats, than it will follow, that we must not drink wine neither, For Paul joineth these together: It is not good to eat flesh nor to drink wine. Whence one of the two doth follow; that either these words are alleged impertinently, or that the Church of Rome doth err in not forbidding the use of wine. The latter our Adversaries do not grant. Therefore needs they must grant the former. 4 If meat offend my brother, I will eat no flesh while the World standeth that I may not offend my brother, 1, Cor, 8, 13. Ans, 1, Paul doth not speak of the popish difference of meats (wherein the use of all flesh generally is forbidden) but of things sacrificed to idols. Therefore it is nothing to the purpose. 2 Even this moderating of our liberty, is itself a temporal precept (as appeareth Acts. 15, 29) the Pope's prohibition then, seeing it is perpetual, hath no affinity with this precept of Paul's. And seeing there be two terms in this argument, which have equivocation in them, there arise five terms 5 In the Old Testament there was always a difference made of some meats, before and after the flood, and in the time of the law. Answ, 1, These for the most part were shadows of things to come. Therefore they be long not to us in the new Testament. 2, Then there was an express commandment of God: which we do not only want in the new Testament, but we have also the contrary commandment of Paul, Coloss, 2, 20. etc. 6 Daniel fasted with choice of meats, Dan, 1, 8, and 10, 3. Answ, 1, This was partly (Dan, 1, 8.) by the commandment, (Leu, 11.) partly of his own free accord (Dan, 10. 3) and not of superstition: but it was rather a fast of sobriety and temperance, all which have no affinity with the popish fast, especially seeing Daniel abstained also from wine: which the popish Prelates, Priests and Monks, would be loath, I warrant you, to observe. 7 The choice and difference of meats hath ground in scripture, Levit, 11, Deut, 14. Answer, 1, They were Levitical precepts, abrogated by God. Acts, 10, 15. By the Apostles, Act, 15, 10, 19, 20, etc. By Paul Coloss. 2, 16, 17, 20. etc., and (Heb, 13. 9) 2, And that Levitical difference of meats was not in this, whether it were lawful to eat flesh or fi●h: but there was difference put between the clean and unclean living creatures. Wherefore that levitical difference of meats is fond wrested to the Popish difference and choice of meats: and there be five terms in this argument. 8, The Apostles did forbid to eat blood, or that which was strangled, Act. 15. 29. Answ. 1, It was a temporal commandment for the moderating of Christian liberty, unto the edification of the weak; but the Popish difference and choice of meats doth not moderate, but abrogate Christian liberty, neither is it for any weak ones sake, but for obtaining of tyranny in the Church. 2; The Apostles did not forbid them flesh at all, but blood & that which was strangled, which many men at this day also by nature think abominable to be eaten. It is nothing therefore to the purpose. 9 The Nazarites abstained from certain meats and drinks, Numb. 6, 3. Ans. 1. The vow of the Nazarites did belong to a certain abstinence for one set time: but herein it agreeth not with the Popish choice and difference of meats. 2. It was a levitical ceremony, which ought to cease among Christians. 3, The law of Nazarites did forbid the use of wine also, which notwithstanding our Adversaries do retain in their fast▪ 10. The Rechabites abstained from wine. jer. 35. 6. 10. Answ. 1. They did it not to merit the favour of God: but they had received a commandment from their Father, that they might the more easily abstain from drunkenness & the vices, which follow drunkenness. Neither would their Father prescribe a law to others, but to his sons. It is then a fallacy taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part. 2. We dispute of flesh and they answer of wine: 11. It is not read that Christ did eat flesh, but that he did eat bread and fish, etc. Answ. 1, As if the Paschal Lamb had not been flesh. 2. We should not therefore have an example to imitate, if it were never so plain, that Christ did abstain from flesh. 3. But neither do we read, that Christ did eat herbs, nuts, spices, nor that he drank beer. All these therefore shall be inhibited Christians, if this argument follow. 12. The earth was cursed by God. Genes. 3, 17. but beasts live of the earth: therefore there should be an inhibition, that they be not eaten▪ Ans. 1 By this reason all flesh at all times should be forbidden. 2, That curse is but in part, namely, that it should be barren, and bring forth thorns and thistles. 3, So, should we not eat herbs neither, which spring immediately out of the earth. 13. Because flesh is most nourishing, and bringeth forth the pricks of Concupiscence, we ought to abstain from flesh at that time, which is appointed for the taming of our flesh. Answer. 