Truth and Falsehood: Or, A Comparison between the Truth now taught in England, and the Doctrine of the Romish Church: with a brief confutation of that Popish doctrine.  
Hereunto is added an Answer to such reasons as the popish Recusants allege, why they will not come to our Churches.  
By Francis Bunny, sometime fellow of Magdalen College in Oxford.  GAL. 1.9. 
If any man preach unto you otherwise than that ye have received, let him be accursed.  
LONDON Printed by Valentine Sims, for Rafc jacson, dwelling in Paul's Churchyard, at the sign of the white Swan. 1595.   

To the right worsh●●full Company of iron-mongers in London, Francis Bunny, sometime their Scholar, wisheth increase of knowledge, and zeal of the truth, with abundance of all spiritual graces here, and a happy life with God elsewhere.  
IF the children of Reuben and Gad, 
Numb 31.21, 2●  might not settle themselves to rest & ease till the Lord had cast out his enemies from his sight, but that they should sin against the Lord, and their sin should find them out: (for it is great reason, that they that have one inheritance promised, should take pains together to get the same, and put from it their common enemies) than how much more shall God find us guilty, if so many and mighty enemies, seeking by all means possible, to keep us and our brethren from the possession of the truth here, and so from that spiritual Canaan, and heavenly jerusalem elsewhere, we seeking our quiet estate, and contenting ourselves with our own happy life, do not our endeavour to scatter and confound according unto our place and calling, the common enemies to our salvation. When the children of Reuben and Gad, 
Josh. 22. 1●  and the half tribe of Manasseh, had builded them an altar in their country, for a remembrance that they were to be accounted Israelites, although jordan parted them from the other tribes, and the rest of Israel had thought that they had builded it to offer sacrifices upon the same, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered them together at Shiloh to war against them: For they thought it to be every man's part, to oppose themselves against God's enemies, and to be forward in defence of his glory. Seeing the●● fore a common cause requireth common help, and they that ● he not keep a good watch in the place that is appointed unto them, and in their calling, do as much as in them lieth, betray the cause: 
Matth. 25.30.  and such as do not occupy their talon, shallbe Cast into utter darkness as unprofitable servants: I have thought it good, according to my slender skill, and simple talon, to oppose myself against our adversaries, in defence of God's glory and the truth: even against them, who are both the most dangerous enemies to our soul's health and the continual disturbers of all common wealths. The first, they endeavour by their false doctrine: the other, by their most perilous and endless practices. Insomuch, as of the troubles that are this day in the world, the Cardinal of Lorraine seemeth to have made a true confession even in the council of Trent. For our sakes, brethren (saith he) is this storm risen, therefore cast us into the sea. Indeed not for their sakes only, 
Gentil. exam. council. Trident. sess. 22 lib. 4.  but by their means, are these troubles come upon this part of the world. Now the multitude or malice of our enemies must not discourage us from doing our duty: but how much more they increase in number, so much the more diligent should we be: and their cruelty and malice should increase our courage against them. But in vain do we withstand them with our tongues and pens, if the Christian Magistrates do not put to their helping hand: who have also their du y to do in the church of God, as well as they, to whom the ministry of the word is committed Moses & Aaron, the prince and the priest were brethren, to teach us what mutual help the one of them must make to the other. Kings and Queens (if they forget not their duty) must be nursing fathers & nurses to God's church. 
Psa. 49.23.  They must cherish and nourish it, they must love and defend it. And as idolatrous princes, the slaves of antichrist, have one mind, 
●● ocal. 17.12,  and shall give their power & authority to the beast, and shall fight with the Lamb, 
13  as we see it is come to pass in these our days: even so should all godly Princes and Magistrates be ashamed, that, zeal of God's glory, and love unto his truth should not knit them as fast together, and make them as willing to maintain the good cause: as superstition, ambition and malice prevaileth with the wicked, to make them so 〈◊〉 bornly to strive against God's undoubted word. Such prince's 〈◊〉 in scriptures commended unto us, as have been ready to maintain truth, set forth God's word, and regarded the sincerity of the same: and have on the contrary withstood superstition, put down idolatry, and compelled their people unto the service of God, both according to the first and second table of the Commandments. And on the other side, it is left as a stain unto the memory of others, that they did not take away occasions of idolatry, and remove such stumbling blocks out of men's ways. If then we could in such a godly consent, as the Prophet Sophonie saith, serve the Lord with one shoulder, the civil magistrates, 
Zophon. 3.9.  by the sword, we by the word: they by correction (if need require) we by exhortations: they by punishments, we by threatenings, remembering that both the one and the other must one day make an account of our stewardship, and answer for our defaults: then I doubt not but God would bless our godly labours, with great increase of knowledge and godliness. But, as in the end of this treatise, I have made some exhortation unto magistrates, to consider of their duty in this point, so have I also thought it my part to maintain to my power, Truth against Falsehood even God's word against men's inventions. And for this cause have I taken this travel, to set down the sum of that that we teach, especially in such matters as are principally in question amongst us: and on the contrary, what our adversaries teach concerning the same. Which I thought to be necessary, because our doctrine is many times by the adversaries slandered, especially before such as are ignorant, as though it were far otherwise than in truth it is. And that the truth more easily may appear, what is taught by them and us, he that listeth may see with little labour, even as it were at one view both our opinions. Neither do I undertake to set down all that we teach concerning those articles, but only the points that do especially belong to the controversies that are between us. Then also have I set down the principal arguments whereby they confirm their doctrines, and endeavour to confute them. Wherein especially I allege M. Bellarmine's reasons (though not always) because he is accounted learned amongst us, and also cometh after others, so that he hath seen what others have, and hath taken out of them what he liketh. And as in all this treatise, my endeavour is to prove (I trust with some good effect) that the doctrine of the church of Rome is not catholic, so that it may the better appear, I have towards the end set down an abridgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis, whereby I trust the meanest that seethe it shallbe able to judge, how they make an unjust claim to the catholic religion. And although I know my own wants, and could rather submit myself to be a scholar unto many, than a teacher almost of any: yet because (I know not how) my mind giveth me, that this manner of writing may do some good, especially among the unlearned that are desirous to be taught, I thought my duty forced me to take this in hand, though I want many helps and means that other have. And, to whom should this my labour (such as it is) be due rather than unto you, next after that place where I did suck as it were my first milk of learning, and laid almost the foundation of that knowledge (such as it is) that God hath endued me withal? By your good liberality, I confess myself to be the better enabled to do any good (be it never so little that I can do) in the church of God. To your Worships therefore I confess this my travel to be due, as a simple token of my sincere heart, which would have yielded a better remembrance, if my ability could have afforded it. And the rather do I dedicate this Book unto your W. Company, that you, seeing the meaning of bestowing your exhibition (which is to bring up Labourers in God's harvest, teachers in his church) to be in some part performed in me, who first in Oxford received your liberality, as I doubt not but you have seen much more plentiful fruit in many other you may the more willingly continue your godly course, and not be weary of your well-doing. Accept in good part (I pray you) this simple gift, and if you see in it but my desire to do good, give glo● y to God, to whose good grace I commit you and yours, and myself to your good prayers. From my house at Ryton in the Bishopric of Durham.  
Anno 1595.   

❧ A necessary Table, of all the principal matters contained in every chapter of this Book.  

THAT the Scriptures or word written, is only God's word, and not traditions Chapter 1  
That this word is sufficient Chapter 2  
The Scripture a sure rule Chapter 3  
Scriptures easy Chapter 4  
That only the canonical books of the old and new testament are this written word or Scriptures Chapter 5  
What the catholic church is, that in the creed is mentioned Chapter 6  
That the catholic church mentioned in the articles of our creed is not visible or to be seen Chapter 7  
The church here militant upon the earth may err Chapter 8  
Of the marks of the church, or how we may know the true church Chapter 9  
What a sacrament is, what is the effect of it, or what it worketh: how many sacraments there are Chapter 10  
Of the sacrament of Baptism Chapter 11  
Of Confirmation Chapter 12  
Of the Lord's supper, and Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and namely of transubstantiation Chapter 13  
That the wicked receive not in the sacrament Christ's body and blood Chapter 14  
That the cup ought not to be denied to the lay people, which thing the papists do Chapter 15  
Against their sacrifice of the Mass, or of the altar, as they call it Chapter 16  
Of true and christian repentance, and of the Popish Sacrament of penance Chapter 17  
Of lawful calling into the ministery, and against the sacrament of Orders, as they call it Chapter 18  
Of matrimony, that it is not a sacrament, and that it is lawful for all. Chapter 19  
Of anoiling or extreme unction, that it is not a sacrament Chapter 20  
Of original sin, what it is, and whether concupiscence be sin, or not. Chapter 21  
Of the works of infidels and such as are not regenerate Chapter 22  
Of Baptism, whether it do extinguish and kill in us original sin or not Chapter 23  
That we have not of ourselves free will or power to deliver ourselves from sin Chapter 24  
That by our works we cannot be justified: and against the doctrine of merit's Chapter 25  
Of justification by faith, and what faith is? Chapter 26  
That good works are necessary duties for all christians to perform Chapter 27  
Of prayer: to whom, and how we should pray Chapter 28  
Against Images in churches or any where else for religions cause Chapter 29  
What fasting is, and of the true use of fasting Chapter 30  
Of Purgatory Chapter 31  
An Abridgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis, with observations upon the said Author Chapter 32  
An exhortation to christian magistrates for to defend this truth Chapter 33   
FINIS.   


That the Scriptures, or written word, is only God's Word, and not traditions. CHAP. 1  


THE PROTESTANTS  

The rule of faith & life.  BEcause it is confessed of all, that gods word must be the rule and square of our faith and life, of our religion and conversation: It is very meet, that first we inquire, what is this word of God? And we affirm, 
What is god's word  that that only which is contained in the Books of the old and new Testament, is the very true word of God. First, because we are so often & earnestly charged not to add any thing to it, or to take any thing from it. Secondly, this is proved by the practice of the godly of all times. The jews most religiously kept the word written with great sincerity, and made it the Touchstone to try their actions by, and by it, they reform such things as were amiss, in religion especially. As in jehosaphat, Ezechias, josias, and others it may appear. Christ also and his Apostles confirmed that which they taught out of the Scriptures: yea they confirmed and expounded the Law Mat. 5. and preached no other gospel than that which before was promised by the Prophets. 
Rom. 1.2.  And accounted them accursed that should preach any other. 
Gal. 1.6, 7, 8, 9  Lastly, the Fathers of the purer times of the Church, did not only with open mouth submit their writings and doctrines to the judgement of the Scriptures, but also they tried doubts, established all truths, and confuted all heresies, only by this word written.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of ROME not suffering herself to be hemmed in within so narrow lists, 
Prou. 22.28.  hath removed the ancient bounds which their fathers made, and feigneth, that God (who hath hitherto had but one voice) now in our days should speak with two tongues. 
What is god's word in the Ro. church.  For they make God's word to consist of two parts, namely, of the word written, which we call the Scriptures, and unwritten, which they call Traditions. 
Traditions.  And the traditions (say they) were either delivered by the Apostles themselves to some special men, and therefore are called Apostolic, or else are set down by the Church, and for that cause called Traditions of the Church. 
Traditions equal with the word.  Now traditions are made equal, and to be received with as great reverence as the Scriptures, even by the Council of Trent, 
Ses. 4. decree. 1 Preferred before the word.  & the most modest Papists But there are others, who in their excess of impiety, prefer the traditions before the word written, and make them of greater force than it, as Pighius in his Ecclesiastical hierarchy, 
Eccl. Hierar. lib. 1. cap. 4. Thesi. 9 In his preface.  & Wolfgangus Screckius. Nay, in that he will by traditions have all doctrines tried he manifestly subjecteth the pure written word of God, to the profane devices of man.   

But to take away the props of this their ruinous building, let us see what grounds or foundations (for so Melchior Canus a learned Papist termeth them) they lay, of this their doctrine.  
Objection Melchior Canus in his common places of Divinity, and Bellarmine in his controversies, 
lib. 3. cap. 3 Bellar. lib. 4 〈◊〉  of God's word d● written, and others also, set this down as a most necessary principle, That the Church is more ancient than the Scriptures. As in truth the Church was more than two thousand years before there was any written word of God in books, and therefore Bellarmine inferreth, That the Scriptures are not simply necessary.  
Answer. First, this ground doth not uphold that which is in controversy among us. For they should prove traditions to be a part of God's word, so that without them God's word could not be counted perfect. And to prove that, they tell us, that it was more than two thousand years before the word was written. Which maketh nothing for them, unless they can show us, that this word which is now written, is not that same that before was delivered by tradition unto the fathers of that old world. For the question between us and the Papists, is not of the manner of delivering God's word, whether it were delivered by word or by writing: but of the matter, namely, whether God's word be any thing else, than that is written in the old and new testament, which we deny, but they affirm it, because the word was so long time unwritten, & yet the church was not then without the word. So that because the word was revealed after an other manner, the Papists will have it another word. Whereas in truth that same word that was from the beginning, 
john 1.1 what word that is that is written.  is that very word of God, that was so long after the beginning written for the jews, and is now delivered unto us. We must therefore take heed that they deceive us not by the double signification of the word Scripture, which sometime expresseth the manner of delivering the word, namely, by writing, and so we confess, the scripture was not so ancient as the church by more than two thousand years, but sometime the word Scripture signifieth the word itself which is delivered unto us, as it is commonly now taken, and in this place must so be understood. And so hath the word written been from the beginning. That is to say, that the self same word, which God, by word of mouth (as we say) and by tradition did teach the patriarchs, he afterwards did cause to be written, which word we call the holy scriptures. And further also we must remember, that one manner of delivering the word of God, 
diverse manners of delivering the word at diverse times.  is fit for one time, and an other manner of delivering it for an other time. As may appear by that which hath been said, how that God hath in his infinite wisdom seen it needful, to deliver it one way afore the Law, in an other sort under the Law, and the Gospel, although not in like measure in both these latter times. So that this argument cannot stand good: The scriptures have not been written in the first age amongst the patriarchs, therefore they are not necessary now amongst us in these days, to whom God hath by them revealed his word. Which argument is strongly confuted by chrysostom that learned and ancient Father. 
In Matth. hom. 1.  But to these men, who are (as Tertullian calleth the Heretics of his time) lucifugae scripturarum, 
De resurrect. carnis.  such as shun the light of the scriptures, and flee from it, I may say as the same Tertullian speaketh in an other place, 
De prescript.  Believe without the Scriptures, that ye may also believe against the Scriptures. Let them seek the desert of their own devices, and follow the trod of their own traditions, to find out some covert for their superstitions, but let us content ourselves to dwell in the cities of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel, and the Apostles which are the Scriptures, and not go out of them, 
In Mich. li. 1  as Saint Jerome speaketh, For every word of God is pure, 
Prou. 30.5, 6  he is a shield to those that trust in him. Put nothing to his word, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.     

That this Word is sufficient. CHAP. 2  


THE PROTESTANTS  

This word is sufficient.  NOw this written word of God, because it is sent us from that most gracious God that hath loved us, and chosen us in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid, 
Eph. 1.4  that we might be holy & with out blame before him: and is brought unto us by that most excellent Prophet, In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge: 
Coloss. 2.3  and therefore can teach us, 
Heb. 3.2  who also is faithful, and therefore will deal truly with us, yea, who so hearty loveth us that he died for us, and therefore doubtless will be careful to teach us what behoveth us to know: Seeing also the Apostle saint Paul doth testify, that he kept nothing back that was profitable, 
Acts 20.20  
27  but showed them all the council of God: We therefore believe (the Scriptures) to be written 
joh. 20.31  that we might believe, and believing might have eternal life. 
2. Tim. 3.16,  And that the whole scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness, 
17  That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works, that is, that the Scripture is so sufficient and perfect, that it hath no want, it needeth no supply, nothing must be added.   

THE PAPISTS  
BUT the Church of Rome knowing that Tertullian wrote truly, 
De resurrect. carnis.  That Heretics, if they be made to prove that they say by the Scriptures, can not stand: do find fault that they should be so straightly limited and tethered that they may believe or receive nothing but that is in the scripture. 
Andrad. Orthod. explic. lib. 2  And therefore they neither shame nor fear to charge the word written with insufficiency. 
Bellarm. li. 4 cap. 4 Gods word not sufficient.  For so doth Bellarmine in flat terms. And therefore he, Melchior Canus, & the Censure of Collen, & the rest of them, do out of this principle gather an unanswerable argument, as they imagine for traditions, because (say they) the Scripture sp● acheth not of many things necessary to be believed. Are not these such workmen as the Apostle willeth us to take heed of, 
Phil. 3.2  Beware of evil workmen, yes verily, for they are deceitful workmen, 
2. Cor. 11.13  if you mark them well. For whereas they should try their work by the line and the square, they contrariwise try their rule by their work. And whereas they should reject all doctrines that are not agreeable to the word of God, they make that to be GOD'S word that will allow of their doctrine: so that traditions must needs be God's word, because they maintain that which the Scripture alloweth not of.   

The argument for traditions, and against the sufficiency of the Scriptures.  
Many things there are necessary to be believed, that are not expressly set down in the Scriptures: yea, many things that are neither plainly neither obscurely in the Scriptures (say all the Papists) namely, Canus in his second and third grounds: 
Lib. 3. cap. 3  Therefore the Scriptures are not sufficient.  
For answer: the antecedent or first part of the argument is untrue: For whatsoever is to be believed, is either plainly set down, or necessarily to be gathered out of the Scriptures, otherwise our Saviour Christ should not seem to have plainly dealt with the jews, when he biddeth them Search the Scriptures (making no mention of any traditions) and addeth his reason, 
john 5.39  They (the scriptures) bear witness of me, but this is manifest by the places before alleged. 
Contra lit. P●● il. lib. 3. cap. 6  Wherefore S. Augustine doth account him accursed, yea he so pronounceth him, that will teach any thing either of Christ, or of his Church, or any thing else that appertaineth either to faith, or to our life, besides that which we have received in the Scriptures of the law and the Gospel. Mark how he saith: the Scripture serveth us for all turns. Therefore the Author of the unperfect work upon Matthew, even in the beginning, 
Hom. 1  compareth the Scripture to a Storehouse of some rich man, wherein one may find whatsoever he wanteth: so saith he, in this book, every soul may find that which is necessary. And Athanasius alluding to the place of S. Paul 2. 
Contra gentes.  Tim. 3.16. saith, The holy scriptures given by inspiration, are sufficient to teach us all truth. It is therefore far better that we with Tertullian should adore the fullness of the Scriptures, 
Cont. Hermogenem. Lib. 3. cap. ●  than be partakers with those heretics of whom Irene complaineth, who when by the Scriptures they were convinced, accused the Scriptures themselves, as if something were amiss in them, and that they are not of authority sufficient, they are diverse, and the truth can not in them be found of them that know not the traditions, for they were delivered, not by writing, but by word: which are the very words of the church of Rome. So that a man can not so aptly paint out our popish heretics, as if he take his pattern by those ancient heretics: For not one Ape is liker to an other, than they are.     

The Scripture a sure Rule. CHAP. 3  


THE PROTESTANTS  

The scripture a sure rule.  ANd seeing that God by his prophet David hath testified, 
Psal. 19.8  that the Law of the Lord is perfect, and hath by the Prophet Esay sent us to ask council in doubtful cases. 
Esay 8.20  To the Law and to the Testimony. Yea, and our Saviour Christ, 
Luc. 16.17  when Dives moveth Abraham to send some to his five brethren, to teach them, sendeth them to Moses and to the Prophets to learn of them, 
vers. 29  and telleth the Saducees, That they err, 
Math. 22.29  because they know not the Scriptures. Lastly, seeing the Apostle S. Paul encourageth Timothy to keep well that he had learned, because, saith he, 
2. Tim. 3.15  thou hast known the holy Scriptures of a child, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation. We therefore willingly confess & constantly believe, that we have a most sure word of the prophets, 
2. Pet. 1.19  to the which we do well if we do take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in our hearts. And therefore we do account this word written to be the most certain and infallible rule of our faith or conversation.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Papists, who can get nothing but by the crooked measures of their traditions, to bring them into credit with men, do highly commend them, sometime comparing them to Theseus his thread, 
Screckius prefer.  whereby he was directed out of the labyrinth, and unto the Touch stone whereby all doctrine should be tried, 
Ibidem.  and make it as great a fault to break traditions, 
Andrad. Orthod. explic. lib. 5 & lib. 3  as if Christ with his own mouth had spoken them, yea, sometime greater, & so make them at the least equal to the written word, that is, to the undoubted word of God. And on the other side do altogether deface and disgrace the Scriptures, calling them Inke-divines that stick to them, 
Eckius de scriptures.  and comparing them to a Leaden rule, 
Eccl. Hierar.  so doth Pighius, or a nose of wax, 
Explic. dial. 4  as the Censure of Collen doth most profanely: both the which blasphemous & godless reproaches against the Scriptures, are defended by Andradius, 
Li. 2. orthod. Explication.  as catholic and sound sayings, because he thinketh (as they do) that they may be changed and drawn to any interpretation. 
Bellar. lib. 4 de verbo non scripto cap. 4 & 5  And therefore they teach that the very Scriptures without traditions, are not altogether necessary. And all this is to persuade the simple, that the Scriptures are not a certain judge of faith or rule of life.   

Argument The argument whereby they endeavour to seduce men and to draw them to their opinion is this: Whatsoever rule of faith or life may be changed, and according to men's affections expounded, is uncertain and deceitful: but the Scripture is such, therefore it is an uncertain rule.  
Answer Which I answer thus. First, the mayor or former proposition, is not simply true, but with these additions: whatsoever may aptly, or without doing violence to the words, be so drawn unto sundry opinions, is an uncertain r●●●. And hereby will soon be gathered the falseness of the minor, which affirmeth the scripture to be such. For although out of one sentence of scripture a man may gather diverse good lessons, and that with good fruit to others, and approbation of all men, so long as those interpretations are agreeable to the rule of faith: yet when any evil thing in faith or life is thereby maintained, without all doubt the words are then wrested, and it ceaseth to be God's word. Now this is not the fault of the word, but of man's corrupt affections which abuse the same. 
Rom. 7.12.  For the Law truly is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good. And as Epiphanius saith, 
Heres. 70  There is no discord in the Scripture, nor one sentence disagreeing from an other. And in an other place, 
Heres. 76  All things in the holy Scripture are clean enough to them that with godly consideration will come unto that divine word, and have not conceived in themselves the work of the Devil, endeavouring to throw themselves into the pit of death. Even as saint Paul saith, If our gospel be yet hid, 
2. Cor. 4, 3, 4  it is hid in them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded their minds. And what is God's word the worse, if the wicked will not know it, 
2. Pet. 3.16  or the unlearned or unstable pervert it to their own destruction? I will therefore conclude with that golden saying of justine the martyr. I would wish others to be of that mind, 
justin. Col. cum Tryphone jud.  that they would not serve from our saviours words: For they can put religion into them that wander from the right way, and refresh with most sweet rest, them that are exercised therein.     

The Scriptures easy. CHAP: 4  


THE PROTESTANTS  

Scriptures easy.  WE also teach the scriptures to be easy, not because we think nothing to be hard in them, or that they are easy to every one, but we affirm with chrysostom, 
2. Thess. 2 hom. 3.  All that is necessary is easy in them. So that with a mind humbled, and craving of God to be instructed, men study them. The simple may learn by them their duty towards God and man, and how to behave themselves in their particular duties. And whereas by the Papists own confession the x commandments are very easy, 
Bellarm. de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 2.  no man can deny but that God's threatenings against sin, & the promises of mercy, and many other things in this written word are as easy. Yea why were the prophets sent unto all sorts of men, why do the apostles writ unto all, but because much, if not all that they do write or say, might be understood even of the simple?   

THE PAPISTS  
ANd on the contrary, the church of Rome fearing lest the light of the word should discover the darkness of their blind devotions, do what they can to discourage the people from being exercised in the Scriptures, lest knowing the truth, they should detest their superstitions and idolatries, and for this cause they cry out with open mouth, that the scripture is too hard to be understood, and too dark for ignorant men to meddle with the same. Whereby they have brought many ignorant and lay men into that foolish and unchristian conceit, that they think it a great deal more dangerous for them, even for their soul's health, to be occupied in reading or hearing some piece of holy Scripture, than the wanton and unchaste Books of profane men, which corrupt good manners, and breed noisome lusts that fight against the soul.   

But because this is a great stumbling block in the way of the ignorant, it shall not be amiss somewhat particularly to examine the Arguments that are used to prove the hardness of the scriptures. Argument The first argument of Bellarmine's is this. David prayeth thus, Give me understanding, and I will search thy law. Open mine eyes, 
Lib. 3. cap. 1. de verbi Dei interpr.  and I will consider the wondrous things of thy law, show the light of thy countenance upon thy servant, & teach me thy statutes: therefore the Scriptures are hard.  
Answer. It is certain that David's prayers were not to have his natural or outward man only instructed (for who can imagine that the prophet David, being so well acquainted in God's book, could not understand God's law) but to have his mind and inward man lightened and directed: and therefore this proveth not the sense of scripture to be hard: for the like prayers are to be used of them that think it to be most easy. Secondly, even the law, which they confess to be easy, hath not only the literal sense, but should also be a bridle unto the affections and thoughts of men, 
Matth. 5  as most plainly appeareth in those Commentaries which our Saviour Christ maketh upon the sixth, seventh, and fourth commandments. 
Rom. 7.14  In which respect also S. Paul doth call it Spiritual, although Bellarmine seem to account the commandments to be but Natural. The Precepts (saith he) of the x. Commandments, seeing they are natural, may easily be understood. David therefore may there pray (as all christians ought to do) that he may know by God's word, not only how to rule his actions, but also his words & affections. This then doth not prove the scriptures to be hard concerning such good lessons as out of the literal sense may be learned, but he proveth that unless God lighten us, we cannot see the spiritual meaning, 
Psa. 119.27.  which he calleth, the marvelous things of the law. Arg. 2 His second argument proveth some parts of Scripture to be hard, which we deny not, and therefore deserveth no answer.  
Arg. 3 
Lib. 2. ca 47 Contra Celsum lib. 7 In Exod. hom. 12  His third argument is taken from the Fathers. Irene saith, in the scriptures I commit many things to God. Orig. saith, the scripture is dark in many places. And in another place, that we must pray night and day, that the lamb of the Tribe of juda will come, and that he will vouchsafe to open the book that is sealed. Answer That many things in the scripture are hard we never denied, as before I said, and that with Reading we should join Prayer, therefore Bellarmine when he took these weapons in hand, did but fear his own shadow. That Basil and Gregory Nazianzene did seek, not by their own presumption, but by other men's writings that were before them, to attain to the understanding of this written word, Ruffinus doth well to commend them. But I am sure that Bellarmine himself will not thereof conclude, that they understood nothing of themselves or without teachers, or that all the scriptures are hard. He bringeth in chrysostom saying, that the deep things therein cannot be attained unto without great labour, and that Christ would have the jews not to read only, but to search them also. If of this he conclude therefore, all the scriptures are hard, his argument is to be denied, for that it hath no truth in it: if he say therefore, many things are hard, we say so with him. Argument He allegeth saint Ambrose also, who saith, The holy scripture is a sea. Answer Saint Ambrose doth not in that place call it a Sea, because it is so deep that the bottom can not be found, but because it is so plentiful that it yieldeth abundance to all, as appeareth, not only by the sentence next after that alleged by Bellarmine, but also by that conclusion that he gathereth a little after, saying: Therefore the holy Scripture hath divers rivers, Thou hast to drink the first time, the second time, and the last time. Therefore, although saint Ambrose say, that the scripture hath in it depths, yet doth he not say it is all dark. Argument But (saith he) Hierome in his epistle to Paulinus writeth, that without a teacher the scriptures can not be learned, and briefly going through every book by name, he showeth, that in them are many and great difficulties, or rather mysteries, for he findeth in them sundry allegories. Answer Yet all is not hard, as before hath often been answered. And S. Jerome in that place as soon as he hath made an end of reckoning up of those books, and showing the mysteries that are therein, he showeth the cause why he did so: I would not (saith he) have thee to be offended with the simplicity and baseness of words in the Scriptures. Argument As for the other objection out of Hierome, is, that Hierome was studious in the scriptures from his youth, and also went to Alexandria to confer with Dydimus of all that he did doubt of in the scriptures. The simple may see, this maketh not against us: Hierome studied them hard, therefore all the scriptures are hard: Or, he conferred with Dydimus of that he doubted, therefore all are hard. Objection The last objection out of Hierome is, That the whole Epistle to the Romans is wrapped into great obscurities. Answer, This toucheth but only that epistle, and therefore is no argument against all the scripture. And in that, seeing there be many things both concerning faith and manners very plain, saint Hierome either speaketh hyperbolically as many times the fathers do, or else by these obscurities he meaneth such mysteries as may be gathered out of the scriptures, but not such doctrines as we must learn out of the same. And who knoweth not that the fathers do many times so are higher, and find out greater mysteries, than the text will well afford. Objection Out of Augustine he hath four testimonies. The first saith, that such as rashly read, are many times troubled, because that some things that are obscurely spoken do greatly blind them. Answer. Which maketh not against us, that neither like of rash reading, neither say that all is easy. His second testimony is that exclamation that saint Augustine maketh, 
Confess. lib. 12. cap. 14  having entered into a deep meditation what may be signified by these words heaven and earth in the beginning of Genesis, as appeareth by the chapter going before, and also by sundry of the chapters following, & therefore this his admiration, O the wonderful depth of thy words! etc. doth not prove all the scripture to be hard. Nay seeing that the story of the creation may there be plainly understood, it must needs follow, that his meaning was not to say that God's word is hard, but rather, that men may in the same consider of deep matters, as I answered to the last place out of S. Hierome. Objection The third and fourth places out of saint Augustine are these: There is so great depth of christian learning, that I might therein profit daily, if from my childhood unto my old age, with much time, earnest endeavour, and a sharper wit, I could study it only. And lastly, In the holy Scriptures I know (saith Augustine) not so much by far as I am ignorant of. Answer Both which places do prove nothing else than, as I said before of Ambrose, that the scriptures are plentiful. So that he saith here nothing else than in another place of that third epistle, out of the which the former of these two places is taken, The manner (saith he) of speaking used in the Scriptures all may come to, but very few can pass through, and so afterwards showeth how sundry good things all may receive by them. Lastly, the two testimonies, out of the Author of the unperfect work upon Matthew, 
Hom. 44  and that out of Gregory upon Ezech. Hom. 6. which give two reasons why the scriptures are obscure, a●● also like the rest, nothing against us. For the author of that work upon Matthew doth plainly show in the same homily, that he meaneth, the scriptures to be obscure to them that will not read them, these are the words: Therefore the truth is not hid in the Scriptures, but it is dark, not so that they who seek it may not find it, but so as they can not find it that will not seek it. And the same also appears by the words of the place alleged out of Gregory by Belarmine. For one reason of the obscurity is, saith he, that he may get that by labour, which by idleness he can not. And then also because the knowledge of the scriptures is not gotten but by labour and pains taking, they are not so lightly esteemed.  
Arg. 4 The last general argument is, by reason, to prove the scriptures to be hard, both in regard of the matter delivered, and the manner of delivering it. And here for the matter he reckoneth some of the principal points of divinity, whereas we may find in the scriptures milk for children, that is, easy lessons for the ignorant, and meat for the elder sort. Yea, as Augustine saith, He giveth milk to young ones, 
De verbis dom. ser. 38 fulgent. ser. de confessor.  that when they are elder he may give them stronger meat. And as the matters contained in the scriptures are heavenly and spiritual, so the heavenly minded man, and he that is spiritually minded shall judge of all things. 
1. Cor. 2.15  And it shall not be unperformed that God hath promised, The secret of the Lord is revealed to them that fear him, 
Psal. 25.14.  and his covenant, to give them understanding.  
Answer Now, for the manner of speaking, although it is true that there are in the scriptures speeches hard, by show of contrariety, by doubtful and unperfect speeches, because one thing is set before another, because of the propriety of the Hebrew phrase, and of the figures (for these six he setteth down the things whereby hardness may be in the scriptures by the manner of delivering them) yet neither are these things so common or so strange, but that the godly may of the scriptures gather much fruit, if they will diligently, and with calling upon God for help read the same. So that in brief this is all that these fathers have said, either that many things are hard, which no body denieth, or else, that none can so sound the depth of them, but that something may always be added thereto: and therefore that with diligence the scriptures must be searched, and without loathsomeness, yea with reverence received. But that we may, the more easily and evidently see how little these fathers do make for them: it is necessary to see with what purpose, and to what end these say, that they do write of the hardness of the scriptures. Namely, not to discourage men from reading of them, but to stir them up to more diligence and carefulness in reading them. As may appear by the earnest and vehement exhortations, which the ancient fathers do make, not only to all men generally, 
Hom. 9 in epist. ad Coloss.  but even to lay men in particular and especially. Hear (saith chrysostom) all ye lay men that are present, and that have wives and children, how the Apostle commandeth even (you especially) to read the Scriptures, and not to read them only as it were by chance, but with great diligence: with many other such like exhortations in that place, as also in many other of his writings. Saint Hierome in sundry of his epistles unto godly women exhorteth them to diligent reading of the same, he also, to entice them to be conversant therein, dedicateth unto some women some of his treatises upon the scriptures. Yea, and in his preface unto Paula and Eustochium two women, before his first book upon the epistle to the Ephesians (which is the place out of which Bellarmine's second argument out of Hierome was fetched) doth highly commend the study and knowledge of the scriptures. And in his preface unto his second book, doth extol Marcelia, for her diligent study therein, 
Hom. 20 in Ios.  preferring her before himself, Thou wilt say (saith Origen) the scriptures are hard, yet it is good to read them. And wisheth that we all would do as it is written (namely) Search the Scripture●. ●●●nelius Agryppa reporteth, 
〈◊〉 S 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that in the first Nicene council it was decreed, that no christian man should be without a bible in his house. And chrysostom exhorteth even lay men, and that very earnestly, to get them Bibles, 
Hom. 9 in Coloss.  or at the least the new Testament. So then we see to what intent the Fathers tell us, that the Scriptures are hard, namely, because they would not have us to be careless in the study of them, and negligent, or to imagine when we know somewhat, that we need know no more, but as Hierome would have us to do, 
Epistol. ad P●● li● 'em.  We must crack the nut, if we will eat the kernel. We must take pains to get knowledge, assuring ourselves that we can never learn too much, because we can never know enough. And saint Augustine in his Confessions saith, 
Li● 6. cap. ●.  they ought to b● read of all. But the Papists, in complaining of the hardness of the scriptures, shoot at an other mark, that is, to make the simple people afraid, that they meddle not with it, that they read it not, neither yet hear it read unto them. So that besides the other slanders wherewith they seek to stain God's word, proclaiming it not to be sufficient, but that it wanteth many things, and may be wrested to any fence, they add this also, that it is hard, and therefore dangerous for them that are not learned to read it. And this is the very cause why they speak so much of the hardness of the scriptures, as not only their writings and words proclaim in all places, but also their cruel executions against such as have had in their mother tongue, 
For libr. ●. 〈◊〉 is and Momun. in the beginning.  I say not the bible or the New Testament, but even the lords prayer, or the ten commandments, which they would seem to allow unto the people.  
Gregory Nazianzene doth write, 
In Apolog●●.  that some ancient men amongst the Hebrews report of a custom which the jews had, which he also commendeth, which was, that some places of the scriptures were not permitted 〈…〉 body to read before they were five and twenty years old, but the rest of the scripture they should learn, even from their childhood. Where note that they make no difference of any state, calling, or sex, but of age only, and that when they were five and twenty years old, they might read any parcel of Scripture. But the Papists permit not any parcel of the scriptures to the lay people, nay hardly to their priests, but only as they will follow such sense thereof as they appoint. Yea, I have known bachelors of divinity admitted to read some book of the master of sentences, as the use than was when they proceeded, so that this was their conclusion: They are hard, therefore you shall not read them. That the scriptures are so hard as they are, 
Papists to be blamed for hardness of the Scripture, by their  and to so many, none are to be blamed but the church of Rome, that so much complaineth of their hardness, but in truth are sorry they are so easy: as is most plain to see, first, in that they would not have them in the mother tongues, but when they see there is no remedy, but that the scripture will be published whether they will or not, they send us a Testament from Rhennes, 
Translations,  so full of Hebrew, Latin, and Greek words, turned into English letters, that all the world may see that they mean nothing less, than that they that read it should understand it. And yet they cry, The scripture is hard. Secondly, they are the cause of the hardness of the scriptures, when in the most plain places that are, they will not suffer men to follow that sense, which the words themselves, and the circumstances both before and after do afford, 
Interpretations.  but they must have their interpretation from the church of Rome, without whose approbations they must neither trust their own eyes for seeing, nor their ears for hearing, neither yet their wit for understanding of any thing. When they change the very sense and words, and where they find Lord, they put Lady, as in that blasphemous book called the psalter of the Virgin Marie they do through the whole psalms, and some other places.  
When the first promise that was made of that blessed seed that should break the head of the serpent, they apply as much as they dare unto the Virgin Marie, when these words shall be currant stuff, to prove worshipping of the Saints departed (In as much as ye have done it to the least of these my brethren, 
Math. 25.40  ye have done it unto me, which are spoken of our goodness to God's needy creatures alive) as Eckius imagineth in his common places: 
De vener. sanct.  when (I say) the people are taught thus to understand the scriptures, must they not needs be hard? Lastly, the greatest cause of this hardness, is, that the people are not acquainted with them, for they are forbidden to read them: nay, 
Forbidding to read scripture.  it hath been death to have them found with the lay people. And still there are, that in corners seek to persuade ignorant men and women, that there can be almost no greater danger unto their souls, than to read the scriptures. Wherein they show themselves to be nothing of the mind of Philip, 
Acts 8.31, 35  who forbade not the Eunuch to read the scripture, but taught him: neither like to the fathers of the church some hundreds of years after Christ, whose care was to exhort and draw the people to the diligent reading of the same. And whosoever they are, that with diligence, humility, and prayer, do continue in the reading of the scriptures, (as we see in sundry by experience) shall be able in reasonable manner to avoid and pass through those six impediments that I before alleged out of Bellarmine, and shall have minds exercised, as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaketh, 
Cap. 5.14  and that not without great fruit, to discern good and evil.  
And thus we may see how little the fathers make for that which the church of Rome teacheth in this point. For the fathers say thus: The scriptures are hard, therefore you must read them diligently. The church of Rome clean contrary: The scriptures are hard, therefore you must not read them. Therefore let us detest as a most pestilent position that dangerous doctrine of the church of Rome, knowing that whosoever (be he never so ignorant) with reverent reading seeketh to find, and with devout prayer asketh knowledge of God, shall find much knowledge and comfort in his godly and christian exercise. For, 
Hieron. ps. 147.  The word of God is most fat and fertile, It hath in it all delicates. And thus to conclude: seeing the scriptures only are God's word, and they are so sufficient and plentiful, that in them the hungry may have food, the poor, treasure, the rich, direction, the sick, physic, the whole, diet, the sorrowful, comfort, the ignorant, knowledge, and the foolish, true wisdom: to be short, seeing there for all wants we find a remedy, and seeing that rule is so true that it cannot deceive, so strait that it can not be crooked, so constant to itself that it changeth not: lastly, seeing it is so easy, that by diligence and prayer, the godly may not learn only, but grow and increase daily from knowledge to knowledge, let us account them as deadly enemies to our souls, who seek to draw us from this sufficient and certain written word of God, to the doctrines or traditions of men, what glorious names soever they give them. What shall we then account of the popish crew that are not ashamed to teach the Scriptures to be dangerous, because evil men abuse them, so doth the drunkard, drink, the glutton, meat, the proud, apparel, the covetous, riches, and the evil men, all God's graces: yet all these things are good, and so is God's word holy and undefiled. But now to the second point.     

