A TREATISE OF GOD'S EFFECTVAL CALLING: WRITTEN FIRST IN THE LATIN tongue, by the reverend and faithful servant of Christ, Master ROBERT ROLLOCK, Preacher of God's word in Edinburgh. AND NOW FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED for the benefit of the unlearned, into the English tongue, by Henry Holland, Preacher in London. 2. PET. 1. 10. Give diligent heed to make your calling and election sure. AT LONDON Imprinted by FELIX KYNGSTON. 1603. THE authors EPISTLE TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY Prince, JAMES the sixth, now by God's free mercy, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc. grace and peace by jesus Christ. AFter some advising with myself, in whose name I should publish this little work, your Majesty (my most dread Sovereign) above all others came first into my mind, for that you may justly challenge as your own right, the first fruits of my labours, of what kind soever they be. Having then heretofore consecrated the first fruits of the first kind of my writings unto your Highness: I thought it meet also, that this second kind of meditations (in the common places of divinity) should be presented to the same your Majesty. From this purpose although many things feared me, among which your princely Majesty (to speak as the truth is) adorned with rare knowledge of divine things, did most occupy my mind: your Majesty, I say the greatness whereof, my own meanness, and the slenderness of this work, were not able to endure. Yet when I recounted with myself how great your courtesy and gentleness was always accustomed to be towards all men, but especially towards myself; I determined rather to incur some suspicion of overmuch boldness, than not to give testimony of my duty, and of my most humble devotion towards your Majesty, even by the dedication of this small work of mine how mean soever it be. Respect therefore (most noble King) not so much this small work, as the testimony of a mind most dutifully affected towards your Majesty in the Lord, and as my duty requireth, most ready according to my small ability, with all lowliness to do your Majesty most humble service in any thing that I can during life. But what is there wherein I can do your Majesty better service then in striving with my God, with continual & earnest prayers, that through his grace and singular goodness you may for ever maintain, continue, and make good that excellent opinion which you have (not undeservedly) already gotten, in foreign nations amongst such men, as are most eminent in this our age, both for learning and godliness: that so you may have a happy reign in this present life, and in that other life may be a fellow heir of that heavenly kingdom: in comparison of the glory of which kingdom) that I may speak this by the way) I myself a good while since, have heard you despise all these earthly kingdoms, at such time as amongst other matters, in a certain familiar conference, where there were but a few present, you discoursed of many things learnedly (I speak the truth to the glory of God, without any flattery) and godlily, and delightfully, concerning Christ, and of praying to him only, and not to Angels, or Saints departed out of this life) you may, I say, be a fellow heir together with your head, even that most high King, Lord, and heir of all things jesus Christ, whose grace, mercy and power defend and protect you both in body and soul, from all your enemies, bodily and ghostly for evermore. Your majesties most dutiful Servant, ROBERT ROLLOCK. TO THE RIGHT GODLY, LEARNED, AND HIS REVEREND GOOD FRIEND Master john johnston. I May seem slow in answering your letters (good Master johnston) for that they were long in coming to my hands; I understood by them, to my great joy, that you are safely arrived in your own country: and have found your Churches there in ablesscd and peaceable state, wherein, I desire in heart, they may long continue. And why may I not confidently hope that this my desire shall be fulfilled? specially seeing they were from the beginning The blessing of God on the Churches of Scotland. so happily, sound, and excellently founded by those faithful and worthy servants of God, those skilful maister-builders which begun the work: and they whoseconded them, brought no stubble or hay, but silver, gold, and precious stones to the building: Nay which is more, the Lord himself having so clearly and apparently favoured, and furthered their holy labours, that whosoever have stumbled at this building, have not only miss and failed of their purpose, but have been (as it were) by the strong, and powerful hand of God, scattered and throne out into utter darkness. To these we may add that singular, and most precious gift of God, which the same good God hath bestowed upon you, I mean your worthy King, Master Bezas judgement, and commendation of the King's Majesty in the happy government of the Churches of Scotland. whom he hath likewise miraculously preserved from many and great perils, who hath joined to his singular, and admirable care, and watchfulness, in defending the Gospel, and preserving the purity, and unspotted sincerity of this Church, so great and exact knowledge of Christian religion from the very grounds and principles thereof, that the Lord it seems hath made his Majesty both a Prince and preacher to his people: so that your Our blessed King may in verity, be well accounted a second Solomon, who was both King and preacher. Realm of Scotland is now become of all other most happy, and may justly hope for increase of tranquillity and felicity, if only (as we are persuaded she will) she can discern, and thankfully acknowledge the great blessing she enjoyeth; and as she hath begun, so continue to direct them all, to the right scope and end, which is to his glory, who is the father and fountain of all goodness. And I assure you, I rejoice from my heart, that occasion was given me to congratulate by these my letters your happy condition with the rest of my reverend brethren, both by your country man Master David Droman, a man both godly, and well learned, whose presence though but for a few days, was most acceptable to us here, who is now upon his return to you with these letters; as likewise in that I chanced of late to meet with a great treasure, which I know not by what mishap being frequent in other men's hands, hath hitherto miss my fingers. For why should not I esteem as a treasure, and that most precious, the commentaries of my honourable brother Master Rollocke, upon the epistle to the Romans and Ephesians, Master Beza commendeth Master Rollockes' works. both of them being of special note among the writings Apostolical? for so I judge of them, and I pray you take it to be spoken without all flattery or partiality, that I never read, or met with any thing in this kind of interpretation more pithily, elegantly, and judiciously written: so as I could not contain myself, but must needs give thanks, as I ought, unto God, for this so necessary, and so profitable a work, and rejoice that both you and the whole Church enjoy so great a benefit; desiring the Lord to increase with new gifts, and preserve in safety this excellent instrument, especially in these times wherein thorough the scarcity of skilful workmen which labour in the Lord's vineyard, and by the decease of those well exercised and experienced soldiers, and worthy Christians, Satan and his companions begin again to triumph over the truth. Concerning the estate of our Church and school, we yet continue, and proceed in our course, by the mighty hand of our God and Saviour, protecting us, which is admirable to our very enemies, being delivered from the jaw of death. But in truth, for aught we see, it is like to last but one year, our estate depending on those acts which shall be concluded in the * Or meeting at Roan. Or the Prince our neighbour. diet of Roan between the French King, and our neighbour Duke, either concerning peace or war, wherein we hope to be comprehended upon equal condition. In this frail, and uncertain estate that is our principal consolation, that we are sure this slender and twined thread, whereupon we rest, is sustained by the hand of our good God, who will not suffer that to be falsified which we have learned of the Apostle, that all things work together for the Rom. 8. good of those that love him. In the mean while I beseech you brethren continue your remembrance of us in your daily prayers. I for my part, for some months, though I be not much pained with any Fever, Gout, Stone, or any of those sharp diseases which be the usual companions of old age, yet I feel myself so enfeebled and weakened, that I am constrained in a manner to give over both my public duties, to keep house and home, looking every day for that joyful and happy dissolution whereunto age itself calleth me, being now seventy eight years old. And herein I desire your prayer with the rest of my brethren, by name of my reverend brother Master Meluin, and Master Peter junius, whom (unless memory fail me) Master Scringer of blessed memory, was wont to call his cozen: unto whom, remembering withal my hearty commendations, I desire you to communicate this my letter, desiring the Lord (my dear, and loving brother) to preserve your whole Church there with his mighty, and blessed hand, against all both foreign, and domestical dangers. Far ye well from Geneva the Calends of Novemb. after our old computation. CIC. IC. XCVI. Yours wholly THEODOR BEZA. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL AND HIS VERY CHRISTIAN LOVING FRIEND, MASTER WILLIAM SCOT of Ely, grace and peace by jesus Christ. WHen I had finished my last summers work of revising, and correcting Master Rollockes readings on the Colossians, I was inwardly much affected with the holy spirit of the man, which I found as in that, so in the rest of his works. Then my heart desired that as foreign Churches greatly rejoice in him, and bless God for him; so the Churches of England and Scotland, might to their greater joy hear him speak yet more unto them in their own native language. This is the cause (right worshipful) that moved me the winter past, to gain some hours from mine ordinary labours, to give this little book a new coat, that it might be known also in all this Island, where it was first conceived and borne. It hath the protection of our most mighty King, for safety and free passage into other parts of the world, where it hath been entertained with kind acceptation: and so now, no doubt, it shall be no less in both these kingdoms, when as all true hearted subjects shall see, with what christian affection our most noble King affected this faithful servant of jesus Christ, and his holy works. Now blessed be God for being thus mindful of us; and for anointing his sacred breast with such a measure of the spirit of judgement, as an 2. Sam. 19 27. Phil. 19 10. Esa. 11. 3. 4. Angel of God, to discern the things that differ, and so to respect the meek ones of the earth, to the unspeakable joy of the good, and terror of the wicked. Behold now, praise the Lord with us, and let us magnify his name together, for the Lord hath done great things for us: the Lord hath so set the wheels of his admirable providence, and so carried his blessed hand this year passed in all his proceed round about us, and so touched the hearts 1. Sam. 10. 26. of all this kingdom, as having a purpose to accomplish a great work in the building of his Church, and in his good time to lift up such strokes as shall destroy for ever, every enemy that doth evil to the sanctuary. Psal. 74. 3. The Lords compassions fail not: O Lord withdraw Psal. 85. 3. 4. thine anger, and turn back the fierceness of thy wrath: Turn us O God of our salvation, turn thou us Lam. 5. 21. unto thee that we may be turned, and cause thy face to shine upon us, that we may be saved. Cease not to pray for us, that we may not return to our old security and unthankfulness any more, but that we may attend what the Lord saith, for now he gins to speak peace unto his people, and unto his Saints, crying in their doors even as it Prou. 1. Psal. 85. 8. were in the open streets, that they return not again to folly. Now we see that the counsel of the Lord shall stand for ever, and that the thoughts of his heart shall continue throughout all ages: for he hath broken the counsels of the wicked, who have ever sought to be possessed of God's habitations: but the Lord shall make them as stubble before the wind, the Lord will persecute them with his tempest, and make them afraid with his storm. O Lord fill their Psal. 83. 16. faces with shame, that they may seek thy name. Finally, the Lord hath made our corners full and abounding with divers forts of blessings: he hath made Psal. 144. 13. the bars of our gates strong, and hath settled peace in our borders: he hath established his Gospel and holy covenant with us: he hath taught us to observe his judgements, and his wonderful administrations both of his justice and mercy: he Psal. 147. 13. hath not dealt so with any Nation round about us. Wherefore, O praise the Lord with us: let England and Scotland now with one heart, as with one mouth praise God in all the assemblies: Psal. 6. 8. 26. O praise the Lord ye that are of the fountain of Israel, praiseye the Lord. To return to our purpose, as touching this sweet treatise in hand, I say no more but this, (I trust the reader shall find my words true) that so many common places of divinity as be here briefly couched, as branches appertaining to this one head, the religious and wise (I hope) shall find them as judicially, comfortably, and compendiously set down and knit together, as any one thing of this kind as yet extant in the English tongue. Next, as for the argument of this book, our effectual calling is one principal link of the golden chain of the causes of our salvation. And it is the very first (in the execution of God's eternal decree of our election) which manifesteth the everlasting love of God in jesus Christ unto the heart of every believer: that almighty God should love him being his enemy, seek him, and find him, when he wandered in the maze and vanity of his own mind, quicken him when he lay dead in sin, lose him when he lay fast bound in the bonds of death, enlighten him when he sat in extreme darkness: giving him the spirit of grace, and of faith by the Gospel, to attend his holy calling, and in time to rejoice with an exceeding joy Rom. 5. 2. 3. therein. Lastly for the translation, albeit I have not followed the author's words, yet have I endeavoured faithfully to deliver his meaning, in the plainest form, and in words most in use among the people. Horat. art. non verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres. The Lord give it a blessing, wheresoever it shall rest, among Gods elect of both these kingdoms. Now (right Worshipful Master Scot) I come unto yourself: your most christian and holy love in these cold and evil times, as unto all the Saint, so specially to this good servant of Christ, like as it comforted him greatly in his latter days: so assuredly it shall much refresh your own heart, not only all your life, but also much more (I doubt not) in the very hour of death. There be three infallible notes knit together in one Scripture, to justify our precious faith unto our own hearts, that we may be truly persuaded we are possessed of that faith which shall justify us before God: love to the brethren, hospitality of love, and christian sympathy to the Saints in their 1. 2. afflictions. Love to the holy members of Christ, 3. is often commanded and commended in joseph, in Moses, in Nehemias, in Daniel, in David, who being advanced to great dignities, yet esteemed they nothing more than the good of the Church, and to become serviceable (as it were) by all means to the Saints. To love the servants of Christ, and to be beloved of * Rom. 15. 31. Philip. 1. 9 them, it is (as Saint john saith) an infallible argument that God hath taken us by the hand, loosened our * 1. john. 3. 8. bands, and translated us from death to life, and from * 1. Pet. 2. 9 darkness into the glorious light of God. All that talk of Charity, do not love the Saints, that is, the living members of Christ on earth. We may discern our love to be sound by these notes. First, it is a flame which comes down from God into our a Rom. 5. 5. Luk. 7. 47. hearts, kindling (as it were) within us, and giving us no rest, till we perform duties to the Saints. And this is that which the Apostle meaneth, when he willeth us to b Heb. 10. 24. stir up one another unto a paroxysm of love. Secondly, hence it comes to pass, that love to the Saints, being never cold, is never idle in well doing, and therefore proceeds the second note which the same Apostle calls c Heb. 6. 10. labour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Psalm. 16. 4, 5. of love: for that this love travails by all means possible, to do good to the members of Christ. Thirdly, next, this love is sincere d Rom. 12. 9 void of all dissimulation. Fourthly and lastly, it is e Hebr. 13. 1. Act 2. 42▪ 46. constant, consuming, as a fire, all offences, f Phil. 1. 9 10. and cannot be quenched. The second mark, in the same Scripture, of our most holy faith, is g Hebr. 13. 2. hospitality of love (as the Syriack translation hath it) not of lucre. The Lord gave often h Rom. 12. 10. 11 1. Pet. 4 9 1. Tim. 3. 2. 15. 20. charge by his Apostles concerning this, foreseeing the necessity and afflictions of the Saints in the ten bloody persecutions, which even then began and were to follow. The practice Hilariter excipere, affabiliter tractare, ami●● dimittere. of this we see commended in all ages: in Abraham and Lot receiving Angels, they receive them cheerfully, they entertain and use them courteously, they dismiss them lovingly. So did Bethuel Eleazar, so did jethro Moses, so did Manoah the Angel of God, so did the good old man of Gibeah, the Levite and his wife; so did Obadiah the Prophets, so did the widow of Zarephath Elias, so did the Sunamite Elisha, so did Mary often receive Christ, so did the Tanner and Cornelius Peter, Lydia and the jailer the Apostles, Aquila and Priscilla, Paul; Phebe, and Stephanus many, and Gaius the whole Church at Corinth. All these are Chronicled in the book of God as most memorable precedents for all ages. The third note of the precious faith of Gods elect, in the same place annexed: is Christian sympathy to the servants of Christ in all their afflictions. This grace is found, when love hath set on fire our very i Matth 9 36. Philip. 1. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. bowels (as the holy Ghost speaketh) that in all their passions, it fills us with a feeling and a tender compassion. This stirs up men to k Matth 25. 36. visit the members of Christ in all their miseries, to consider l Psalm. 41. 1. wisely of their afflictions, to m Rom. 12. 15. mourn when they mourn, to n Rom. 12. 13. distribute to their wants: and so to proceed on to the duties of instruction, admonition, consolation, instant and o jam. 5. 13. 20 fervent in prayer, and to add confession of sins, with fasting, if the state and heaviness of the affliction so require. These things I writ unto you (right Worshipful) first not so much for your instruction, as for the edification and confirmation of others, in this frozen age, wherein carnal and self love, and all iniquity increaseth, and love to the Saints decreaseth and waxeth cold, as Christ hath p Matth. 24. 12 forewarned us: a manifest sign that saving faith faileth, in most places, even where it is professed most. Secondly, I writ thus unto you, for that you have been taught of God (as I hear) to practise these things, and to observe the Canons of Christ in his Gospel concerning love to the Saints. This holy servant of Christ Master Rollocke, if he were living, could and would testify of your sincere love, when you entertained him into your own family, respecting his wants with all compassion and tenderness of heart. The most provident ruler of Heaven and earth, which hath shed, by the working of his holy spirit, this precious love into your heart, will fully repay and recompense this your love, with manifold comforts of his spirit, even then specially when the comforts and props of this present life shall most be wanting. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the holy Ghost, that so ye may persever in this your holy faith in Christ, and love to the Saints unto the end. Amen. Yours to use in the Lord Christ jesus, HENRY HOLLAND. To the Reader. ALthough the greater part both of authors and translators of books may be taxed of officiousness, and not a few of ungodliness: yet are there some whose merits in this kind do outweigh the demerits of the other. These are either those worthy lights themselves, or else those second candlesticks to translate the light into, which God specially in these latter years hath bestowed as gifts (to use Saint Paul's word) upon his Church to the edification of it. It is true indeed in one sense, that both the one and the other are but candlesticks, for the light is Gods: but otherwise comparatively the author is the light, and the translator is as it were an other candlestick, to translate the light into, and that for those which through ignorance of the tongue, could not attain to the light when it shone out of the authors own lamp. Now although there seem no great gifts to be required in a translator; yet the truth is, that if he be not of good discretion, to choose the fittest works, of good speech to express the author's sentence with fittest words, and of so great apprehension, and former store, that by that which he seethe in the author, he hath attained to more, than peradventure the author himself saw or minded: his defectivenes will bring him in danger of showing what gifts are required in a translator: for a good translator is neither a paraphrast, nor a periphrast, which is committed by needless changing or adding words. He so behaveth himself that the comparing of the original, will commend his fidelity, and that they which know of no original would take the translator for the author himself. He must naturalise his translation for the reader, without miuring the gift of the author in the native work. But these seem critic rules to the irregular, which offend against their authors, to please themselves: for as there are many translations of unworthy works; so are there many transportations of worthy works, which like plants ill taken up, rejoice not to grow in the soil into which they are translated. And yet nevertheless it cannot without injury be denied, that this age hath afforded many excellent translations of excellent and learned authors to the benefit of our people: amongst whom Master Rollocke the reverend Author of this work deserveth an eminent place, as also this work itself is very acceptable together with the translators godly labour in this, and other things commodious to the Church of Christ. This inclined me the rather to commend it to thee, in these few lines, not as taking upon me any thing, but as a poor man where he is better known, is sometimes engaged for a rich. This labour is become ours not only because it is thus well englished, but also because the Author is a Scottishman, which is now to the wise hearted a synonymy of an Englishman. And it shall be to the praise of both the Nations to receive both mutual and common benefits, without that emulation which was betwixt Israel and juda. It is a comely thing, (to speak in the words of that King that was so miraculously restored) to declare the signs and wonders of the high God, which we see this day, even this unanimity in receiving the King wrought (no doubt) by divine instinct, rather than grace in some, which otherwise, mendaciter deduntie, as David saith. Let us on the otherside go out in our sincerity and meet the King of Kings with Hosanna. And I beseech you by the wonder of our neighbours, which is our innocent aggregation to this sceptre: let the solution of an objection by King Henry the seventh of noble memory, and of so renowned wisdom, be our satisfaction, that the sovereignty is devolved where it is, (not only by the providence, but also by the ordinance of God) to the comfortable uniting of that Nation, rather than Nations which at the first upon the matter was indeed but one, though for some years past it were divided by conceit. Let us take up the argument of Abraham: We are brethren, etc. And as this is a work of vocation, so let us hold the coming of our King to be the work of revocation, to call us back to unity. And so gentle reader I commit thee to the God of peace and unity. Thine in Christ, Francis Marbury. To the Reader. CHristian reader, I pray thee pardon all faults in this first impression: I could not well be present with the workmen for their direction. Some school points and phrases of school men do not so well relish in the English tongue, nor could be rendered to my content, whatsoever is wanting in word or matter in this edition I will amend in the next if the Lord permit: farewell. Thine in Christ jesus, Henry Holland. The Contents. 1OF our effectual calling. 1 2 Of the word of God, or of the covenant in general; and of the covenant of works in special. 6 3 Of the covenant of Grace. 11 4 Of such as be comprehended in, may truly be said to be under, the covenant of God. 27 5 A comparison of our judgement and of the adversaries, concerning both these covenants. 31 6 Of the written word, or of the written covenant of God. 38 7 Of the number of the controversies which are concerning the written word: and first whether the scripture be the word of God. 40 8 How it may appear that the scripture is the word of God, 45 9 Of the first propriety of the sacred scripture. 54 10 Of the second propriety of the sacred scripture. 57 11 Of the third propriety of the sacred scripture. 62 12 Of the fourth propriety. 66 13 Of the fift propriety of the scripture. 70 14 Of the sixth propriety of the scripture. 74 15 Of the seventh propriety of the scripture. 77 16 Of the eight propriety of the scripture. 80 17 Questions more accidental concerning the holy Scripture, and first of the books wherein the same is contained. 82 18 Of the authentical edition of the Bible. 90 19 Of the Greek edition of the new Testament. 97 20 Of the translations of the old Testament. 102 21 Of the Syriac translation of the new Testament. 108 22 Of the Latin translations of both testaments. 110 23 Of the translation of the Bible into the mother tongue. 113 24 Of sin in general. 127 25 Of original sin. 133 26 Of concupiscence. 144 27 Of actual sin. 146 28 The controversy concerning the sin against the holy Ghost. 153 29 Of justifying faith. 158 30 Of the improper significations of faith. 167 31 The opinion of the adversaries concerning faith 176 32 Of hope. 191 33 Of Charity or love. 198 34 Of Repentance. 202 35 How far a wicked man may proceed in repentance. 210 36 What the judgement of Papists is of repentance. 213 37 Of man's free-will. 216 38 Concerning the free grace of God. 226 39 Of the means whereby God from the beginning hath revealed both his covenants unto mankind. 238 A TREATISE OF OUR Effectual Calling, and of certain common places of theology contained under it. CHAP. 1. Of our effectual Calling. GOds effectual calling is that, whereby God calleth out of darkness into 1. God calls by his word preached. his admirable light, from the power of satan unto God, in Christ jesus, those whom he knew from eternity, and predestinated unto life, of his mere favour, by the promulgation of the covenant of grace, or preaching of the Gospel. Such also as be called by the same grace of God, answer, 2. Man answers by believing. and believe in him through jesus Christ. This answer is of faith, which is, in very truth, the condition of the promise which is in the covenant of grace. Wherefore our effectual calling doth consist of the promise of the covenant (which is under condition of faith) and in faith also, which is nothing else but the fulfilling of the condition. Therefore there be two parts of our effectual calling, the first is the outward calling of such as are predestinate Two parts of our effectual calling. unto life, from darkness unto light, and that of God's mere grace; and that, I say, by the publication of the covenant of grace or preaching of the Gospel. The latter part is their inward faith wrought in them by the same grace and Spirit of God, whereby they are converted from Satan unto God: for I cannot see how this second part of our effectual calling, can differ from faith itself. In the first part of our effectual calling, first we are to consider the persons, calling & called. The person which calleth us, properly to speak, is God himself: for he only promiseth in his covenant, calling those things which be not as though they were, Roman. 4. ver. 17. The persons called, are they whom God knew before, and hath predestinated unto life; for whom he hath predestinated, them he hath called, Rom. 8. Secondly, in the first part of our effectual calling, the cause which moved God hereunto, is his own special grace: for the cause of all God's blessings upon us is in himself. For as he did predestinate us in himself, according to the good pleasure of his own will, Ephe. 1. 5. so hath he called and justified us in himself, and shall glorify us in himself, to the praise of the glory of his grace; that all glory may be wholly ascribed unto him. Thirdly, we be to observe the instrument of our vocation, which is the covenant published, Instrument of our vocation. or the Gospel preached. Fourthly, in this former part of our effectual calling, we be to consider the estate from which; and the estate whereunto we be called. The condition from which we be called, is darkness, the power of Satan, and that miserable plight, which is without Christ in sin and death. The state whereunto we be called, is light, God himself, and that blessed condition of man in Christ. Hence it is evident that these common places of Divinity, Of God's word, and of sin, and the misery of mankind, must be referred to this argument of our effectual calling, as to a most general head in religion. In the second part of our effectual calling, these branches must be noted. First, that the cause wherefore we answer Gods calling, or believe in God, is Gods own grace, which worketh in us this faith by the holy Ghost, which is given us with his word: For like as God of his mere grace calleth us outwardly unto himself; so the same his grace and free love in jesus Christ kindleth this faith in us, whereby we answer his heavenly calling. And in this 2. part of our calling (which we say doth 2. Part of our calling faith. consist in faith) if we desire yet more deeply to search it, there is a double grace or working of God in our hearts▪ The 1. is when he enlighteneth us by his holy spirit, pouring a new & a heavenly light into our mind before so blind, as that it neither saw, nor could see the things which do belong to the Spirit of God. 1. Cor. 2. 14. 15. The natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them. In the will which is altogether froward and quite fallen from God, he worketh an uprightness, and in all the affections a new holiness. Hence proceeds the new creature, and that new man which is created after God in righteousness and true holiness Ephe. 4. 24. The Papists call this first grace in the faith, and work of the holy Ghost, not the creation of any new creature, which was not before, but the stirring up of some goodness and sanctity, which (as they say) was left in nature, Free-will. after the first fall of man, which they call also free-will, which (they say) was not quite lost in the fall, but lessened and weakened. But this free-will whereof they speak, is in very truth nothing else, but that holiness of nature and life of God, and the spiritual light of man in his first creation and innocency. But of this more in place convenient. This they say then, that after the fall, man retained not only the faculties of his soul, but also the holy qualities of those powers, only hurt and weakened. And this is that free-will, which they say is quickened by Gods preventing grace, which they define to be an external motion, standing as it were without, and beating at the door of the heart. In this first grace of God, which we call a new creation of divine qualities in the soul, man standeth mere passively before God, and as the material cause of God's work. For in this first renewing of the soul of man, what divine virtues hath man to work with God's Spirit, or to help the work of grace? Yet we say not that man in this new birth is no more than a trunk or dead tree: for that there is in man (that so I may speak) a passive power to receive that divine grace, and life of God; as also the use of reason, which dead trees have not. The adversaries say, that in quickening of free-will, there is a liberty or strength in it to reject, or to receive, that grace which they call preventing grace. Therefore they give a fellow-working unto grace, and a fellow-working unto free-will. The second grace, or the second work of God's spirit The action of faith. in the second part of our effectual calling, or in faith, is the very act of faith, or an action proceeding from this new creature, the action of the mind enlightened in knowing God in Christ; of the will sanctified, in embracing and apprehending God in Christ. And here the principal agent is that very Spirit of Christ, who after the first grace and creation abideth and dwelleth in us, not idle, but ever working some good in us, and by us. The second agent working with God's holy Spirit, is the very soul of man, or rather the new man, or the new creature in the soul and all the faculties thereof. By this the holy Ghost (that so I may speak) knoweth God; or otherwise to speak the same; to know God, the holy Ghost useth the new creature in man: and by this the holy Ghost doth embrace and apprehend God in Christ. Thus speaks the Apostle, Rom. 8. The holy Ghost (saith he) maketh intercession for us with sighs which cannot be expressed. Observe here how he ascribeth this action of sending forth sighs unto the Spirit, as to the principal agent. In this second grace, which is the action or work of faith, we stand not as mere passively, but being moved by the holy Ghost we work ourselves, as being stirred up to believe, we believe; and in a word, we work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. with God's Spirit working in us. The Adversaries say, this second grace in faith is an action of free-will, when as we by our own free-will dispose and prepare ourselves to a justifying grace, in believing, in hoping, in repenting. In this action they say, not the holy Ghost is the principal agent, or any motion (to use their own word) of the Spirit; but free-will itself, which (as they say) goes before, when as that motion of God working together with their free-will, must follow after. They speak not a word here of God's Spirit, either in the first or second grace, who works effectually in both, as is aforesaid: but in steed of the holy Ghost they talk of, I know not what motion standing without and knocking at the door. They say, this motion stirs up free-will; they say it worketh with free-will when it worketh, and prepareth us unto the grace of justice or justification. This their doctrine is strange; it savoureth not the holy Scripture of God, nor the phrase of Scripture. Thus far of God's grace in faith, or of the second part of our calling, and of the two special branches of it. Next, in it we are to consider of the points or conditions before noted, which are the very same with those in our calling aforegoing. To this second part of our effectual calling, refer the doctrine of faith, which in very truth is the same with it. Hope, love, and repentance follow faith; and Free-will is a common place in divinity subaltern, or to be referred unto that of Repentance. CHAP. II. Of the word of God, or of the covenant in general, and of the covenant of works in special. THE common place in religion which is concerning The common places of religion how they follow in order. God's word or covenant, is to be referred unto this of our effectual calling, as to a most general head: next follow these points, of sin, and of the misery of mankind: thirdly, that of faith; then follow hope, love, and repentance. Now therefore we are to speak of the word, or of the covenant of God; having first set down this ground, that all the word of God appertains to some covenant: for God speaks nothing to man without the covenant: for which cause all the scripture both old and new, wherein all God's word is contained, bears the name of God's covenant or testament. The covenant of God generally is a promise, under Covenant defined. some one certain condition. And it is twofold: the first is the covenant of works; the second is the covenant of grace. Paul Galath. 4. vers. 24. expressly sets down two covenants, which in the old Testament were shadowed by two women, as by types, to wit, Hagar the handmaid, and Sarah the free-woman: for saith he, these be those two covenants. Let us then speak something of these two covenants, and first of the covenant of works. The covenant of works, which may also be called a legal or Covenant of works, the first ground of it. natural covenant, is founded in nature, which by creation was pure and holy, and in the law of God, which in the first creation was engraven in man's heart. For after that God had created man after his own image pure and holy, and had written his law in his mind, he made a covenant with man, wherein he promised him eternal life, under the condition of holy and good works, which should be answerable to the holiness and goodness of their creation, and conformable to his law. And that nature thus beautified with holiness and righteousness, and the light of God's law, is the foundation of the covenant of works, it is very evident: for that it could not well stand with the justice of God, to make a covenant under condition of good works & perfect obedience to his law, except he had first created man pure and holy, and had engraven his law in his heart, whence those good works might proceed. For this cause, when he was to repeat that covenant of works to the people of Israel, he first gave the law written in tables of stone: then he made a covenant with his people, saying; Do these things, and ye shall live. Therefore the ground of the covenant of works was Note. not Christ, nor the grace of God in Christ; but the nature of man in the first creation holy and perfect, endued also with the knowledge of the law. For as touching the covenant of works, there was no mediator in the beginning between God and man, that God should in him, as in and by a mediator, make his covenant with man. And the cause that there was no need of a mediator was this: that albeit there were two parties entering into a covenant, yet there was no such breach or variance betwixt them that they had need of any mediator to make reconciliation between them: for as for the covenant of works, God made this covenant with man, as one friend doth Note. with another. For in the creation we were God's friends, and not his enemies. Thus far of the ground of the conant of works. The thing promised in the covenant of works, is life eternal first, not righteousness: for that man, in his creation, was even then just and perfect, by that original justice, as they call it: unless you will say that the righteousness of works was promised in that covenant, for which righteousness sake, after that man had wrought it, God would pronounce and declare him to be just. For we are to understand, that in this covenant there is a double righteousness: the first is that original justice, which is nothing else but the integrity of nature in that first state of man. This justice out of all doubt is not promised in the covenant of works, for it is the ground of it. The second justice is that which was to follow the good works of nature in that integrity, & might be called the justice of works: for after that man had lived godly and justly according to God's law in that integrity, than he might be said to be just again, and to be declared of God to be just by his good works well pleasing unto God, and so eternal life might be said to be given unto him, as justified by his works. For Paul to the Rom. teacheth, that there may be some imputation of righteousness by good works, if so be that works be perfectly good: Hence come these manner of speeches; Abraham was not justified by his works: by works no flesh shall be justified. Thus far of the promise Rom. 4. 2 of the covenant of works, or of the things promised in the covenant of works. Now to come unto the condition: the condition of the covenant of works, is the condition of good works; of good works, I say, not which proceed from Christ, or from his The condition of the covenant of works. grace, but from nature only in the integrity thereof, & being informed with the knowledge of the law, and perfectly good, as it was in the first creation; proceeding, I say, from that ground of the covenant of works. Therefore works mere naturally good, only are required as the condition of the covenant of works. So then by this condition, do you exclude hence faith in Christ? I do so. And do ye except here from the condition of the covenant of works, all the works of grace and regeneration? I do except these also. But the covenant of works is often propounded in the Gospel, to such as be in grace and in Christ jesus? for how often is the reward of eternal life promised to such as do well? wherefore it may seem that the works of regeneration appertain also to the covenant of works, for that such works be required of them which be under grace? I answer, the antecedent is false: for if at any time we hear or read in the Gospel of grace, that good works be required of them which be in Christ and justified by him, to that end that they may obtain eternal life, we may not think that God speaks Note. unto them after the form of the covenant of works: for in the Gospel, good works are required of them which be in Christ, not such as proceed from their own nature, or such as they can yield of their own strength, but only such as proceed from the grace of regeneration. For we never find in the new Testament, that they which are in Christ, be commanded to do the works aforesaid of the covenant of works, which be naturally good; or that the covenant of works is set before them, that by it, & the works thereof acted by the strength of nature, they may receive eternal life. For thou shalt never find it said to them which are in Christ: Do this of your own strength, that so ye may live: which is the very sum of the covenant of works. As for that place Math. 19 17. where Christ said to a certain young man, which called upon him, saying: Master, what good shall I do that I may have eternal life? The Lord answered, and said. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: I grant that here he understandeth the covenant of works, and that the Lord propoundeth to the young man the form of the conenant of works. But observe that the Lord so answereth to one that sought his life and salvation by the law, and which did before cleave unto the covenant of works, and trusted to works as meritorious. For so the covenant of works and the rule of the law of works must be set before every one which is without Christ, seeking righteousness by the law and the works of the law, to this end, if it may be, that by the sense of sin & the feeling of his own misery, he may be prepared to embrace the covenant of grace in Christ. For to return unto his words: that young man said to the Lord, What good shall I do? Therefore he sought salvation by works, and not by faith in Christ. So then the Lord answered fitly to his question, Do this, and thou shalt live: Which manner of speaking is never wont to be propounded in the Gospel to them which have once embraced and professed Christ. For those good works of nature be never required of them, according to the form of the covenant of works, neither be the promises made unto them under condition of any such works. I confess good works be required of them which be in Christ, and justified by him: but all such works belong to grace and regeneration; to grace, I say, only; and they be not the works of free will nor of nature. Know this then, that to such as be in Christ, the covenant of works to them is abolished, & of none effect so far forth as by it justification & salvation is obtained. I grant, the law abideth which is the rule of those works, which properly & specially How far the law is abolished. did first appertain to the covenant of works: but now it hath another special use; for it serveth for our direction in the works of grace and sanctification. So then the law hath ceased, as it was the rule of the works of nature required in the covenant of works: but it is still in use to them which are in Christ, as it is the rule of the works of grace. For the same justice of God is unchangeable: and the law of God is the very image of divine justice: wherefore the law of God must abide for ever, albeit it have not ever the same use, nor be not always the rule of the same works. But of this we shall speak more at large hereafter. It is a question here, whether in the first creation, good works in the covenant of works, were required of man, as meritorious for the promised life? I answer, not so: But they were due in the creation, as pledges of thankfulness in man to his creator, for that excellent work of his creation, and to glorify God his creator. But it may be objected, that Paul to the Rom. disputing against the works of nature (for in that epistle he disputing principally against this kind of works) he reasoneth against them, as seeming meritorious, & not as duties & testimonies of man's thankfulness unto God: wherefore it may seem they were commanded unto man in his creation as meritorious. I answer, true it is, Paul disputes there of them as of merits, not for that this was his judgement of them, but because the jews had that conceit of them, which were so far blinded, that they thought the good works of nature were not only good and just, but also might merit justification and life. But of this blindness of the jews, we shall speak more at large hereafter. Thus far of the condition of the covenant of works, and of this kind of covenant accordingly, and as we purposed in this present treatise. CHAP. III. Of the covenant of grace. IN the free covenant of grace, or of the Gospel, the first ground is our mediator jesus Christ, 1. Ground of the covenant of grace. crucified also, and dead: or (which is the same in effect) the blood of the mediator, the virtue whereof is twofold. The first serves to satisfy the justice and wrath of God for our sins, for the breach of that covenant of works. The second is, to purchase and merit a new grace & mercy of God for us. And this grace or mercy of God 2. Ground. obtained by the blood of the mediator, is the second ground of the covenant of grace, whereby we stand reconciled unto God, and in grace with him. Wherefore the first immediate ground of the covenant of grace, is God's free savour or mercy (whereby man's misery is presupposed) and not nature, or any good thing in it: For that all our natural goodness, after the breach of that covenant of works, is quite vanished: that is to say, nature as touching holiness, justice and wisdom is utterly lost. For we are not to approve their judgement which say, that the freedom of will, that is, the goodness and holiness of nature, is much worn and weakened (as they speak) in this corrupt nature. And thus far of the ground of the covenant of grace. Upon this ground I say, first of the blood of Christ; next of God free mercy in Christ, the covenant of grace (usually so called) is founded. The first and principal grace promised in this covenant, is righteousness; which must necessarily here have the first place, for after the breach of the covenant of works, that one first original justice (as they call it) was quite lost; and unjustice did succeed into the place thereof. And this justice which is here promised in the covenant of grace, is no inherent righteousness, as that original justice was: but it is the righteousness of our mediator jesus Christ, which is ours by faith, and by the imputation of God; for which cause the Apostle calls it the righteousness of God: for without this imputative justice we can not Rom. 3. 20. possibly stand before the tribunal of God; and by the imputation of this righteousness are we said to be justified before God. Next after this kind of righteousness which is by imputation, there is another kind of inherent justice promised in the covenant of grace, even such a sanctity and goodness of nature as was lost in the fall of man, and this is but begun in this life, but perfected in another. And this inherent justice is nothing else but life eternal in us, begun, I say, in earth; and perfected in heaven: And this heavenly and spiritual life doth proceed from that righteousness of Christ which is imputed unto us by faith: For that righteousness of Christ is effectual in us unto eternal life by the spirit of Christ, who sanctifieth and quickeneth us. And thus far of the promise, which is in the covenant of grace. Now it followeth that we see what the condition is of this covenant. The very name of the covenant of grace, might seem to require no condition; for it is called a free covenant, because God freely, The condition of the covenant of grace. and, as it might seem, without all condition, doth promise herein both righteousness and life: for he which promiseth to give any thing freely, he bindeth not to any condition. But we are to understand, that grace, here, or the particle freely, doth not exclude all condition, but that only which is in the covenant of works, which is the condition of the strength of nature, and of works naturally just and good, as we may call them, which can in no wise stand with God's free grace in Christ jesus. For neither that freedom of will, which doth import some purity & holiness in nature, nor the works of free-will as they call them, can agree with the grace of God in Christ jesus. What is the condition then, which this word grace or freely, will admit in this covenant of grace? I answer, assuredly none other than that which may stand with Christ, and with God's free grace: and that is faith only, which is also by grace (for it is Gods free gift, Phil. 1. 29. It is given unto you, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake) having Christ first the object thereof; and next, God's free mercy in Christ: for faith embraceth God's mercy in Christ, and makes Christ effectual in us unto righteousness and life. For this cause Paul, Rom. 4. 16. saith, our inheritance is by faith, that it might come by grace. Ephe. 2. 8. Ye are saved by grace, by faith, and that not of yourselves: that is, as he after expoundeth it, not of works: so he concludeth, that salvation, because it is of God's free grace by faith, is the free gift of God. Wherefore we see faith stands best with the grace & mercy of God; as without Rom. 6. 23. which, Christ, and God's mercy in him, cannot be effectual unto righteousness and life. For if we receive not Christ by faith, and God's mercy in Christ; Christ and the mercy of God can profit us nothing unto justification and life. Howbeit we be here to remember, that whereas God offereth righteousness and life under condition of faith; yet doth he not so respect faith in us (which is also his own gift) as he doth the object of faith, which is Christ, and his own free mercy in Christ, which must be apprehended by faith: for it is not so much our faith apprehending, as Christ himself, and God's mercy apprehended in him, that is the cause wherefore God performeth the promise of his covenant unto us, to our justification and salvation. Wherefore the condition of the covenant of grace is not faith only, nor the object of faith only, which is Christ; but faith with Christ, that is, The condition of the covenant of grace. the faith that shall apprehend Christ; or Christ with faith, that is, Christ which is to be apprehended by faith. Note then briefly this, how these three are one in substance, the ground of the covenant of grace; the condition of it; and the cause wherefore God performeth the condition: yet in reason they differ something. For jesus Christ is the ground, being absolutely considered, without any respect of application unto us. But Christ is the condition of the covenant, as he is to be applied unto us, and must be embraced by faith: for every condition is of a future thing to be done: And the cause also of the performance of the covenant, is jesus Christ already embraced, and applied unto us by faith, Whereas Paul then saith, that we are justified by faith, his meaning is, that we are justified by Christ applied unto us by faith already in our effectual calling; which by order of nature goeth ever before the benefit of justification. It may be here demanded, whether the works of grace and regeneration (as they are called) have not some place in the condition of the covenant of grace: for all the good works of nature are hence excluded. I answer, that the very works of regeneration are not contained in the condition of the covenant of grace. First, for that the covenant of grace is made with the unjust and unregenerate: now how can their works be just & good? Next, in the covenant of grace both regeneration itself, and all the holy fruits thereof are promised: for in it all the benefits of Christ be promised the believers: Now then, the promise of the covenant must necessarily differ from the condition of the covenant. But this you will Objection. say: It is evident, & that in many places of the new Testament, that life eternal, or, as they say, the reward of eternal life is often promised under the condition of good works, that is, the works of regeneration, as 1. Timoth. 4. Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promises both of this life, and of the life to come. Luke 14. It shall be repaid thee in the day of the resurrection of the just. Matth. 5. Your reward is great in heaven. Matt. 19 He shall not lose his reward. Gal. 6. Let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. Ephe. 6. Knowing this, that what good soever every man doth, that he shall receive of the Lord. Heb. 6. The Lord is not unjust to forget your work, and the love which ye ministered unto the saints. 2. Thess. 1. 6. Notwithstanding it is a righteous thing with God to render affliction in like manner to them which afflict you, and unto you which are afflicted rest with us. To these I answer: In my Answer. Three kinds of promises in the Gospel. judgement there are three distinct kinds of promises in the Gospel. The first, is the promise of the covenant of works, wherein eternal life is promised under condition of works done by the strength of nature. Thesecond, is the promise of the covenant of grace, which is propounded under condition of faith. The third kind of promises, are those particular and special promises, which are to be referred to the covenant of grace, found every where in the Gospel, and made under condition of the works of grace and regeneration. These three kinds of promises differ first in condition; next, in propriety; thirdly, in subject; four, in end and use. First then, they differ in condition: for the promise in the First difference. covenant of works, is under condition of the works of nature, & the strength thereof: In the covenant of grace, the promise is under condition of faith in Christ: In the promises which I call particular or special promises, there is a condition of works indeed, but of the works of grace and regeneration, and not of the works of nature, or any natural faculty. Secondly, these promises differ in propriety: for the promise in the covenant of works is Second difference. merely legal, and requires the condition of works done only by the strength of nature, commanded in the law, and to be done according to the strict rule of God's law: and the works of nature, or wrought by natural strength, are properly called the works of the law, Rom. 9 32. And the promise in the covenant of grace is not legal, but merely evangelical, for the condition here is not of any work moral and natural, but of faith in Christ, and of Christ himself to be apprehended by faith. Lastly, those particular promises, they are partly evangelical, partly legal: for the condition is of works which proceed from grace and regeneration, and therefore of such works as in regard of their original, may truly be called evangelical works: but because the law moral is the rule of them, in this respect they may also be called legal works. Thirdly, these promises differ in subject, because Third difference. the promise in the covenant of works, is propounded to them, which now after the breach of that first covenant of works, lie dead in sins & offences, having notwithstanding Ephe. 2. 1. for the time no sense of sin nor death. The promise in the covenant of grace is given to them, which are also dead in sins and transgressions, but having some feeling of sin, of death, and of their own misery wrought in them, by the law and legal covenant: and as for those particular promises, they are proposed to them which are already justified & renewed by faith in Christ. Lastly, these promises differ in use and end; for the end of the covenant of works is, that wretched sinners, which 4. difference. are void of sense of their sin and misery, may be awakened to feel and acknowledge their own sin and misery, that is (as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 7. 9 10.) that sin may revive in them, and that they may die, that is, they may feel that they be dead in sins and offences. Of this use of the law, see Rom. 3. 19 20. 11. 32. Gal. 3. 22. and 5. 23. This is the use then of the covenant of works, to work in us the sense of sin and misery, and to prepare men to receive grace. Therefore the doctrine of the Gospel gins with the legal doctrine of works, and of the law moral: for the Gospel should preach and promise in vain righteousness and life to the believers, if they were not first prepared by feeling their own corruption, and miserable condition to hear and receive grace by the Gospel. For this cause Christ himself first, Matth. 5. 17. and after; freeth and restoreth the law as pure from the leaven of the Pharisees, expounding * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the perfection and exact severity thereof, for this very cause, that men by this light of the covenant of works & law moral, might acknowledge how miserable they be by nature, and so might hereby be prepared to embrace the covenant of Grace. So did Christ prepare that rich young man (which came unto him to be schooled, as he made show) to entertain the covenant of grace: Wilt thou (saith he) enter into life? Keep the commandments. Paul gins his doctrine in the Epistle to the Romans from the law and covenant of works, and spends near his three first chapters of his Epistle in this doctrine, to this end, that he might conclude all under sin and condemnation, and so might prepare men to the doctrine of grace, which gins Rom. 3. 21. So Gal. 4. 21. he teacheth the Galathians that would be under the law (as he speaketh) their miserable servitude, which be in that condition; and how at the last they are cast out of God's kingdom: for this very cause, that the Galathians renouncing all confidence in that righteousness, which is by the law & covenant of works, might lay hold on that righteousness which is by faith and grace. This might appear by many arguments, which now I willingly pass over. The end and use of the promise in the covenant of grace is, that men cast down and humbled in the sight of their own sin and misery by the legal covenant, might be raised up and comforted by hearing and receiving that righteousness and life, which is freely promised and offered to the believers in the Gospel. Of this use read Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God. This is the proper end of the evangelical doctrine: therefore the second and principal part of the Gospel doth consist in the doctrine of the covenant of grace, which is properly and principally to bear this title of an evangelical doctrine; teaching us what Christ our mediator is; what his humiliation first, next his glorification; and than what benefits, life, and righteousness we get by him: and these be the special branches of the Gospel, and of that joyful message of our salvation. Last of all, the use of those particular promises is, that God's Elect, justified, renewed, comforted, and quieted in their consciences, may testify their thankfulness by their holy obedience and good works. The Apostle noteth this end, Tit. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. For that grace of God which bringeth salvation unto all men hath shined: teaching us, that renouncing ungodliness and worldly lusts, we live soberly, justly, and godly in this present world. And for that this is the end of these promises, they have also their place in the third part of the doctrine of the Gospel, which concerns the life and Christian conversation of the Saints: for which cause ye have these promises often in the Gospel, annexed to exhortations, admonitions, and instructions concerning manners, as Gal. 6. after that (vers. 6.) he had given in charge, that he which is catechized in the word, should minister unto him which teacheth him, of all his goods: he forthwith addeth, vers. 7. and 8. a promise and a threatening. Again, vers. 9 having warned them not to wax weary in well-doing, he addeth this promise, We shall reap in due time, if we faint not. So, Ephe. 6. after that his charge given to servants to serve their masters in all uprightness, ver. 5. 6. 