1. These are the precepts which have a show of wisdom in will-worship. (Coloss. 2, 23) and wine should be forbidden rather than flesh; as that which inflameth men to Inst and other vices, as it is said. Prou: 23, 31, 32, etc. 14. The Apostles fasted. Acts. 13, 2. 3▪ and 14. 23. And fasting is commended. Matthew. 6 16: Mark, 9 29. Io●l. 1. 14. Zachar. 7, 5. and 8. 19 jonah, 3, 5, 7. Answer. 1. That Christians should fast in their kind in due sort and manner, no man denieth, but without the loss of Christian liberty; those things than are brought for arguments, which are out of controversy. 2, But whiles the argument is from a true manner of fasting, to the Popish hypocritical manner of fasting, there arise four terms. For the fasting of the Apostles did not consist in the difference of meats: but they that fasted in the old Testament, abstained from all meat, and drink a whole day until evening: Such a fast the Popish Priests and Monks will never be persuaded to practise. (2) Error. Whereas in the Church of God it is left at liberty for any man to fast at any fit time: yet the Papists are so bound to their fasts by laws at set times, that he may incur the danger of his head, who shall break his fast at those times. Which also is repugnant to Christian liberty. Let no man condemn you in meat or drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath days. Colos. 2, 16. (3) Error. The Papists teach that fasting hath the nature of a merit, and that it is a satisfaction for actual sins and punishments. This is repugnant to the doctrine of the merit and one only satisfaction of our Saviour, and to the article of justification, as was declared in his proper place. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1, The Ninivites and others have by fasting obtained a mitigation of punishments: therefore fasting is meritorious. Ans. 1. They that obtained the spiritual grace of God obtained it by faith: for without faith no man can please God (Heb. 11. 6.) 2, And whereas others obtained a mitigating or deferring of temporal punishments, it belongeth not to this disputation, wherein the question is not of temporal grace, but of the grace of justification. So the wicked King Ahab, by fasting and humbling himself in sackcloth, obtained the deferring of temporal evils, but escaped not eternal punishments. 1, King. 21, 29. (4) Error. Hear in the Papists err also, that of a wrong zeal they thrust upon the Church, the fast of Lent without any authority from God. Contrariwise our Adversaries do reason. 1. Christ fasted forty days. Matth. 4, 2. but every action of Christ is our instruction; therefore etc. Ans. 1. This fast was miraculous, neither is there any thing in it, which agreeth with the Popish fast. But and if every action of Christ be our instruction, than we must work miracles too. 2. We should also in like manner abstain 40 days altogether from all meat. 3, We have no commandment, to imitate this fact of Christ. 4. And, if we must imitate every action of Christ in particular, than we should with a whip scourge the Popish Merchants of holy things out of the temples. But woe to the Pope with his Simoniacal mates, if this dealing should be used. 2. Moses and Elias fasted 40 days. Ans. 1, If their example should bind others to imitate them, than the fast of Lent should have been instituted in the old Testament also: which seeing it was not done, the vanity of this argument is apparent. 2, Both their fasts were miraculous and unimitable. 3, Lent fast is the tithing of the days of the year; Therefore it was well ordained of the Church. Ans. These be fictions of idle brains, without the word of God. Will-worships therefore to be condemned. 4, The Canons of the Apostles do commend the fast of Lent. Ans. 1, They be counterfeit Canons: which our Adversaries themselves dare not altogether deny, unless they they be without both judgement and shame. 2, There are many things in those Canons, which the Papists themselves at this day do reject. (5) Error. He that violateth the law of fasting or of Lent, is sorer punished amongst our Adversaries, than he that transgresseth the law of God. Why do ye transgress the commandment of God, for or by your tradition? Mat. 15, 3. (6) Error. There are many mockeries in this Popish Lent fast. They permit most delicate fishes to be eaten, which are more dainty than any beef or veal: such as are Pikes, Sea-pikes, Salmonds, Giltheads, Gudgeons, Lampreyes', Eels, Oysters, etc. These meats may be, and use to be dainties many times, in the more costly banquets of rich men, or perhaps of noble personages. It is a fit course forsooth to tame the flesh by dainties. In the mean while they refrain not from wine, but reserve the strongest wine for Lent time; taming the flesh, if it please