That only the Canonical books of the old and new Testament are this written word or Scriptures. CHAP. 5  


THE PROTESTANTS  
Sing that the rule of the Catholic faith must be known, 
De verbo dei lib. 1. cap. 2.  and certain, for if it be not known, it can not be a rule unto us, if not certain, it is no rule at all, as Bellarmine hath very well noted, & only those scriptures which we according to the ancient use of the Primitive church, and the common consent of those purer times, do call Canonical, are that sure rule that can not deceive (for therefore have they that name, because they are for trial of doctrines, as the rule or line for trial of works:) it is certain that no other word can be that infallible word of God & certain rule of faith and religion, but only the Canonical Scriptures. These only have been of the godly Fathers accounted to have been written by those whom God endued with his spirit for that cause: 
Concil. Laodicenum ca 59 Hieron. ad Paulinum & prologo Galeato.  Out of these only the Fathers permit matters of controversy to be tried. And in expounding of these that we call Canonical, they have bestowed their godly labours: yea and them only to be certain, and such as were never doubted of among Catholic men, 
De verbo dei lib. 1. cap. 4.  Bellarmine himself confesseth, and it is a ground or principle acknowledged of all men.   

THE PAPISTS  
Notwithstanding this name Canonical which the ancient fathers have given to these Scriptures only, to testify that they are only the certain canon and rule of faith, notwithstanding also such pre-eminence and excellency, 
Bellarm. de verbo Dei li. 1. ca 2. compared with that cap. 4.  as not the Father's only, but themselves also do yield unto the Canonical scriptures to be of all other the most certain rule, and most infallible touchstone in all matters of controversy, the Council of Trent is not ashamed to command (and that under pain of being accursed) to receive these books that are contained in the Bible, with like reverence and devotion, and to make them of as good credit as the canonical Scripture: I say, even those Apocryphaes, in which are many things absurd, and whose very name showeth them to be unknown from whence they came, who were not found in the Hebrew, nor accounted by the jews to be Canonical. And so they do match that word, that all men always, and even themselves acknowledge to be less certain, with that which they know that no good man ever doubted of.   

Argument But lest they should seem thus to dote without reason, they use in effect these arguments for proof hereof. The first is, that these books which we call Apocrypha, are alleged sometimes of the Fathers in their writings. Answers But the answer is easy. For the alleging of them doth not prove, that they who alleged them did hold them for canonical, for than should it follow, that poets, philosophers, and such like (who are often alleged by the ancient writers) should so be. But this rule must stand always good which S. Hierome having reckoned up those books which now in our Bible's are accounted canonical, and no other, 
● rologo in lib. Reg. qui Galeatus dicitur. Ruffinus in symbol. prolog in Proverb.  hath, Whatsoever is beside these must be put amongst the Apocrypha. Yea to be short, they do allege them, because they may be read to the edifying of the people, but not to confirm the authority of any ecclesiastical doctrine, as saint Hierome saith of Toby, judith, and the Maccabees, and Ruffinus also upon the Creed.  

De doct ina christian. lib. 2. cap. 8.  The second argument is taken out of Augustine, because he reckoneth up the books which we call Canonical, and also the Apocrypha, and calleth all Canonical. So doth the third council holden at Carthage also, 
Cap. 47  with some other ancient writers. Answer. Admit that this were the meaning of saint Augustine, and of those Fathers, shall their bare authority without reason be heavy enough to weigh down so many fathers and reasons, as (partly) I have alleged to the contrary, and might have alleged many more? But their meaning is plain enough. For although S. Augustine, and that Council of Carthage, and others say, that all those books are canonical, yet we must understand them according to their meaning. They divided all the scriptures, that went in the name of scriptures, but into two parts. Those which they called Apocrypha, 
De civit. Dei lib. 15. ca 23 l● b. 3. cap. 25 Euseb.  had many fables, as may appear by saint Augustine: now all the rest they called Canonical, so that they comprehend under that name, all that Eusebius and others do understand, both by such books as were without all controversy received of all men, and such as were not generally received of all, but well liked of many. And they comprehend all these in one name, not only because that in comparison of the other that were fabulous, these were good, but also because they were read commonly of them, although not for establishing of any doctrine, as before I have showed, yet for reformation of manners. And that S. Augustine's meaning was not, to make like account of all, appeareth not only by that rule which himself setteth down, in that very chapter, after he hath reckoned up those Books canonical, Those canonical books which are generally (saith he) received by the common consent of all Churches, 
De doctrine christiana li. 2. cap. 8. 30  are to be preferred before them that are rejected of many (but of those whom we call Apocrypha, Origen, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Melito, Hierome, Ruffinus, and many other have doubted) but also by his practice. For it will appear how that sometime himself doubteth of some of them, which we deny to be canonical, namely of the Maccabees he writeth thus against the second Epistle of Gaudentius the Donatist, 
Lib. 2. cap. 23  This piece of Scripture of the Maccabees, the jews do not so account of as of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, unto the which the Lord giveth testimony as unto his own witnesses, saying, All things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms of me, but it is received of the Church, not without profit, if it be read or heard soberly. Wherein first I note, that the jews, with whom the word of God was kept, before it came to us, did not account it canonical. Secondly, note how he magnifieth the witness of the scriptures which are indeed canonical, calling them the Lords own witnesses: And thirdly, how coldly he entertaineth the books of Maccabees, saying, the church readeth them, and that with profit, if they be read soberly, by reason of some good examples in them. But yet more plainly in his Books of the city of God. 
Lib. 18. c. 36.  The reckoning of time (from the restoring of the Temple) is not found in the holy Scriptures that are called Canonical, but in other writings, amongst which are the Books of the Maccabees, which the jews reckon not canonical, but the church doth, because of the extreme & strange sufferings of some Martyrs. Wherein we see how that S. Augustine saith, that we know not the story of those times, after the temple was built by any canonical writer, but yet by the Maccabees we know it, therefore the Maccabees are not canonical: And yet the church accounteth them (saith he) canonical, because of the examples of the Martyrs in them: As if he would have said, Although those Books be not indeed such as you may build your faith upon, yet they are for some things worth the reading. Which two places I stood upon the rather, because Bellarmine allegeth them, 
De verbo de lib. 1. cap. 15.  especially this latter, as a special pillar to hold up those Books of Maccabees. But how truly, let the Reader judge.  
Arg. 3 Their third and last argument is taken from that authority which they imagine the Church hath to approve or disprove God's word. And therefore is it so often repeated by Bellarmine handling this point, That the Council of Trent hath allowed such Books. 
De verbo dei lib. 1. De ecclesia.  So that he jumpeth right with that which most blasphemously Eckius hath set down, & that twice within few lines (he liked so well of it,) That the Scriptures are not authentical (or canonical,) without the authority of the church. And Canus setteth himself to make a full discourse against them, that say, 
Lib 2. de locis Theol. ca 6  That the Scripture needeth not the approbation of the church. And thus they must reason. The church hath allowed those books to be canonical which you call Apocrypha, according as did also the ancient fathers, therefore they are canonical. Answer. That the weakness and wickedness of this argument may appear, let us first consider who is the Author of the holy scriptures, which the Apostle declareth as plainly as can be when he saith, 
2. Tim. 3.16.  The whole scripture is given by inspiration from God. Therefore the scripture is the word, not of man, but of God. Secondly, let us see how this word came to us, whether by tradition of the church or by special revelation. Which also is plainly answered by saint Peter, saying, 
2. Pet. 1.21  that prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost. What will we then say? shall we imagine that God would direct by his holy Spirit the mouths of his servants to speak, but not their pens to write? God forbidden. Thirdly, the men whom it pleased God to use as his means in setting down this word, were known unto the church of that time wherein they flourished, and their calling so confirmed unto the godly, that without all doubt or wavering they received those writings as God's word, because they knew the authors thereof to be directed by God's spirit.  
And this is the difference that the ancient fathers do make, between those Books of scripture, whose authors were known, and their books always received, and  
therefore called Canonical, that is, such as deliver rules for life and doctrine that are infallible: and those other that are called Apocrypha, because either it was not known who wrote them, or else it was not known that they were endued with such a spirit, as they could not err in any thing. And therefore their Books were not received of the church then. Is it not then intolerable pride in the church of Rome, to command silence unto God himself, and not to suffer him to speak, but when they give him leave, and to proclaim it unto the world, that even his word is not of credit, unless it be by their approbation and allowance of the same. And yet thus do they say when they affirm, that the Scriptures are not Canonical, but by the approbation of the Church. Yea, some make them no better than Esopes Fables, if the Church allow not of them. O blasphemy intolerable! if this their argument might be allowed, than the church of Rome, which falsely challengeth to be the church, 
Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. ca Autoritatem. D● st. 34. c. sector. dist. 82. presbyt.  would soon prove their abominable Idolatries and heresies, to be true religion. And therefore do they challenge this authority, and strive for it. And the Pope sometimes dispenseth against the Apostle, as their Canonists do note, and sometimes a Council dispenseth against the apostle, and all this is, to challenge unto their church this prerogative, that it may deal with God's word as it will.  
When Gregory the thirteenth pope of that name confirmed the order of the fellowship of the blessed virgin Marie (a new devised order, and come up since the order of jesuits) in his Bull he confirmeth and ratifieth all such privileges as they have or shall have, Notwithstanding any Constitutions or Ordinances Apostolic, or whatsoever may be against it. Did you ever read or hear any speak more like the beast mentioned in the apocalypse, 
Apoc. 13.5, 6  who had a mouth given unto him that spoke blasphemies? But to be short, I will against their argument oppose this. Whatsoever scriptures are not given by inspiration of God spirit, and by the godly received into the canon of the scriptures, those are not the word of God, though they have the approbation of the latter churches: but such are the Books which we call Apocrypha, which the council of Trent would make of like authority with the canonical Scriptures, therefore those Books are not the undoubted word of God. And how can any body imagine, that that which once hath been not canonical, can by continuance of time, and confirmation of men become canonical, or that which God hath not vouched worthy to be his word in times past, that now at the last he should acknowledge the same, as though he were now changed or had repent him of his former opinion.  
Admit once this doctrine of theirs, and farewell all certainty in religion. For men will wander from one thing to an other, as we see in the kingdom of darkness and Popery where there is no end of devotions devised, and inventions of men. So that that which was good christianity in the days of Christ and of his Apostles, is now holden to be far from the perfection of a godly life, unless we do help it with our will-worshippings, and by the obeying the precepts of the church. Nay, grant them this, and then that word written that we have, it shall speak nothing but Romish, so that whatsoever is the meaning and true sense of the scriptures, yet God must be taught to speak as the church of Rome will have him. 
De verbo dei lib. 4. cap. 11.  To this end tendeth that common axiom received of them all, and used by Bellarmine. The true sense of the Scripture hangeth of unwritten traditions. So that believe them, and they will easily confute any adversaries. For first they allow for scripture what they will. Secondly, that which they must needs confess to be Scripture, must be expounded by their unwritten Traditions. That (I say) that is written by that which is unwritten, the certain by the uncertain. Like to Procustes his bed, which who so lay in it, if he were too long, he was cut shorter, if he were too short, he was stretched out longer. So must all be made fit to their traditions. Seeing therefore the Canonical Books have so manifest a testimony, not only of the godly, but even of the adversaries themselves, and the credit of the Apocrypha by so great authorities is suspect: I will conclude with bel● armines words: 
 That he is not well in his wit, that not regarding ●● e Scripture, the surest and safest rule, will refe●re h● mself to the judgement of the inward spir● t which is often deceitful, and always uncertain, as in truth the Papists do. For they will make you believe that because they are guided by the holy Ghost, they cannot err in their traditions. This rule then of Gods written word in the Canonical books of the old and new Testament, being set down, as a rule most sure to tr● e all doctrines with, let us now proceed to examine other matters in controversy among us, when I shall first have answered a common objection, wherein all the most ignorant sort especially of Papists do marvelously trust and triumph, and do therewith deceive others, such as themselves are.  
How shall I know the scriptures (say they) to be the scriptures, but by the authority of the Church? I will not answer although I might very well) that absurdly they call that in question, whereof there is no doubt among us. For neither we nor they deny God's word. It is known of all, it is received of us all. Therefore they put case of that there is not, neither is likely to be amongst us. But for their sakes that are ignorant, I answer plainly and shortly out of Saint Augustine. 
Co● fe●. li. 6. cap. 5.  Thou (Lord) hast persuaded me, that they are blame worthy not who have believed thy books, which thou hast so settled almost in all nations, but they that have not believed them And that I should not hear them if perchance any would say to me, How knowest thou that those books (the scripture) are given to mankind, by the spirit of one, very, and most true God? Yea, Saint Augustine there confesseth, that when he was but a novice in religion, yet was he persuaded, that God would never have made the whole world so to reverence the Scriptures, but that he meant to be believed in them, and to be sought out by them. We see then by saint Augustine, that not only that common account that the whole world (not the Church only) maketh of the Scriptures, should be sufficient to stop our mouths for ask that question; but also that he flatly telleth us, that God would not have us to hear such faithless and fruitless objections. But I know, they will by and by come upon me with that place of Augustine, 
Cont. epist. 〈◊〉. c. 5.  I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church should move me thereto. Out of which, they will perchance conclude as grossly, as you heard Eckius hath done, That the Scripture itself hath no credit, but as the Church will bestow it upon the same. But Melchior Canus a learned Papist doth gather otherwise out of that place, and doth in deed truly answer this common objection for us, out of the said words of S. Augustine, concluding thus. Therefore it teacheth not, 
Locor. Theo, lib. 1. cap. ●.  that believing the Gospel is grounded upon the authority of the Church, but only that there is no sure way, whereby either Infidels or Novices in faith may come to the holy Scriptures, but the consent of the Catholic Church. Yea, he hath taught a little before in that Chapter, that although to have faith, certain external means and helps are required, yet those move us nothing, without the working of God's holy spirit. And he much misliketh of them that teach, that our faith must rest upon that point, That we believe that the church is true, or cannot err. For thereupon he gathereth this absurdity, that our faith should be grounded upon the truth, not of God but of man. He also plainly affirmeth, that if a man should ask, how the faithful do know that God hath revealed that which they believe? they cannot answer by the authority of the Church, but it is by the inward light of God's spirit that they know the same. If now thou ask me how I know the Scriptures to be the Scriptures, I answer out of Canus, not by the authority of the Church, but by the motion of God's spirit, and witness thereof. If thou urge that place of Augustine, Canus telleth thee that they who are become Christians, are not so brought to believe the Scriptures but only Infidels, and Novices in religion. So that this place serveth nothing to object against us, who profess Christianity already, and believe the word which the manichees did not, of whom, and to whom Saint Augustine there writeth. But we had need out of that place to admonish you, that in respect of that reverence which with one consent all that profess Christianity do yield unto the scriptures, you would be ashamed so to deprave and despise them, so to abuse and reject them at your own pleasure, as you always have done. You make unlawful that which God hath mad lawful: as for example: It was lawful in the Apostles time, for every Priest, 
Dion. Carth. 1. Tim. 3.  Bishop, and Deacon to have one wife, but now by the appointment of the Pope they may not have a wife, saith a friend of your own, a bird of your own nest. So that not the scripture, or the will of God, but the word of the Pope must be the rule of our life: so that whereas Augustine for the Church believed the scriptures, you for your Church's sake control the scriptures, and disobey them. And for the establishing of that undue honour which they would bestow upon the most happy mother of Christ the virgin Mary: Mark the boldness of Durand, a great pillar in the Popish Church, 
Rathon●. di●. li. 4. rub. 6.  who writeth thus. Although it is said (in the Scriptures) that Christ rising did first appear to Marie Magdalen, yet it is more truly believed, that first of all he appeared to his mother. Is it not plain, how that to establish their foolish toys, he giveth the lie to that word that is only true? O gross boldness! Seeing therefore this word hath not only testimony within us which is the strongest witness, but also with so great consent is known to be God's word, be ashamed now to call it into question, or to put it to the trial of the Church (by which the Papists always understand the Romish Church) whether it shall be allowed for currant or not. For in deed this blasphemous sense (which as I have showed, even their own friends can in no wise like of) is now the common exposition of those words of S. Aug. I will not believe the scriptures, unless the Church of Rome do allow the Books for Canonical, and expound them as she shall think good. And thus much to answer this their common objection.     

What the Catholic Church is, that is mentioned in the Creed. CHAP. 6  


THE PROTESTANTS  
WE say with the Apostle Saint Paul, that the catholic church which is spoken of in the Creed, 
s. Tim. 3.  Is the house of God, the pillar and ground of truth. And with the fathers, that it is the company of all the faithful of all times, and of all places. And with Saint john, The Bride of the Lamb, 
Apoc. 21, 9  and the body of Christ. And therefore that the wicked and faithless are not of this Church, nor can be counted of this company.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of Rome to get a Catholic Church, admit good and bad to be of their Church, namely reprobates, wicked, 
Bellar. de Eccle. li. 3. cap. 2.  and ungodly ones. Neither do think that they need any inward virtue to be of their Church, but only that they profess religion, and be under the Pope. Well may they in some sort seem to have a Catholic Church, because all is fish that comes into their net, but holy & apostolic it shall not be, nor Catholic as in the Creed is meant.   

Wherein this is worthy to be reproved in them, that whereas they cry out in word and writing, The Catholic church of Rome, and unless you believe the Catholic Church, you cannot be saved. And for proof hereof they allege this article, I believe the Catholic church, yet when they should tell us what this Catholic church is, whereunto we must so necessarily be subject, they only paint unto us I know not what Romish Church, 
The catholic church in the Creed, and the Romish contrary.  which is no more like the true Catholic church, than that church of Israel, when it was started aside from the true worship of God, was like to the true church of God that remained amongst the people of the jews, as by these few reasons may appear. The catholic church is One, 
One  that is to say, one company, and united and knit together by one spirit, and the self same graces, but the reprobate and ungodly (who fill up a place in the Romish catholic church) neither are one company with the Saints, nor united to them by the same spirit and graces, to be partakers of the communion of Saints: Therefore that catholic and the Romish catholic Church are not all one. Secondly, that Church is Holy, 
Holy  and that not in part, but perfectly, even without spot or wrinkle. 
Ephe. 5.26.27  For in our Creed we do not speak of the church that is, but that shallbe, not that which we see with our eye, but by faith, not that which is perfected, but hoped for, which we shall not in deed behold with our eyes, 
Revel. 21  until it come down from heaven, as saint john speaketh of the heavenly jerusalem, 
Apoc. 11  which (as witnesseth saint Ambrose) doth represent the Church that shall be after the end of the world. 
Apoc. 21  Of which mind is also saint Augustine. But the Romish catholic church is of omnigatheroms, as people go to fairs or markets, of all sorts and qualities. And although a man have not one good thing in him, not one crumb of honesty, he is good enough to make up a number in the Church of Rome, but such a church is not holy, and therefore not that that is mentioned in the Creed. Thirdly that church is catholic, 
Catholic.  that is (as all the godly have acknoledged it) the mother of all Christians, the company of all the saints both in heaven and upon earth. But the Romish catholic church receiveth only them that acknowledge the bishop of Rome to be their head. If then they dare not affirm the pope to be the head of them that are in heaven, I trust they will not from henceforth charge us to be injurious to the church of Rome, if we affirm it not to be the true catholic church. If they reply, that the church may be called catholic in other respects than in that only which I have mentioned. I grant it. But the question amongst us in deed is, whether the church of Rome be the true catholic church, which even by our creed we are bound to believe. Which the papists affirm, & therefore would have the world to imagine that we despise the catholic church which is mentioned in the creed, when we upon just causes depart from that Romish church, which hath set itself, these many years against God's church. As for the principal arguments whereby they would prove that they say, do nothing touch the catholic church, which is the thing in question, but only the state of the church in this life, and therefore are not worthy the repeating. But among other absurdities which they are forced to grant, for to defend this their untrue assertion, this is blasphemous, although they all defend it, That some of the members of Christ's body shall not be saved. As though there were not virtue enough in Christ, to quicken all them that are grafted into him, whereas in truth, He that hath the son hath life. That is also absurd, that if the wicked and reprobate be of the church of Christ, as they say, then they are members of two bodies, for they are of the church malignant, as they must needs confess: which is as false as that one hand may belong to two men. Lastly how absurd is it that the catholic church should acknowledge the Pope for her head? She is a city or house, she can therefore have but one foundation: she is a fruitful Vine, she can have but one root: she is a Dove, she can have but one mate: she is Christ's body, she can have but one head: she is the Lamb's bride, she can have but one husband. The foundation of this house, the root of this Vine, the mate of this Dove, the head of this body, 
Eph. 1. &. 5.  the husband of this wife, is Christ. Although most impudently the Bishop of Rome, and most blasphemously, do take upon him to be the husband to that wife also, 
C. quoniam, de Immunitate. 6.  or else, to take Christ's wife from him. We (saith he) being unwilling to neglect the upright dealing or justice of us, and of the Church our spouse. What greater blasphemy than this can there be? Saint Paul sayeth, 
2. Cor. 11.2.  I have prepared you for one husband, not for two, and he nameth him to be Christ, who though he be absent, yet is he also present, absent in flesh, but present in power and spirit, and so will he be always with his, 
Math. 28.20 Iho. 14.16.17.18  even unto the end of the world. So that the church hath no need of that ministerial head, that cannot be but in one place at one time: seeing Christ's spirit is his Vicar in his church, 
Ter. prescipt.  which can be in all places at once, as the church is scattered in many places through the whole world.     

That the catholic Church mentioned in the Articles of our belief, is not visible, or to be seen. CHAP. 7  


THE PROTESTANTS  
BEcause the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, is that heavenly jerusalem that is mother of us all, 
Gal. 4.26  and comprehendeth (as S. Augustine saith) not only that part that wandereth upon earth, 
Enchir. ca 56.  from the rising of the Sun, to the going down of the same, but that also that is in heaven: And the company of Christians for the time in earth, is not the universal Church, but is only a small part thereof, 
In the preface to his book of Images.  (as Saunder a papist confesseth:) It followeth that that Church which is spoken of in the Creed, is not that small flock that wandereth here in this world: And so consequently, that that catholic Church, because the far greatest part thereof is in heaven (and so not to be seen) cannot be seen of us. And for that cause are we taught, to say, I believe the holy Catholic Church, but things that are seen, are not, nay cannot be believed. For, faith is the ground of things that are hoped for, 
Heb. 11.1  and the evidence of things that are not seen. Therefore, either must we deny I believe the holy Catholic Church, to be an Article of our faith, or else must it be confessed, that the Catholic Church is invisible.   

THE PAPISTS  
But that whorish Romish Church, which hath nothing to commend her, but an outward painting, that consisteth of worldly glory (where as the glory of Christ's true spouse is chief inward) and a show of succession in the chair of them that were known to be good men, 
Psal. 45. 5●  but not in their faith and godliness: lest that men should seek to know the Church by the word, which is that only infallible mark that our saviour Christ giveth, 
john 10.3, 4 5.27 Ephe. 2.20 De unitate Eccles. count Petil. ca 10  and likewise Saint Paul to the Ephesians, and Saint Augustine doth highly commend the same, so that if he err from the true Church, seeing Christ hath given him so good a mark of her, he confesseth himself to be too blame for it. Lest that (I say) men should occupy themselves in this word written, seeking to find the Church there, this seducing synagogue doth bear us in hand, that the true Church must be glorious to the eye, and easy to be seen, and that there is no other Catholic Church but such a one. And then they know, that there is not in all the world such a one, that maketh so fair a show to be found, but only that of Rome, which is lively described by Saint john, 
Revel. 17.  in the apocalypse.   

And although this is a common principle in the Catholic Church, and in every body's mouth, That the Catholic church is visible, which Campion in his third reason, and Turrian against Sadeel, 
Camp. rat. 3.  do manifestly affirm. Yet I know not how it cometh to pass, that even the greatest pillars of popery, do not so much as define the Catholic church, and deal (as I think) in this question very fearfully, as may appear, not only by Melchior Canus in his fourth book, 
Loc. Theolo. de eccle. milit. ●● b. 3. cap. 12.  but especially by Belarmine, who appointing a whole Chapter for proof of this point, yet dareth not, in the very title of the Chapter, set down that is in question, that is to say, that the catholic Church is visible, (for so they say) but only this is the title of that chapter, that the Church is visible. Which if he mean it of particular Churches, we say also that they may be visible: If he mean it of the catholic Church, which is the thing in question, why is he afraid to say so? Surely even his own conscience told him, that of all the arguments that he hath in that place, there is not one, out of which he may conclude, That the Catholic Church, catholic (I say) in that sense that I have proved it to be taken in the Creed, is, or can be visible to us in this world. And therefore craftily he leaveth the question, and falleth to other matters. I therefore see no cause why I may not truly and boldly conclude, 
Apoc. 21, 2, 9  that that Heavenly jerusalem, and bride of the Lamb, that spouse of Christ mentioned in the apocalypse, which in deed Saint john saw but by vision only, is the same catholic church that we speak of in the Creed: but whilst we wander here we can not see it, but by faith only. But when Christ our head and captain shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power, 
1. Cor. 15.24  then shall the glory of the Church in deed appear, then shall she be exalted above the mountains, 
In Apoc. Hom. 18  as Saint Augustine confesseth. Yea, then shall the Church be made perfectly catholic, when no member shallbe wanting unto it. Then shall the godly, not by faith as now, but even with their renewed eyes see her, and her beauty.     

The Church here militant upon the earth, may err. CHAP. 8  


THE PROTESTANTS  
ALthough that part of the catholic Church which is already entered into her Master's joy, 
Mat. 25.21  cannot err, yet this part that is here upon the earth, because it consisteth of men, who are subject to infirmities, neither are they endued with the spirit, but in some measure, neither is it conversant or remaining, but in the valley, not of misery only, but of ignorance also: it therefore may be subject unto errors for a time, although it shall never be quite overcome of the same. For their errors shall be either of small importance, or short continuance.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of Rome would make us believe their garden will bring forth no weeds. And that the ignorant might with reverence receive and believe whatsoever they say, with great confidence they sound it every where, that the church of Rome cannot err. And by the church they do not mean all (for they will not so much esteem of the lay people) but the Bishops, yea the Pope himself although he but one man, yea, and many times a most vile and lewd man, yet they will in no wise that he may err, speaking judicially in matters of faith.   