7. he addeth a promise v. 8. Whatsoever good thing every man doth, that shall he receive of the Lord. The like testimonies are every where, in which ye may find admonitions, exhortations and instructions confirmed with promises and threatenings. Of this kind then are all those promises before mentioned, which must be carefully discerned, first, from the covenant of works; next, from the covenant of grace, wheresoever we find them in reading the new Testament. And finally, concerning the aforesaid promises we are to observe, first, that the condition of the works of regeneration and grace is required of believers, not as merits, but as duties only, and testimonies of their thankfulness to God their redeemer: like as the condition in the covenant of works is not of merits, but of duties only, and of testimonies of their thankfulness to God their creator. I grant that the works of regeneration are necessary unto eternal life promised in the Gospel, but not as merits, or meritorious causes: but as the means and way, wherein we are to proceed on from justification and regeneration unto glory and life eternal. They may also be said to be causes, after a sort: for they please God in Christ, and in some respects move him, but not as merits, but as effects of the only merit of jesus Christ, whereof they testify. But of this we shall speak in place more convenient. Secondly, note in this third kind of promises, that the condition therein is of the works of regeneration, which are also most perfect in their kind: for the great justice of God cannot bear the least defect. The rule also of all works is the justice of God, whereof ye have a certain express image in the moral law. Wherefore the condition here is of works most absolute, but not in themselves, but in Christ, and in the perfection of his satisfaction and merit. If ye object: Doth not the law require that perfection of works, which is in works themselves? I answer, it doth so; of them which are under the covenant of works, under the law, and without Christ: but as for such as be in the covenant of grace and in Christ, it doth not require a perfection in the works of regeneration, but is content with the good beginnings which the believers have, the perfection of whose obedience is supplied, and to be found in Christ jesus. For like as he justified us of his mere grace in Christ, and by his merit, being his enemies: so now much more will he accept us, Note. Rom. 5. 9 10. 11. 12. being justified and regenerate; I say, much more will he accept us, being his friends, and our obedience in Christ even for his merit sake. For so the Apostle concludeth, Rom. 5. 9 Being justified therefore by his blood, we shall now much more be preserved from wrath by him. And thus far of these three kinds of promises which are distinctly set down in the New Testament. And here this might also be demanded, whether these 3. kinds of promises be not as distinctly to be found in the old Testament? I answer, they may so be found; yet not without some difference: for that the old Testament did serve specially to prepare men to receive Christ, which in his appointed time was to come. For the law was a schoolmaster unto Christ, Gal. 3. Therefore the greatest part of the old Testament is spent in propounding, repeating, expounding the covenant of works. And because Christ was not as yet manifested in the flesh; therefore the doctrine of the covenant of grace, is more sparingly and darkly set forth in it. Finally, as touching the faithful in the old Testament which embraced Christ the mediator of the covenant of grace, howsoever then but shadowed before their eyes in types and figures; to them, I say, being justified in him which was to come, & regenerate by his grace, the promises of eternal life were made under condition of the works of regeneration: as this promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. 1. Walk thou before Rom 4. me and be thou upright, & I will make my covenant with thee. This promise was made to Abraham being before justified by faith and renewed by grace. The like promises are often in the old Testament annexed to moral precepts, as in the books of the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. And thus far of the covenant of grace, the ground thereof, the promise thereof, and the condition thereof. Now it remaineth that we answer a question or two concerning this covenant: The first, whether the covenant of works be abolished, and of none effect to such as 1. use of the covenant of works or of the Moral law. be under the covenant of grace? I answer, the covenant of works hath two ends and uses. The first and proper end & use of the covenant of works is, that men by it may be justified and saved, or otherwise, condemned. The covenant of works had this use in Adam before his fall, that Adam by it might be justified and live: After the fall, it hath the same use in the unregenerate, elect and reprobate, to wit, to justify and save them, or to condemn them. And for as much as it can not justify them because of their corruption, Rom. 8. 3. it followeth that it must necessarily condemn them: And the very unbelieving and vnregenerat do otherwhiles feel this condemnation in themselves. Of this use, read Rom. 3. 19 where he saith, that by the law Every mouth is stopped, and made obnoxious to the condemnation of God. And of the experience of this condemnation read Rom. 7. 10. I, saith he, when the commandment came, was dead, that is, condemned in my conscience; so that I felt in myself present condemnation and death. And albeit this first use of the covenant of works be common to all vnregenerat, elect and reprobate; yet this wants not some difference: for in the elect the acknowledgement of sin and condemnation which they have by the covenant of works, is unto them a preparative to embrace the covenant of grace: but in the reprobate it is the way to extreme desperation. Thus far of the first use. The second end of the covenant of works is this: It 2. End of the covenant of works. serves to drive on and to stir up all believers to march on forwards in all faith and godliness. This use it hath I say in the regenerate, who in the legal covenant, or moral law do desire principally to behold as in a glass evermore first the holiness, majesty and justice of God. 1. The use of the moral law to the believers. Ro. 7. 12. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just & good. Next they see here that which they call the original holiness and justice of man, to wit, 2. the same which was in the creation, which is defined to consist, of justice, holiness, and wisdom. Thirdly, they behold here that life eternal, which was to follow that 3. first original justice. Fourthly, they see that corruption and unrighteousness which is now in nature after man's 4. fall, but this they see by consequent, as we say, one contrary is discerned and known by another: for while we consider first that infinite justice of God; next our original justice, which are properly discerned by that glass of God's law and covenant of works, by the light and brightness of these, I say, we may take a view of the gross darkness, filthiness, and deformity of our corrupt nature. For this cause it is said Ro. 3. 20. By the law cometh the knowledge of fin. Fiftly, they see herein God's wrath kindled against that deformity of nature, so contrary both to God's justice & to man's original justice: For this cause it is said, Rom. 1. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men: and Rom. 4. The law causeth wrath. Sixtly and lastly, they behold how present death followeth that wrath of God: Ro. 1. 32. Which men though they knew the law of God, how that they which commit such things are worthy of death, yet not only do the same, but also favour them that do them: & Chap. 7. 9 10. When the commandment came, I died. The regenerate when they consider these things in the law and covenant of works, they are forthwith terrified with that heavy spectacle 1. of their sin; 2. of the wrath of God against sin; 3. of eternal death which followeth God's wrath: And then do they more & more relinquish and renounce 1. that legal righteousness required in the covenant of works; 2. that original justice and all opinion of free-will; 3. that life and safety which followeth that legal righteousness of works. And having renounced all confidence in these things, with like in devour they follow hard after Christ by conversion and faith, to this end, that they may find in him, first that mercy of God in Christ, contrary to that justice of God: secondly, they seek for that imputative justice (as they call it) so contrary to their own righteousness, & to that original justice of the law or of works. Thirdly, they labour for that sanctification and regeneration, that so they may bring forth the fruits of the spirit. Fourthly, they wait for to attain that life eternal, which is given us of God's free grace in and by that imputed righteousness of Christ. If we were possessed in this life of a perfect faith in Christ, A perfect faith we have not. and so of perfect holiness; then I grant the believers should not need this terrible glass of the law and of the covenant of works. But because unbelief still resteth in this our nature, and the relics of that inherent contagion still abide in us, and for that so long as we live here, neither our faith nor holiness can be perfected: Therefore to weaken more & more our unbelcefe and inherent sin in us, and more and more to increase faith and holiness, we have ever need of this terrible glass, as a continual severe Schoolmaster, which ever casting many fears before us may drive us to the faith of Christ, and to sanctimony of life. Now then seeing it is evident that there is a double use of the covenant of works, the answer to the question aforegoing is easy. For this we avouch, that, as touching the former use, the covenant of works is abolished to them which are under grace. To this the Apostle pointeth when he saith Ro. 6. 15. Ye are not under the law, but under grace. Gal. 4. that he might redeem them which were under the law. Rom. 7. Being dead to the law we are now free from the law. 2. Cor. 3. 11. For if that which should be abolished was glorious. But as for this second use it is not abolished. This distinction is commonly received, that the law & legal covenant is abolished, as it is a condemning tyrant: and not to be abolished as it is a Schoolmaster to chasten us, and with terrors to drive us unto Christ. For this second use we have an example in Paul after his regeneration. Ro. 7. 14. etc. For when he considers in the glass of God's law the spirituality (that so I may speak) the holiness and goodness of the law first: next his own carnality (to use that word) and rebellion, and lastly death itself: first he breaks forth into these words, Miserable man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Next he flieth to the mercy of God in Christ jesus, saying, I give God thanks in Christ jesus. And 2. Cor. 5. 11. Paul saith of himself, he was enforced and moved forwards to do duties in his calling because of the terrors of the Lord set down and offered unto him in and by his law: Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we bring men to the faith. The same Apostle Galath. 4. 21. when he saw that the Galathians which began to believe in Christ, notwithstanding not to cleave unto him only by faith, but to make a mixture of the law with Christ; he sets before them this glass of God's law, or of the covenant of works: wherein he layeth open first the miserable bondage of such as are under the law; next their final rejection: to this end and purpose, that they might be moved by this fearful speculation to stick to Christ only, and to the covenant of grace. Hereunto refer those comminations which we find partly annexed to the covenant of grace in the second part of the evangelical doctrine: partly put to the particular promises, instructions, exhortations in the 3. part of the doctrine of the Gospel. For this is the duty of the moral law & of the covenant of works, to contain the believers with threatenings and terrors within the bounds of the grace of Christ, and of his Gospel. Io. 3. 18. we have a commination of the law or of the covenant of works, added to Note the office of the law to believers. the covenant of grace: He that believeth in him, is not condemned, this is the conenant of grace: He that believeth not, is condemned already: This commination doth properly appertain to the law or covenant of works. Rom. 8. 13. He conjoineth a threatening of the law or covenant of works with a particular promise, wherein life is promised unto sanctimony. If ye live according to the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye mortify the deeds of the body by the spirit, ye shall live. See Gal. 6. 8. And thus far of the first question. The second question is this: whether the moral law, which we call the decalogue, be abolished to them which The 2. ques. whether the law be abolished to the regenerate. be under the covenant of grace? I answer by way of distinction: The moral law as it commandeth works done by the strength of nature, and as it is the rule of all works of this kind, to wit, of such works as be required in the covenant of works, that is, in respect of the first and proper use thereof (for it concerns properly the works of nature, which make the condition in the covenant of works) in this respect (I say) the moral law itself also is abolished to them which are in Christ, even in like manner as the covenant of works is canceled and of none effect against them. For which cause Paul useth these phrases, We be not under the law, we are dead to the law, we are freed from the law, to wit, either as touching justification, or condemnation. And look how far the covenant of works serveth for their use which be in grace; so far the law of works is in use for them: And what use the believers have of the covenant of works, we have already showed. Again, look how far forth the same moral law serves to give rules for the works of grace, and attendeth not on the covenant of works, but of grace, and of the Gospel; so far it resteth in use for the servants of Christ. For there is but one rule and law of all good works whatsoever, whether they proceed from nature or from grace: like as there is but one and the same justice of God, ever like itself, whereof the law of God is a very express image, or a lively representation. Thus than the law moral abideth for such as be under the Gospel, yet in some respect (that is in use) changed: for like as all things are become new in Christ jesus; so also the law itself after a sort is renewed. And that the law serveth and is in use for them which be under the covenant of grace, it is very clear by many scriptures. This may appear by those very testimonies which are before produced for the covenant of works, and other scriptures many, where the works of the law are commended. Rom. 13. Love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Gal. 5. 13. 14. By love serve one another, for all the law is fulfilled in one word, which is this, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself: See james 2. 8. etc. And thus far as we purposed, have we spoken of the covenant of grace. CHAP. FOUR Of such as be comprehended in, or may truly be said to be under, the covenant of God. NOW it followeth that we speak briefly of such as be under the covenant of God, or (if I may so speak) confederates with God. Every reasonable creature must of necessity be liable to one of both covenants, either that of works, or this of grace. For the very Angels are under the covenant of works: but because the Scripture speaks so sparingly of them, therefore we say this only in a word, that they also be under the covenant of works, Again, man must be under some one covenant. Adam in the state of his innocency, was under the covenant of works: man after the fall, abideth under the covenant of works; & to this day life is promised him under condition of works done by strength of nature: But if he will not do well, death and the everlasting curse of God is denounced against him, so long as he is without Christ, and without the Gospel. And being freed from the covenant of works, he is not become a libertine, or not subject to God's people in grace be not lawless libertines. any covenant, or as it were lawless, but forth with he is admitted to the covenant of grace, and thence forth liveth under it. Therefore concerning Angels and men, it is evident, that they are under some one covenant. It is a doubt indeed concerning Christ, whether he were then under any covenant, when he dwelled among men, and did converse on earth? I answer, there be two natures in Christ, a divine and human: Christ as he is God, and the Son of God, is not under the covenant of works or of grace: for that he is no creature, but the blessed Creator, to whom, to whose covenant and law every creature is and must be subject. But as he is man, he is under the covenant of works; and that in two respects. First, Christ under the covenant of works in what respect. in respect of himself, because he is a creature; because he is a servant, and made man, and was in the loins of Adam, when that covenant of works was first made with him. But we be to speak sparingly of that state of the man Christ, which is in respect of Christ himself, whether that his human nature as touching itself, were under the covenant of works? whether this nature did purchase for itself life eternal by observation of the covenant of works? Next, I say the * Or christ the Mediator hath subjecteth himself in his humanity to the law for our sake. human nature of Christ, is under the covenant of works in respect of us; for being united to that divine nature, it is become a mediator for us, to make intercession and peace between God offended, and man offending. For Christ our Mediator, albeit he be God and man in that personal union, yet was he made subject to the covenant of works, and to the course of the law for us, properly in respect of his human nature, that, as the Apostle speaketh, he might redeem us from the law, and the curse of the law. See Gal. 4. 4. and 5. After that the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son made of awoman, made subject to the law, to redeem them which were under the law. And Galath. 3. ver. 13. But Christ saith he, hath redeemed us from the curse, while he was made a curse for us. Christ therefore our mediator subjecteth himself unto the covenant of works, and unto the law for our sake: and did both fulfil the condition of the covenant of works, in his holy and good life, even in the highest degree of perfection, as being God and man (even that most holy one of God) in one person: and also he did undergo that curse, which was denounced against man in that covenant of works, if that condition of good and holy works were not kept: for in the covenant of works ye have together with the promise of life to him who doth well, a commination of everlasting death to him who doth not well. For this cause Christ our mediator, both did well according to the promise, & died also according to the curse denounced. Wherefore we see Christ in two respect, to wit, in doing & suffering, subject to the covenant of works, & to have most perfectly fulfilled it, & that for our sake, whose mediator he is become. It may be demanded, Had it not been sufficient for our good, and to the end he might redeem us, if he had only lived well and holily, and not also so to have suffered death for us? I answer, it had not sufficed: for all his most holy & righteous works had not satisfied the justice and wrath of God for our sins, nor merited the mercy of God, reconciliation, righteousness & life eternal for us: the reason is, for that the justice of God did require, for our breach of God's covenant, that we should be punished with death eternal, according to the condition denounced and annexed to the promise of that covenant. Therefore no good works of our own, or of any Mediator for us, after the breach of that covenant of works, could have satisfied the justice of God, which of necessity after asort required the punishment and death of the offender, or certainly of some mediator in his steed. If then all the good & holy works of the Mediator could not satisfy that wrath and justice of God for sin, it is clear they could not meritany new grace or mercy of God for us. But you will say, that the good and holy works of Christ our Mediator have wrought some part at least of that satisfaction, whereby God's justice was appeased for us: and some part of that merit whereby God's favour was purchased for us? I answer, these works did serve properly for no part of satisfaction or merit for us: for that to speak properly, the death of Christ and his passion only did satisfy God's justice, and merited his mercy for us. If any will yet further demand: May we not divide the satisfaction and merit of Christ, into his doings and sufferings, that we may speak on this manner, Christ by his death and passion hath satisfied God's justice, and by his good and holy works he hath merited God's mercy for us, that so satisfaction may be ascribed to his death, and merit to his works; that the righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, may be partly the satisfaction which Christ performed by his death for us, partly the merits which he obtained by his works for us? I answer, to speak properly, the satisfaction and merit which is by the only passion of Christ, both He saith, we are justified only by the passive righteousness of Christ. was and is our righteousness, or the satisfactory and meritorious death of Christ, or the satisfaction which was by Christ's death, or the merit of his death, or the obedience of Christ, as being obedient to his Father unto the death, the death also of the Cross; to be short, that justice of Christ, which he obtained when in his passion he satisfied his Father's wrath, this is our righteousness. For we may say, that either the death of Christ, or his satisfaction, or his merit, or his obedience, or his righteousness is imputed unto us for righteousness. For all these are taken for one and the same thing. But here it may be replied: If the works of Christ cannot properly procure for us any satisfaction, nor merit, nor any part of satisfaction or merit; than it may be demanded: What hath been, and what is the use of Christ's works, or of his active obedience, or of the obedience of his life? I answer, that the holiness of the person The active obedience of Christ, or the righteousness and holiness of his person and life, how it is the ground of the satisfactory and meritorious passion of Christ. of Christ, and of his natures divine and human, and of his works, is the very ground or foundation of the satisfaction and merit which we have in the passion of Christ, that is, the excellency and worthiness of that person, and of his works did cause that his passion was both satisfactory and meritorious: for if this person which suffered, had not been so holy and excellent, as also his life so pure and godly, it is most certain that his passion could neither have satisfied God's wrath, nor merited mercy for us. For which cause the Apostle Heb. 7. 26. speaking of this ground of this meritorious passion of Christ, saith, that such an high Priest it became us to have (which is) holy, blameless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. And thus far of Christ, and how he may be said to be under the covenant of works. And that he was not under the covenant of grace, the matter is so clear, that it needs no disputation. For the covenant of grace was made in him, and established in his blood, and the promise in the covenant of grace is made to them, which were unjust and dead in sin, because of the breach of that covenant of works: and lastly, Christ not under the covenant of grace. the condition in the covenant of grace is faith in Christ the mediator. Wherefore if ye respect either the ground, or condition, or promise of the free covenant, Christ can not be said to be under it. And thus far of both covenants, & of them which are under the covenant of God, either of works, or of grace. CHAP. V A comparison of our judgement and of the Adversaries, concerning both these Covenants. NOw we be to compare a little our assertion with the adversaries, and to consider which of both sides is of soundest judgement touching both these covenants of works and of grace. A rule to try the opinion of the adversaries & ours by, can none better be found, than the doctrine of Paul, specially that in the Epistle to the Romans, and namely, in that disputation which he hath of justification in the 3. first Chapters, against the jews of that time. If after conference we shall find that our assertion doth consent with Paul's mind and doctrine, and that the adversaries are of the same mind and judgement with the jews which lived in Paul's time; than it shall plainly appear, that our judgement is better than the adversaries concerning the covenant of God. Wherefore in this disputation of Paul, we are to consider first the mind & purpose of the Apostle; next by Paul's doctrine we shall gather what the opinion was of those jews, against whom he disputed: this done we will apply both his and their assertion, to ourselves which live in this age, and to the doctrine & conclusions which we maintain concerning both these covenants. By this means if it shall appear that our doctrine is agreeable to Paul's mind, and that our adversaries follow the jews; themselves being witnesses, it shall (I say) be manifest, that our judgement is better than theirs in this argument. To come then to the point: Paul in that place to the Romans, disputeth against those jews which were obstinate and perverse, defending first Christ and his merit, which is the first ground of the covenant of grace; next he disputeth for grace or the mercy of God, which is the Paul's disputation. Rom. 1. 2. & 3. Chap. second ground of the free covenant; thirdly, he avoucheth against those adversaries, that the covenant of grace was founded in Christ, and in the grace of God; four, he proveth the justification of man, and so consequently the salvation▪ which is according to the covenant of grace: he disputeth, I say, for these things, first against nature, which is the ground of the covenant of works; next against the very covenant of works itself founded on nature; thirdly, against the justification of man, and salvation which is by it, arising of the just and good works of nature, according to that covenant of works. I grant he doth expressly fight against that justification and salvation, which is by the works of nature, required in the covenant of works; and for the justification of faith, which is required in the covenant of grace: but by one and the self same disputation he concludes both against nature and the covenant of works, and for Christ, and for God's grace in him, that is, for the covenant of grace. For the doctrine of antecedents must necessarily be included in the doctrine of the consequent. By this purpose of Paul, we may see what was the drift of those adversary jews, and what was their judgement against whom he disputeth in the Epistle to the Rom. Those jews, they on the contrary part did strive for nature, as being the ground of the covenant of works; as also for the very covenant of works or of nature; for justification and salvation by works, and according to the form of the covenant of works: They did (I say) contend for these things, against Christ, against the grace of God in Christ, and against the covenant of grace, and against justification and salvation of men, which is according to the covenant of grace. Igraunt, that (as is aforesaid) the question was of this last point, which is justification: but this question includes all the former branches, as is before showed. Wherefore let us consider again that old controversy, and the very ground thereof. In this controversy, by the way note how great the The state and blindness of the jews in Paul's time. blindness was of the jews of those times: first they did not understand, that man's nature after the fall was lost, as touching goodness: they saw not their own corruption, neither were they touched with any sense of sin or of their own misery. Next, they knew not Christ the mediator, and the mercies of God in him. Thirdly, being so blind in the premises, they could not conceive also how that covenant of works was abolished in Christ. Fourthly, they understood not that there was any covenant of made with man in Christ jesus. Fiftly, they did not consider that those works of nature (whereby they would be justified, according to the prescript form of the covenant of works) they did not consider, I say, that they were but duties only, and testimonies of thankfulness, according to the first institution of that covenant; but they did ascribe some meritorious virtue unto them: for which cause the Apostle disputeth against the works of nature, as against merits, because of this blind conceit of the jews. And that they were of judgement that these works were meritorious, may appear by their glorying in works, against which the Apostle speaketh often. Where is then the glorying or rejoicing? it is excluded, Ro. 3. 27. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherein to glory, Rom. 4. 2. Not by works, lest any should glory, Eph. 2. 9 For he which glorieth, doth not deem that he hath received that of God, for which he glorieth; and therefore he judgeth it to be meritorious: What hast thou, that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, wherefore boastest thou, as if thou hadst not received it? 1. Cor. 4. 7. Thus far of the question in controversy, which was between Paul and the old jews of his time, concerning the covenant of God. How like to this is that, which at this day is controversed between us and the Papists? We in this age conclude wholly for the only merit of Our defence at this day against the Papists. Christ, for the sole and mere grace and mercy of God in Christ, for the covenant of grace, for justification and salvation by Christ only, by grace only, by faith only (for all these Phrases serve to one effect) we dispute, I say, for these things against the strength of nature, the liberty of free-will, that is, the goodness and holiness of nature, against the covenant of works, against justification by works, even that which is according to the rule of the covenant of works. The Romanists of this age defend that nature is holy in itself; yet hurt, impoverished, and weakened (for this is their freedom of will) they defend, I say, the covenant of works, and the works which proceed Free-will. from free-will, justification by works of free-will, meritorious also according to the covenant of works; for they say, the ground of every merit, whether it be of congruity or condignity (to use their own terms) is free-will: These things, I say, they strive to defend, against Christ only, and his merit, against the only grace of God and mercy in Christ, against the only covenant of grace, against justification which is by Christ only, by the grace of God only, by faith only: for all these have one respect and purpose. Observe then here by the way, what the palpable blindness of the Papists is, in this clear light of the Gospel. Popish blindness. First they see not how nature is plainly lost, as touching sanctity. Secondly, they know not the sole grace and mercy of God, neither do they understand what the excellency is of Christ's merit. Thirdly, they perceive not how that covenant of works is abolished to them which are in Christ, as touching justification. Fourthly, they conceive not, that the only covenant of grace is made with mankind after the fall, specially now after the incarnation of Christ, in the Gospel, and that unto justification and life eternal. Fiftly, they see not that the works of free will; as they call them, if there were any such, to be duties only and testimonies of thankfulness, according to the first institution of the covenant of works, which be done by the strength of nature: but ascribe some special meritorious virtue unto them. Wherefore we conclude concerning these men, that albeit they be not just of one mind with those old jews, against whom the Apostle disputed in the Epistle to the Romans; yet they hold much on their side, striving to defend that nature is in part good and holy, so contending against the pure and only grace of God, and to divide justification and The popish justification. man's salvation, between Christ and God's free grace & the virtues and works of nature: whereas notwithstanding these two, nature and grace, can never stand together in the work of our salvation. For whosoever shall conjoin or make a mixture of grace and nature in this matter, shall quite overthrow and extinguish grace, which either is alone, or not at all, as Rom. 11. 6. If it be of grace, it is no more of works; for otherwise grace were no more grace. And in the Epistle to the Galathians, he doth purposely dispute against those jews, which did couple together in the matter of justification, the gifts and works of nature, with Christ, with the grace of God, and with the Gospel: And these jews (as I judge) the Papists seem most to resemble; I mean those jews, against whom he wrote in the Epistle to the Galathians. For in that other epistle to the Romans, he disputeth against such jews, as did openly deny Christ, and reject him: but to the Galathians his disputation is against such jews as were not content with Christ only, but would have Christ and the law joined together. Thus far of the comparison between Paul and us on the one side, the old jews and the Papists on the other. Now because it will be demanded, what Paul thought of the works of regeneration, and what we, and what the adversaries think also; therefore I will touch this question in few words. Here then, some one will say, did Paul then in that disputation to the Rom. and to the Galathians oppugn the works of grace and regeneration? I answer, Paul's chief purpose in that disputation is against the works of nature, which the jews thought to be holy and just, and also meritorious: he did not reject the works of regeneration, as they be duties and testimonies of thankfulness unto God, but in that respect commends them, Rom. 6. 7. 8. Chapters, and in other places. But as touching the cause of justification, he would not have these works (as we call them) of regeneration, coupled with the grace of God, or with Christ, or with faith, as any cause, or as part of any meritorious cause of salvation. To this purpose he saith Rom. 4. that Abraham himself being regenerate, was not justified before God by any works of his regeneration: And Rom. 6. having commended the works of sanctification, in the end vers. 23. where he attributeth death to the merit of sin, he doth not there notwithstanding ascribe life eternal to the merit of the works, or fruits of sanctification: but when he had said, that the wages of sin is death; he doth clearly avouch it, that eternal life is the free gift of God in Christ jesus. In which place, if the Apostle had been of this judgement, that the works of regeneration be in any respect meritorious, assuredly he would not so pass over the commendation of the works of regeneration, specially for that this here is principally intended. Wherefore the Apostle to the Romans so rejecting the works of nature, which the covenant of works requireth: yet he understandeth also all kinds of works, moral, and natural going before grace and faith, as also all ceremonial works, and the very fruits of regeneration which follow grace and faith; that faith only, Christ only, grace only, may herein be all in all. Thus far of S. Paul's judgement. We at this day are of one and the same mind with the Apostle concerning works of regeneration. Our adversaries, granting there be such works, ascribe too much unto them: for they will not have them to be duties and testimonies only of thankfulness unto God, but also that they be meritorious causes of that justification, which they call the second justification. Again, we are to remember, that the adversaries judgement concerning works of regeneration is, that they proceed not only from infused grace, and first justice (as they speak) but also from nature and free-will, which works together with that justice, in respect whereof also they account good works meritorious (as was before The popish opinion of good works. showed) so ascribing their good works in part to that their first grace, and in part to free-will. And thus far of this comparison: whereby it appears, whether we or our adversaries have the better, or the more sound judgement concerning both covenants, of the grounds of both, nature, grace, and Christ: as also of the effect of both, which we call man's justification. And lastly, for that this is the most fundamental point of true religion, we may hereby discern also whether we, or the adversaries, have the religion and worship of God the more purely & sound established amongst us. CHAP. VI Of the written Word, or of the written Covenant of God. THe word in both covenants was for a long time in the world, even from Adam's time till Moses, unwritten; delivered as from hand to hand, and continued by a lively voice: for I pass over such matters as joseph records to be engraven in columns before the flood, as also the Apocryphals of Henoch. And when as in continuance of time corruptions grew, by these traditions, and the purity of the doctrine of the covenant could not thus be preserved, and that God would no longer follow the former course only, he began in Moses time to ordain and to publish another form, to wit this, to preserve and to continue the purity of the celestial doctrine in written books, approved and sealed by divine authority and testimony; & the more to commend his written word unto men, in all succeeding ages, God himself with his own hand did first write in tables of stone the words of the Decalogue: Next after this, he gave it in charge unto Moses, that he should afterwards write and record all things which he received at Gods own mouth: and that the people of God might be assured that the books of Moses came not by man's will, but were given by divine inspiration, the Lord sealed 2. Tim. 3. 16, and testified these writings to be his heavenly oracles, by many great wonders, before they were written, when they were written, and after they were written. And Moses wrote the Word of both covenants; of both I say, Legal and evangelical: but whereas he gave, but as it were, the first lineaments of the evangelical covenant, he set forth the Legal covenant clearly and in full measure. For the legal covenant in the books of Moses is clearly recommended and urged, but the evangelical more darkly set before us. For which cause all the doctrine of Moses is said to be legal: The Law came by Moses, joh. 1. After Moses, God stirred up his Prophets, whose writings also he confirmed with his great miracles, and gave them great authority: yet were they not to set forth any thing divers or contrary to the doctrine of Moses and the patriarchs; nor to publish any thing, but what was grounded in the books of Moses: but by divine revelation they did add more clear interpretations, as the morning star of the new testament did more nearly approach. These holy men wrote the sum and chief heads of their doctrine, even so much as God himself thought meet to be reserved for posterity. And these records being written, were laid up with the holy books of Moses, which were kept in the side of the Ark, Josh. 24. 26. Finally, after the incarnation of Christ, the evangelical doctrine, or the Gospel first began for certain years to be delivered by voice, and to be preached by Christ himself; and then after by his Apostles: And lastly, the same was written by the Apostles. The works of God's law, and nature are commanded in the books of the new Testament: And the very moral law is expounded by Christ himself, & freed from the leaven and corruption of the Pharisees: but the works of the law and nature, are not recommended to the end, that by them men might be justified and saved; but they be commended, either to prepare men to entertain grace offered, or to quicken them to proceed and grow in grace received, as is before showed. Again, the works of regeneration be commanded, not for justification, but as testimonies of that justification which is by faith, and of thankfulness unto God: for which cause, so soon as the Apostle hath taught the doctrine of faith, he descends to the works of the law, teaching men that their life and conversation must be worthy that high calling, whereunto we are called in Christ jesus. See Ephe. 4. 1. 1. Thess. 2. 12. But faith in Christ is that, which is principally required in all the books of the new Testament. And thus far generally of the written word of the covenant. CHAP. VII. The number of the controversies which are concerning the written Word: and of the first controversy, whether the Scripture be the word of God. THere be two kinds of controversies concerning the holy Scripture. The first kind is of such controversies as be more essential, that is, which concern the very essence (if I may so speak) or being of the Scripture. The second kind is of those controversies which be more accidental, and do not so nearly concern the essence of the Scripture. Of the first kind there are ten controversies or questions: the first is, Whether the Scripture Prophetical and Apostolical be the word of God? The second is, How it may appear that this Scripture is God's word? The third is, Of the antiquity of it. The fourth is, Of the perspicuity or clearness of it. The fift is, Of the simplicity or plainness of it. The sixth is, Of the vivacity, quickening power, or life of it. The seventh is, Of the simple & evident necessity of it. The eight is, Of the perfection & sufficiency thereof, that it is sufficient and perfect in itself, without all unwritten verities, or traditions whatsoever. The ninth is, Whether the Scripture may be the judge to determine all controversies? The tenth is, Whether the Scriptures Prophetical and Apostolical must have the chief place of excellency, and be in authority above the Church. As for those eight controversies which follow the two first, they are touching the properties of the holy Scripture; and these, when we shall have proved that the Scripture is God's word, will appear evidently: for they are necessary consequents of that Theorem. For grant we this, that the Scripture is God's word; then these things must follow necessarily; first, that it is most ancient; secondly, most clear; thirdly, most simple or pure; four, most powerful; fifthly, most necessary; sixtly, most perfect; seventhly, the greatest & best judge of all controversies without exception; eightly, most excellent. But for as much as the adversaries deny these eight properties, therefore (as is a foresaid) there is of every one of them a special controversy. We are then to handle these controversies in order: and first of that which by due right, & naturally is to have the first place: Whether the Scripture be the word of God? The Adversaries grant generally that the holy Scripture is the word of God: but when they are brought from the general to a special, they break from us. To speak more plainly: the word of God at this day, is twofold in the Church of God, 1. immediate. 2. mediate. I call that the God's written word. immediate word of God, which doth proceed immediately out of Gods own mouth: and that I call mediate, which the Lord speaks by his preacher or Minister. We hold then and avouch, that the holy Scripture is that immediate and primary word of God, and to be unto us in steed of that first, immediate, and lively voice of God himself: yea, that it serves us in place not only of that lively voice of God, but also of the secret and insearchable mind of God, and of God's unspeakable mysteries. Our arguments are these: 1. For that this is the very will of God. They have Moses (saith he) and the prophets, that is, the books of Moses and the Prophets, Luk. 16. 29. 2. If we had nothing to supply the defect of the lively voice of God, then doubtless our state were worse than that of the old Church of the jews, which had the oracles of God: but it is against all light of reason so to Rom. 3 1. 2. affirm. 3. Our third reason is this: The first ground of our faith must be, either the lively voice of God, or the very mind and counsel of God, or something to supply the want of God's lively voice, and of the secret mind of God, which must also be unto us no less certain and firm, then if we heard God himself speak, or did behold and read the very mind of God; yea the very divine oracles written in Gods own breast: but now we have not the lively voice of God; now we see not the secret mind of God: therefore it must follow that we have something to supply the want of the lively voice of God, even means to reveal unto us the secret mind of God: and nothing can do this, but the sacred Scripture: therefore Gods holy written word is, and must be unto us as the very voice, and as the very mind or will of God himself manifested unto us. The fourth reason. The Scripture contains all those things which God hath spoken in elder ages, and what God himself hath decreed in his secret counsel (so far as is meet for us to know) concerning our life and salvation: Ergo, etc. Thus far of the immediate word of God. The mediate voice of God, we call the voice of the holy and true Church of God: for albeit men speak, yet the word spoken, is the word of God himself. Here the adversaries rise up, and contend, that the voice of the Church must have the priority of excellency, and that it supplieth the want of God's lively voice, and the manifestation of his mind, rather or better than the Scripture: for, say they, the voice of the Church is a Popish Objection concerning the testimony and the authority of the Church before the Scripture. Scripture written, not with the pen of any Scribe, but by Gods own finger in the heart of the Church: therefore the voice or testimony of the Church, aught to be accounted the principal voice of God: For it is a lively voice, proceed from the living heart of the Church, wherein God hath engraven all truth with the finger of his own Spirit: whereas the Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles, albeit they were delivered, and spoken by God himself, yet they were not written by Gods own hand, but by the Prophets and Apostles, which were the penmen: Again, they were not written in the living hearts of men, but in papers, and books, or tables. Hence therefore it followeth, that this scripture, which is found in the heart of the Church, is the principal Scripture of God, and that the voice of the holy Church, is that most excellent voice of God, & aught to be unto us, as the immediate voice of God, & in steed of the secret counsel of God. I answer: true it is, the testimony of the Church is a lively voice, proceeding from a living heart, sanctified by the holy ghost (for we speak of the true Church:) But first I say, that the only Scripture prophetical and apostolical, is to be accounted that Scripture which was written by Gods own finger, and that immediate word of God. Next, I say, that the heart of the Church is taught and sanctified by the Spirit of the Scripture; and that the Scripture which is in the heart of the Church is nothing else, but a certain transcript (that so I may speak) or a copy, which the holy Ghost hath written in our hearts, according to that ancient and authentical copy, which is the holy Scripture. For the holy Ghost teacheth the Church nothing now, but that which is written; and doth by the scripture after a sort, beget the Church: & the Scripture is the mother, the Church is the daughter; the Scripture is the mistress, the Church is the scholar. Thirdly, I add that the knowledge of the truth, which is in the heart of the Church by means of the scripture, is not so perfect nor so absolute, as is the holy Scripture. And lastly, I say, that the Church being enlightened and renewed but in part, may err from the truth, even in the greatest matter of weight, and that it doth err so often as it forsakes the canon and rule of the sacred Scripture. Their former assertion being thus cast down, it is evident that the voice of the Church (I understand here the true church only, not that whorish church of Rome) the voice of the Church (I say) is not that primary and most excellent word of God, nor aught to be unto us in steed of the lively and immediate voice of God; nor to be reputed for God's mind and counsel; but this prerogative is due only to the sacred Scripture. I add further, that if thou dost first not so much respect the truth itself, which the Church speaketh, as the instruments of the speech uttered, which are men: next, if ye compare the voice of the Church speaking with the sacred Scripture itself, it doth not deserve at all to be called by the name of God's word, but may more properly be called the word and testimony of man. For Christ himself calls that testimony which john the Baptist gave of him, the testimony of man. I receive not, (saith he) or desire not the testimnoie of man, joh. 5. 34. Be it so, that the testimony of the Church be true, & agreeable to the holy scripture, notwithstanding it is truly called an human testimony, whether ye respect the men which speak, or compare their testimony with that, which doth proceed from the mouth of God and Christ himself. But it may be replied, that the very Apostles and Prophets, which writ and spoke all these things, which we have in the Scriptures, were men in like manner: & therefore all the Scriptures are but an human testimony. I answer, that I deny not all is objected, if we were to esteem the words or writings of an Apostle or Prophet, as they are instruments and Ministers, or if this were to be compared with the very lively voice of God and Christ himself. For in respect of the instruments, (if we compare the words or writings of these men, with the words and writings of God himself) theirs (I say) must come after and give place unto this, and must bear the name of an human testimony: for so the testimony of john Baptist himself, as being an instrument in comparison of Christ the Lord of life, was called the record of man. Wherefore when we avouch that the Prophetical and Apostolical Scripture is the immediate testimony of God himself, we make no comparison with the lively voice of God himself; neither do we so much respect what Organs the holy-ghost used to set forth the Scriptures: but we consider the matter itself, and the divine oracles which be written, and we ponder in what estimation God himself will have us to accept the sacred Scripture; not as the writings and sayings of men, but as the writings and words of God himself. And we consider this also, as in a comparison made with the Church: For to use that comparison again, the voice of the Scripture is Gods own voice; but the voice of the Church of Christ, is called an human testimony, as the word or writing of a Prophet or an Apostle compared with the lively voice of God, is called the record of man, as Christ himself testifieth, 10. 5. And thus far of the 1. controversy. CHAP. VIII. How it may appear that the scripture is the word of God. THE second controversy is, by what argument may it appear, that the scripture is the word of God. Like as then the first question was this: whether the Scripture be God's word? So the question in hand is this; how and by what evidence this may appear, that the Scripture is God's word? To this I answer on this manner: That we have no need simply of any other light, or of any one special evidence to demonstrate this matter, but that very light which is in the Scripture. For the Scripture (being the first and immediate word of God) is of authority sufficient in itself, * Scriptura est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and so likewise of itself m●st clear and evident, and the only cause of all that light which is in the Church, and in the hearts of men. For like as the light of the sun is not perceived nor to be seen by means of any S. other light, for that it so far exceeds all other bodily & external Note. light: So that spiritual light of the Scripture, hath no need in itself of any other light to set forth the same, for that of all spiritual lights to enlighten the mind withal, it is the most bright and most beautiful in the world. But whereas evidences and demonstrations be here demanded for the proof of this matter, to confirm the Scripture to be God's word, that is, to be the very light: the cause of this doubtfulness is in ourselves, for that we be so bleere-eyed and so blind by nature. Wherefore the arguments which are brought for this purpose, add no light to the light of the Scripture, (which is of it own nature so clear, and can not be made to shine more bright by any addition) but all serve to this end; to make that thing manifest unto us which is most evident in itself, and that our eyes may be opened to see that most full, and most glorious light of the sacred Scripture: that is, to behold the divine majesty of God shining bright, and speaking S. unto us in the holy Scripture. Like as if a man were to prove to a blind man that the Sun did shine, he would not produce arguments to commend the excellency of the light of the Sun, but rather provide such things, as whereby (if it were possible) he might open the eyes of the blind, that with his own eyes he might look on the glorious light of the Sun. Wherefore in a word, whatsoever arguments, men ask of us to demonstrate the light of the Scripture, they ought not to be demanded, because of any defect in the Scripture, but in respect of us, because we be so blind, having need of all arguments and helps, every way, to open our eyes, that our sight may be quickened to behold this glorious light. The arguments and helps whereby our eyes may be opened to behold the light of the Scripture, or God speaking and shining in the Scripture, these arguments, I say, which the godly and learned use for this purpose, be not of one sort, but many in number. But if the holy-Ghost speaking in the Scripture, do not first of all inspire our Eph. 1. 16. 17. minds, & open the eyes of our understanding (for he alone can do it) assuredly it is but lost labour to speak of any other argument, or help; if we be not taught of God, and by his Esay. holy spirit, all other means shall profit us nothing at all. Wherefore the first & most principal cause to effect this, that we may behold the light of the Scripture (so bright in itself) must be the holy ghost, teaching us inwardly in our hearts, and opening our understanding, that we may behold that light of the Scripture, and may acknowledge the voice of God, and of Christ himself speaking in the Scripture. And the holy Ghost also himself in this work gives no new light to the Scripture, which is clear and glorious in itself, as is aforesaid; but enlightens our minds, to this end, that we may see the great light of the sacred Scripture. Again, the holy ghost in this great work of our illumination, effecteth it by certain means & instruments, whereby it pleaseth him to work in our hearts and minds. The means which the H. G. useth for this work, are of two kinds. The first is internal: the second is external. The inward mean, is in the very Scripture itself; the outward is without the Scripture. The internal mean is the principal organ, or instrument of God's spirit in this work, and it is that very light which shineth in the Scripture. The holy Ghost than doth first of all open How the holy Ghost first teacheth us to know the Scriptures. the eyes of our understanding, by the light of the Scripture, to discern that light of the Scripture, so bright in itself, and so unknown unto us. And he cleareth our understanding to see the light of the Scripture, by the very scripture itself; and by the light of the scripture, many ways: For partly he effecteth this by producing 1 certain testimonies of Scripture, which plainly testify Inward means to see the light of the scriptures. of this great light of the Scripture, and of God speaking in the Scripture, as that place, all Scripture is given by divine inspiration, 2. Tim. 3. 16: partly by suggesting into us, that we observe the spiritual matters which are 2 therein described: partly by admonishing that we note 3 the spiritual words, whereby the same spiritual matters are expressed and set before us: partly by warning us to 4 observe the truth of the divine oracles by the complement of the prophecies: Again, he sets before us the 5 beautiful harmony of the Scripture in the old and new Testament, the one sweetly testifying of the other: And 6 here he omitteth not the miracles which be recorded therein, whereby the celestial doctrine had in the beginning a confirmation. He putteth us also in mind of the Martyrs, which sealed the same truth with their blood, as we read in the same Scripture. By these means and such like, the spirit teacheth us out of the very Scripture, that the sacred Scripture is God's word, by clear evidence manifesting that great & excellent light which is in the Scripture. Ad also unto the aforesaid means, the worth and holiness of those men which wrote the Scriptures, as the same is testified and recorded in the Scriptures. And this is the internal and principal mean and instrument of the holy Ghost, whereby he teace us, & breedeth faith in our hearts, whereby we be certainly persuaded that this Scripture is the very word of God. There are also other means without the Scripture, external means to prove the scripture to be God▪ word. whereby the Spirit proveth the same thing: as the constancy of the Martyrs, which daily seal with their blood the truth of this heavenly doctrine; & the persecution raised by the enemies of the Church against it; & the enmity of Satan against it; and the preservation of the divine oracles of God unto our times; and to be short, the testimony of the true Church of God for it. All these are without or beside the Scripture, and give us a secondary kind of demonstration, whereby the holy Ghost worketh also, as it pleaseth him, and openeth the eyes of our understanding, enlightening us to see and hear God himself speaking and shining in the Scripture. But here we be to observe, that the holy ghost doth God rather by these means the testimony of the Church and conversation of the saints, prepareth us to receive the precious faith. not beget faith in our hearts, properly and principally, by this second kind of external means (for the proper and principal instrument of God to breed faith, is the very word of God himself: for it must be necessarily, either the lively voice of God, or the sacred scripture which serveth us in steed of the lively voice of God himself) but either prepares our hearts only to receive faith afterwards Io. 4. 1. Pet. 3. 2. 3. wards by the word of God; or to confirm the same in some sort, being already engendered in our hearts by God's word. For this cause this second kind of means sometimes is sent before the voice of God in the scripture, whereby the holy Ghost otherwhiles makes men's minds ready to entertain faith and grace offered. This we read of Augustine; for he speaks it of himself (I would not have believed the gospel, but that the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereunto) by which words he meaneth, that when he was a Manichee, he was prepared by the authority and testimony of the Church, to believe the Gospel. Afterwards notwithstanding, the same holy spirit, which thus prepared him by the testimony of the Church, I say, the same spirit did beget faith in Augustine's heart, by the very scripture of the gospel; whereby he did believe that the gospel was the very word of God. For this cause he speaks else where of himself: And let us follow them (saith he) which do invite us first to believe that which we cannot behold Augustine's words. as yet, that being strengthened by faith itself, we may be worthy to understand what we believe, not by the relation of men, but by the grace of God himself inwardly confirming and enlightening our minds. So the woman of Samaria Io 4. as a member of the Church, did by her kind of preaching prepare the Samaritans to the faith of Christ, & they having heard Christ himself, said to the woman: We believe no longer because of thy sayings, for Io▪ 4. 42 1. Pet. 3. 2. 