you, with strong wine, according to that of the Proverbs Prou. 23, 31, 33. That the hypocrites may seem to fast till evening, they sing their Evensong at dinner time, that afterward they may freely banquet and take their repast: as if God did not know the hour of the day, but by their service and singing. In the evening they make a Collation (so they call it) with diverse delicate sauces, confections, spices, almonds, and wine: and in the mean time they bear the world in hand, that they fast notably. They sell Indulgences for money, to eat butter, flesh, eggs, white meats, etc. in Lent time; committing Simony, and making way for advantage and gain by fasts. The judgement of the holy Ghost of such manner of Fasts. Cry aloud, spare not: lift thy voice like a Trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and to the house of jacob their sins. Yet they seek me daily, and will know my ways, even as a nation, that did righteously, and had not forsaken the statutes of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice: they will draw near unto God, saying wherefore have we fasted, and thou seest it not? etc. Is it such a fast that I have chosen, that a man should afflict his soul for a day, and to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to lie down in sackcloth & ashes▪ wilt thou call this a fasting, or an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fasting, that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, etc. Isay, 58. 1, 2, etc. When ye fast, look not sour as the hypocrites: for they disfigure their faces, that they might seem to men to fast. Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward, Matth. 6, 16. Bodily exercise profi●eth little, 1, Tim, 4, 8. Where Paul doth not speak of the exercises of the body undertaken for health's sake: but of abstinence from those things, which are in themselves left free and indifferent: and such exercises he maketh no great reckoning of. A Popish shift. The Pope doth not say, that meats are evil. Therefore the place of Paul. (1, Tim, 4, 1, 3.) belongeth not to him. Answ. 1. Neither doth Paul say, that erroneous spirits shall say that meats are evil, but that they shall bring in an abstinence from certain meats, under what pre●ense of Religion soever it be done. 2, And the place (Coloss, 2, 20, etc.) which we cited, is more clear, than that it can be shifted off. The Pope therefore remaineth a Doctor, that teacheth the doctrine of devils. CHAP. 23. Of Repentance. WHereas the Pope of Rome hath thrust, his errors into the article of Repentance also, we will likewise briefly propose them. (1) Error. Contrition (which otherwise neither aught, nor can be excluded from repentance) is required by our Adversaries not simply in Repentance, but they teach that sins are blotted out and satisfied for, by contrition, which we ascribe to Christ alone (who was wounded for our transgressions, Isa, 53, 5) according as the Scripture teacheth us, as hath been sufficiently declared in the article of justification: and the sayings of Scripture, Acts, 4, 12. 1, Ioh, 1, 7. & 2, 1, 2. do witness. (2) Error. They appoint a certain measure to contriti● on, and do teach that unless it be sufficient, there is no remission of sins granted. We reject this doctrine of sufficient contrition. Because it breedeth a perpetual doubting of the remission of sins; the repentant sinner being always in suspense, and never knowing, whether he be so contrite and sorrowful, as the measure of his sins do require; & therefore will always be in doubt and anxiety, whether his sins be forgiven. Neither can his Confessor free him from this doubt. For how shall he know certainly, that the penitent man's contrition is sufficient, for the greatness and multitude of his sins? And so at length he should thrust his penitent into the depth of desperation, because he sendeth him to his own sufficient contrition, and not to the all-sufficient satisfaction of Christ. By this doctrine of sufficient contrition the soul of man is led to a thing simply impossible For how is contrition for all sins, possible, seeing the knowledge of all and every sin in particular, (not only contrition for them) is impossible and unknown unto us? 1, Who can understand his faults? cleanse me from my secret faults, Psal, 19, 12. 