Now, for the Arguments whereby they would uphold their error, the first sort is grounded upon some places of Scripture, wrested and abused for their purpose, as, when the Scriptures promise the assistance of God's spirit, to teach us, or direct us. And of these some are more particular than other.  
Argument 
Luke 22.32  Christ said to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, therefore Peter could not err. And if Peter could not err, neither his successors (as they surmise. 
Ver. 57, 58, 60 ) Answer And yet very soon after, the very same Apostle did not deny only his master, and that three times, but also began to curse and swear that he knew him not. 
Mat. 26.74  Shall we then say, that Christ was not so good as his promise? God forbidden. Christ therefore prayed not that Peter might not err at all, or that his faith might not any thing faint, but that it might not altogether fail. Or, to use the words of Theophilact, 
Theo. Lu. 22  That if the leaf of his faith did fall, yet the root should not die. Christ's prayer therefore was not that Peter should not err, but that he should not continue in error, and so it prevailed. And therefore here is no privilege for the church of Rome, or the Pope, that they may not err, because we see Peter himself had no such privilege. Neither was this prayer of Christ's, for Peter only, as is most plain by the Evangelist saint john, 
john 17.20  I pray not for them only, but for all that through them shall believe in my name. It was therefore for all the Apostles, yea for all the believers. Although Christ spoke there particularly to Peter, (as Theophilact saith) perchance, because he was bolder than the rest, 
In Luke 22  and proud because of that was said unto him. And by this that hath been said, appeareth the answer to the other places of the scripture that seem more general.  
Argument When Christ promiseth to give us his spirit to teach us, and direct us, they infer, therefore the church cannot err.  
Answer Wherein they commit two absurdities. First, in robbing a great number of God's people of that comfort that belongeth unto them, in that they make the promises, which generally belong to all the faithful, to be spoken but to some few, (for, by the church they understand either the pope, or the bishops.) Secondly, that they bear the world in hand, that Christ prayed for that which he did not, or that he promiseth us that which he never meant, or that he spoke of such perfection, as it is unpossible men should attain unto. Yea, 
In john 16  Theophilact in my judgement most notably showeth, that when Christ had promised to send the holy Ghost which should lead into all truth, lest any body should thereby imagine that the holy Ghost is greater than Christ, if it can make us partakers of greater and more things than Christ can, he addeth, He shall not speak of himself, that is, he shall speak nothing of his own, but that is mine. For he that saith (he shall speak) whatsoever he hath hard, doth signify, that he shall teach nothing but that which Christ hath taught. And these are the very words of Theophilact, whereby he doth not only say, that the holy Ghost can add nothing of his own to that which Christ hath taught, and so may not bring into the church any new doctrines, as the church of Rome doth under this colour, but also, that it is a diminishing of Christ's glory, and a preferring of the holy Ghost before Christ, to suppose that the holy Ghost can or may teach any thing in God's church that hath not been taught by Christ himself. Wherein he mightily beateth down that proud brag of the church of Rome, whereby they seek to exempt themselves from all error, because they falsely challenge unto themselves, that their doctrines and traditions are unwritten verities, and to be believed as well as God's word, as coming from this spirit, whereas they are nothing consonant to that which Christ taught, and therefore the spirit had no commission to teach the same. Yea in vain they say they are directed by God's spirit, when as they teach that that God's spirit neither can nor will teach, because Christ hath not taught it before. Neither do we derogate any thing herein from the power of the spirit, whose direction if we could follow, we should never do amiss: but impute it to our own weakness, & ignorance, & corruption, whereby it cometh to pass, that even the godly many times grieve God's spirit, and suffer him not to have his perfect work. Other arguments also they have, but they have scarce any show of truth, and therefore I think them not worthy answering: for their places out of the fathers do commend the faith of Rome that then was, and their constancy in the same, but what is that to this degenerate church of Rome that now is: of the church whereof we may say as one saith of their city, that a man will seek Rome in the midst of Rome: So a man will seek the church even in the midst of their most show of religion, and yet not find it.     

Of the marks of the Church, or how we may know the true Church. CHAP. 9  


THE PROTESTANTS  
WE must judge of the tree of the church, by the fruits that she bringeth forth, that is, by the faith or religion that she teacheth, the confession or profession of the same that she maketh, the exercise of the same that she useth, but we cannot judge truly of these her fruits, but only by the scriptures as in the five first chapters hath been showed: therefore the true and infallible tokens or marks of the true church, are to be had out of the word of God, or the Scriptures.   

THE PAPISTS  
Now the Papists will have their church to be the true church, because she hath (by unjust claim) a good name to be called Catholic, 
Name catholic. Antiquity. Continuance. Greatness Succession  because she is ancient, and hath lasted long, she is great, and hath always borne fruit, such as it was: for these are the first five notes reckoned up by Bellarmine, 
Lib. 4. de notis eccles.  and indeed their chiefest, which especially they rest upon. And may not an evil tree have all these properties? Yes verily. And as for the rest of his marks, in the judgement of an indifferent Reader, they will never be accounted true marks of the Church, excepting those notes wherein he seemeth to consent with us, to try the church by the word, namely, by holiness of doctrine.   

Because I have in another treatise showed (I trust) sufficiently, that those marks of the church which they make greatest account of, neither are any true marks, and that we may make as good claim to them as they can: it shall now be sufficient briefly to pass over this point, and with one or two arguments to answer this question.  

The scripture the true note of the true church.  Those marks of the church, whereby we may truly know the church, and not be deceived, those I say only are the true marks of the church:  
But the scriptures only are such: Therefore they only are the infallible marks.  
The mayor or first proposition no man will deny. And that the Scriptures are such may appear by infinite testimonies. 
De pec. merit. & remiss. lib. 1. cap. 22.  Saint Augustine saith, it can not deceive, nor be deceived. And against the Donatists de bapt. lib. 2. cap. 6. calleth the Scriptures, the holy wey-scales or balances. 
Cap. 1.  And in his book de bono viduitatis, he saith, that the holy scripture doth set him his rule how to teach. And to be short, writing upon saint john's Epistle he saith, that Against deceitful errors, 
In joh. epist. tractatu 2.  God would set a strength or stay in the scriptures. And chrysostom saith upon Genesis, 
Hom. 12. in Genes.  that the Scripture will not suffer him to err or go astray, that heareth it. And therefore Gregory Nazianzene sometimes calleth the Scriptures, The King's high way. 
Matth. 24.  And our saviour Christ, although he foretold the danger of error a little before he suffered, yet doth he not give the Disciples any such marks whereby they should know the true Christ or true church, as the Papists speak of, but he earnestly commendeth his word unto them, joh. 14.15, 23. & 15.7. And fervently prayeth unto his father to sanctify them with his truth, 
joh. 17.3, 17  namely, with his word: for he knew that to be the way to keep them from error. By all which it appeareth, that the scriptures only are accounted that perfect rule, not only by the judgement of the fathers, but also by the practice of our saviour Christ. But most plainly S. Chrysost. saith, 
Opere imperf. hom. 49  That the true Church can be known only by the Scriptures. I know that Bellarmine answereth this place in his 4. book de verbo Dei, ca 11. after two sorts. First, that the book savoureth somewhat of Arianisme. But in these words, what Arianism can Bellarmine find. Yea Bellarmine himself doth in other places allege this book. But his second answer I confess is very forcible. For he telleth us, that in a book printed of late that place is left out. Have they not (think you) answered the place strongly, when they have thrust it quite out of the book? If they had used chrysostom only in this, sort yet were it too bad dealing, but it may appear by Franciscus junius his preface before the book called Index Expurgatorius, that they have left few of the Father's uncorrupted. I would to God therefore that this and such other gelding and falsifying of the fathers, by that deceiving church of Rome, which seeks to make them all say as she doth, could stir up the christian princes that profess religion in a godly care, to provide for the safety and maintenance of religion, and the truth thereof in time to come. Which in my judgement can not well be performed, except that, to prevent the credit of those falsified copies, which within short time are almost only like to remain, because the ancient, which are the truest, will be worn out, the godly Princes by common consent would take some speedy order for printing of all the fathers, according to the ancientest and most pure copies that might be found. The second argument is this. Whatsoever notes do not teach it to be evidently true, that the church whereof they are the notes, is the true church of God, may deceive, and therefore are not certain notes of the true church: But such are the notes that the Papists would have us to believe, therefore they are but deceitful notes. 
De verbo de●. lib. 1. cap. 2.  The mayor or first proposition is most true, and may well be proved out of that axiom or rule that Bellarmine setteth down, saying, 
De notis eccles. li. 3. ca 3.  That the rule of the catholic faith must be sure or certain. The minor or second proposition, is Bellarmine's own confession, even in the self same words that I have set down. Therefore it followeth necessarily, that we must not trust the notes of the catholic church set down by them.     

CHAP. 10.  

Before I begin to set down the difference in doctrine between the church of Rome and us, concerning those Sacraments which we acknowledge to be instituted for Sacraments by God, which is indeed my especial purpose, that in few words the Reader may take a view, both of the one and the other, I have thought good, very briefly, to note unto you two or three points, wherein in the general doctrine of the Sacraments, we justly descent from them, because they do dissent from the word of truth. Wherein, my purpose is not to enter into the dark and dangerous subtleties of the Schoolmen, who herein agree not among themselves: but only to point unto the plain truth, and the falsehood contrary to the same.   

What a Sacrament is, what is the effect of it, or what it worketh, how many Sacraments there are.  


THE PROTESTANTS  

What a sacrament is  A Sacrament is an external sign instituted & appointed of God, to be used in his Church, by the receiving whereof every faithful man and woman, is assured of eternal graces. I know that this word Sacrament may be taken more largely, and is sometimes, especially by saint Augustine, and after his time, but this is the true definition of a Sacrament in that sense that we use it, for the two Sacraments used by us in our churches. And though we call it a sign, yet we say withal, that it is a very effectual, and (as I may so call it) a powerful sign, 
A powerful sign to increase or strengthen faith.  to strengthen and increase our faith, & make us take more sure hold of the promises, the performance whereof the Sacraments do (as it were) seal up in our hearts: neither doth the sacrament work this, or hath this effect, in respect of any virtue that is included in these visible signs, but because God hath appointed them to be the seals of his promises, as the Apostle witnesseth of circumcision, & Tertull. 
De Poeniten. Rom. 4.11  of Baptism. For as the seal being set to the writing, doth assure him to whom the writing is made, of the performance of such covenants as therein are contained, and yet not because of the print in the wax, but because it is known to be his seal who hath made the covenants with him: even so the Sacraments do serve to confirm and increase faith in the faithful, not because there is any such power in those visible creatures, which are the external thing in the same, but because we are assuredly persuaded, that God hath appointed them to that end. And as the Sacraments do thus serve to strengthen and increase our faith, 
Profession of our faith.  so thereby also do we make profession of this our faith, and in token that we have this persuasion settled in our heart, we come to receive such Sacraments, as God hath appointed to testify between him and us, of his graces towards us. And for this cause, when the Eunuch desired to be baptised, Philip answered, 
Act. 8.36, 37  If thou believe with all thy heart, thou mayest. Nay, the Sacraments are but unprofitable to them, which without faith do receive the same, 
Mar. 16.16.  but he that believeth and is baptised, shallbe saved. We therefore do not teach the Sacraments to be but bare signs (as some would make the simple to believe, but that they are such signs as God hath made to work effectually by the power of his Spirit, in the hearts of the faithful, to assure them of God's good graces. Now of such Sacraments as in the beginning I have defined, we have but two, 
How many Sacraments there be.  that is to say, Baptism, wherein we are entered into Christ's family, and the Supper of the Lord, wherein we are nourished in the same. For although the people of Israel had many representations of God's favour towards them, to assure the faithful of sanctification and justification, yet Circumcision was commanded without exception, 
Gen. 17.10  to all the males (in whom also the women were consecrated to the Lord) and the eating of the paschal Lamb, belonged to all the congregation of the children of Israel, 
Exod. 12.47.  whereas their other ceremonies were for the most, performed by the Priest. And in like manner although we may have sundry visible signs of invisible grace, yet such sacraments as the sacrament of Baptism, & the Supper of the Lord, neither the scriptures, nor the fathers for 400. years after Christ did acknowledge any other than those two. For as for Saint Augustine, he taketh the word Sacrament so largely that he accounteth for Sacraments many things that are not by the Papists themselves accounted Sacraments.   

THE PAPISTS  
BUT the Papists do define a Sacrament to be, 
Concil. Trid. Catechis.  A thing subject to the senses, which by God's institution, hath power both to signify, and to work, Holiness and Righteousness. So that by this it is easy to understand what virtue and efficacy they will give to the Sacraments. Yea, it is by Bellarmine plainly confessed, that they teach a Sacrament to have that strength of itself, 
De Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 11  that it can sanctify and justify. And that we may the better understand what they mean hereby, 
De Sacram. lib. 2. cap. ●  with one consent they teach, and Bellarmine by name, that the Sacraments do work these things without either faith, or any inward motion. So that their meaning is, that the very work itself of receiving the Sacrament, even by virtue of that sacramental action, 
Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 2.  doth give to the receiver grace. How blasphemous this doctrine is, may appear, first, because they do manifest wrong to the spirit of sanctification, in ascribing unto these visible and external creatures, whereof the Sacraments do consist, that which only gods spirit can work in us, by putting into our hearts, 
jerem. 32. 4●  the fear of God, 
jerem. 31.33 Ezec. 36.25 Rom. 15.9  and uniting his law in the same, and purifying our hearts by faith. And therefore is this spirit called Holy, or the spirit of sanctification, because it only can make holy. Secondly, to give unto the Sacraments power by the virtue thereof to justify, is injurious unto the blood of Christ, which precious ransom is able only to take away sins, and to make us appear just and righteous before God. Then also this doctrine is absurd, as may be proved in a word or two. If it be true that the Papists teach, than did not our Saviour Christ teach us the true use of the Sacrament, when he said, Do this in remembrance of me, for he should rather have said, Do this to sanctify and save yourselves. But to think that Christ taught us not the true benefit of the Sacrament, is too gross wickedness: Therefore is it very absurd, to ascribe that virtue to the Sacrament or outward sign. Secondly, if the Sacrament do give grace (as they say) or, if it do sanctify or justify of itself: then the infants that die before they can sin actually, because they are baptised, must needs be saved, although they be not of that number which God hath chosen unto himself before the foundations of the world were laid. Which to affirm is nothing else, but to tie our salvation, 
Ephes. 1.  not to God's grace in electing in Christ whom he would, but to such external means, as have always been accounted but helpers to our faith, as the Apostle teacheth by the example of Circumcision in Abraham, 
Ro. 4.10, 11.  but no workers of salvation. And to be short, how agreeth this that they say, that the Sacrament hath strength or force to work Holiness or Righteousness, with that which they also say, That infants when they are baptised, 
De Sacram. Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 11.  have not any new motions or inclinations like unto the actions of faith and love. If the Sacraments work not in them such effects, who have not any actual sin to let or hinder, how shall we think they work in others that are strongly assaulted with the lusts of sin? Therefore let us not ascribe such working unto them, but unto Christ, who is made unto us righteousness and holiness. 
1. Cor. 1.30  As for the number of seven Sacraments, two of them we acknowledge, with the Fathers of the Primitive church, Baptism and the lords Supper. As for the other five, either they have no commandment in the word, or no visible signs, or, to be short, no warrant in the word, or Primitive church, to be such Sacraments as the other two are. Although we deny not but the things have had, and many of them yet have their godly use in God's Church.      

Of the Sacrament of Baptism. CHAP. 11.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
WE acknowledge Baptism to be, as it were a Gods-peny, and earnest of our entrance into Christ's family. Wherein we are both fully assured, that (by the blood of Christ, which is figured by that water) our sins are so washed away, that they shall not be imputed unto us: and also the promise of that spirit of regeneration whereby we grow to be new men, is sealed up in our hearts, so that therein the faithful are engraffed into Christ, to be made partakers of all his treasures, and namely, that he may be unto us sanctification and redemption. 
1. Cor. 1.30.  And as therein our faith is thus nourished, so is it also a public testification and witnessing of our profession, so that we do, not only believe with our heart unto righteousness, but also show that we are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, & for that cause we wear that badge of our profession, and cognisance of our religion.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of Rome, lest we should (constantly believing the promises, and using the Sacraments according to Christ's institution) take sure hold of jesus christ, and to acknowledge our salvation to be by him only, in whom the word and Sacraments send us to seek it: teacheth us, that the very Sacrament of itself hath such force and virtue, as that it doth extinguish and quite abolish, 
Andrad. Orthod. Explic. lib. 3.  not only the danger and condemnation (the reward due to sin,) but also the very corruption of the same. And on the contrary, that the very infants that die before they be baptized, 
Bellarmine de purgat. lib. 2. cap. 6  have their place of torment appointed unto them, where they must be purged. So that as they give the power of kill sin in us unto the Sacrament, which only belongeth unto Christ; 
Rom. 6.  so in this latter point they do in a manner make Christ scant able for to save without the sacrament, and teach sin by other means than by Christ only to be purged.   


De sacr. baptism. li. 1. ca 4  Now, the first reason whereby Bellarmine will proo●●, that the Sacrament of itself hath such force, of th●● 〈◊〉 doth work in us holiness, and abolish sin, and therefore, that without it no man or woman can be saved, is that place of saint john, 
Ioh 3.5  Unless a man be borne again of Water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. And for the better credit of his assertion, he telleth us, 
De peccatorum merit. & remiss. lib. 1. cap. 30.  that saint Augustine in his first book of the merits of sins, and the forgiveness thereof, the thirtieth chapter, doth show, that these words are not a commandment, but declare the means of salvation: as though saint Augustine would make the Sacrament as necessary to salvation, as meat for our life, or physic for recovery of health, for these are the examples alleged afterwards by Bellarmine. But he belieth that learned father, for he hath not any such thing in that place, although indeed he handle that place of scripture largely there.  
But first before I enter any further into the consideration of this point, lest I should be mistaken, as though I accounted the Sacrament of no necessity, I affirm it to be so necessary, that if it may be had according unto Christ's institution, and any man or woman shall wilfully refuse the same, by this their contempt they do wilfully cut off themselves from the body of Christ, and so make themselves uncapable of such graces as God in Christ bestoweth upon his. But if otherwise any man, woman, or child, being desirous to enter into the fellowship of the holy covenant, and to be incorporated by that Sacrament into the presence of Christ, shall die or departed out of this life, before they can attain thereto: God forbidden that we should think either so uncharitably of them, as to judge them unworthy of God's mercy: or so hardly of God, as that he would alter his eternal council, for want of this external sacrament: or so slenderly of the virtue of Christ his blood, as that without this water it can not wash us from sin. No doubt many died in the wilderness, before the Israelites came to the land of promise, that had not the sacrament of circumcision, and also afterwards, by all likelihood, in Babylon. The thief upon the cross, of whose salvation we make no doubt, was not baptized. Yea, the order that God useth in saving us, doth teach us, that without the Sacraments we may be saved, 
Rom. 8.30 Ephes. 1.4  because that election or predestination goeth before calling, whether it be internal by the spirit, or external by the word and Sacraments. Therefore we must either imagine God's election not to be certain, which is blasphemous, or else, that all that are elect are saved, although they have not opportunity to receive that external seal of God's covenant. Therefore I say, that Baptism is very necessary, and in any wise to be used and received of them, that may according to Christ's institution have the same. But we detest that doctrine of the Papists, that teacheth it to be so necessary, that whosoever is not baptised, can not be saved: whereupon they permit lay men, yea women to baptize, whereas the virgin Mary might not baptise, as Epiphanius noteth, haeres. 97. and so profane that holy sacrament in altering Christ's institution. But rather we say with Tertullian de paenitentia, We are not washed, that we may cease to sin, but because we have ceased to sin, seeing in heart we are washed. Which words, because Bellarmine lib. 2 de effect. sacrament. cap. 10. can not answer, he full wisely maketh as if he never saw them, and saith nothing unto them.  
And now to return to the Objection. Howsoever saint Augustine esteemeth of the necessity of Baptism, he teacheth with us the true use of Baptism, against the Papists, even in the book alleged by Bellarmine, speaking of the infants he saith thus: 
Lib. 1. ca 26.  They stand in need of those benefits of the Mediator, That they being offered by the Sacrament and charity of the faithful, and so being incorporate into the body of Christ which is the Church, may be reconciled unto God: that they may be made in him living, safe, delivered, redeemed, and lightened. Mark that Saint Augustine most plainly ascribeth unto the sacrament, to offer and incorporate us into the church, but to God (not to the sacrament) to quicken, save, deliver redeem, and lighten us. And seeing we see, that S. Augustine in the place alleged by Bellarmine, maketh nothing for him, but in the same book in an other place maketh much against him: let us see what other of the ancient Fathers do gather out of that place of saint john, whether they reason out of it as Bellarmine doth. chrysostom out of this place showeth, 
Homil. 24 in joh.  that in that water spoken of there is represented unto us our Burial, Mortification, Resurrection, life, and addeth: As it is an easy thing for us to be dipped in, and being pulled out to breath again, even so is it for God to bury our old man, & to put on us the new man. And hereby thou mayest understand, that the virtue of the Father, the Son, and of the holy Ghost fulfilleth all these things. What can be more plain than these words of Chrysostom, to teach us, that this working virtue is ascribed unto God, and nothing at all to the Sacrament, 
Theophilact. in joh. 3.  as the Papists teach us. And yet Theophilact is more plain, Even as in this bodily seed God's grace worketh all: even so in Baptism the Water is but an underling, and it is the Spirit that worketh all. So that I cannot see how this ancient Father, if he had directly spoken against this popish doctrine, whereby they ascribe so much virtue unto the Sacrament, could have used (if he had lived in our time) more effectual words to reprove the same. If then we grant that that place speaketh of Baptism, as many of the Fathers have thought, yet that which the Papists infer thereupon followeth not, for we see, the working of grace is only attributed to the spirit of God, contrary to that they do teach. 
Bellarm de Sacrament. lib. 2. cap. 3  For they will needs have us to believe, that the Sacrament itself by receiving of it, giveth grace. But good reasons may be yielded, why by water in that place, the water of Baptism can not be meant. First, because our saviour Christ spoke there to Nicodemus, who knew nothing of the principles of religion, and therefore Christ teacheth him, that we have not in ourselves any thing to work our salvation, but we must be borne anew. It is unlikely that our saviour Christ would instruct him of the necessity of baptism, who as yet never knew the promises, which in baptism are sealed up unto us. Secondly, 
Verse 6.  Christ going about afterwards to explain his meaning, in the next verse maketh mention of the spirit only, and not of the water, whereas if he had spoken of baptism, and had made it of such absolute necessity, that in no case a man might be saved without it, he would not have left it out in that place, especially where he showeth how we are borne anew. Thirdly, that which is done in the sacramental water, may very well be perceived both of them that feel it, and of them that see it, or hear it: but this new birth that is spoken of in that place, how it is wrought a man can not perceive, as our saviour Christ telleth us: Therefore by likelihood, 
Verse 8.  not the water of baptism is there spoken of, but that water which God promiseth by his Prophet Ezechiel, and is called, 
Ezec. 36.24.  the clean water, because of that notable cleansing and holiness, which no material water, be it never so excellent can work, but only Gods cleansing spirit, that is, The clean water there spoken of. And this is the only argument out of the scriptures which Bellarmine hath for the necessity of Baptism. But in his second book, where he speaketh of the sacraments in generally what force they have, he allegeth some more, 
Lib. 2. cap. ● de Sacram.  as that of saint john the Baptist.  
He (speaking of Christ) baptizeth with the holy Ghost, and with fire. 
Matth. 3.11  His reason is sufficiently answered, by gathering it into an argument. Christ baptizeth with the holy Ghost: therefore baptism of itself giveth grace. For the question among us is, what virtue is in the Sacrament itself: and he telleth us what Christ can do in it. As if he should say, Christ, when he healed him that was borne blind, made clay of spittle, and bade him go wash in Siloam, 
joh. 9  therefore the clay put upon the eyes, and the water of Siloam, by their virtue made him to see.  

Mar. 16.16  Again, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved. By this we may as well conclude, that faith saveth, (which in any wise the papists like not of) as that baptism saveth, for it is said of both indifferently. But let us mark his argument again, that we may see how he proveth his assertion. He that is baptised, shall be saved, therefore the sacrament of baptism hath of itself that virtue to save. For this is it that he must prove. But see how weakly he performeth it. First, whereas Christ promiseth salvation to them that believe, and are baptised, Bellarmine draweth these words, to declare how this salvation is wrought in us: which is not here handled. Secondly, Christ speaketh here of believing or faith, which directeth us unto him, in whom our salvation that is promised in the word, apprehended by faith, and sealed up in the sacraments, is performed and perfected, that is, Christ jesus. And how doth this prove the virtue of the sacrament in itself? The like is to be said of that place that he bringeth out of the Acts, 
Acts 2.38  Amend your lives, and be baptised every one of you, in the name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. As for his last place out of the scriptures, which is out of Peter, mark (I pray you) how he seeketh to hide the truth: saint Peter saith, Baptism saveth us by the resurrection of Christ. 
1. Pet. 3.21.  which maketh nothing against us. But Bellarmine to make his argument seem stronger, allegeth only the former words, Baptism saveth us, as though it did so by it own virtue: and never maketh mention of the latter words, Through the resurrection of Christ, for that is against him, and showeth from whence baptism hath her virtue and efficacy. And this being well considered, it will perchance not be hard to answer unto much of that which they can say for this their dangerous doctrine, That the Sacrament of itself, even by the very receiving of it, giveth grace to the receiver. And for the necessity thereof, I have said before in this chapter, in the answer to the first reason, so much as (I trust) may satisfy the godly Reader.     

Of Confirmation. CHAP. 12.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
But as for Confirmation, as it was used in the Romish church, although we have just cause to reject it, and much less can we account it a Sacrament, which hath neither commandment in the word, nor promise of spiritual graces: yet we do not deny but that the people of God, in respect of their manifold wants, have great need continually to have their ignorance instructed, their dullness reformed, their weakness strengthened, their godly endeavours bettered, and their knowledge increased. And for this cause is it very needful, that the children, which because they are infants when they are baptised, can not at their baptism yield account of their faith, should be taught when they are older, the principles of religion, and make before the Bishop and other present, profession of their faith, and that by godly exhortation they should be moved openly to continue constantly in that holy profession, & God should be prayed unto, to continue and increase his good graces in them. And this holy Confirmation, I doubt not, would do much good in the Church, if it were often used.   

THE PAPISTS  
BUT in steed hereof the church of Rome commendeth unto us a kind of Confirmation that consisteth of a number of foolish and unprofitable ceremonies. And to make it more readily and reverently to be received, they would persuade the ignorant, that it is a Sacrament. And not content therewith, this devise of theirs they do highly commend, 
Bellarm. de sa. li. 2. ca 28  as that It is more excellent than Baptism itself, in respect of the effect of grace, because therein is given the fullness of the spirit: (mark their blasphemy, for the fullness thereof is given to Christ only, to all us by measure. 
Coloss. 1.19 joh. 3.34 Rom. 12.3. ) And that it doth consummate and perfect Baptism, 
Bellarm. li. 2. de Confir. cap. 11.  and giveth greater grace than Baptism doth. What copper, or counterfeit coin dare not these men commend unto us for good gold, who dare so confidently to prefer the greasy devise of man, before the holy institution of Christ himself? And make more account of that which themselves do confess to have no warrant in God's word, than of Christ's holy Sacrament.   


De Sacram. confir. li. 2. cap. 2.  But let us consider how Bellarmine defendeth this, who for his learning is much accounted of, and that worthily, amongst the papists, so that his want of proof doth plainly show the weakness of his cause. Whereas there are but three things necessarily required in a Sacrament, as he truly confesseth, visible sign, promise of grace, and God's commandment, (which much weakeneth that which he said of the working power of the Sacraments, as appeareth in the tenth chapter) he will prove, that confirmation hath all these three. He proveth first, that this Sacrament (as he termeth it) hath promise of grace: and why? Because the holy Spirit is promised.  
Is not this clerkly handled, and strongly proved? God promiseth the holy Ghost: therefore confirmation hath the promise of grace. Secondly, the visible sign is (saith he) the laying on of the hands upon the head. But the popish confirmation hath not laying on of hands, neither is it necessary now a days, by their own confession. 
Belarm. de confir. li. 2. cap. 13  For these are the ceremonies that do belong to that their Sacrament. First, the Oil must be consecrated by prayer, secondly, by crossing: for without a cross (saith Bellarmine) nothing can be consecrated. Wherein Bellarmine giveth Saint Paul the lie, because he never spoke of the cross, when he said, 
1. Tim. 4, 4, 5  Every creature of God is sanctified by the word of God, and prayer: and Bellarmine saith, nothing is sanctified without the cross. But perchance he will say that oil is none of gods creatures, as indeed, in respect of the use, or rather abuse of it, it is not. Thirdly, the Bishop must breath upon the cruet or cup of oil. Fourthly, he must say to the oil, All hail holy oil. O foolish blasphemy. Then are there other ceremonies, but not essential in this Sacrament the Godfather, Certain prayers, thirdly the Pax, than a blow upon the cheek, fifthly, A rag tied about the forehead, sixtly, He must not wash his forehead, for seven days. Think you this slovenly Sacrament hath any such grace as they would have us to believe that it hath, when as they fear that washing where the oil was, may hinder the virtue of it? seventhly, it must be at Easter and Whitsuntide used; lastly, they that receive this Sacrament, must be fasting. But of the laying on of hands there is no mention, unless you will say, that he that giveth him a blow upon the ear, layeth his hands upon his head. And as for that it is reckoned among the ceremonies that are not of the substance of this sacrament. But Bellarmine in another place saith, 
De effec. Sacram. lib. 2 cap. 24.  that then is that ceremony of laying on of the hands performed, when the Bishop maketh the cross in the forehead. But that is not so: for the laying on of hands was done upon the head, and was borrowed from the old law, of that which they did unto the sacrifices when they brought them to be offered, they did by that ceremony of laying their hands upon the head of the sacrifice, consecrate (as it were) the same to the lord 
Num. 27, 24  And when God commanded Moses to consecrate joshua to succeed him, and to comfort and encourage him to the work that he had to do, he doth lay his hands upon his head. 
Mat. 19, 16 Acts 6.6 1. Tim. 4.14 2. Tim. 1.6  According to which example Christ laid his hands upon the children, & the Apostles upon the deacons, and others, Acts 8.17. and the Elders, and Paul upon Timothy. Now mark how it is proved that Popish Confirmation hath the outward sign of a Sacrament. The Bishop doth cross the party to be confirmed, in the forehead, therefore he layeth hands upon his head. Well then, this their sacrament hath no promise (as I have showed) neither hath it any visible sign that was used and appointed by Christ and the Apostles. Now what commandment hath it, which is the third thing that is set down by Bellarmine, 
De effect. sacram. lib. 2. cap. 24. Lib. 2. cap. 2 de sacram. confirm.  without which a Sacrament cannot be? Bellarmine flatly confesseth that it hath no express commandment in the scripture, but in stead of a commandment, he delivereth us the execution or practice of it, for so himself saith. Why then I may thus reason: A sacrament must have a promise of grace, a visible or sensible sign, and a commandment from God, or else it cannot be a sacrament, as Bellarmine confesseth: but confirmation hath neither promise of grace, nor visible sign, nor commandment from God: therefore it is no sacrament. Their arguments out of the fathers make a greater show. It is well yet that they cannot press us but with the authority of men. Notwithstanding, this may be briefly said for their authorities from the fathers, that either they are such as have no writings extant, but only such scraps as they for their own purpose have gathered together, and therefore are witnesses of us worthily suspected: or, such as have no sound credit of any indifferent man: or lastly, such as make nothing for them or against us in this question. For the Papists will have their Confirmation to be a sacrament, the matter whereof must be Oil and Balm: but neither do the most learned fathers make mention of the Balm, neither are the Schoolmen agreed amongst themselves, that it is needful for this sacrament, 
Lib. 2. de sacram. Confirm. cap. 9  as Bellarmine confesseth. Yea, they think it absurd, that a sacrament should be appointed by our saviour Christ, the matter whereof should be so rare to find, so uncertain whether we have the true thing or not, and so costly, as hardly it can be gotten, and it is doubted of some whether there be now any true Balm or not. And this their sacrament is built upon so uncertain foundations, that Alexander Alensis, and Bonaventure, two old pillars of Popery, cannot find that it was instituted before the counsel at Melda. Out of all which it is easy to understand, that as this Confirmation hath not in God's word any show of warrant to make it a sacrament: so neither out of the fathers can any certain argument be gathered for the same. But such are all heretics, 
Iren. lib. 5  and such as imagine they can find out somewhat beside the truth, following those things that are spoken diversly and in sundry sorts, and walking weakly, not being always of one mind, are led about like blind men, by blind guides, they shall and that worthily, fall into the hidden pit of ignorance, ever seeking the truth, but never finding it. Which judgement of God here mentioned against the heretics, we see to be fallen upon the Papists, who had rather wander in such uncertain and blind ways, than be ruled by the infallible word of God.     

Of the lords Supper, or Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and namely of Transubstantiation. CHAP. 13  


THE PROTESTANTS  
WE teach, that by those visible signs of bread and wine, the body and blood of our saviour Christ is so lively, and effectually represented and offered unto our faith, that the faithful receivers, in the same Supper, do as truly receive by faith Christ himself, with all his treasures and graces, to the comfort and food of their souls, as they receive the bread and wine with their mouth to the nourishment of their bodies. And that this our spiritual nourishment may be the more lively represented, the substance of the bread & wine must needs remain for our bodily nourishment, as in Baptism likewise the water remaineth unchanged, to signify our spiritual washing. So that as we change not the substance of these creatures, without which they cannot be a Sacrament, so we teach Christ to be received spiritually, and therefore most truly of the faithful receiver.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of Rome, not content with this spiritual and true receiving of Christ, do teach, that by the words of consecration (as they call them) the very bread and wine have their substance changed into the body and blood of Christ. So that Christ, whom in the Creed we confess to be ascended into heaven, and that he shall come from heaven to judge the quick and the dead, is by that means brought into every Pix: which overthroweth the nature of man, which he took of the Virgin Marie, for man can be but in one place. Whereby also there follow such inconveniences, that it is with them a great question, whether the Mouse that eateth the host, 
Hom. par. 3 quaest. 80 artic. 3.  do eat Christ's body, or not: some affirm it, and some answer, to say she doth, 
Glos. dist. 2 de consec. cap. Qui bene. Durand. ra●. diu. lib. 4 rubr. 41.  is not greatly absurd, because the most wicked men do eat it. Others say, that it miraculously ceaseth to be Christ's body. But seeing the first miracle is wrought by the words, I pray you how hath the Mouse wrought this second miracle, in making it cease to be Christ's body, and said nothing?   