3. Win them with your conversation, which are without the word. we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the world. By which words they plainly testified, that they were prepared only by the woman's testimony to embrace the faith, and that faith was engendered in their hearts by the powerful voice of Christ himself. Wherefore it is clear, that sometimes this kind of mean and argument (as is aforesaid) goes before faith is begotten in the heart to prepare us, and sometimes this follows faith, for confirmation: And sometimes also this kind of argument goes before faith, and follows after it; it goes before, I say, for preparation; it follows after, for confirmation. For the spirit teacheth us many ways, applying himself to divers men in divers Note well Io. 3. manners, as it seemeth good unto himself, and as men's infirmities do require. And here we be to observe, that there is no absolute necessity of this secondary kind of argument (which is external and less principal) to beget faith in us. For it ought to suffice us, if the spirit teach us only by God's word: but to help our weakness the same spirit addeth the other secondary kind of argument: as Christ plainly teacheth us, Io. 5. where he saith, the testimony of john Baptist concerning him, was not simply necessary, but that God so provided to help their weakness and unbelief, ver. 33. john gave testimony to the truth, but I desire not the testimony of man: Nevertheless these things I speak that ye may be saved. And that john's testimony was but a secondary argument only, and that Christ's own record of himself was the first, he showeth plainly in the words following. ver. 36. But I have a greater witness than the witness of john: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father sent me. And this is our judgement concerning this argument; whereby we prove the Scripture to be the word of God, and our answer to the question, wherefore it is so, as we avouch it. What the Papists think in this matter, it is easily seen How the Papists prove the scripture to be God's word. by their words and writings: Their judgement briefly is this. The mean and principal argument, and in a manner the only way with them to demonstrate the scripture to be God's word, is the testimony of the church, not only the catholic (as they speak) but also those of their church which have preserved the faith (as they speak) by contiall successions from the Apostles unto our times: and here they understand principally the Popes, who (as they say) succeeded Peter and his chair. These men will have the Church the judge and interpreter of all Scriptures, from whose judgement it may not be lawful for any man to departed for an appeal to any other judge: And they ascribe this dignity & prerogative to the testimony of the Church, because they will have the Scripture which is written in the heart of the Church, to be the principal Scripture, and that we account and esteem of the voice of the Church, as the very lively voice of God himself; as if God now spoke first principally in his Church, and by the voice of his Church. If they will have it so, that the voice of the Church, be the primary voice of God, and the primary Scripture of God; it is evident, that they deem the greatest light we have, is to be found in the voice of the Church, and the same to be most clear and demonstrative, not only to us, but also in and by itself: and therefore that this light enlightens the sacred Scripture, not in respect of us only, but in respect of themselves also. For which cause one of them hath said, that the The blasphemy of Papists. Scripture is of no more validity without the authority of the church, than Aesop's fables. For the voice of the church being unto them the primary voice of God in all respects, for as much as it is lively and vocal; and for this cause both by nature and to us most manifest: it followeth, according to their judgement, that it yields light unto the Scripture, not only in respect of us; but also in respect of the Scripture itself; & yet is it in verity but a certain secondary Scripture, and a certain secondary voice. For (as they avouch it) the voice of the Church is as Gods own voice sounding from heaven, serving to confirm the voice of the Scripture (which now is but man's voice only) and to ratify and make authentical the very Scripture, as being written but by certain Scribes, and published only by the hands of men: This must be the consequent of their principles, or conclusion of their premises, albeit other men be of another judgement. As for ourselves, like as we deny the conclusion which they infer upon the former principles, so we reject also their very principles. For we deny & refuse their first ground, to wit, that the voice of the Church is to be accounted the lively voice of God himself, and that the Scripture written in the heart of the Church, is to be accounted for that scripture which was written by the very finger of God: And we affirm that the only prophetical and apostolical scripture is to be esteemed as the lively voice of God; we avouch it, I say, that this Prophetical and Apostolical scripture only serveth us in steed of that scripture, which was written by Gods own finger: We add also that the sacred Scripture is unto us a book of revelation of those divine mysteries which were hidden in Gods own breast from eternity: for this is the very will of God, that we attend on him speaking in the scripture, as it were in his own lively voice. They have (saith he) Moses and the Prophets, Luk. 16. vers. 29. that is, the books of Moses and the prophets. And God will not have this scripture in no less account than that scripture, which he wrote in times passed with his own finger in tables of stone. The voice of the Church (I mean the true Church, not the lying papistical synagogue) is but as the voice of the handmaid, or as the voice of a crier, which is to publish and to proclaim that voice of God, full of excellency, speaking in the scripture: But the scripture in the heart of the Church, that is, the Maxims of God's truth written in the hearts of the faithful, they be nothing else but a certain secondary scripture, taken out by the holy ghost, out of that primary and most sacred scripture, and engraven in the minds of men. For how much, think you, of that full measure of the Prophetical & Apostolical scripture is there taken forth and engraven in our minds? I say, that if all men's hearts were bound together, yet all they could not comprehend all those things fully and perfectly, which be recorded in the Prophetical and Apostolical scriptures: For the catholic Church, so long as it is conversant on the earth, is not capable of all that light which shineth in the sacred scriptures of the apostles & the prophets. Let their first principle be thus beaten down, and their Corolatie, or second conclusion (to wit, that the voice of the Church is most manifest, both in itself, and unto us) will fall to the ground of it own accord: and so both principles being shaken, their conclusion which they infer, is of no strength to stand, but must fall away. CHAP. IX. Of the first propriety of the sacred Scripture. WE are now to proceed, and to make it manifest, that the holy scripture is of greatest antiquity: and this is the first propriety The 1. propriety of the scripture, most ancient. before ascribed to the Scripture. Here first we be to find out the divers acceptations of this word Scripture. This word Scripture may be taken, either for the matter only, and Acceptation of the word scripture. the very substance which is contained in the words and letters; or not only for the matter and substance, but also for the very writing itself, or the form wherein that substance is expressed and set before us. Now if by this word Scripture, ye understand the very substance itself, it is without all controversy, that the Scripture is most ancient: because it is the substance of those divine oracles, which not only patriarchs and Prophets have spoken, but also God himself uttered; which things also were hidden in God's mind from eternity. But if ye understand by this word, not only the substance, but the very writing, and in this respect also, the scripture may be said to be most ancient. For as touching the Prophetical and Apostolical scriptures, in respect also of the writing and manner of revealing of them (as we said often before) it is God's will that we so esteem them, not only as the lively voice of the Prophets and Apostles, nor only as the lively voice of God himself, or as a book written with his own hand (as the Decalogue was set down with his own finger in tables of stone) but also that we so accept them as the very mysteries, and if I may so speak, as the very divine notions, which were engraven in Gods own mind from eternity. To clear this point a little; The verity kept secret in God's mind from eternity, was in time manifested many ways, or in divers forms; for it was revealed partly by the lively voice of God himself, partly by the voice of the patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles (to pass by Angels in silence) and partly also by the scripture which was written by the Prophets and Apostles. The lively and immediate voice of God did cease long since; neither have we that copy which God himself wrote: the patriarchs How to esteem of the written word of God. also, & the Prophets, and the Apostles have ceased to speak: the writings only of the Prophets and Apostles remain to this day. Wherefore this we hold as necessary unto faith, that we accept these writings or books, first in steed of the lively voice of the Prophets and Apostles: 1 Next, in place of the lively voice of God himself: 2 Thirdly, of the Scripture written with Gods own finger: 3 Fourthly and lastly, as that holy verity and divine mysteries 4 which are recorded in Gods own breast: which Oracles being simply without comparison of greatest antiquity, it is very manifest that the Prophetical and Apostolical scripture is after a sort most ancient. For what may be avouched of the lively voice of God himself, or of the Oracles of his mind, the same in some respect may be said of the scripture, supplying unto us their defect. For Substance of the scripture, simply most ancient. if I may truly say in some sort, the scripture is the lively voice of God himself, do I not as truly speak also in like manner, the scripture is most ancient, for as much as the voice of God is most ancient? But it shall suffice us to commend the antiquity of scripture, to consider the substance only of the scripture, which without all controversy is most ancient. But the very scripture and writing itself hath his excellency also, for that the scripture in respect of the very writing, is said to be given us also by divine inspiration. For there is not a jot or prick in the Scriptura, est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. very writing, which is not by the inspiration of God. Here the Adversaries take exception, and as else where often, so here they prefer their Church before the scripture, and they affirm the Church is more ancient than the scripture: For they say there was a Church two thousand A Popish objection. full years before Moses, the first writer of the scripture. And since Christ's coming the Church for many years wanted the scriptures. But that which hath been already written, and is aforesaid, can easily solve this objection: For if we understand by this word Scripture, not only the characters and books, but also that substance and matter contained in them (for we have the Prophets and Apostles speaking in the scriptures, & we have their lively voice, we have (I say) the lively voice of God himself, and the very express mind of God contained in them) if I say, we understand by this word that substance; it cannot them be denied, but the scripture is more ancient than the Church, which was borne not of mortal seed, but of immortal, even by the word of God, who liveth and endureth for ever, 1. Pet. 1. 23. I say (the premises well considered) it shall appear, the scripture is not only more ancient than the Church, but to be of greatest antiquity, and to have been with God from everlasting. But if by this word ye understand both the matter and writing; in this respect also, it shall be no disparagement to avouch it to be of greater antiquity than the Church; yea to be most ancient, as we have at large before showed. And thus far of the first property of the sacred scripture, and of the third controversy. CHAP. X. Of the second property of the sacred Scripture, where gins the fourth controversy. THe second property of the sacred scripture is opened sufficiently in a manner already, in the second controversy before handled. This property is this; that the Scripture is most clear in itself, and most easy to be understood: for it being the very word of God (which word every man must necessarily grant, to be in itself most clear, most manifest and most perspicuous, whether you respect the words or the matter contained in the words, if men will not offer extreme injury to God's holy Spirit:) assuredly it must follow (I say) that the holy scripture is in itself, and of itself, most clear and evident in every part, and in every respect. Of this great perspicuity of the scripture, the holy ghost testifieth often, Psal. 119. The word of the Lord is a lantern to my feet. Psal. 19 The precept of the Lord, saith the Psalmist, is clear, and enlighteneth the eyes. Prou. 6. The commandment is a lantern, and the law is a light. The Lord by the Prophet Esay, chap. 45. 19 saith, I have not spoken in secret: and 2. Pet. 1. 19 he saith, We have a most sure word of the Prophets, to the which ye do well that ye take heed, as to a light that shineth in a dark place. Wherefore the whole scripture, & all places of the scripture, are by themselves, and in themselves most manifest, most clear, and applied also to the capacity of the vulgar sort, and of the most unlettered among the people. For it is certain, that the Lord in the scriptures doth as it were lisp with us, Io. 3. 12. If I have spoken to you of earthly things, and you believe not, that is, I have spoken unto you, after an earthly and plain manner, and I have applied myself to your capacity, etc. I have avouched that the sacred scripture is in itself clear and easy: True it is, if ye respect men, as they are All the scripture clear and easy to the weakest believer. 1. Cor. 2. 14. men, that is, natural and carnal, the holy scripture unto such is altogether obscure and strange: For the natural man doth not conceive the things which appertain to the Spirit of God. But if ye consider the spiritual man, and such as be taught of God, I grant to such it is partly obscure, because they be as yet in part carnal: And for this cause the godly put up continually supplications unto God (as feeling the relics of their natural blindness and corruption) and making requests, that the eyes of their understanding might be opened, that they may behold the bright shining light of the scriptures, and of every place and portion of the scripture, being otherwise most evident in itself. All the religious and godly in their prayers are so far from laying any imputation of hardness and obscurity on God's word; that they do ever accuse & condemn themselves, and their own blindness and dullness. And albeit this be true, that all the scripture, and all places of the scripture be simply and in themselves most Note. clear and easy, and only dark and hard by reason of our corruption and blindness, yet this cannot be denied, but that some places of scripture be more clear in themselves, than others, more easy and more evident; as those scriptures, concerning faith and manners, which be so necessary unto salvation: they be (I say) so clearly set down, so often repeated, and in so many places expounded, that we need not many rules for interpretation, or to find out the knowledge of them. But these places also require the grace of God's holy spirit: for without him, spiritual things which be most perspicuous and evident, cannot be understood of any man on earth. Wherefore he that is ignorant of the most clear scriptures, which do so much concern his salvation, is altogether blind, and lieth as yet in the woeful state of perdition, for so the Apostle speaketh: If that the Gospel be hid, it is hidden to them that are lost, 2. Cor. 4. 3. 4. As for other scriptures which are more hard in appearance, for that they do not so much concern the necessary articles of faith, and rules of life and conversation, we may be ignorant of them without danger of faith and salvation: albeit the knowledge of such places might bring some light for the better understanding of the How to interpret & expound hard scriptures. scriptures, which of necessity must be known concerning faith and manners. And we may attain some tolerable interpretation of these scriptures, analogical unto faith, if we observe those rules of knowledge and interpretation, which are commonly recommended by the learned, ever making Gods holy spirit our first and principal guide for our inward illumination and instruction. The rules which follow this, are but the means which the holy Rules. Ghost useth; and they are borrowed partly out of the 1 holy scripture, as by conference of places of the scripture, 2 either the very same, or the like in sense and phrase: partly 3 from else where, as of the common places of divinity, 4 of the testimony of the Church, of the Grammar itself, 5 specially, the Hebrew and Greek: and good rules and 6 helps are had from Rhetoric and Logic; which teacheth us to consider not only of simple arguments set apart, 7 but also of the disposition and connexion of arguments, bound and knit together in Axioms or propositions, in syllogism and method. For Logic teacheth us the coherence of Antecedents and consequents, which serveth not a little for the unfolding and opening of hard places. And to pass over other things, some little insight in Ethics and Physics, etc. may give some help hereunto. But above all things we must remember to put up unto God contival and fervent prayers, to open and to enlighten our minds by his holy Spirit. If men observe these means for the interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures, and hard places of the Scripture, we shall not lightly err from the truth of God. Here fume the adversaries, and endeavour to prove by The drift of Papists in affirming the scriptures to be obscure. many arguments, that the Scriptures in themselves and of themselves are obscure, even in those places which are necessary, and appertain to salvation: to this end and purpose, forsooth, to withdraw men's minds from reading the Scriptures, that they may attend and trust to their dreams, and that they may obtrude their glosses on the Church, even what please them, & what for the most part they prefer before the text itself; writhing as it were, and drawing rather the text of Scripture to be their gloss, then giving any light of interpretation by or from the text itself. And here they contend against us with testimony, first, of the Scriptures themselves; next, of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church; & lastly, with arguments of their own: all which may easily be answered, if we observe well the grounds before set down. It shall suffice us now to hear only one or two of their arguments refuted. They demand, whether for these Scriptures now extant of the old and new Testament, we have no need of commentaries, which are now in the world very many, written by many men? I answer, that the divine Scriptures of themselves have no need of the comments and interpretations of men; for the Scriptures we account them to be the lively voice of God himself: and what is there that can make this voice of God more clear and evident in itself? Can either man or Angel speak any thing more clearly, than God himself? or doth God purposely affect obscurity? both which to avoch is very blasphemous. As for the Commentaries or expositions Commentaries, of the godly learned, which have spent some good time in the Scriptures of God, we grant they help the ignorant and the common sort very much, and that they serve well to dispel the clouds of our natural corruption. But this may seem a greater question and more doubtful, touching the preaching of God's word, and the expounding of the Scriptures, by Pastors and preachers in the public assemblies: whether preaching be not necessary, I mean the lively preaching of Pastors and teachers? I answer, the Scriptures of God, which we account as the lively voice of God, have no need of this means in themselves; I say, that God and his word in themselves need neither this preaching nor interpretation of the scriptures: But the necessity of the ministry and of preaching is only in respect of us, and of our blindness and ignorance, which be but as children, yea as infants in a manner, all the days we live on earth Ephe. 4. 1. Cor. 13. And when as we shall become men in the world to come, then shall we have need of no such ministery: for we shall rest contented (being filled with that The state of the elect in heaven. only light of God, and of Christ) without any further instruction of men or Angels. And thus far of the second property of the Scripture, and of the fourth controversy. CHAP. XI. Of the third property of the sacred Scripture, whereof ariseth the fift controversy. THE third property of the sacred Scripture is this, It is most * Simplicissima plain and pure, whether ye respect words or phrase: neither hath it any ambiguity or doubtfulness in it. This property differs from the former herein, for that whereas perspicuity extends itself, and concerns words and matter; this simplicity or plainness (as I may so speak) is of words only. This we avouch then, that the sacred Scripture is of itself most single and plain, void of all ambiguity, and Circumlocution by speech. amphibology, or that it containeth nothing doubtful in one place, which is not expressed in another, if there be any obscurity in it. For the word of the Lord and his spirit be ever single and sincere; neither doth God at any time speak to catch men with ambiguous and doubtful speeches, as do Devils and Sophisters; but to teach men his holy truth. For the spirit of truth leadeth us into all truth, Io. 16. 13. And the Scripture is given of God by inspiration, & is the very word of God, as is before showed: Wherefore if we will not offer God extreme injury, we must necessarily grant, that the Scripture in itself is most plain, and * If the scriptures seem doubtful, condemn thine own sin and corruption. simple in sense and signification. I say, the Scripture in itself is plain, as touching the sense: for if there be any ambiguity in any words of scripture, that diversity or darkness may not be imputed to the Scripture, but to the blindness and ignorance of men, even of such also which do not of any evil purpose of heart pervert the Scripture. For there be many which impiously wrest the same to the one side and the other; when as they know right well notwithstanding, the sense of the same Scripture is only one, plain and evident. To approve this plainness and simplicity of the Scriptures, first the Son of God himself, in his disputations against Satan and all his adversaries, borroweth hence his weapons, by his own example recommending the sacred scriptures to all men. Next after him the Apostles, and their successors, and the Fathers themselves have drawn their arguments from the sacred scriptures against Heretics, both for confirmation of truth and confutation of error. The adversaries here contend against this property of the sacred scripture, and they hold that that is doubtful, ambiguous, and blasphemously report, that it hath a nose A lutae instar. of wax, and may be turned here and there: For which cause they affirm it is the book of Heretics, & that of it spring heresies, and that all men seek to maintain their errors by it. But these blasphemies are easily answered, by that which is before showed. For this ambignitie, and flexiblenesse is not to be imputed to the scripture, which is given of God by divine inspiration, and serveth us in steed of Gods own voice: but must be ascribed either to the ignorance or malice, or malapertness of men, who either cannot apprehend the simple & true sense of scripture, or maliciously pervert and turn the same into a strange sense. Here they object, that the scripture is full of tropes, allegories, Ob. parables, words of divers significations, amphibological sentences, visions; all which have their ambiguity. I answer, that this matter may the better be cleared, we are to look a little more sound into it. The A. ambiguity which is contrary unto simplicity, being in the words and not in the matter: for the words are ambiguous, and not the matter: Let us reduce all ambiguity 5. Principal heads. which is in the words, unto 5. principal heads. For first there be simple or common words of divers acceptations: secondly, there be tropical or figurative words: thirdly, there be whole speeches or sentences, which carry a doubtful signification: four, there be allegorical speeches consisting of the continuation of tropes: fifthly, there be also typical words and sentences concerning types and figures. Of all these, this I say generally; that in all such places the holy Ghost hath but one only simple sense and meaning. For as touching words of divers significations, if any such words be found in scripture in the originals, Hebrew and Greek (as that can not be otherwise, but there must be such in the scriptures) first I say that such words have but one signification only in such places, and that the holy Ghost purposeth and intendeth, but one thing by them. For the holy Ghost desireth not to use any fallation or sophistication. Next I answer, that we may deprehend that one signification, and that one plain How to understand a doubtful word, Phrase or sentence in scripture. meaning of the word (we desire to find) either by the drift of the holy Ghost in that place or text, where any such word is; or by conference of other places of Scripture, where the like word is to be found; or by other Scriptures, expressing the same sense and matter in other words; or by observation of Grammatical accidents, accents, points or pricks, and such like. And where we find tropes and words borrowed and drawn from their proper and native signification in any text of scripture, I say that there such words are used by the holy ghost, purposely to express in a more significant and lively manner, but one sense and meaning. As where it is said (this is my body) by the Metonymy, which is in the word body, the spirit speaketh more significantly, then if he had said; This is a sign of my body: For by that metonymical phrase, the holy Ghost plainly avoucheth the sacramental union, which is of the sign and of the thing signified. Next I say, if the trope seem somewhat obscure and strange, that ye may find the signification of the same trope by a word of proper signification, either in the same scripture, or in some other scripture, where the like trope may be found. If ye meet in scripture with a sentence seeming ambiguous, A sentence in scripture seeming ambiguous first be well assured that God's spirit doth not purposely speak doubtfully, as sophisters do, but hath ever one single and plain meaning: but men do both give and receive an evil construction of the context, either ignorantly or maliciously. Next, I say, that other places of scripture do more clearly set forth the self same matter: Finally; if you find allegories in scripture, of them this I affirm, that first they serve for illustration: next, that they have but one signification or sense: and the same is either manifest and needeth no further exposition, or if it be obscure, it is more clearly expressed some where else in the scripture. And as for scriptures concerning types, I say of them also first, that they have but one signification, and A typical speech in scripture. signify types only, and not also the matters signified by them: next, that one very sense of the types is applied to signify another thing, that is, the body itself: for the types themselves carry in them the signification of the things signified, and shadowed by the types, and not the words themselves which are used to set forth the types: for in that history recorded, Gal. 4. this name Sarah signifieth Abraham's wife, that is, the type only: next the type signifieth the covenant, that is, the thing shadowed, figured, and signified by the type. And thus far of the third property and fift controversy. CHAP. XII. Of the Fourth property, and sixth controversy. THis we say also concerning the sacred scripture, that it is most effectual, most lively, and most vocal, sounding to every man an answer of all things necessary unto salvation. The life which here I understand, is not any fleshly or carnal life, as the life of man; but that spiritual life, as the life of God: and by a lively voice I mean, a spiritual voice, speaking not so much to the ear, as to the mind of man. For first if ye respect the substance of this divine revelation, this which I avouch, is without all controversy. For the scripture contains in it the word of God, which is lively & powerful, etc. Heb. 4. Next in respect of the form of the revelation thereof, that is, the very writing of God, this is evident in like manner; for it was given and written by divine inspiration: and whatsoever is of this kind, must necessarily be in itself both lively and spiritual. Again, this Scripture is unto us, if not the lively voice of God; yet certainly in stead thereof. For we have none other lively voice of God but this: for as for the voice of the Church, pastors and teachers in the Church, the same may err; neither may it properly be called the voice of God. The voice of God we must avouch of it, that it is a lively voice: ergo, etc. Thirdly, the very Scripture speaks of itself, as having a lively voice, as we may read, Rom. 9 The Scripture saith etc. Again, Esaias Scripture is said to cry concerning Israel, Rom. 9 27. Fourthly, so many as propound questions of any matter necessary to salvation, be sent to it: Esaie. S. Should not a people inquire at their God? from the living to the dead? Turn rather to the law & to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, there is no morning light in them. Again, the Son of God himself, so often as any propounded questions unto him of the law, of divorcement, of the Sabbath, of the Messias, of regeneration and of the resurrection, or how to attain eternal life: he always gave them answer out of the sacred Scripture, and ever he sends such as move any such doubts, unto the Scripture. How readest thou? saith he: and have ye not read? Have ye never read? How is it written? Again, the Apostles of Christ for all their assertions, bring proof and testimonies out of the old Testament. Apollo's was a man mighty in Scriptures, He strongly confuted publicly the jews, with great vehemency showing by the Scriptures, that jesus was that Christ, Act. 18. 24. 28. The men of Beraea received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Act. 17. 11. Thus the primitive Church, and the father's refuted heresies by the Scriptures. To conclude this point, most memorable is that worthy fact of Constantinus the Great, who propounding the Bible to the Fathers assembled in the Nicene council, spoke on this manner: Here I set before you the writings evangelical, of the Apostles, and the sanctions of the ancient Prophets, which can inform us concerning the sacred law of God. To beat back therefore the dint of the sword of the adversary, let us learn how to answer all objections of the adversary, out of the words which are given us of God by divine inspiration. Lastly, this I have said, that the Scripture is in itself lively and vocal: for as concerning deaf and dead men, that is, the natural never taught of God, unto such (I say) it is but as dead & mute. Here the adversaries blaspheme and reply, saying, that the sacred scripture is but as a dead letter, mute, and not able togive answer to any man, not able to decide questions and controversies in religion: And contrarily they glory that the voice of the Church, which proceeds from the Scripture (as they speak) which is in graven by Gods own Spirit in the hearts of men; they boast, I say, that this is vocal, and able to answer the demaunders of all questions appertaining to salvation, & that this cannot be wrested nor perverted, but ever abides the same in all respects. The answer to this calumniation and blasphemy, is clear of that which is before showed: for we made it clear and manifest, that the sacred Scripture is most lively and vocal in itself. And whereas controversies are not so soon decided by the Scriptures, the cause is not in God's word, but in men, which be either so naturally blind and dull, that they cannot hear & understand the Scripture, speaking, answering, yea crying in their ears: or they be so malicious and obstinate, that they will not hear and understand; yea that they will full often, against their own conscience, wrist the voice of the Scripture into another sense, and that to their own perdition. Wherefore we conclude this point, that the scripture is in itself, 2. Pet. 3. and by itself, most lively and vocal. And further we be to remember, that to the end it may speak as a lively voice unto us, and to the end we may understand it concerning all controversies in religion, we must use the means before mentioned, & our very Grammar Means to be used for the understanding of the scripture. is one special instrument for this purpose. For our eyes & ears are opened by such means to understand the Scripture, and to attend unto God's voice speaking in the scripture, if it shall seem good to the holy Ghost to work effectually by them in our hearts and minds. If so be that the spirit work effectually by the aforesaid means, than the Scripture shall answer to all controversies concerning faith and religion, with a more clear, lively, intelligible, and distinct voice, than all the men in the whole Church shall answer, who can avouch nothing sound and certain, unless first they have received it from the mouth of the Scripture, and answer in the very words of the scripture. For whereas these men say, the voice of the Church is lively, and vocal, heard of all men, and cannot be perverted and wrested: To this I answer first, that the voice of the Church, (as is aforesaid) doth depend on the voice of the scripture: Next, that the voice of the Church is subject to errors and change: so that they may this day answer one thing, and to morrow another: and this serves no better in a manner, than a Lesbian rule, to decide controversies concerning faith & religion. As for the church of Rome, they have so long and so corruptly answered concerning faith and religion, that they have carried the world from the truth to lies and errors, and infinite heresies: that there is now no cause wherefore these men may so put forth to sale, the voice and sound of their Church, which is become so corrupt and adulterous. CHAP. XIII. Of the fift property of the Church, and of the seventh controversy. NOw it resteth that we prove, that the sacred Scripture is simply most necessary. Here than I say, that if by Scripture ye understand the substance and the very matter contained in the words written, it cannot be denied that the scripture is so necessary, that without it there can be no Church in earth, for the church is borne and bred, not Fift property, Scripture is most necessary. of mortal, but of immortal seed, which is the word of God, 1. Pet. 1. 23. But if ye understand by the scripture, the very writing and form of revelation, I say, that in this respect also it is so necessary, that without this there cannot be a Church. For the lively voice of God is simply necessary: The scripture after a sort, is the lively voice of God: therefore simply necessary. I grant it, that when as the lively voice of God did sound, and was heard in the Church; this writing, and this form of revelation was not then so necessary: but when as God did cease to speak, and that the scripture came in place of Gods own voice; then the scripture was no less necessary, than the lively voice of God. For the voice of God must ever be in the Church, that the church may have her being, and may continue on the earth; yea this voice must be heard by the Church, either by itself, or by that which may best supply the want of the lively voice of God. Before Moses time, this voice itself was heard: after his time, this voice sounded and spoke in, and by the voice and writings of Moses, and the Prophets: When Christ was come, his own lively voice was heard: After Christ's ascension, for a time the 2. Cor. 5. 19 1. Pet. 2. 19 preaching of the Apostles, and the books of the old Testament were received for the lively voice of God himself, and of his son jesus Christ. Then followed the Apostolical Scripture, which together with the holy scripture of the old Testament continue in the Church, to supply not only the lively voice of the Apostles, but also of God, and of Christ himself. By the premises it is evident, that it is simply necessary at all times, that the lively voice of God sound ever in the Church of God, either by itself, or by this supply, which we now avouch to be only the sacred Scriptures of the old and new Testament. Wherefore we plainly conclude, the Scripture is most necessary. The Adversaries oppose themselves against this assertion, as against the former, and they deny that the scripture is simply necessary: it is necessary (say they) that is, it is profitable or commodious for the well being of a Church; but is not so necessary for the being; nor no such thing as without which the Church can have no being. And for this cause do these men deny the necessity of the Scripture, that they may open the door to their authority and traditions, that is, to their own dreams, which they say, be simply necessary, and prefer them before the scripture. They are easily answered by the rules before set down. For if by scripture they understand the substance of the scripture, it cannot be denied that the scripture is simply necessary: but if they understand not the substance only, but also the very writing; in this respect also, we have showed it by clear demonstration, that the scripture is simply necessary; for that it is unto us in place of the lively voice of God himself. Wherefore their assertion is false, howsoever they take this word Scripture either in this sense or the other. But they say, the Church wanted the scripture near two thousand years, all which time religion was preserved by tradition only: Therefore the Scripture is not simply necessary. I answer: If you understand by Scripture the very substance of the covenant, than your argument followeth not: for the substance of the scripture was in those very traditions, whereby the Church was edified and kept. But if by this word ye understand the very writing; then I grant the scripture was not extant so many years: and I say, that it was not then necessary, for that then the lively voice of God itself was heard. If they conclude, that because it was not then necessary, therefore it is not now necessary; or that it was not necessary, after that God had commanded it, and after that it began to be extant: surely the consequence is very evil: for as ages and times have changed, so divers forms of revelation were necessary. Or we may more briefly set down this controversy in this form. THe scripture is necessary not only for the well-being (as Popish Schoolmen speak) but also for the being of the Church: Et hactenus est simplex necessitas. And this necessity is in respect of time only: for there was not a necessity of the scripture in all ages; I understand The word written not necessary in all ages. Heb. 1. 1. 2. by the word Scripture, not only the substance of the written word, but also the manner or form of revelation: but this simple necessity must be avouched of the substance and form of revelation in divers respects. For the scripture as touching the substance of it, was necessary to the Church in all ages, but in respect of the manner of revealing the same, it was necessary for a certain time only, to wit, until it seemed good unto Almighty God to teach his church by the scripture. ARG. 1. For the Lord God had not given his Church the Scripture, if he had not thought it necessary ewm for the being of his Church. ARG. 2. The lively voice of God was necessary in the time appointed for it: ergo, the Scripture also is necessary in the time the Lord hath decreed for it: for there is but one and the same reason of both. ARG. 3. It is necessary that Gods will be revealed and communicated to the Church at all times in one form or other, either by Gods own lively voice, or by writing, or by both: but now the lively voice of God hath ceased: therefore now the word written is necessary. The adversaries deny this absolute necessity, moved hereunto with these arguments following. First, from Adam to Moses there was no Scripture: Ergo. I answer, the Lord God thought it not necessary for all that time. But when as the Lord himself began to write, and that the 2. Pet. 1. 18. 19 21. holy men of God were acted and moved by the holy Ghost, first Prophets, than Apostles; then the Scripture began to be necessary, & even simply necessary. ARG. 2. From Moses unto Christ, job and his friends both believed and were saved without the Scripture. I answer, It is most like these also read the scriptures; as may appear by the eunuchs story, Act. 8. Next, I answer, that so many as were called without the visible Church, God dealt with them in an extraordinary manner. ARG. 3. They did more attend the traditions of the Fathers than the written word, even in the second age. I answer, this is false. ARG. 4. In the third age there was no scripture of the new Testament extant for a long season. Ergo. I answer, the Apostolical scripture began not long after Christ: Next, all that time, I grant it was not necessary; but when the Apostles were dead, and when their lively voice ceased, then began it to be necessary. CHAP. XIIII. Of the sixth property of the Scripture, and the eight controversy. THE Scripture is perfect, containing in it all things necessary for faith and manners, not only sufficiently, but also abundantly: for this is the perfection which here we do avouch. The sense then of the Proposition is this: This kind of revelation contains all things, etc. The proof is this. Argument 1. The lively voice of God contained all articles or instructions concerning faith and manners: Ergo, so doth the Scripture. The reason of the argument is evident; for that nothing, in respect of substance, was spoken by that lively voice, which is not recorded in the Scripture. ARG. 2. If the Scripture contained not all things necessary perfectly, then evil were the condition of our Church, and of our time, which heareth not the lively voice of any man speaking by divine inspiration, nor of any prophet or Apostle. ARG. 3. The religious and such as be taught of God, have an holy experience of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and of the fullness of it. Add to these arguments these divine testimonies. Deut. 4. Ye shall not add to the word that I speak, etc. Revel. 22. If any shall add to these things, God shall Vers. 18. add unto him the plagues which are written in this book. Albeit these sayings are to be understood properly of particular books, yet the same reason serves for all books of the canonical scripture: and surely the reason binds more strongly: for if we may not add to particular books, how much less is it lawful to add to the whole Canon. Prou. 30. Thou shalt add nothing to his words: This seems to be understood of the whole Scripture. Matth. 28. Teaching to observe all things which I commanded you. Gal. 1. 8. If we or an Angel from heaven shall preach unto you another Gospel, or otherwise then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. joh. 20. These things are written that ye may believe, etc. And as for the judgement of the Adversaries in this matter, which affirm that the scripture is lame and maimed, chief note Bellarmine and his arguments for this purpose. They teach the scriptures to be defective and weak, that we might give place to their traditions and forgeries: wherefore let us a little consider this matter of Of Traditions. traditions. The word Tradition is general, and signifieth any doctrine written or unwritten: and so this word is used both in the sacred scriptures, and in the ancient Writers: albeit the Papists affirm that the Fathers use this word only to signify a doctrine not written. Testimonies of scripture which clear the general acceptation of the word, are these. Act. 6. 14. And shall change the ordinances which Moses * Quos nobis tradidit Moses: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. gave us, or which we had from Moses by tradition. 2. Thess. 2. 15. Keep the tradition or doctrine * Traditam doctrinam. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. delivered unto you, which ye were taught, either by word, or by our Epistle. The word tradition in Scripture is given other while to things ncessarie and continuing; and sometimes to things not necessary and temporary. The testimony which is 2. Thess. 2. vers. 15. is of necessary doctrine. The place which is cited out of the Acts, 16. 4. is of ceremonies: for here the Spirit speaketh of a decree of the Council holden at jerusalem concerning blood, and things offered to idols, and that which is strangled: Of which Act. 15. 28. As touching traditions which concern necessary points of faith & manners, they were first delivered by the lively voice of Christ & his Apostles: and then the short sum of them recorded in books, as may appear by that speech of the Apostle concerning the Lord's supper, 1. Cor. 11. 23. And again 1. Thess. 4. 2. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. where he giveth rules of an honest conversation. And again 2. Thess. 2. 15. And as touching traditions which be not necessary, but ceremonial, they were either recorded, as of Ecclesiastical rites, 1. Cor. 11. 14. or not recorded. 1. Cor. 11. 34. Other things will I set in order when I come. He promiseth here to set in order, but ceremonies, and namely such as did concern the Lord's supper. Of ceremonies, only this I will say, they did no way exceed, neither were Of Ceremonies. Good rules. they unprofitable, neither were they delivered with any 1 opinion of necessity to bind men's consciences, neither 2 were they contrary to those things which were written: 3 yea, this I avouch, that there was nothing delivered by way 4 of tradition; or touching ceremonies by the Apostles, which had not good ground & warrant in God's word, that is, in the books of the Prophets, and in the doctrine of Christ, which not long after was written by the Evangelists and Apostles. And as for Popish traditions Popish traditions and ceremonies. and ceremonies, there is no end of them; they are unprofitable; they are like old wives fables; all for the most part delivered with an opinion of necessity; and most of them most repugnant to the Apostolical doctrine. And thus do we distinguish traditions. The adversaries understand by Tradition, their unwritten verity, not that which is no where found written, but that which is not written by the first author thereof, that is, by him which delivered the same by his own lively voice. This then the Papists do here profess, that they cannot find their traditions in the Scriptures, nor prove them by the Scriptures. CHAP. XV. Of the seventh property, and ninth controversy. THE sacred scripture is the judge of all controversies: I mean such controversies, as are concerning religion. Now there be two principal controversies concerning religion; the first is of the scripture itself, who shall be judge here, or how it may be tried, that the scripture is the word of God. The second The judge of the scripture. is of the sense and interpretation of the scripture, who shall judge of that, or how it may appear that this, or that, is the very natural sense of the Scripture. I mean by judgement here a definitive sentence pronounced and given with such authority, as that all men must herein rest. By the word scripture, I mean not only the substance thereof, but also the form of revelation, which is also by divine inspiration. Again, this manner of speaking is improper, when we say of the scripture, that it is the judge of controversies. For to speak properly, the holy Ghost is the judge; for the judge must be a person, and the holy Ghost he is the third person in Trinity. The Scripture therefore is not properly said to be a judge: but it is the voice and sentence which the judge hath given the principal instrument or mean, whereby the spirit sets forth his judgement, & whereby he teacheth us, and worketh faith in our hearts. And the spirit here judgeth freely in and by whom he pleaseth, being not tied to any one kind of men, as Pastors & Doctors, but in and by whom it seemeth good to him. Here then three things must be considered of us: First, whether the holy ghost be a judge. Secondly, whether the scripture be his principal voice whereby he giveth First, whether the holy Ghost be a judge. sentence, or determineth any question. Thirdly, whether he judge in and by any man without difference or respect of persons, or be bound to one certain kind or sort of men. For the first question, I answer; the holy Ghost is a judge, first, for that he was promised of Christ Io 14. Math 28. Mar. 16. unto his church, at his last departure from the Apostles, & is given & as it were deputed Christ's vicar on earth, both to teach and to judge, etc. Secondly, for that among other offices of the holy Ghost, this is one, to judge. But because the adversaries do not much gainsay this assertion concerning Io. 16. God's spirit, that by him all things are to be judged and tried, and that by him the scriptures are to be interpreted, therefore we will be brief in this point. Now for the second point, that the holy scripture is the primary Secondly, that the holy scripture is the principal voice of the judge voice of this judge, judiciary, and proper to him, whereby he begets faith in our hearts; may appear by these reasons following. First, the scripture is the word of God. Secondly, it is most ancient. Thirdly, it is most clear or evident. To these I add the testimony of the scripture itself. joh. 14. 25. 26. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to * Suggeret. remembrance which I have told you. And hereunto may also be added the common experience of the Saints. There are other means to prove this, but less principal, among which the testimony of the Church is one. The adversaries withstand this conclusion, and infringe it, with these arguments. First the scripture is not written in men's hearts with the finger of God, neither is it the primary voice of God. Secondly, the scripture is of no antiquity. Thirdly, it is obscure. Fourthly, ambiguous, etc. Bellarmine adds more to these, of which ye may read in him. They conclude, that the voice of the Church is the principal and proper voice of the holy Ghost, as he is the judge of controversies. Their proof is this: The scripture is written in the heart of the Church with Gods own finger, & this is the primary voice of God: And whatsoever excellency we do ascribe to the scripture, that they attribute to their own Church, which is nothing else but a den of thieves. And that the spirit being this great judge, is not bound to one sort of men, as those of the Ecclesiastical function, the Pope and Counsels (as they speak) but doth perform this office without all respect of persons, in whom and by whom soever it seemeth good unto himself; this is manifest, first: for if the holy Ghost be not the judge both of the very context of the scripture, whether it be God's word, and of the interpretation of scripture; if he be not (I say) in man himself, assuredly there can be no faith. For the spirit only begetteth faith in man's heart. Secondly, the holy Ghost executeth his other offices freely in & by any man; therefore so may he this function of judging. What is meant by judging in the holy Ghost. For I demand, what else is it to judge, but to enlighten, & to teach that the scripture is given of God by inspiration, and that this is the natural sense of this scripture. Thirdly, the same we be taught by our experience: for we find it true by experience, that he doth freely judge in and by whom it pleaseth him. Testimonies of scripture prove also this assertion. 1. Cor. 12. 11: And all these things worketh even the self same spirit, distributing to every man severally as he will. And Esay, 54. All thy children shall be taught of God. jer. 31. I will write my laws in their hearts. The adversaries impugn this truth of God with some arguments of their own, of which ye may read in Bellarmine. And these men bind the holy Ghost to the Pope, and to counsels confirmed by him, which point our men impugn also & refute with many arguments, of which this is one: that of their conclusion, this must be the consequent, that the Pope and his counsels must be above the scriptures: which thing is absurd to be granted. See more arguments of this subject in their disputations. CHAP. XVI. Of the eight property, and the tenth controversy. LASTLY, we avouch that the sacred scripture is of highest authority, excellency and 10. Propertie. dignity on the earth. Here again by this word scripture, we understand both the substance of it, and the writing. And here we mean it hath such excellency, as makes it most worthy of credit, and whereby also it gains authority and estimation to the Church. For which cause the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3. 15. And it hath many other titles, which are given to it often in the scriptures. This is proved by the former demonstrations, as these: The scripture is the word of God, it is most perspicuous, it is most pure and simple, etc. Ergo. The adversaries vary in judgement touching this authority of Scripture: For some of them detract from this sovereign authority of it, affirming that of itself it is not authentical, but takes authority and estimation from the Church. Of this mind are these, Eckius in Enchiridio. Pighius in his book de Hierarchia, and one Hermannus an impudent Papist, he with a black mouth avoucheth it, that the scripture is of no more validity without the testimony of the Church, than Aesop's Fables, etc. Others, more late writers and more subtle, say, that the scripture hath authority in and by itself, and is authentical; but not to us, before the church approve it, and ascertain it to be so. Of this judgement be these: Bellarmine, Coclaeus, Canus, Stapleton, Canisius, etc. They which speak thus, that the written word of God is not authentical to us, before the judgement of the Church be manifested: these men (I say) have this meaning, that we be not bound to believe that the Scriptures be authentical, before the judgement of the Church be passed of it; and that we sin not at all, if we believe them not before the definitive sentence of the Church. But we hold this to be false also, to say that the scripture is not to us authentical, without the authority of the Church: For it is the holy Ghost that teacheth every man to know & believe that the scripture is authentical, and hath sovereign authority in itself. And this he teacheth, not by any external mean How the holy Ghost teacheth us what authority the scripture hath. first, but by the very sacred scripture, by which alone he properly breeds faith in our hearts to believe and apprehend this truth of God. And so we resting on this illumination of the holy ghost, teaching us by the scripture, that this is the excellency and authority of the scripture, do believe this to be so, albeit the whole world did oppose itself against us. And thus far of the more essential questions concerning scripture. CHAP. XVII. Questions more accidental concerning the holy Scripture: and first of the books wherein the same is contained. THE first question is concerning the books of holy scripture: These books are commonly called (for the excellency of them) The Bible. The Bible, as it is commonly received and carried in hands, contains in it two sorts of books: the first is of books Canonical: and the second is Apocryphal. Regular or Canonical books are such, as give rule and direction touching faith and manners. The books of Moses are the first Canon, or precedent sent from God, First Canon. which may not be judged or tried by any other external Canon whatsoever: For there was no book extant before the books of Moses. The authority of the writer so holy, and the evidence of the spirit so powerful, and the holiness of these books (to pass by other arguments) so great, hath gained these books this high estimation and authority in the Church. The books of the Prophets make up the second Canon: which be adjudged canonical Second Canon. by that external Canon of the Mosaical books, by which they were examined. Next, they were and are discerned (of such as be taught of God inwardly by the holy Ghost) by the great evidence of God's spirit which is manifested in them both in words and matter. The third Third Canon. Canon are the Apostolical books of the New Testament, which are adjudged and approved as Canonical, partly by the Canonical books of Moses, partly by the books of the Prophets, partly by the spiritual evidence they carry in themselves, which the Sons of God instructed by his holy spirit, can easily discern. The Canonical books of the Bible are either of the Old, or of the New Testament. The Canonical books of the Old Testament are these. 1. The 5. books of Moses. 2. joshua. 1. book. 3. The book of judges. 1. 4. Ruth. 1. book. 5. The books of Samuel. 2. 6. The books of Kings. 2. 7. The books of Chronicles. 2. 8. Ezra, 1. book. 9 Nehemias 1. book. 10. Hester. 1. book. 11. job. 1. book. 12. Psalms. 13. Proverbs. 14. Ecclesiastes. 15. The book of Canticles. 16. Esaiah. 17. jeremiah. 18. Ezechiel. 19 Daniel. 20. The twelve small Prophets. The Canonical books of the New Testament are these, which are commonly. received. 1. The Gospel according to S. Matthew. 2. The Gospel according to S. Mark. 3. The Gospel according to S. Luke. 4. The Gospel according to S. john. 5. The Acts of the Apost. 6. S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. 7. S. Paul's Epistles to the Cormthians. 2. 8. The Epistle to the Gal. 9 The Epistle to the Ephesians. 10 The Epistle to the Philippians. 11. The Epistle to the Colossians. 12. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. 2. 13. The Epistles to Timothy. 2. 14. The Epistle to Titus. 15. The Epistle to Philemon. 16. The Epistle to the Hebrues. 17. The Epistle of Saint james. 18. The Epistles of Saint Peter. 2. 19 The Epistles of Saint john. 3. 20. The Epistle of Saint jude. 21. The book of the Revelation of Saint john. And whereas some have doubted for a time of some of these books, as of the Epistle to the Hebrues, the Epistle of Saint james, the last of S. Peter, the 2. and 3. of S. john, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse: yet they were never utterly rejected, but for a time only doubted of, whether they might be accepted as Canonical. These Canonical books of the Old and New Testament were written by holy men, as they were moved by the holy Ghost, 2. Pet. 1. 21. And of these, some are called the Prophets, which wrote the books of the Old Testament, so called, because they were governed by the spirit of prophecy: Some be called Apostles, so called, because of their function, & these wrote the books of the New Testament. The books of the old & new Testament some have their writers names expressly set down, or noted by special characters or signs: some have no names at all annexed, whereby the holy Ghost would signify unto us, that these men were but instruments only, and not the very authors of such books: wherefore we be not so much to respect their names, nor so busily to inquire after them, if they be not expressed. Thus far of the Canonical books. Now as concerning the Apocryphal books: they be so called, because the Church would have them kept hid, and not to be read or taught publicly in the Churches; the private reading of them was only permitted. The Apocryphal books are such as were found only annexed to the old Testament, and they be eleven in number. 1 judith. 2 Tobit. 3 Esdras third & fourth book. 4 The Wisdom of * falsely so called. Solomon. 5 Ecclesiasticus. 6 Baruch. 7 The Epistle of jeremiah. Apocryphal books. 8 Additions to Daniel. 9 The Prayer of Manasses. 10 The two books of Maccabees. 11 The supplement of Hester, from the third ver. of the tenth chap. Among these some there are, which the very adversaries account to be Apocryphal. First, the prayer of Manasses. Secondly, the third and fourth book of Esdras. Thirdly, the third and fourth book of Maccabees, whereof Athanasius maketh mention in his Synopsis. But we are to prove, that all these before named, be Apocryphal. The first Argument is from the Writers: All the Canonical books of the old Testament were written by the Prophets: But these were not written by the Prophets: Therefore they be not Canonical, but Apocryphal. I prove the Proposition, Luk. 16. They have Moses and the Prophets, that is, the books of Moses and the Prophets. Luke 24. 27. of Christ it is written, that he began at Moses and at all the prophets, and interpreted unto them in all the Scriptures, the things which were written of him: Therefore Moses and the Prophets were the writers of the old Testament. To the Rom. 16. He calls the scriptures of the old Testament, the Prophetical Scriptures. And 2. Pet. 1. 19 The most sure word of the Prophets. And for the assumption: But these were not written by the Prophets, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I prove it: Malachi was the last of the prophets: and between Malachi and john the Baptist there arose no prophet. But these books were written after Malachies' time, and this cannot be denied of some, as of Ecclesiasticus, & the books of the Maccabees: Ergo. 2. ARG. This is from the language wherein all the canonical Scriptures were written. They were written (I say) in the language of Canaan, in the Hebrew tongue, which was the speech of the Prophets, wherein they wrote their prophecies: But these books be not written in the Hebrew tongue, but all for the most part in Greek: therefore our proposition or assertion is manifest. The Assumption is evident, that I shall not need to cite either the testimony of the Fathers, or the adversaries own confession. ARG. 3. is from the testimony of the old Church of the jews. If these books were Canonical, the old Hebrues had heard some thing of them: But they never heard of them: Therefore they be not Canonical. The Proposition is clear: I prove the Assumption. In ezra's time all the canonical books were gathered into one volume; and the jews care was such of them, that they numbered all the letters which were found in the Prophets, & set down the sum of them: how much more would they have had care of these whole books, if they had heard of them. The 4. ARG. is from the testimony of the late Church of the jews, which was in Christ's time. If these books were canonical, than the latter Rabbins or jewish Writers would have accepted them: but they did not receive them, but reject them: Therefore they be not canonical. I prove the Proposition: For out of all question, if they had not received the Canonical books, Christ would have taxed them for it, for that he so reprehends them for their sinister and false interpretations of the Canonical Scriptures. The Adversaries grant the Assumption. The 5. ARG. is from the testimony of Christ and his Apostles. If these before named books were canonical, then Christ and his Apostles would have cited them somewhere for confirmation of their doctrines: but that can never be found they did, no not in all the new Testament: therefore they be not Canonical. The proposition is manifest: The matter itself will make sure the Assumption. The 6. ARG. These Apocryphal books contain some things differing from the canonical scriptures, some things contrary, some things false, some things fabulous, and some things impious: Therefore these books be not canonical. I prove the Antecedent. Tobit. 3. 8. and 3. 25. 5. 15. and 11. 12. judith 8. 6. and 9 2. and 9 13. and 16. 8. Baruch 6. 2. the Additions of Daniel 13. 1. and 14. 32. the Additions to Hester 15. 1. 2 Mach. 2. 1. 7. 8. 27. and 12. 43. and 14. 37. and 15. 39 The 7. ARG. These books contain contrarieties, and points repugning one another. Confer 1. Mach. 6. 8. with 2. Mach. 1. 16. and 2. Mach. 9 5. Confer 1. Mach. 9 3. and 2. Machab. 10. 1. Confer 1. Machab. 4. 36. and 2. Mach. 10. 1. Confer 1. Mach. 6. 17. and 2. Mach. 10. 11. The 8. ARG. is taken from an human testimony, first, of Counsels: secondly, of Fathers; the ancient first, next, the latter writers. The Counsels which give canons touching the canonical books, and the Apocryphal, are these for the most part: The Laodicen Council, which was held in the year after Christ's incarnation 300. The 3. Council of Carthage in the year 400. The Trullan in the year 600. The Florentine in the year 1150. The Tridentine in our age. Of these we may reason thus: The Laodicen Council (the most ancient here numbered) rejects these books as Apocryphal: See the 59 Canon of that Council: Ergo. But the adversaries object here: that at this time before the third Council of Carthage, the canonical books were not distinctly known. I answer, first, that this council was not held till four hundred years after Christ: but it is absurd to say, that there was no Canon known, or that the canonical books were not discerned till this time. Ergo. Secondly, I answer, that Council was not general, but provincial: But a provincial Council may not prescribe any canon for the Catholic Church: Ergo. But, they say, this Council was confirmed by that of Trullan. I answer, that the Laodicen Council also was approved by this: and that the Trullan Council is rejected by the Papists themselves in many things. Thus far of Counsels: now for the ancient Fathers: they also did reject these books, as Apocryphal: Ergo. I prove this by an induction. 1. Athanasius in his Synopsis. 2. Cyril of jerusalem. 3. Hilary Bishop of Pictavia. 4. Melito bishop of Sardinia. 5. Nazianzen in his poem. 6. Hierom in his prologo Galeato, which is prefixed before the books of Kings. 7. Gregory the Great. 8. joseph against Appian. 9 Ruffin in the exposition of the Symbol Apostolical. 