2, Thou hast set our secret sins in the light of thy countenance, Psal. 90, 8. (3) Error. They require satisfaction in their repentance or penance, not the satisfaction of Christ, but their own, which the priest receiving confession must lay upon him that confesseth, that hereby satisfaction may be made to God by the sinner for his sin. Which same also cannot stand with the one alone satisfaction of jesus Christ, nor with the article of free justification; nor with the imperfection of our good works. Add hereto, that those works of satisfaction, are for the most part works of their own devising, which for that very respect are hateful to God. Which seeing they have been sufficiently handled before in their proper place, it is not needful now to repeat the same: Let it suffice only to note and reckon up their errors. The explication thereof the Readershall find before in their due place. (4) Error. In reckoning the parts of repentance they omit faith, and take away as it were the soul or life of true Repentance. For Contrition without faith is desperation, as we are taught by the most woeful examples of Cain and I●das Iscario●. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom, 14, 23. Therefore Repentance without faith cannot please God, that sins may beforginen. Repentance without faith profited Esau nothing, Heb, 12, 17. (5) Error. men's Consciences also with our Adversaries are most miserably tormented, while they drive them that confess to a particular rehearsing of all and every of their sins, and that with every circumstance of the fact (fond affirming that this same particular confession is meritorious by reason of the shame that is joined with it) which vexing of men's consciences in the Church of God, is not to be borne with, for these reasons. ● Because it hath no precept nor example of Christ or his Apostles. Such auricular confession (as they call it) hath no promise of grace in the Word of God. The Gospel is turned into the law, whiles the desert of remission of sins is placed in the reckoning up of offences (as it were out of the tables of the law.) The Conscience is brought into perpetual doubting, and at length into desperation, on, while a man feareth lest he have forgotten some of his sins, or lest he have not rehearsed his sins with all circumstances necessary, to the remission of his sins. And therefore he must always doubt of the remission of his sins: which how terrible a torment of Conscience it is, men of conscience may easily judge. Hence it came to pass, that superstitious men in Popery, could scarce ever make any end of confessing, and yet still there arose new pricks of conscience. again men's works, which cannot stand in God's judgement, are placed in the room of Christ's satisfaction and the free forgiveness of sins, while● such confession is made meritorious. The doubtful conscience is dri●en to an impossibility, as before was cited out of Psal, 19, 12. & 90. 8. Contrariwise our Adversaries do dispute. 1 In the Primitive Church public confession of ●innes by circumstances was required. Answer, 1, It was a part of ec●lesiasticall discipline, which was wont to be performed before the whole Church by such persons as had grievously fallen, before the Church had any Christian Magistrates. But that popish auricular confession was unknown to all antiquity. There are therefore four terms. 2 God exercised private confession in Adam, when he said, Adam, where art thou? & in Cain, when he asked, where is Abel thy brother? Gen, 3, 9, & 4, 9 Answ. 1. Those places prove nothing less. For Neither did Adam nor Cain reckon up their sins, but endeavour to cloak them. But to preach to the impenitent the acknowledging of their sins, & to receive confession in the care; are things very far different. 2. Neither did either Adam or Cain deserve any thing by that confession which was with much a do wrung from them: For Cain despaired, and Adam believing on the promised seed of the woman, was saved by faith. not by the confession of his sin. The Argument than hangeth not together. 3, He that hideth his sins, shall not prosper: but he that confesseth and forsaketh them, shall have mercy. Prou. 28, 13. When I held my tongue, my bones consumed, Psal. 32, 3. If we acknowledge our sins, etc. 1. joh. 1, 9 therefore Auricular confession is grounded on the Scripture. Ans, 1. Seeing there is not one only manner of confession, but divers, they argue from that which is spoken indefinitely to the same taken definitely, & from a particular as from an universal: for there is a confession before God; there is a general confession, there is a particular, before the Ministers, before the Church, before our brethren, whom we have offended, etc. All these things our Adversaries do fond confound together. 4. The jews were baptised of john and confessed their sins; therefore he speaketh of Auricular confession. Math. 3, 6: Answer. 1, There is more in the conclusion than in the Premises: for it followeth not; they confessed themselves to be sinners therefore they confessed every one of their sins on the Popish manner. 2, The text saith, that jerusalem & all jury, & all the region about jordan went out unto john, etc. of how much time then, and how many ten years had john need of, if he would have heard the particular and secret enumeration of all and every their sins: nothing therefore followeth. 