Seeing this doctrine of Transubstantiation, doth bring with it, so gross, or rather so monstrous absurdities, a man would think that no Christian would stand in defence of the same. For how can we not abhor such teachers, as endeavour to make us believe, that the most wicked persons may eat the flesh of Christ, 
john 6.  Which whosoever eateth shall live for ever, as our Saviour Christ doth often tell us. And yet to defend their Transubstantiation, 
Bel. de euch. lib. 3. ca 9  they defend this as a good and fruitful opinion. Who will follow such guides, as lead us into such marshes, as themselves know no way to get out. Such is the question which before I touched, whether the Mouse do eat the body of Christ if he eat the host. A question not moved by us, as Bellarmine would seem to make men believe, 
De Ecuhar. lib. 3. cap. 14.  and therefore would make us like the jews, Pagans and Heretics, but moved and disputed by themselves, as may appear by the master of Sentences, lib. 4. dist. 13 in dist. 2. de consecrat. cap, Qui bene: and also in the place before alleged out of Durand. Yea, Bellarmine is not a little troubled about this matter in the place next before alleged. For first he setteth down flatly, That although Christ be truly in the Sacrament, yet can he not be hurt, and therefore not eaten with Mice, but the forms only of bread may be eaten. The absurdity hereof I will not stand upon in this place. But Bellarmine will show us this by a demonstration: The Divinity (sayeth he) is every where, & yet not consumed by fire, nor defiled by filth. Is this good divinity, to make the body of Christ not subject to corruption, because the godhead is not: Glorified it is, and therefore not corruptible: but deified it is not. This seemeth to be all one with the heresy of Nestorius, who taught that Christ had a defiled body. But afterwards master Bellarmine, perchance not liking very well of his first answer, seemeth to me to have changed his opinion, as after shall appear. But here in my judgement he is of another mind than Durand hath learned of Pope Innocentius, of the which I spoke before in the comparison. For there Durand saith, that it miraculously ceaseth to be Christ's body. But, if we apply this similitude brought by Bellarmine, it should seem that he will have Christ's body to remain, but not to be hurt, as the deity which is every where, continueth, and yet is hurt of nothing. But if he be of one mind with Pope Innocentius, and Durand, I would then feign know, where that body of Christ that ceaseth to be in that Mouseaten host, doth rest, or what becometh of it. But in the end of that Chapter: because many (saith he) mislike that Christ's body should be eaten of Mice, or beasts: When he was an infant, he might so be: and therefore why may he not much more now in another shape, and when he cannot be hurt thereby, be eaten of them? Before he said, he could not be eaten: Now he saith, he may. Whereby, it appeareth he knew not well what to say. These straits are they brought unto, whilst they seek to maintain that their doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
See of this point Bell. de Euch. li. 1 ca 9 in the beginning.  Now beside these, and many other absurdities which follow this doctrine of transubstantiation, as that Christ hath his own body: the darkness and hardness of that doctrine is such, as that the schoolmen cannot agree upon it, how Christ's body should be in the form of bread. Whosoever should read the third book that master Bellarmine writeth of the Eucharist, wherein he endeavoureth to establish this doctrine, 
De Euch. li. 1. cap. 6.  shall find it too hard for them that have many years professed learning, to understand their subtleties in this point. And who then can imagine that our saviour Christ would deliver unto his Church for Sacraments which should be common to all those things that should contain such hidden mysteries as the very learned men cannot understand? 
De doct. Christ. li. 3. cap. 9  Nay Bellarm. thinketh it absurd so to think, or that saint Augustine would have commended our Sacraments as most easy, when all the learned find these popish opinions to be most intricate and hard. We have seen the absurdity of this doctrine: now let us view the weakness of the proof.  
In the scriptures (for the most part) they can find but one place, Take, eat, this is my body. 
Tit. Transub. joh. 6.51  For that which Eckius in his Enchiridion allegeth out of the sixth of saint john his Gospel, The bread which I will give is my flesh, his own friends think it not worth citing for this point. For what a reason is this? The bread which I said before came down from heaven is my flesh: therefore the Sacramental bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ. But for those words, This is my body, alleged out of the three first Evangelists, and saint Paul, because they are the very rock and refuge, which at all needs they have recourse unto, for help of this their doctrine of Transubstantiation, it would be somewhat particularly examined. Sundry arguments therefore I have to induce me to affirm that this place can not prove transubstantiation. The first is this: If these words This is my body, do prove transubstantiation, then is that doctrine proved by plain and express words of scripture: But, by express words of scripture that doctrine cannot be proved, therefore that place proveth not Transubstantiation: The truth of the first proposition is apparent, because either the plain and literal sense of these words prove that doctrine, or else it is not proved thereby. And the minor or 2. proposition is not mine, but it is the words of Mel. Canus a learned Papist & of D. Chadsy. 
De locis Theol. li. 3. cap. 3. Disp. cum Pet. Mart. de Eucharistia.  Therefore the first being true, and the second being by them confessed, the conclusion must needs be strong against them. The second argument master Bellarmine will afford me. The Sacraments are instituted and appointed by such words as may give least occasion of error or doubt, for this Bellarmine proveth in many words, 
De Euchar. li. 1. ca 9  and by many reasons, But so to expound this place, that Transubstantiation should be forced out of it, bringeth many obscurities and doubts, therefore Transubstantiation is not to be proved out of these words. The first proposition is Bellarmine's (as I have said) and therefore I need not prove it. That so to expound the words, This is my body, that Transubstantiation should be proved out of it, is to make Christ speak very obscurely and doubtfully, appeareth by their manifest wring and wresting of the place. For the word (This) spoke by Christ, 
Bellar. de. Euchar. li. 1. cap. 11.  when he had the bread in his hand, they will not have to be understood of the bread, no, nor of the body of Christ, but something contained under the form of bread, as Bellarmine out of Thomas of Aquine, and out of Guitimund teacheth. And I pray you, when shall the people understand what that third thing is that is contained under those forms. But why should I look for this at the hands of the unlearned, seeing that the learnedst can not show what this is. Are not such dark devices the cause of many errors? Where now is (I pray you) that plainness and aptness of speech in the institution of a sacrament, which before Belarmine commended? Not in such unsavoury subtleties. 
Bellarmi. de ●●●● ar. li. 3. cap. 8.  Yea, it is by him flatly confessed, that although, in respect of that regard they have of the counsels and the Church, their Divines agree herein, yet in the manner thereof they disagree very much. But what should I stand upon this point? 
cap. 9  Bellarmine which in the first book of the Eucharist, doth make his argument against Luther. of the easiness and of the plainness of the words that belong to the institution of the Sacrament, proving that of necessity they must so be, lest thereby men should take occasion of error or doubting, and condemneth Luther's doctrine as obscure: as though he had been then in a sound sleep, and now were well wakened. 
li. 3. cap. 8.  In his third book he commendeth their doctrine unto us concerning the Sacrament, because it is exceeding hard, and condemneth ours because it is so easy, that every body may understand it. Well, to be short, thus I reason, The words of the institution must be taken in the plainest sense or meaning: But that sense that is wrested out of them for Transubstantiation is not plain: Therefore that sense of those words must not be taken that teacheth transubstantiation. Thirdly, the circumstances of the place itself are flat against this doctrine of transubstantiation. For if any thing else had been signified by the word This, then that which Christ took and broke, that is, the bread, it could not but very much have astonished them that were present, that speaking as it were of the bread, he should have meant any thing else. But to have taught, that it had been his very natural body indeed, it would have made them much more wonder than they did ●●● e sixth of Saint john's Gospel, when they said, 
joh. 6. 6●.  This is a hard saying, who can hear it. For, if they could not abide to hear our Saviour Christ say, they must eat his flesh, and drink his blood, how much less would they not only have heard this said again, but also seeing him sit at the Table, and having taken bread into his hand, to pronounce that that bread was his natural body, that was borne of the Virgin Marie, and that they must so eat him? But they knew, that about Sacraments, sacramental speeches are to be used. And never imagined that because he said, This is my body, therefore that bread should be changed in substance to the body of Christ, no more than there should be an alteration in Christ, because he saith, I am the door, I am the vine, yea no more than the cup itself was changed in the words of consecration, into another thing. They knew, that it is not such a kind of speech, as is used when God is purposed to make any thing: 
Gen. 1.  Let there be light: let there be a firmament. It is not a speech of commanding, but of showing or declaring, when he saith: This is my body. And therefore they made no such doubts, they did not so much as ask any question how it could be, that he whose body they saw sitting with them at the table, could have also an other body, though invisible, yet a very true and natural body, hidden in those forms of bread. And as the Apostles did never imagine so grossly of Christ, and so absurdly, that he had two bodies, the one visible, the other invisible, the one sitting at the table, the other lurking in the forms of bread, but did eat that which Christ took, broke and gave to them, that is to say, bread: so Saint Paul doth flatly call it bread, 
1. Cor. 11.27 28. de Euchar. li. 1. cap. 14.  yea, and that after the words of consecration. And although Bellarmine would seem to answer this argument, and indeed justly citeth the answer which is commonly made to it, that it is called bread, not because it is so now, but because it was so: for, (sayeth he) it is not needful that if sometime that be used, yet that should be used always: yet neither will the answer that he best liketh of serve the turn: For, (sayeth he) it is called bread according to the Hebrew phrase, which calleth all meat by the name of bread. Now, to strike him with his own weapon, if it be so sometimes, must it so signify always? I am sure master Bellarmine will not so say, for than shall we doubt what it was that our Saviour Christ took for the institution of the Sacrament. And if he dare not say, that so it must be always, then must he give better reason why here it should not be so, or else we cannot believe him. Especially seeing the Apostle immediately before, speaking of the institution of the Sacrament, hath showed how our Saviour Christ took bread, which I trust master Bellarmine will there confess to be bread in deed, and not other food: why should he then without proof or reason, say here it is more generally taken, to apply it perchance to the food of the soul? Yea, this reply may serve for all the answers that he hath to this argument, because it is not enough for him to say, such a word may so be taken sometime, but he must prove that it must in this place so be taken. Moreover, if you consider of that which they call the form of bread, it is no other in colour, taste, or fashion, than it was: it putrefieth and corrupteth as soon as when it is not consecrated. Which to affirm, if it were transubstantiated into the body of Christ, were in my mind absurd and blasphemous. Lastly, we see by the practice that the godly have sometime used, that the fathers in the primitive Church thought not the bread to be transubstantiated: For if they had known of any transubstantiation, they would not have burned that which remained of the Eucharist, as Hesichius, 
Hesich. in levit. Ori. in Leuit.  and also Origen upon Leviticus show that they did. Thus then by many reasons, I trust it sufficiently appeareth, that the church of Rome cannot without great violence done to the place, wring transubstantiation out of these words, this is my body: 
In joh. tract. 47.  for Christ is many things by similitude, which he is not in deed, a rock, a door, etc. as saith S. August. And so we may see the words to be most easy and plain, if according to the manner of such sacramental speeches, we understand the word (Is. 
1. Cor. 10.2 ) The rock was Christ, that is, it was a figure of Christ: so here, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body, 
Cont. Adimant. c. 12.  as S August. most plainly expoundeth in this place, saying: The lord made no doubt to say, this is my body, when he gave the figure of his body. And thus much to take from them that one weapon which they have wrested from the scriptures to fight against us withal. Now the which they can bring against us out of the writings of men, can have no such force, and therefore is not so dangerous.  
Answer 
to the places out of the fathers for transubstantiation. Inst. Apol. 2 near the end  And yet it will not be amiss, to take a short view of that which they allege out of the Fathers of the purer ages, namely that lived five hundred, or six hundred years after Christ. justinus Martyr is the first whom he nameth, out of whom he gathereth, That the meat whereof our flesh is nourished, that is the bread sanctified by the prayer of the word of God, is the body of the Lord. Wherein I note first, that because he speaketh of meat, whereof our flesh is nourished, he acknowledgeth no change of the substance of the bread: for it must be the substance of the bread that nourisheth our bodies, no change, I say, but Sacramental, in regard whereof, he hath said a little before, that we receive it not as common bread, because that being so sanctified, it is a Sacrament of the body of our saviour Christ. Then, the substance of the bread being proved, even by these words, to remain, it is nothing hard to see what he meaneth, when he saith, it is the body of the Lord. For it is nothing else then it is, that is, it signifieth the body of the lord 
Col. cum Trypho. Iud● o.  Which exposition I have from himself, who saith in an other place, That Christ hath delivered us bread, for the Remembrance of his body that is taken up (into heaven.) Where he doth not only show the Sacrament to be a Memorial of Christ's body, which here is to be proved, but also, that his body is absent and in heaven, in that he saith, it is for a remembrance of his body that is taken up. And in the same book afterwards, the same father saith, that By the dry and moist nourishment (the bread & wine) we are admonished of those things, which it is said Christ hath suffered for us. Where, by calling them nourishment, & that of our bodies, for such nourishment belongeth to them, he plainly denieth any alteration of the substance in those visible signs: and then further showeth the true use of the sacrament, which is, to admonish us of Christ's suffering for us. Out of Iren. he allegeth these words: How shall they know, 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  that that bread wherein thanks are given, is the body of their lord; but that Iren. did not dream there of any Transubstantiation, it is plain by his words that follow immediately, when he faith, that the Eucharist consisteth of two things, the earthly, and the heavenly. If the bread were transubstantiate, it could not be called an earthly thing. Moreover, he writeth in that place against the heretics that said, there was another God the father, besides him that made all things. Now he inferreth, if they should say true, how shall they know that that bread is the body of their Lord? Whereby it appeareth, that his purpose is here, not to show what is in that bread, but which Lord it representeth unto them: As the very next words in that sentence declare, which are these, If they say not, that he is the son of him that made the world: so that the chiefest force of this reason after Irene his true meaning, is in this word, Their Lord. And beside, to call the sign by the name of that which it signifieth, the body of Christ, for the sacrament of the body of Christ, is very agreeable unto the Scriptures: but such manner of speeches are but a weak proof for transubstantiation. Next cometh in Tertullian, but so maimed & mangled, that thereby master Bellarmine proclaimeth unto the world, that he meant nothing less, than to have the truth known. Out of him he alleged these words: 
Con. Marcionem li. 4. near the end  The bread which he took he made his body, saying: this is my body. A man would think this were a very plain place, but Bellarmine dealeth falsely herein. For when Tertullian hath spoken for him what he would have him, than he stoppeth his mouth lest he mar all. For the very next words are, that is the figure of his body. Now, let us take the whole sentence together, and so try what he can make of it. The bread which he took he made his body, saying: this is my body, that is, the figure of my body. And after also, to show what he meant by that he said he made it his body, he delivereth it in other terms, he calleth it his body. If then master Bellarmine will ask, how the bread can be made his body? Tertullian telleth how, 
Li. de Euch. 3. cap. 18.  Sacramentally, or figuratively. So that this bold question of master Bellarmine cometh out of season, like a triumph before the conquest. His fourth witness that he produceth, 
Cyp. de coena domini.  is Cyprian, whose words are these: This bread which the Lord did reach to his disciples, being changed, not in shape or form, but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word, is made flesh. This testimony he esteemeth as the club of Hercules, that no man can withstand: 
De Euch. li. 2 cap. 9  and therefore in another place, alleging it, he saith thus: This testimony cannot be answered, although the adversaries have often assayed to answer it. Let us then examine a little this unanswerable place. And first, it is confessed by Bellarmine, that that book is not Cyprians, and therefore the father of that book is uncertain, but yet we will not deny it, but answer the place, if we can. How the bread is made flesh, hath been sufficiently declared in the answer to the former arguments: so that all the hardness is in this, how the bread is changed, not in form, but in nature. First, that is true in respect of the use that it is put to: For as it is a sacrament, and representeth unto us our nourishment in Christ: so must it truly nourish our bodies, it being changed in us to that end, and now, not the accidents, but the substance of bread, can work this nourishment. And therefore, if we take nature for substance, it may well so be expounded, and agree with that which justinus Martyr sayeth, as before is said. And admit, that nature doth here signify substance, let us see what they can prove by it. They say the substance of the bread ceaseth, and is quite taken away: But Cyprian sayeth, the bread is but changed in nature, but still it remaineth bread you see, for he so calleth it. Therefore because he uttereth it in such a manner, it is most certain, that he meaneth not by that word nature, the substance of bread, but something else. Nature therefore is sometime taken for the disposition, or for the property or use of a thing, as the author of the book of Wisdom saith, 
Sap. 7.20  That God had given him knowledge, of the nature of beasts. In like manner, Rom. 1.26. 
Ephes. ● .3 jam. 3.7  We were by nature (saith saint Paul) the children of wrath. And saint james saith, The whole nature of beasts, hath been tamed by the nature of man. So that this word nature, very often doth not signify the substance. And here it cannot signify the substance of the bread, because the substance of it cannot be changed, but that it must also be annihilated, or brought to nought, therefore he speaketh but of the use or property of it, that it is altered. And doctor Chadsey, a learned Papist, as was any in Oxford in his time, doth confirm this my answer: For when Peter Martyr disputing against D. Tresham, had pressed him with an authority of Theodoret's, 
Dialog. 1  which was this: Christ honnored those signs which we see, with the names of his body and blood, yet not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. And he (as it seemeth) not liking well of D. Tresham his answer, this Doctor Chadsey disputing another day, took upon him to answer such places as master Martyr had before alleged against master Tresham: and amongst others he answereth this place out of Theodoret thus: I say that Thodoret meaneth as other fathers do, who, when they say that the nature remaineth, they mean the property of the bread. I trust then, it will not be any heresy for me to expound nature, the properties of the bread, seeing doctor Chadsey a catholic doth it. We see then, that this unanswerable argument, that he made so great account of, and bragged that it could never be answered, is long since fully answered by one of his own friends, & he knew not of it. Ciril is his fift witness, not that learned father that was bishop of Alexandrie, but another that was B. of jerusalem, 
Ciril. jerus. cathec. Mistagog. 4  whose books are but lately set forth by themselves, that now bring him in for a witness, & therefore we may doubt whether he be well dealt withal. Out of him he aledgeth 3. places: He once turned water into wine, & shall he not be worthy to be trusted that he turned wine into blood. Behold here (saith master Bellarmine) a real change. And why so? I know he will answer: because it was so in the water, for it was really changed into wine: and therefore also saint john, 
john 2, 11  who reporteth the story, saith, it was a miracle. Now to change wine into blood, is as great a miracle, and therefore it is likely, that if there had been any such miracle wrought, some or other would have noted it for a miracle, seeing so many have spoken of that matter: namely three Evangelists, and S. Paul. Master Bell. knoweth, that the father's use many times to speak very hyperbolically, and to amplify with excessive speeches the matters that they would set forth, as here this Ciril doth: & yet we must not gather thereof such a real change in the wine, as I have said was in the water: but this is spoken to win that at our hands, that he in that place moveth us unto, that we should not think the sacramental wine to be but bare wine. His second witness for master Bellarmine, is after in that place, Under the form of bread, the body is given, and in form of wine, the blood. Whereupon master Bellarmine again insulteth thus: Behold the accidents of bread which remain. We grant it, but not the accidents or show of bread only, but the substance also, and that he hath not yet denied: therefore let us see his third place. Know this for a certainty, that this bread which is seen of us, is not bread, though thy taste perceive it to be bread. In deed he speaketh here far otherwise than the ancient fathers do, in that he sayeth, It is not bread: For there is not one of the fathers, for at the least six hundred years after Christ, that ever spoke so, but this man only. And therefore howsoever he amplifieth the matter in words, to bring unto the holy Sacraments due regard, which the fathers at those times upon great causes did much endeavour, 
Catec. Mist. 3  yet he is not to be thought to have meant otherwise than that he said before, that it is no more common bread. For although, if they regard but the taste, they shall find no change, yet that sacrament is an authentical seal of our faith, which assureth us, that Christ is spiritually given unto us. And thus much briefly of these authorities: that men may see, that they are not so very plain, that infallible arguments may be gathered out of them.  
But now I must needs speak somewhat of the Author. And first for the Book itself, 
Lib. Eccles. hist. ●. ca 23.  out of which these places are alleged, it seemeth to me, that saint Hierome hath somewhat burnt it in the ear, when he saith, that he wrote it when he was but a young man, noting thereby (perchance) his young and slender judgement. And of himself Ruffinus saith, 
Lib. 2. ca 40  That he did change sometime in faith, and in Communion often. And Socrates in his Ecclesiastical history saith of him, that being summoned to answer some accusations that were laid against him, he fearing to come to his trial, for two years together appeared not, and therefore was deposed. What reason then, that we should be content to stand to his trial for matters in question, that was himself afraid to be tried by the learned men of his time: Or that he who was deposed from his seat, by them that best knew him (yea, and that, as it seemeth by Ruffinus his saying of him, for some heresy) should now sit as judge, yea or else be allowed as witness in so weighty matters? As for saint Ambrose, 
De iis qui initiantur mist. cap. 9  whom next he allegeth, he maketh not against us. He saith indeed, that the bread is that which Nature hath form, but that Blessing hath hallowed. Which is nothing else but that which hath been answered before, that it is not common bread, but as Theodoret saith, 
Theod. Immutabili●, dialog. 1.  the Nature not being changed, to Nature is Grace added. And that this is S. Ambrose his meaning, is most plain, (not only by that which he afterwards saith in that very chapter, Before the blessing of the heavenly words, an other thing is named: after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified) but also most evidently in his books of the Sacraments: 
Lib. 4. cap. 4.  where speaking of the change that is in these visible signs, he useth these words: If there be so great virtue in the word of the Lord jesus, that the things that were not, began to be, how much rather can it work that they (the visible signs in the Sacrament) be that which they were, and be changed into an other thing. By which he can mean no other but a sacramental change, because he flatly affirmeth, that these signs are that which they were. The first place that he allegeth out of Chrysost. is this: It is he that doth sanctify these things (the outward elements and change them: 
In Matth. Hom. 83.  but that he speaketh of a sacramental change only, his own words a little before, in that place, do prove. For, in teaching how that by these sensible creatures, he delivereth unto us things not sensible, he bringeth his example of Baptism, wherein I know they will not say the water is transubstantiated. And yet chrysostom maketh no difference between it and the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, but that in them both, in like sort by sensible creatures, insensible graces are delivered. But most plainly in an other place doth he confute that which the Papists would force out of these words, namely, the change of the substance of the bread, saying: Before the bread is sanctified, 
Ad Caesarium monachum.  we call it bread, but the divine grace having sanctified it by the Priest, it is freed from the name of bread, and is vouched worthy of the name of the lords body, although the nature of the bread abide in it. Whereby we see, the change that he speaketh of is in the use, not in the substance of the bread. In the latter place chrysostom saith thus: Dost thou see bread, 
De Euchar. in encaenus.  dost thou see wine? do these things go to the draft as other meats do? God forbidden. Think not so. For as wax being put into the fire is made like unto it, none of the substance remaineth, nothing aboundeth: even so here think the mysteries to be consumed by the substance of the body.  
In which words he bringeth nothing for Popish transubstantiation. For although they do teach, that the substance of the bread is perished, yet the accidents they teach still to remain, and ever they say, that Christ is present in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine: But when wax is cast into the fire, there is not so much as a show that there hath been wax, but all is consumed: Therefore this similitude maketh not for transubstantiation. And in truth whosoever shall read that whole sermon, shall easily perceive, that Chrysost. there doth but by rhetorical amplifications exhort the people, so to be affected when they come unto the holy sacrament, that their eye should not be occupied about any earthly creatures, but their mind altogetherr exercised in heavenly cogitations, according (saith he) unto the promise that you made unto the Priest when as he said, Lift up your minds and hearts, and you answered, I have it lifted up unto the Lord. Which is according to the council which he giveth unto us in an other place, that especially in these holy mysteries, 
Chrysost. in Math. hom. 83  we should not only behold that which is before our eyes, but especially remember his words. But it were too tedious to answer every place particularly that they do allege, and out of this which is already spoken, it is easy to answer any thing that they can bring out of the fathers for five or six hundred years. But if any man will ask, why our saviour Christ doth give unto the bread the name of his Body, and to the wine, the name of his Blood? And why the fathers do so call these outward signs, the body and blood of our saviour Christ, I will answer with Theodoret an ancient father: 
Dial. 1. Immutabil●●.  He would have them that are partakers of the divine mysteries, not to be occupied in thinking of the nature of the things that are seen, but in respect of the change of the name, to believe the change that is made through grace.  
As for the Counsels which they bring for proof of this doctrine, 
Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3 cap. 23  the first of them was more than a thousand years after Christ, whereby it may appear, how late this doctrine is: whereupon Scotus a schoolman doth confess, that this transubstantiation was not a doctrine of faith before the council of Lateran, although Bellarmine reprove him for it. Seeing now this their lately hatched doctrine doth bring with it so many absurdities, is darkened with so many doubts, hath no warrant in the Scriptures, no ground in the ancient fathers, and is not to be accounted as an article of faith (even by the confession of them that speak of the greatest antiquity of it much more than five hundred years since:) let us take heed of them, who cry continually, Antiquity, Antiquity, and yet endeavour to bring in new doctrines and devices of their own, and to turn away the hearts of the ignorant from the true ancient faith, delivered by Christ and his apostles, and sincerely preserved many hundred years in the church of God. But of this, because it is one of the special points of doctrine wherein we descent, I have stood longer.     

That the wicked receive not in the Sacrament Christ's body and blood. CHAP. 14  


THE PROTESTANTS  
BEcause that whosoever hath eaten the son hath the son (for he is meat that perisheth not) 
joh. 6.50  and he that hath the son hath life. 
1. joh. 5.22  And on the contrary, 
De civit. Dei lib. 21. ca 25 De consecra. dist. 2. ut quid paras ex Augustino.  as saint Augustine saith, He can not eat Christ's body, that is not in his body. Lastly, seeing he can not be torn with the teeth, but must be received by faith, we therefore teach, that although the wicked may be partakers of the visible signs, yet they can not be said to eat or receive the body and blood of our saviour Christ. And with Saint Augustine, 
In joh. tract. 59  that they may eat, as judas did the Lord's bread, against the Lord, but the bread the Lord, they can not eat: which doctrine is most plain, and bringeth with it no absurdities or doubts   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of Rome, 
Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34.  forgetting that the Sacrament consisteth of two things, that is to say, the material bread, and that which came down from heaven, which is Christ: do add unto these a third, namely, 
Bellarm. de Euchar. li. 1 cap. 23  the effect of the body of Christ, or his spiritual graces: making thereby a separation, and, as it were, a divorce between the body of Christ, which they teach, the wicked may receive, and those graces which can not in deed be separated from the same, and cannot be given to the ungodly. Whereby they do wrap themselves in such a cloud of doubts, as all the Papists in the world, will never be able to answer: 
M. Bilso● part. 4.  whilst some say, that this body goeth no further than to the teeth: some allow it to have passage but to the stomach, but not to abide there: some to continue there also: yea, some say that it goeth as other meat into the belly & yet remaineth still Christ's body so long as the form of the bread remaineth: yea, and that it may be voided either upward or downward, and received of man or beast.   

Although this unreconcilable difference that is among them, in so material a point of their religion, namely, what is become of the body of Christ, after the wicked have received the same: and these filthy blasphemies, and detestable shifts that they are driven unto, for defence of their heresy, be a sufficient confutation, both of that doctrine of transubstantiation, from whence do spring all these filthy puddles and sinks, and also of this other, that the wicked may eat the body of Christ, which is but a sour grape of that unkindly root: yet for the better satisfying of the ignorant, I will (by God's assistance) take a short view of their arguments, whereby they endeavour to prove that the most wicked men may eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. Now their chief and almost only proof is taken from transubstantiation: of the untruth of which doctrine, I trust I have spoken sufficiently in the former chapter.  
And now therefore, that I may conclude, that if the wicked can not eat the body of Christ, unless the bread be changed into the body, as themselves will confess: then, because there is no such change, therefore the wicked eat not his body. But one show of an argument they make out of the scriptures: 
1. Cor. 11.27, 29  He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and after, eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, making no difference of the lords body. Out of which place they reason to this effect: The wicked or unworthy receivers, can not be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, unless they receive it: But they are guilty of them, and receive judgement to themselves thereby: Therefore they receive the body and blood of the Lord. The minor or second proposition is true, for saint Paul saith it. But the first is most false. For although the wicked can not be, neither are partakers of the body and blood of Christ: yet because they come not to the sacrament which was instituted of God (to offer and assure us of the heavenly graces) with such reverence as they ought to do, and in such sincerity as behoveth them, therefore are they accounted (and that worthily) to despise the things themselves that are represented by those visible signs. And this is it that S. Paul findeth fault with the Corinthians: For that by despising the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, they showed their contempt of the thing signified thereby. And therefore S. Ambrose 
Ambrose.  saith even upon these words: Because it is the Lord, whose blood he drinketh in mystery. S. Hierome 
Hierome.  yieldeth the reason why he is guilty of the body & blood of Christ, Because he hath accounted as vile, the Sacrament (mark his words) of so great a mystery. Not therefore are they guilty because they eat Christ, but because (saith he) they despise the Sacrament of so great a mystery. And Theophilact 
Theophilact  upon these words saith, He that receiveth it unworthily, shall be no less guilty of wickedness, than if he shed the very blood of the Lord. Where we see, that Theophilact doth compare the unworthy receiving of the holy sacrament, with the shedding of Christ's blood, and so maketh them two diverse things. And therefore, in his judgement, it is not all one to receive the Sacrament, and to receive Christ. So that by these places it appeareth, that the wicked may be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, which are by the holy Sacrament represented and sealed up unto the faithful, and yet not receive the body and blood of Christ. Yet by the way, I must needs note the false dealing of Andradeus a popish writer, who to make the Apostles argument the stronger for him, doth falsify his words. And therefore where the Apostle saith, he that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of the lords cup unworthily, he saith, He that eateth the lords body, 
Orthod. ex. pli. lib. 7.  and drinketh of his blood. But it is no great fault in popery to abuse the Scriptures, and to add to them, or take from them, as they think good. We see therefore, that this clean meat is for clean men: this holy banquet is for holy guests, as they had wont to cry. For, 
De benedict. patria● ch. c. ●  as saint Ambrose saith, This bread is the food but of the godly. And why? because, Our abiding in him, 
Cypr. de co●na Domini.  is our eating of him, and our drinking of him, is our incorporating into him, our services being subjecteth, our wills conjoined, and our affections united (to him.) Therefore the eating of his flesh, is a certain earnestness and desire to abide in him. Which things to be in the ungodly, the Papists will in no wise affirm. Many testimonies might be alleged, but with one shift they think to answer all. 
The answer of the Papists.  Christ his body and blood (say they) may be received of the wicked, but not the fruit or effect thereof. And may Christ be received of any, and they not to live by him? 
Confutation of it.  Can he that is full of all grace and power, be at any time, as it were, rob of the same? God forbidden. For, if they will speak of his conversing among the jews, and of his being among many whilst he was upon earth, that got no good thereby, the reason thereof is plain: it was because they received him not. 
joh. 3.19, 20.  But to say, that any may receive him, and is not partaker of his graces and benefits, is most expressly against the words of our Saviour Christ, 
joh. 6.57.  He that eateth me, shall live through me. They can not therefore offer a greater disgrace to our Saviour Christ, than to say, that any can receive him, and yet not be partakers of his heavenly graces. So that whilst they take upon them the defence of the wicked in some sort, they set themselves, even wilfully to reproach the holy one of Israel. But if it should be granted to them, that the wicked may eat Christ, how, or when will they agree, what shall be done with that body & blood of Christ that they so eat? For themselves deny, that the souls of the wicked are nourished by him. And that their bodies should by his body be nourished is too absurd. What then becometh of his body and blood, which they say the wicked receive? To answer this question resolutely and definitively, they have not yet agreed, they never will, they never can. Therefore, until they can answer directly to such inconveniences, as of necessity follow the doctrine that they teach, let us believe, that Christ is the food of the faithful only, because none other but they do receive him. Let us not hear them, who in the sacraments, which should be, and are indeed most plain and easy, teach us wholly to look for miracles, as do the Papists. For Christ is present by miracle, and absent by miracle, if they say true. And so, when all learning and scriptures fail, than they persuade us, that we must seek for a wonder, and so make them that will give credit to them in these their gross devices, the wonders of the world for their folly. But enough of this.     

That the Cup ought not to be denied unto the lay people, which thing the Papists do. CHAP. 15.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
BEcause it is needful for the nourishment of our bodies, to have, not meat only, to satisfy our hunger, but drink also to quench our thirst in. And that Christ would represent unto us in his Sacrament, the perfect nourishment of our souls, whereunto nothing could be added, because that nothing should be wanting: For this cause did our Saviour Christ institute his sacrament of these two parts of our nourishment, and gave as well the one of them as the other unto his Apostles: Commanding them also aswell to take & drink of the cup, as to eat of the bread. And the Church also did practise this more than a thousand years. But of late, the council of Constance, Anno 1415. 
Sess. 13.  did forbid it, and command the Sacrament to be received but in one kind.   