10. Augustine. The adversaries here except, saying: But these men have spoken of the canon of the old Testament of the Hebrues (say they) & not of Christians? I answer first, as if the Hebrues had one canon & the Christians another? Secondly, they did approve that very canon of the Hebrues. But it may be (say they) that then peradventure there was no Canon known or determined of by the Church. I answer, and I demand then, when was this decreed? and in what Council? was this done in the Council of Trent? but this is too late, for this Council was even in our age. Was it decreed in the Florentine Council? that is but little elder. Was this Canon agreed upon in the third Council of Carthage? But that Council, 1. was but provincial. 2. and this is rejected of the very Papists themselves in some things, as in the canon of the high Priest, which in number is the 26. They will say, this Council was confirmed by the Trullan Council. I answer. 1. So was the Laodicen. 2. So the canon was concluded or established later, to wit, in the year of Christ 400. 3. The Trullan Council is rejected in many things of the very Papists. 4. After the Trullan Council there were Fathers which would not receive the Apocryphal books. And so now let us come to the second class of Fathers, that is, to the latter Writers. Hear than I reason thus: The late Writers do not reckon these books among the Canonical: Ergo. This I prove by an induction. * Lib. de Officiis. Isidore, john Damascen, Nicephorus, Leontius, Rabanus Maurus, Radulphus, Lyranus, Carthusianus, Abulensis, Antoninus, Hugo Cardinalis, Erasmus in some of his writings, Cardinal Caietanus. All these were after the Trullan Council; yea some of them were reputed for sons by the Church of Rome after the Florentine Council. By these testimonies first of Counsels; next, of Fathers, it is evident, that none of these books was accepted for Canonical in any lawful judgement: for if there had been any such matter, so many ancient and late Writers would no doubt have so acknowledged. Wherefore these books are Apocryphal, and so to be accounted. The adversaries for their defence allege also human testimonies, and this in a manner is all they can say: They cite the Counsels before named, as the third of Carthage, the Trullan, Florentine, and the Council of Trent. But we reject the two latter as tyrannical, and congregate purposely to oppress the truth and light of God. And touching the Trullan, and the third Council of Carthage, we have set down our judgement. And as for Fathers, they bring forth for this matter principally the Popes themselves, as Pope Innocentius, and Gelasius, and Augustine in some place. But I answer, that they cannot bring so many as we can, nor so ancient for themselves. Secondly, when these Fathers, which they name, call these books canonical, which we reject as Apocryphal, they take the name of Canonical books, more largely than we, to wit, for books which have some such sanctity, as in profane Writers cannot be found; and they call them so, not for that they mean that they are of like authority with the Canonical books of Scripture. And we deny not, but that in many of these such holiness may appear, as cannot be found in the books of profane authors. And thus far of the Apocryphal books. CHAP. XVIII. Of the authentical Edition of the Bible. WHereas there be extant many Editions of the Bible in divers languages, as the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, & other proper tongues, it is a question which of these must be reputed for authentical? I answer, the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the new Testament, is authentical; & so must be accounted: so that all things are to be determined by these, & all other editions must be approved so far as they agree with these. We will therefore first speak of the Hebrew edition of the old Testament: we avouch then, that the Hebrew edition of the old testament is authentical. This proposition shall have his confirmation, after we have given a short preface touching the Hebrew tongue, and the writing of the old testament in that language, and the preservation of these books of the old testament, written in the Hebrew tongue to this day. The Hebrew tongue was the first, and the * The Hebrew tongue only before the flood. Gen. 11. 1. only language on earth to the flood, and to the building of the tower of Babel, Gen. 11. 1. 9 The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech, or * Et verba erant eadem. had the same words. At the building of Babel began the confusion of languages, and from the Hebrew, as from the mother of all the rest, all other tongues had their first beginning: for all other languages are nothing else in a manner, but as Dialects to the The Hebrew tongue mother of all the rest. Hebrew tongue, of which some resemble their mother more than other: some be more estranged from her. In that confusion of tongues, the Hebrew was preserved as the womb or mother (as Hierome speaketh) of all the rest; this was preserved (I say) in the family of Heber, who was the fourth from Noah, and lived that very time Heber's family kept the Hebrew tongue. that the tower of Babel was built, and when the confusision of languages began. The Hebrew tongue then was so called first of Heber, & from him it came to his posterity, not to all, but to them only of whom came Abraham: and from him continued to the very last of all the Prophets: for Haggai, Zacharias & Malachi wrote their prophecies in this very language. Thus far of the Hebrew tongue. The old testament was written first in this Hebrew and holy tongue. The first writer was Moses: the prophets The old testament written in Hebrew. followed him: of whom some wrote before the captivity; some in the captivity; some after the captivity: and they writ all in Hebrew, except Daniel and Ezra, which wrote some things in the Chaldee tongue. And this letteth not but that we may say, that all the old testament was written in the Hebrew tongue, for that the Chaldee and Hebrew have no great diversity. Now to speak of the preservation of these books of the old Testament: the books of Moses & the prophets, that is, the old Testament written in Hebrew, was kept by the admirable providence of almighty God unto this day. They were preserved (I say) in most perilous & hard times, as in the burning of the city and of the temple of The admirable providence of God in the preservation of the Bible. jerusalem, in the captivity, & in that most grievous persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes: for he raged also against these very books; & in the great persecutions which were after Christ, under the Roman Emperors. But here it is demanded, whether the same very books which were written by Moses & the Prophets before the captivity, be come into our hands? I answer, for this matter, divers men have thought diversly. For there were that thought, that those books which Moses & the prophets left, were lost when the temple and the city were destroyed with fire, and that these which we have, were repaired and written over again by Ezra the Scribe, inspired by God, & called extraordinarily for this purpose. Of this judgement are these, a Epist. ad Chilonem. Basil, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, b Lib. de Offic. Isidorus, Rabanus Maurus, Leontius. It may be they were thus minded, because of that story or fable rather, which we may read Esdras 4. 14. But that book is Apocryphal, and rejected not only of our Church, but also of the Church of Rome. The point may be thus refuted. If Ezra had written over these books again, then assuredly it is most like, that he would have written them, not in the Hebrew, but in the Chaldee tongue, or in a mixed language of Hebrew and Chaldee together: for that Ezra did write two books in that mixed manner, even those two books of Esdras. Secondly, Nehem. 8. Ezra is said to have brought forth, and to have read, not his own books, or books which he had written, but the books of the law of Moses. Thirdly, it is not like, but some godly man, or Prophet, or some other was left, which in that time of the fire, preserved these sacred books, or kept some copy of them: & the rather, for that than, out of all doubt, Ezechiel & Daniel the prophets lived. 4. The very name which Daniel gives to the Chaldee monarchy (calling it the golden empire) doth argue that this did not so rage against the sacred books of God: for if this monarchy had laid such violent hands on God's books, assuredly the holy Ghost would not have given it a name of such excellency. Therefore that assertion is false: and the contrary is true, to wit, that the books of Moses & the old Prophets were preserved from danger, when the Temple and the City were consumed with fire, as also in the captivity, and so be reserved by divine providence, and so delivered by Gods own hand at last into our possessions. Neither yet do we gainsay, what the godly have recorded, that is, that Ezra after the captivity, did revise the books of Moses and the Prophets, digested them into one volume, and set them down in this certain order. Thus far of this question. Now it resteth, after the premises, that we prove the Hebrew edition of the old Testament to be only authentical. That edition which was written in the first language that ever was, and first in the primary language, and hath been preserved in that tongue, purely & fully, even unto our times; I say, that edition of the old Testament is authentical: But such is the Hebrew edition: Ergo. The adversaries cannot deny, but that it was written, in the first language and mother tongue, and also that it was first written in it; and they cannot deny, but that it was preserved in some purity even unto this day: but they will not grant, or allow it this excellency of sincerity and purity which we avouch. Bellarmine hath observed out of all the old Testament, 5. places only, whereby he would prove that the Hebrew fountain hath lost some part of this purity. The first place is Esay, 9 6. And he Vajikra Schemo Pele. shall call his name (to wit, the Lord) Wonderful. But the vulgar Latin readeth, and he shall be called, which reading Caluin approveth: And therefore by Caluins' confession, here the Hebrew fountain itself is not clear. I answer first; the sense is the same, whether ye read shall call or shall be called. Secondly, the letters are the same in both words in the Hebrew, shall call, and shall be called, the Vajikra. points being divers do not make the body of the word to be of divers significations. Thirdly, the Hebrew Doctors, as Uatablus, say often, that with the Hebrues a verb personal of the third person, is taken for an impersonal, as here, shall call, for shallbe called. Fourthly, Tremelius and junius retain the Hebrew reading, and say thus, and he doth call his name, etc. The second place is jer. 23. 6. And this his name, wherewith he shall call him, the Lord our righteousness: But the vulgar Vezeh Schemo asher jikreo, jehovah Tsidkenu. Latin edition saith, that they shall call him, the Lord our righteousness: and this translation also Caluin approveth: Therefore by Caluins' testimony, the very Hebrew text is here corrupted. I answer, the sense shall not the greatly unfitting, if ye read whereby he shall call him, to wit, the Lord our righteousness: The name going before is the name of a people of security, of a people that dwell safely, as Tremelius and junius understand and read the place. Thirdly, jeremy leaves it to our free choice▪ Fourthly, the Hebrew Doctors Vatable, Pagnine, Arias Montanus, read vocabit, he shall call; and yet turn the word, vocabunt, they shall call. The third place is in the 22. Psalm. 17. ver. They pierced Caari jaddai Veraglai. my hands and my feet. In the Latin edition it is, Foderunt, they digged or pierced, and so read all Christians; but the Hebrew is, Sicut Leo, as a Lion: Wherefore in this place the Hebrew text is corrupted. I answer, the Masorites testify that they have read in some Hebrew copies Caru, which signifieth to dig into or to pierce. They also which have the word Caari in their books, say it is not to be taken here in Caari. the proper and common signification. The Chaldee Paraphrast doth knit both particles together: As a Lion smites with his teeth, so have these pierced, etc. But these were before jerom, I mean the Masorites, and the Chaldee Paraphraste: therefore it is false, that this place was corrupted by the jews after jeroms time. jerom in his Psalter keeps this reading Caari, and yet he translates the word, foderunt, they digged or pierced. Lastly, a certain Popish writer one Augustine justinianus, who set forth the book of Psal. coliected of many languages, doth plainly avouch it, this place is not corrupted, but that there is a defect of a word which the Chaldee Paraphrast hath supplied. The fourth place is Psal. 19 5. Their line is gone forth Becol haarets iatsa kawam. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. through all the earth. Here not only the vulgar, but the Septuagint also, whom the Apostle to the Rom. 10. followeth, do read, their sound is gone etc. therefore this place is corrupted. Let Genebrard alone answer this in his observations on the Psalms, who saith, the Septuagint and Paul, did rather express the sense of the word, than the proper and natural▪ signification thereof. The fift place is, Exo. 2. after the 22. ver. in the vulgar Latin edition, all this place is read of a second son of Moses. And she bore a second, whose name he called Eliezer, saying, the God of my Father is my helper, and hath delivered me from Pharaohs hand. But all this place is not to be found in the Hebrew text: Ergo. To this I answer: the very Louvain editions have here their marginal note, to put us in mind that this place hath crept into the text, and the better sort of the Papists are of this judgement, that this place is not the natural or very text of God's word, as Caietanus, who writes of this place in this manner: All this clause of a second son is superfluous. Wherefore Bellarmine can not conclude by these places, that the Hebrew edition is corrupt, and therefore is not authentical. I shall conclude contrarily with this one argument, that the Hebrew edition is not corrupt: If the jews corrupted it, it was before Christ or after: But not before Christ; which point (to pass by all testimonies of ancients) The jews before Christ did not corrupt the Hebrew: Christ is witness, and so the apostle, Rom. 3. 1. I make evident with this one reason. If the jews had corrupted the Hebrew text, Christ would have texed them for so horrible an offence: But we never find that Christ so chargeth them for any such cause: but contrarily, we read that he sends them to that very Hebrew edition, which they had in their hands: Search the scriptures, saith he, Io. 5. 39 The Scripture was not corrupted after Christ's time: which assertion I prove (to pass by the authority of ancients) with this one argument. The jews could not corrupt all the Hebrew copies, albeit they were never so willing to effect it, for that they were now for the most part come to the hands of Christians. Hence it followeth, that if the Hebrew text was not corrupted neither before Christ's time, nor after his coming; then was it not corrupted at all. But happily they will say, that the jews corrupted it after Augustine and Ieromes The jews could not corrupt the Hebrew after Christ's coming time? I answer, in what places? For as touching Bellarmine's 5. places, we have already showed, that both in jeroms time and before, these places were thus read, as we read them this day. Wherefore we conclude, the Hebrew edition is most pure, and consequently in the old Testament, this edition only is authentical. CHAP. XIX. Of the Greek edition of the New Testament. WHereas there be many editions of the new Testament, we say the Greek only is the authentical: which first I demonstrate on this manner. First in Christ's time and the Apostles, the Greek tongue among the Gentiles was of greatest excellency. Secondly, and as it was accounted of best note; so was it most famous and most common in the world: For albeit as then the Roman Empire was most large & great; yet the Latin tongue was not so common, as is testified by a good * Cicero in oratione pro Archiae poëta. writer of that age. Thirdly, the Idolatry and superstition of the Gentiles, and all the Philosophy of the Greeks was written in the Greek tongue. The Lord having these and such like respects, no doubt, at what time it pleased him to carry his Gospel from the narrow bounds of jewrie into the great and spacious field of all the world: It was the Lords will and pleasure, I say, at that time that the Gospel should be written principally in the Greek tongue. The writers they were, some of them, Apostles; some Evangelists; all which first wrote in Greek, except Matthew and the author to the Hebrues. For first concerning Matthew, a In Synopsi. Athanasius saith, he wrote first in Hebrew; the same saith b Lib. 3. Irenaeus, & c Incarmine. Naztanzen and jerom, d In Praefat. in 4. evang. ad Damas'. et in Catalogue. in Math. who saith that Matthew first in Hebrew. in his time Mathews Hebrew copy was reserved in the library of Cesaria which Pamphilus the Martyr built. Athanasius saith, that Saint Mathews Hebrew edition was translated into Greek by james the Apostle: others say, by Saint john the Apostle: others by Matthew himself. Thus writ the Fathers, but their assertion hath no strong grounds. For when Christ lived with his Apostles, all the jews spoke Syriack, that is, a language mixed of Hebrew & Chaldaiack: Therefore if Matthew had purposed to write in any other language but the Greek, he would no doubt have written specially in the Syriack tongue, and some Papists of this age are of the very same judgement. Wherefore it is uncertain whether Matthew first wrote in Hebrew, Syriack, or Greek: yet is it more probable that he did first write in Greek, both for that this tongue was not unknown to the jews; and other Apostles first wrote in it, not only to jews and Gentiles indifferently, but also particularly to the very jews * As Saint james and Saint Peter 1. Epist. Matthew in Hebrew. In Catolog. in Paul. . Well, howsoever it is, the Greek edition which we have in the Church at this day, is authentical; for that it was both written and approved, while the Apostles were yet living: For as touching the Hebrew edition (if there were any) I doubt now, it can no where be found. And as for this Hebrew copy which is in many hands, it is not the true copy. As concerning the Epistle to the Hebrues, jerom saith, that first it was written in Hebrew: next, turned into Greek either by Barnabas, or Luke, or Clement: but it is uncertain, and it is more like to be true that this Epistle also was first written in Greek. Howsoever it be, this Greek edition of this Epistle which we have at this day, is authentical. Now the New Testament written in Greek by the Apostles and Evangelists, hath been so preserved by the admirable providence of God, even in the midst of persecutions and heresies, unto this age, and in all former ages so freed and kept by godly and Orthodoxal writers from the corruption of Heretics: the Lord God, I say, hath so provided that it is come into our hands most pure and perfect. Thus than I reason. That edition of the New Testament which was written in the best language and first, and originally written in it, to wit, the Greek, I say the same must be accepted, as authentical of all men: But such is the Greek edition of the New Testament, Ergo. The adversaries except only against the purity of this edition. For albeit some of them, the latter, and the better learned, as Bellarmine, do not say that the Greek edition of the New Testament is altogether corrupt, as some of them have blasphemed; yet they say it is not so pure, that they can grant it to be authentical, because in some places it is corrupt. Bellarmine brings forth seven places, whereby he endeavours to prove this assertion, that the Greek edition is corrupt; and therefore cannot be authentical. The first place is 1. Cor. 15. 47. The first man is of the earth earthly; the second man is the Lord from heaven. But in the vulgar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Latin edition, it is, the second is from heaven heavenly; & this reading is approved: therefore the Greek edition is corrupt and not authentical. I answer, first, albeit we read as the Greek is; yet the sense is good and orthodoxal, and the same with that which is of the vulgar reading, differing in word only, and not in matter. Secondly, the Arabic and Syriack translation so read the place. Thirdly, the Fathers, Chrysostome and Theophylact so read. Fourthly, Epiphanius citing * Haereseon. 22. 2 all the places which Martion corrupted, yet remembers not this place. But (saith he) Tertullian saith, that Martion * Tert. lib. 5. contra Mar. hath corrupted this place. I answer, that Tertullian in that book and place, reads these words in the very same manner, as we do: The Lord from heaven. The second place is 1. Cor. 7. 33. He that is married careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. wife and the Virgin are distinctly set down. So reads the Greek. But the Vulgar thus: He that is joined to a wife careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided: but the woman that is unmarried, and the Virgin bethinketh of the things which please the Lord both in body and spirit: Wherefore the Greek edition is here corrupted, and so can not be authentical. I answer. First, that the sense which is by the Greek, is not only sound, but also more fitting in this place, then that which is by the Vulgar translation. Secondly, the Syriack translation so reads these words. Thirdly, Theophylact, the Greek Scholies, and Basil so read the words. But he saith that jerom * Lib. 1. contra jovinan. avoucheth it, that this Greek reading is not Apostolical: I answer, the same Ierom in another place * Contra Heluidium & Eustochium. reads these words as we do: wherefore seeing he changeth his mind, he is not fit to judge for this scripture. The third place is Ro. 12. 11. serving the time: But the old Latin is, serving the Lord: Ergo. I answer. First, albeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ye read so the place, yet the sense is good and sound. Secondly, the reading varies in many Greek copies, as witnesseth Origens' Interpreter, who reads the Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he noteth it, that in many books he found, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the time: the same saith Ambrose, who reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, serving the time, yet saith he in some books we find, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord. Thirdly, the Syriack, Chrysostome, Theophylact and Basil read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord: which reading we best like: For which cause our Beza translates the word, Domino, the Lord. The fourth place is joh. 8. where in the beginning of that Chap. many Greek copies want the story of the adulterous woman, which the common translation in Latin hath, & the Church approves it as canonical. I answer: First, that our Greek books which we have and hold for authentical, have this history also, and our Church receives it. Secondly, yet we deny not, that this hath been gainsaid by some, and the Syriac translation hath it not. The fift place is Mark. 16. where, in many Greek copies, that whole chapter is wanting, which notwithstanding the Latin edition retaineth. Ergo. I answer, first, that all our Greek books, which we account authentical, have also this chapter, and our churches receive the same as canonical. Secondly, Jerome somewhere moves some doubttouching it, but to no purpose. The sixth place is 1. joh. 5. 7. where the seventh verse (which contains a worthy testimony of the Trinity) in many Greek copies is missing, but in the vulgar it is retained: Ergo. I answer, first, our Greek books, which we hold for authentical, have this verse, and our Church receives it. Secondly, we deny not but some have gainsaid it. The seventh place is, Matth. 13. For thine is the kingdom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. power and glory, Amen. But this place is not in the vulgar translation: Ergo. L. Valla answereth, this place is not added to the Greek, but detracted from the Latin: and I pray you, what heretical or unsound matter hath this place? Thus we see then the▪ adversaries cannot prove by these places, that the Greek edition of the new Testament is corrupted, and so not authentical. Wherefore it resteth, that the Hebrew edition of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new Testament, is only authentical. CHAP. XX. Of the Translations of the old Testament. NOw it resteth that we speak of the Translations of the old and new Testament. And first, of the translations of the old Testament. The old Testament was first written in Hebrew, and afterwards translated into divers languages, specially the Chaldee, and Greek: First concerning the Chaldiacke translation; next, of the Greek: and for the Chaldiack, we be to consider first, what manner of translation it is: Secondly, by whom this was done: Thirdly, what authority this hath. For the first, the Chaldiacke translation is rather a Paraphrase, than a translation word for word. The Rabbins call this Authors of the Chaldee paraphrase. paraphrase the Targum. For the second point, by whom this Paraphrase was set forth: Rabbi Aquila translated the * Five books of Moses. Pentateuch, and this they call Onkelos: the rest of the books of the old testament were translated, partly by Rabbi jonathan, partly by Rabbi joseph * blind. Caecus: they lived not long before Christ, or about Christ's time. For the third point: The Chaldee paraphrase with the Ancients was ever of great note and authority, specially that part of the Pentateuch: for as for the rest of this Paraphrase, one * Praefat. in Biblia complu. tensia. Ximenius a Cardinal avoucheth it to be full of jewish fables, and of the vain conceits of the Thalmudists. And thus far briefly of the Chaldee paraphrase. Now touching the Greek translation of the old testament: there were divers translations of it into the Greek tongue. Some number nine translations. Of these the first and principal is that of the Septuagint, which those 72. Ancients did at the appointment of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus: for whereas * Lib. stromat. Clemens Alexandrinus writeth, that the Scripture was translated long before into Greek, and that Plato had read the same, it is not like to be true: for neither Plato, nor any of Pythagoras' sect ever saw the sacred Scriptures. To speak then of the interpretation of the seventy interpreters, and to bind ourselves to certain questions, six in number: the first may be this, whether there was ever any Greek translation set forth by the 72. interpreters. Secondly, if there were any, when it was done. Thirdly, of what books. Fourthly, how this was done. Fiftly, what authority this translation is of. Sixtly, whether this be the true translation of the 72. Interpreters which we have at this day? For the first question, the answer is easy: for there is no doubt but that there was a Greek translation by the 72. interpreters, for that all antiquity accords to this. This is testified by a Lib. de mensuris & ponderib. Epiphanius, b De praeparat. euangel. Eusebius, c In dialog. cum Tryphone. justin Martyr, with many others. And as for the second question, the answer also to it is easy,: for all men do agree that this translation was done in the reign, and at the appointment of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus: this writ and avouch these men, joseph, Philo, d In Synopsi. Athanasius, Epiphanius, Tertullian, e In historia sua de hacipsare. Aristaeus, and many others. And for the third question, what books were translated by them, the answer is not so easy: for some think they translated but the five books of Moses only. Of this mind is f In pro●●io antiq. joseph, and Jerome seems to incline this way. Others say, they translated all the Scripture: and this is likest to be true: For first it is not like that king Ptolemy could have contented himself with the Pentateuch only. Secondly, the Apostles of Christ used the Greek translation in citing testimonies out of the prophets: but in the Apostles time there was none other translation, but that of the Septuagints. Thirdly, there had been no matter of admiration, in that this work was done with such expedition (if the Pentateuch only had been translated) and finished in the space of 72. days: for they say his translation was miraculous. Fourthly, Chrysostome and Theodoret, among the Fathers, are of this judgement: Wherefore it is best we hold this as most probable, that all the old Testament was translated by them. And as for the fift question, what authority this translation had? Hereunto men answer diversly. For some ascribe too much to it, as * In lib. de mensuris & ponderib. Epiphanius, who saith, they were not interpreters only, but in a manner Prophets. Augustine is too much in the commendation of it, he saith; It was done by a special dispensation of God, and thinks it to be set forth by divine inspiration. Others ascribe not so much to it: * In praefat. in Pentateuchon. Jerome saith against Epiphanius, they were no prophets. And often in his Commentaries, he taxeth it not only as corrupted, but as very faulty in itself, which thing he would never have done, if he had thought this work had been done by divine inspiration. What authority soever this translation is of, assuredly it can have no more, then what may, by good right, be given to an interpretation: for we may not avouch it to be given by the inspiration of God, nor make it of equal authority with the Scripture. As touching the sixth question, some think that the old translation of the Septuagint is as yet extant; but to Old translation of the 70. be so corrupt, that it is no wisdom to correct either the Hebrew or Latin copies by it. Bellarmine is of this mind. Others affirm, that the ancient translation of the 72. interpreters is lost, and that this which we have is mixed, and very corrupt. This also they prove by an induction of certain places corrupted. First, the Greek Bible numbers from the creation of the world unto the flood, 2242. years, as we may see, which Augustine, Eusebius, and Nicephorus in his chronology: but the Hebrew verity saith, the number of years be 1656. therefore the Greek number exceeds the Hebrew in years 586. Secondly, from the flood to Ahraham, the 72. interpreters reckon of years 1082. but according to the Hebrew text of God's word, there be no more years but 292. so the Greek exceeds the Hebrew verity 790. years. Thirdly, in the Greek copy, Adam is said to have lived 230. years, and in some books 330. when he begat Sheth: but the Hebrew Bible saith, Adam begat Sheth when he was 130. years old. Fourthly, according to the Greek copy Methusalem lived fourteen years after the flood, which is very ridiculous: for where lived he? or how was he kept from the waters? In the ark? That cannot be, for but eight souls only entered into the Ark, among whom Methusalem is not reckoned. The Hebrew bible speaks far otherwise of methusalem's methusalem's life and death. years and age: for by it we gather that he died that very year, the deluge came on the whole earth, to wit, the year of the world 1656. Fiftly, in jonas, the Greek copy denounceth destruction to the Niniuits after the third day, As yet three days, & Niniveh shall be destroyed: but in the Hebrew text we read, Yet forty days, and Chap. 3. 4. Niniveh shall be destroyed. By these places we see there is great difference between the Greeks' and the Hebrues in their numbering: but all agree that they Hebrew numbers are true. De civitate Dei lib. 18. Augustine fames, I know not what mystery in this diversity of numbers, to defend the authority of the 72. Interpreters, which notwithstanding he could not maintain in the place concerning Methusalem. Jerome deals more plainly and faithfully, saying, that the Septuagint have erred in their numbers. By these before cited places, and many such like corrupted, we conclude, that this Greek translation which is now extant, is not that which the 72. ancient jews wrote; or if it be the same, that it is so corrupted, as we may reckon it to be of very small authority. Thus far of the Greek edition of the 72. interpreters: now we are to consider of other Greek translations, which were written after that the Gospel was published far and near among the Gentiles. And there be eight several translations numbered. The first was Aquilas written in Adrian the emperors time, as testifieth Epiphanius. This Aquila was first a Pagan, and after turned Christian, and was baptised: after this being admonished, Aquila Synopensis, and his apostasy. for his studies in judicial astrology; and at last cast out of the Church for his obstinacy; he fell away to the jewish religion: and conversing with the jews, he learned the Hebrew tongue, and then and there translated the old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek, but with a perverse and froward mind (as saith Theodoret) purposely intending to obscure the doctrine of Christ, and to colour his apostasy. After this translation of Aquila, followed Theodotions, in the reign of Commodus the Emperor, as Epiphanius also writeth. This man was of Pontus, and of the sect of Martion the heretic, after a time renouncing his sect, and abjuring all Christian religion, he fell to judaisme; and having learned the Hebrew tongue, he translated in like manner the old Testament into Greek, but with a malicious heart, and unfaithfully (as Theodoret speaketh) intending the confutation of his own sect. After this translation of Theodotion, followed that of Symmachus, in the reign of Severus Augustus. This man Symmachus translation. was a Samaritane by birth and country, and for that he could not attain some superiority he desired in his own country, he fell in like manner into judaisme, and was circumcised the second time: & how this was done, Epiphanius noteth it out of 1. Cor. 7. 18. to wit, by gathering his uncircumcision, after his first circumcision; that so there might be matter for a second circumcision. This man translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek; but unfaithfully (as Theodoret saith) intending most the confutation of the Samaritans, of whom he had his first beginning. After this translation of Symmachus, there were two others, whose names be not known. The one was found in jericho, laid up in great vessels for the preservation of it, in the reign of Caracalla the Emperor. The other was found at the North-Nicopolis, in the time of Alexander the Emperor, the son of Mammaeas. This Apud Nicopolia Aquilonarem, because there were three of that name. is testified by Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others. After all these followed Origen, who lived in the year of Christ 261. in the days of Valerian & Galienus the Emperors. Origen laboured exceedingly in the conference of such translations as he found extant before his time: for he gathered into one volume four translations, to wit, first, Aquilas: secondly, Symmachus: thirdly, the Septuagint: four, Theodotions: and set them down in four distinct columns, and this was Origens' Tetrapla. This dove, he added to these four columns, Origens' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two more of the Hebrew text; the one set down in Hebrew; the other in Greek characters: and this was Origens' Hexapla. Lastly, to the six former columns, he annexed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the two editions before noted to be of unknown Authors: and this was called Origens' Octapla, a work of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. great labour and excellency, the loss whereof hath been, no doubt, no small damage to the Church of God. Origen in these his works had his marginal stars, to observe what he liked: his long strokes, to put out what he disliked: his little labels for addition, and his second labels for a second addition, according to the variety and diversity of his copies. A certain godly man complaining for the loss of these works, said, Well we may deplore the loss of these works, but restore the same we cannot. After Origen there was one Lucianus translation about Lucianus. Diocletians time. This man was a minister of the Church of Antioch, and a martyr. A copy of this edition (as I have read) was found written with this martyrs own hand, and kept in a marble chest at Nicomedia. Hierome also writeth, that in his time there were Greek copies, which were called by Lucian's name. Finally, after Lucian's translation, followed another edition, set forth by one Hesychius, which corrected the interpretation of the Septuagints, and gave it to the Hesychius. Churches of Egypt. And thus far of the eight Greek translations which were after Christ, all which be lost: howbeit the Papists sell for good Canonical Scripture, certain remnants (as they say) of Theodotions translation, Dan. 13. and 14. chap. a fragment which that foul heretic & Apostata left in their safe keeping. For as concerning this Greek edition of the old Testament which is now extant, howsoever it comes to us, we have none pure, but mixed and corrupted, as we have before observed. And thus far of the translations of the old Testament: first the Chaldee Paraphrase; next the sundry Greek copies of all ages. CHAP. XXI. Of the Syriac translation of the new Testament. NOw let us come unto the translation of the new Testament. The new Testament being first written in Greek, was translated into the Syriac tongue, which in the days of Christ and his Apostles was the proper and natural language of the jews, by reason of their long captivity in Babylon, and for that the Assyrians were so transported to the possession of jury. It is uncertain who was the Author of this translation, as also at what time it was done: Tremelius thinks it most like to be true, that this was done: in the primitive Church, in the very beginning; & that by the Apostles themselves or their Disciples. He proves also the reverend antiquity thereof, First by the elegancy of the tongue. Secondly, by the defects & loss of certain books and places of the N. Testament, which Syriack translation ancient. are to be found in the Syriack translation: as the 2. Epist. of S. Peter. The 2. and 3. of S. john. The Epist. of james and of Jude, the Apocalypse, and the story of the woman taken in adultery, which is found in the beginning of the 8. Chap. of the Gospel according to S. john. By this defect he gathereth, that seeing the Syriack translation was extant before the Church accepted these books as canonical, the Syriack translation must be very ancient. Again, he saith he found a singular faithfulness in the Syriack translation, by conferring it with the Greek and original: which experience any shall find, if they shall please to confer both languages together. Of the premises the conclusion is this, that the Syriack translation both was in elder ages, and is now at this day of great authority in the Church. Thus far of the Chaldiack and divers Greek translations of the old Testament, and of the Syriack translation of the New. CHAP. XXII. Of the Latin translations of both Testaments. WE be now to speak of the Latin translations of the New Testament, and of the Old. The Latin translations of the Bible were very many. This say a De doctrina Christ. lib. 2. cap. 11. Augustine and b In prooemio in lib. josuae. jerom, who complaineth much of the variety and diversity of Latin translations. Of all the Latin translations, the first was an Italian: c De doctr. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 15. Augustine prefers this before all the rest, as keeping most strictly to the words of the original, and being more perspicuous than others in sentences. This was not that translation of jerom: for it is evident, this was far more ancient than that translation of jerom. And who should be the Author of this, it is uncertain. After this Italian translation, jeroms followed next: who is said to have left a double translation in Latin of the old Testament. In the first, he followed the 72. interpreters: in the latter, the Hebrew original text. For as touching the New Testament, jerom is said not to have translated it into Latin, but to have corrected the old Latin translation: as himself affirmeth it in many places. This edition of jerom, when it came forth first, it began forthwith to be d Aug. Epist. 10. ad Hicron. accepted, and read publicly in the Churches; but with no contempt of that old Italian copy. For as Gregory saith, these two translations, that elder Italian, and the latter of jerom, were of greatest note in the Latin Churches, and most used. At length all those old Latin translations together with that Italian, were not respected; and jeroms translation only remained, if we may truly avouch this to be jeroms translation, which at this day is used, and is carried about in his name: for the learned greatly doubt of this matter. Here therefore we be to consider of this point: And two questions principally are to be answered: First, who was the Author of this: The second, what authority it may have in the Church. As touching the Author of this Latin translation, divers men speak diversly. Some think it was jeroms, and that it is pure without any mixture: So think all Papists for the most part, specially the jesuits. Others think it not to be Hieroms, as saints a In praef. in Interp. Bibl. ad Clement. 7. Pontif. Pagninus, and b Forosemprovianus. Paulus a Bishop; to pass by Erasmus, Munster, and other popish writers. Others deem it to be Hieroms, but not to want corruption: of this judgement are these men, joannes Driedo, Sixtus Senensis; and Bellarmene seems to incline this way, as may easily be gathered by his propositions and reasons touching this matter. We say, it is neither Hieroms, nor yet * Not his in whole, nor yet in part. pure, nor mixed: and this we prove on this manner. Hierom translated the old Testament out of the Hebrew into Latin accurately, or exactly: But this vulgar edition is not exact: therefore it is not Hieroms. The proposition is evident: for Hierom himself testifieth in many places of his works, that he had laboured and done this translation very exactly: as in his preface before the 5. books of Moses; in his Preface before the books of the Kings; in his Preface on the Psalter: in all which places he saith, he changed nothing, but followed faithfully the Hebrew text, and he appealeth to the jews to testify of the faithfulness of his translation. And a De civitate Dei lib. 18. cap. 43. Augustine affirmeth it, that the very jews did confess his translation was sound and true. d Hispalensis▪ lib. 6. Etymolog. cap. 5. Isidore prefers Hieroms translation before all men's, for keeping himself more strictly to the words of the Hebrew text, and for his perspicuity of phrase: wherefore if we may believe these men, Hieroms translation was exactly done. So far the proposition, the assumption followeth: But the vulgar Latin edition is not accurate; neither doth it agree with the original the Hebrew text, yea it so far dissenteth from it, that necessarily one of these two assertions must be true, either that this Latin edition is most corrupt, or that the Hebrew fountain is most troubled and disordered: And this last point Bellarmine himself dare not avouch, but taxeth such as do so affirm, and that worthily. It resteth therefore that we prove this great disagreement, between the Latin edition and the Hebrew text. And this can no otherwise be done, but by conference of the one with the other. Let the comparison begin at the book of Genesis; & compare not all places which dissent (for that were infinite) but some special places, whereby ye may soon conceive of the rest, and judge what they be. And by this conference of places, you shall discern that the defaults are not of one kind, but of divers, as for changing of words and sentences, for defect and superfluity. For so many ways the vulgar Latin edition is faulty. In my judgement this comparison cannot better be found by any man, or means, then by that vulgar Latin which was corrected by john Benedict a divine of Paris, whom (that I may pass over this point briefly) I recommend unto thee gentle reader. By this conference that shall appear, both that this is not Hieroms translation, & that this vulgar Latin edition is not authentical; so as we shall not need to spend▪ any time in handling the other question. CHAP. XXIII. Of the translation of the Bible into the mother tongue. IT remaineth now that we speak of such editions and translations as be in the usual mother tongue. I understand that translation to be in the mother tongue, which is done in that language, which is vulgar & common among the people of that country, whose language it is; as the Dutch, Italian, French, English, Scottish, and Spanish translations, etc. We may move three questions of these translations. First, whether it be lawful to translate the sacred Scripture into every mother tongue. secondly, whether the liturgy or common prayers of the Church ought to be in the mother tongue. Thirdly, whether it shall be lawful for the common people to read the scriptures translated into their own language or mother tongue. To the first question we answer, that it is lawful, yea also that it is expedient it should be so: and this we prove by some few arguments. First, the sacred scriptures must be read publicly before all the people: therefore must they be translated into their own known language: for otherwise it were in vain to read them. The antecedent is proved Deut. 31. ver. 11. 12. The Lord commandeth that the books of Moses be read to all indifferently, when they were assembled, Men, Women, and Children with the strangers. jer. 36. chargeth Baruch the scribe, that he should read before all the people the book which he had Translating of the scripture into the vulgar tongues. First argument. written from his mouth. But some will here object, that this precept was to endure but for a time. I answer, the end shows it must be perpetual, Deut. 31. The end being this, that this people may hear, learn, and fear the Lord. This end is perpetual, therefore so is the law in like manner, specially seeing that the reading of the Scripture is the ordinary and necessary means whereby we be to come to this appointed end. So the antecedent being thus cleared, it followeth necessarily that the scripture must be translated into our known mother tongue. Arg. 2. The people are permitted to read the Scriptures: Second argu. therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar tongue: for otherwise the common people could never read them. The antecedent I prove thus. The Sacred Scriptures do furnish us with weapons against the Devil, as we be taught by Christ's example, Matth. 4. who gave Satan the repulse, using none other weapons against him but testimonies of Scripture. joh. 5. chap. Christ commanded the multitude to search the scriptures. Acts chap. 17. the Christians of Beroea are commended for searching the scriptures, whether the points were sound and good, & agreeable to the scriptures, which were taught by the Apostles. But see more of this antecedent in the handling of the 3. question. Arg. 3. The very Papists grant, the scriptures may be read before the people; but they say it must be done in an Third argu. unknown tongue: wherefore, I reason thus. If the scriptures must be read before the multitude in an unknown tongue, that shall be fruitless, and without all edification: therefore they must be translated into their known language. The Antecedent is proved by, 1. Corin. 14. 6. If I shall come unto you speaking in tongues, what shall I profit you. q. d. nothing. And after in the same Chap. ver. 19 I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might also instruct others, than ten thousandwords in a strange tongue. But of this point more hereafter. The fourth argument: God requires in his people wisdom, knowledge, and instruction: Therefore the scriptures Fourth argu. must be read, and therefore translated into the vulgar tongues. The antecedent I prove thus. Deut. 4. God will have his people to be wise & of understanding, that the nations round about hearing of this, might be smitten with an admiration, and say, ver. 4. Only this people is wise, and of understanding, and a great nation. The Apostle, Col. 3. 16. will have God's word to dwell in them richly, or plenteously. Paul in his Epistles every where requires the Churches to whom he writes, to be filled with all knowledge. The adversaries contend and dispute much against this knowledge which God requires in the common people. The fift argument. Christ while he lived among the jews, spoke and preached unto them in their own mother Fift argu. tongue: The Apostles of Christ in like manner did preach the Gospel in their vulgar tongue, as in the day of Pentecost, and after; and for this very cause, that they might speak to every nation in their own known language, that gift of tongues was given them. Thus than I reason; If to preach the Gospel in the vulgar known languages, was no profanation of the Gospel; then so in like manner, to write the Gospel in the vulgar known languages, is no profanation of the same: for there is like reason of both. The sixth argument is from the perpetual use and practise sixth argu. of all the ancient Church. For in the Primitive Church, the sacred Scripture was translated, near hand into all languages, as the Chaldiac, the Syriac, the Arabian, the Armenian, the Egyptian, the Ethiopian, the Indian, the Persian, the Scythian, the Sarmatian tongue. There are not a few do avouch this; a Homil. 1. in Io. Chrysostome, * De corrigend. Graecorum Affectib lib. 5. Theodoret, c De doctr. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 15. Augustine, with others. And at this day there be extant the Chaldiac, the Syriack, the Arabic, the Egyptian, and the Ethiopian translations; all which the learned say, were done in the Apostles times. Chrysostome turned the sacred Scripture into the Armenian tongue, as Sixtus Senensis reporteth. jerom translated the scripture into the * Lingua Dalmatica. Dalmatick tongue, as these men do testify; Alphonsus a Castro, Eckius, Hosius, Erasmus. Methodius translated it into the Sclavonian tongue, as saith Aventine in his Chronicle. * Socrates tripartita historia. ulphilas Bishop of the Goths, translated the same into the Goths language. * De civitate Dei lib. 15. Augustine writeth that the old Testament was translated into Syriack. Harding against jewel, and Eckius write that the Muscovites, and the people of Russia had the scripture in their own mother tongue. The history of England written by Beda affirmeth, that the scriptures were translated into the English tongue before his time. Beda saith, he translated part of the new Testament himself. Thus far the practice of the old church, whereby as by the rest of the arguments afore going, it followeth, that the sacred Scripture is to be translated into every country vulgar language. Now it resteth to see what the Papists answer to this question we have in hand. Some few years passed they utterly denied that the sacred Scripture might be translated into any mother tongue. * De choris canonicis. Petrus Asoto, Censura Coloniensis, and Harding before named, these writ that some are of this judgement: The Scriptures are not to be translated into the vulgar languages. And for this cause such as translated Scriptures, they were banished and condemned by the Pope: and their books were prohibited and burnt. And when they saw this to be odious to all men, these grave Fathers changed their minds, and now forsooth they avouch the Scriptures may be translated into the vulgar languages, yet by the Pope's permission. And this, albeit it seem to be something divers from the former assertion, yet in effect it is the very same. For the Pope will permit no man to do this, but to such a one as shall turn all the corruptions which are to be found in the old Latin edition into the vulgar tongue, and so recommend the same to posterity. This is Bellarmine's judgement, and the Rhemists. But we avouch the contrary, to wit, that every godly, learned man, skilful in the tongues, may translate the Scripture without the Pope's permission: yea, albeit he prohibit the same. And that it shall be lawful for the Church of Christ, to accept of the same translation after examination, albeit the Pope give none authority nor approbation hereunto. For in the ancient Church, when the authority or tyrannical jurisdiction of the Pope was unknown, the translations before specified, were both done and received of the Churches without the Pope. And thus far of the first question. It followeth in the second place, whether the Liturgy or common prayers of the Church, are to be celebrated in a known tongue? I mean the public service or worship of God in ecclesiastical assemblies: as the public prayers, the reading of the Scriptures, the administration of Sacraments, singing of psalms, etc. These be called by the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. divine service. To the question we answer affirmatively, that this public service of God is to be done in the vulgar tongue. Our first argument, we take from the 1. Cor 14. where, from the 6. ver. to the 21. the Apostle teacheth, that nothing is to be done in the Church in an unknown & strange language. But Bellarmine excepteth saying, that in that chapter the Apostle understandeth principally, a collation & exhortation, which in the old Church followed after the public prayers: and to this end he showeth out of * Apolog. 2. Note the order of the old Church on the Lord's day. justin Martyr, the custom of the old Church. The Christians assembled on the Lords days, and first, the Scriptures were read: then after this, the chief minister of the place preached: after this the Sacraments were administered: lastly, they did use conference of divine arguments, or of godly questions. I answer, the Apostle here entreateth generally of all ecclesiastical duties, and that in this order; first, ye have a general doctrine from the sixth verse to the fourteenth. Next, there followeth a special instruction how prayers must be conceived, how to sing psalms, not in an unknown tongue, but in a known or common language, to the nineteenth verse. After this, he returns to his general doctrine again. Bellarmine excepteth again, that Paul here speaketh of songs, which in that meeting they sung, which were endued with some extraordinary gift of the holy Ghost. I answer, the Apostle distinctly nameth prayers & songs: again, he speaketh of those prayers and thanksgivings, whereunto the people did answer, Amen: now the people did not answer Amen, but to the public prayers: wherefore he meaneth here public prayers conceived in the divine administrations, in the public assemblies. Bellarmine again objecteth: The public prayers at Corinth were in the Greek tongue, a speech well known to the people, and that the Apostle knew: and therefore If in Greek, not in Latin. there was no need to prescribe any such rules for their divine service. I answer, albeit it be granted that the common prayers, etc. at Corinth were done in the known mother tongue; yet it followeth not but that the Apostles doctrine is general, of all Ecclesiastical offices to be done in the public assemblies. Next, it is most like, that there were at Corinth some which had the gift of tongues, which abused it to vain ostentation, even in the public administration, and that is it which the Apostle taxeth in that Chapter. And thus far of the first Argument. The second is of the same Apostle, in the same chap. v. 6. If I shall come unto you speaking with tongues, that is, unknown Argument. 2. tongues, what shall I profit you? Hence I conclude, the public worship of God must be not in an unknown, but a known language. Bellarmine answereth, that he which administereth the public prayers in an unknown tongue, shall profit others: for it is sufficient that God understand him: And this he goeth about to clear by a similitude: Like as (saith he) if a man speak for a rustic or rude man, ignorant in the Latin tongue, in Latin to the king, this shall suffice if the king understand him, to confer any benefit by the king upon the same ignorant person. I answer, what is this else but to say, that the public administration doth profit the people by virtue or merit of the work done, albeit in the mean time the Opus operatum. people be without faith & knowledge of the true God: but of this in place appertaining. The third Argument is of the same Apostle in the same chap. vers. 11. He that speaketh unto me in a strange 3. Arg. tongue, shall be as a Barbarian: therefore the public administration of the word and Sacraments, and of all God's worship and service must be in the vulgar and known tongue. Bellarmine answereth, that he which speaketh Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, albeit he be not understood; yet is he not to be reputed as a Barbarian, because these tongues be not barbarous: but if he speak in any other language, he is to be accounted barbarous. I answer. If the speaker (who speaketh in these tongues) be not understood, he shall be to him that understandeth him not, as barbarous. For so the very Poet avoucheth it of himself, When, saith he, he was in exile in Pontus, he complaineth, that albeit he spoke Latin, yet he was accounted of those strangers as barbarous: Barbarus hîc ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli. And when it was objected to Anacharsis the Philosopher at Athens, that he was barbarous: he answered, The Athenians are Barbarous unto me. The fourth Argument is of the same Apostle in the 4. Arg. same chap. ver. 16. When thou blessest with the spirit, to wit, speaking in an unknown tongue, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen, at thy thanksgiving; seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? Whence it followeth necessarily, that all public prayers and service of God, must be done in the known vulgar tongue. Bellarmine answereth, that it sufficeth, if some of the people understand and answer Amen: yea, it sufficeth, if he whom they call the Clerk, say Amen for the people. I answer, this was not the custom of that old ancient Church, which never knew what a Clerk meant. My fift Argument is of the same Apostle in the same 5. Arg. chapter, vers. 40. Let all things in the Church be done decently, and in order: But if the Minister shall pray in an unknown tongue, and the people shall conceive other prayers differing from the Ministers: then shall the Minister in the public congregation have his prayers, and every one of the people his own prayers also, and not the same with the Minister. What good decency can be in this, when the people are so divided in prayer, which in the public assembly should offer up with one mind, and with one mouth, one and the same prayer unto God? The sixth Argument is from a point which Bellarmine himself yieldeth. He granteth that the public administration 6. Arg. of prayers, etc. at Corinth, were done in the known Greek tongue: wherefore then may not all other Churches in the like manner have their Liturgy in the vulgar known language? What can he answer here, but this happily, that the public administration at Corinth was done in the mother tongue, not for that it was the vulgar tongue, but because it was Greeke: for Papists give the Greek tongue (when they please) some prerogative. The seventh Argument is from another point which 7. Arg. Bellarmine granteth. The Collations (as himself speaketh) and the exhortations ought to be done in the mother tongue: wherefore in like manner may not the public administration of God's worship be done in the mother tongue best known to the people? He answereth, that the reason is not the same of the collation & service; For (saith he) the collations tend to the instruction and consolation of the people: but the public service principally concerns God's worship. I answer, Doth not all the people worship God in the public administration or service of God, and therefore ought they not to worship God in a known language, if they will worship their God in faith? The 8. Argument is from the practice of the old and best Church. In elder ages, so many translations were done principally to this end, to celebrate the public service of God, and that herein the Scriptures might be read to every man in his own known mother tongue. * Lib. de origine Bohemorum. AEneas Silvius writeth, that to Cyril & Methodius it was permitted, that the people of Moravia should have their common prayers in the mother tongue. And at this day the people of Armenia, AEthiopia, Egypt, and the Muscovites have their common prayers in their known tongue. Here Bellarmine answereth, all these are heretics. I say they be no more heretics than Papists. Assuredly as touching public prayers, I had rather be in this heresy with them, then with the Papists, as they think, to mean well. And thus for our judgement in this matter. The Adversaries say, that the public prayers may not be in a known tongue, but in Hebrew or Greek, as in the East and Greek Churches; or in the Latin tongue, as in the Latin and West Churches. The arguments they produce for this purpose, be first from the prerogative of tongues: the first is this, Christ in the title of his Cross, gave honour to these three languages, therefore public prayers ought to be done in these. I answer, albeit we grant the antecedent, the consequent will not follow: yea rather we may infer the contrary. The Lord would have the cause of Christ's death to be manifested to all people in those languages, which then were best known: which cannot be denied of the Greek and Latin: therefore public prayers ought to be done in the vulgar tongues, and known to the people. The 2. Arg. These three tongues Hebrew, Greek and Latin are of greatest excellency, antiquity & authority▪ therefore the common prayers and service of God ought to be done only in these tongues. I answer. Grant the Antecedent be true, yet the fequele is not good: for that very gift of tongues, which was given the Apostles in the feast of Pentecost, plainly proveth, that every tongue, be it never so base, is sanctified of God for holy uses, and Note. for the execution of public and ecclesiastical offices and service unto God. The 3. Arg. The Scriptures was originally written in these three tongues: therefore the public prayers ought to be done in these only. I answer, first, the Antecedent is false: for neither the whole Scripture, nor any part thereof was written first in the Latin tongue. For whereas they say, Saint Marks Gospel was first written The Papists say Saint Marks Gospel was first written in Latin. in Latin, it is false: but of this point else where. Next, I answer, that it will not follow of that Antecedent, that public prayers should be said in unknown tongues; but rather the contrary followeth: for that whereas the Scripture was first written in these two tongues, Hebrew and Greek, for this very cause, for that even then, and in those times, these two languages were most common, and best known to the people: hence it follows rather, I say, that the public prayers ought to be in the most common and best known tongues. Thus far we have heard of arguments drawn from the prerogative of tongues: now follow arguments from the practice and use of the Church. The first here is this: From Ezra until Christ the Scripture was wont to be read in the Church of the jews in the Hebrew tongue, that is, an vnknowe tongue: Ergo public prayers may be said in an unknown tongue. I answer. I grant the Scriptures were read in the Hebrew tongue: but I deny that this was an unknown tongue. For Nehem. 