5. Christ saith: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whosesoevers sins ye retain, they are retained. joh. 20, 23. That it may therefore be known what sins ought to be retained, what not; it is needful there should be a particular enumeration of them. Answ. 1. There is more in the conclusion than in the Premises: for sins may be remitted to them, which confess themselves to be sinners, & seriously to repent. Although there be made no particular enumeration of all sins, yet we keep a good custom in * The churches of Germany. our Churches, thinking it meet, that the Minister, before he giveth absolution, should try whether he that confesseth, understand the doctrine of the acknowledgement of sin, of Redemption, of Grace, and justification, etc., But that this should be done by that auricular circumstantial enumeration of sins, there is no whit contained in Christ's words▪ Now as concerning retaining of sins, that belongeth to impenitent sinners; but we may not practise it upon them that confess their sins. What needeth then for this retaining of sins, any enumeration of sins, in them, to whom Christ biddeth us apply the key of losing? 2, Against the Popish auricular confession we have an example of Peter, who having heard the general and devout confession of the sins of the jews, did not seek after particulars any more, but gave unto them Absolution & Baptism. Act, 2, 38, 41. 6. Christ saith to the Leper: go, sh●w thyself unto the Priest. Matt●. 8, 4. therefore he biddeth him confess his sins to a Priest. Ans. 1. There is not any syllable in the text concerning any manner of confession. It is then a rope of sand. 2, The cause of sending him to the Priest was not any confession, but for a witness unto them, that they might not be able afterward to deny or cavil at Christ's miracles. 3, And at that time, by the custom and commandment of the law of Moses; the judging of leprous persons belonged to the Priests: which at this day is committed to Physicians. Hear than is a fallacy taking that for the cause, which is not the cause. 7. A● the Chirurgeon ought first to vie we and search the wounds, that he may apply necessary plasters: so it is needful that the Priest take a particular view of the wounds of conscience, before he give absolution. Ans: 1, Similitudes prove nothing. 2, Here is great difference & unlikeness: for it is needful that the Surgeon do look upon the wounds, because he ought to apply several plasters according to the diversity of the wounds: neither are all plasters fit for all diseases, which in spiritual wounds of conscience is not so: for there all and every disease is cured with one & the same plaster, to wit, the blood of the son of God: 1, Ioh: 1, 7, and 2, 2. 8. He that desireth absolution, may deceive the Minister, therefore auricular confession is better. Answ. 1, And he that confesseth may deceive the Priest in auricular confession: fo● who can assure the Priest, that he that confesseth, hath kept back nothing, or that he hath not told some untruth in the circumstances. 2, This evil aught to be met withal, not by auricular confession, but by a grave & serious admonition: namely that God searcheth the hearts of all men, and though the Ministers, his Mess●ngers be deceived, yet that he cannot be deceived, who will inflict most grievous punishments upon the unrepentant. 9 Acknowledge your sins one to another. jam. 5, 16. Ans: 1. It is an argument from a particular, as if it were an universal: for it doth not follow that james doth no● speak here of any other kind of confession, but of that auricular. 2, He saith, Confess one to another: he doth not therefore speak of auricular confession before a Priest, but of a mutual confession of them, who have been offended one by another. And it is all one with that of Christ, concerning reconciling ourselves with our brother offended. Matth. 5, 23, 24. Hear are therefore four terms, and ropes of sand, as are almost all our Adversaries arguments. The Conclusion. The godly & intelligent Reader will marvel perhaps, that our Adversaries, the plasterer over of Popish errors, are not afraid to bring to light with such earnestness, such trifles for the defence of Popish errors, and that in so great light of the Gospel and such a learned age. But he will cease to marvel, if he shall consider with himself, that the Papists for mere want of good arguments are driven to that necessity, that whiles they cannot resist the heavenly truth, whatsoever comes in their way, (how absurd soever it be) that they lay hold on for a dart, and throw it against the doctrine of the Gospel. And that befalleth them, which Virgil writeth: Furor arm a ministrat: Fury findeth out weapons. The Lord bring again to a right mind so many of our Adversaries, as have not sinned unto death, Amen. FINIS.