THE PAPISTS  
SO that the church of Rome, not regarding the express commandment of our Saviour Christ, neither the practice of God's Church, much more than a thousand years after Christ, neither that fullness of comfort that we learn by the bread & wine, that Christ is unto us both meat and drink, that is, the perfect and sufficient food of our hungry and thirsty souls, have rob the lay people of the one half of the lords supper, proclaiming thereby unto the world, that they are disobedient against Christ's commandment, injurious to his people, and that in steed of the continual and ancient practice of the Primitive Church, they establish their own new devise. Lo, what cause have they to brag of their ancient faith?   

And for the upholding of this their doing, against both Truth and Antiquity, they bring some reasons. Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester in his book against the assertions of Luther, 
Artic. 16.  to defend that it was lawful for the church to alter the institution of Christ, and therefore to take away the cup from the lay people, allegeth the example of the Apostles, who are said to baptize in the name of Christ only, whereas the sacrament of baptism, 
Acts 8.16. & 10.48 Matth. 28.19.  was commanded, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. But, to bishop Fisher the papist, I oppose Bellarmine the jesuite, and a papist who writing of the sacrament of baptism, 
Lib. 1. cap. 3.  plainly denieth, that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only, and largely proveth it: and showeth, that where it is said, that they baptized in the name of jesus, or in the lords name, the meaning is, that they baptized in the faith of jesus, or by his authority, or with baptism which he instituted, or in his name, but not in his name only. So that this reason which Fisher maketh for to prove the authority of the church herein, 
De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 28.  is very sufficiently answered by Master Bellarmine. It is therefore needful, he should make a supply of some other argument, to prove that, seeing he hath taken that weapon out of their hands. Let us therefore see how he mendeth the matter. The church (saith he) may ordain, and prescribe those things, that belong not to the substance of the sacraments, and are not ordered by the word of God: But the rite of eating under one kind, or under two, is such: Therefore it may be ordered and prescribed of the Church. These are his very words: this is his argument, whereof the mayor or first proposition, (as himself saith) is most true, and therefore we grant it: but the minor, which is, that to eat in one kind, or in both kinds, is not of the substance of the sacrament, or ordered by the word of God, that is most false. And because it containeth two points, I will briefly touch them both. Where he saith it is not of the substance of the sacrament, whether we receive in one kind or in two: it is in my judgement, even against all reason and testimony of antiquity, and the very nature of a sacrament. For the sacrament must needs consist of matter and form. The matter is the bread and wine (I speak of that which Irene calleth the earthly matter. 
Iren. li. 4. ca 34 ) To the form of this Sacrament belong these words, He broke bread, and gave them, and said: take, eat, 
Math. 26.26 27  this is my body. He took the cup, blessed and said, drink ye all of this etc. Yea and neither of these can be well omitted, but that thereby we are the less occasioned to meditate, of the efficacy of Christ's death & passion. For, as the breaking of the bread that it might be given to us, that our bodies might be nourished thereby, is a representation of Christ's body which was for us tormented: so the drinking of the cup is the representation of the shedding of Christ's blood for us. Moreover let us consider, what is that which they would have the material part or rather a substantial part in this sacrament. To receive the sacrament as appears by the censure of Collen, 
Expl. dialog. 9 expl. Theol. lib. 7.  and Andradius, but in what kind it is received is not material (say they:) Mark their boldness. In the institution there is not one word that willeth us in such general terms to receive the Eucharist or Sacrament, but express words to will us, to Take and eat the bread, and to drink of the cup: and yet that which God doth not mention, they will have to be of the substance of a sacrament: and that which is expressly set down in the word, they may choose whether they will do it, or not.  
But how doth Bellarmine prove, that the rite of communicating in on or two kinds, 
De Euch. li. 4. cap. ● 8.  belongeth not to the substance of the sacrament. The use of a thing (saith he) that is permanent, is not the substance of it: but, the communicating is the use of the sacrament, which sacrament is a thing permanent: Therefore the communicating in one or two kinds is not the substance of it. The whole force of this argument consisteth in that which is chief in question amongst us, that is, whether the sacrament is a thing permanent, or not. And we upon just cause deny it. And therefore his argument is a plain fallacy, called the begging of the thing that is in question, and can be no strong reason against us. By a thing permanent they understand, that the Eucharist is not only a Sacrament (as they say their other sacraments are, and as baptism is in respect of the use and receiving of it) but also that it being consecrated once to be a sacrament, continueth so to be, whether it be received or not. Which opinion they hold stiffly for the maintenance of their adoration, and carrying it about. For they teach it still to be a sacrament, howsoever they use it. Out of which absurd principle he gathereth this false and detestable doctrine, that they may change this point of Christ's institution, as they will.  
But we knowing, that the Sacraments are only helps for our infirmities, and instituted to supply our wants, and that the eating of the bodily food in the Sacrament, and so applying it to the nourishment of our our bodies, is that which representeth unto us most lively our receiving of Christ by a true faith, to the nourishment of our souls: detest and despise those captious and curious subtleties whereby the papists do seek to defend their wonderful boldness, in changing the very institution, and in breaking the express commandment of Christ. Wherein we have for our warrant, the word of Christ, which biddeth us eat and drink (and therefore it can not be but arrogant presumption for man to forbid that which Christ hath commanded, howsoever he will pretend, that it is not of the substance of the Sacrament.) We have also the practice in the primitive church, which is testified by Isichius, 
In Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8.  which used for to burn that which remained of the sacrament: Origen also reporteth the same. Which they would not have done, if they had thought as do the papists, that it had been transubstantiated into Christ's body, or else that it had been, as here they affirm, a sacrament, although it be not received as Christ commanded it should be.  
Seeing therefore these men that would seem pillars in the church of Christ, do pick quarrels at his ordinance, and make exception to his commandment, and all to writhe their necks out of his yoke, and to free themselves from his laws, like lewd servants, which will not frame themselves to do that which would best please their masters, but that only which they must be forced to do whether they will or not: let us now see how in the second point, they do seek to pervert the very decree itself that Christ set down concerning this matter, to make men believe, that he meant no such thing, as in truth he did.  
The second part of his assertion is, that it is not ordered by the word of God, what shall be done in that point. This is an intolerable boldness. Doth not our saviour Christ take order, as well for the cup, as for the bread? Doth not he that saith, Take, eat, say also, Drink ye all of this? If any man will answer as Bellarmine doth in one place, 
De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 27.  that they were not both given at one time, and therefore that properly to speak, the Supper of the Lord consisteth but of one kind, he should plainly declare, that he hath rather a desire to contend than to know the truth. For what is it to us how long time was between the one commandment and the other, so that we know, that both the one and the other is instituted of Christ. Yea the Apostle saint Paul very plainly telleth us, 
1. Cor. 11.  that the order both for the cup and the bread is delivered to him of the Lord, That which I received of the Lord, I delivered unto you. And then he showeth Christ's institution for the bread and also the cup. But with full mouth, and one consent they tell us, that that commandment belongeth to the Apostles only, and not to all the disciples. And yet saint Matthew saith, 
Math. 26.26  he gave it to his disciples. Yea, and Christ commandeth, Drink ye all of this: And hath not said concerning the bread, eat ye all of this (although we deny not, that every one having proved themselves should eat of it.) But seeing God hath given a more express commandment unto all for the cup, than for the bread, why should they rather restrain lay men from receiving the cup, than from the bread? Again, doth he not say to all them, Drink ye all of this, to whom before he said, Take eat? Yes verily, for the text is plain, both in the Evangelists and saint Paul. But the bread must be given to all, they confess, therefore why not the cup also? And that which saint Paul wrote concerning the use of the Sacrament, it is plain he wrote unto all the church of Corinth (not only by that place which Kemnitius allegeth, 
1. Cor. 1.2.  To all that call upon the name of the Lord, and that he writeth unto the church of Corinth, 
De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25.  which Bellarmine doth seek to answer, rather lest he should seem to say nothing, than that in truth, he saith any thing worth the setting down) but also by the punishment that followed the abuse of the sacrament. For this cause many are weak and feeble amongst you, and many sleep. Which came upon them, not that did eat of that bread only, but also that drunk of that cup unworthily. And it cannot be imagined, that either the ministers were so bad at that time so generally, that so many of them would have offended therein: or if the fault had been in them, the Apostle would more particularly have reproved them: neither were they then so many in one place, that it could have been truly said of them, that many are weak, and many sleep, or are dead. Therefore, whereas many were punished amongst the Corinthians for unworthily receiving both the bread and the cup, and this word (Many) cannot, as I have proved be there referred to their Teachers only, it followeth that this punishment was amongst the lay men, as well at the last, as amongst their ministers: and therefore that the lay men in the church of Corinth received the cup.  
And thus much of that wicked assertion, wherein they do affirm, that it is lawful for the church to alter this part of Christ's institution, and also to take away the cup.  
Now to a second, and as wicked a proposition as the other. Wherein they teach, that it is needless to be received in both kinds. And to prove this, Bellarmine taketh some pains in three whole chapters. 
De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 21, 22, 23  In the first two he showeth, that the whole sacrament may be received under one kind: and therefore in the last he teacheth, that no more good is to be gotten of the sacrament under both kinds, than under one. And although we can not allow of that concomitance, as it is termed, that is, that inseparable conjunction of the body and blood under either of the signs, which especially he proveth in the first chapter of those three, namely, the one and twentieth, that the whole substance of a sacrament is found in either kind, as he teacheth in the two and twentieth chapter: yet if we should grant those two points, that which master Bellarmine would conclude in the three and twentieth chapter can not follow. For what if Christ may be wholly received under one kind? Yet it should not follow, that under one as effectually he may be received, as under both. For, as before I showed, his death is more lively represented by the bread, and his bloudsheding by the wine. And that which more effectually representeth it, is more profitable than that which less representeth the same. And it is too much sauciness so to control the wisdom of God, that when he saith, Drink ye all of this, which is a plain commandment, any foolish man dare say: It is to no profit: it can do you no good. As for the causes that are alleged by Gerson and other, why the popish church thought good to take away the cup from the lay people, they are so foolish and frivolous, that a man would think rather that they jested, than spoke in earnest. But what cause soever man can pretend to alter that which Christ hath ordained, it doth but testify, that he thought not Christ wise enough to prevent such inconveniences, as he by his wisdom hath provided for.  
Seeing therefore the church cannot forbid that that God commandeth (whatsoever causes they will pretend, and if they might, yet the causes set down by the Romish church, either are blasphemous, or at the least frivolous) it is a sure way for us, rather to regard gods holy commandment, and follow the institution of our saviour Christ, than to follow any the devices of man. And when he commandeth, drink you all of this, it is a great sin, and dedeserueth God's wrath, for any man to answer, I will not receive the cup, because the Pope and the Popish church of late hath forbidden it.     

Against the sacrifice of the Mass, or of the Altar, as they call it. CHAP. 16  


THE PROTESTANTS  
Now to their gross absurdities, and manifest depraving of the institution of Christ, they add also their blasphemies, against the sacrifice of Christ jesus, which as he was once offered, 
Heb. 10.10.14  and by that one offering for sins, hath consecrated for ever them that are sanctified. 
Heb. 9.12.  And hath obtained eternal redemption for us: so we confess that by that one sacrifice he is the propitiation for our sins, 
1. john 2.2.  which he offered for us upon the cross, and cannot be daily offered by the Priest, without great wrong to Christ's eternal and only Priesthood, and without great presumption in that priest, that dare offer so excellent a sacrifice, neither without derogation to the virtue of his death.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of Rome teacheth, that in the Mass, the priest (a sinful man) doth offer up that most holy sacrifice jesus Christ unto God the father, a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead: yea, for the greatest sins that we commit. As for original sin, they confess, that Christ hath taken that away by his sacrifice, but our voluntary sins, which therefore also are more odious, must be taken away by this sacrifice, that the priest offereth upon the Altar: So have they turned the Sacrament into a sacrifice, Christ's holy ordinance into a blasphemous Idol, and all for their own gain, that the Priests might be hired to use this remedy for the sins of the people: this salve for all sores.   


De Missa. li. 1. cap. 6 Out of Goe 14.18  The first argument that Bellarmine hath for proof of this unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, is at large handled by Bellarmine: but the effect of it is this. The thing figured must be like to the figure: But Melchisedech, who was the figure, offered to God bread and wine, as a sacrifice: Therefore also must Christ offer his body in form of bread, 
Bell li. 1. ca 7. de Missa. Heb. 7.  and his blood in form of wine, for a sacrifice. First, his first proposition is not simply true, but only inasmuch as the one must be figured of the other. But in what things Melchisedech is a figure of Christ, none can better tell than the Apostle to the Hebrews, who fully handleth that matter, 
Col. cum Tryph. fol. 36  and yet doth not once mention this sacrifice. And therefore we may gather, that Melchisedech was no figure of Christ in that point: For if he was, then was not the Apostle faithful to omit so necessary a point. justin also hath a notable comparison of them, but he doth not touch that in one word. Secondly, a sacrifice must be offered: but this bread and wine was but brought forth for so doth their own translation testify. Thirdly, a sacrifice must be offered to God: this place mentioneth no such thing, and therefore most likely that it was brought to refresh Abraham, and his soldiers. Whereby we see, that Bellarmine's minor hath no truth in it, wherein he affirmeth that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God in sacrifice. Lastly, what a consequence is this: Melchisedech offered to God bread and wine in sacrifice: therefore Christ offered himself in form of bread and wine. Rather is this a strong argument to the contrary, if we should grant that he did offer the bread and wine to God, which hath no probability in it: But I say, if that should be granted, we might thus reason: The thing figured must be like to the figure: but Melchisedech who was the figure, offered but bread and wine, therefore Christ offered nothing else but bread and wine: and so maketh it nothing for that sacrifice, for which the Papists do allege it.  
As for his testimonies out of the fathers, for proof of Melchisedeches offering of bread and wine to God in sacrifice, because I purpose especially to go through his general arguments, I omit of purpose a particular examining of every place, only contenting myself with this general observation, that out of the testimonies alleged he can hardly conclude that which he taketh in hand to prove, because the fathers seem rather to allude many times unto that which he did, than so to allege his doing, as that they think any necessary argument for proof hereof, is to be gathered out of the same. And that may well be gathered out of Chrysostom upon this place, who saith thus: 
In Gen. hom. 3.  For the honour that he showed to the patriarch, see how a sacrament is insinuated: For he offered to him bread and wine. Mark (to him) that is, to Abraham, flat against that which they would. And this is most agreeable unto the history written by josephus, who by all likelihood knew best in his time how that story was then understood, 
Ant. li. 1. c. 18  he saith that Melchisedech gave great entertainment unto the soldiers of Abraham, And so chrysostom in the place alleged saith, Abraham brought forth loaves and wine. And thus doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it: So that if we rightly consider, not only what they say, but how they speak it, and upon what ground, to answer whatsoever he can bring out of the father's concerning this point, will not be hard.  
Argument. 2 The celebrating of the Passeover (saith Bellarmine) was an express figure of the Eucharist: 
de Missa. lib. 1. cap 7.  But, the Passeover was a kind of offering of a sacrifice to God: Therefore the Eucharist must so be. Master Bellarmine hath forgotten what he should prove: he must teach Christ to be in his last supper a sacrifice properly so called: but this argument proveth the Eucharist to be a kind of sacrifice.  
This argument, to be short, is thus answered: There were two things in the Passeover: The one was, the kill of it, by which was Christ's death represented unto us, as justine Martyr that ancient father teacheth, Dialog. cum Tryph. judaeo. The other was, the eating of it, by which was figured unto them that spiritual food of the soul Christ jesus, who was promised unto their fathers. And in this respect may it in some sort be called a figure of the Eucharist, because it represented unto them that thing, that the Eucharist representeth unto us. Therefore, if in the first proposition. Bellarmine meaneth by celebrating the Passeover, the eating of the Passeover, I grant it, but then is his minor or second proposition untrue: For the eating of it was not the kill of it, and so not a sacrifice. But if by the celebrating of the Passeover, he understand the kill of it, then is his mayor to be denied, because in the Eucharist is no killing, or shedding of blood. But on the contrary, a man may thus reason: The celebrating of the Passeover was not in every respect a figure of the Eucharist: For the Passeover must have the sprinkling of blood which might not be sprinkled but by the Priest only: as appeareth 2. Chron. 30.16. where that solemn keeping of the Passeover, by king Ezechiah is described: and 2. Chron. 35.11. where it is declared, how zealously josiah performed the same service. And in that respect only is it to be counted a Sacrifice: for that only belonged to the Priests to do, so as no other but the Priests might do it. All other things might be, and were performed by others: But the Eucharist they all with full mouth, confess to be unbloody: and therefore in this thing wherein only the Paschal Lamb may be accounted a sacrifice, it is no figure of the Eucharist: So the celebrating of the Passeover, even in that point wherein it is a sacrifice, doth nothing prove that sacrifice which the Romish church would teach in the Mass. And see how unnecessary an argument this is: In the celebrating of the Passeover, there was a bloody sacrifice: therefore in the Eucharist must be a bloody sacrifice. This consequence the Papists themselves will not grant: and yet it is as good and necessary as that of theirs. In celebrating of the Paschall Lamb there was a sacrifice: therefore in the Eucharist there must be a sacrifice. For this principle that master Bellarmine doth set down, That celebrating of the Passeover, was en express figure of the Eucharist: if it prove the Eucharist to have a sacrifice, it doth also prove it to have a bloody sacrifice: for otherwise the Lamb or Passeover was not an express figure of the Eucharist. If therefore the Papists will deny that it is a bloody sacrifice, why should we grant it to be a sacrifice, unless they can allege better reason than this that is taken from celebrating the Passeover. And thus much for the second argument.  
Argument. 3 The third argument that master Bellarmine bringeth, he sayeth he never read answer to it: and this it is, The blood of the old Testament, Exod. 24. 
Cap. 8.  was the blood of a sacrifice already slain and offered: therefore the blood of the new Testament is so: Answer But this blood of the new Testament is the blood of Christ, as himself faith, This is my blood: therefore he was the sacrifice offered up in the Supper. It is true, that when Moses said, This is the blood of the covenant that God hath made with you, the beast for sacrifice was already slain: but that it must needs be so in the blood of the new testament, there is no necessity, and therefore that argument must be denied. First, because master Bellarmine maketh the especial thing in this covenant to be, that the blood was shed before the words were spoken: whereas the principal part in deed is, that the covenant must be established by blood. And therein Moses directed them to Christ, in whose blood the covenant of grace is established with God's people. Which the Apostle to the Hebrews doth rightly consider of, 
Heb. 9.8.  and therefore looketh not to the time wherein the sacrifice was slain, but to the matter whereby the covenant was established. Secondly, the order which Mo● says doth use, and the Apostle observeth out of him as a very material point, is of us to be marked. For first, the covenant was made between God and the people, & then it was ra●●●● by the blood even so because Christ must needs make this covenant, and set down th● s h● s last will and Testament, therefore his blood 〈◊〉 must of necessity be after the 〈◊〉 of this his last will: so that although that blood of the 〈◊〉 Testament was 〈◊〉 before the words were spoken, yet it is not needful it should so be in the new Testament. Nay, it can not so be, because he must ma● e this con●●●● whilst yet he was ●●● e, and no other could make it for him. Then do he confirm 〈◊〉 by his blo●● shedding, which was afterwards upon the cross, whereof that blood of the old Testament was but a shadow. And thus I trust, just cause appeareth to deny his argument. And then that which followeth, that Christ therefore must be sacrificed in his last supper without 〈◊〉 further labour, falleth to the gr●●●●. As for the five sundry arguments alleged by him in the ●● th' Chapter of the aforesa● de book, 
 it is no mar●●●● though master Be●● armine make no great account of the same. For he cannot prove out of them, that Christ in h● s last supper did offer up his own body to God, 
● 〈◊〉 2 3●  and his blood, in form of breed and w●●●. His arguments are taken out of the story of Hely the 2. out of the Prover. 9.1 2 The third, out of Esay, 19, 21. The fourth out of Esay, 66. 21 ●● d jer. 33.17, 18 the fifth out of Dan. ●, 11, 12, and 12, 11 Read the places who so will, and it shall easily appear, that they serve not to prove that which Bellarmine would, and therefore I pass them over thus briefly.  

 But the might argument, the weight whereof well bear down all before it, is taken out of Malachy. I have no pleasure in you, 
 saith the Lord of hosts neither will I accept an offering at your hand For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down of the same, my name 〈◊〉 great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall 〈◊〉 offered unto my name, and a pure offering, for my name 〈◊〉 great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. Which place to be understood of a sacrifice properly so called, 〈◊〉 not of spiritual sacrifices, master Bellarmine will prove by sundry arguments: The first is drawn from the Hebrew word which the Prophet useth there, which master Bellarmine will not in any wise have to be used but for those sacrifices that are properly so called. And yet in this very book, a little before, 
Cap. ●  he confesseth that sacrifice that is called by the same name, to be But as a part, or as it were the s●●● ce of another sacrifice. And that answer did then, as he thought, serve his turn, to stop the mouth of Kemnitius. But, now he will have it, not only to be a sacrifice, but even a most proper sacrifice. But by that word, and 〈◊〉 that place we are taught, that the sacrifices of Christians shallbe the true sacrifices, not consisting only of outward show, but having that 〈◊〉 seasoning and true s●● ceritie, which through jesus Christ shallbe acceptable unto God. And that singleness of heart, was signified by that Mincha which was commanded to be offered by the people of God, with their daily sacrifices. Therefore the name proveth not strongly enough the sacrifice for which it is brought. His second argument is taken out of that word Clean sacrifices, wherein he striveth much to prove, 
How 〈◊〉 talked 〈◊〉  that our spiritual sacrifices of prayers, thanksgiving, yea, of ourselves and all ou● obedience, cannot be clean: Wherein although he saith truly of our works as they are in themselves considered, yet are they also called Clean: first, in respect of the fountain of regeneration from whence they proceed, in regard whereof, although they be not simpl● e clean, yet in comparison of the works of them that are secure in their wickedness they are clean. Secondly, because God accounteth them as clean for Christ's sake. Thirdly, in respect of that whereunto the works of the regenerate do tend: for though they cannot attain to perfection, yet do they firm for it. And 〈◊〉 this sort David confesseth, some may be Clean. 
Psa. ● 4. 3●.  Who shall climb up into the hall of the lord, or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath innocent hands, and a clean heart. To this Esay 
Esay 1.16 1. Tim. 2.8  exhorteth: Be you clean. And of this speaketh the Apostle Saint Paul, In every place lifting up pure hand, or clean hands. And if M. Bellarmine do not content himself with this cleanness, he will find that even the sacrifice of the Mass itself, for which he striveth so in this place, seeing the virtue thereof must somewhat depend upon the goodness and devotion of the Priest (as he saith) will not be found very clean, 
De Missa li. 1. cap. 4  because the sacrificer is many times very unclean. His third reason is taken out of the words that are in the beginning of the text alleged. Out of which he will prove that it must be a new sacrifice, and such as was not before: but our spiritual sacrifices have been always, therefore the Prophet cannot mean of our spiritual sacrifices. It will never be proved that the Prophet speaketh of such a sacrifice as never was. But the jews trusted too much in their external Sacrifices: yea, though they were not such as God commanded that they should be. But on the contrary, God telleth them, that even among the Gentiles whom they despised, thinking that no good could be amongst them, I say, among them should be offered, not such polluted and unclean things, as the Priests were content to take of the jews to offer to God, but a Clean offering: even such an offering as was the body of their shadows, the truth of their figures, and the substance of their ceremonies, in respect of him that brought the offering: that is, they should serve the Lord with a sincere and single heart. And this is the clean sacriffce that Malachi meaneth, which was acceptable always, and always shall be. Fourthly, Bellarmine imagineth, that God by Malachy setteth the contempt and dishonouring of God, done by the Levitical Priests against the honour that he shall have among the Gentiles. Be it so. What then: The jews (saith he) dishonoured God in a visible sacrifice, therefore the Gentiles also must honour him by a visible sacrifice: otherwise the dis● onor done by the jews, is greater than the honour done by the Gentiles: I deny his consequence: for, they dishonoured God but in a corner of the world, but the Gentiles worshipped him from the rising of the Sun, to the going down of the same: and herein standeth the force of the comparison, as by the words plainly appeareth. Fifthly, he supposeth that the Priests of the old law, are compared with the Priests in the Gospel, but there is no such matter, as the words declare. But to wring and force words, to see what may be gathered out of them, rather than to search what their true meaning is, doth bring but small credit to their cause, and weak proof to their doctrine. His last argument to prove this place of Malachi not to belong to a spiritual sacrifice, is out of the fathers, where, in my judgement he showeth his weakness, more than in his other reasons, or else a worse humour. For although that justinus Martyr whom he first allegeth, 
Col. cum Tryph. judaeo.  doth in truth affirm, and we deny it not, that Malachi sayeth that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, yet that he speaketh not of a sacrifice properly so called, Bellarmine must needs confess, except he speak against his own conscience, if he consider what he sayeth long after in that book: namely, that Every one that is called by the name of jesus Christ, are in deed made Priests to God, as God doth testify, saying: In every place clean and acceptable sacrifices shall be offered. Which sacrifices also what they are, he afterwards testifieth, prayers and thanks givings. What can be more plain? But this especially is to be remembered, that not Priests only, but every Christian doth by Justin's words, offer up these clean offerings, and therefore that he speaketh of spiritual sacrifices. Irene his second witness, maketh little for his purpose: for even immediately before the words whereby Bellarmine would prove the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, after the proper signification of the word, he showeth that God hath no delight in sacrifices or  offerings, but in Faith, obedience, and righteousness. And after, that he taught his disciples to offer to God the first fruits out of his creatures, 
Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32  not that he needed any thing, but that they should neither be unfruitful, nor unthankful. And so he took bread, and gave thanks, and eat, as is by Bellarmine alleged. Can any thing be more plain? He first showeth that God regardeth not those real sacrifices, that I may so term them: then he showeth, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. And as in the words alleged by Bellarmine, it is an offering of the first fruits of his gifts, 
Cap. 33.  that giveth us our nourishment, and in the next chapter he expoundeth the incense (so alleging the words of Malachi, In every place incense shallbe offered up) by that place of the apocalypse, 
Apoc. 5.8  that the incense was the prayer of the Saints: so we see that prayers and praises are the sacrifices that he speaketh of, & these are spiritual, and not real sacrifices. And as for Tertullian 
Tertul.  whom in the 3. place he bringeth forth: as he hath nothing for him in the place by him alleged, 
Tert. count Martion. li. 4  so yet he plainly expresseth in another place what he understandeth by that clean sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, 
Exam. Con. Trid. 2. part.  namely, Sincere prayer out of a pure conscience. Which place being alleged by Kemnitius against the council of Trent, Bellar. to shift it off, as boldly as untruly, he affirmeth that Tertul. doth not expound Malachies place, where he nameth the clean sacrifice, but where he nameth the incense. But the place of Tertullian plainly showeth the untruth of his answer: for Tertullian speaketh thus: In every place a sacrifice shall be offered in my name, and a clean sacrifice, even sincere prayer out of a pure heart. So that Tertullian did not so much as dream of any incense there: and it is so placed, that it must needs expound how he understandeth that clean sacrifice spoken of by Malachi. The next cometh in Cyprian, who saith, That the old sacrifice is abolished, and the new celebrated: and then (sayeth Bellarmine) he citeth this place of Malachi. 
Ad Quirin. lib. 1. ca 16 Esay 1.11.12 Psa. 50.14.15, 23  It is true: but first he citeth Esay, and the 13. verse of the 50. Psalm, or as he doth reckon it, of the 49. for rejecting of their external sacrifices, and then out of the same Psalm he teacheth, that prayer and praise are the true sacrifices: and also out of the 4. Psalm, 
Psal. 4.6  he speaketh of the sacrifice of righteousness. And then followeth that of Malachi. whereby it is most manifest, that Cyprian understandeth by the sacrifice mentioned in Malachi, no other than that which out of the Psalms he learned. And in all these places, Bellarmine's evil dealing is notorious: For he will not so much as see the words that are before his eyes, but only picketh out that which he thinketh serveth for the establishing of his error, and concealeth that which would give light to the truth. And it were too tedious to answer to every testimony, especially seeing that which hath been said of the places before alleged, doth sufficiently testify what was the judgement of the ancient fathers concerning this place of Malachi now in question: I will therefore return to his general arguments.  
Argument. 5 Master Bellarmine his fift principal argument, 
joh. 4.21.23  is taken out of saint john, where he showeth that the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and truth: but this worship must needs be (saith he) the offering of sacrifices propely so called: Therefore the true worshippers in the days of Christ shall offer these sacrifices properly so called. 
In john Hom. 32  But Chrysost. upon that place can find no such sacrifices, but expoundeth this place by the 12. to the Romans, of our spiritual sacrifices, with whom also Theoph. seemeth to agree. 
In. john Tract. 15.  And S. August. thinketh not that this kind of worshipping needeth to be performed in any material temple, but that ourselves are Gods temple, yea, and that his holy temple, and therefore that this worship must be in ourselves, & therefore spiritual. Hitherto have we heard some reasons to prove in the Eucharist that there is a sacrifice properly so called, gathered partly of the figures of the old law, of the which I may truly complain, 
De unit. Eccl, cap. 19  as S. August. did of the Donatists: You stay (saith he) upon those dark points, lest you should be forced to grant that which is plain: or else forced out of some other doubtful sentences, whereof also with the same father, against the same heretics, I may say, Allege something that needeth no interpreter, 
Cap. 16  that cannot be proved to be spoken of some other thing, and you endeavour to draw it to your own meaning. And therefore, out of such uncertain allegations a certain conclusion cannot be gathered. But now let us see what is alleged out of the very institution itself: for if any thing worth hearing can be brought out of it, it must needs be forcible. Therefore thus he reasoneth: Argument 6 
Bel. de missa li: 1 ca 12.  Christ in his last supper offered himself under the form of bread & wine to God the father, and commanded that to be done of the Apostles, and their successors to the end of the world: But this is to offer a sacrifice, properly and truly so called, and to institute that it should be offered: Therefore the Eucharist is a sacrifice properly so called. For the mayor in this argument, whereof all the doubt is, it is a plain fallacy: for he beggeth to have that confessed that is denied, & to have that granted that is in question. For if he could prove that Christ did offer himself in his last supper to God the father, we would easily confess it to be a sacrifice true and proper. So that on the contrary, I may as well reason thus: Christ commanded nothing to be done, but that which himself did in his last supper: but himself did not sacrifice: and therefore he commanded no sacrifice in the last supper. Well, his first proof of this untrue proposition, is that which he hath said of Melchisedech, the paschal Lamb, & the blood of the covenant, of which I trust I have spoken sufficiently, in the judgement of any indifferent man, in my answer to his 3. first principal arguments. 
Luke 22.19 20 1 Cor. 11.24  His second reason is this: These words, Is given, is broken, is shed, which are words of the present time, do signify that he was given, broken, & shed unto god for a sacrifice. M. Bellar. seemeth to me to be hopshakled, that he cannot well step forward. He hath taken upon him to prove out of these words, that christ offered his body in his supper to his father for a sacrifice: & how doth he prove it? because the words show that he is given, broken and shed for a sacrifice to God: is not this a good leap, think you? And yet his proposition that he should prove, and his reason whereby he doth it, are all one. But if he stand upon these words, Is given, broken, and shed, therefore it is an act that then was done, and therefore done in the Supper: what will he say to their own translation, which translateth, Shall be shed, in Matthew and Mark, and Luke also, and also of the bread, This is my body, which shallbe given for you. It seemeth when that translation was first set forth, that piece of scripture was not so taken as it is now: but that those words of the supper, 
Math. 26.28 mar. 14.24 luk. 22.20 1. cor. 11.24  were taken for a promise of that which Christ performed the next day, as in truth they were. I but master Bellarmine telleth us, that all these readings are good, because there may be a good reason of either of them. I confess that to be true: and therefore M. Beauties reason is not strong, whose force hangeth upon these words only, which may well be translated otherwise. But by the way, what if I should thus reason? A representative sacrifice is not a protiatorie sacrifice: but Christ's sacrifice that in his supper he offered unto God, was representative, saith Bellarm. in this place, therefore not propitiatory, and much less than is the Mass a propitiatory sacrifice: Neither do I see to what end Christ should represent to God the shedding of his blood, which should be afterwards upon the cross, although M. Bellar doth say it: because he is loath to tell the true reason (which I have already touched) why their common Latin translation did not precisely follow the Greek in translating of these words, shallbe given, broken, shed. His third reason out of the words of the institution. to prove his sacrifice, is as strong as the second, and is this: Breaking cannot be spoken well of the body, and in this place (which is broken for you) cannot be true of the bread, for the bread is not broken for us: therefore it must be understood of Christ's body in form of bread. In this argument M. Bellarmine rejecteth their vulgar translation which sometime he and his fellows do highly extol, for, that saith, which shallbe delivered. And so do chrysostom, Jerome, Primatius, Theophilact, yea, and Thomas of Aquine also, all of them expounding these very words. 
Epist. 3  And Cyprian in his second book of Epistles: and so do our English Remists translate it likewise. Al whose translations do sufficiently prove, that they espied not any such mystery in that word, is broken, but that they were bold to deliver the very true sense of it, shallbe delivered, to signify that the body of Christ should suffer the torments upon the cross, which S. Paul did express by the word of breaking. And in that respect doth Thomas of Aquine (who would feign have the Eucharist to be a sacrifice) say it is a Representative sacrifice of Christ's passion, 
1. Cor. 11. lect. 5.  by which passion he gave his body to death for us. But whereas Tho. and after him M. Bellarmine would make their Eucharist a representative sacrifice: read and peruse who so will the words of the institution, it will not be found that our Saviour Christ did offer in his last supper any sacrifice to God, but only spoke to the Apostles instructing them in the use of the sacrament which then he instituted. As for that he reasoneth out of the words of S. Luke because he seemeth to speak of the shedding of the cup, not of the blood: Matthew and Mark 
Mat. 26.28. Mar. 14.24.  make the matter more plain, and tell us that the blood of Christ is shed. Doth not this wring & wresting of scriptures, to force them from their true and natural sense, to serve their turn, manifestly argue that it must needs be a weak tottering building, that is raised upon so bad foundations? and that it is but for want of better proof, that they are feign to scrape together such poor helps? The second argument of M. Bellarmine's, to prove a sacrifice by the institution, is this in effect, Christ's body & blood are received in the Eucharist, therefore they cannot but be sacrificed. Which argument for us to deny, it is sufficient, seeing that M. Bellarmine himself seemeth to enforce this only against them that confess a real presence in, with, & under the bread, and yet deny the sacrifice. But whereas Kemnitius requireth in a sacrifice 4. properties, whereof he wanteth 3. in the Eucharist, M. Bellar. can find them al. First the persons that should sacrifice are the priests, who are willed to sacrifice in these words (if ye will trust Bellar.) Do this. Who would ever have gathered thus, that had eyes to look upon the words of the institution? You must Do this: ergo you must sacrifice? Yea, Bellar. seemeth in the beginning almost of this chapter, to be half ashamed of this argument, and blameth calvin and Kemnitius, because they say that with the papists in that place, & those words, To do, is to sacrifice, and therefore it needeth no farther answer. But for the act of sacrificing: it troubleth Bellarmine to find it out, neither knoweth he how to distinguish between that act, I mean the sacrifice which Christ offered saith he. and other actions in the supper. And yet master Bellarmine is sure, that such a thing there is there, but where to find it he cannot tell. Is this (think you) good dealing for them that should be good guides unto others, to take upon them to lead men they know not whether themselves? The words for a sacrament are very plain, but if you would follow with a bloodhound, you can never find a sacrifice out of those words. As for the testimonies that master Bellarmine allegeth out of the fathers, they shall have this answer. The Eucharist is in sundry respects called a sacrifice, 
A sacrifice.  of the fathers, not only because therein we offer the sacrifices of prayers, and thanks givings, and duties of love, but also, and that especially, because it is a memorial of the true sacrifice which Christ offered for us upon the cross: Therefore it is not enough for M. Bellar. to bring them in, saying, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, which we deny not, but that it is a sacrifice properly so called, which the papists affirm, but cannot prove.  
Argument. 7 His 7. general argument needeth no answer for it is so weak, that every child may see the fault of it. For out of those words, 
Act. 13.2.  As they ministered unto the Lord (speaking of Paul & Barnabas & others) ministering seemeth to be, or may be taken for sacrificing: ergo it is taken there for sacrificing, saith M. Bellar. judas seemed to be a true servant of Christ but was not. 
Lib. 1. de M● ssa. ca 13.  And the very children do know that it is no good argument to say, such a thing may be, therefore it is so.  
Argument 8 
Rhem. Test. De missa li. 1 cap. 14  But in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinth's, which the Papists make their strong bulwark, master Bellarmine findeth three arguments. His first argument is this, Every altar which in deed is an altar, is builded for offering of sacrifices: But the Lord's table after a sort is an altar: therefore it is for offering of sacrifices. We will not strive with master Bellarmine much for this point: for we will confess that such sacrifices are offered upon the altar, as master Bellarmine confesseth the altar to be. The lords table (saith he) is a kind of altar, or an altar after a sort: So we say, that sacrifices after a sort, namely spiritual sacrifices, are offered thereupon. His second reason out of this place, is a loud lie: For thus he saith: For the Apostle speaketh plainly, that we that are faithful, do so receive the body and blood of the Lord, at the table of the Lord, as the jews their sacrifices, or the Gentiles their meats offered to Idols, on their altars or tables. And because he cannot prove this to be true, you must trust him of his own word, for he bringeth no proof at all. Let the indifferent reader peruse the place, and mark his false dealing with it. The words cited by him, begin at the 14. verse of that Chapter, and continue unto the 22. the sum whereof is this, as they that consider the place may see: As by participating at the Lords table, you are made partakers of Christ, and joined together, amongst yourselves in one body, verse 16, 17: so by participating at the table of Idols, you are made partakers of them, and joined in fellowship with the Idolaters. But that which he telleth us, is so plain in these words, cannot be gathered out of them. And this also is a sufficient answer to his third argument that he wringeth out of these words. Whereby he will force Saint Paul whether he will or not, to find out an offering in the Eucharist, because he saith, they that eat the offerings, are partakers of the altar. Out of which place, as he cannot probably conclude any thing to prove a sacrifice in the eucharist, so he plainly proclaimeth, that if it should be proved, that their mass were a sacrifice, yet the priest only is the better for it, because the priest only eateth up all. For, They that eat the offerings, are partakers of the Altar.  
The second sort of proofs which Bellarmine promised, is gathered out of the fathers. 
Lib. 1. de missa cap. 6.  And the first argument of that sort, is drawn from the words of sacrifice, sacrificing, offering, oblation and such like. 
Chap. 15.  Why the father's use thus to speak of the Eucharist, I have showed a little before in the answer to his sixth argument. But now master Bellarmine proveth, that a sacrifice may be both commemorative, and represent an other thing, as did the sacrifices in the Levitical law, and also be a true sacrifice indeed, which is most true: and thereupon concludeth, that this sacrifice representative in the eucharist is also a true sacrifice. But this his argument hath no necessary consequence: for, the Levitical sacrifice must needs be a sacrifice truly so called, that by the death of the beast offered up, and by the shedding of that blood, the death & blodshedding of Christ, might be the more lively represented to the faithful, and more constantly believed of them, which thing being in truth performed, and Christ jesus the true sacrifice indeed being offered, 
Heb. 10.26  There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin  
Moreover, in those sacrifices, that they might be known to be sacrifices instituted and appointed of God, we see how the thing sacrificed, the manner of sacrificing, and all the circumstances are plainly set down and commanded by God: And on the contrary, in this sacrifice which they seek to maintain, all things are obscure: not so much as a probable show of any commandment, or of any institution of a sacrifice: Therefore the jewish sacrifice can be no proof for the sacrifice of the mass. Secondly, he will prove, that in the eucharist, is not only a representative sacrifice, because the fathers speak sometimes of oblations and sacrifices in the plural number, and therefore there are more sacrifices than that one representative: but he taketh more pains than he needeth, for we teach that besides the representation of Christ's sacrifice, we offer in the Eucharist the sacrifices of prayers, praises, and such like spiritual oblations.  
Thirdly, baptism, saith he, is a sacrament representing Christ's death, but is not called of any of the fathers, a sacrifice offered to God: therefore the only representation of Christ's death and bloodshedding cannot make the Eucharist be called a sacrifice. For baptism, it representeth unto us the efficacy and virtue of Christ's death, rather than the death itself: So that there is great difference between these two sacraments. For the sacrament of the Lords supper representeth the sacrifice itself which he upon the cross did offer, even the tormenting and mangling of his body, & the shedding of his blood. So that there is much more cause why the Eucharist should be called a sacrifice, than baptism. Fourthly, M. Bellarmine imagineth, that if it were not indeed a very proper sacrifice, we might in the Eucharist say to God truly, I offer to thee this gift, accept Lord this sacrifice. And moreover he chargeth us that we do wholly abstain from such words, and greatly reprove them for using of them. And yet in one short prayer used after the receiving of the communion with us, we pray thus, Accept this our sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving. And after, We offer and present unto thee o Lord ourselves, our souls & bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, & lively sacrifice to thee. Which words do not only answer the slander wherewith he unjustly chargeth our churches, but also showeth that well we may use those words, I offer to thee this gift, accept Lord this sacrifice, although we take not upon us to offer Christ really in the Eucharist. As for the hyperbolical speeches, which the father's use sometimes, which is his first reason, we learn thereby rather with how reverent an affection we should come to these sacraments, than what we should think the things themselves to be. For how can it else be true that Bellarmine himself out of the Greek fathers allegeth, that they call it a sacrifice terrible and full of horror, which cannot be properly verified of the sacrifice propitiatory which they would have it to be, for that must needs be sweet and comfortable unto us: in it is only grace and mercy, no horror, no terror.  
Lastly, because the fathers acknowledge in this sacrifice of the Eucharist, that there is that honour performed, which is due to God only, therefore would master Bellarmine conclude, that it must needs be more than a sacrifice of representation. And we do easily yield unto him, that it is also called a sacrifice, of the fathers, yea & of us also, in respect of the spiritual sacrifices therein offered. And this yet must be noted, that properly to speak of the Eucharist, it is but a sacrament: But in the respects aforesaid, 
De missa li. 1. cap. 16.  it is sometime called, yet unproperly a sacrifice. But saith master Bellarmine, the fathers make mention of an altar: therefore they also prove thereby that the Eucharist is a sacrifice: for there is no Altar, but in respect of a real sacrifice.  
But the first altars were but tables of wood, not altars of stone, such as are now for the popish sacrifice, in these days commanded: and these altars of word they carried about from place to place, as occasion served: and therefore, although the names of altars be found in the most ancient fathers almost that are, yet popish altars are not thereby proved, neither were there any altars of stone before the time of Silvester, who lived more than three hundred years after Christ: For he first commanded that stone altars should be made, as their friend Gerson writeth: And therefore as they call it sometime an altar, so sometime they call it a Table, 
Lib. 4. cont. Floratum. De consecrat. dist. 1. cap. Nemo  as doth Clement, who they say was one of the first bishops of Rome, he twice within few words mentioneth the Lord's Table. If therefore it be a good argument thus to reason: The fathers do sometime mention an altar for the eucharist: therefore they thought it was a sacrifice, for there needeth no altar but for a sacrifice. I am sure this is as good an argument: Sometime they speak of a table for the eucharist as out of Athanasius, Theodoret, Augustine, this Clement, and others, is most plain: and therefore they thought it not to be a sacrifice, for, there is no sacrifice upon a table, but only upon an altar.  