8. it is very clear, that the sacred Scripture which Ezra read in Hebrew, was understood by the people which were present and heard it. Whereupon the contrary consequent must follow: The Scripture was read in the Church of the jews in elder ages in a known tongue: therefore it must be read at this day in popular and known tongues. The second Argument is from the practice of the jewish Synagogue of these times. To this day (saith he) the Scripture is read in the synagogue of the jews in the Hebrew tongue: therefore public prayers must be celebrated in an unknown tongue. I answer. The Argument follows not from the evil example of the synagogue of the jews; for that this reading of the old Testament in an unknown tongue, is the cause wherefore so many of them hold back, and will not be converted to the faith of Christ. The third argument is from the practice of the primitive Church. In the primitive Church the public prayers were said in one of these 3. tongues: therefore the conclusion followeth. I answer, the Antecedent is false, for that, as hath been before showed, in the time of the old Church, yea in the very days of the Apostles, the Scriptures were translated in a manner into all languages. The fourth Argument is from the continual practice of the catholic Church: for in it the public prayers were ever either in the Greek or Latin tongue. I answer, if by catholic Church, they mean the Church of Rome, than I weigh not the example and practise thereof: but if by this word they mean the true catholic Church, than it is clear already by that which is before delivered, that the Antecedent is false. And thus far of these Arguments taken from the practice and use of the Church. To the former Arguments, they add more from a final cause: The public administration of God's service and worship being performed of all or most Churches in one tongue, to wit the Latin, this might serve well for the preservation of the unity of faith. To this I answer, this serves notably for the continuance and increase of unbelief and ignorance. Again, our very experience teacheth (by God's good blessing in these times) that notwithstanding the great variety of tongues in the reformed Churches, yet they agree well (to God be praise) in the unity of faith. Next, they reason from the little good which hence ensueth, as they imagine: It profits the people nothing at all that the Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongues: for they understand not any sentence of Scripture, albeit they know the words? To this I answer: Every one of the unlearned, if they come to hear the Scriptures with God's fear and reverence, they shall reap and receive some profit by it. Again, from another danger which may happen, they reason thus: The reading of the Scriptures in a known tongue may more hurt then profit the people: for devotion hath rather decreased then increased, since public prayers or service of God hath been celebrated in popular tongues. I answer, the consequent is not good: The sacred Scripture read in the mother tongue hurts many; therefore it is not so to be read at all: because accidentally, and through the default and corruption of the people, it hurts, and profits not. So the preaching of the Gospel is the savour of death unto death unto many; therefore the Gospel is not to be preached. Furthermore, be it known that this is no religion, nor true piety, which is so coupled with ignorance, but a damnable superstition, when as the sacred Scriptures are read, and prayers administered in a strange and unknown tongue. Thus far these three Arguments from the final causes and effects. Again, they reason from an inconvenience, first, on this wise. If the scriptures must be read in the vulgar tongue, than translations must be renewed in every age: for ancient words wear out of use: and this is inconvenient. I answer, what loss is it, if translations be revised and renewed in every age? for the whole translation needs no renewing, but some words which happily are become obsolete and out of use. Again, an other evil which might follow this conclusion is this. The Pope understandeth not all vulgar tongues: But the public prayers must be celebrated in a language which the Pope knoweth: Ergo. I answer, it is not necessary that prayers be in that tongue which the Pope knoweth. This they prove * une concesso errore mill consequuntur. because he is the universal Bishop: And this I deny also. Wherefore there is no damage shall follow, if public prayers be contained in a language which the Pope knoweth not. And thus far the 2. question. The 3. question followeth: whether it is lawful for the lay people, as they call them, or the vulgar sort, to read the holy scriptures? We avouch that it is lawful for every one, even of the basest of the people to read the holy Scriptures. For this point see Deut. 6. Chap. & 11. c. and 17. c. Josh. 1. c. and 10. c. 5. Search the Scriptures, saith the Lord Christ. Acts. 17. the men of Berea searched the Scriptures, and for this cause are commended by the holy Ghost. Matth. 4. The example of Christ (who resisted the Devil with no other weapons, but of the scripture) teacheth us that the scripture ministereth unto us such a furniture, as every man must be provided of to withstand Satan in his assaults against us. Lastly, this is proved by the practice of the Church: For wherefore were the scriptures in the old church translated into so many popular languages, but that they might be read & understood of the people? And this is our judgement in few words. What say the adversaries? Some years passed they taught it was not lawful at all for any of the common and lay people (as they usually term them) to read the holy Scriptures. Afterwards when they saw how odious Vide Censuram Coloniensem. this was, they changed their mind: and now forsooth they say, it is lawful to read the scriptures, but with condition if it be permitted: permitted, I say: of whom? They answer, by the Pope, his Bishops, or inquisitors. I demand: what, of these only? They answer, not of these only, but of them with the advertisement of the parish Priest or confessor. Well, I understand who be to permit the reading of the holy scripture: now I ask, to whom is this permitted? They answer, not to all indifferently, but only to such as the parish Priest, whom they call the Curate, shall well discern, both by their confession, and by their whole carriage of their life, to be a true Catholic, that is, a stubborn or stiffnecked Papist. I see then to whom they yield thus far the reading of the scriptures. I demand in the next place, what translations be allowed them? They answer, they will not have them to read all translations indifferently, but such only as some Catholics have published, such as at this day, the English Rhemish translation of the New Testament is. Thus far briefly of that permission, which hath so decreed the condition of this liberty of reading the scriptures. And this is their meaning according to the decree of Pius Quartus the Pope, which decree is confirmed also by the council of Trent, & commended by the Rhemists, in the preface of their English translation. And this is Bellarmine's judgement; who differeth in words only a little from the former popish assertion, but in matter and purpose is the same in effect: for what difference is there, if there be no permission at all, & to be thus permitted with such a condition, as is aforeshowed? And thus of the 3. question, and as touching the controversies which are moved at this day, concerning holy scripture, I remember not any that we have left untouched. We have therefore spoken of the word of God, which is the word of both covenants: as also of the sacred scripture, which is a certain mean, whereby it pleased God to manifest his word and will unto men. It resteth now that wespeake of sin, and of man's misery. CHAP. XXIIII. Of sin in general. THE common place of sin, as also the former before handled, is subaltern to the place or general head of our calling. For calling is the transferring of a man out of the state of sin What our calling is. and misery, into the state of righteousness and happiness. Therefore we shall speak of sin first in general; after we shall come unto his kinds or parts. The name of sin signifies a certain thing compounded of his own matter and form. The matter of sin, to speak thereof in the first place, is a certain being, or thing that is: and that being is not a substance, but an accident; and What sin is. that is either a quality or action: and this quality or action belongs not to every creature, but only to the reasonable creature, Angel or Man: for God gave his law unto these only. Of this being, which we say is the matter of sin, God himself is the author and principal efficient: for it is he alone that calleth those things which are not, as if they were; and that createth all things, both substances and accidents: But the creature neither is, nor is called the principal efficient of any being. Therefore that being, which is the matter of sin, seeing God is the principal efficient thereof, necessarily in, and by itself, is good: for that whatsoever God createth or maketh, hath an engrafted form of goodness in it. Gen. 1. 31. When God (saith he) saw whatsoever he had made, behold it was very good. This form of goodness is so natural and essential to Being, whether quality or action, which God made, that there from it can never be separated. But now I grant that this same Being hath put on another form, to wit, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The cause of sin. lawlessness, the cause whereof is an evil instrument, as we shall show hereafter: for this lawlessness is from another cause; neither doth it destroy that essential form of the goodness of being itself, which proceedeth from God the creator and maker thereof. For as for the being which God maketh, nothing can be put to it, or taken from it, that in itself it may be better or worse. So much concerning the matter of sin. Now as touching the form: The form of sin is called lawlessness, that is, the want of conformity with the will and law of God. 1. joh. 3. Sin by his form is thus The form of sin. defined. Sin is the transgression of the law. This lawlessness or transgression, which we call the form and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. manner of sin, is not a being, or a thing positive, but a thing merely privative, to wit, a privation, and want of conformity with the law of God. This transgression happeneth through the cause and fault of an evil instrument, which God useth in that being, or in doing his own work: and this instrument is either the Devil, or an evil man and unbeliever. For when the Devil or an evil man concurreth with God, to bring forth his work, he is not the principal efficient of the being itself, or of the work done, but only an instrumental or ministerial cause; but the Devil or man is the principal efficient cause of the transgression, or of the deformity or sin of that action. And this transgression, the efficient whereof is an evil instrument, is evil either for that the action itself, or Causes of sin. work is contrary to the law of God: as when a man committeth murder; the action of murder is expressly Causes of sin. condemned by the law; Thou shalt not murder: or for that the fountain and beginning of the action or work is against the law of God, although the action in itself be conformable to the law: for as the law of God commandeth the action or work itself, so hath it regard of the fountain and beginning of the action; commanding that the whole work which is commanded by the law, proceed from a pure, holy, and believing heart of that instrument, which God useth in doing his work. An example of this kind of transgression may be this: When any man giveth alms, which work indeed is commanded of God, and yet not done of charity, it is rejected: see 1. Cor. 13. Or lastly, it falleth out to be a sin, for that the end, which the evil instrument in doing or working together with God proposeth to itself, is against the law of God. For as the law of God commandeth the work itself, and the fountain and beginning of the work; even so it commandeth the end, as the chief and principal, to wit, the glory of God himself: Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God, 1. Cor. 10. And in this respect a man sinneth, when he doth aught, not for God, nor for his glory; but for himself, his own profit, and only for his own glory. Here it is to be noted, that whosoever sinneth, as touching the fountain and original of the action, the same man always sinneth touching the end; and so contrarily. Wherefore these two last ways of transgression are always joined together. Again, it is to be noted, that he who sinneth touching the original and the end, doth not always sin in the action itself: For the action or work of any instrument, how evil soever in itself, may be good & The person must please God, otherwise the work shall displease. conformable to the law. Wherefore the first way of transgression, & the two last are not always conjoined. Now than this transgression (which we call the manner & form of sin, coming, or put to that Being, the author whereof is God, and which in itself is good, whether it be a quality or an action) maketh up that which we call sin, and which is so called of the form thereof, and not of the matter, seeing all things have their denominations from their forms. These things thus declared, it shall be easy to gather some definition of sin: That sin is a quality or action of a reasonable creature, lawless, or contrary to the law of God. The general propriety of sin, or the consequent thereof, is guiltiness; and guiltiness is that which meriteth or deserveth punishment: as therefore guiltiness followeth after sin, so after guilt followeth punishment, both temporal and eternal. Let this suffice concerning sin in general; which being known, it is easy to answer those questions, which are wont to be made touching sin; and namely to this Three questions concerning the causes of sin. which they ask, If Sin be of God? or if God be the author of sin? Answ. In sin there are two things; a Being and a transgression. God is the Author and principal efficient of that Being; but of that transgression God is not the author; but the evil instrument is. Again, it is asked, whether this transgression be any way from God? Answ. It is from God, not effecting, but permitting it: for he suffers it to be done by an evil imstrument. Thirdly, it is demanded, if God permit sin, in as much as it is transgression of his law? Answ. Not so, which even by this one reason may be showed: He permitteth it unto his glory: and all the means of God's glory, so far as they have such respect, are good; and darkness itself, as it is permitted of God unto the glory of his name, becometh light. Again, if here it be asked: If therefore the transgression of God's law, in so far as a transgression, be not permitted of God, doth it not of necessity follow, that sin in respect, or as it is a transgression, is done against * Deo invito, whether he will or no. Gods will? Ans. It followeth not: for that which is done against God's will, is said properly to be done against God's decree, and not against his revealed will, or express law: but sin, as it is a transgression of the law, is not done against any decree: therefore sin, as it is a transgression of the law, is not done against Gods will. The Assumption is showed, because God decreed not from everlasting, that sin as it is a transgression of his law, should not be done of an evil instrument. Therefore thou sayst, he decreed that it should be done? Answer. It followeth not. 1 For both these are true concerning God: God hath neither decreed that transgression, as it is transgression, 2 should not be done; neither hath he decreed that transgression, in so far as it is transgression, should be done. For there is no decree of God extant, either in this or that respect touching sin, as it is a transgression, or breach of the law of God. But thou mayst ask, is not sin effected as it is transgression, some way by the permission of God? Answ. A thing is said to be done two ways by God's permission; either by itself, or by accident. That, which by God's permission cometh to pass by itself, must of necessity respect, and put on the nature of good; seeing God proposeth and directeth the same unto a good end: but that, which by an accident is done, God permitting it, or forsaking the creature, nothing hindereth, but that, as it is such, it is evil: for God leaving the creature, and evil instrument to itself, the creature doth that which is evil, as it is evil: neither can it otherwise do, being left of him, who is the Author of all good. But now, in respect of God permitting and leaving, that evil, as it is evil, is done by accident, not by itself, because God in forsaking, purposed not evil, as it is evil; but on the contrary, so far forth as it respecteth good, and is a mean of his glory, of that especially which is the consequent of his mercy: for all means, whether wrought by God himself, or suffered to be done of evil instruments, in the first place are both ordained of God himself, and directed to the glory of his mercy, arising from the salvation of the creature: God hath shut up all under sin, that he might have mercy on all. And in the second place, for the hardness of man, and because of the heart that cannot repent, sins and evils which are done by an evil instrument, serve to that glory, which God getteth unto himself, by his justice and just punishments. If on the contrary thou object: God suffereth sin, that he may punish the same: but he punisheth sin, in Or, I would answer the mayor, That God suffereth not sin to punish it (for that he respecteth not) but for that be hath a purpose to manifest his own glory in the punishment of sin. that it is sin, or transgression: therefore he permitteth sin, as it is sin. I answer unto the Assumption: Sin, as punishment follows thereupon (which in itself is good, and turns to the glory of God) in this, sin (I say) hath not respect unto evil, but unto good, producing a good effect; for an evil cause, as it is evil, cannot bring forth a good effect: But if that cause, which in itself is evil, be also considered as the cause of a good effect, it must needs in some sort, take unto it the nature of good. I confess indeed, that sin, as it is sin, is the cause of punishment: and the punishment, as it is the effect of an evil cause, must needs itself be evil. And indeed punish meant, Punishment in itself is evil. which is inflicted, is considered two ways: first, as a thing in itself evil: for there is some transgression How punishment is evil. in every punishment, and every punishment after a sort, is also a sin. Again, it is considered as a thing that is good, to wit, as a mean of God's glory. This I say in a word: that all means (which in, and by themselves are evil) in respect of God propounding, and of the end, which is the glory of God, in some sort are good. And that whole chain of means (which is between God propounding, as the head and beginning, and the glory of God as the end) is the order of things, which either by themselves are good, or at the least in some sort, may be so accounted. For those two extremes change all darkness after a sort into light. CHAP. XXV. Of Original sin.. THUS far of sin in general: the first division of sin is into original and actual. To speak of original sin first, we be first to observe the reason why it is so named. It is called Original sin why so called. original, because it is in us & with us from our first being, conception, and nativity: for it comes by propagation, and is derived from parents to children, as an hereditary disease, as a lepry, the stone, or any such like malady of the body. And that there is such a kind of sin, it is most manifest: for there is none so fottish, and so void of all sense, that he feeleth not this hereditary sickness in himself, as the infection and corruption of his nature. But the holy Ghost, who best knoweth what is in man, doth clearly avouch this in many scriptures. Gen. 5. 3. When as Adam (saith he) begat a son, according to his own image. Note here the propagation of that corrupt image, which was in Adam, into his son Sheth. job. 14. 5. Who can bring forth a clean thing of an unclean? not one. Behold here the propagation of uncleanness. Psalm. 51. 7. Behold I was form in iniquity, and in sin did my mother cherish * Tremel. fovit: kept me warm in her bed. me. Behold the sin which we have from our mother's womb. joh. 3. 6. What is borne of the flesh, is flesh: Behold the propagation of flesh, that is, of our corrupt nature. Rom. 5. 12. Like as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death. etc. Observe here the propagation of sin. Eph. 2. 3. We were by nature the children of wrath: Note here our corrupt nature, and therefore how subject it is to the wrath of God. And thus far we see that there is a sin which we call original. Now let us consider what the subject thereof is. The subject of original sin is the whole man, body and soul: which thing is taught us clearly by that one name Soul infected with Orig. sin. which is given it, Ro. 6. 6. as else where, that old man: whereby nothing else is signified, but the whole man corrupted: or the corruption of the whole man. That the mind is infected with this sin, first we be taught it by very sense itself; next, by many testimonies of scriptures. Genes. 6. 5. When the Lord saw all the imaginations, that is, all the thoughts of his heart, were only evil continually. Gen. 8. 21. Albeit the imagination of man's heart be evil from his youth. Ephes. 2. 3. Fulfil the will of the flesh and of the mind. And that the body is infected with this poison, see Rom. 6. 12. Let not sin reign in your mortal body. And that every The body and all the members poisoned with original sin. one of the members is infected and poisoned with the same sin, is showed v. 13. Neither give your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. Again the very names of this sin, show the subject thereof, or where it resteth: As when it is called flesh, concupiscence, the law of the members, the body of sin, the body of death. And thus far of the subject of original sin. Now we be to come to the parts of it: and because it is as a compound thing, we are to consider, first, The material cause of original sin, threefold. what the matter thereof is: next, what the form. The matter of original sin is threefold: The first part of the matter thereof, is that apostasy wherein we fell all away from God in the loins of Adam: This we receive from our mother's womb; for we are all born Apostates & backsliders from God. For that the first apostasy was not Adam's only, but did appertain to us all; first, reason itself may sufciently convince it: for we were all as then in his loins, and as parcels of the substance and nature of the first man; and so we all fell in him and with him from the living God. For this very cause Heb. 7. Levi is said before he was borne, to pay tithes to Melchisedeck because he was then in the loins of Abraham. Abraham's fact was therefore Levi his fact also, and of all his posterity, which then were in his loins. Next, this is testified by scripture, as by name in that place which is Rom. 5. 12. In whom (to wit Adam) all men have sinned. That first Apostasy, I grant, is past and vanished away, as every action passeth away: yet after a sort it is said to continue still, for albeit the fact be past, yet the How the Apostasy of Adam continueth still. guilt thereof remaineth still: for every man is borne guilty by nature of that first Apostasy. The same is to be said of every other sin; Murder, Adultery, Theft, etc. For whatsoever it is, it may be truly said to remain still, so long as the guilt remaineth, which is consequent thereunto. Wherefore every man is guilty of that first defection and falling from God, until this guilt be taken away by the blood of a mediator. And that we be such Apostates by nature, the scripture testifieth. Rom. 5. 15. By the offence of one, many be dead. Wherefore many must be guilty that one offence. Ro. 5. 16. The fault came of one offence unto condemnation. And thus far of the first part of original sin, that is, of the first backsliding and our falling away, which we bring forth with us from our mother's womb into the world. The second part followeth of original sin: which is a certain defect, or a certain want of original justice, Second part of Original sin. that is, of that righteousness, or integrity wherein man was created, according to the image and example of the righteousness which is in God the creator. For he created man after his own image, wise, just, holy. For the Apostle to the Eph. 5. and Col. saith, that in these respects man was like to God himself in his creation. This want, I speak of original justice, is the first effect of that apostasy before showed. For that apostasy, whereof we are all by nature guilty, depriveth us in our first birth, even in our very conception, of that original justice and image of God. This part of the matter of original sin very sense showeth, and many scriptures testify of it: I mean such as speak of sin negatively or privatively. For Proof of our want of original justice by 1. sense. 2. by scripture. all such places show plainly what defect is in us, and what want of original justice. Rom. 3. 23. All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. Ro. 7; 18. I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. And a little after. I find no means to perform that which is good. Rom. 8. 7. The wisdom of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 1. Cor. 14. The natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God, neither can he know the. 2. Cor. 3. 5. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves. Eph. 4. 18. Having their cogitation darkened, and being strangers from the life of God. And thus far of the 2. part of the matter of original sin, to wit, the want of original justice. The third part followeth: and this we say is an inclination The 3. part of the matter of original sin. or quality contrary to that original justice and integrity before mentioned, succeeding even in place thereof. This is, that which they call our natural corruption, and it is the second effect of the apostasy of Adam, in Paradise. For that rebellion of our first parents, first depriveth us of original justice and of the image of God: next, in place there of by God's just judgement, it infecteth us with a quality clean contrary to that righteousness, whereby we are made prone and apt to all evil. This contrary quality or inclination unto sin to be in us, very sense procues it, with many testimonies of the holy Scripture: all which speak of sin affirmatively; or, that I may so speak, positively. Ro. 7. 7. I had not known concupiscence, but that the law saith, thou shalt not covet. Rom. 7. 23. I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind. Eph. 2. 3. Fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and of the mind. Ad to these the places before cited, Gen. 6. and 8. And thus far of the third part of the matter of original sin. And here as touching the want of justice, and inclination unto sin, which were two parts of the matter of original sin, ye must be advertised: that there is no faculty A special note. of the soul of man, which is not infected with both these evils together. We reckon as principal powers of the soul, the mind or understanding, the will and the affections. These two last the scripture often understandeth them, in the word, heart: because the will and affections be seated in the heart. The first defect than is in the mind, and this is the want of light and knowledge: here is also the want of holiness, that is, of a quality, wherewith our very knowledge and light must be affected, and assuredly was affected with, in the first creation. The light of the mind or knowledge is twofold; natural A two fold light of the mind. 1. Want of natural light. and spiritual: In the mind there is a defect of light or of natural knowledge, not in whole, but in part: for there do remain even in the unregenerate, certain general notions of good and evil things, which are commanded and condemned in the law: but they be such as serve only to make men inexcusable, for that they are but lame and corrupt. Rom. 1. 19 The mind also wants spiritual 2. Want of spiritual light. light, not in part but in whole, for it is utterly void of this light: for as concerning those things which appertain to the kingdom of heaven, the understandings is so darkened, that it doth not only not perceive them, but also hath no power to conceive them. 1. Cor. 2. 14. To be short, the mind wants holiness; for the things it understandeth, 3. Want of holiness in the mind. it neither conceiveth them rightly and holily, but impiously and profanely all things, even the things which in and by themselves are good: For the faculty of understanding albeit it be not utterly lost, yet that holiness of this faculty, wherein it was created after the image of God, was utterly lost in the fall of man. This want of this natural light, the Apostle showeth Rom. 1. 21. Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. These latter words plainly show that the natural light of the mind is but a dim light, and soon vanisheth away. The want of the spiritual light, the Apostle showeth 1. Cor. 2. 14. The natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God. The want of sanctitiy in the understanding, the Apostle showeth Rom. 8. 7. The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, even then when it understandeth those things, which otherwise be in themselves true & good. 2. Cor. 3. 8. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, to wit, well and holily. Eph. 4. 18. Having their cogitation darkened, & being estranged from the life of God. And there ver. 23. And be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind. And thus far of the want or defect which is in the mind. There is also a quality in the mind, which hath succeeded or stepped in place of that light and holiness, which was lost in the fall of man: For darkness hath taken possession in the very seat of light. Ephesi. 5. 8. Ye were in times past darkness, but now ye are light in the Lord. In place of sanctity & integrity have crept in impurity and a certain maliciousness of nature, which evidently appeareth, when it is said Rom. 8. 5. For they that are after the flesh, savour the things of the flesh: This wisdom is of some evil quality. 1. Cor. 1. 18. The preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness. And 1. Cor. 2. 14. For they are foolishness unto him. This word foolishness argueth the perverse judgement of the mind. Thus far of the want of the mind, & the contrary quality crept thereinto. Both these in like manner are to be seen in the will and in every affection. The want of integrity The will corrupted. and uprightness in the will, the Apostle testifieth saying, I find no means to perform that which is good, Rom. 7. 18. and Phil. 2. 13. It is he which worketh in you both the will and the deed. The corruption and frowardness of the will, and of the motions thereof, is testified by many scriptures. As Gen. 6. 5. 6. The conceit of a man's heart is only evil. Eph. 2. 3. Doing the will of the flesh and of the mind. Finally, this I say, that man's will is more poisoned by this original corruption, than the mind is: for which Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. cause the very heathen could say: I see & approve (by the light of reason) the better things, but (through the corruption of my will) I incline to the worse. And this the Apostle saith, Eph. 4. 18. Affirming that the ignorance The will worse than the mind. which is in men, is by reason of the hardness of their hearts. & Rom. 1. 28. They regarded not to know God, therefore God delivered them unto a reprobate mind. Note, how the obstinate will resisteth the light of the mind, and causeth the mind to be overclouded. And thus far of the threefold matter of original sin. These parts of the material cause of original sin, because they are so many Being's * Entia. , and are of God, every one of them must retain in them some goodness (as we say) in respect of their being: for that very apostasy and falling away was good in itself: as so the want of original justice, because it is a thing in nature, and a consequent of that Apostasy, this want (I say) as it is of God, is good in itself: and to conclude, that positive quality, which succeed in place of that holiness and image of God, for the being thereof, is of God as principal efficient, and is good in itself. The form of original sin followeth. And this is a The form of original sin. very special repugnance against the law of God, causing a very special kind of sin. And like as the material cause of original sin is threefold; so there is in it a threefold * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. repugnance against God and his law: For every part of the material cause hath a repugnance against the law in it, and so a form which is from another, in respect whereof it is sin: The first Apostasy hath in it a repugnance against God; and so the want of original justice; and the positive quality also, which succeeded in place thereof. This threefold iniquity * Or breach of God's law. , is not of God as efficient, but from the evil instruments, the devil first, next Adam, and lastly, the very man, which is of Adam's progeny: For we also which are sick of this hereditary evil, are the very causes of our sickness. And thus far of the form of original sin. Now we be to define original sin of the matter and form thereof, on this wise: Original sin is an apostasy from God, a want of Original justice, and a certain positive quality, repugning against the law of God. The threefold Original sin defined. material cause stands for the genus of it; and for the form the threefold breach of God's law. And like as guilt in general, is the consequent of sin in general; so a special guilt Gild following original sin. is consequent to original sin: and this is threefold also, as the matter and form of this sin is threefold: For the apostasy hath his special guiltiness following it; so also the want of original justice; and that positive quality. And every guiltiness merits death, and eternal damnation. It resteth now, that seeing we see this sin original is derived by propagation from the parents to the children, that we search out the manner thereof: and this may be expressed on this wise. The propagation of sin must be, by one of these 3. ways: for it is derived either by the soul, or by the body of the parents, or through their default. It cannot be said that the propagation of this sin is by the soul, for the soul of the Father or Mother is not derived by propagation to the children, in whole or in part, as is very evident: wherefore this sin comes not by the soul of the parents. But it may not unfitly be said, that there is some derivation How sin is derived from parents to their children. of this sin by the body of the parents, to the body and soul of the child begotten by them. This propagation of sin by the body of him which begetteth, into the body of him which is begotten, is easily discerned: for the seed of the parents, being in the child, is corrupted & infected with sin: whence it followeth necessarily, that the body which is begotten of such corrupt & unclean seed, must also be corrupt and unclean in like manner. The propagation of sin by the body of him which begetteth, into the soul of him which is begotten, is more hardly expressed: yet I deliver what seems most How sin infefecteth the very soul. probable unto me, on this manner. After that by the body of him which begetteth, sin is derived into the body of him which is begotten; now the body begotten being corrupt, & infected with sin, this body, I say, infecteth and poisoneth the soul, created even then of God, before, and infused into it that very moment of time, wherein it was created. Here you demand, whether the soul were pure and clean the time it was created, and so Quest. infused into the body: and then afterwards so defiled by the contagion of the body? I answer, it is not like to be so: for that the soul is created, infused, and corrupted, in Ans. the very self same moment of time. This corruption of the soul is, partly by reason of the desertion of God, partly by reason of the contagion of the body whereinto it is infused: for God the very same moment of time wherein he createth & infuseth the soul, in his just judgement forsakes it, and gives it over to the body to be so defiled with sin: wherefore this I avouch, that the soul is created, infused, forsaken of God, and defiled by the body the very same moment of time. The manner of the propagation of this sin, which is said to be through the default of the parents, followeth; and this I express on this wise. Adam by that his first offence, did derive, as by a certain conduit, whatsoever corruption was in him to his posterity: for this cause the Apostle, Rom. 5. 12. saith, By one man (to wit, sinning) sin entered into the world. Here it may be demanded, whence proceeds this efficacy or power of that first sin, to engender, as it were, and to derive sin into all and every one of Adam's progeny. I answer, this efficacy of that sin, is by reason of that word and covenant which God made with Adam in his creation, as it were in these words: If man will stand and persist in that his innocency, which he had by creation, he shall stand for his own good, and for his progeny: but if he do not stand, but fall away, his fall shall turn The Covenant of God in the creation. as to his own damage, so to the hurt of his posterity: and whatsoever evil shall be tied him, the same shall ensue to all his offspring after him. And this last way of the propagation of original sin pleaseth me best, and aught to content all sober wits, for that this is grounded on the authority and words of the Apostle. And thus far our judgement concerning original sin. Now let us briefly see what the old heretics, and late adversaries of God's truth say concerning this sin. First The opinion of the heretics concerning original sin. here we be to meet with the heresy of Pelagius the Monk, and Caelestius his Disciple, which said, there was no original sin: that Adam by his fall did hurt himself only, and not his posterity, excepting only by his example. They said his posterity sinned, not by propagation of his sin, but by imitation of their father Adam's prevarication. When it was objected against them, that young infants died; which could not be, but that they are infected with original sin: They answered, that Adam himself also had died by the law of nature, albeit he had not sinned. And this was the Pelagians principal argument against The Pelagians argument against original sin. original sin. If sin be by propagation, than it must needs be derived to the posterity by the soul, or by the body: but not by the soul, for that it is not by traduction: and it is not by the body, because it is void of reason; neither can sin be said to be first and properly seated in it: and not by both united, because it is not by the parts: therefore there is no original sin at all. The answer is easy of that which hath been before set down in this chap▪ touching the form or manner of the propagation of this sin. First, their proposition Answer. doth not number all the forms & means of the propation of this sin: for there is beside those means a derivation of sin, which is through the default of the parents. Next the Assumption is false, for albeit there be no propagation of sin by the soul, yet it may well be by the body, as is afore showed. And thus far of Pelagius and Caelestius heresy. Next, the Schoolmen had divers opinions of original Schoolman's opinion of original sin. sin: for some said, that original sin consisted only in the guilt of Adam's apostasy: others said, it was but the want of original justice. But Peter Lombard rejecting these opinions, avoucheth it to be also a positive evil quality, contrary to that first original justice. Albertus Pigghius, & Ambrose Catharinus said, that it was nothing else but that first transgression of Adam. And out of this conclusion, they drew forth three other opinions: the first was this: Original sin is one and the self same only Three gross opinions of papists concerning original sin. in all men: 2. This sin in Adam was real and actually his; but it is ours only by imputation: the third, that infants in verity, have nothing in them that hath any appearance of sin: for they said, that guiltiness, want of justice, and the spots of nature, and such like things, seem rather to be punishments than faults, if ye speak not happily improperly, as when ye apply the name of the cause to the effect. Bellarmine following all these, first blames Lombard's conclusion concerning his positive quality; and next, Bellarm. object▪ against Lombard Answer. condemns Pigghius assertion as heretical. One of his principal arguments against Lombard is this. God is either the cause of that positive quality, or not the cause: if the cause, then is he the cause of sin: if he be not the cause of it, then is he not the author of all things. Therefore there is no such positive quality at all. We answer to the Assumption: in that evil positive quality two things must be respected. First, the quality itself, or the being of it; next, the evilness, or irregularity, or deformity thereof: God is the the author and principal efficient of the first: but the devil and the evil instrument is the author and cause of the second. This done, at last the jesuit sets down his own judgement, avouching that original sin consisteth in two things: Bellarm judgement of original sin. first, in the first transgression of Adam, not as he was a certain private person, but as being then the person of all mankind: next, he saith, it is also a want of that gift of original justice. And thus far he speaks well, affirming that there are two parts of original sin: but herein he erreth, for that he omitteth that evil positive quality before mentioned. And thus far of the judgement of the adversaries concerning original sin. CHAP. XXVI. Of Concupiscence. But because there is some controversy touching concupiscence, which is the third part of original sin; therefore we be to speak something of it apart. The word Concupiscence, doth first and properly signify that coveting, or lusting, which is said to be in the base faculty of the soul, to wit, in the sensible and the natural power thereof: and tropically it signifieth our natural corruption, and that evil positive quality, which resteth not only in the concupiscible faculty of the soul, but in all the powers thereof also, even in reason itself. For the word Concupiscence in Scripture is as general as the old man, or the flesh: for Paul useth these words indifferently for one and the same matter, the old man, the flesh, concupiscence, and the law of the members, to wit, for the third part of original sin, which is that evil positive quality. And that concupiscence is properly and truly a sin, appears plainly out of the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 7. 7. I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not lust. And this briefly is our judgement touching Concupiscence. Pelagius reckoneth Concupiscence in the number of the good things, or benefits of nature: for he denies original sin. Our adversaries the Papists, by Concupiscence understand nothing else, but that concupiscible faculty of the soul, which is in itself good, or at least indifferent, but evil accidentally, and in some respect: to wit, for that now the bridle or original justice is let lose, whereby Concupiscence ought to have been kerbed: so than this curb being lost, it inclines (say they) to sin. This is the judgement of the Council of Trent, The judgement of the papists concerning concupiscence. concerning Concupiscence, that it may not be said truly and properly that it is a sin, but that it is so called, because it proceeds from sin, and inclines to sin. But that Concupiscence is sin, is more manifest by Paul's doctrine, then that it needs any proof at all: and that it is a sin not only in the unregenerate, but also in the regenerate. And thus far of Concupiscence, and of original sin. CHAP. XXVII. Of Actual sin. Actual sin is the fruit, and effect, and the punishment also of original sin. The first and principal division of actual sin, is into Actual sin. internal and external. The internal I call the sins of soul, and of the faculties thereof. Internal sin is partly of omission, partly of commission. A sin of omission, in the mind, is the want of a holy and good motion: and the root of this is the want of original justice. And like as that defect of original justice is in all the powers of the soul; so this internal Sin of omission what. sin of omission, is of all the powers of the soul. Of the sin of omission the Apostle speaketh, 1. Cor. 2. 14. when he saith, that the natural man cannot conceive the things of the Spirit of God. Lo here the want of a holy motion in man's nature: the fundamental cause whereof he addeth in the next words, saying, neither can he percive them: In which words ye have the want of that power and faculty, whence a holy motion doth spring. The internal sin of commission followeth: and this is a perverse and evil motion of the mind. And this proceeds from the third part of original sin, to wit, that A sin of commission. evil positive quality, or natural corruption. And like as that positive quality is of all the faculties of the mind, so that internal sin of commission is of all the powers of the soul in like manner. Of this sin the Scripture speaks every where. Rom. 7. 5. When we were in the flesh, the * or affections. motions of sins which were by the law, had force in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. Where three things are to Three things, Rom. 7. 5. be observed: first, the flesh, which is original sin: Secondly, Affections or motions, whereby understand the internal sin of commission: Thirdly, the fruit of those motions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. or affections: whereby he means every external actual sin. Again, ye have the same three things knit together, Ephe. 2. 3. Fulfilling the will of the flesh, and of the mind. 1. the flesh, that is, original sin. 2. Next, the thought or lust of the flesh, which is the internal commission of sin. 3. To fulfil the same, and this is external sin. The same things ye have jam. 1. 15. When concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. Concupiscence is original sin: conception is actual internal sin: the birth thereof is an external sin. And thus far of actual internal sin. The external actual sin followeth, which is a sin of the body, and of the members thereof: and this sin external actual sin. also is partly of omission, partly of commission. The external sin of omission is, when things to be done are omitted: and this proceeds from the internal sin of omission: And here also, like as the internal sin of omission is of all faculties of the mind, so the external sin of omission is of all the members of the body. Of this sin the Apostle speaketh Roman. 7. 9 I do not the good which I would do. The external sin of commission followeth. This is when that is done, which ought not to be done: external sin of commission. and it proceeds from the internal sin of commission: This is also of all the parts of the body, like as the internal sin of commission is of all the powers of the soul. The testimonies of Scriptures before cited, prove this, Rom. 7. 19 The evil which I would not, that do I. The external sin of commission is twofold, partly of error and ignorance, partly of knowledge. It is of ignorance, when a man ignorantly committeth any thing: This was Paul's sin, 1. Tim. 1. 13. For I did it ignorantly through unbelief. This ignorance is either of the law, or of the fact. The ignorance of the law, is to be ignorant of Gods will: Of this Sin speaketh Christ Luke 12. 48. He that hath not known his masters will, & hath done things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. This was also Paul's ignorance, when he blasphemed and persecuted the Church of Christ, 1. Tim. 1. The ignorance of the fact, is when a man knows not what he doth: And a man may be said not to know what he doth, or to err in the Sin of ignorance. fact, either when he doth a thing negligently, or when a thing is done by him (as we say) by fortune or chance, or rather by the inevitable providence of God. An example of sin of negligence may be this, as when a ship is lost by the negligence of the Governor or master thereof, An example of a sin by fortune, or God's providence, may be, as when one casting a stone, killeth a man passing by, of whom he never thought: for this sin in the old Church, the cities of refuge were appointed, Numb. 35. 23. Thus far of the external sin of commission, which proceeds of error or ignorance. The external sin of commission followeth, which is committed in knowledge, or as we say, wittingly: and this is when a man knoweth that he doth evil: hereof speaks Christ, Luk. 12. 47. That servant who knoweth his master's will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. This sin is either of infirmity, or of contumacy. An example Actual external sin committed willingly. of a sin of infirmity is in Peter, who three times denied his Lord and master for fear of death and persecution. An example of a sin of contumacy we have in judas the traitor. Again, a sin of contumacy is either done in hypocrisy, as when a man is not openly rebellious, but hides his sin under the cloak of hypocrisy: this the Apostle taxeth Rom. 2. 5. Thou (saith he) after thy hardness, and heart that cannot repent, dost treasure up wrath against the day of wrath. Again, it is an open rebellion or pride; when a man joins to his contumacy, pride against God himself: for which cause he is said to sin with an high hand, Numb. 15. 30. This manifest rebellion and Heresy. pride, is either against the second Table of the law, as open murder, known adultery; and this is the lesser contumacy: but if it be a proud rebellion against the first Table, the sin is intolerable: And of this latter kind is Open rebellion. heresy first, when as a man in a proud obstinacy, will defend any opinion against the manifest truth of God's word. Of all the sins before specified, this is one property, that a man may repent of them, or for them all: whereupon follows another property, that they are all pardonable. But if ye add to knowledge, pride, frowardness, a malicious heart, striving against the holy Ghost enlightening a man, & teaching inwardly: then the great sin ariseth, which they call the sin against the holy Sin against the holy Ghost. Ghost: the property whereof is this, that he which so sinneth, cannot repent him of his sin: whereupon it followeth that this sin is impardonable. And this sin is called irremissible, not for that the greatness of it exceeds the greatness of God's mercy & grace in Christ; but Wherhfore impardonable. because final impenitence is the reward and punishment, which by God's just judgement is inflicted upon this sin. Read of this point Matt. 12. 21. Heb. 6. 4. 5. and chap. 10. 26. 1. joh. 5. 16. And thus far of actual sin. Now it remaineth to see what the adversaries say of actual sin. Here the greatest controversy is of the division of actual sin into mortal and venial. We avouch that every sin by nature is mortal, that is, that the guilt Sin mortal & venial, a popish doctrine. of eternal death follows it: And that if any sin be venial, that is, may find pardon of God, this cometh to pass, not for that it is so by nature, but of God's mere mercy in jesus Christ. Many scriptures approve our assertion. Ro. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death. He speaks here of sin in general, and of eternal death. Matth. 5. 19 Who soever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, heshall be called the least in the kingdom of God, that is, he shall have be of reckoning in heaven. Observe then here, how for the least sin a man deserves to be shut forth out of heaven. Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be he that abideth not in all things which are written in the book of the law: Therefore there is no sin which deserveth not the curse or malediction of God. For in that the law denounceth an execration against every sin, there is no exception we see of any, even the least sin. I am. 2. 10. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all. Therefore if ye rest in any one sin against the law, ye sin against the whole law, and stand guilty of all sins, which are committed any way against the law: So there is no cause why we should measure our guilt by any one sin, even the very least. For even the very lest sin we live and lie in (without faith & repentance) The least sin merits hell. carries with it the guilt even of the greatest sins, as may clearly appear by that place of james. Matth. 5. 26. Thou shalt not departed thence till thou hast paid the utmost farthing: Therefore God in his accounts respecteth even the least parts of sin, and the smallest sins that are. The tenth law condemns even the least motions of concupiscence. Matth. 22. 37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: Therefore the law requires an exact or perfect obedience. Wherefore he that offendeth even in the least point, is a transgressor of the law: and that everlasting curse followeth the breach of the law, if redemption be not purchased by jesus Christ. Matt. 5. 18. Till heaven and earth perish, one jot, or one tittle of the law shall not scape, till all things be fulfilled. Note here, there shall not pass away one jot, or one tittle, that is, the least branch of the breach of the law, which shall escape without satisfaction either by ourselves, or a mediator. And thus far touching our judgement of this matter. The adversaries for actual sin, respecting it either according to the greatness thereof, or for the punishment it deserveth, they divide it into mortal and venial. They call that mortal sin which doth extinguish charity, Mortal sin defined of Papists. or justice, making us enemies unto God, and therefore guilty of eternal death. They call that venial sin, which doth not quench charity and justice, nor doth not cause an enmity betwixt us and God: but doth a little stain justice, which they place in charity, and they say it A popish venial sin. spots it a little: wherefore this sin (say they) is soon pardoned, and expiate with a light punishment: as in this life, with the repetition of the Lords prayer, the smiting of the breast, satisfaction or penance imposed by the priest or which men do of themselves voluntarily undergo. After this life all venial sins be expiate in purgatory, if they be not pardoned in this life, by the means before expressed. They say, venial sin is twofold: the first venial sin is so called, because it is so by nature, and for the substance Venial sin 2. of it, as an idle word, or immoderate laughter. The next venial sin, they say, is that, which is not so by nature, but for some imperfection, for that sin by nature is mortal: but because it is imperfect for the measure or quantity of the evil, therefore it is venial. This imperfection, say they, is twofold: for this imperfection is either by reason of the will, as when there is not a full consent of the will unto a secret motion of concupiscence: In this kind of venial sin they reckon all evil secret motions, which stir in the affection, before the mind can think of them, and which get not any full consent of the will, as the motions of lust, of anger, of envy, etc. Oragaine, there is an imperfection in respect of the matter of the sin, to wit, when the matter is so small and light, that it makes the sin venial, as for example; if a man steal a halfpenny, or some such trifle, whereby the neighbour is little or nothing touched, and charity is not violate. And they go about to prove their opinion concerning venial sin by divers kinds of arguments. First by testimonies of the scripture, and of the Church: next by reasons of their own: in refutation of which arguments my Popish arguments for venial sin. meaning is not to insist. For venial sin they cite Mat. 12. 32. Whosoever shall speak against the holy Ghost▪ it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come: Therefore say they, there is a kind of sin which shallbe pardoned after this life: and the same is venial sin, which is purged with the fire of purgatory. But let Mark. chap. 3 29. be the interpreter of this phrase which Matthew hath in this place. Whosoever (saith he) shall blaspheme against the holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but is culpable or guilty of eternal damnation. Therefore where Matthew saith, neither is this life nor in the life to come, it is the same, as if he said: It shall never be forgiven him. They bring also the place which is. Mat. 5. 22. Whosoever is angry with his brother unadvisedly, shallbe culpable of judgement; and whosoever saith unto his brother Raca, shallbe worthy to be punished by the Council: and whosoever shall say fool, shallbe worthy to be punished with hell fire. There are here 3. kinds of sins, say they, of which he adjudgeth one kind only worthy of hell fire: wherefore the two former are to be expiate with some light punishment, and therefore be venial sins. I answer, this place teacheth us that there is an inequality, first of sins, next of punishments; and those also spiritual and infernal, which Christ expresseth here by an allusion to civil and politic penalties which were unequal. They reason also on this wise: No man (say they) will deny that one sin is lesser than another by nature: Therefore Popish reasons for venial sin. is not the lesser sin venial by nature? I answer, it followeth not, for that the least sin by nature meriteth eternal death, and eternal punishment, albeit not the greatest punishment. For we defy not the inequality of the pains of the damned. Next say they, is not one sin less than another in quantity? And therefore is it not venial in respect of the imperfection thereof? I answer; it followeth not, for every sin howsoever imperfect, meriteth eternal death: or if it be venial, it is not for the imperfection of it; but for Christ's sake, and his satisfaction for it. Thirdly, they say, is not that sin venial which doth not destroy or overthrow justice, charity, or inherent grace? But there are some sins which do not overthrow or extinguish justice: Ergo, there be some venial sins. The assumption is proved. The just man falls 7. times in the day and riseth again: Behold here one sinneth, and yet ceaseth not to be just. I answer: The proposition is false: for that very sin which doth not extinguish the grace of Christ, and inherent holiness, that very sin by it own nature is mortal: And in that it is pardonable, and doth not abolish holiness, that is not to be imputed to the sin itself, but to the free mercy of God in jesus Christ. CHAP. XXVIII. The controversy concerning the sin against the holy Ghost. THE adversaries say, there be 6. kinds of this sin: The first sin is presumption, when a The Papists say, there be six kinds of the sin against the holy Ghost. man presumeth overmuch of the grace of God and of faith, in the mean while denying his faith by his works: This is the man whom james taxeth in his Epistle, Chap. 2. vers. 14. and after. Thesecond is desperation, contrary to presumption: this was Cain and judas sin. The third is to impugn the known truth: hereto belongs the blasphemy against the holy 3 Ghost; this was the sin of the Pharasies, Matth. 12. The fourth is to envy or to repine at the graces of God in our 4 brethren: this was the sin of the jews, which did repine and grieve at the grace of God given the Gentiles. The fift is obstinacy, when as a man shall persist in a known sin with an obstinate mind. This was Pharaohs sin, and 6 the obstinate jews. The sixth is final impenitency, when as any shall die in contempt of the sacrament of penance, and of any satisfaction imposed upon him by Ecclesiastical order. Of this they understand that place, 1. joh. 5. 16. There is a sin unto death, I do not say, that ye should pray for him. They say, a man sins against the holy Ghost all these ways, and that all these sins be inexpiable: and that these sins are called irremissible, because they be seldom and hardly forgiven; as men seldom and hardly repent them of these sins. But the last which is final impenitency, they think that only is properly said to be impardonable, because it is neither forgiven in this life, nor after this life. And this is their judgement of the sin against the holy Ghost. But we avouch that the scripture doth teach us, there is but one sin only against the holy Ghost, Matth, 12. 32. Mark. 3. 29. Luke. 12. 10. called the blasphemy against the holy Ghost. Ye have a description of this sin, Heb. 6. 4. and 10. 26. 27. the Apostle calling it an apostasy or backsliding from God. It is so also described, 2. Pet. 2. 20. And 1. Io 5. 