De missa lib. 1. cap. 17.  Yet master Bellarmine roveth again with his uncertain proofs. The fathers (saith he) speak of priests, therefore they will have a sacrifice in the eucharist. And why may not the fathers understand priests as we do in our book of making of ministers, and in our book of common prayer, who succeed in the public ministry in the church the priests of Levi, 
Levit. 10.11. Deut. 17.5. mal. 2.7.  not in sacrificing, for the sacrifices are ended, but in teaching: for that was also the priest's office, and is now the office of them that we sometime call priests. And yet we, although we use the name, do not allow that popish sacrifice, which Bellarmine would have. And why then should this be holden for a good argument: The fathers speak sometimes of priests: Therefore the eucharist is a real sacrifice, or a sacrifice after the proper signification of that word. As for that which he hath in the eighteenth chapter of that his first book of the mass, is almost all one with that which he said in the fifteenth chapter, and therefore it is answered before. But his last proof, 
Chap. 19  whereby he will out of the fathers prove a sacrifice, is, as himself saith, unanswerable, unless we do utterly reject the fathers. The fathers desire not to be credited against the truth. They were men, they might err. Only God's word is perfectly true. And therefore, as we do them no wrong, to try and examine their doctrine by that rule and square that cannot deceive: 
How the fathers are to be received.  so if it be not agreeable to that word of truth, we must rather confess all men to be liars, than serve one jot from that perfect way. And therefore it is not absurd, if we leave the fathers, when they go without their guide of Gods written word, or speak without their warrant of God's infallible truth. So that although we are content, to show how the fathers wrested by them, either must or may be understood, that by that means we may pull from them that vizard of antiquity & consent of fathers, wherewith they cloak and colour their dangerous and deceitful heresies, yet we receive the fathers but as men, and therefore no masters to give us new laws, but yet men of excellent gifts in their time, and always worthy of much reverence and honour. But yet this is not a good argument: The fathers have somctime written this, or have done this: Therefore it is true, or it is good. But let us view his unanswerable argument: If the eucharist were not a sacrifice, the fathers would not have offered the same, for peace, safety, and sundry such things: but they did: therefore it is a sacrifice. Mark how he proveth that they did offer the eucharist for such things. He first allegeth chrysostom in his homilies to the people of Antioch, 
Hom. 79. Hom. 7●.  and then also upon Matthew, most notably belying that father, as though he spoke thereof the sacrifice in the eucharist, whereas the first whole Homily is altogether of prayer, and chrysostom there showeth, that they pray in deed for the whole world, and for sundry persons: but of standing at the altar, not a word: And therefore master Bellarmine belieth that father. And in the second place, We pray first for them that are possessed, the second, for the penitent, etc. Is this good dealing to avouch, that that ancient father saith in those places, that the Eucharist was offered for such things. Other falsifications of these very places I omit, as not much material.  
When I heard his great crack, I imagined this shot would have made a great breach, but it is like to do no hurt at all. Then, for that which he allegeth out of same Augustine, that the Eucharist was offered by one for freeing a certain house from evil spirits. 
De civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8.  It is true that he reporteth such a thing, and addeth, That he prayed as earnestly as he could, that that vexation might cease. First, it is not saint Augustine himself that doth this, but another: and this fact is not either commended or allowed to be well done of saint Augustine. But they will answer, The evil spirits left the house: And therefore the event proveth the fact to be good. Not so: but it is an argument of God's might and mercy, that can and will by evil, or the abuse of good means, bring to pass good things. Secondly, it may justly be doubted, whether saint Augustine did impute this effect unto that sacrifice that he speaketh of, or the earnest prayers that were made for it. Yea it seemeth rather that he imputeth it unto the sacrifice of prayer, than any other sacrifice.  
Moreover it seemeth, that as in the days of saint Paul there were that were baptised over the dead, either to declare their hope of the resurrection, or to testify their dying unto sin, or for such other considerations: so in these days of S. Augustine, some, upon such occasions would celebrate the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, by that assurance and pledge of God's love, to stir up and confirm their faith, that with more earnestness and faith they might crave God's help. But if master Bellarmine would have this to be a catholic doctrine, that hath but one or few examples, he will have Vincentius Lirinensis flat contrary to him. 
Confess. li. 9 cap. 12.  So that also that is alleged of the oblation for his mother: it can not be denied, that there were at that time some such abuses creeping into the church of God, concerning that charitable superstition, that I may so term it, of prayer for the dead, of the which some had good liking, some liked not. But out of them it is hard to establish a strange doctrine in God's church, and such as God's word is not acquainted withal. But even by that book of S. Augustine it is plain, and namely by the next chapter to the place alleged, that S. Augustine did not once think of any propitiatory sacrifice that was in the mass. And I would also desire the indifferent Reader to judge how little such matters savour of the majesty of that spirit, which is seen in the scriptures. Bellarmine's last sort of arguments are drawn from reason: The first is grounded upon this principle, 
De missa lib. 1. cap. 20.  there is no religion without an external sacrifice: which is most false, for God when he seethe his people to whom he commanded those external sacrifices, to repose themselves too much upon them, doth not only reject those sacrifices which himself appointed, but also teacheth wherein true religion consists, Isa 1.15, 16. and Mich. 6.8. Yea, mark the whole scriptures & it will appear, that faith & obedience are the especial things that god requireth of us, & that the sacrifices directed thereto. His second argument taken from reason is this: The jews had such sacrifices: therefore we must have them. 
Chap. 21.  If this argument be denied, he can never prove it. For the jews had those ceremonies and rudiments of the world, because they were in their nonage, 
Galat. 4.3.  and Christ was not yet come, and so the revelation of Christ, was not then so plain as now it is: therefore they needed those things, but we do not. And moreover, if these sacrifices were so necessary as they affirm them to be, as that there is no religion without them, & of necessity we must have them, than were the Apostles too blame, who giving direction to the Gentiles what were necessary for them, 
Acts 15.19.20.  never warned them of this external sacrifice. For seeing there was not any such thing plainly set down in the word of God, it was needful that it should have been signified to them, if any such thing had been thought necessary. But Bellarm. thus proveth his argument: God hath not abolished all things in his law, as he hath not taken away the commandments: therefore he hath not abolished the ceremonial law.  
I would master Bellarmine would have taken some pains to show what part of the ceremonial law is continued. But he telleth us the sacraments are not taken away, they are but changed: so the sacrifices must be but changed, not taken away. When he showeth what commission he hath to tell God what he must do, we will regard his words, but until that be showed, he must give us leave, to acknowledge all these things in Christ to be performed, especially seeing the word telleth us not of any commandment to change it, or when, how, or into what it should be changed. But I am loath to confute his gross assertions, and reasonless reasons, whereby he seeketh to keep us still in bondage to external things. One or two arguments more he hath, the one grounded upon such differences as themselves have devised, between a sacrament and a sacrifice, the other is the general consent of the church throughout the world: the first is somewhat touched in the fifteenth chapter, the other is the thing that is in question, whether the true church have acknowledged it to be a sacrifice, truly so called, and properly.  
Now to conclude, seeing in the institution of this sacrament, there is not any sacrifice prescribed as the words do teach us, neither can it be proved by the scriptures, neither can we find any such doctrine universally received of the fathers in the purer age of the church: Lastly, seeing the arguments that are brought for defence of it, are so hard and obscure, so forced and wrested, as they are both from the scriptures & the fathers: let us rest upon this foundation, 
Heb. 9.28. Heb. 10.12  that Christ was once offered, to take away the sins of many: Once, I say, and not often, and that being done, He sitteth for ever at the right hand of God. So that either they must deny him to have a natural body, but so deified, that it may be in many places at one time, as Nestorius the heretic taught: or that he sitteth not on God's right hand, against that which in our creed we acknowledge: or that he hath two bodies, the one in glory and majesty, with God in heaven, the other shrouded under a little cake, the one visible in heaven, the other invisible in the earth, or else they must confess, that he cannot be changed into that little piece of bread, that he may so be offered up to God his father, for a sacrifice in the Eucharist.     

Of true and Christian Repentance, and of the Popish sacrament of Penance. CHAP. 17.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
WE willingly confess and carefully teach repentance, that consists of the mortification of the flesh, & the quickening of the spirit, of dying, to, or from sin, & living to righteousness, of putting off the old man, the body of sin, and putting on the new man, which after God is created in holiness and righteousness, to be most necessary for every christian man and woman, always, and earnestly to follow and practise. And whilst we must walk here in this wicked world, where we meet with many stumbling blocks, whereat we stumble, and many pits into the which we fall. It is impossible we should go on forward to the end of our journey, unless by true repentance proceeding from a lively faith, & a true sense and feeling of God's wrath against sin, and a hearty detestation of our own unthankfulness, to our good and gracious god, we be raised up again to walk in his ways, & to live in his true fear. So that we find it to be true that Tertull. saith, We are borne only to repentance. We stand always so much in need thereof through sin.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Papists not content with this plain and pure doctrine, to purchase estimation and gain to the Popish priesthood, have devised a sacrament of penance, whose parts are contrition 
Contrition  (which we make one part of true repentance) Confession, 
Confession.  not to God, but in the ears of the priest, of all thy sins, which hath not any warrant at all in the word, and satisfaction, 
Satisfaction.  which is nothing else but a blasphemous wrong, unto that satisfaction that is made unto God by Christ his death. Of the which three parts of Popish penance, Confession must be made unto the priest, and Satisfaction must by the Priest be enjoined after Confession or shrift. By which means: they did bring into miserable bondage, them, whose faults they knew, and that they might by masses & i● entals and such other devices of man, help them to satisfy for their sins, they got no small gain. And from these two fountains pride and greediness did spring this their sacrament of popish penance.   

Of arguments whereby they defend this their sacrament of penance they have no great store, and those they allege, have no great strength. Their especial, and in a manner only place that they allege out of the scripture, is, wherein it is said, 
joh. 20.22, 23  that Christ did breath upon his disciples, and said to them, Receive the holy ghost, whose sins you remit, they are remitted to them, whose-soever sins you retain, they are retained. For upon this place doth the council of Trent especially rely for this their doctrine, 
〈◊〉 ● 4. ca 5.  as do also their other writers. Belike this place is very pregnant and plain for their purpose, or else their cause is built upon a weak foundation. Let us therefore view the strength of this place, for proof thereof for the which it is brought. This text must pro●●● th●● p●●●●● is a sacrament properly so called, for to this and it is alleged by Bellarmine. But how it is proved, 
De 〈◊〉 te●●●  let the indifferent Reader judge. And first, if we consider the expositions of the ancient Fathers of the purer times, we shall see that they never gathered out of these words such a sacrament. Read and search who will the commentaries and expositions of the most ancient Fathers, Cyril, chrysostom, Augustine, Theophilact, and others, they shall not find that any of them have out of this place taught the sacrament of penance. The words themselves teach us, that God hath given unto his church authority and power to preach forgiveness of sins, to them that are of a contrite and broken heart, and the danger of sin to the impenitent, as Peter Lombard himself one of the first establishers of this Popish sacrament confesseth, saying, that God hath given to the Priest's power To bind and loose, that is, 
Lib. 4. dist. 18 Non a● tem.  to show that they are bound or loosed. Which is agreeable to that that S. Luke of our saviour Christ saith, 
Luc. 24.47.  that repentance and remission of sins, should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at jerusalem. As for any particular reckoning up of sins, which they call Confession auricular or forift in the ear of the Priest, without which secret Confession, saith Andradius. 
Orthod. e●plic. lib. 8. pag. 658.  This divine sacrament could not long have been kept: or as for Satisfaction that should be wrought for our sins by us or our means, these things can not be gathered out of the words alleged. Nay, if that authority committed to the ministry whereof saint Matthew and S. john speak, be to be expounded by the words of saint Luke, 
Mat●. 16.19 joh. 20.23.  as I have showed that Peter Lombard doth, Popish shrift and satisfaction are quite overthrown thereby, seeing that this losing is the preaching of the forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ, that is, not for any Satisfaction that we can make, but in respect of that Satisfaction that Christ hath wrought. It is therefore a wonder to see how boldly and confidently out of this Text they will avouch, that out of these words are plainly proved the acts of the absolved, 
Bellar. de penitent. lib. 1. ca 10.  that is Confession, and Satisfaction, which must needs be in him that is loosed to be from his sins. Is this to preach forgiveness in the name of Christ? Secondly, I find not in the primitive church any such doctrine of that their sacrament of penance, as now is taught. Indeed they required Confession, but especially to God, as throughout the ancient fathers we may see, and namely in Tertullian his book of repentance, which is by the Papists violently drawn in to be a witness for them, but can say nothing that will do them good in this cause.  
And although the fathers do also sometime allow of Confession to man, and that privately: yet did they never teach such necessity thereof, as that without it sins might not be forgiven, or that the mortal sins (for those only must be reckoned in Christ) cannot be forgiven, unless the Priest have them declared unto him. Mark the writings of the Fathers, how far unlike they are to the books of our Popish Clergy, and Romish writers in our days. Tertullian, Anibrose, Augustine, and others, have made whole books of this title De paenitentia, of penance, or repentance. chrysostom also hath made of that matter eleven Homilies: yet out of these ancient fathers this Popish doctrine of the sacrament of Penance cannot be proved, but that the teachers thereof, are forced here and there to get some pieces of sentences to make some show of proof. And this very shadow of proof is good enough to deceive the ignorant and such as delight in darkness, as the likeness of men made of stone or other stuff, set upon the tops of castles and holds, make the enemy in the night afraid, for they think they are all men in deed, which in the day when they may be viewed, do easily show what they are, namely stocks or stones. If Saint Ambrose had known any such Sacrament, might not he, writing two books of that matter, I mean of repentance, especially against the Novatians who denied unto such as offended after baptism, any hope of pardon, although they repent, might not he (I say) have had from that sacrament of the church, if the church had then known any such sacrament, a strong and unanswerable argument against Novatus or his followers, for denying a Sacrament of the church? yes verily. But he used no such argument, because there was not then any such Sacrament. Nay, the matter was not agreed upon many hundredth years after Saint Ambrose his time. For, as it appeareth by Gratian, 
de poen. dist. 1. c. quamuis.  who lived about the year one thousand one hundred and fifty, the matter was not then agreed upon, but there were many and diverse opinions, whether confession and satisfaction were necessary for this Sacrament, some affirming, others denying it, and Gratian saith that on both opinions there were wise and godly men, and therefore he leaveth it indifferent. Which could not have been, if that their Sacrament of penance, had before been perfected. Therefore as Andradius doth truly gather out of that history of auricular confession banished out of the Church of Constantinople by Nectarius, 
Orthod. expl. li. 8. pag. 663.  for a villainy committed by him that was appointed to hear confessions, that therefore they were used of old, (although most falsely he teacheth that it began with the christian church: and as untruly apply it against Kemnitius, who denieth not but secret confession hath of old been used, but not, as in the popish church) so if it were a thing to be forbidden by man, we may boldly say, it was not ordained by God: but by man it was abolished, as appeareth by the ecclesiastical history.  
And whereas Andradius saith, 
Socrat li. 5. cap. 19  that the sacrament of penance began wi● h the christian church, Socrates in that place is directly against him, who telleth us that it began after Novatus his heresy was published, which was about the year of our Lord 220. For because the Novatians would not communicate with them that denied their profession in the persecution raised by Decius, the bishops therefore agreed amongst themselves, and appointed some one to whom they might acknowledge their sins. So that here we see against Andradius, that that confession which being viewed is not like the popish shrift, is more than 200 hundred years younger than the Christian church. Moreover, as of all other sacraments, so of this also the papists teach that it doth give grace, and work that grace that it doth signify, 
Bellar. li. 1. de paenit. cap. 10.  which grace is then when the outward sign is used, powered by God into them that receive the said sign. In which respect, as I take it, is that gross absurdity set down by Roffensis, 
Artic. 10. cont. Lutherum.  That a sinner cometh oftentimes with faith, and without grace to the sacrament, who assoon as he hath received the sacrament both he and his faith by grace are quickened. To say nothing of this popish paradox and far from all true taste of christian divinity (that a man may have faith and no grace, whereas in truth faith is God's gift and that of his especial grace) we see what virtue the papists do attribute unto this sacrament, as they do call it, and yet Peter Lombard their own friend, 
Li. sentent. 4. dist. 18. Levit. 13.  (out of the priests office concerning lepers, who did only judge whether they were clean or foul, but he could not make them lepers or not lepers, doth appoint also those limits unto the priests concerning binding or losing, or rather showeth, that such is their authority, not that they can make any sinners, or void of sin, (which lesson he learned out of Hierom) but only to judge whether they were sinners or not. 
upon Matth. 16  By which he learneth, and plainly saith even in this cause, that God doth not always follow the judgement of the church: And therefore god doth not always bind or loose, as the church doth in her consistory. Is not this flatly to deny unto this their sacrament, that working virtue and power which the papists give to it? Or rather is not this to deny it to be a sacrament, seeing it is denied not only by Saint Hierom, but also by a dear friend of theirs Peter Lombard, that it hath such virtue as they ascribe to their Sacraments? And here their answer of the unworthiness of him that receiveth this Sacrament, whereby he hindereth this work of the Sacrament, will not serve. For we see that the judgement of the church by their opinion doth only show what men are, and according to it doth bind or loose, but it doth not make them good or bad. And therefore chrysostom in an homily of repentance, 
Hom. 8. ad populum Antioch.  Trust not (saith he) unto thy repentance, for thy repentance is not able to take away so great sins. Now therefore we see, that nei●● oer the testimony of the fathers, in their commentaries upon this place, neither the words themselves, if we look upon their natural meaning, neither yet the practice of the church, for more than 1100. years, after Christ, can make these words to prove any sacrament of penance, which the papists so boldly without all proof thrust upon us. For I pray you, where is the outward sign of this sacrament? Are these words, I absolve thee, 
Concil. Triden. Sess. 14. cap. 3.  & c? But where are these words commanded? Bellarmine hath found them in these words, Whose sins you remit, are remitted, etc. And how doth he prove it? Because the Lord would never grant unto his Apostles power to forgive sins, 
de pa● nit. li. 1. cap. 10.  but he would have that power exercised by some external sign, for these are his words. We grant it, and for that cause he hath appointed the ministry of the gospel: but the promises are general, and whether they publicly, or privately, are to be used to the comfort of the afflicted, we find not in the scripture any set form set down for absolution: and therefore in the scriptures they can never find that outward sign which is required in a sacrament. And therefore it seemeth that Bellarmine scarcely dareth to defend that which the council of Trent hath taught, concerning the form of this their sacrament. For the council of Trent saith, 
Li. 1. de poen. cap. 16.  that these words are the form of their Sacrament of penance. But master Bellarmine saith, we are not tied to those words, but that these words, I remit thee thy sins, will also serve the turn. For this matter let them agree amongst themselves. But they must show us some outward sign appointed by Christ for this Sacrament, or else we must deny it to be a Sacrament. And that they have laboured to do these many years, and yet they cannot do it. But M. Bellarmine striveth earnestly to prove that place, whose sins so ever you remit, they are remitted, not to be spoken of baptism. We will ease him of some labour, we will grant that it is not spoken only of that remission, that therein is done. Man is like a ruinous house, that must always be repaired by repentance. 
Hom. 3. de paenitentia.  We have always need to pray, forgive us our trespasses. chrysostom prettily compareth sin in man, to an oak tree, which he that will cut it down, must strike not once, or twice only, but often, yea he must never leave until it fall. So must we fly always to this remedy, not only once, or twice, but ten thousands of times, if so often we offend, yea always. The comfort of this promise therefore, we will in no wise restrain to the time of our baptism only: but we confess that that forgiveness of sins, which in our baptism is sealed up unto us, hath force and virtue, through our whole life: and thereby are we assured, that this promise of the forgiveness of our sins, and remitting of the same is most certain and true, and belongeth to our whole life, and to every sin that we commit.  
Now this forgiveness say (the papists) must be applied unto us by the sacrament of penance. They should prove that: for in matters of religion their credit is not so good that we dare trust them. And the less we trust them in this matter, because we are sure that God hath given unto us other means to apply his mercy unto us, namely his word: for applying whereof unto our consciences, he hath appointed his ministry in his church. Yea, he hath given his word to be read and known of every body. Then also hath he given us Sacraments, to confirm us in this word, and to make us more confidently to believe it, and more faithfully to receive it. These therefore are the means whereby our faith is nourished, and made more bold and strong, to apply to our humbled hearts those comfortable promises of Gods good graces, which in the words are offered, and by baptism, and the supper of the Lord are sealed up in our consciences. Now, other Sacraments we know not, and namely this of penance. Neither is there any necessary consequence in this argument: These words are spoken of remission of sins, after baptism: therefore there must needs be a Sacrament of penance. And that should be proved. And therefore to grant him that, which he so striveth for, will do him no good. After this one place that Bellarmine hath out of the Scriptures, he cometh to the fathers, 
De paenit. li. 1. cap. 10.  who because they afford him no plain proof, he endeavoureth to wring something from them by indirect means. The proof therefore that he hath from them, as himself professeth, is either because that when they reckon up the true Sacraments, they often make mention of repentance also, or else they compare it with the sacrament of baptism, showing that it is God that worketh in them both. Had it not been better to yield unto the truth, then thus before he proveth any thing out of the fathers to proclaim the weakness of his proof? For is not this a weak argument: The fathers in reckoning up the sacraments do often also make mention of penance: therefore it is a sacrament. Or this: baptism & repentance are many times compared together, but the one is a sacrament properly so called: therefore also the other must so be? I trust the weakness of that argument is easy to spy out, seeing the fathers may in divers respects speak of the sacraments, other than of their sacramental nature, or of those things which they seem to match with the sacraments in speech, not minding to make any more sacraments, than Christ left unto the church: therefore so long as his arguments are but conjectures, even by his own confession, it is but lost labour to bestow any more time thereupon. Therefore, although we confess that our whole life should be a continual profiting in the doctrine of repentance, and the practice thereof, yet the sacrament of penance we justly reject, because neither the scripture nor most ancient fathers, yield any plain testimony thereof.     