16. It is called a sin unto death. As for the other kinds of this sin before specified, some of them are consequently of this sin, which we call a blasphemy, and appertain unto it: for desperation and final impenitency are the punishments of this sin: Obstinacy is in the very nature of this sin, for it carries with it an obstinate maliciousness. And as for the other kinds I cannot see how they may be called sins against the holy Ghost: for as for presumption, what is it else but hypocrisy? To Presumption. repine at the graces of God in our brethren, is a sin against our neighbour, and against the second table of the law. Therefore let this rest, that there is but one sin against the holy Ghost, so called, to wit, the blasphemy against the holy Ghost, or an apostasy from the grace of the spirit once received: for these are one and the same, to blaspheme against the holy Ghost, and to fall from grace received. Notwithstanding I deny not, but that this sin, which is but one in substance may have his increase or growth: for than it is come to a height, when as it fighteth against all the known truth which is according to godliness. Next we say, that this one sin is impardonable, not for that it is seldom and hardly pardoned; but for that it is never pardoned, because such a one can never repent him of his sin, that he hath committed. For this man's heart groweth to such a hardness (and that by God's just judgement) as can never after be mollified. And that this sin is simply impardonable, is manifest by the very words of the lord in the gospel, before cited: for where it is said in Matth. it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come: and in Mark▪ This sin is never forgiven, but is culpable of eternal damnation: Do not these words cut off all hope of pardon? So as I cannot but wonder at the Rhemists, so impudently to extenuate Rhemists' impudence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the force of the words of the lord. To the Heb. 6. he saith, it is impossible that he which so sinneth should be renewed by repentance: then he addeth a weighty cause and most necessary, for (saith he) This man crucifieth again to himself the Son of God, that is, as much as in him lieth. Which point, the better to conceive it, we must know there is a difference between all other sins, and this sin against the holy Ghost, as touching the remission and expiation of them. For to expiate all other sins, the sacrifice of Christ once offered, is sufficient for them all, and the virtue thereof extendeth itself to purge all sins for ever. But when a man hath once sinned against the holy Ghost, and profaned that precious blood, the virtue thereof will never after be effectual for the expiation of his sin. Wherefore he stands in need of some new sacrifice to purge his sin; which thing shall never be granted him: For if this were granted, then must Christ be crucified again, or some other sacrifice must be offered: but neither can Christ be crucified again, neither can any other sacrifice be offered for him, as it is written Heb. 10. 26. For there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Therefore this sin can never be expiate, because a new sacrifice can never be given for it: And this is the cause of the impossibility of the pardon of this sin. The adversaries, namely, the Rhemists in their observations on this place, do thus interpret this impossibility: they say, there is a double repentance, or renewing, or purging of sin: They say, the first is easy and light, in and by Baptism: where (say they) all the sins before Baptism, are purged by that light washing of baptism. The second they call penance, or the purging of sins, Popish sacrament of penanc. as they say, by the sacrament of Penance: and in this Sacrament (as they speak) such sins are purged which are committed after baptism; and this is hard and painful, as consisting of fastings, prayers, satisfactions, and other corporal afflictions. If you grant them this distinction, than they say, this impossibility of being renewed, is in respect of that repentance, renewing, and purging of sin which is in baptism: For (they say) it is impossible that a sin committed after Baptism, some baptism being iterated, should be purged: for we may not be rebaptized. As for the latter, penance and renewing, they say, there is a possibility in it: For the greatest sin after baptism may be expiate by it. Therefore they affirm, the Apostle speaks covertly to such as sin after baptism, sending them to the Sacrament of Penance, that by virtue of that Sacrament their sin may be expiate, and that they may be renewed: But by this their interpretation 2. Pet. 3. 16 they pervert the holy Scripture to their own destruction. For this is certain, that the Apostle here takes away all possibility of being renewed, as the reason annexed manifestly proveth. Finally, it is evident by that place of john before cited, that this sin is impardonable, and that this is proper to that sin, that it can by no means be pardoned. For john saith, we may not pray for that sin: If we may not pray for it, there is no hope of repentance, or pardon for it. I know what the Rhemists here would say, to wit, that by this sin unto death we must understand final impenitency: final impenitency is not remitted, because here wants repentance, and therefore we may not pray for such a one after his death: for he died in impenitency, contemning the Sacrament of Penance. But they affirm it to be lawful to pray for other sins after death. This again is to pervert Scripture, for the Apostle speaketh not of prayer to be or not to be after his death which hath so sinned, but that prayer must not be conceived for him whilst he liveth, after that it hath manifestly appeared unto the church by infallible arguments, that such a one hath sinned unto death. As for julian the Apostata, for whom the Church prayed not while he lived, yea it prayed against him, in his life time, after it was clearly discerned, that he had sinned unto death, that is, had blasphemed against the holy Ghost. I pass over that place of Peter before cited, where the Apostle speaks of no difficulty, but of a mere impossibility of being renewed, of repentance, and of remission of sins, where it is said, Their latter state is worse than the first: and as it followeth, but it hath happened unto him (as it is in the true proverb) the dog hath returned to his own vomit, and the sow to her wallowing in the mire. And thus far of this second controversy, and so much shall suffice concerning sin. CHAP. XXIX. Of justifying Faith. Our effectual calling is effected, first by the Law, then by the Gospel. The whole doctrine of the Law may be reduced to this * or form of reason. syllogism: Cursed is he that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of this law, to do them: But I have not continued in them: Therefore I am accursed. The proposition of this reason is the voice of the Law: and that commination which is added to the covenant of works: which is thus conceived, Do this, and thou shalt live: but if thou do it not, thou shalt die. THe assumption of this reason, is the act of every one's conscience that apply to itself the transgression of the law. The conclusion likewise is the act of each one's conscience, applying to itself the just punishment and curse of God for sin. This form of reasoning belongs not so much to the calling itself, as to our preparation to that Our preparation to our effectual calling. effectual calling, which is properly effected by the doctrine of the Gospel. For by the doctrine of the Law, which is comprehended in this argument, we are amazed, and affected with the feeling of our misery, which feeling is the first degree unto salvation, Now the doctrine of the Gospel may be comprehended in this form: Whosoever believeth, shall be justified and live: But I believe: therefore I shall be justified; An evangelical syllogism. and live. The proposition is the voice of the Gospel, or of God himself calling. For therein is contained the first part of an effectual calling, which is nothing else but a proclaiming of the free covenant, the form whereof is contained in this proposition. The Assumption is not indeed the act of the natural conscience, but of every ones supernatural saith applying to himself Christ jesus the Mediator of the covenant, and him first crucified, and next glorified. The Conclusion also is the act of faith, applying to every one the benefits of Christ, his righteousness and salvation by him. This reason doth properly belong to Calling: and the Proposition of it is the first part of calling: and the Assumption and conclusion is the second part. And seeing the assumption and conclusion are the acts of our faith, whereby we do as it were make answer unto God that calleth; surely we shall not without cause say, that the second part of effectual calling is nothing else but faith: Wherefore the common place of Faith must be comprised under this of our effectual calling. It followeth therefore that we speak of Faith, yea of that faith which is properly & simply so called; that is, of faith which they call justifying faith. For as touching the other kinds of faith, which are commonly numbered, as a justifying faith. dead faith, etc. they are so termed, not simply, but in some respect, and with an addition, dead faith, temporary faith, etc. Now in the declaration of faith, the first thing that offereth itself to be considered, is the object thereof. The The object of faith. object is generally whatsoever is contained in the word of God, that is, the whole truth of God. But specially and properly, the object of it, is jesus Christ with all his benefits. There is a twofold consideration of Christ and his benefits: for first Christ with his benefits is considered as he is offered in the word and Sacraments: that is, as he is offered unto us, as in a looking glass; and yet not so much Christ himself, as a certain image or picture of him. Of this looking glass of the word and Sacraments ye read, 1. Cor. 13. 12. We see now as it were in a glass, and by a dark speaking. And 2. Cor. 3. 18. But we with open face beholding the glory of the Lord as in a glass, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory. Now Christ so considered, The glass wherein we may find and see the face of Christ. is nothing else but Christ preached in the word, and represented in the Sacraments. We (saith he) preach Christ crucified, 1. Cor. 1. 23. For the Gospel preached doth set Christ in a manner before our eyes. Gal. 3. 1. To whom jesus Christ was before pictured before your eyes, and among you crucified. Next, we be to consider Christ without this glass of the word and Sacraments, as he is in himself. Of Christ so considered the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 13. 12. But then we shall see him face to face. And 1. joh. 3. 2. But we know that it shall come to pass, that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. As there is a twofold consideration of Christ, so the knowledge and apprehension of him is twofold. The first is called Faith, the A twofold know ledge or apprehension of faith. latter Sight. Of both these ye read 2. Cor. 5. 7. For we walk by faith, not by sight. These two ways of knowing & apprehending, do agree one with another in nature and essence: for both of them are the knowledge and apprehension of Christ: but they differ in quantity, and as they use to speak, more or less: for the knowledge of faith is the lesser, as also is the apprehension: whereupon 1. Cor. 13. 9 it is said, that we know in part. But the knowledge & apprehension by Sight is the greater; & so perfect knowledge and apprehension: and this shall have place in the next world. Of this perfect knowledge is spoken in the same chap. vers. 10. But after that which is perfect is come. And vers. 12. Then shall I know even as I shall be taught. These things thus laid down and known, it is easily perceived, what the special and first object of faith is: namely, jesus Christ with all his benefits, and even so, as he offereth himself in the word and Sacraments. Or the object of faith is the word itself, or the promises which are made of Christ, which is all one. Hence it followeth, The necessity of the word preached. that whensoever the preaching of the word, and admistration of the Sacraments shalcease, this faith also whereby we now walk, must also cease. See 1. Cor. 13. Then shall that which is in part be done away. To conclude, it is to be noted of this object of faith, that it is special, that is, offered to me, to thee, and to every man specially and distinctly. For albeit the words be generally conceived; yet they are specially to be taken, as spoken to me, to thee: or of me, and of thee. Thus much touching the object of faith. Now we are to speak of the subject thereof; namely, wherein it is, and from which it proceedeth. The subject of faith is the soul of man; and in the soul of man the The subject of faith. reasonable and principal faculties: those I term, first the mind; then the wil For as touching the other inferior faculties and affections of the soul, faith is not so much said to be resident in them, as to sanctify them, and to stir them up unto good, and as a Lady, to govern them. Whereupon it is said, After that by faith he had purified their hearts. Now that faith belongs to the mind, it is apparent by those titles which are given to faith every where in the Scripture, as when it is called knowledge, understanding, sight: as when it is said, We see now in a glass. And that it is in the will, it is evident by that which is said Ro. 10. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. And Eph. 3. 17. that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith: for the seat of the will is attributed to the heart. Furthermore, the names whereby faith is termed in the Scripture, do sufficiently convince, that the seat of it is not only in the mind, but also in the will and heart: as when it is called an apprehension, and when it is termed a certain embracing, and such like names, which signify the office of the heart and will. Thus far of the subject of faith. Now let us come nearer to the nature thereof, and to the parts of the nature of it. The first part of faith, is the knowledge or understanding of the mind, whereby the mind doth plainly understand some sentence or proposition of the Gospel, and by name that proposition which is in the syllogism of the Gospel, which we alleged before: for the proposition of that syllogism is as it were an abridgement of the whole Gospel. From this part, as the principal, namely knowledge, faith is named every where in the Scriptures. The second part of faith, is the judgement, or as it is commonly called, the assent of the same mind. Of this judgement the scripture speaketh every where, as 1. Cor. Parts of faith. 2. 15. The spiritual man judgeth all things. 1. joh. 4. 1. Try the spirits whether they be of God. This judgement is twofold, the first, of truth; the second, of goodness. The judgement judgement twofold. of truth, is when the mind assenteth to the proposition of the Gospel, that it is true: of this judgement see joh. 3. 33. He that receiveth his testimony, hath sealed that God is true. 1. Tim. 1. 15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy by all means to be received, etc. To conclude, this judgement of truth is gathered out of all places of Scripture, wherein there is mention made of the truth of God's word. The judgement of goodness is, when the mind assenteth to that thing, which is in the proposition of the Gospel, that it is good; and therefore to be followed. For it must be known, that all the propositions of the Gospel The sayings of the Gospel be practical. be practical, as they say; in the naked speculation and contemplation of which none must set up his rest; but they are to be drawn out into the manners and life every day. Of this judgement of goodness, ye have that Rom. 7. 16. I consent to the law that it is good. 1. Cor. 1. 18. The preaching of the cross is to us which are saved the power of God. And in the same chap. vers. 24. We preach Christ, to them which are called, the power and wisdom of God. And thus much concerning the twofold judgement, which (as we have said) must be of the general proposition of that evangelical Syllogism: of both which, this last of all is to be held, that it is not only general, but also special; whereby I do judge that those things which are spoken in the Gospel, are true of me, and good to me. For, as we said before, those things which are published in the gospel, are to be understood to be spoken specially of me, and of thee. And this special judgement is properly that which is called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. full assurance. After this follows * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. confidence, which belongs to the heart and will: whereof we will speak in the next place. There followeth therefore in the third place, the choice or hold-taking of the will, which is, when any one doth with his will or heart peculiarly apply to himself that The third point of faith. which he hath judged, first true; then good, not only in general, but also in special. This apprehension or application, is in the Assumption or conclusion of that syllogism of the Gospel, alleged before by us. For after that the mind hath seen and judged the proposition of that syllogism, than the will of every one doth particularly apply unto himself in the assumption and conclusion, those good things which that general Proposition did concern. Of this apprehension ye have 1. Tim. 6. 12. Lay The apprehension of faith. hold on eternal life. Phil. 3. 12. I follow, if I also may apprehend it. 1. Tim. 1. 15. This is faithful saying, and worthy by all means to be embraced by us. To conclude, this third part of faith is to be understood in all those titles, whereby the choice of the will is signified in the Scripture. From this part faith is termed a special confidence or trust: for the nature of faith is chief seen in it. These things thus declared, it will be easy to gather a definition of faith. For Faith in Christ with all his benefits, Faith defined. as he is offered in the word and Sacraments, is first acknowledge of the mind; then an apprehension of the will or heart. In this definition we have first the object of faith; then the subject of it; thirdly, the parts. Under the knowledge of the mind I understand also the judgement or assent of the mind, and that twofold, whereof we have spoken afore. It is to be known that faith thus defined by us, is improperly taken for the function and work of faith, seeing faith is properly an infused habit (as they call it) or an holy quality, first of the mind; then of the will or heart. Now this quality in the mind, what is it else but that light, of which the Scripture speaks every where? Ye were once darkness, but now ye are light in the Lord, Ephes. 5. 8. The eyes of your mind being opened, that ye may know what Faith a light. is that hope of his calling, Ephes. 1. 18. God which commanded that the light should shine out of darkness, is he which hath shined in your hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of jesus Christ, 2. Cor. 4. 6. But God hath revealed those things unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God. 1. Cor. 2. 10. And this light of the mind, which is the first part of faith, seemeth to be not only a restoring of that natural light, which was impaired in Adam's fall: but also a certain supernatural light put into the mind by the Spirit of Christ, to this end, that the mind might behold and see those things which excel all natural knowledge. Whereupon Ephe. 3. 18. 19 it is thus said, That ye being rooted & grounded in love, may be able to attain with all Saints, what is the length, and breadth, and depth, and height, and to know that love of Christ, which passeth all knowledge. I do not think that this knowledge was in Adam, in his first creation, before his fall. For all the knowledge in Adam's mind, Adam's knowledge before his fall. before the fall, as it was holy; so it seemeth it was natural: it seemeth it was a natural knowledge of God himself; it seemeth it was a natural knowledge of the things created. Neither did he before his fall see God in the mediator Christ, nor was it needful he should see him so. Besides, this light which I speak of, is kindled in our mind by looking on the face of Christ the Mediator, as it were in the glass of the Gospel. 2. Cor. 3. 18. We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from gloxy to glory. Also 4. chap. ver. 6. To give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of jesus Christ. But Adam before his fall, as he heard nothing concerning the Gospel of Christ, so he saw not his face in the glass of the Gospel. Besides 1. Co. 15. 45. of Adam it is said, the 1. Adam was made a living soul: but of Christ, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Out of which words the difference betwixt Adam and Christ is seen, that Adam was made only natural, yet holy: but Christ was made spiritual and supernatural: for spiritual things are supernatural. Again, out of this difference we gather that that spiritual and supernatural light, which we have only by the benefit of Christ, that is, the second Adam, was not in Adam before the fall. For in the same place vers. 48. 49. Our heavenly or spiritual condition is ascribed unto Christ. But of this thus far, and but sparingly. Also in the will or heart faith is a supernatural ability; put into it by the Spirit of Christ, of which * Or the saith of the operation of God. Ephe. 3. 20 According to the power that worketh in us. Col. 2. 12. By the faith of God that worketh mightily in us. This power also, as I think, was not put into Adam's heart before the fall, being induced by the same reasons which we alleged before. And seeing that light of the mind, and efficacy of the heart are supernatural, it followeth also that the functions of that light & efficacy, namely, the knowledge of the mind, and the apprehension of the heart, are likewise supernatural. Wherefore unto that definition of saith before set down, we add this branch (supernatural) as the last: so that justifying faith in Christ, with all his nofits offered unto us in the word and Sacraments, is not only justifying faith defined. an holy, but also a supernatural knowledge of the mind, and apprehension of the wil Thus then we define faith, as we admonished before, as the name of faith is taken for the function and work of faith: For so the Divines do commonly define it: so also in the Scriptures is the name of faith wont to be taken, namely, for the function or work of faith, as it is termed 2. Thess. 1. 3. But if the description of faith properly, and as it is taken for an infused quality, do like any man better; thus also he may have it described: that Faith is a light of the mind, and an * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. effectual action in the heart supernaturally, put into them both, for the knowing and apprehending of Christ with all his benefits, offered in the word and Sacraments. Now it remaineth that we speak something touching the effects of faith. That knowledge and apprehension of Christ which we speak of, sith the seat of it is in the principal and reasonable faculties of the soul, namely the mind and the will, it cannot be idle, neither doth it Effects of faith in the mind and heart. etc. contain itself within the bounds of those higher faculties of the soul, the mind & the will; but is effectual also in the lower heart, that is, in all the affections: and there is not any of all the affections, but is affected some way or other by this knowledge & apprehension, being not only sanctified by it, but also rapt up above itself & the nature thereof. For as we said of faith, that it is a supernatural knowledge and apprehension, the same is true also of the functions of all the affections: for they are all not only made holy, but also supernatural, by a certain supernatural faculty put into them by the Spirit of Christ. But to speak distinctly of the effects of Faith: Christ with all his benefits being once known and apprehended, an hope of good to come, & a fear of evil to come, Note the speciull effects which follow faith. the love of Christ, and the desire of him, and joy & gladness, are in a wonderful manner kindled in the soul, as 1. Pet. 1. 8. Believing in him ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorious. Grief also which is according to God, is kindled, with groans which cannot be expressed, Ro. 8. 26. To conclude, the whole heart burns to Godward. By faith also our affections toward our neighbour are stirred up, and that for God & Christ: as love of our neighbour, and delight in the Saints, Psal. 16. 3. And these are the first effects of faith, and those are inward in the lower heart or affections. There be also outward effects of faith, having their being in the body, and in all the members of the body; and those are outward actions of the body, into which the inward motions of the affections break forth. And those are, first, such as respect God: then, such as respect our neighbour for God's cause. And thus much of the effects of faith, both inward and outward, as also of faith, which is properly so called, which they commonly term justifying faith. CHAP. XXX. Of the improper significations of Faith. IT followeth that we speak of the improper significations of faith. For this word, faith, is diverse acceptions of faith. ambiguous, and signifieth many things. Properly 1 it signifieth this faith which they call justifying: for that is properly and simply termed by this name. Secondly, it signifieth that faith which 2 they call historical, or dead; which is nothing else, but as it were the carcase of justifying faith: for it lacks the soul, that is, the full assurance of the mind, and the confidence of the heart in the special assent of the mind, and in the trust and apprehension of the heart. Thirdly, it signifieth faith which they call temporary, 3 which is as a certain Ape of justifying faith, Fourthly, & 4 last of all, that faith, which they term miraculous. These three last significations of faith are improper, and the name of faith is but by an homonymy or improperly put upon them, to signify these things. For not any of these may be called by the name of faith, unless you say in some respect, in part, and after a sort, and with an addition: for example; the knowledge of history is termed faith, but with this addition, historical or dead; and so of the rest. Now a general notion of this word faith is that which is Heb. 11. 1. And that is a knowledge in general, with assent and agreement to all those things which are comprehended in the word of God, and that whether general or particular. I mean by a particular word, when any thing is revealed to any one peculiarly out of order, by which kind of revelation it came to pass that miracles were done by some. We must speak therefore in the first place concerning historical or dead faith: and first for the testimonies of scripture touching it. jam. 2. 15 Faith if it have no works, is dead of itself. 1. Cor. 12. 9 Unto other, faith by the same spirit. The coherence of the text Historical or dead saith. and comparison made with other gifts of the holy Ghost, which in that place are numbered, do show sufficiently that the Apostle speaketh of historical faith. Hitherto belongeth that place which is 1. Cor. 13. 2. If I had all faith, so that I could remove mountains. Here he doth not only mean the faith of miracles, but also the historical: for he saith all faith; and after he sets down one kind, as if he had said by name, miraculous faith to remove mountains. The reason of the name is this: It is termed historical, because it is only a bare knowledge of the holy history, concerning God, Christ, the will of God, and his works, and not an holy apprehension of the things known. And why it is called dead, james rendereth a reason in the place before cited, namely, because it hath no Dead faith. works: the reason is from the consequent or sign. For want of works or actions, argueth and showeth that faith is as it were dead, and without life, and if I may so speak the carcase of faith: even as if there be no motions nor actions in a man neither inward nor outward, thereby it is declared, that the man is dead, and the body without life, or but the dead carcase of a man. Our adversaries, that I may speak of this by the way, when they hear out of jam. 2. 16. that saith is therefore The papists touching faith. called dead, because it hath no works, by & by conclude, that charity, and the works of charity, is the soul of faith: but this followeth not, that charity, and the works of charity are the soul of faith: but this followeth, that charity, and the works of charity are the signs and tokens of the soul, that is by name, of that apprehension of Christ which is in the heart: for this is indeed the soul and form of faith. I will declare this thing by a like example. A man, if he have no works, no actions, neither inward nor outward, that indeed argueth, that there is not a soul or form in him, out of which actions do proceed: but it doth not argue that works or actions are the soul and form of man. But they think that the words of james, chap. 2. 26. do make for their opinion. For out of that that james saith, As the body without the Spirit or breath is dead, so also faith which is without works is dead: thus they infer: Therefore as the Spirit is the form of the body, so are works the form of faith. But this consequent is not of force. For the comparison and similitude is not in that, but in this, that even as the body without the soul or breath is dead, so faith without works is dead: The body without the spirit, as her soul and form, is dead: faith without works, as the signs and tokens of the soul, is dead. Even as therefore the want of the Spirit or the soul, doth argue the death of the body: so the want of the sign & token of the soul of faith doth argue the death of faith: It is therefore a comparison of the spirit and works in the like effect, and not in the like nature: For both have the like effect, which is death; but both the things are not of the same nature. Hitherto of the reason of the name. The object of historical faith, is all the holy story, that is, the whole truth which is according to godliness, and the word of both covenants: wherein this faith differs from justifying faith, which hath the word of the Gospel, or of the covenant of grace for the object thereof. The subject of this faith is the mind, which knoweth and judgeth: but the judgement of the mind, doth only Subject of an historical faith. reach to the truth of the history, as I think, and not to the goodness of the things themselves, which are contained in the story. For although an hypocrite do profess that all those things, of which the Gospel speaks, are true; yet he doth not assent to them in his mind, as good things: Note well. which is the first step of practice or action. For after the judgement of the goodness of a thing, followeth the apprehension thereof, which belongs to the will; out of which after proeede the motions of the affections, and out of them last of all do issue the outward actions of the body. Therefore this dead faith, doth not sincerely at the least assent to those things which are in the word as good things, but rather doth indeed reject them, and count them as evil. So the devil, who hath this faith, is said to tremble, jam. 2. 19 Out of which it is manifest, that the devil doth reject Christ and all his good things. For this horror ariseth out of rejecting and hating of the thing. Therefore in one word, this historical faith pertains only to the mind, and hath that for the subject of it. It followeth, that we speak of the nature thereof. By these things which have been spoken of the subject, it The nature of an historical faith. may easily be learned what is the nature of it. For it is wholly comprised but only in the general knowledge of the mind, and judgement of truth: it hath therefore one or two degrees of justifying faith. Out of all these things which we have spoken of an historical faith, it is easy to gather the definition thereof. For historical faith is a knowledge in the mind of the whole truth both of the Historical faith defined. law, and of the Gospel, and the judgement of the mind made thereupon, as far as concerns the truth thereof. And thus far concerning historical or dead faith. Next followeth a temporary. Of this faith ye have these texts. Matth. 13. 20. 21. But he that received the seed 3. Faith a temporary faith. in stony ground, is he who heareth the word, and by and by receives it with joy, yet hath no root in himself, but is for a time, and when persecution and trouble ariseth because of the word, is offended presently. To the same purpose read I. uk. 8. 13. Of this faith see also Heb. 6. 4. 5. For it cannot be, that they which have been once enlightened, and tasted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come, if they fall away, etc. To conclude, of this faith ye have joh. 5. 35. He (namely john) was a burning and a shining candle: and ye would for a time have rejoiced in his light. The reason of the name is this: it is called Temporary, because it endures but for a time: and it endureth but for a time, because it hath no root. It hath the same object with justifying faith, & which is properly so called, namely, jesus Christ with his benefits, offered in the word of the Gospel and in the Sacraments; wherein it differs from historical faith, which hath for the object thereof the universal truth. It hath The subject of a temporary faith. the same subject with justifying faith: for it hath it scat both in the mind, and also in the will and heart. Last of all, it hath as many parts of nature as the justifying faith hath. For it is a knowledge of the understanding, conjoined with both the judgements of the mind, & it is the apprehension of the will or heart: whereout followeth also the stirring of the affections, as of joy, delight, etc. But that I may speak a little more largely of this apprehension, which is in Temporary faith, and of this joy. First, it is certain by the scripture, that these things are in the Temporary faith. For Christ saith in Matth. That he which is but for a time, doth receive the word, and that with joy. And in joh. The jews are said to have rejoiced for a time in the light of john Baptist: And to the Hebr. How the historical and temporary saith differ one fro another, and both from the justifying. there is attributed to this faith, not only the enlightening of the mind, but also the taste of the heart, and that performed not only by the word, but also by the Spirit: for he saith; They which have been made partakers of the holy Ghost. Therefore in Temporary faith there is indeed a kind of apprehension, there is indeed a certain joy, wherein Temperarie faith differeth from historical faith. For in historical faith these things are not indeed, but he that hath it, doth feign, and dissemble and lie, in his outward profession that he hath these things: wherefore he is a shameless hypocrite. But he that hath temporary faith, hath these things indeed, apprehension (I say) and joy, after a certain manner: neither doth he so feign or sie, as he that hath an historical faith: yet he is an hypocrite, because this apprehension and this joy, are not sincere, albeit after a certain manner they be true. I say, they are not sincere, because they are not for that cause for which they should be, that is, they are not for Christ himself, offered in the preaching of the Gospel; they are not for God's sake, they are not for his glory, nor for those heavenly benefits of Christ, his righteousness and eternal life: but they are for other causes, as for the newness of the Gospel, which is to be understood in that place, joh. 5. 35. He was a burning & a shining candle, and ye would have rejoiced for a time in his light, namely, for the newness of the matter: Secondly, they be, because of a licentiousness to sin, which men by and by snatch to themselves, upon the hearing of free justification by Christ, and Christian liberty: To conclude, they are for riches, honours and other commodities of this life. Now seeing the Temporising professor hath these causes propounded to himself in hearing and receiving the word, and in rejoicing, it must needs be that these are not sincere in him. For nothing is done sincerely, unless it be Sincerity. done in respect of the glory of God. And herein differs Temporary Faith, from justifying: For the justifying Faith doth all things for Christ himself, for God himself, for the heavenly and spiritual benefits of Christ, as much as it can for man's infirmity. Out of this therefore it follows, that the Temporizer is also an hypocrite, seeing he is not sincere, and that the Temporizer is an hypocrite. temporary faith is hypocritical, seeing it is not sincere. Out of that again, that it is not sincere, another thing followeth, namely, that it is not sound & firm: for nothing that is not sincere, can be sound. For those causes upon which it depends, are not sound: as for example, those worldly things, as riches, honours of the world, etc. In which thing temporary Faith differeth from justifying Faith: for justifying Faith, as it is sincere, so it is sound. For of that it is said Col. 2. 5. And the steadfastness of your The difference between a temporary faith, and true justifying faith. faith in Christ. For justifying Faith is, as it were, a solid body, consisting of three dimensions, length, breadth, depth: for it possesseth the depth, and lowest of the heart: but temporary Faith is not a body with three dimensions, but only a surface, sticking in the upper part of the heart: for it is not either a sound light, enlightening all the heart, or a sound apprehension, arising from the bottom of the heart; or to conclude, a sound joy possessing the whole body: but all these things are only superficial in the temporary Faith. Whereupon Heb. 6. that apprehension of heavenly things which is therein, is compared to tasting, or sleight touching, seeing that the heart doth but as it were with the tip of the tongue lightly taste those heavenly things, and not quite drink them up, and receive them into itself. Again, out of this, that temporary Faith is not sound, another thing also followeth, namely, that it doth not endure for ever, but only for a time. For that which is not sound, is not durable and perpetual; but only temporary. Wherein also it differeth from justifying faith, which as it is sound, so it is perpetual and constant. From this property this faith took her name, and was called temporary: now this property doth presuppose the two other going before; namely, first that it is not sound: secondly, that it is not sincere, albeit it be in some sort true. While I consider somewhat more diligently of the cause of these three properties, I found that it is not to be imputed so much to those outward things for which this faith doth apprehend Christ in the word, and rejoiceth in him, as to the inward evil affection of the heart. For the heart of man, as Christ saith, is stony ground, that is, it is neither good nor honest of it own nature. Now we measure this goodness and honesty, chief by simplicity and sincerity, which is opposed to hypocrisy and dissembling. Therefore a deep hypocrisy, which is contrary to sincerity possesseth the heart of this man. Now the heart so affected, doth believe, apprehend and rejoice, not sincerely for a true cause, for which it ought to do these things, but for other worldly causes. It followeth therefore, that the cause of these evils doth lurk in the heart. Wherefore, if any man will not be a temporizer, A good admonition for a temporizer. let him above all things look to his heart, and sift and examine it diligently night and day, so long till he feel that the faith of Christ takes root in the bottom of his heart, and doth throughout possess the whole heart, as much as may be. Out of these things which we have spoken, touching the properties of this faith and of the cause of them, a mark may be taken, whereby any one may discern true & justifying faith from temporary. And that is, in a word, sincerity in doing, in believing, in apprehending, in rejoicing, Sincerity. & in doing all things throughout the whole course of the life. Now sincerity is known by this, if all things be done and performed by us for God and for Christ, whether those things be of small or great moment. Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do; do all to the glory of God, 1. Cor. 10. 31. By these things which have been spoken, it is easy to gather a definition of this faith. For Tempor. F. defined. temporary faith is a knowledge in the mind, and an apprehension in the will, of Christ with all his benefits; but yet temporary, or enduring but for a time. And thus much of temporary faith. The miraculous faith followeth, which is the third unproper signification of the word of faith. Touching this faith these are testimonies. Matth. 17. If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed. 1. Cor. 13. If I had all faith, so that I could remove mountains. The reason of the name is this: 4. Miraculous faith. It is termed miraculous from the effect of it, because it is powerful to do miracles. The object thereof is not the bare general word of God, but rather a special promise or revelation made to some one, touching the doing of some certain miracle. Now that the bare general word sufficeth not, it appeareth hereby, for because many holy men have had faith in the general word, yea they have justifying faith in the promise of grace; and yet could do no miracles. Simon Magus believed by an historical faith in the general word, and yet he could do no miracles: therefore he would have bought this faculty with money for a price. Act. 8. 31. Unless therefore unto the general word, there be added a special promise or revelation, it is no miraculous faith; which is a certain special and extraordinary gift of the Spirit. Wherein the Adversaries do err very much, who think that the general word sufficeth for this, to make a miraculous faith. The subject of it The subject of a miraculous faith is the mind, first understanding, and withal judging the special promise: and then the will or the heart apprehending that which is promised. The parts of the nature thereof are; a knowledge with a judgement of the mind, and an apprehension with the will and heart. Out of these things now spoken, I gather this definition of this Faith: that Miraculous faith is a Miraculous faith defined. knowledge in the mind, and an apprehension with the will of a special promise or revelation, for the doing of a miracle. Thus far of miraculous Faith; and in sum, of the true doctrine of faith. CHAP. XXXI. The opinion of the adversaries concerning Faith. IT followeth now that we see briefly, what the adversaries do hold touching Faith. First, they do not acknowledge the divers significations of Faith: they entreat only of one faith, and that they term justifying, that is, as they expound the word, that The Popish opinion of Faith. which disposeth us to justice, being to be infused after in the time thereof. Thus thinks Bellarmine in his Treatise touching faith. In this doctrine of faith, which they term justifying they differ from us, first about the object of it. Indeed they do not deny, that the object of faith, is the mercy of God in jesus Christ, offered in the Gospel, that is, that it is the Gospel, and the promises of grace concerning Christ, and God's mercy in him. But they will have the object to be not only the word of the Gospel, but equally the universal word of God. To confirm this opinion of theirs, they allege that definition of faith which is set down Heb. chap. 11. 1. Faith (saith the Apostle) is the ground of things that are hoped for, and the evidence of things which are not seen. This (say they) is the definition of justifying faith: But this definition stretcheth itself, not only to Christ, to the promises of God, and to the Gospel concerning him; but also to the whole word of God, & to all things that are contained in the word of God. For example: it stretcheth itself to the word of God, which is concerning the creation of the world, as is evident by vers. 3. which followeth in the same chap. By faith we understand that the world was ordained by the word of God: Hence they conclude, that justifying faith hath the whole word for the object of it. But to this we answer, that not only justifying Faith is defined by the Apostle in that place, but that that definition of Faith is common to all the significations of faith, as is plain enough by that induction of examples which followeth in that place and chapter. Neither is that their argument, which they gather out of the coherence of the text, of any force. They say that that faith is defined, of which the Apostle spoke in the last verses of the chapter going afore: Now the just shall live by faith, etc. But there the Apostle spoke of justifying Faith: therefore here in the 11. chap. justifying faith is defined. I answer, this definition, I confess, doth belong to justifying faith, but not to that alone, but it is common to it with other significations of Faith, as with historical Heb. 11. 1. A general definition of faith common to all kinds of faith. faith, and miraculous, etc. as is evident by the induction that followeth. Seeing therefore that this definition doth not only belong to justifying faith, it followeth that out of this definition they get not that they would have, namely, that the object of justifying Faith is equally the universal word of God: Therefore let the object thereof properly be that which it apprehendeth: and that is the Gospel, and the promise concerning Christ. Secondly, they descent from us about this same special object, namely, the mercy of God in Christ. For we say and affirm, that the object of justifying faith is, not only a general mercy, nor only a general promise touching Christ, but much rather a special mercy, and a special promise: that is, mercy offered in the Gospel, not in common to all, but peculiarly to me, or to thee. For albeit the promises and sentences of the Gospel be conceived generally; yet it is certain, that they are to be received particularly by every one, as if they were spoken to every one in several: as for example, joh. 3. the promise of the covenant of grace is conceived generally in these words, Whosoever believeth in the Son shall not perish, but have life everlasting. This promise is indeed generally conceived, but it is to be understood particularly and singularly by every one, as if it had been spoken to me, or to thee: If thou believest in the Son, thou shalt not perish, but have everlasting life. The Apostle 1. Tim. 1. doth understand this general sentence, namely, that Christ jesus came into the world to save sinners, no otherwise then if it had been pronounced only concerning himself: whereupon he doth apply it particularly unto himself, assuming by name, that he is the sinner, and concluding, How the believer is to make a syllogism in form. at the least secretly, that Christ came into the world to save him by name. We may make trial of this thing by those promises that are made specially in the Gospel to save certain men: as to the man sick of the palsy, Matt. 9 to the woman that was a sinner, Luk. 7. to the adulteress, joh. 8. to Zacheus, Luk. 19 to the thief, Luk. 23. For the Spirit of Christ, when any general promise or sentence touching Christ and his mercy is alleged, doth no less particularly now apply the same to every man, by speaking inwardly to the heart of every one, then at that time Christ did by his lively voice apply those particular promises to some certain persons. Roman. 3. When the righteousness of God is said to belong to all believers, and that without distinction, it is plainly signified that that righteousness is offered to men of every sort and condition, and also propounded to every several person. 1. Tim 2. after he hath admonished that we are to pray for all men, he addeth, that God will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. Out of which it followeth, that in the publishing of the Gospel, God hath respect, not only of all men in common, but also distinctly of every several person: which regard also he will have us to have in our prayers. What need many words? For if there were nothing else that did The mercy of God in Christ offered generally to all the world, particularly applied to every one by the Spirit, is the object of justifying faith. teach this, the administration of the Sacraments alone hath force enough in it to prove, that the mercy of God in Christ is offered specially to every one. For in both the sacraments, the seals of that mercy are given and offered to every one severally. And let this suffice, to show that special mercy (as it is called) is the object properly of justifying Faith, against which our adversaries hold. The object of justifying Faith being made to be a general mercy, it followeth that faith, in the opinion of our adversaries, is general, and not a special assent. For seeing there is only a general mercy propounded generally to the Church, and not offered particularly to the several members thereof, how can any particular man challenge that particularly to himself, which is not spoken and offered particularly? But we affirm, that justifying faith is that whereby every believer doth particularly, not only assent to the promise that it is true in itself, but also apprehends with the heart the promised thing, and applies it properly to himself. For this being made plain, that the mercy of God was particularly offered to every one, it followeth, that faith must be particular. But for the proof hereof there are almost infinite testimonies of the Scriptures: we will be content but with a few. Gal. 2. 20. And the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Mark here, he doth by faith peculiarly apply to himself the Son of God, and his life, his love and his death. Neither is there any cause why any one should say, that this might be lawful for the Apostle, who had some extraordinary revelation of that thing, but that it is not lawful to the common sort of Christians: in as much as the Apostle doth in this place bear the person of every Christian and believing man. Rom. 8. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, etc. Mark here that special trust and particular application is pointed at by the verb of the singular number. Beside, that which is cited out of Habakuck by the Apostle, The just shall live by faith, doth sufficiently insinuate a special faith: for thereby is signified that every just person doth live by his faith, that is, by a special assent to, and application of the righteousness of God in Christ. Matth. chap. 9 a particular faith is commended to the man sick of the palsy: to whom it was said, Son be of good comfort, thy sins be forgiven thee. joh. 3. when it is said, He that believeth in the Son hath eternal life; that very same special faith is signified, which is when every one doth assent particularly to, and apply to himself everlasting life offered to himself. What need many words? The same thing doth that verb (I believe) which is found in the Apostles Creed, teach: For to believe, is there specially and particularly to believe. Out of the general mercy, and general faith of the adversaries, followeth the uncertainty of particular faith, and of God's peculiar grace, which they defend. For it is easily discerned, that uncertainty doth follow necessarily out of that generality, first a doubtfulness of mercy; then of faith. For when as mercy is propounded and offered, not specially, but generally; and when there is only a general assent of faith, how can I be certain of that mercy, which pertains not certainly by name to me? But that there is a certainty of faith, against which they hold: first it easily appeareth by those things which have The certainty of faith. been spoken of God's special mercy, and special faith. For seeing mercy is offered particularly to thee and to me etc. and I again assent particularly to it; now am I certain of that mercy that it is mine, specially, seeing I do already by faith and special application possess it. For Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith, that is, we now possess Christ, and do enjoy him as present. Of this special certainty, see Rom. 4. 16. The inheritance is of faith, that it may be by grace, to the end the promise may be firm to the seed. And in the same Chapter, ver. 18. Which Abraham against hope believed under hope. But hereof there is a notable place, Heb. 6. 18. That by two immutable things, in which it is not possible that God should lie, we might have strong consolation, which have our refuge to holdfast the hope that is set before us. Where you see, first that God hath promised it: secondly, that he hath bound himself by an oath, that is, that he hath declared the unchangeableness of his council for saving of us by two immutable things, to this end that we might have strong consolation. Now the comfort is not strong, unless it rise out of our firm and certain assent, whereby we consent to the truth of God's promise. For if our assent waver and be uncertain, certainly there Note. can no strong consolation arise out of our assent: Secondly, that it may be a strong consolation, some general certainty of our assent is not sufficient, but it must needs be a special and particular certainty of assent, whereby, to wit, I am certain, that that which is promised, is true of me. For what consolation at all, much less a strong consolation can that be, when as I am certain that the promise concerning Christ doth belong only in general to the Church, and not to myself also in particular? Nay rather, in that very thing is the grief increased, when one sees that the benefits of Christ pertains to other, but not to himself at all. But to the end that this which we speak of, touching certainty and uncertainty, may be the more manifest, we must search into this point a little more deeply. In general therefore certainty, is either of the thing, or of the person. Concerning the certainty of the thing, & the firm truth thereof, there is no question. The certainty of the The certainty of faith. person apprehending the object is nothing else, but the firmness of the judgement, or the assent of the mind, consenting to the truth of some thing or sentence. Wherefore certainty is nothing else, but a certain property of the judgement, or of the assent of our mind. And seeing the assent of the mind is twofold, either general, when I generally assent to the truth of some sentence that it is true, as for example; concerning the universal Church: or it is special, when as I assent to the truth of any sentence, that it is true, even of me and of each particular: seeing, I say, there is a twofold assent of the mind, it followeth that there is a twofold certainty, one general, namely, the property of a general assent: the other special, namely the property of a special assent. Now that we may come to the state of the controversy, What the controversy is concerning a particular faith. the question is not concerning general certainty, but all the controversy is of the special certainty of a special assent, which they call the certainty of grace, or of special mercy. For we do affirm and defend the certainty of special grace: but they oppugn this same certainty of special grace; but I pray with what arguments? First they say, that in the Gospel no mercy is any where offered & promised to any particular or any one man: Therefore, there can be no certainty of special grace. I answer, and do invert the argument. In the gospel grace is promised and offered, not only in general to all, but in special to every one, as we have taught before: wherefore the certainty of a special grace is required in every one. Now to those things which we said touching special mercy offered to several persons, I add these few things, to the end that the whole matter may more clearly appear, and to the end that we may learn by sense and experience itself, that grace is offered to every one by God. The spirit of Christ only is Christ's vicar on earth, who teacheth and instructeth us in those things which Christ spoke, and The spirit of Christ is his only vicar on the earth which are written in the Gospel. Now this spirit teacheth, not only generally, that the promises and sentences in the Gospel touching Christ and his benefits, are true of the whole Church; but much more that they are true of that special and particular man whom he inwardly teacheth. And sith the spirit of adoption doth testify with our spirit that we are the sons of God, Ro. 8. this testimony of the holy Ghost is not general concerning the whole Church, that they which are in the Church be the sons of God: but it is a special testimony of me, and of thee, that I am the son of God, and that thou art the Son of God. Besides 1. Corin. chap. 1. it is said of the Spirit, that he searcheth even the deep things of God, that is, the spirit which is given to every one and which dwelleth in every one, doth search that grace and mercy in Christ jesus which lieth hid in the deep, and makes it to be known to every one. For the spirit of God dwelling in me, reveals to me that, which is hid in the very heart of God. Now I demand whether he reveal to me some general mercy only, belonging in general only to the Church; or whether he reveal to me that special mercy hid in God, which belongs to me peculiarly? Certainly there is no man, to whom this spirit dwelling in him hath at any time revealed any grace that lieth hid in God, but he will constantly affirm, that by the holy spirit there is revealed to every one, not a general mercy I know not what rough draft of mercy: but a special mercy belonging particularly to himself. Wherefore these same defenders of general grace and mercy only, Defenders of general grace are but mere natural men. seem to me to be only natural men and not spiritual; of whom that of the Apostle may be truly spoken: The natural man perceiveth not the things which are of the spirit of God. Secondly (they say) that it is not expedient that every one should be certain of his own grace, righteousness and salvation: for certainty breedeth pride, but uncertainty humility. I answer, certainty is a gift of the spirit regenerating, which is bestowed only upon the elect. I speak of true and sound special certainty, which is the property of true justifying faith. Can it therefore be spoken without blasphemy, that the holy spirit and justifying faith, is the cause of the greatest of all evils that are, & that the worst of all, that is, of pride? Nay rather the uncertainty of a man is utterly the property of one that exaltes himself against God, even, when he promiseth and offereth special mercy, and binds it with an oath. Thirdly, they say, certainty of special mercy, is a special prerogative of some certain men, to whom God was pleased to reveal extraordinarily, some special mercy proper unto them. Is therefore a special prerogative which belongs but to some, and but to a few men, to be reckoned among God's common or general graces? I answer: It is false that the certainty of special grace, is a special prerogative of some certain men. For if justifying faith be reckoned among the common good things and gifts of all Christians, and this special certainty be the property of justifying faith, with what face dare any deny this gift of special certainty to the common sort of Christians? Is it because it was revealed but to some certain and few of them, that their sins are forgiven, as to that man sick of the palsy, to that sinner, to Zacheus, to the thief, is therefore this gift of certainty no other but special and extraordinary? Nay we have already said, that the special mercy of God is no less now promised, and offered to every several and particular person, as to me, and to thee, than it was offered in times passed to those men by Christ's express words. Fourthly, the holiest men (say they) have bewrayed with a lamentable voice at the very point of death, & do bewray daily the uncertainty of their salvation: Therefore there is not that certainty of mercy and life, which we say there is. I answer: there is much difference between that which is, and that which ought to be: This argument doth only conclude that which is, that is, that there is an uncertainty, but it concludes not that there ought to be an uncertainty; nay, it concludes against it, that it ought not to be. For they that weep and lament for the uncertainty of their own salvation, do thereby declare, that there ought not to be an uncertainty: but our adversaries doereckon the uncertainty of our own salvation among the chief Christian virtues. Secondly I answer, that out of that complaint of holy men, being ready to give up the Ghost, the certainty of special mercy M. Rollock argueth of the conflicts of the godly in their death, that they have a good faith. doth never a whit the less follow, than the uncertainty. For that speech riseth out of that war that is between the Spirit and the flesh, between faith and unbelief, between certainty and uncertainty. Wherefore it is no less an argument of certainty, then of uncertainty: nay, it argueth that in that war certainty hath the upper hand. Fiftly, they say, the best may fall from grace and faith; therefore what certainty can there be of special mercy and salvation? I answer. They which are endued only with temporary grace and faith, both may indeed fall, and do fall away: but they which are endued with true justifying faith, and with regenerating grace, can neither Of falling from grace. fall away totally nor finally. Now that comes to pass, not in regard of the men themselves, for of their own nature they are prone to final and total defection (such is their infirmity and weakness) but it comes to pass, by the nature (as I may speak) of that grace and gift of God, which is given in Christ jesus: For the gifts and calling of God are such, as that he cannot repent himself of them. Rom. 11. Sixtly, they object testimonies of Scripture, these chief which commend unto us care, thought & endeavour for the keeping and preserving of grace. As, He that standeth, let him take heed lest he fall, 1. Cor. 10. 12. Also 2. Cor. 6. 