Of lawfully calling into the ministery, and against the Sacrament of Order, as they call it. CHAP. 18  


THE PROTESTANTS  
THat in the Church of Christ there ought to be a lawful calling unto the ministry, we so willingly confess, that we take it to be one of the especial graces of God, towards us who are here in this vale of misery, for the which we are bound to thank God, day and night. For as their office is to Gather together the Saints, 
Eph. 4.12.  to work in the ministery, and build up the body of Christ. Yea as Ambassadors for Christ to entreat the world to be reconciled unto god, 
2. Cor. 5.20.  and therefore it is well called the ministry of reconciliation, 
verse. 18.  than the which there cannot be any greater benefit whilst we are compassed about with the burden of this flesh, whose will is stubborn and cannot be subdued to the will of God, whose wisdom is but folly and blindness, 
Rom. 8.7.  and perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God: 
1. Cor. 2.14.  so the more we are assured that they are appointed of God unto the said ministry, and to labour in the said office, with so much the more diligence we will hear them, with the greater reverence we will receive them, and with the greater readiness, we will obey them. And such as in some measure endeavour to perform this duty, we reverence as Ambassadors from that great God, 
Es. 52.7.  Their feet are very beautiful unto us, we account them worthy of double 
1. Tim. 5.17.  honour. The godly will (howsoever the world despise them) obey them as their fathers follow them as their guides, hear them as their teachers, and love them as helpers of their joys. 
2. Cor. 1.24.  knowing that they cannot despise them, but that they despise also God that sent them, & their own salvation for which they are sent.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the church of Rome not contented to have the fruit and benefit of this ministry, which Christ gave to his church, 
Eph. 4.11.  do (although without all warrant of God's word) make a sacrament thereof. Or rather of this one they make seven sacraments: for all their seven orders have several ceremonies yea and by their own confession several graces also, which they do work & so in steed of seven sacraments which themselves speak of, they reckon up thirteen, namely six beside their sacrament of order, & seven in it. And whereas the ministry was appointed for preaching and ministering the sacraments, and they who laboured most in the word did best perform the same, they have turned teaching and preaching, into sacrificing and listing. 
Concilium Trident. sess. 23. Can. 1.  So that it is great commendation for one of their priests to life fair: As they that could but kill a Ram or a Calf, were priests good enough for that rebellious people of Israel, who yet called themselves God's people. As for reverence and honour they content not themselves with that regard, that is due to their ministry and office, no neither yet that the Pope should so much excel the Emperor, 
Innoc. de Mayor & obed. c. sol● t & glos. ibidem.  as the Sun doth the Moon, that is 47. times or degrees to be better than the emperor, as their own canonists teach, but that blasphemous papist. 
In sua chimaera fol. 97. 98.  Stanisl. Orichovius did offer unto the council of Trent a book, wherein he makes every priest better than a king, in authority, degree, place & weight yea, he saith, that the priest is another God of the king's excellency. That the king is but a creature, but the priest a cre●●●●: and how much God is be●●● r than a priest, so much is a priest better than a king: yea so much better is the priest than a king, as a man is better than a beast. And yet these horrible blasphemies are allowed of with them.   

These gross absurdities being thus even by their own books proclaimed unto the world, I might say to our Papists, 
Ad Ceesiphontem.  as S. Hierom did to the Pelagians, To lay forth your opinions, is to confute you. Your blasphemy is even at the first very manifest: there is no need to refel that which is of itself blasphemous: Yet for the satisfaction of the ignorant, it is not amiss to lay open the principal grounds whereupon this their sacrament is built. It hath (say they) all those things which are of necessity required in a sacrament: namely, the outward sign, the promise of inward grace, and lastly, the commandment, or God's institution. The outward sign they made to be imposition of hands: 
Bellar. lib. 1 de sacra. Ord. Chap. 2. Ibidem.  for so saith Bell. And yet afterwards being better advised, considering also that even some of his own friends, think that laying on of hands is but an accidental thing unto this sacrament, and that the very necessary matter of this sacrament, 
Cap. 9  is the cup with wine, and the cover thereof with bread, (for then is it said to them, Receive power to offer a sacrifice, when these things are delivered) he affirmeth that not only the giving to them of these things, but also the laying on of hands, is the matter or visible form of this sacrament. Whereby we learn that themselves are not well resolved as yet, what shall be the external sign in this sacrament. For in deed that which Christ did when he ordained ministers, that external sign (I say) they make small account of: for he Breathing on them said, 
john 20. Tract. in john. 121  receive ye the holy Ghost. Whereby Christ would teach (as saint Augustine thinketh) that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the father and the son also. And no marvel if they urge not that ceremony: for Christ himself is not very curious in that point. 
Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.15 Mar. 10.6, 7  And as himself did not command that ceremony to be used: so neither did himself practise it any more but that once, as may appear in sundry places, where he authorizeth his Apostles to preach without breathing upon them. And now, for laying on of hands, which many times the Apostles used, we have not only the testimony of many in the popish church, that think it not to be the principal outward sign in this sacrament, but think the giving of a chalice with wine, and the cover of it with bread, to be more essential and effectual: but also we see that there is no commandment given to the Apostles for it, and therefore neither do they command it to be used, as a thing so necessary that it may not be omitted. And whereas we acknowledge this ceremony to have sundry uses: first in respect of the church, the party ordained is by that ceremony notified unto the church: secondly, he is confirmed thereby in his calling, put in mind of his duty, and assured of his vocation by this common approbation, that hereby the church showeth. Thirdly, thereby the church doth testify, as it were before God, their sincere dealing in their election, and consecrate him to the service of God. Lastly, the Godly used many times in praying for others, to lay their hands upon them. Bellarmine in the place above named bestoweth some pains, to prove, that prayer and laying on of hands are two distinct things, which is not denied. To be short, the sum of his argument is this: it was used of the Apostles, therefore it is so necessary that it cannot be omitted. We answer that that ceremony had good uses, but yet might be omitted. Because our saviour Christ did neither use it nor command it. And to think that he omitted any substantial point of religion, or that the Apostles would account as simply necessary any thing not used or prescribed by Christ, is to absurd. And whereas they prove the promise of justifying grace to be made by Christ, unto them that receive this their sacrament of Orders, I wonder that they see not, how that both many are justified that never entered into their Orders, & many also that have had, and have their greasing and scraping, are as wicked men, and so by likelihood as far from this justifying grace as Turks or jews. And so it easily appeareth, that this second thing required in a sacrament, namely that it should seal in us the promise of justification, hath not so much as any likelihood, to be in this their sacrament of Orders. The third thing necessary in a sacrament is God's commandment, wherein they confess their want, and that they have no commandment. But yet because God did give grace with laying on of the Apostles hands, 
1 Tim. 4. Bellar. de ord.. li. 1. ca 2.  therefore they take it as commanded of God. If this be a good argument God gave g odd success to it: therefore it is commanded of God, many strange parts in Samson, jehu, and others, will prove to be commanded of God: but that is most false, as the Papists themselves will confess. God did not only prosper Phinehas, 
Numb. 25  in that which he attempted against Zimrie, and Cosby, but commended the fact also, and graciously rewarded the same, but yet he had no commandment for so doing. Therefore although God may be said in some sort to like of that to which he giveth good success, yet no man can thereby conclude, that God hath commanded it: But rather on the contrary, we may thus reason. The laying on of hands was neither practised by our saviour Christ, neither commanded by him or his Apostles: therefore that ceremony is not of such necessity, but that ordination may be without it. Yea but Christ is not tied to the sacrament (saith master Bellarmine) and therefore can give the effect of the sacrament without the sacrament, 
Cap. 2. li. 1.  he can make Priests without laying on of hands. That he can so do, we confess, but that he dealeth so in the institution of sacraments, all the Papists in the world will never be able to prove: for in them we see that all things are most plain, the outward sign, the promise, the commandment, nothing in them hidden, nothing doubtful. But because himself dare not well rest upon that answer, he concludeth that second chapter with another answer, for he telleth us, that it may be that Christ did lay his hands upon them whom he made ministers. Is this good dealing? Doth not this manifestly bewray the weakness of their cause, when such frivolous conjectures are the chief strength of their cause? As for the Fathers whatsoever out of them they do allege, cannot prove that which they take in hand: namely, that the sacrament of Orders is a sacrament like to Baptism and the Eucharist. For all men must confess, that these two sacraments, which we acknowledge to be common to all Christians, are far unlike in that point to that popish sacrament, which belongeth but unto a few.  
And even in this consisteth especially the true use of Baptism, and of the Eucharist, that they should be general testifications unto the whole church of God's graces, and seals of his promises, and pledges of his love and favour, And therefore the fathers sometime call Ordination a sacrament, yet it followeth not, that they take it to be a sacrament in the proper sense, but in that sense only as they call many other things Sacraments, which the Popish Church doth not receive as Sacraments. 
De Sacrat. ord. 1. ca ●  But (say they) the Father's compare Ordination with Baptism. For Bellarmine maketh great reckoning of that argument. The fathers may be so in some respect, because the sacrament of Baptism cannot be reiterated: no more must he that is once ordained to the ministery, seek to be ordained again for every action that he performeth in his ministery, but he is once for all appointed thereto. But what is that to the nature of the sacrament, which must by a visible sign assure us of invisible graces. So that, although Ordination be like to Baptism, after a sort, yet is it not like to Baptism, in that it by a visible sign doth assure us of invisible graces: but only, because it is not to be reiterated no more than Baptism is. And thus we see the weakness of this argument: Ordination is in some point like to Baptism: therefore it is a sacrament in such sort as Baptism is. Thus then, I trust it appeareth how weakly they prove Ordination to be a sacrament, who have neither scriptures, 
Matt. 28.19  nor fathers for the same. But if they could prove that Ordination which Christ used to be a sacrament, what is that to Popish Ordination? Christ sent the Apostles to preach, Go teach all nations: but by their ordination the popish priests Receive power to offer a sacrifice. The Apostles executed their commission which Christ gave them, as appeareth in the Acts and their Epistles. And the popish priests on the other side think there is no service any thing so pleasing to God, as the offering of sacrifices. We see then, that as Ordination, even as Christ and his Apostles used it, is not a sacrament properly so called: so popish Ordination is nothing but a mere profanation of Christ's order, and a wilful breach of his commandment, and therefore most unworthy of the name of a Sacrament.     

Of Matrimony, that it is not a Sacrament, and that it is lawful for all. CHAP. 19  


THE PROTESTANTS  
MArriage we confess to be in itself an estate, holy and honourable, and for all sorts of us most necessary, considering that men and women of all callings and conditions, are subject to noisome and filthy lusts, we dare not therefore forbidden it to any sort of men or women, lest we should seem to reject that remedy that God provided against sin, or to refuse the helper that he made for us, or to lay a stumbling block before men or women whereat they might fall.   

THE PAPISTS  
THe Papists not content with that account of matrimony that the Scriptures do make, will needs have it to be one of the five Sacraments, which they have added to the two that were instituted by Christ: And yet straightway, as if they had forgotten themselves, they do think it to be too base an estate, too unpure and unclean for any man for to live in, that is called to minister before the Lord. And And therefore their priests must not be married in any wise.   

That matrimony is not a sacrament, speaking of a sacrament properly, as when we call baptism or the supper of the Lord sacraments, it is most plain: First, because the things that are required in a sacrament, are not to be found in it, namely, an outward sign, a promise of justifying grace, God's institution or commandment. As for the commandment, some would wring it out of these words, 
Matth. 19.6.  That which God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. But that is only a prohibition, that man shall not lose that knot which God hath knit, there is no sacrament commanded. And master Bellarmine spying that fault, dareth not commend their endeavour therein, but taketh another course. For he thinketh his friends troubled themselves more than they needed, to be too curious, in searching where it is commanded to be made a sacrament. But if God's commandment, or the institution of the sacrament be necessarily required in a sacrament (as Master Bellarmine hath often showed) the Papists (by his leave) shall either show, 
De sacram. matrimon. lib. 1. cap. 2.  when, and how, it was instituted to be a sacrament, or else there is no cause that we should trust them, although they all had sworn, that it is one. For in truth this their doctrine is so doubtful & uncertain, that themselves know not what to say of it. For, some think that it hath always been a sacrament, even from the beginning of the world: 
De sacram. matrimon. lib. 1. cap. 5 Sess. 24. can. 2.  but Bellarmine will not in any wise agree to that. And the council of Trent is flat of that mind, that it is a sacrament instituted by Christ, and therefore not of the old law. If then it be true, that matrimony was not a sacrament until Christ made it one, it is needful that they should prove, that Christ hath made it a sacrament, before we can receive it for one. And this reason is very strong against master Bellarmine, who reasoneth against them that think that matrimony was a sacrament of the old law, because, It is not read (saith he) that there was any institution of marriage in all the old testament: 
joh. 5.32.  he meaneth after man's fall. Therefore, if they prove no institution of it, they prove no Sacrament. Now for the second point. For to prove it to be an outward sign they bring those words of Saint Paul, This is a great sacrament (for so the old translation hath) but the word signifieth also a mystery or secret. But we will not contend of the word. Will they imagine that this word can prove matrimony to be a sacrament? We see that Christ and his Apostles are more careful of the true use of the Sacraments, than of their names, as may appear by those two Sacraments which we acknowledge, which are not so much as named sacraments. Secondly, to prove it to be a sacrament, it is not enough to show that it is a sign of a holy thing, but that it was instituted to be such a sign. And that can they never do in this. 
Sacr. mat. li. 1. cap. 5.  For it was instituted in paradise, where it was no such sign as themselves confess, as is showed, yea Bellarmine denieth that there is in matrimony any outward sign by the institution of it. So that although it represent unto us (to our unspeakable comfort) the union and conjunction, between Christ and his church, yet that it was not instituted to that end, & that it is not an outward sign by the institution of it, it is most plain. But how will they prove the third thing, namely the promise of salvation to be in this their sacrament? For soothe because it representeth unto us the spiritual love of Christ to his church, & her obedience to him again. That is also performed in every body of man or woman, if we mark the union between the members and the head. In every vine tree, yea in every plant, if we consider the coherence between the branches and the tree. Yea many such things there are that have as much in them belonging to a sacrament as matrimony hath. And yet howsoever they may be unto us, if we consider of them as we may do, I never heard or read that ever they were accounted sacraments in the proper sense. And why? because God never appointed them to that end. for in the sacraments Christ's institution is the especial thing, how little account so ever M. Bellar. make of it. The 2. argument whereby I prove matrimony not to be a sacrament is, because that many of the schoolmen, who are the especial friends to those popish sacraments, doubt whether matrimony giveth grace, which the popish church doth attribute to all sacraments. For as Canus reporteth: 
De locis Theol. li. 8. cap. 5.  the Ma. of sentences, Thomas of Aquine, Scot, Bonaventure, Rich. de S. victore, Paludanus, Durand & others do not define, whether it give grace or not, but leave it to every man's own opinion. As for the matter or form of this sacrament (to use Canus his words) these schoolmen do show themselves so unconstant and wavering, so uncertain and doubtful, that he should but prove himself a fool, that in such difference and disagreement, would set down any thing for certain or true. And for that cause the Council of Florence (saith he) decreed nothing of the matter, form, or minister of this sacrament, because it saw, that the Divines in the schools had concluded nothing of them. Seeing therefore themselves within so few years doubted, yea and are not yet fully resolved, whether that sacrament give grace, without the which it cannot be a sacrament in the Popish church: they give us just cause to suspect, nay flatly to affirm, that it was not a sacrament instituted by Christ. For if it had, before this time doubtless themselves at the least would have resolved of such principal points thereof. And if Christ did not institute it a sacrament, than also we may deny it at all to be a sacrament: For neither men nor angels may institute any sacraments (as Bellarmine hath truly noted. 
De sacram. Matrim. lib. 1. cap. 2.  Neither are they yet agreed, whether every marriage is this their sacrament. For Canus in the place before alleged, thinketh not any matrimony to be this sacrament, but that only that is solemnized by the Priest. But Bellarmine with all the skill he hath opposeth himself against him, 
De sacram. Matrim. lib. 1. cap. 7  yea, it is high time he should so do. For he plainly confesseth, that if that opinion of Canus be true, than they shall never out of the scriptures or counsels be able to prove the sacrament of matrimony.  
Then we see it standeth him upon to do what he can: For, either must the marriages not solemnized by the Priests, be this sacrament (and so every man and woman is a minister in this sacrament) which his own friends will in no wise grant unto him: or else matrimony is not a sacrament. And then they have deceived the world some hundreds of years. Thirdly, matrimony can not be a sacrament, because the promise of grace is common unto all sorts of men and women. And therefore the sacraments and signs also of those graces should belong unto all sorts. But in the Popish church matrimony is denied to some sorts, as to their clergy: Therefore, by their own doctrine it can not be a Sacrament, especially such a Sacrament as baptism and the eucharist, for they are common to all sorts: 
Marriage lawful for all men.  but matrimony (they say) must not so be. And this is the second point of their doctrine which must be examined. For it seemeth to me very strange, that they, who have now so magnified this estate of life, that it must be no less than a holy sacrament, do so suddenly debase the same, that they think it not pure enough for their shorn and anointed creatures. But I look that they should come against me with an answer out of master Bellarmine, 
De sacram. matrim. ca 5  that their Priests in deed are forbidden to marry, but not in that respect that it is a sacrament, but because of those things that follow marriage, and are impediments and lets to them in their calling. And yet neither all the consequents of marriage are denied to their clergy: For master Bellarmine telleth us there, that if a man and wife being married together will promise continency, they may well enough take their orders, and are truly both married folks and priests. So that not cares or troubles that are incident unto married folks oftentimes, are any thing to be respected in this case: For clergy men may have all these, but the especial duty of marriage they may not perform. Whereby the Papists to defend the credit of this their sacrament, do rob the Clergy of that thing which is the especial representation of the conjunction of Christ and of his church, whilst they would make these believe, that the performance of the duty between man and wife, is a thing not to be suffered in Clergy men.  
The very ground of this assertion of master Bellarmine's, is that he thinketh not the copulation of married folk to be of the substance of Matrimony. And this he proveth by some testimonies out of the fathers in that fift Chapter. But yet himself will not, that this his saying should be so understood, as if that he said, that the use of marriage is not any way of the substance of marriage. 
Chap. 6  For afterwards he sayeth, that this their sacrament may have two respects. As it is made, and as it is continued. As it made, that is, (if I be not deceived) as the mutual consent of parties joineth them together by their promises, the consent expressed by such words, is the matter and form of their sacrament. And thus must we understand that common rule in their law, that consent maketh marriages. And thus do the fathers understand that which they say concerning the substance of marriage to consist in the mutual consent: partly, because after such consent given, the parties are not free to change the choice which they have made: 
Deu. 22, 23 24  And partly because that even by God's law, if parties after such consent given, should carnally know another, it was death for them so to do: which could not be, but because this their consent is after a sort the marriage itself. This, if it represent any thing to us, doth but represent that joining of Christ with us by spiritual love, 
Chap. 5  as Bellarmine himself confesseth. But that is not any special benefit, or singular: For he loveth all his creatures, and wept for the destruction of his enemies: And one man may be so joined with another. But it is a special grace, that marriage representeth unto us: to us (I say) that after a peculiar manner belong to him. Namely, how we are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, how our bodies are the members of Christ's body, how in deed he is, as in name he is called, God with us. This is represented unto us, but by that copulation that is between man and wife, whereby, as before by consent they were of one mind, so now by it they are one body. For by copulation the wife is made one body with her husband. And this do I take to be confessed by master Bellarmine himself, when he telleth us that in the second respect by Matrimony, is meant that which continueth. And then must the bodies of them that are married needs be the matter of this sacrament, even their copulation and dwelling together. And therefore he alloweth well of the judgement of Peter Soto, that thinketh even this use of Matrimony to be the matter, not only about which this Sacrament is occupied, but of which it is made or consisteth. If then it be the matter of their Sacrament, which they deny to their Clergy, it is not true that master Bellarmine said, that they deny not their Clergy men to marry, as marriage is a sacrament. For they deny that to them which is the substance of their sacrament.  
This may also appear by the definition of matrimony, which we may find in the fathers. 
Strom. 2. li. De Monog.  Marriage (sayeth Clemens of Alexandria) is the first lawful joining together of man and woman, for the procreation of children. And Tertullian is inquisitive what is marriage before God, and findeth it to be when God joineth together two into one flesh. Then if we will speak properly of marriage, it is the joining together, not of minds, or hearts only, but of bodies also. Yea, 
li. 1. chap. 5 De Sacram. matrim.  and it is confessed by master Bellarmine, that such marriages as have not copulation, are but a maimed and unperfect Sacrament, and that Priests may so be married. And how his fellows will take this at his hands, I cannot tell: that they who count themselves most perfect, should not be admitted but to that unperfect Sacrament, whereas the common sort, and known sinners, might be partakers of the perfect Sacrament. But let them order those matters amongst themselves. But saint Basil perchance would admit them to the use of marriage, since master Bellar. doth permit them to marry, 
De vera Virginitate.  so that they abstain from the use of it. For (saith he) since the reason of the mind directing, hath manifestly joined their hearts in respect of some necessity, worthily doth the unity of bodies, to which they are knit, follow those hearts so united: wherein this learned father seemeth to me to be of that mind, that there is no cause, but that whosoever may in heart be joined unto another as to his wife, may also in body be joined with her. And so if it be lawful for them to marry, and to continue married, 
Cap. 5.  as Bellarmine confesseth, it is also lawful for them to have the use of marriage, as saint Basill here saith. But what is the reason why they stand so much in this matter? Are they not men? have they not infirmities? Can they who this day find themselves to be void of such assaults, as are the fruits of wanton lusts, promise to themselves that they shall be so to morrow likewise, and so to continue also? Let no man deceive himself in that foolish imagination: no body can assure themselves of any such thing, it is a rare gift of God. All men cannot receive this thing, 
Mat. 19.11 1. Cor. 7, 7 17 De monac. li. 2. cap. 31  but they to whom it is given. If it be a gift of God, as Bellar. confesseth, it is too much presumption for us to be so bold to promise it, as though it were within our own reach. If it be care, it is too much wickedness, and too great occasion of offence, for the church of Rome to require it, so as they do of all their clergy. Yea, but they teach this as a doctrine that needs must be believed, 
De Cler. li. 1 cap. 21  and with a full consent, and namely Bellarmine, That they have the gift of continency that will. And again, That there is no man that cannot live continently, if himself will. Of this doctrine of free will. I shall God willing speak more largely hereafter. But now for this bold and gross affirmation, I am verily persuaded, that it never could have come from any man, unless either his mind were blinded with ignorance, that he saw not the truth of his own estate, or his heart were either possessed with such a senselessness that it could feel no sin, or else so bend to resist the truth, that he would not yield to it, although he knew it. For what can be found in the scriptures more common, than the falls of the godly, the faults of God's servants, their complaints, their sighs, yea, their tears, because of their sins? Shall we say, they sinned willingly, or that they walked not carefully in their ways? S. Paul then will prove us to be liars, who for his part doth testify, To will is present with me, 
Rom. 7.18 19  but I find no way to perform that which is good. For I do not the good thing which I would, but the evil which I would not, that do I. We see, saint Paul would feign not have done evil, but yet he did it. Shall we say, we are stronger than he was? Then are we fools, and know nothing of our own weakness. For this cause Paul willeth the younger widows, not to vow chastity, or strive for it, 
1. Tim. 5.14  but to marry, and do such duties. Yea, and if the scriptures should not teach us this, let us but look into ourselves, and considering indifferently, and without partiality, how subject we are to sin, we must confess, that if the Apostle had cause to sigh, we may justly tremble ●● d quake for fear. If he complain and mourn, we may in bitterness and anguish of soul cry out: for his weakness shall be found strength, if it be compared with our readiness to fast. And yet I confess, that God will give grace to them that ask it, and let them that seek find, so that they ask and seek in such sort as they ought to do, and such things as are necessary for them, to walk in their calling. But to ask, that we should not stand in need of that help and remedy against sin, that God hath provided, or that we should live a more angelical life, than he hath appointed us to do, is to tempt God in ask without our warrant, and therefore without faith, and to despise that measure of grace that God hath vouchsafe to bestow upon us. The treasure is great that we who are Gods ministers do carry, although in earthen vessels, that the power might be of God, 
2. Cor. 4.7  and not of us. It is enough for us if the Lord keep us so 〈◊〉 his great goodness from falling, that we be not dashed in pieces, and be a reproach to this excellent word of life. So that we honour him, and glorify his name, in what estate of life so ever it be, whether single life, or marriage, it maketh no matter. God's will be done, and God's name be praised for it. Well then we see beggars must be no choosers, but look what he hath appointed us to have, let us be hearty thankful for it, and crave Gods good spirit to direct us in that way.  
Seeing then it appeareth, I trust, that neither to live unmarried without burning in lust, is in our power, neither yet it is needful that any should strive for that, unless he see that God hath given him that gift, let us yet further consider, what it is that they so much mislike in marriage. 
Cens. col. dial. 3 Ad Himer.  They say, that it doth open a door unto wantonness, and putteth fire to all lusts: And as Pope Sericius sayeth: for such to marry is nothing else, but to live in the flesh, yea, in pollution, and that they cannot please God. 
Censur. col. dial. 3.  Yea, blasphemously do the jesuits of Colen call it the life of Sardanapalus for a Priest to marry. But more like to the saying of a plain Atheist, is that saying of that man of Colen, that a man were better to have a hundred harlots, one after another, than one wife. And our country man Doctor Smith, in his book of vows and single life, 
D. Smith Objection 8  is not ashamed to affirm, that it is a less sin for one that hath made a vow, to take to himself a harlot, then to marry, we hear his impudency: let us hear what reason he hath for him. If he commit whoredom (sayeth he) having vowed chastity, he is at his liberty when he will to reform his life, and to change it into a chaste life. What man can do in such case as I have said before. But if they be married, can they not also abstain from the use of marriage upon just causes? Hath not the Apostle given plain order, what shall be done in that case? Doth the Apostle give commandment, yea or counsel either, 
1 Cor. 7.5.  that men and women should vow, that they may be the more free to serve God? No, but the contrary rather. For although he Suppose that it is good for the present necessity, that a man should continue a single life, 
1 Cor. 7.26  whilst afflictions and great dangers did oppress those first days of Christ his church, and they had no safety to themselves, so that care for their wives and children, might withdraw them from their holy obedience and patiented profession: 
1. Cor. 7.2  yet notwithstanding he would to avoid fornication, that every man should have his wife, and every woman her own husband▪ mark every man, every woman, none excepted. And again: But if they cannot abstain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Doth the Apostle open the door unto wantonness in permitting marriage to all, excepting none? Yea, and that men should not be too rash in making their vows in this case, he willeth that such as are married, defraud not one another, no not to give themselves to fasting and prayer, but only for a time, and so to come together again, lest Satan should tempt them for their incontinency.  
And for single life it is commended by the Apostle no further, then whilst a man standeth firm in his own heart that he hath no need, but hath power over his own will. And it is worth the marking, how Smith here, and also all the Papists almost in this point, do so directly oppose themselves unto the Apostles doctrine, as if they had sworn to give him the lie in his throat. For whereas he sayeth of all, of all (I say) and not of lay men only, It is better to marry than to burn, this doting doctor Smith saith, and so do his fellows: it is better for a priest, not to burn only, but even to commit whoredom, than to marry. It is better to have a hundred harlots, (sayeth another) than only one lawful wife. Lawful (I say) because that howsoever some filthy men, condemn in some, that holy institution, yet God's word doth not only suffer and also commend it, but even command it to all that cannot live without it, but that they must burn in lust. And Cyprian doth plainly permit it unto them whom we call Nuns, saying, that If they will not, 
Epist. li. 1. ep. 11.  or cannot continue (in virginity) it is better that they should marry, than that by their wantonness they should fall into the fire. Which words, because they are very flat against the popish doctrine of vows, the papists do strive to find some plaster for that wound. 
de Monach. li. 2. cap. 34.  And amongst others, Bellarmine (liking nothing of that which Hosius, and others have said before him of this place, of Cyprian) imagineth that he hath hit the nail upon the head. His answer is, that yet whilst they are free, and have made no vow, if they see they cannot continue, Cyprian faith, it is best for them to marry. But that master Bellarmine hath as far miss the cushion, as others before him have done: and that his answer is most untrue, I prove, first by the question which was moved unto Cyprian. For Pomponius to whom he writeth, did ask of Cyprian, what he should think of some women, who had professed virginity, and yet were found in bed with men. So that if he answer directly to Pomponius his question he showeth what should be done, with such as had already vowed, and not of such as were to make the vow. Secondly, in the very words next before, it doth most plainly appear, that he maketh two sorts of such as have made the vow, the one sort he would have to continue, namely such as through faith have yielded themselves to Christ: the other of them that will not, or cannot. Thirdly, that which followeth, that to excuse themselves they would offer to be tried by women, whether they were virgins, (for unto that their excuse Cyprian maketh answer) is so strong an argument, as master Bellarmine, and all his friends, will never be able to answer, to prove that those words of Cyprian's are not meant, neither can be understood, of such as stood in doubt, whether they would vow or not, as master Bellarmine affirmeth, but of such as after their vow, neither would, nor could persevere in their purpose. For if that only had been their doubt, whether they could continue virgins, that matter the women could not judge of. If whether they were virgins, it is directly against master Bellarmine's answer to this place. It is not therefore to give occasion of wantonness, to teach marriage to be lawful for all men, as without shame they affirm, as by the holy Apostle and that learned father appeareth, but they that condemn it, do let loose the rains unto all uncleaneness, as saith Saint Bernard, 
Super cant, serm. 66.  and they that forbidden marriage unto some sorts, do sow the bad seed of ungodly life, and wanton lusts, the fruit whereof hath defiled the whole world. But what? Is it forbidden by God himself? They know not well how to answer to this question. For the Master of Sentences, for aught that I see, hath said nothing of that matter. And he is their very oracle, who, if he hold his peace, they know not what to think of the matter. But john Maior, Clichtovaeus and some others, do affirm that this single life is commanded by God himself. But Thomas, whom for the most part master Bellarmine is devoted unto, and sundry others do plainly say, that God hath given no law concerning single life. 
De clerici●. li. 1. cap. 28.  And that master Bellarmine doth not only allow, but proveth it so to be, with whom we are also willing to join. For it is most true that there is not one such commandment in all the scripture, neither yet is it necessary that priests should live a single life, or unmarried, both which things master Bellarmine hath in that place. If God then have not commanded it, neither the thing is necessary, let master Bellarmine bring what else he can to prove it, he shall not much trouble us about his unnecessary precepts. But the Apostle (saith he) hath commanded it. A bishop must be continent. 
De cler. li. 1. cap. 19 Tit. 1.8.  Although continent and chaste is in truth all one thing, yet master Bellarmine will not think it sufficient that a bishop should be chaste because he knoweth that Saint Augustine and other of the fathers affirm that there is chastity in marriage, but he will doubtless spy some greater virtue in continency then in chastity, and therefore he will have a bishop not chaste only, but also continent. But if we must seek for a difference between these two words, I take this to be it, that continency is of shorter continuance, that is to say, but an abstinence for a time, and chastity is a virtue that endureth. And the examples brought by master Bellarmine himself approve this difference. But chrysostom and Theophilact, do take continency to be an abstinence not from lusts only, but from all vice, so that as Theophilact saith, he must rule his tongue, his hands, and his eyes. Hierom upon these words saith plainly, that the Apostle never speaketh of continency or incontinency, but in respect of wanton lusts, but yet he taketh continency, to be such a virtue, as may be in married folk. And therefore the Apostle (saith he) having spoken of a bishop, that he may have one wife, lest he should seem to permit incontinency, to them addeth this: and with Hierom agreeth Primasius. So that they make continent, and chaste, all one. 
1. Cor. 7.3.4.5.  For although married folk must perform the duties of marriage one to another, yet so, as they pass not the bounds of chastity or continency. This reason than is not good. Priest's must by Saint Paul's rule be continent, therefore they must have no wives. But on the contrary. Saint Paul in that very place, where he requireth in a bishop continency, doth permit at the least, that he should be the husband of one wife, therefore in marriage there may be continency. 
Tit. 1.6.  As for that which he allegeth out of Counsels, pope's, fathers and reason, because they prove not that which he hath undertaken to prove, 
Chap. 19  it is not worth an answer. For the title of that Chapter is, That single life by the Apostolic law is very well tied to the holy orders. And when he hath snatched at one poor word, and findeth no great help in it, he seeketh to prove by Counsels, pope's, fathers and reason, that single life hath been commended of some, commanded of others. But that the Apostles commanded it, he proveth not, and that he took in hand. But on the contrary, the Canons that are called the Apostles, have this Canon, 
Can. 6,  Let not a bishop or Priest put away his wife, under pretence of religion. If he do it, let him be excommunicated, if he stand in it, let him be rejected. But what saith master Bellarmine to this? He answereth out of one Humbert a Cardinal, that to put away his wife, 
de cler. li. ●. cap. 2●.  is to have no care of his wife. But if we mark the fiftieth Canon of the Apostles wherein there is a proviso, that none should abstain from marriage because he thinketh it to be evil, it will easily appear, that the sixth Canon was made, to overthwart the foolish opinion of them, that condemned marriage as a thing more unclean, then that it should be fit for priests or bishops. And thus much to prove, that marriage of priests is not evil of itself, or unlawful in respect of any commandment in God's word. Now that it is also lawful, I am persuaded by these reasons. First, because of the uncertainty of the contrary doctrine: for some say, that sole life is commanded by God, others deny it as you have heard. Again there are, and those papists too, that say the law of abstaining from marriage, 
Fab. Tract. 4. in Luth. de mat. clear.  for the clergy was first made by pope Siricius, who lived almost four hundred years after Christ, although john Faber report that Calixtus forbade it somewhat before. But Bellarmine and others think in no wise that it may be suffered, that this their doctrine should be thought so far short of the times of Christ, and his Apostles.  
Some hold it a necessary law, 
Bellarm. li. 1. de clericis, cap. 18.  others but convenient. And such diversity of doctrine in these and such like points is, if not an invincible, yet a very probable proof that their doctrine hath no sure ground in God's word, no great consent of antiquity, and that is the cause that there is no certain doctrine of it amongst themselves, and such is their agreement also concerning that other point, whether matrimony be a sacrament or not. Secondly, the weakness of their proof, doth even proclaim unto the world, the weakness of their cause. For the most and best learned of them do confess that God hath not commanded it. And the proofs that they bring out of the Apostle for it, as it seemeth, have so little weight in them, that Bellarmine is ashamed to allege them. As for that small hold that he could get out of the Apostles words, 
Tit. 1.8.  That a bishop should be continent, how little it can help his cause, you have heard before. Seeing therefore that either they bring nothing worth hearing out of God's word, or apply unto the clergy only, that which the Apostle speaketh to all men and women indifferently, (such is all that they allege out of the 7. Chapter of S. Paul's first epistle to the Corinth's) we are the less bound to believe, whatsoever they out of the fathers shall teach us concerning this matter. Who themselves do charge us to examine by the scriptures their writings, and not to believe any thing that they shall teach, unless they teach such things as are agreeable unto God's word. Yea, since their arguments are so weak, that even Panormitane and other papists whom john Faber in some respects spareth to name, because they saw no necessary consequence in them (although they lived in days of greater darkness than we do (God be praised for our light) endeavoured to obtain, that marriage might be lawful for the clergy. as Faber reporteth: yea and pope Pius the second, 
Cont. Luth. Tract. 4.  was so little moved by those arguments, that he had wont to say, that there was great cause that priests should be forbidden to marry, 
Pla●. in the life of Pius. 2.  but greater, that marriage should be permitted unto them: and the Ambassadors of catholic princes were earnest suitors, in the names of their princes to the council of Trent, that marriage might be free for the clergy Since these arguments (I say) were not able to persuade these men so devoted to their doctrines, as it is known they were, how much more may we reject this their law, as hurtful to God's church, and injurious to our wise Lawmaker, and suspect it not to rest upon good ground. Thirdly, the most blasphemous commendation that they give unto this estate of life, and the efficacy and virtue, that impudently and untruly they do ascribe unto the same, maketh me think it is but a bird of their own clecking, and that therein they seek rather their own praise than God's glory. Because thereby they teach men to look for remission of sins, and make it a thing meritorious: and so they rob Christ of his honour, and take from him his office, to attribute the same to the observation of their ungodly law. And unto this reason which is taken from the evil fruit of their wicked doctrine, I might also add the sour grape of ungodly life that followed the same. Which made not Papists only, but even the Pope himself to wish the abolishing of that cruel law, and the removing of that dangerous stumbling block, as before you have heard of Pius, the second pope of that name. Now besides these wants that we find in the contrary doctrine which may induce us to see the unlikelihoode of the same, we have also the first institution wherein it was said to all without exception, 
Genes. 1.28.  Increase and multiply. Then also we have that general advise and counsel wherein the apostle adviseth all men and women, that it is better to marry than to burn: 
1. Cor. 7.9.  which advise the apostle giveth in respect of that common experience wherein we find it to be true that every man can not attain to the gift of chastity in single life. Thirdly, we have also particular direction for bishops by name, so permitting marriage unto them, 
1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.6.  that no man can doubt thereof, unless he wilfully wink for fear he should see the light of the truth. Fourthly, we have the practice of the priests in the old law, who were married, although they had the daily sacrifice to offer morning and evening. Almost all the apostles, and many bishops of the Primitive church also, if they will trust Vicelius their own friend, were married men. Therefore we may conclude, that for the clergy, as for other it is lawful, that every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband▪ Whereupon it also followeth, that not only the Montanists, Manichees, Eucratians. Martionists, or such like, who did wholly condemn marriage, or at the least much mislike the same, but also the papists who do account it too impure for their clergy men, are amongst the number of them of whom the spirit speaketh evidently, 
1. Tim. 4.1.2.3.  that in the latter days some shall depart from the faith and shall give heed to the spirit 〈◊〉 error, and doctrines of devils, who have their consciences burned with a hot iron, forbidding to marry. For although others may perchance in that point be worse, yet that proveth not that they cannot be evil. And although the fathers do expound this place, of those heretics that were before or in their time, yet is that no bar to us, but that we may in like manner confute thereby all them, who do in any sort condemn matrimony. But they say they condemn not matrimony, neither force men to single life. Whether they have drawn men to their vows or not, 
Bellarm. de cler. li. 1. cap. 20.  let the world judge. But it is but a shift to say, they deny not marriage. They deny it to that whole estate, in so much as in Queen Mary's time, we have seen the clergy forced, either to leave their function and ministry, or to forsake their wives. So that although they say not to any man or woman particularly, thou shalt in no wise marry, yet they deny it to that estate of life, which needs must be in the world, as not holy enough for them, wherein if they were well examined, they would be found to conspire with those ancient heretics.     