1. Paul exhorts the Corinthians, that they receive The Papists cite it thus ever, but falsely: for the text is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. & so it is against them. Phil. 2. not grace in vain. To conclude, Christ admonisheth that we should watch and pray: To say nothing of those places wherein fear is commended to us, as Rom. 11. Thou standest by faith, be not high minded, but fear. And in another place, Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Out of these and the like places, they say, followeth doubting of a man's own grace and salvation: for why should there be such commandments given, unless it might be so, that one might fall from grace, and faith; and therefore that he ought to doubt of his own grace and salvation. I answer, that out of these and the like places Christian care & fear how good. it followeth, that there is no perseverance in grace, unless there be joined a care, thought and labour to keep grace. For care and thought, is set (God so ordaining it) to be as it were the keeper and watchman to grace; forbidding that a man fall not into carnal security, which is the enemy of grace: and this thought and care is given with grace, yea and itself is a kind of special grace, and a companion of grace, which never departeth from her side: for where grace is, there is always surely some thought and care to retain that grace, which is never all quite lost, even as grace itself is never wholly lost: for it is ever in proportion to the grace. For when there is great grace, there is great care: & when there is but a small grace, the care is but little. And because God knoweth how necessary this care is, which is the companion and preserver of grace, therefore doth he so often in the Scriptures stir us up unto care, & commendeth it unto us. And all these exhortations are nothing else but so many outcries, as it were, whereby this care, which we said is the watchman and keeper of grace, is stirred up & provoked to do her duty, that is, to keep grace, and to drive away carnal security, which is an enemy to grace, and which would, except care stood upon▪ her watch, utterly abolish grace itself, as faith, regeneration, righteousness, and life. Therefore out of these and the like places, care and not doubting, virtue and not vice do follow. For doubting hath been ever reckoned in the Scriptures among the worst evils, & of most enmity to God & man. Now let us speak of the subject of justifying faith, what that is, according to the mind of our adversaries. They Subject of justifying faith with Papists. make the mind only to be the subject; and in the mind only one faculty properly, which is that that judgeth and assenteth to the truth of any sentence: But of the will and heart they speak nothing, when yet justifying faith doth chief belong to the heart, as we have said before. For the parts of the nature of justifying faith, they make not so many as we. For as touching knowledge, which is the first part of justifying faith, either they say, that Parts of the nature of justifying faith with Papists. it is not necessary, or else that some obscure knowledge will suffice: which thing they labour to prove by this reason. There is (say they) a double assent of the mind, whereby we consent to the truth of any sentence. The first assent is, when we consent unto it for some reason or cause: and this is termed knowledge: this assent doth necessarily require knowledge to go before it, to the truth whereof we assent. The latter assent is, when we assent to the truth of a sentence, not for some reason, but for the authority of him that speaketh: this assent is is called Faith; but it doth not require that the knowledge of that thing, whereto assent is given should go before it, being content only with the bare authority of the speaker. Out of this distinction & difference of assent (say they) it followeth, that in faith there is no need of knowledge, seeing faith is an assent, whereby we do agree to the truth of some sentence, being induced not by any reason or cause, but by the authority of the speaker. To this reason we answer, & first we do grant this difference of assents: but we deny, that that assent which is yielded because of the authority of the speaker, hath no need of knowledge to go before it. For that it may be justifying Faith to us, it is required that that which is spoken by God himself be some manner of way understood by us. For God doth not require that of us, that we should assent to his word and voice, because of the bare authority of him that testifieth, when as we understand them not at all. Secondly, they reason out of that definition of faith, Heb. 11. Faith is the ground of things that are hoped for, and the evidence of those things that are not seen. Here, say they, we see faith of things unknown, namely of such things as are to be hoped for, & as are not seen. But (say I) these two words * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ground, and evidence do argue sufficiently, that those very things which are hoped for and not seen, are in the mean time in some sort present, and seen of us. Whereupon Paul 2. Corinth. chap. 4. saith: Why, we look not on those things which are seen, but on those things which are not seen. Hear you see, that The popish implicit faith. even those things which are not seen, nor object to these eyes of our bodies, are yet seen and beheld with the spiritual eyes of our faith. And this is their opinion touching the knowledge of faith, which tendeth to this purpose, to establish that faith which they term implicit or enfolded faith. Concerning that assent which we said is the 2. part of justifying faith, they do place the nature of faith only in that assent, which is yielded in regard of the truth of a thing: for they speak nothing of the assent or judgement of goodness: and they make that same judgement of truth which they hold, to be only general: namely, whereby one doth judge that some sentence is true, not of himself, but in general of the whole Church: when as notwithstanding that judgement, aswell of truth as of goodness, which is the property of faith, is rather particular; yea a very peculiar grace, which in the Scripture is called that full assurance, as we have said before. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Touching the third part of faith, which we termed the confidence of the heart, they do not acknowledge it. For they say that confidence is nothing else but hope strengthened, and a certain effect of faith, whereas notwithstanding confidence which the Greeks term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a certain motion of the will or heart not expecting, but in present apprehending some good, and depending thereupon, and rejoicing therein as present. Furthermore, Confidence and faith of the same root in Greek. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, faith and affiance are of the same root: For both of them come from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to persuade. Besides the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken every where by the Apostle for, to be persuaded, to believe and not to hope. Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, I am persuaded, that neither life, nor death, nor things present nor things to come, etc. Phil. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am persuaded that he that hath begun in you a good work, etc. 2. Cor. 5. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we persuade, or draw men to the faith. I grant that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is some times taken for confidence which is a consequent of faith, and a certain property of it: for it comes to pass that he which believeth or trusteth, doth depend on him in whom he placeth his trust. Of this signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read Eph. 3. 12. In whom we have freedom and access with confidence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by faith in him. Out of these things which we have spoken, it is easy to gather a definition of faith, according to their opinion: who take justifying faith to be nothing else, then that whereby every one doth in general assent to the truth of the word of God, & that for the authority of the speaker: A popish definition of faith. which definition what else is it I pray you, than a general notion of faith, and such as is common to all the significations of faith, which we set down before. From this definition of justifying faith they gather, & that truly, that justifying faith may be in every wicked and most heinous A popish definition of faith. sinner: For in him this general assent may be, which cannot be denied to the very devils, as james witnesseth. The Devils, saith he, believe and tremble: and yet they call this, justifying and true faith, though not living. For they distinguish between true and living faith. True faith (they say) is even that which worketh not by love, yea though it be dead: but a living fatih they term that which worketh by love, as by her form, and not as an instrument: whereupon they term this by another name form faith. But we do utterly deny this distinction of true and living faith: for we take true faith and living faith for one and the same; even as one and the same man is true and living: and as true or living man is so termed from his soul or form: so also true or living faith is so termed from her soul or form, which consists in full assurance & trust, as we have said, without which, faith is nothing else but a carcase, even as a man without a soul is not so much a man, as a carcase and dead body. But they endeavour to prove out of james. 2. last verse, that even dead faith and not living, is nevertheless true faith. As the body is to the soul, so is faith unto works: but the body without the soul is a true body, albeit not living: therefore faith without works is a true faith, although not living. I answer, that this is a sophistical argument: for the comparison of the body and faith, which james maketh, is not in the truth, but in the death of them: and james assumes and concludes out of that proposition: But the body without the spirit is dead: wherefore also faith without works is dead. For between faith and the body this is the difference: one and the same body may be both dead and true: but faith is not both true and dead, even as a man is not both true and dead: for as a man is a compound thing of his body and his soul; so faith is a certain compound thing, as it were of her body and of her soul, the tokens or signs whereof are the actions. Wherefore in james the comparison is made between a simple and a compound: the simple thing, which is the body void of the soul: the compound which is faith. And the comparison is of force in that wherein it is made, namely, in the death of both & not in other things. And so much of justifying faith according to the opinion of our adversaries, as also of the whole doctrine of faith. CHAP. XXXII. Of Hope. HOPE followeth faith: for that apprehension of jesus Christ with his benefits offered Hope. in the word and sacraments, which is the property of faith, doth give hope unto us that we shall one day enjoy Christ present. The Apostle, Rom. 5. saith, that experience breeds hope. Now by faith we get experience, and as Peter saith, we taste how good the Lord is: wherefore it must needs be that faith begets hope. That we may therefore speak of hope: it must first of all be seen, what is the object thereof. The object of faith and hope is the same in substance, namely, jesus Christ with his benefits. Heb. 11. It is said that faith is the Object of hope the same in substance with the object of faith, and how they differ. ground of things that are hoped for. It may be again said, that hope is of those things which are believed or which have after a sort a being by faith. By these things it is evident, that the object of faith and hope is the same thing in substance or effect. Yet the object of hope differeth in reason from the object of faith. The chief difference is this, that the object of faith is Christ in the word & sacraments, or the word concerning Christ and the sacrament, which shadoweth him: Wherefore the object of faith is a certain image of Christ, which is propounded to us to be looked upon in the glass of the word and Sacraments. Whereupon 2. Cor. 3. we are said with open face to behold as in a glass, and to be transformed into that image, which we behold in that glass. But the object of hope, is Christ with his benefits, not indeed appearing to us in the word & sacraments, but appearing as he is, and as I may say, in his own person. For hope is not settled upon that image of Christ which we behold in a glass by faith, but upon the face of Christ himself which we hope we shall see at the last. Phil. 3. 20. from whence also we look for the Saviour our Lord jesus Christ. Tit. 2. Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious coming of the great God our Saviour jesus Christ. 1. joh. 3. 2. Because we shall see him as he is: and whosoever hath this hope in him, that is, he that hopes that he shall see him as he is. By these things it appeareth, that hope hath for it object the very face of jesus Christ. There be three things which are conversant about one Christ, Faith, Hope, and Sight, 1. Faith. 2. Hope. 3. Sight. but each in a divers respect. For faith is properly of his image; hope is of his face, but to come and appear hereafter: and sight is likewise of his face, but present. The second difference between the object of faith and hope, is a consequent out of that first, and this is it, that faith is of present of things, namely, of Christ and his benefits, or rather of the image of these things, which we behold present in the glass of the word and sacraments: whereupon Heb. 11. it is called A ground and an evidence, which words signify the presence of those things which are believed. But hope is of things to come hereafter: for hope if it be seen, is no hope, that is, if it be of things present, it is no hope. For why should a man hope for that which he sees? Ro. 8. 24. Beside, hope is of his face, which is not yet seen. The third difference follows also out of the first: for faith is of the thing only in part, seeing that it is of the image and as it were of the shadow, and as I may say, of the earnest, which is but part of the sum. See 1. Cor. 13. We know in part. But hope is of the whole thing, it is of the face, of the compliment; to conclude, it is of the whole sum, the hope whereof that earnest which we apprehend by faith, giveth unto us. And thus far of the object of hope. The subject followeth, which is not the mind, or some faculty of the mind, whether of understanding or judging; Subject of hope. nor is it the will, for faith hath made her seat in these. But hope being content with the inferior seat, hath it a biding in the heart. For it is an affection of the heart, even as fear is which is opposed to it. If we speak of the nature of it, it is not judgement or assent; it is not an apprehension or trust: for all these belong to faith, but it is an expectation which followeth faith, and is begotten by faith. The property of hope, is not that certainty properly which is of faith, or of that assent which is in faith. For faith is properly said to be certain: but hope is not properly How hope is certain. called certain; but it is termed certain because of the certainty of faith. In scripture I find that patience is attributed to faith, as a certain property thereof. Rom. 8. 25. But if we hope for that which we see not, we do with patience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Patience of hope. abide for it Heb. 6. it is said of Abraham, that when he had patiently tarried, he obtained the promise. 1. Thes. 1. 3. there is mention made of the patience of hope, or of patiented hope. And this patience is it, whereby hope doth sustain all the crosses and afflictions of this life, and doth as it were go under them: For all the promises of heavenly things are made with an exception of temporal afflictions. Wherefore, whosoever hopeth that he shall obtain those heavenly promises, he must needs make himself ready to bear and sustain all the calamities which are incident to this life. Wherefore patience is so necessarily joined with hope, as that hope cannot be without it. Out of these things which we have spoken, the definition of hope may be gathered: that hope is a patiented abiding Hope defined. of the heart for the face of Christ or fulfilling of the promise. It is to be noted that this is the definition of hope, as the name is taken for the work, and office of hope, which properly signifies an affection of the heart, and that a sanctified one; and not only so, but an affection carried up above nature. For when we are regenerated by the spirit of Christ, we do not only recover that holiness of nature lost in Adam, but also in regeneration there is not a faculty of the mind or an affection of the heart, but some supernatural power or quality is put into it, for the exercising of supernatural functions. For our regeneration is not so much effected according to that image which was entire and holy in Adam before his fall, as according to the image of Christ. 1. Cor 15. 49. We shall bear the Image of the heavenly man: Whereupon the motions of What affections a man regenerate hath in him. our heart are termed unutterable, and such as cannot be declared. Rom. 8. they are called groans which cannot be expressed. 1. Pet. 1. joy is called unspeakable and glorious: and the faculties of the mind & the affections of the heart regenerated are carried to those things which are incomprehensible, and which I think, could not be comprehended by Adam's holy nature; such as these are: The unsearchable riches of Christ, Eph. 3. 8. the love of Christ which passeth all knowledge, in the same Chap. vers. 19 As those things which the eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor ever entered into man's heart, 1. Cor. 2. 9 But we have spoken of these things already in the doctrine of faith. This last of all is to be observed concerning hope, that there be many degrees of it: For there is a certain more Degrees of hope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. earnest or vehement hope, which is called by the Apostle Rom. 8. 19 the fervent desire of the creature. Phil. 1. 20. Paul doth profess this kind of hope and earnest looking for. And thus much of hope according to the judgement of our Churches. Now be advertised in few words, what our adversaries Popish opinion of hope. think of it. They make the object of hope to be those things which belong to him that hopeth; for this difference they make between hope and faith, that faith is of general mercy, and not of proper: but that hope is of proper mercy. But this difference is false: For as well faith, as hope, is of proper grace and mercy. They say with us, that the subject of hope is the heart: For they teach that hope is a virtue put into the heart. They make the nature of it to consist not in knowing nor in judging, but in expecting. Bellarmine makes a difference between hoping and expecting. We hope (saith he) for those things which we do not know certainly that we shall obtain. Whereupon the blessed souls in heaven are said to expect the resurrection of their bodies, because they know certainly that it shall come to pass. But Paul. Rom. 8. seemeth to take the words of hoping and expecting for one and the same thing: If we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience expect it. You 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. see that with Paul, to hope and to expect, are one and the same. They make the property of hope to be certainty: For they say that hope is certain: but they teach, that this certainty belongs to the understanding. For it is the understanding that doth know certainly that salvation will come to pass; and because of the certainty of the understanding, hope is said to be certain, and the heart hopeth certainly that salvation will come. Therefore this certainty is not properly in hope, but hope presupposeth it. They say that this certainty is not simple and absolute. For they say that no man is simply and absolutely certain of his salvation, or doth certainly know that he shall obtain salvation: Nay contrariwise they teach that there is simply and absolutely an uncertainty of hope, and he that hopeth (say they) is simply and absolutely uncertain of his salvation. But he that hopes (say they) is certain of his salvation not simply and absolutely, but after a certain manner and in some respect. First in regard of the foundation of hope, that is, the promise of God which cannot deceive, and for which, if there were not other causes of certainty, one might be said to be simply and absolutely certain of his salvation. But seeing there be other causes of certainty, beside the promise of God, a man cannot be said to be simply and absolutely certain of his own salvation for the promise of God only, and the infallible truth thereof. Secondly, a man is said to be certain of his salvation in respect of charity, which they say, is the form of faith. For he that hath charity, is in this part, and in this respect certain of his salvation: For charity is a sure cause of salvation, and if it could be that a man might never fall from charity, even for that cause alone he might be simply & absolutely certain of his salvation. But seeing any man may fall from charity and lose it, therefore there is no absolute certainty of hope in respect of charity neither. This is then their opinion, that hope is likewise uncertain, but yet that it is certain in some respects. First, in respect of the promise; then in respect of charity: and therefore that the certainty of hope is always mixed with uncertainty. For what time it is certain because of of the promise of God, at the same time it is uncertain for other causes which are in ourselves: as in regard of our repentance▪ in respect of our works and merits, which are also required to make hope certain. Again, what time it is certain because of charity, at the same time it is uncertain, because of the changeableness of charity. This is their opinion. But we hold thus, that hope is called certain, because of faith going afore it, & for the full assurance Certainty of hope of that faith. For certainty doth properly belong to faith; and it is faith whereby every one of us doth certainly know, that salvation belongeth unto us: Hence cometh the sureness of hope, and the certainty thereof. Secondly, we say, that this certainty of hope, which is for Faith's sake, is simple and absolute: and we deny that hope is in one respect certain, and in another respect uncertain, which thing they affirm: but we affirm that it is certain in all respects, at least that it so ought to be, in respect of God's promise, in respect of charity, and of our whole regeneration, in respect of our perseverance: and so of the rest. For all these things are certain and sound, upon which hope dependeth, and for which it is said to be certain: & these things do depend upon God's unchangeableness, whether they be out of us, as the promise of God; or within us, as charity and all regeneration: for grace once given in Christ jesus, can never be totally and finally lost. Our adversaries do place some cause of certainty in ourselves, and in our strength, and in our works and merits. And therefore it is no marvel, though they say that hope is not simply and absolutely certain: for there is nothing more uncertain than these things, in which they place some, or rather the chief cause of the certainty of hope. Concerning the absolute certainty of hope, these be some testimonies of Scripture. Psal. 31. In thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me not be confounded for ever. He that trusteth in the Lord shall be as mount Zion, which shall not be moved for ever, Psal. 125. Rom. 5. We rejoice under the hope of the glory of God. And after. Hope maketh not ashamed. Rom. 8. We are saved by hope. Phillip 1. 20. According to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not be ashamed. Rom. 9 Whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded. And thus much of hope. CHAP. XXXIII. Of Charity or love. AMong the principal effects of Faith, charity is reckoned in the next place after hope: and Paul knits them together, as the three special graces of the holy ghost, Faith, hope, charity, 1. Cor. 13. There are three (saith he) faith hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity. The Apostle knits these together, and we do not sever them, specially for that God's love is a certain bond uniting us to God, together with the bond of faith, which is the primary and principal. For this cause Peter saith, that our communion with Christ now absent from us, doth consist love & faith. And this moveth us in the third place after faith, to entreat of Charity, in this treatise of our effectual calling. And charity or love proceedeth from that sweet apprehension and taste of the Lord: for that taste stirs up in the heart an exceeding love of the Lord, Whence love proceedeth. and of our neighbour for the Lords sake. And when as Charity hath received this life by Faith, it becomes the instrument of Faith, whereby it worketh other effects of the Spirit; as the gifts of knowledge, of prophesying, of tongues, and of miracles. These also are the instruments & means, whereby justifying faith worketh; but the principal is love: for which cause it is said, Gal. 5. that faith worketh by love, and love with the works or fruits thereof, among all signs and testimonies, gives the surest evidence Love the best evidence of faith. unto faith. If this be compared with other graces of God's Spirit, it must be preferred before them all: for it hath the third place after Faith. Therefore if ye set aside Faith and hope, love hath the first place of all the graces of the holy Chost, and is, as it were, the soul of all gifts which follow after it. For this cause the Apostle 1. Cor. 12. 13. having numbered divers gifts of the holy Ghost, saith, That if these graces wanted love, they were either as dead, or as nothing, or should profit nothing. Whereby he gives us to understand, that all other virtues have no soundness in them, if ye sever them from love, but to be only certain dead shadows of virtues. We may therefore justly call charity the life of all gifts and graces which follow it. If the adversaries had contented themselves with this prerogative of Charity, they had not erred: but for that Popish charity. they avouch it to be also the life and form of faith, herein they sin greatly, that faith rather contrarily is the life of charity, for that without Faith, there is no man hath but the dead shadow of love. Wherefore the faith of Christ is the principal life or soul both of charity, and of all other virtues for without it they are all but vain and counterfeit, and very sins before God: for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. The primary object of love is the same with the object of faith and hope: For what we first apprehend by faith, and next expect in hope, the same we embrace in Object of love. love. The secondary object of love is our neighbour, whom we love in and for the Lord. The subject of love is the heart: for we love with the heart: as the Apostle speaketh, Love out of a pure heart. 1. Thess. 1. 5. The nature thereof is not in knowledge, nor in hoping, but in loving. In love two things are principally to Nature of love. be respected: first, a diligent endeavour for the prescruation of that we love: next, an earnest affection to be united and conjoined with it: both which we see are to be respected in the love of God and of our neighbour. The properties of love are many, 1. Cor. 13. 4. etc. For whereas love is, there is a heap of virtues: for Charity is never alone in any man, but hath ever many other virtues as companions & handmaids attending on it. Of the premises ye may gather some definition of faith; as namely, that Love is an holy endeavour for the preservation of that which is beloved, whether God, or man, with an earnest desire love defined. to be united unto it: For love is that bond (as the Apostle speaketh) whereby the members of the body are knit together. And it serves also in some sort and place to unite us unto God and Christ; notwithstanding that the communion of Christ the head of his body the church, be principally to be ascribed unto faith. And in this respect love goes before justification, and is a branch, in our effectual calling, ever going together with faith, hope, & repentance. For which cause principally, I thought good to speak of it briefly in this Treatise, after faith and hope: for that faith, wherein we say consisteth the second part of our effectual calling, hath these for inseparable companions, faith, hope & repentance: after which follows our justification by order, not of time, but of nature. But in another respect love follows justification, and appertaineth to the grace of regeneration: but of this we shall speak in fit place. Now to return to our purpose: the definition given before, is not so much of love itself, as of the work and function thereof. For Love is properly an affection, holy A larger definition of love. or sanctified: and not so only, but also supernatural, carried up to love those things which are above nature, and exceed all natural affection: for like as faith is of those things which excel all natural knowledge and apprehension; and hope is of those things which excel all natural expectation: so Love also is of those things which be above the reach of all natural affection. For as we have often before admonished, this our newbirth in Christ jesus, is not so much a restoring of us to that image of Adam, which he had before his fall, as unto the image of Christ, who is a spiritual and an heavenly man, in whom, and by whom we have not only (so to speak) a natural sanctity or holiness: but also do receive from him a certain heavenly and supernatural virtue and efficacy infused into all affections and powers of the soul. But this our supernatural condition as yet appeareth not unto men, neither do we sufficiently feel it and find it ourselves, but it shall be seen in another life, when as we shall put on, & bear the image of that heavenly man, 1. Cor. 15. 49. Now we are called the sons of God, but as yet it appeareth not what we shall be: but we know it shall come to pass, that we shall be like unto him, when he shall appear. 1. Io. 3. 2. The Adversaries spend all their labour in setting forth the commendations of love, and they be too long in extolling charity: For they adorn it with the spoils of justifying faith, so gracing it with stolen colours, and not with it own proper beauty, ascribing the justification and salvation of man (which they take away from faith) unto charity: as shall be seen when we come to speak of the doctrine of free justification. And thus far shall suffice of charity or love. CHAP. XXXIIII. Of Repentance. REpentance followeth faith, as the effect followeth his cause: For that godly sorrow which is according to God, and worketh repentance, is the daughter of Faith, as we shall see afterward. Of this benefit there are divers names in divers languages. The Hebrues do call it TESCHUBHAH, the Grecians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a verb which signifieth to be wise after a thing is done, to retract his sentence, to change his mind, & to return to a right mind. Whereupon Repentance is nothing else but an after wit, a reversing of judgement, and change of determinations. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to be careful and anxious after a thing is done: Whereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing else but a trouble and disquietness of heart, after a thing is acted. Therefore these two Greek words differ, for that the first concerneth properly the mind or understanding: the second, the heart and affection. They differ also in another respect, in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehendeth the whole work and benefit of Repentance (for the change of the mind, which is implied in this word, doth necessarily presuppose the sorrow of the heart: and that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is a contrition & an axnietie after the fact committed:) whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rather restrained to signify only a part of this benefit, namely, the first, which consisteth in sorrow, in contrition, and the disquiet of the heart after a thing is done: for it followeth not, that wheresoever this same compunction of of heart be, there should presently follow that sound Repentance; as it is necessary that wheresoever sound Repentance be found, there also must be that compunction of heart. Some there are which make a third difference between these two, affirming that this sound Repentance properly belongs to the godly, and to the Elect, and only to them; for the elect only, properly, and in very truth become wise after their falls, and they do only change their minds, and their purposes, & return to a sound mind; whereas some compunction, and disquietness of heart doth not only belong to the godly and the elect, but also to the wicked, and to the Reprobates, in whom there is found after a sin committed, some grief, and disquietness of heart, not so much for the sin committed, as for the punishment of the sin. But we are to understand that wheresoever this same sorrow is attributed to the wicked, there is not understood hereby that godly care and sorrow which is according to God; but a worldly sorrow, and a sorrow which is unto death. In which sense it is attributed to judas, Mat. 27. 3. judas repent himself: but contrariwise, when it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is attributed to the Godly, thereby is signified not so much a sorrow for the punishment of sin itself, as for the offence and displeasure of God. Thus far of the Greek names of Repentance. The Latins do call it a Conversion, an after-wit, to return to heart and understanding, and repentance. Conversion conversio. Resipiscentia. doth fitly answer with the Hebrew word: and it is a word which the Prophets have used in the old Testament, Teschubbah. Convert me, O Lord, and I shall be converted, jer. 31. Even as Christ and his Apostles themselves use the foresaid Greek words in the new Testament, of Repentance and Compunction of heart. A change of the mind is properly signified in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. change the mind is to begin to be wise after the deed done. Penance is signified in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for it is derived of the verb Poenitere, which signifieth a punishment: for in this kind of repentance, that sorrow and anxiety of the heart is a punishment. For as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so doth poenitentia, penance, from the word Resipiscentia, Resipiscentia. Repentance. For to pass by other differences, the word Penance signifieth properly one part only of this benefit, to wit, sorrow, disquietness, and anxiety after the deed done. But the word Resipiscentia, which is a change of the mind, doth comprehend this whole benefit: for the change of the mind, and to become wise after our falls, doth necessarily presuppose the sorrow of the heart, as the efficient cause. The old Latin translation doth translate both the Greek words every where Poenitentia, Penance. The adversaries do earnestly contend, that the word Penance is every where to be retained, to wit, that they may defend the Sacrament of Penance (as they call it) even by the very name itself, to consist in external and corporal affliction. The word Resipiscentia, which signifieth a change of the mind, is more used by our Divines when they speak of this grace. And thus much concerning the names of this benefit. The parts thereof are generally these, first sorrow, then after sorrow a change of the mind & purpose, which Parts of Repentance. is properly (as is afore said) signfied by the Greek word, used for repentance. We are therefore first to speak of sorrow, which is the first part of repentance, and this sorrow is of two kinds. First for the punishment of sin, which 2. Co. 7. is called The sorrow of the world, and also a sorrow Sorrow twofold. which is to death: Secondly, it is a sorrow for the sin itself, and because of the offence which is committed against God, which in like manner is called of the Apostle A sorrow according to God. Of both these we will speak severally. The principal efficient of the first sorrow which is conceived in heart, for the punishment of sin, is the holy Ghost, which Rom. 8. verse 15. 16. is called the spirit of bondage to fear, that is to say, which testifieth unto us of our servile and miserable condition without Christ, and therefore doth beget fear and horror within us. The instrument whereby the spirit doth work this sorrow in our hearts, is the preaching of the law. The sum whereof is in that syllogism, concerning the which we have spoken in the doctrine of faith: the proposition of which syllogism is this. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of this law to do them. The assumption is by every man's conscience thus annexed. But I have not continued in them: & the conclusion therefore is this: I am accursed. From hence doth that sorrow, or rather that horror of the heart arise or spring, not somuch for sin which is in the assumption, as for the punishment, and fear of the curse, which is in the conclusion. And this is that which is called the prick of conscience, which by means of the conclusion before showed, doth not only prick a wounded mind, but also pierce even through the heart. And this legal sorrow, if the grace of the Gospel did not put an helping hand between it and us, would drive a man into utter desperation. And thus much concerning that first sorrow. The very same spirit of God is likewise a principal efficient cause of the latter sorrow, but not proceeding as before: for now he becometh the spirit of adoption, Whereby we cry Abba, Father. Rom. 8. that is, testifying of our adoption in Christ, and therefore doth enlarge both our heart and mouth to call upon God familiarly, as upon our Father. The instrument whereby the holy spirit doth work this faith in our hearts, it is the preaching of the Gospel: the sum whereof is contained in that syllogism concerning which we have spoken in the doctrine of faith. The proposition of this syllogism is, He that believeth shall be justified, and shall live; whereupon faith doth assume, saying: But I do believe; and concludeth saying: Therefore righteousness and life pertaineth unto me. In this conclusion there is I confess, matter of joy, & of unspeakable gladness: but it is as true that there is in it matter of sorrow also; which is conceived after we have known the mercy of God in Christ to be so great, and doth arise in this respect, because we have offended so merciful and so loving a Father. It is then a joy mixed with sorrow, & with the unspeakable and glorious joy of faith having joined with it sighs that cannot be expressed. And thus much also of the later sorrow. Now let us see how both these kinds of sorrow belong unto sound repentance: That first sorrow which is of the law, and is conceived by reason of the punishment which followeth sin: I confess it is no part of this holy change and conversion unto God: for of it own nature it doth rather estrange us from God, then convert us to The terror of the law a preparative for the Gospel. God; and in very deed it doth altogether alienate the wicked from God as from a terrible judge. Notwithstanding in repentance it hath his use for it prepareth the elect by giving them sense of their misery, to that grace and mercy which is propounded in the Gospel. The latter sorrow which is according to God, and is effected by the Gospel, is properly a part of repentance and doth effect that change of the mind, and reason before specified. And therefore the Apostle saith, 2. Cor. 7. that the sorrow which is according to God, causeth repentance. And thus far of the first part of this benefit which is found to be in sorrow. The other followeth which is called properly by the Apostle 2. Cor. vers. 7. a Change of the mind. For there followeth after that godly sorrow a certain wonderful change of the mind, of the will, and of the heart. As touching knowledge, and that illumination Second part of repentance. of the mind, this goes before the sorrow we have spoken of, & is an acknowledgement wrought in us first of sin and of our misery, by the law: next of mercy, by the Gospel. Therefore the change of the mind which followeth this sorrow: it pertains to the faculty or judgement of reason, which also is called the counsel and purpose of the mind Act. 11. 23. He exhorteth them that with one purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. And the judgement or counsel of the mind is changed in this sort: The mind disalloweth the evil which is committed, and alloweth the good hereafter to be practised. There are therefore two parts of the change of the judgement or counsel, the first is the disallowing of the evil committed: the second is the The change of the mind hath two branches. approving of the good to be done. After the change of the judgement, or counsel of the mind, there followeth a change of the will in this manner: The will rejecteth that evil which is committed, or it declineth from it, and alloweth the good to be done hereafter, or inclineth thereunto. There are there two parts of this change, first a declination from the evil committed: secondly, an inclination to the good which is, or aught to be done. After the 2. Change of the will. change of the will followeth the change of the heart, which is on this manner: The heart hateth and detesteth that evil which it hath heretofore done, and it loves, and affects the good, which hereafter it ought to do. There are therefore two parts of this change, the first is the detestation 3. Change of the heart. of evil done and committed: the second is the love of that good which ought to be done. In general therefore there are two parts of that change of the mind, which is an effect of sorrow, the first is a change from evil, and from sin committed: the second is a change to good hereafter to be practised and followed. Commonly these parts are called mortification, and vivification, but I know not how rightly & justly: for mortification and vivification are properly parts of regeneration, which doth differ from repentance, as shallbe seen Regeneration and repentance differ. hereafter. By that which hath been already said, we understand what be the especial points of repentance, from whence it proceeds, and whereunto it serveth. The point from whence it proceeds, is the evil, or sin committed; the point to which it tendeth, is the good hereafter to be done. Repentance therefore standeth between two actions, past, and future; and it doth differ from regeneration: for the points thereof are not deeds and actions, but qualities, to wit, the corruption of nature, or the old man; and sanctity, or the new man: but of this we shall entreat afterward, when we come to speak of the difference of repentance, and of regeneration. Ye see them, after that great sorrow, how there is a change in the whole mind of man. Next, ye see by that hath been said of this benefit of repentance, that repentance doth begin from the heart and doth proceed by the reasonable faculties of the mind and will; and last of all, it doth end and rest in the heart: To conclude, it may easily be gathered by that which hath been said in the the treaty of the parts of it, what the definition of repentance is, that it Repentance defined. is an after-wit, after the deed, and evil committed, and a sorrow, because God is offended, and from that sorrow a certain change of the whole mind from evil unto good. The effect of repentance is in the outward life, to wit, an amendment of life bringing forth fruit worthy of repentance, Matth. 3. vers. 8. There is question concerning repentance, whether it be the same with regeneration or new birth; for the common oipnion of Dimness is, that the benefits of regeneration, and new birth differ not in matter itself; notwithstanding it appears unto us that there is a difference between these two, and it shall appear to them also who diligently Repentance and regeneration differ. consider the ends of both; for repentance is to be referred to our effectual calling, and it is an effect of faith which is another part of our effectual calling: for as many as believe, they repent, they change their counsel and return to a better mind. But regeneration is the beginning of our glorification, and the beginning of a new creature. Repentance goeth before justification, even as faith and hope; for of the Baptist it is said, That he preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, Mark 3. 4. Luk. 3. 3. But regeneration followeth justification, for being justified we receive the spirit of sanctification whereby we are renewed, and as it were find a new creation begun even in this life: Repentance is the cause, regeneration is the effect: for therefore God doth renews us in How reneneration and repentance differ. Christ, and make us new men, because we repent us of our old life, and begin to be wise after sin committed. Notwithstanding in the middle place betwixt repentance & regeneration, comes in justification; when as God doth of his mere mercy & grace account, and repute us as just. The name of repentance employeth sorrow, but the name of regeneration gladness. To conclude, the points of repentance, as whence it proceeds & whereunto it tends, they are deeds, the evil or sin committed; and the good which ought to be practised: but the bounds of regeneration are qualities, inherent corruption, and sanctity or holiness, which is wrought in us: the old man, and new man renewed in Christ. But you will say, in repentance there is a change from evil to good; a change I say of the mind & heart: I answer, in our effectual calling there gins a change of the mind of man. Notwithstanding all Divines distinguish calling, & faith from regeneration, why then should they not in like manner distinguish between repentance, (which followeth faith and our effectual calling) & regeneration? for every change of the mind is not to be deemed forthwith How repentance followeth regeneration. regeneration, but there are certain changes of man's mind which go before regeneration, and which prepare the mind, and so the whole man unto regeneration, and to that new creation: in which kind repentance is an especial grace. These things are to be distinguished not in time but in nature: for at that very same instant, we believe and be effectually called, and do repent, and be justified, and be regenerate. CHAP. XXXV. How far a wicked man may proceed in repentance. Having thus far spoken of repentance, which is proper to the elect & godly, we are next to consider how far the reprobate, and ungodly man may proceed in repentance. All wicked & ungodly men do not make like progress: for they profit some less, some more in the work of repentance. We will first speak of them which be least proficient These first have a sorrow, or horror in their minds, which Degrees of repentance in the impious. cometh from the law, and that not for sins or any offences committed against God, properly and truly: but because of the punishment of sin properly, and for sin accidentally, because punishment followeth sin. Next after this sorrow there followeth in them some dislike in mind of the sin committed, but because of the punishment: Note this distinction. but as touching affection to the good which ought to be done, so far they come not. Further, yet there followeth in the will a declining from evil committed but because of the punishment; for in the mean while their will is not bend, or inclined to the good which ought to be done. After this little change of the will, there followeth in the heart a detestation of evil committed, but in regard of the punishment; for all this while the heart doth not proceed to love justice, or the good which ought to be done. And as touching the outward, life there is no good change or holy amendment in it. In this kind was judas the traitor, of whose repentance read Mat. 27. where first it is said, that judas did repent him of that he had done. Note here in this word his sorrow, judas example. & anxiety of heart. Next, he is said to have brought again the 30. pieces of silver to the high priest: whence may necessarily be gathered a change of the will, of the mind and of the heart: which thing also by his own confession may appear, because he said afterward, I have sinned, betraying the innocent blood: for this word doth argue a dislike of sin in some sort, and a renouncing, and detestation of sin, albeit not sincere, but principally in respect of the punishment; accidentally in respect of the sin, because sin and the punishment thereof go together: finally, whereas he cast the silver pieces into the temple, it appears there was in him an inward dislike, and detestation of evil, and yet that no amendment of life followed this change of mind, it appears in this, because presently going aside he hanged himself. There are other impious men, who proceed a little further in repentance then these, having in their minds some change unto good, their minds allowing that which is good, and their will choosing the same, and their heart affecting it: yet these things be not sincere in them, but proceed from fear of punishment. And as concerning the amendment of their outward life, they begin that also: but as the Prophet saith: Their goodness vanisheth as a morning cloud, and as the morningdew. Amos. 6. Of this number was Saul. Sam. 15. & Achab. 1. Kin. 21. Saul. And of this kind also, it seems was Esau, Gen. 27. His sorrow appeareth by his tears shed: the change also of his mind in some sort unto good appears by that it is said, he would have obtained the blessing, he sought the blessing: but there was nothing sincere in him. For forthwith after he returned to his old haunt, or wont course again. The wicked which yield best signs of repentance, are those, who have attained the temporary faith, whose sorrow also doth arise from the Gospel, and the acknowledgement of the mercy of God in Christ; and the change of the mind unto good, is in some sort for the good itself: for they taste after a sort the sweetness of God in Christ, and are delighted in it. And as concerning the amendment of outward life, that also is in them a little longer than in those before described They do also return and relinquish many sins. Of this kind it seems Herod was, of whom it is written Mar 6. 20. Herod feared john, knowing that he was a just and an holy man, and he received him, & when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly: And thus far of these 3. steps of impious men in repentance, & here also I end the doctrine of sound repentance. CHAP. XXXVI. What the judgement of Papists is of Repentance. IT followeth now that we consider what the Papists do think of their Penance: for they reject the very name of Repentance T: heir errors are many which they hold, we will take view of some few of them, & briefly confute them: first, they say, that Repentance is a Sacrament. But A Sacrament. I ask, if it be a Sacrament, what sensible sign hath it? They answer, that the sign is partly the act of the penitent person; & partly the words of the Priest, whereby the penitent is absolved. But I answer, in a sacrament there must be not only an audible sign, but also a visible: there must be also a certain element, and not a ceremony only: as in Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Besides the ceremonies and rites, there are elements, water, bread, and wine. Concerning this error this shall suffice. Secondly, they affirm that the use of Repentance is this, to abolish mortal sin committed after Baptism, 2. Error. and to make him, who of a friend, through sin, was become God's enemy, the friend of God again, that is, a just man. To this I answer. To the restoring and repairing of man, who hath sinned after Baptism, we have no need of any other Sacrament than Baptism, the force and virtue whereof is perpetual, and effectual throughout the whole life of man, for the washing away of sin to regenerate men: for it is false that in Baptism these sins only are washed away, which were committed before Baptism; seeing Baptism reacheth to the whole life of Baptism effectual to the regenerate all his life. man, and the remembrance thereof is effectual for the remission of sins, and our regeneration, even then, when a man gives up the Ghost, and departs this life. Thirdly, they say that the Repentance which was in the old Testament, and before the resurrection of Christ, 3. Error. is not the same with the repentance which followed the resurrection of Christ; for that was no Sacrament, but this is: I answer, that the doctrine of Repentance, and of our conversion to God, is one and the self same; which all the Prophets, john Baptist, Christ before and after his incarnation, and the holy Apostles have preached. Fourthly, they say that the principal efficient cause of Repentance is free-will, and the strength of nature stirred 4. Error. up by a preventing grace, and that grace is but only our helper, working together with nature or free-will. I answer, that it is clean contrary: for the Spirit, or grace of God is the principal efficient cause of Repentance, but the instrument are the faculties and powers of the mind, not such as they are by nature, but as they are sanctified by the Spirit: which may appear even by this testimony, jer. 31. Convert me, O Lord, & I shall be converted: where the principal efficiency, & cause of the work is given to the Lord himself, and to his grace. But of us, it may well be said, that we become active in repentance, being acted and moved by the holy Ghost. Fiftly, they divide Penance essentially into the act of the Penitent, as the matter; and absolution of the Priest, 5. Error. as the formal cause: I answer, that there is no necessity why repentance should be so parted between the penitent or confessing sinner, and the Priest absolving. For the sinner who doth repent him of his sin, may privately confess unto God, and of him also be absolved, without any conceived or set form of absolution by the Priest. We repent daily, and yet there is no need that the matter should be daily so performed by the sinner repenting, and the Priest or minister absolving. Wherefore repentance is not to be restrained to this form and dialogue, or communication, which must pass (as they say) between the sinner repenting, and the Priest absolving. Sixtly, they divide Penance materially into Contrition, 6. Error. Confession, and Satisfaction: for these three parts do (as it were) appertain to the acts of their Penitents, which be the matter of their Sacrament of Penance. I answer, concerning Contrition, which is nothing else but a sorrow of heart, we verily admit of it, but without any opinion of merit, which they attribute thereunto. And as touching Confession, first we say, that it is not Signs of Repentance. properly any part of Repentance, but an outward sign of Repentance, which is wrought inwardly in the mind: for amongst the signs these are numbered; confession of the mouth, tears, humbling of the body, and other actions of like kind. Again, we say that their auricular Confession, wherein all, even the private sins of a man must be numbered, as near as they can remember, and whispered into the ear of the Priest; we affirm, I say, that such a Confession is the invention of man's brain, whereof there is no commandment or example extant in the whole Scripture: Yea verily the will of God is, that many private sins, unto which we alone are privy, should be concealed, & not uttered, even as God doth cover the multitude of our private sins of his free will and mercy, wherewith he embraceth us in Christ jesus. Notwithstanding this, he requireth of us that we privately repent of them, so oft as we shall remember them. To conclude, concerning Satisfaction, we utterly condemn and renounce it: for by it (as they teach) we satisfy of ourselves the wrath and justice of God, and that by temporal punishments, which we willingly suffer for our sins. This we do utterly condemn, as an opinion which doth derogate from the merit and satisfaction of Christ, whereby alone the wrath and justice of God is satisfied for our sins. And as for these temporal afflictions of the godly, they are not truly satisfactions for their sins, but by them God doth mortify the remnants of sins, and by that means provoke us to earnest repentance; hereby curbing, and keeping us from falling into sin again. Finally, as all things work for the best to them that love God, so these things which are not so much punishments, as crosses do work together for the best for the godly. Neither is that distinction of temporal and eternal punishments to be allowed: for it is certain that whosoever are punished temporally for their sins, and in that respect, and for that cause, such also (without repentance) shall be punished for their sins eternally: for temporal punishments of the ungodly in this life, are the very beginnings of eternal punishments to be suffered in another life. And thus far of repentance. CHAP. XXXVII. Of man's Free-will. AFter the doctrine of Faith, Hope, and Repentance, the doctrine of Free-will is to follow, because the Adversaries do attribute Faith, hope, repentance, or as they call it, Penance, to the liberty of our will, as to the principal agent or cause: but they assign to grace the second place in the work of Faith, hope, and repentance: for they say after that Free-will is stirred up by a preventing grace, man by the benefit of his free-will, doth of his own strength believe, hope, and repent him of his sins. And as for grace, that is only a fellow-worker, say they, and a helper of man's Free-well, which principally worketh in faith, hope, and repentance. But to this we have answered before in the doctrine of repentance, & we shall hereafter answer it a little more plainly. Now having thus far showed the occasion, why after the doctrine of Faith, hope and repentance, we speak of free-will: let us come to the point itself, and discourse of it. The will of man is a faculty The will described. of the reasonable soul, following next after the faculty of reason: for the mind first understandeth, and then judgeth. The function and use thereof is in willing, in nilling, in choosing, in refusing, and in doubting of those things which were before concealed, and considered of in the understanding. The objects thereof are things simply good, and evil, and things indifferent. I call those things simply good, which are commanded by some express Things simply good. law of God. I call those things simply evil, which are forbidden by the some express law of God. And those things I count indifferent, which are neither expressly commanded, nor expressly forbidden in the law of God. And if they be commanded or forbidden by any law of God, that is by accident, to wit, so far forth as they further or hinder the edification of our neighbour. These objects of the will I subdivide again into their final causes or ends, and into those means which tend and lead us to the ends. And thus I apply the functions of the will to the ends, and to the means: We be said as well to will, and nill, the means as the ends unto which they serve: for to will and nill are things general; but we are said only to accept, and to reject, and to doubt of the means: for these things are special. And thus far of the will, according to our present purpose. There is ascribed unto the will a certain property, which the Latins call Liberty: the Greeks' a Power, as Libertas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 9 20. where the Apostle speaks of the power the Potter hath over the clay. And 1. Cor. 7. 37. He that hath power over his own will: As if he should have said, he that hath liberty or power of his will: in our vulgar tongue it is called Soveraingtie. This liberty of the will is as it were a royal power, and the Greek word is used to set forth the power of a king, or some supreme Magistrate. Rom. 13. 27. Let every soul be subject to the higher power. For this cause the will in the soul of man is received as a Queen, and in that respect is said to have as it were the jurisdiction in her own hand. But to come to some description of Free-will: This freedom of will, is a liberty, whenas a thing being offered to the will, as to a certain Queen, whether it be good or evil, or indifferent, the will even then can by it own A descripttion of free-will. proper right and power, either will it or nill it; reject or receive it; or hold a man in suspense. For which cause commonly in schools it is defined to be a power or faculty, to like or dislike things that are directly opposite, that is, to incline to either part of the contradiction, to receive, or reject the one or the other: and thus commonly they describe it. Yet I like best this description, to wit, that liberty of will should be in respect of good and evil things (for concerning them the controversy is) it is, I say, a power of the will, or a certain right it hath, whereby of itself, and of it own inward and natural motion, without constraint, it wills only that is good, it chooseth the good, it wills not that is evil, it rejecteth that is evil: In one word, liberty of will is a power unto good, not to evil. I am induced to like best this definition of liberty, by the example of the liberty of God himself, who by the confession and grant of all men, most freely wills, and God's free-will doth all things: notwithstanding, the liberty of God is not so defined, that it should be a certain power, whereby he doth so will good, as though he might nill it, or doth not so will evil, as though he might will it; but the liberty of God is this: of his own right, & without constraint, only to will that which is good, and nill that is evil. Again, the same is plain by the example of the blessed Angels, who have liberty to that is good only, and not unto good, and evil: that is, they do not so will good, as if they might nill it: for they are so governed & Freedom of Angels. strengthened of God, that their will only is inclined to good, & doth abhor from evil. To conclude, the same is showed in the example of Adam, & of his state before his fall; for then truly the liberty of his will was to will good Adam's freedom in his innocency. only, & not both good and evil, that is, he did not so will good, as if he might nile it, except you understand a remote power: whereas we by this word Liberty (to speak properly) do understand a more near faculty of the soul. I call that a remote faculty, which is incident to the matter, as is the power or property of laughter in the body of a man, before it hath either form or life. I call that Remota potentia: a near faculty which is incident to the form, as laughter Propinqua potentia. in a man that hath life. So in the will of man there is a remote power, as appertaining to the matter; and there is a near power, as pertaining or consequent to the form: but we (as a little before we spoke) by liberty understand not that remote power, which is incident to the matter, but that near power which is consequent to the form: and by the form we understand that sanctity which is according to the image of God, which is the soul as it were of our soul, and without which our soul is as it The image of God. were dead. For which cause the Apostle saith Ephe. 2. 1. That without this holiness, we are truly said to be dead in sins and trespasses. Whence I conclude, that the liberty of will is properly a power or faculty, which is a consequent of sanctity, as of the formal cause, and as it were, the very soul of the will. Whereby it cometh to pass, that the will in this state without constraint, doth incline only to good, and doth decline from evil: for this liberty of a man's will, is according to the similitude & image of the liberty of God himself. Unto this liberty, constraint is opposite, proceeding from some outward agent, & is contrary to the nature of the will: for it is not a will, if it be constrained, neither is it said, that the will is constrained, albeit man himself, in whom the will is, may be said to be constrained. I say that constraint is opposite to liberty, and not necessity: for those things which we will or nill freely, we will or nill those things of necessity: first, because of the necessity of God's decree: secondly, because of the incident form of the will itself, as of holiness, of corruption, of both. As when man was holy in his creation; so long, as that holiness continued, of necessity he did will that which was good, and nill the evil. So the blessed Angels of a certain necessity will that is good, and nill the evil, and at length when man is glorified he shall incline to good, and decline from evil: So The will of the unregenerate. man being wholly corrupt, before his regeneration of a certain necessity, he wills the evil, and nils that is good, and notwithstanding after his manner, he doth will freely, albeit this be not a true liberty, as we shall hereafter see. To conclude, a man regenerate partly of necessity doth will good, in respect of his new birth; partly of necessity he doth will evil, for that he is as yet partly corrupt; yet in both respects he willeth freely: for we must distinguish betwixt necessity, and constraint; for necessity is more general and large than constraint is: for that which is constrained, is necessary, but on the contrary that which is necessary is not constrained. And thus much concerning the liberty of the will in general. There is then a four fold hate of man to divers conditions 1. State. or states of man to be considered. The first state of his innocency before his fall: secondly, the state of his corruption after his fall: thirdly, the state of regeneration: four, the state of glorification. First then concerning the first state, it is a question whether man in his innocency had liberty of will? I answer, if you follow the former definition of liberry, which is a faculty, or power respecting inclining to either, side, I grant that in things▪ indifferent it had a liberty, but in things simply good and evil, man had not in that state of innocency, that liberty of will, whereby when he did will good he might nill it, and when he did nill evil, he might will it: except you understand a remote power: for in respect of his near power, he was inclined to good, only because of the form of sanctity and goodness in the will which was in him, according Propinqua potentia. to the image of God; but if you follow the latter definition of liberty, which is, when the will of itself of an inward motion without coaction, or constraint of any external agent, is carried to that which is good only: if I say you follow this definition, I answer, that man in the state of innocency had a liberty of will. Concerning the second state of man, the question is, whether man in the state of corruption now hath liberty 2. State. of will. I answer, if you follow the former definition of liberty, I do not deny that in things indifferent he hath his liberty: But in things simply good and evil, he hath not liberty. For man which is wholly corrupt, doth not so will evil as that he may or can nill it: neither doth he so reject that is good as that he may or can will it; except ye understand a power remote: for in man unregenerate that near power of the will is only inclined to evil, because of the form of corruption & of impurity which doth wholly possess his will. But if you follow the latter definition of liberty; then verily we cannot ascribe that liberty of the will which is according to the image of the liberty of God himself, and is a near power or faculty, and whereby without constraint he is carried to that only which is good, we cannot, I say, truly attribute this unto the unregenerate and his will. For a faculty to evil cannot truly be said a liberty; but rather a certain servitude: And in verity the unregenerate man's will is not free but bound: yet because the unregenerate doth not will evil by constraint, but of his own accord and mere motion, in some sort it may be said that his will is free. Here our adversaries dissent from us, ascribing liberty of will to the man unregenerate, whereby also of his own mere power he may will good; where as this liberty or Papists of free will. self power, before preventing grace lieth indeed a sleep: yet notwithstanding (say they) it is in him like as a man though he be a sleep, yet he is both a man and living. From whence it followeth necessarily (as they would have it) that there is some holiness and integrity in the will of a man unregenerate. For there is no self power of the will to good, unless there be in it the form of sanctity and integrity, which is as it were the life of the will, and quickness of this self power in the will unto good. The Papists therefore erhere two manner of ways: first, because they will have some sanctity and integrity to remain in the will of man vnregenerat now after the fall: & secondly, because they will have this self power of the will (which necessarily is a consqevent of the formal cause thereof, which is holiness, as is aforesaid) they will have this self power (I say) unto good to be in the will. For as touching holiness and righteousness, it is certain that all the image of God was lost in the fall of man, and what portion soever hereof we shall have in this life, it is repaired & as it were created a new by jesus Christ: for which cause it is called a new creature. And if this in any respect be old, wherefore is it called new? And if any sanctity (which is the soul of our soul, remain in man after the fall) why is man said after the fall, before regeneration, to be dead, and not half dead? We forbear to use testimonies of scripture in this matter, which are infinite. And as concerning the liberty or self power which they ascribe to the will of man, how many evidences of scripture might be produced to refel the same? joh. 6. 44. No man can come Propiqua materia. to me, except the father which sent me draw him. Rom. 8. 5. The wisdom of the flesh, it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 1. Cor. 2. 14. The natural man perceiveth not the things which are of God: for they are foolishness to him, neither can he discern them. These places of scripture and other such like, are to be understood of that near power of the will unto good, which therefore the scripture denieth to man in his corruption, because there is in him no holiness left since the fall of Adam. For as touching the remote power of the will unto good, which is a consequent of the matter, not of the form, we do not deny, that it is in the will of a man vnregenerat. And that this also becomes of a remtoe power a near power, so soon as any holiness is wrought in the will of man by the spirit of jesus Christ. Seeing then we leave this remote power to the will of the unregenerate man, that is, a certain power of the cause material: there is no cause why our adversaries should say, that we make men very stocks and blocks, because we deny free will unto them. For this power of the material cause unto good, which we ascribe unto the will of man vnregenerat, may not truly be ascribed to any dead stock, or trunk. We must understand in this place, that whereas we deny this near power to the unregenerate, that is, a liberty to good; we mean hereby that which is good, as it is truly good: For even the unregenerate person may will that which is good, in itself; as the conservation of his country, justice, equity, etc. But that which in itself is good, becomes evil in some sort, in regard of the man vnregenerat; who doth not will well, that which is good in itself, that is to say, neither in that manner, nor to that end doth he will it as he ought to will it, because himself is not good, and clean; and to the unclean, all things are uncleare, as to the clean all things are clean. Tit. 2. 15. Again, be advertised that in this matter of free will, I hold that there is one, & the same reason of good things of what kind soever they be, natural, or civil; and human or spiritual: for the vnregenerat man hath not this liberty, or near power to any good thing, as it is good and acceptable to God, and agreeable to his law: albeit by nature his will is most far estranged from spiritual things, which the natural man perceiveth not, & which (as the postle saith, He cannot know, yea they are foolishness unto him. By spiritual good things I mean faith, hope, repentance, justification, eternal life itself. There is no cause therefore why our adversaries should ascribe faith, hope, repentance to the liberty of our will, that is to say, to the strength of nature, as to the principal efficient cause of the same: as if we by nature, & the strength thereof could believe, could hope and truly convert ourselves unto God. But to the intent this thing may yet be more manifest, we must understand that there be two kinds of good things, the one is of human good things: the other is of kinds of good things. divine and spiritual good things. human good things are either moral, and pertain to every private man, or Economical, and pertain to a man's family: or they are Political, and pertain to the whole commonwealth, or to the whole City. Spiritual good things are faith, hope, repentanceiu, stification, sanctification, life eternal. To both these kinds of good things man's will is not like affected, for unto human things, or unto human good things, it is somewhat more inclined: as for example, nature doth incline unto temperancy, fortitude, liberality, justice, albeit it doth neither will nor choose these things, which in themselves are good, in that manner or to that end it ought. Whereby it cometh to pass, that those things which in themselves are good, yet (in respect of him, who is unregenerate) become evil and very sins before God. And concerning things spiritual, the nature of man is more estranged from them: and when they offer themselves to the will, nature itself doth wholly abhor from them. This thing may be yet more plain by example, & experience. There are two certain good things, to wit, justice by works, and justice by faith, which is called the justice Righteousness by works natural. or righteousness of God: we all have experience that our will naturally is inclined to that righteousness which is by works, and which is a certain human good thing. Hence it comes that even to this day, all the world following nature seeks to be justified by good works. But the same will doth wholly abhor, and utterly dislike that righteousness whichiss by faith: the reason is, because it is a certain spiritual & unknown good thing. Hence it comes to pass that so few seek to be justified by faith, and by the alone mercy of God in jesus Christ. By this and other such like examples it appears, that man's will is more inclined by nature to human good things; and wholly to abhor spiritual good things. Albeit in truth, to speak exactly, it is inclined to no good at all, as it is truly good. It is not inclined at all, no not to those human things, as they be truly good and acceptable unto God: for it wills them neither in that manner, neither to that end it ought. So far forth then, as it willeth them, even those things that are good in themselves are sins, and unpleasing to God. Notwithstanding they differ from those evils and sins, which even in themselves, & in their own nature are sins, as manslaughter, adultery, theft, and in which I grant there be more degrees of sin; for in these things men sin both in the substance of the things themselves, and in the manner of doing, and in the end. And the will of man unregenerate is more inclinable unto these things by it own nature, then unto those things, which are good in themselves. For first, it is carried of it own accord to those which are evil in themselves. Secondly, it hath but some inclination to things human, which in their own kind are good. Lastly, it doth wholly abhor spiritual good things before regeneration. Again, I conclude, that human good things, so far forth as man unregenerate doth will them, become in some sort evil; and the man unregenerate doth sin in the very desire of them: which thing also is true in things indifferent, which are neither good nor evil in themselves. For so far forth as man unregenerate doth will them, so far forth they become evil; and the unregenerate man doth sin, when he doth will & desire even that, which of it own nature is indifferent, because he doth will it, neither in that manner, nor to that end he ought. Now concerning the estate of regeneration, the question is, whether the regenerate man hath his free-will: I answer, if you define free-will to be a liberty or power to choose, or will (they say) any of both sides: First, in things indifferent, we say that he hath this liberty. Secondly, we do not deny unto him this liberty also in things good & evil: for seeing there is double act & a double form in the will of the regnerat man, to wit, the form of holiness, and the form of corruption; & because he hath the first fruits of the new man, and the remnant of the old, it cannot be, but that the near power of his will be double also, one inclining unto good, the other declining unto evil: So that this received definition of free-will seems unto me to agree best with the will of the regenerate person. But if you define liberty to consist of a power not constrained, tending to good only, and not to evil; then verily the man regenerate is not so free; but proceeds only to this liberty, which shall at length be perfected in another life. Finally, concerning the estate of glorification, the question is whether man when he shall be glorified, shall have this liberty of will? I answer, if you define free-will a power to make choice of either part, even in good things, and in evil; then I say, man in this state of glorification shall not have it. For he shall have that near power to good only, because of that form of holiness, or glory rather, wherewith then, his will shall be endued withal. I deny not that there shall be in him also a remote power to evil in respect of the necessary mutability of the creature; but this remote power shall never be a near power, because God shall for ever strengthen him, and sustain him in that state of glory. But if you follow that latter definition of free-will, the glorified person shall at length be set free: for he shall will that only which is good and acceptable to God, and that without constraint, and for ever. Man had free will in the state of innocency, according to the image of that divine liberty; but in the estate of glorification, wherein he shall come more near unto the image of his God, and shall bear the image of that heavenly man jesus Christ, his will shall be much more free, and far more ready to that which is good only. And thus have we spoken hitherto of the liberty of will, that is, of that propriety, or natural quality of the wil Now we be to speak of * free-will. But there be which refer the word Arbitrium to the mind: for that they deem it is nothing else but the judgement of the mind, which goeth before the free action of the will: but the word free, they say, doth pertain to the will: notwithstanding I think the word Arbitrium doth signify the decree of the will itself, that is, that by this word, we understand the function of the will, whatsoever it be, whether it will, or nill, whether it choose or reject. We ascribe liberty to this purpose or endeavour of the will, and it is said to be free, even as the will itself is called Free-will, for that ever the propriety of the cause doth predicate (as the Logicians speak) both of the effect, and of the action of the same cause. free-will then is nothing else in my judgement, but the decree or endeavour of the will, which is without constraint, and which proceedeth from some inward motion of the will, and not from any external constraining power. A question may be demanded whether the will when it doth freely execute his function & office in willing freely, or nilling any thing, whether I say, the mind and understanding have not some working herein? I answer, that object, whatsoever it be which the will, & the free function thereof doth respect, is first discerned by the mind. The judgement aiso of the mind is two fold: first, simple judgement of the mind twofold. and intelligible; as when without any discourse and reasoning, it judgeth that this is good, & that is evil; this is to be followed, and that to be avoided. This judgement of the mind is of the end, or of some means serving to the end, which is but only one. Next, the judgement of the mind is, when as by discourse, and arguing, it judgeth any thing to be good or evil; to be avoided, or to be followed. This judgement is where divers means fall out, of which, after discourse had in the mind, one is chosen, and the other is rejected. Now the object which by the mind and understanding is in some sort showed and discerned, the will doth freely will, or nill; choose, or refuse: howbeit since the fall of man, such is the confusion of these faculties, or powers of the mind of man, that what the understanding judgeth to be evil, and disalloweth, the very same doth the will choose, and prosecute: The disorder and confusion. which is by nature in the soul of man. and on the contrary, that which the mind approveth for good, and alloweth, that very same the will rejecteth. Of the mind it may be demanded, whether it can discern between good and evil; approve the one, improve the other. This question must be answered by the consideration of that fourfold state of man. But because the question chief is of the understanding of man in the state of corruption, whether that can approve or accept the good, and reject the evil: our answer shall be accordingly: We say therefore, that if you understand that near power, which is a consequent of that corrupt essential form, the mind of man, in this state can but only allow that which is evil: It may also allow that which is good in itself, but not as it is truly good, because it cannot allow it, neither in the manner, nor to the end it ought, as is aforesaid of will. But to approve that good, which we call human good, the mind of man in the state of corruption is more inclinable: but far is from entertaining any spiritual good at all, for as the Apostle Saint Paul saith, 1. Cori. 1. 2. 4. It judgeth every spiritual grace to be folly; for the things which are of the Spirit of God are foolishness unto him. And thus far have we spoken concerning the freedom of man's will, or of free-will. It followeth now that we speak next of the grace of God, which is contrary to free will, or to nature, and which is not only the principal efficient cause of Faith, Hope, & repentance, but also the sole efficient cause of them: It followeth then that we treat next of the free grace of God. CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the free grace of God. THe grace of God is the undeserved favour of God, or it is that whereby God favoureth his creature without any desert of his. Th'Apostle Grace described. doth intimate thus much Ephes. 1. 9 in that he putteth no difference between these words Grace, and a good pleasure: for whereas he saith in that verse, that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had elected us according to his free grace, it seems to be spoken in the same sense and meaning with that which he said before in the same chapter, ver. 7. In him we have redemption according to the riches of his grace: for the grace & love of God are taken in differently one for another, Ro. 9 13. I have loved jacob. This is that love or that free grace wherewith from all eternity he loved jacob. Eph. 3. 19 That (saith he) You being rooted and grounded in love. etc. And this is that grace whereby he loved us from all eternity Tit. 3. vers. 4. The grace of God as it respecteth mankindis called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or love towardds man.. Again, this word Grace is taken more generally, than this word Mercy, for whereas mercy doth properly respect such as are in misery & sinners: grace reacheth unto all creatures of what kind or condition soever they be, aswell to the blessed Angels as to sinful men, as may appear by the salutation which Paul useth to Timot. in the first, & second epistle, where he wisheth first grace to Tymothy, as being a more general thing: then in the second place mercy, as a more particular thing, restraining it to the Grace more general than mercy. person saluted. For although in those salutations Grace and Mercy are taken metoymically for the blessings and benefits which are conferred, and conveyed to men of Gods free grace and mercy: yet hereby may appear that the mercy of God, which is the cause & fountain of these benefits hath not so general an acception as grace. For the meaning of the words is thus much, as if the Apostle had said, the benefits which God doth give us, are freely bestowed upon us, without any desert of ours, and not only without desert, but to us which deserve to be punished with all the miseries and calamities that can be. That it may further appear that all the blessings and benefits of God, are derived and conveyed unto us by means of his grace, and same favour of God, we will search into and consider more deeply of the doctrine of grace. God from and before all eternity, purposed to be glorified specially in his grace, Ro. 11. 32. God hath shut up all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. In which place we may see the justice of God, to attend on his mercy and grace. So in like manner all the other essential properties of God, as his power and wisdom, etc. all which be subordained to serve his grace and mercy. Hence it is that first of all, God before all eternity past his decrees of grace to the praise and glory of his grace. Ephe 1. 6. 12. The 1. decree of God's free grace. The first decree of God's free grace, was concerning the incarnation of his Son, and the glorifying of him, at the appointed time, unto the praise of his grace. Concerning the decree of his Son Christ, read Act. 2. 23. & 4. 28. oncerning the love of the father to Christ, Colos. 1. 29. Because the Father was well pleased in him: where you may see that the love of the Father is the cause why the fullness of the deity doth dwell corporally in Christ: for it was of his admirable grace that God would have flesh, that is, so base and vile a creature to be united unto God, the glorious and incomparable creator. The second decree proceeding 2. Decree of God's free grace. from grace, was concerning the first creation of man after his own image: then after the fall, concerning his restoring by his Son jesus, I trust, unto the image of his Son: that is to say, by calling, justifying, and glorifying of man to the glory of Christ, and to the praise of his own grace in his appointed time. For the restoring and repairing of mankind after the fall, is summarily set down in these three chief points: read Eph. 1. 4. 5. Ro. 9 11. Ro. 11. 5. 6. Hence followeth the execution of these decrees by same grace of God, and the first execution was of the decree of God concerning man; which by order of Execution of God's free grace. nature had the second place, for that which was first in decree and ordination, became the second in execution; and contrarily, that which was the second in decree and ordination, became the first in execution. Therefore the execution of the decree of God concerning man hath the first place, and the same was of the free grace of God, unto the glory & praise of the same grace. Therefore the execution of the decree of God concerning man to speak some thing thereof, was first the creation of man, of God's free grace after the image of his creator, and to the praise of that his grace. Then after the fall of man followed the restitution of man, of God's free grace in and by his Son Christ, to the glory of Christ his Son, and to the praise of the grace of God the Father. This repairing, which is one of the parts of the execution of the decree of God concerning man consisteth of many parts all which proceed from the mere grace of God, and first tend to the glory of Christ the head, and our mediator between God & man: next, to the praise of the grace of God the father. 1. Co. 3. 22. 23. All things are yours, & you are Christ's, & Christ is Gods. And concerning this restoring of mankind, before we come to the parts thereof ye must be advertised, that in time it partly went before the execution of that decree, concerning Christ the Son of God; and partly did follow after it: For before the fullness of time came, wherein Christ was manifested in the flesh, God begun to restore mankind, even from the very fall of the first man, that is, men were called, justified, and glorified: and that partly by virtue of that decree concerning Christ, which was from everlasting; & partly because of the manifestation of the same Christ which was to come. But when that fullness of time came, & when Christ was now manifested in the flesh, had suffered and was glorified, this redemption of man was more fully and richly accomplished. For Christ being now come works our restitution more effectually by his Gospel, I mean his power is more effectually seen and known in our vocation, justification, and glorification, than it was before his incarnation. Therefore the execution of the decree concerning Christ the Son of God, which was first, falleth now as it were into the midst of the repairing of mankind, or of the execution of the decree concerning man's redemption. Wherefore we shall also speak thereof in the middle place, that so from it we may proceed to speak of the parts of the redemption of mankind. The execution then of that decree touching the Son of The execution of the decree concerning Christ. God jesus Christ consisteth in his incarnation, passion, and glorification, and that of the free grace of God which respected partly the humanity of Christ, & partly respected us, who be repaired and redeemed by that same very flesh of Christ hypostatically united unto the Son of God. Therefore the execution of the decree concerning the Son of God jesus Christ, did proceed from a double grace, & was to the praise of that grace of God. Now I come to speak of the recovery or redemption The execution of the decree concerning. man's redemption. of mankind, or of the execution of the decree concerning the restitution of man: the parts hereof briefly be these: vocation, justification, glorification. Our calling, to speak thereof in the first place, is by God's free grace, and that in a double: respect, for first in our effectual calling the publishing of the covenant, & the preaching of the gospel, is of the only free grace of God. Ephe. 1. 9 Having opened Our calling is by grace. unto us (saith he) the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure. Next faith, whereby we receive the promise of the covenant, which is offered unto us in Christ, is of the Faith. mere grace of God. Philip. 1. 29. For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe, but also to suffer for him. Hence it followeth that faith is the free gift of God. That former grace may be called the grace of our vocation, this grace is common to all that are called elect and reprobate. But the latter grace in our effectual calling, may be called the grace of faith, appertaining only to the elect: for it is given only to those that are predestinated, to life everlasting, to believe. Under the grace of faith I likewise comprehend the grace of hope, and of repentance, as being subaltern graces, & comprehended under this argument of our effectual calling. The grace of justification followeth this double grace in our effectual calling: For that very imputation which followeth faith, and that apprehension of faith in our effectual calling proceed also of a certain new grace of God: For it cannot be but of grace that the justice, and satisfaction of another should be imputed or accounted unto us as ours, Ro. 3. 14. We are justified freely, that is, by grace; as else where often. This grace the Apostle doth always oppose to works, and to merits, making it the companion of faith Merits. in Christ: for the free grace of God doth well agree, and stand with the merits of Christ apprehended by faith; not only because that merit is not ours but Christ's, that is, the merit of God himself, but much more rather, because the satisfaction and merit of Christ is of God's free grace and mere mercy: For God spared not his Son, but gave him to die for us. Ro. 8. 32. Hence it is, that the grace of God doth more appear in this satisfaction and merit of his, then if he had justified us without any merit at all, either of our own or of any other. Therefore the free grace of God doth very well stand with that merit, which God gave us of his own. And if that merit and price of our redemption had not been paid by God himself, then surely the grace of God had not so manifestly appeared in our redemption. And as for man's merit, we say that the grace of God cannot in any wise stand with it. The grace of glorification, or regeneration, followeth the grace of justification; for as pronunciation, & giving of sentence is of grace; so the execution thereof is likewise of grace: for regeneration or glorification is a certain execution of the sentence of justification aforegoing. Of Regeneration or glorification is as it were an execution of the sentence of justification. this grace see. 1. Pe. 2. 3. Who of his great mercy hath begotten us unto a lively hope. 'tis 3. 5. According to his mercy he saved us by the fountain of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost. Eph. 2. 5. 8. They are saved by grace. Here ye must observe that in this work of the restitution of mankind, and that in all the parts thereof, there is but one only grace of God, which is the beginning and first cause of all these proceed: but we according to the variety of the effects thereof do thus distinguish it, and consider of it diversly: like as the spirit of God which is one 1. Cor. 12. 4. in respect of the diversity of the gifts and effects thereof, is after a sort distinguished, for that in some respect (but not indeed and verity) he seems not to be one and the same (as it were) Rom. 8. 15. For you have not received the spirit of bondage to fear any more, but you have received the spirit of adoption. By this that hath been spoken, understand that there are as it were 4. graces of God in the restoring of mankind, and in the parts thereof. For whereas there is a double mercy of God in our effectual vocation, to wit: First, an offering of Christ with all his benefits, in the covenant of grace, or the Gospel: secondly, faith to receive Christ being offered (under faith I comprehend hope and repentance, which follow faith) Therefore in our effctuall Parts of our effectual calling. calling two graces must be understood the grace of our vocation, or of offering Christ unto us, and the grace of faith, or of receiving Christ by us. In justification we have a third grace, which we may call the grace of justification; & in glorification there is a fourth grace; which we may not unfittly call the grace; of glorification. Hence we may see, that the first grace (which they call preventing grace,) is that grace whereby God first calleth us to himself by his Gospel; and the last grace which is Preventing grace the complement of grace, to be that grace whereby God doth glorify us together with his Son in his kingdom: for he beginneth the last grace in this life by regeneration, but reserveth the full consummation thereof to another life by glorification. Thus much of the parts of the restitution of mankind, all which proceed from the mere grace of God, and are directed unto the glory of his grace. We must observe this in general, that all the blessings of God as well those that were from all eternity, as those that are in time, be founded upon the only and mere grace of God. And that in respect of grace there is no difference between those benefits of God, that were before all worlds, as his prescience, and predestination, and these which are in time, as our vocation, justification, glorification. This is the truth of God, & it will stand in despite of all the adversaries & enemies of the grace & cross of Christ, which notwithstanding hold I know not what freedom of will, & that our meritorious works do concur in our votion, justification & glorification, with the grace of God. For as touching our calling, although they confess this to be true, that preventing grace (as they speak) doth so prevent or preoccupy us, even then, when we think nothing of the grace of God, or of preparing ourselves to receive grace, but being (as it were) a sleep in sin: yet they do ascribe to free-will, that affiance which we give unto faith, whereby we assent unto preventing grace, & admit the same: as though we had any actual free-will, or self power, (as they speak) to receive the grace of God. We do grant some power or freedom of will, whereby it inclines after a sort unto that which is is good: I understand a power of the matter: but we do utterly deny that men by nature have any actual free-will, or that we have a self power to do that which is good, as it is good. That self or near power of will, or liberty of will to good, I define to be that liberty in the will, which is by the essential form of Potentia propinqua. holiness, or by the image of God which is imprinted in the will, as may appear in the Chap. of free-will before handled. Therefore we hold, and teach that in receiving the first grace, our will stands before God mere passively and not actively, that is when the free grace of God preventeth it, we say it hath a power unto good, but the same to be of the matter only (as schoolmen speak) & passive, which they call a remote power. Again, we avouch that the same power is made actual, by means of divine grace preventing us, that is, by the working of the holy spirit, who taketh possession as it were of us by the preaching of the Gospel, whereby the holy Ghost doth renew our hearts, inspiring that life of God into us, from which we were before altogether strangers: as it is written Eph. 4. 17. 18. 19 creating in us again that image of God which was lost, that image (I say) of holiness, & true righteousness. As touching our justification where our adversaries do affirm that it is two fold, terming the 1. habitual & the 2. Popish justification. actual: they say, that we are prepared by our free-will, to the 1. justification, as by a principal agent, & by the grace working together with the same. But as for the 2. justification, that they place in works proceeding from free will & from our▪ first justification, which they call infused grace. And here they ascribe life everlasting to the merit of this 2. justification, which doth consist in the works of our free-will and of infused grace (as they call it.) Hence we may see, that they do not attribute to the only grace of God, any of the former benefits, neither justification, nor vocation, nor glorification, nor any of those spiritual graces, which God in time gives to his children: But they do part them between God's grace, free-will, and man's merit. Finally, if any comparison be made between God, & us concerning the conferring of these benefits, we shall Note. find them to ascribe more to us, and our free-will, & our works, then to the grace of God. But we have written somewhat of this before in the chapters of our effectual calling of repentance, & of free-will. Therefore I refer the reader to these places, and here I end this matter. Thus far then have we spoken of this common place of our effectual calling, which because it comprehendeth under it many other points of divinity, it may be well reckoned amongst the most general heads of theology. OF THE MEANS WHEREby God from the beginning hath revealed both his covenants unto Mankind. Question. HOW many ways are there, whereby God from the beginning hath revealed all his will, that is, Kind's or forms of revelation. the doctrine of both covenants, of works & grace, unto mankind? A. They are two. Q. Which be they. A. The first is a lively voice: the second is the Scripture. Q. What callest thou a lively voice. A. The first means of revelation, whereby God partly by his own mouth, and partly by men, hath manifested What is meant by a lively voice. the whole doctrine of both covenants to his church, from time to time. Q. What were the instruments of that lively voice from the beginning? A. First, God himself spoke sometimes by his Son in Whose it was. the form or likeness of man, appearing to the Fathers; sometimes by his spirit inwardly in the heart. Secondly, the lively voice of Angels was heard: Thirdly, the lively voice of men, first of the Fathers, then of Moses, and the Prophets; after that, of john the Baptist until Christ. Then lowed Christ himself manifested in the flesh. Last of all, the lively voice of the Apostles of Christ. Q. This kind of revelation which was by a lively voice of all The quality of it. these whom you have named, was it by inspiration and altogether free from error? A. Concerning the lively voice of God himself, of Christ and of the Angels, there is no question: and as concerning men, whose lively voice God hath used from the beginning of the world hitherto, in revealing his will to his Church, they truly albeit they were sinful men, and in part only regenerate; notwithstanding in the delivery of the doctrine of the truth of both covenants, they were so extraordinarily governed and inspired with the Holy Spirit of God, that they could by no means err. Q. Dost thou mean then, that all men, as many as have been from the beginning of the world hitherto (by whose mouth God hath-spoken to his Church) were men extraordinary, endued with extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, & confirmed by miracles. A. I mean even so: for prophecy in times past came not by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved by the spirit of God. 2. Pet. 1. 2. Q. At what time began this lively voice in the Church? When it began. A. It began even in the first creation of man. Q. How long hath the lively voice of God and men, who could not err in delivering the doctrine of the truth continued Continuance of it. in the Church of God? A. It hath been from the beginning of the world, even to the death of the Apostles: all which time, there was almost no age, wherein at least some one holy man of God, was not extraordinarily stirred up; who could not err in delivering the doctrine of the truth. Q. Why do you say almost: was there any intermission at all? A. Truly there was: but I will name only some more notable intermissions, which may be gathered out of the holy scriptures. First in the age of the patriarchs it is observed, that there was an intermission in Teraches time who was the Father of Abraham: for albeit he retained some grounds of truth received from his Fathers, notwithstanding he became an Apostata and an Idolater, as is manifest by the history. Next, there was an intermission also, when the people lived in Egypt: for from the death of the Sons of jacob, even to the departure out of Egypt, Ezechiel testifieth Chapter 20. that all the people were fallen from God to the Idols of the Egyptians. Lastly, there was an intermission from Malachy the last of the Prophets until john Baptist, in all which time no Prophet was raised up; notwithstanding the word of God was continued, amongst the people of the jews by high Priests and the ordinary ministry, but not without corruptions: so that at the coming of Christ for the more part, the doctrine of truth was now corrupted. Q. Ought not the lively voice of God, which is not subject to error, be continued in the Church until the coming of Whether a lively voice not subject to error continues till Christ. Christ; because you said that this lively voice did continue in the Church till the coming of the Apostles only? A. The lively voice of Christ continues in the Church, I confess, but not the lively voice either of God or of extraordinary men, such as were the Fathers, Prophets, and Apostles: but only the lively voice of ordinary men, of pastors and doctors, who both may err, & do err whensoever they depart never so little, from the prescript word of the Prophets and Apostles. Q. But God hath given a greater measure of his holy spirit, to his Church which now is under Christ, then ever he gave to the old Church. Therefore if in the old Church there was a lively voice which could not err, how much more shall there be now in the Church of Christ a lively voice which cannot err. A. It is true indeed, that together with this full revelation, which is contained in the writings of the Apostles, a more full spirit was given to the Church of Christ, which now is, than was given to the the old Church: But hence it followeth not, that either the Church, or the Pastors and doctors in the Church, are so governed with that Spirit, that they cannot at all err in delivering the truth: For this was the extraordinary gift of the holy Ghost, which was given but for a time; but the gift of the Spirit which was given to the Church of Christ since the times of the Apostles, is ordinary and perpetual, to wit, the gift of sanctification, illumination, and regeneration. Q. The Church then which now is, seems to be in a worse case, than the old Church was, which had the lively voice of God, & of men which could not err? A. That doth not follow: for this Scripture of the Prophets and Apostles, which now the Church hath, doth not err in doctrine, and contains also a most full and most clear revelation of the truth. Q. Albeit I should grant the condition of our Church to better than of that old Church which was before Moses, and which had the tradition and use only of the lively voice, and that very imperfect and obscure: notwithstanding I see not how the Church was not in better case, which was after Moses, even to the coming of Christ, as having not only the use of tradition, and of a lively voice, but also of the Prophetical Scripture, as a light shining in a dark place? A. Truly that Church had both, that is, both the sound of a lively voice, and of the Scripture and written word of God; but neither perfect, and absolute. But this Scripture which our Church alone hath, contains a most full and plain revelation: for even one form or manner and kind of revelation, which is perfect and full must be more excellent, then two which are both imperfect, or which contain an imperfect revelation of the truth. Q. But there is no man who would not say, it were better with this our Church, if it had some lively voice which in speaking and answering to all controversies, might not err? A. They have Moses, the Ptophets and Apostles, that is, the writings of Moses, of the Prophets, and of the Apostles, and those truly not only sufficient, but most perfect: whence only if they cannot learn the truth by them, and decide and end all controversies, they will not be instructed with the lively voice of any extraordinary man: howbeit, as I have said before, the lively voice was to continue only so long in the Church, as some thing was wanting to the full declaration of the mystery of Christ. So that if now there should be any need of the lively voice either of God, or of some extraordinary man in the Church of Christ; that truly should plainly argue, that the revelation of the truth and mystery of Christ, is not perfect as yet, nor accomplished. Q. You conclude then, that since the Apostles time there hath been no lively voice heard in the Church, which could not err. A. Yea truly. Q. Why did a lively voice not subject to error, continue in the Church all that time, which was from Adam to the Apostles? A. To speak nothing of the will of God, with the which alone we ought to rest contented; first, the condition of the Church did require this continuance: & then the measure of the revelation that then was. Q. Why the condition of the Church? A. Because the visible Church in all that time, which was from Adam to the Apostles, was both in place more straight, as being shut up in one family, or in one nation, & was by reason of age weaker, or not so well grown. For the Church before Christ (if I may so speak) was either as a child, or as a young man. Q. What then? A. The lively voice doth more easily reach, or extend itself to a Church, which is in place more straight, and to the Saints fewer in number: & the church being as yet unexpert by reason of the age of it, and less grown, had need of the lively voice of a teacher, none otherwise then children have need of the lively voice of a master, who as it were stammereth with them: but after the coming of Christ, when the Church was sufficiently instructed by the lively voice of Christ, and of his Apostles, and now come to man's estate, there was no more heard any lively voice either of God, or of men extraordinary. Q. Why did the measure of Revelation require this? A. Because all that time, which was from Adam to the Apostles, there remained as yet some thing more clearly and more manifestly to be revealed; and the revelation of the doctrine was in several ages, made more manifest still as pertaining to the substance of it: and so long, as some thing remained to be more clearly revealed, so long a lively voice was to continue; for every new revelation ought first to begin with a lively voice. Q. Seeing that the last and most full revelation was by the lively voice of Christ and his Apostles: hath there ever since been heard any lively voice, either of God or of any extraordinary man? A. None at all. Q. Do you gather by these things which you have spoken, concerning the causes of the continuance of a lively voice in the Church, what was the use of it heretofore in the Church? A. Yea truly: for the use of it was first in respect of the Church itself, to give it instruction while it was yet so small for place, and so young in knowledge: next, in respect of revelation, to deliver it from time to time more clearly and evidently unto the people. Q. By this use of a lively voice, which you have here mentioned, it seems that this kind of revelation, which was by a lively voice, was the more simple and the more familiar, and the more imperfect, and therefore the more fit for persons and things that were of like imperfection? A. It is even so as you have said. Q. Hitherto I have heard you speak concerning a lively voice: now I would hear something of you concerning the subject of it, what say you then was taught all that time by a lively voice? A. In all that time, and in every age the self same, and the whole truth of God was delivered by a lively voice. The subiector master of the lively voice. Q. Wherefore then, said you, that the perfect manifestation of that mystery of godliness was not accomplished till the Apostles time? A. By that fullness & perfection I understood not the substance of the doctrine itself, but the quality, that is, the clearness of one and the same doctrine. For the mystery of Christ was in the Church, and was manifested in some measure from Adam unto Christ, and the Apostles: but if the comparison be made of times, it may be said to be shut & hidden in all ages before the coming of Christ. Q. Was the parity of the heavenly doctrine sufficiently conserved and kept, by a lively voice? A. The history shows plainly that the doctrine delivered by lively voice, was often corrupted and adulterated. Q. How then was it restored? It seemed good to God, afterward by new revelations to restore the purity of his word decayed, to conserve and keep it, and to give a more full declaration of it. Q. Was the purity of doctrine sufficiently preserved and kept so? A. Not so verily: and therefore it seemed good to God, at length to add hereunto the written word. Q. Are there no other causes of writing the holy Scriptures? A. There are: for first the condition of the Church required, that the Scripture should be added unto the lively voice: and next, the measure also of revelation. Q. Why the condition of the Church? A. Because at length, in Moses time, the Church began to be both in place more large, as being spread throughout a whole nation, and to grow greater and riper in years: for the time from Moses unto Christ, was as it were, the time of the mid age, or young years of the Church. Q. What then? A. The written word therefore was first in respect both of place, and ripeness of age: for both a whole nation is more easily taught by writing then by voice: and the age which is more ripe, is more capable of that doctrine which is delivered by writing, that is, by that kind of revelation which is not so familiar and simple: and by writing doth more easily conceive any man's meaning. Q. Why doth the measure of revelation require the written word? A. Because whereas before Moses, the revelation of the mystery of godliness was small and very obscure, it seemed not good to the Lord to cause it strait ways to be written, to the intent it might be kept for posterity. But when in Moses time the Revelation began to be much more clear than before, than it seemed good unto God to commit it to writing, to the intent it might be reserved, and remain for those which should come after. For that which is more perfect and full, that we are to write, to this end, that it may remain both for us and our posterity; but that which is more imperfect, that we do not esteem worthy the writing, or to be reserved unto posterity. Q. Before you go any further, I would have you declaare unto me the ages of the Church, where of you have so oft made mention? A. I will so do. Q. How many ages then, say you, are there of the Church? A. Three: the first was from Adam unto Moses, which was the infancy and childhood of the Church: the second from Moses unto Christ, which was the youth or middle age of the Church: the third, from Christ and his Apostles, even unto the end, which may be called the ripe age of the Church, if it be compared with the ages past: for otherwise we are not men grown until we be gathered together with Christ our head in heaven. Q. Do you mean then, that God had respect always of these three ages, in his proceed with his Church? A. I mean so indeed: for (that I may so speak) he hath tempered these three things proportionally to these three ages of the Church: to wit, first the measure of revelation: secondly, his holy Spirit: thirdly, the manner of revelation. Q. Declare I pray you more particularly what you have said? A. To the infancy and childhood of the Church, he gave the least measure of revelation to wit, first, the first principles of religion only. Secondly, the least measure of the holy Spirit, to wit, that which was proportionable to the revelation. Thirdly, one only kind of revelation, which was by lively voice, as being the most fit for the instruction of infants, and of such as were weak in the faith. Q. I understand what you say concerning the first age of the Church: now I would have you speak concerning the middle age, which you call the youth of it, and to apply these three things mentioned to it in like manner? To the middle age of the Church he gave first a greater measure of revelation. Secondly (so to speak) a greater portion of the holy Spirit. Thirdly, a double kind of revelation, the lively voice, and the Scripture. The lively voice I say, because as yet it was but weak: and the written word; because it was in age better grown, and so more capable in some sort of the word written: for God hath tempered these two kinds of revelations together, and of both hath made a middle kind of revelation, according to the time and age which we call the middle, and as it were the temperate age. Q. You have spoken of the first & second age of the Church, now I pray you speak of the third. A. To the third age of the Church (which I call the manly or ripe age) he gave first a full measure of revelation. Secondly, a most plentiful effusion of the holy Ghost. Thirdly, both those kinds of revelation, and that now truly containing a full and perfect revelation; he taught it by lively voice for a certain time: & after this, he added the writings of the Apostles. And when as the mystery of our salvation was fully revealed by that lively voice first, and then that full revelation was written, ever since there hath been no more use of the lively voice of any extraordinary Prophet or Apostle. But the Scriptures written first by the Prophets, and after by the Apostles, remained only without any lively voice, which could not err. Q. Where must we begin to count the third age of the Church? A. Not so much from the coming of Christ, and the sending of his Apostles to all nations, as from that time when the Apostles ceased to speak with lively voice aswell to the jews as to the Gentiles: for even then the Church catholic came to man's estate & full growth, and then the Church began to understand and to learn the will of God by the written word, as being a more accurate and perfect manner of revelation. The time than which was from the coming of Christ until the death of the Apostles, was as it were a passage from the middle age of the church, unto the full growth & ripeness of the same. Q. I understand what you say concerning the causes of addition of the written word to the lively voice, & of the several ages of the Church: now I would have you speak some thing concerning the scripture, or of the writing of God's word. A. I will do so. Q. What then call you writing or Scripture? A. I call scripture or writing the second kind of revelation, whereby God either by himself, or by the means of men extraordinarily revealed those things, which already had been delivered by lively voice before, to wit, in that first kind of revelation. Q. Who then were they, who ever since the beginning have written? A. First, God himself, next, men Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles. Q. This kind of revelation which was by writing, was it not subject to error, like as that kind which was by a lively voice? A. No truly: for concerning that which God himself did write, there is no question: and touching men, they were so extraordinarily inspired and governed by the spirit of God, that in writing they could not err at all. Q. When began it then to be written? A. In Moses time. Q. How long did the word written continue in the Church? A. The scripture or the act of writing continued from Moses, even to the Apostles: all which time there was almost no age wherein extraordinarily some one was not stirred up, who in delivering the doctrine of truth by writing, could not err. Q. You think otherwise of the scripture itself, then of the act of writing? A. I do so: for the scripture itself or that which is now written by Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles yet continues in the Church, and shall continue unto the second coming of Christ. Q. Was there any intermission of writing the word from Moses unto the Apostles? A. There was: for it appeareth in all that time, which was from Malachy to john the Baptist none was stirred up, either Prophet, or writer inspired by God: for the books of the Maccabees be not given by inspiration, as we shall show hereafter. Q. You said that writing continued in the Church until the time of the Apostles, ought it not then to continue even unto the end? A. Like as since the Apostles time there is no lively voice heard in the Church, which can be said to be so goned by the holy Ghost, that it can not err at all: So since the Apostles, nothing is written in the church, which may worthily be called or said to be given by inspiration. Q. What then do you think of so many writings of godly and learned men, which have been published since the times of the Apostles from time to time, to the great good and profit of the Church? A. Verily I think of the writings of Pastors and Doctors in the Church, as I think of their preaching, to wit, that both be subject to error, and neither is so governed by the holy Ghost, but that in delivering the truth of God they may err. Q. It seemeth then that the condition of the Church, which is since the time of the Apostles, is not so good as having neither the lively voice (as is afore said) nor the writings, as now you speak, of those very men who in delivering the truth cannot err? A. It hath the scriptures of the prophets and Apostles, which as pertaining to the substance of revelation is full; and as touching the kind & form of revelation, it is given by inspiration & not subject to error: out of the which scripture, whosoever do not learn all things which are necessary to faith and salvation, assuredly such would not receive from the mouth of God himself, openly speaking in an audible and intelligible voice, the doctrine and instructon of faith and salvation. Q. Wherefore did the Lord so continue to record his will by The cause of the continuance of▪ writing Gods word. writing in the Church all that time, which was from Moses to the Apostles? A. There are the same causes of the continuance thereof, as are of the addition of the lively voice unto writing: For both the condition of the church and the measure of revelation required the same. Q. Why the condition of the Church? A. Because the church continually increased and grew, as in number so in knowledge. Q. What then? A. The greater number and riper knowledge do require this, that the word be written. Q. Why the measure of revelation? A. Because the revelation of the doctrine of salvation, was from time to time made more clear and manifest, even unto the times of Christ & of his Apostles; at which time it was in the end complete and perfected. For it was meet that every revelation manifested more clearly & fully, should be recorded in writing, to this end, that it might be surely kept and delivered to posterities. Q. Can ye gather by these things the use of the continuance The use of writing. of scripture in the Church of God. A. Yea truly. Q. What is then the use of it? A. To pass by the conservation of the purity of doctrine, the first use was in respect of the Church, for the instruction thereof, as being now in place more ample & large, & in knowledge more perfect. Secondly, it was in respect of the revelation of the doctrine itself, that it might comprehend and keep it more fully and clearly. Q. By this use of scripture or writing which you give, it seems that this kind of revelation which is by writing, is somewhat more perfect & high, as that which is best agreeing & fitting to persons and things that are more perfect? A. It is even so. Q. Thus far then forwriting or scripture: now I would have you declare something unto me concerning the subject of this writing, & of the matter itself which is written? A. As touching the substance the very same is written which was before delivered by the lively voice. Q. I pray you speak in order unto me of the subject or argument in scripture, written first by God himself: secondly, by men, by Moses, the Prophets and Apostles? A. I will do so. Q. What then hath God written? A. The sum of the doctrine of the covenant of works, & of the law, even the very same which he had delivered first by a lively voice to the Fathers, and to Moses. Q. What hath Moses written? A. All the celestial doctrine, which he had received partly of the fathers by tradition, partly of God himself, Moses books who spoke mouth to mouth with him; for so the scripture speaketh: partly he had learned of the holy Ghost by an inward inspiration; & to speak in a word, whatsoever had happened to him, and to all the people in his life time, for the space of 100 and 20. years, all these things he committed to writing and gave to the people. Q. Did Moses then write what soever true doctrine was delivered from the beginning of the world to that time? A. Moses omitted no point of true doctrine, which at any time had been delivered concerning either faith or manners: for from the beginning until that very time one and the same doctrine of truth, as touching the substance, was taught full and whole, in all ages. The difference only was in the measure of the revelation of it, that it is accidental & Moses delivered this doctrine fully and wholly by lively voice more clearly and manifestly then ever before: then after this, it was recorded in writing. Q. What did the Prophets write, who followed Moses every one in their time, and order? A. The same and all, as touching the substance, which Moses had written before; the difference only was herein: that every one by revelation did add a more clear & manifest interpretation, as the bright morning star did approach more near. Q. What have the Apostles written after the Prophets. A. All and the same, which from the beginning of the world in all ages before them was both by lively & audible voice delivered and written; they first also by a lively voice delivered the same, and after committed it to writing. Q. Do you then make no difference betwixt the writings of the Prophets and of the Apostles? A. In the matter and substance none; in the clearness and perspicuity thereof, very great: for the scripture of the Apostles containeth the same revelation of the mystery which was declared from the beginning of the world, but most fully and most clearly. Q. I have heard you speak concerning both kinds of revelation, considered without comparison: now I would have you to compare together the lively voice & writing, that by comparison it may appear whether is of greater dignity & authority. A. I will compare them together, the lively voice and scripture are compared either in respect of substance and matter is self, which is revealed by these means, or in respect of the kinds of the revelation of it. If comparison be made in regard of the matter or substance, they must needs be both equal & alike, seeing that the matter in either is one and the same: but if you compare the kinds of reuclation together, it cannot truly be denied but that the first & better place is due to the lively voice, seeing that the lively voice is both in respect of time more ancient, & was before the organs or instruments thereof (for the mouth is an instrument more worthy & to be preferred before the hand) and is a kind of teaching more familiar & more fit for the capacity of such, as are more rude & ignorant. Albeit also in some respects writing is to be preferred before the lively voice: For it is a more perfect & accurate kind of revelation, fit to instruct those that are more perfect, & to keep the truth more firmly. In the mean while it cannot be denied, but that in other respects they are both alike, for they have both spoken, & written the same thing, & in the same manner, to wit, as being guided & moved by the holy Ghost & inspired of God, 2. Pet. 1. 21. 2. Tim. 3. 16. To conclude, seeing that now the lively voice, by the will of God hath ceased, and in the place of it the scripture hath succeeded; so that whole dignity of the lively voice before mentioned, is and ought worthily to be ascribed and referred unto the scripture, or written word of God. Q Do you mean then that the Prophetical & Apostolical scripture ought to be now in as great account with us, as the lively voice of God himself, and of extraordinary men was in times past? A. I mean so, and in his kind of revelation alone I willingly rest, as in that which came by inspiration from God, so long, until I shall hear at his glorious coming that lively and most sweet voice of Christ my Saviour; when he shall say to them, who shall be at his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom, prepared for you from the beginning of the world. To whom be all praise for ever Amen. To God only wise be praise through Jesus Christ for ever, Amen.