Of Anoiling or extreme Unction, that it is not a Sacrament. CHAP. 20  


THE PROTESTANTS  
WE willingly confess, that the Apostles of our Saviour Christ, 
Mar. 6.13  Anointed many that were sick with oil: and healed them. And that saint james confesseth, 
jam. 5.14.  that if any be sick, they should send for the Elders; who should pray for him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. By the which visible sign God did testify to men of that gift of healing that he endued his church withal, until by such miracles he had confirmed the gospel, and assured men's consciences of the power of his word. But that it was instituted for a sacrament we cannot acknowledge. And much less can we yield unto that popish anoiling that it can be called a Sacrament properly, or yet be tolerated in Christ his church, it is so contrary to the Apostles practise.   

THE PAPISTS  
FOr without any warrant of the word, they consecrate their oil, which the apostles did not, for any thing we can read. Secondly, the church of Rome doth appoint what parts shall be anointed, as the eyes, ears, nose, lips, hands, feet, and the reins of the back. But yet they are not agreed, that all these are of the essence of anoiling. 
Deunct. c. 10  And indeed Bellar. in respect of honesty, supposeth that women should not be anointed on their reins. But Laurence Vaus, 
In his catechism.  would have men anointed in the back & women on the belly, so far hath he forgotten all honesty. But thapostles were not curious in these matters. Thirdly popish anoiling must not be used but when all hope of life is past: the apostles used oil when they hoped to heal men of their infirmities. 
Bellarm. de unctione lib. 1. cap. 2.  The apostles used oil for all diseases, Popish anoiling was but for some.   

Other differences also might be found, but these few are sufficient to show, that the church of Rome hath added to the word of God, and practise of the Apostles in this point: and therefore, if that were granted unto them, which they can not prove, namely, that that which the Apostles did, was a sacrament: yet can it in no wise follow, that the Popish anoiling can be a Sacrament, unto the which they have added so many, yea, and some of them so unseemly ceremonies. And yet the council of Trent is not ashamed to affirm, that the church of Rome doth observe none other thing as belonging unto the substance of this sacrament, 
Sess. 14. ca 3 de sacram. unct.  than that which saint james hath prescribed? Where did saint james appoint that the oil should be consecrated: for, that it should be consecrated, 
De unct. lib. 1. cap. 7.  it is as master Bellarmine doth term it, of the essence of the matter of this sacrament, and not accidentary.  
Master Bellarmine's shift that he hath for to answer this demand, is too hold and shameless, and doth more lay open the badness of their cause. For he saith, that it is enough for them, if saint james do not forbid it. And is that your touchstone (M. Bellarmine) whereby you will try your doctrines? What will you say then to that Law that God hath established for ever. 
Deut. 12.32. and 4.2.  Whatsoever I command you to do, do it. Thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught therefrom. Which, as it is true in all matters of religion, so especially in the Sacraments, we must take heed, lest in adding any thing to them, we change thereby the use of them. In this thing, if in any, 
de Coron. Mil.  is that true that Tertullian hath said, It is forbidden that is not frankly permitted. And that also that in an other place he hath, 
de Monog.  The Scripture forbiddeth whatsoever it noteth not. Secondly, master Bellarmine thinketh it to be a thing belonging unto the substance of the Sacrament, that the parts wherein the five senses are, should be anointed, that is, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the lips and the hands. Then let the council of Trent show this commanded by saint james, but that can never be performed: so that we see that bold affirmation of the council of Trent, was rather, to blind the eyes of men, under a show of good words, seeking thereby to make the world believe, that they add no material point unto that which saint james commandeth: and that is most false, as hath been showed, and might also further be proved. For, where is that form commanded by Saint james, that is prescribed by the council of Trent. By this holy ointment, etc. 
Sess. 14. ca 1. de sacr. unct.  He had no mind of any such matter. Besides this their adding to that which saint james hath willed to be done, (which is but a small matter with the church of Rome, for all their religion wherein we differ from them, is nothing else but additions to God's word) their own diversity of opinions concerning this their sacrament, doth show it to be a devise of their own: for they know not what to say for the institution of it. They have not so much as any show or colour that it was instituted by Christ, or before his death, but only that place of saint Mark, 
Mar. 6.13.  where it is said, that the Apostles anointed many that had infirmities, and healed them. And therefore Thomas Walden, Alfonsus, and others, do seek for the institution of the sacrament out of that place.  
But master Bellarmine seeing what danger may come to their sacrament, 
De sacr. unct. cap. 2.  if they should seem to make that the ground of their sacrament, because sundry of the ancient fathers seem to make that unction that saint james speaketh of, to be none other, but that which saint Mark mentioned: he seeketh to provide a plaster for that sore. And he will not in any sort have those words to be the ground or institution of the Sacrament. And for that cause he proveth by many reasons, that they are not all one. For he seethe that it can not be denied, and therefore himself granteth, that that unction which the Apostles in that sixth chapter are said to use, was only or especially for bodily diseases, and therefore that the sacrament cannot be proved out of it: for the sacraments as there he also confesseth, are belonging principally to the soul. Therefore he will in no wise like of them that allege this place of saint Mark for this their sacrament, although they be many, yea, and those great pillars of Popery, and no small fools I warrant you: But such as Eckius, 
Decree 10. De Sacram. unct. sess. 14. cap. 1.  the Scotish man nicol Burn, the provincial Council called Senonense, yea, and the Council of Trent, although it set it down somewhat fearfully, (for it saith it was insinuated by our Lord Christ in Saint Mark) all these with others (I say) establish their sacrament of Unction, and ground it upon that place: yet Bellarmine (as I have said) will not in any wise yield unto it. And for my part I think he saith truly, when he sayeth it is not grounded upon that place.  
And as truly also if he should affirm, that it hath no warrant out of that place of saint james. For that place of saint Mark, and that other of saint james, speak both of one sort of anointing, as Beda, Theophilact. and Occumenius do testify. But saint Marks words can not prove the sacrament of Unction, 
De Vnct. cap. 2.  as master Bellarmine doth not confess only, but he taketh much pains to prove it also by four or five arguments: therefore that place of saint james proveth not their sacrament of annoyling. And then is it destitute of all proof by God's word, and so must be accounted but a foolish toy (as now it is used) of man's brain. Neither are they agreed upon that other high point, what parts must be anointed of necessity, whether all those seven parts before mentioned, or else only those five first, which are the instruments of the senses.  

Bel. de Vnct. Cap 10.  Some think that there is not necessity that any one part should be anointed rather than other: And others think, that the anointing of every of these seven places is so necessary, that it is not a perfect sacrament if any be omitted. But master Bellarmine out of Thomas Aquinas telleth us, that only the five first are of the essence of the sacrament.  
Now in this diversity of opinions, I know not whose part Laurence Vaus will take: but he resolveth us of one great doubt. If a man want eyes, ears, nose, mouth, or hands, what the Priest should then do. He must oynt the part next to the place where these members should be. So it seemeth he alloweth of the first opinion. But are these such matters, as should busy men's minds so as they do? No, no, it is the subtlety of Satan, to occupy men's heads about such trifles, that in the mean time he may by false teachers, steal from the hearts of the people the truth of all christian Religion.  
They teach also that this their sacrament of annoyling or unction, may be often received. 
In the life of Pius 2.  And yet how long they have been of that mind, I know not, nor find men● ioned. But if we will believe Platina, Pope Pius the second seemed not to be resolved of that point, nor so persuaded. For he at the point of death disputed with a learned man the Bishop of Ferrara earnestly, whether he might again be annealed, seeing he had once before been annealed. By all which diversities of judgements in the most material points of this their Sacrament, they give us just cause to doubt of their Sacrament itself, that it is not of God. And by the way, I cannot but wonder with what faces they can object to us our diversities in opinions, seeing that they in such material points of Religion, and in their doctrines that concern the very substance of their sacraments, are so very far from being of one judgement.  
And thus briefly we see, how the Papists differ from the scriptures, whereupon themselves endeavour (but all in vain) to ground the institution of their Sacrament, and also disagree amongst themselves about the same. 
De Sacram. unct. sess. 14. can. 1.  And yet with great boldness they curse all them, that say that this their Sacrament is not truly, and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ, for so doth the Council of Trent. Wherein I know not whether they have somewhat wounded themselves, 
Cap 1.  both because they say themselves but a little before, that it is insinuated by Christ, which is less than instituted. And also it is tanquam vere & propriè Sacramentum, as it were (which is a doubtful speech) truly and properly a Sacrament. 
De sacram. Vnct. cap. 2.  But let us see how master Bellarmine proveth this to be a Sacrament out of that place of saint james. He can find, as he supposeth, the outward sign. 
The outward sign  True it is there is an outward sign, but it is not that which is required in annoyling now: for now it must needs be consecrated, but than it was not. The Apostles did use it especially against the diseases of the body, but this Oil is in the Popish church, used especially for a remedy against the sicknesses of the soul. Therefore, I grant it was in those days a sign of health of body, whilst God left with his church that gift of healing, but it was never a sign of spiritual grace, which is it that now they do affirm.  
As for the health of the body, they so little regard that it should be used to that end, that they must not in any wise annoyle them, but such as they have no hope that they may escape. Whereas the Apostle saint james would have it done to that end, that God forgiving them their sins, which are many times the cause of sickness, they might be Healed, as saith saint Bede upon this place. As for the promise which is a second thing that must be in a sacrament, 
The promise of grace.  master Bellarmine maketh no doubt but that he can prove it, because it is said, The Lord shall raise him up, and if he have sinned, they shall be forgiven him. The meaning of the apostle in this place is very plain, that whereas in the days of the primitive church, there were many miracles wrought by the apostles and others, they did not those things, by any power which they had in themselves, but by the prayer of faith the sick were healed. And if their sins were the cause of their sickness (as they are many times, although not always, 
john. 9.3  as by saint john's gospel it appeareth) he promiseth that God, to the end that they may not doubt but that they shall be healed, will take away their sins, and forgive their offences, which otherwise might be a let or hindrance. And that this condition is to be understood in this promise, it is plain by these words, And if you have committed sins: For the apostle nothing doubted but that they had sins, For if we say we have no sin, 
1 john. 1.8.  we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us. But he might justly doubt whether sickness was always laid upon men, for, and in respect of their sins. Therefore to doubt whether they might have sin or not, belongeth unto them that know not the corruption of man's nature, which we cannot think of the apostle saint james. But to know that God doth not always send afflictions in respect of sin: he had learned by that which our Saviour Christ himself said unto his Disciples of the blind man, Neither hath this man sinned, neither his parents, 
john. 9.33  but that the works of God may be manifest. And for this cause saint james saith, If he committed sins, they shall be forgiven him, that is, if his sins have been the cause of his sickness, his sins shall be forgiven him, that his sickness may cease. So then the promise of forgiveness of sins, which should especially serve to make this oiling a sacrament, is but conditional, whereas in the true sacraments in deed, the promise of forgiveness of sins is most certain, otherwise we should not have in the use of them any true comfort.  
Thus then, seeing sickness sometime cometh of sin, sometime of other causes, the apostle sayeth, if it come of sin, not only the man over whom the elders make their faithful prayer, and whom they so oynt with this visible oil, shall be raised up, but also his sins, the cause of his sickness shall be taken away. But that not forgiveness of sins was especially regarded in this ceremony, but bodily health, the fathers afore named do prove, and master Bellarmine cannot deny, but that sundry of the Papists do affirm, whilst they teach that the Apostles in the 6. of saint Mark his Gospel, did practise the self same thing that saint james commandeth. 
The institution of this Sacrament.  But for the institution of this sacrament, master Bellarmine can bring no proof at all, but only in respect of this promise of saint james, which if it be not of spiritual grace, as I trust I have proved that it is not, then is there no institution of this sacrament to be found. Then we see that all this whole building, hangeth upon a weak foundation, to be grounded upon one only authority, and that so little to the purpose unless it be racked besides the meaning: and that out of that Epistle, which although it be in our churches received and read, yet we know that the authority thereof hath been doubted of: and therefore the less force hath it to prove any thing, that is not taught in any other place. And especially for their annoyling that is now used in the Popish church, which is far unlike that which the apostles used, there is in that place no proof at all. And as master Bellarmine hath the better liking to expound this place of saint james, of another ointing than the apostles used, mark eth sixth chapter, 
Cap. 2  because, as he saith Luther, calvin, and Kemnitius, do take both places for one anointing: even so do I, and that with much better reason mislike the Popish anoiling, because it cometh so near unto that practice of the heretics of whom jeremy speaketh, 
li. 1. cap. 18.  That they redeem their dead at the end of their race or travel, pouring oil and water upon their heads. And whereas master Bellarmine would prove out of Epiphanius, that this ointment was used when they were dead. And therefore therein they differ from the Papists, yet saint Augustine in his book of heresies, saith, 
Cap. 16.  they did it when they were dying. So that master Bellarmine must not think so to face out the matter, as if those heretics were nothing like them. And whereas they used water also with their Oil, although they differ therein from the church of Rome, yet the difference is nothing so great by many degrees, between the Papists and those heretics, as is between the apostles and the papists for this point, as may appear by that which before hath been said. 
De sacra. unct. li. 2. cap. 4.  But after this great scarcity of proof out of the scriptures, he cometh at length to the authority of man. And he will prove what men will say in his behalf, where God keepeth silence. And the first that he bringeth in is Innocentius that lived at the least four hundred years after Christ. What, was it no Sacrament for four hundred years, and now upon a sudden is it become a sacrament? how doth he prove it to be a sacrament? He bringeth no reason, he hath no proof, no, neither yet doth he so much as say it is a sacrament properly so called, but that it is Genus Sacramenti, A kind of Sacrament. What then, if we grant to master Bellarmine that which Pope Innocentius sayeth? If it be a kind of Sacrament, as he sayeth, is it, therefore a sacrament truly and properly as master Bellarmine saith? I deny that argument, and master Bellarmine will not prove it. And yet to help his bad cause, he loudly and lewdly belieth Innocentius his words, in that he affirmeth that Innocentius saith expressly and plainly, that this ointing is that sacrament explained by saint james. But Innocentius hath no such words, no neither yet any thing like. But M. Bellarmine, to deceive them that can not look into the fathers, doth many times falsify them to make his cause to seem better.  
And now what cause hath this second Achilles of the Catholics (for Eckius did bestow that name first upon himself, as you may see in his Enchiridion in the title of the church in the margin) what cause I say, hath this challenging champion thus to brag against Kemnitius, that he durst not so much as name this Innocentius. When his testimony is examined, the crack is great, but he doth not hit the mark that master Bellarmine would have him to leavell at. As for Kemnitius if he have but his due praise, we must needs confess, that by his learning and travel, he hath more beaten down the walls of that popish Babylon, than that all the papists if they join together hand in hand, shall be able with all their skill and cunning to raise it up again. Of Innocentius the third, because he came so late he is not worth the answering: for he lived about 1200. years after Christ in time of ignorance and much superstition. As for the Counsels which he allegeth, the first is the Nicene council translated into latin out of the Arabic tongue. But since that canon is not amongst those canons, which we have in the tomes of the counsels, and in those copies that hitherto have been counted the true counsels, we need not much regard those far fetched authorities. His second authority is out of the council of Cabilon, and some other particular counsels, and although he commend their antiquity, yet the first of them was almost 800. years after Christ. And those which I have examined, make not for his purpose. For they prove not, that this anointing is a sacrament properly so called. Now for the fathers, master Bellarmine needeth no adversary, he confesseth his want of proof out of them: For he divideth the fathers into two sorts. The one he confesseth do not plainly say that it is a sacrament. Why then doth he produce them? He hath taken in hand to prove that anoiling, as it is used in the popish church, is a true and proper sacrament. If they will not prove this, they may hold their tongues. For to this end only are they to be alleged. another sort there are, who speak it plainly, as he telleth us. But they are of no credit, neither are once named among the ancient fathers. The eldest of them is about 800. years after Christ. And for his examples of some few men what they have done, it is no proof to us, that we ought so to do. They might have their reasons that might well induce them to it. They might also do therein, as in many things many have done of a blind zeal, and foolish devotion. How or in what sort they have done that which they did, I will not take upon me to judge: as for their doings they ought not to be an example to any man, so that we should be bound to follow them. But he will prove by reason, that it must needs be a sacrament: 
Bellarm. de sac. unct. li. 1. cap. 5.  For since God hath by a sacrament helped us, in the entrance into the church, and also in our continuance in the same, we may not imagine that his providence shall fail us at our going out of the church: these are master Bellarmine his words. I might briefly answer, that we are not to teach God what we think convenient that he should do, but to see what he hath done, and to content ourselves therewith, and to frame ourselves to perform the same. But if God fail in his providence, if their anoiling be not a sacrament, then must we imagine that God had no due regard of the fathers of the old world, or of the patriarchs, or of the godly under the law. For until Christ's time, master Bellarmine will confess they had not this Sacrament. Yea the Apostles and all other the Godly and constant Martyrs in Christ's church, had not that sacrament. Neither yet did they make complaint for want of the same, but comfortably and patiently endured all torments with great joy, although they had not this anoiling, nor any hope to have it, no neither once thought of it. Lastly, our Saviour Christ to prepare us against death telleth us, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life: and to cause us not to fear it, he saith, that he is the resurrection and the life. Many notable lessons did our Saviour Christ give to his disciples, before he left the world to go to his father, which are recorded by Saint john from the twelfth to the seventeenth chapters. And although he use all arguments to comfort them, yet he never once thought of this anoiling, which yet then if he had purposed to leave unto his church any such Sacrament, it had been good time to have delivered them for their comfort. To be short, whatsoever he commanded us to use for the strengthening of our faith, with boldness we may, and with comfort and readiness we ought to do: But it is far from either true or sound comfort, in the agony of death, or a sufficient weapon, to withstand the assaults of Satan, and conflicts of conscience, to have standing by thee some Idol pastor, whose greatest good, that he either can or will do unto thee, is to grease some parts of thy body. Let the world esteem of these things as they will. But this is certain that it is only true obedience that hath the promise of blessing. And without the commandment there can be no obedience, either in our duties towards God, or our conversation amongst men. For obedience is nothing else, but an earnest applying of ourselves to do that which is pleasing unto God, and which he hath commanded. It is also far from the majesty of God's spirit, to deliver to us such trifling toys, thereby to comfort the afflicted conscience. And thus I trust it appeareth, that this their sacrament of anoiling, is but a devise of their own brain, having neither institution from Christ, neither any commandment from his apostles, or example in the scriptures, especially as it is now used in the church of Rome, either for the matter whereof it must consist, or the manner how it must be done, or the end unto which they especially have regard in that ceremony.  
I had thought here to have ended both this treatise of the sacraments and this chapter, but before I go any farther, I would have the christian reader to mark the evil dealing of the popish church, who with their tongues and pens proclaim as loud as they can, that our doctrine is not catholic, it is new, is lately devised. And yet we appeal to the scriptures, & have testimony for us also, the consent of the fathers of the purer times. And on the contrary the church of Rome crieth still, they are the catholic church, they have the catholic religion, yea all that is with them is catholic. But if by the rules of catholic which Vincentius Lyrinensis giveth, 
Commonitorio adversus haereses.  (with whose authority they seek often to stop our mouths) we examine their doctrines: we shall find them as far from the catholic religion, as the priests and rulers amongst the jews were from the truth. For whereas he accounteth no doctrine catholic, but that which hath been taught at all times, in all places, and by all men, or at the least by the most, and the best learned, and godliest men, we might by this rule reject many of their doctrines, which they deliver to us as catholic and necessary, so that without believing them there is no salvation. For shortness sake, let us look into this that last I handled. They will have it a catholic doctrine to teach that anoiling is a true and proper Sacrament, yea, and the council of Trent curseth them that say the contrary. And yet master Bellarmine, who saith as much in effect as they all can say in this point, how catholickely doth he prove it? He with much ado wresteth for it one place out of Saint james, and hath not one more in all the Scripture for him. Then leapeth he more than four hundredth years after Christ, and picketh out one pope Innocent, who saith it is a kind of Sacrament. If he had proved it to be a Sacrament properly so called, yet had he been but one witness in four hundred years. Then about 1200. years after Christ, he hath gotten another witness, and he is a pope also, Innocent the third. Then he telleth us of the 69. canon of the council of Nice, which had in all but twenty canons. Al above twenty were fetched out of Arabia, but are neither mentioned in the Nicene council set forth by themselves, 
Li. 1. cap. 6.  neither yet of Ruffinus in his ecclesiastical history, where he setteth down the canons of that council, who although he make 22. in number, Yet is the matter no other than is set down in the 1. book of the counsels in those 20. chapters. Besides there are many other strong reasons, & pregnant presumptions to prove those 50. canons (for they have 70.) to be falsely added to the council, & therefore they deserve no credit. He also allegeth some particular counsels, which he commendeth for their antiquity, and yet the ancientest of them, is about 800. years after Christ. And about that time also are the most ancient fathers, that seem to say any thing for him. Then if thou knowest the sun to shine at noon day, thou mayst also know that this is not a catholic doctrine, neither can be so accounted. It hath not been taught at all times, not in all places, not by all or the most of the learned. No, it hath had scarce one sufficient witness in 1200. years. But for the substance of religion which we teach, if we have not a universal consent of the scriptures, and also the testimony of the fathers of the church, in her most pure times, we crave no credit, we ask no hearing. Therefore that which we teach is the only catholic faith, because it hath the universal consent of the purer times: that which for the most part they teach, is but new, not warranted by the word, not known or not taught amongst the godly fathers, at the least for 400. or 500 years. Which I thought good upon this occasion thus offered, to note unto the christian reader, that I might pull away from the faces of those counterfeits, the vizard of catholic, universality, antiquity, and consent, that their religion may appear indeed as it is, new, not old, particular not catholic, false not true: because it is the devise of man, whose wisdom is folly, whose words are lies: and not the will of God, which is the infallible rule, and of whose word not one title shall perish. And thus I trust it appeareth, that they who brag most, of the name of catholic church, are the greatest enemies to true catholic religion, teaching that which is nothing less than catholic.     

Of original sin, what it is: And whether Concupiscence be sin, or not. CHAP. 21  


THE PROTESTANTS  
THat all mankind which is conceived of unclean seed, is also infected with original sin, no man denieth: but the question is, what this original sin is, which we confess to be in us. 
Original sin.  We therefore say, It is a general corruption of our whole nature, which corruption as an inheritance we receive from Adam. In our mind is ignorance, where was light & knowledge. In our heart is unaptness, and unreadiness to any thing that is good, in stead of an earnest forwardness, to serve God sincerely: whereby it cometh to pass, that by concupiscence and lust we are enticed to sin. Which concupiscence, because the Apostle to the Romans doth often call ● in, we also say it is sin, not only because it proceedeth from sin, and also proceedeth from it: but also because it is a thing in itself contrary to God's Law.   

THE PAPISTS  
BUT the Papists, although they can not deny, but that we all have original sin: yet would they have the force thereof as little known as may be. And therefore some of them have taught, that it is nothing else but the imputation of Adam's sin unto us, and not any corruption in ourselves, as Ambrose Catharinus, 
Andrad. Orthod. expli. l● b. 3. de axiom. 3. Cens. Colon. dialog. 2.  & Pighius, two notable papists. And others find fault, that we do so amplify the corruption of the nature of man by original sin, as though nothing that is good could come from it, As for concupiscence, they will not grant that it is sin in the regenerate. And yet the Apostle S. Paul being a man regenerate, confesseth it to be sin in himself very often, as may appear. 
Rom. 7.    

The reasons which move us, thus to lay open and amplify our own corrupt nature, and to confess the power and force of original sin in us are these. Partly our own woeful experience, whereby if we have any true feeling of our frail estate, or know any thing of our unwillingness to that which is good, and our ready inclination to that which is evil: we must needs confess that the law of our flesh, 
Rom. 7.23.  is always rebellious to the law of the spirit which is in us: And that the wisdom of the flesh is such a froward enemy to God, 
Rom. 8.7.  as is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be. Partly also the manifold and manifest testimonies out of God's word, which do plainly prove, that this original sin hath so corrupted our whole nature, that it can bring forth nothing that is good or godly. 
Gen. 6.5.  Such is that All the imaginations of the thoughts of man's heart, are only evil always. And that also. 
Gen. 8.21.  The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Whereby we must needs confess and acknowledge it to be true, that we are not sufficient of ourselves, to think any thing as of ourselves, 
2. Cor. 3.5.  in those things that belong unto true godliness. And why? Because that by one man sin entered into the world, 
Rom. 5.12.18.  and by the offence of one, the fault came on all men to condemnation. In this respect the Apostle calleth such as are not regenerate, Enemies to God, the children of wrath by nature, vessels of dishonour, and by such like names whereby he showeth plainly, what we should judge, or how we should esteem of the strength and force of original sin, in them that are not regenerate. Namely, that no good at all can come from them in thought, word or deed. Which doctrine the Church of Rome will in no wise hear of. But of that I must speak in another place. But even we that have received the first fruits of the spirit, and whom God hath delivered from the condemnation of that common corruption: we, I say, do find, that if sin reign not over us, yet it dwelleth in us. Whereby we are many times forced, 
Rom. 7. 1●  To do that evil thing that we would not, and to leave undone, That good that we would do. We feel that there is, 
2●  A law in our members, rebelling against the Law of our mind, and leading us captive to the Law of sin, which is in our members. Insomuch as we are forced, not only to cry out with the Prophet David, 
Psal. 19.12  Who can understand his faults? Cleanse me from secret faults: but also continually to pray as Christ willeth us, Forgive us our trespasses. 
Heb. 12.1.  For sin hangeth so fast on us, that even When we would do good, 
Rom. 7. 2●.  then evil is present with us. And therefore well may our spirit strive, that the flesh prevail not, and the new man wax every day stronger against the old man: yet, so long as we carry about with us, this body subject to corruption, Satan will not leave buffeting us, sin will not cease to assault us. But, as a froward and cruel enemy, even then when it is almost quite subdued, and at the last cast, yet will it stir, even then, I say, will it strive to hurt us. And this our deadly enemy was bred and borne with us, we carry him always about us. So long as we live we cannot shake him off. Which made the Apostle saint Paul so weary of this wicked world, that he desired to be dissolved, and to be with Christ. 
Philip. 1.23.  And no marvel. For, what can a spiritual minded man see here, that may make him desire to live in this flesh? In his mind there is such ignorance of heavenly things, as that although he be continually taught, yet he needeth continually to pray, O teach me thy Statutes, 
Psal. 119.12  and to ask that the eyes of his understanding may be lightened, by the spirit of wisdom and revelation, 
Ep. 1.17, 18, Philip. 1.9  by the knowledge of Christ, more and more in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. For, the perfection of knowledge that here we can attain unto, 
Coloss. 1.9.  is every day to learn, and when we know most concerning heavenly things, yet our knowledge is unperfect. Yea, that which we know not, is much more than that we do know.  
Then if he consider of his own heart, he shall find the affections thereof so rebellious against the spirit, so running headlong unto worldly and wicked lusts, that it will force him for to pray, 
Psal. 86.11  Knit my heart unto thee, that I may fear thy Name. 
Psal. 5.8.  Lead me in the way of thy righteousness, make thy way plain before my face. Yea, he will be driven to confess, that no man can come unto Christ to serve him, 
joh. 6.44.  Unless the Father draw him. So that even in respect of those excellent things that man doth seem to have, he may truly say, 
Rom. 7.18.  I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing. For his mind is darkened that it can not know, his heart is clogged that it will not obey sincerely, and readily as it ought Gods holy will.  
Thus than it appeareth, not only, that all that are borne of unclean seed, are conceived and borne in original sin, 
Rom. 7.24. Rom. 8.23  but also, that the same doth make great trouble even to the godly, yea, it maketh them to sigh for their deliverance from this their body, which by reason of sin, is so subject to death.  

Concupiscence is s● n  And now, for this concupiscence, by means whereof we are thus enticed unto sin, and also hindered from sincere obedience, the church of Rome will in no wise yield that it shall be sin in the regenerate, unless it also draw consent of reason to yield unto it: for this they all teach. And yet saint Paul in the Epistle to the Romans often calleth it sin, as M. Bellarmine himself confesseth, 
De amiss. gratiae lib. 5. cap. 10.  yea, and that in the regenerate. But it is so called (saith he) unproperly, not because it is sin, but because it is the cause of sin, and cometh also of sin. But how doth he prove that out of any thing that saint Paul hath said in those places? First, because saint Paul saith, Let not sin reign in this your mortal body. 
Rom, 6.12.  Out of which words Master Bellarmine reasoneth thus: The Apostle saith, that this sin is in the body, not in the mind, but sin properly so called can not be in the body: therefore the Apostle calleth not concupiscence sin, because it is so properly. I may answer with Saint Augustine, that the flesh never lusteth without the soul: 
De perfect. justitiae.  and also out of Saint Ambrose upon this place, that the body is here taken for the whole man, body and soul: Neither is there any that doth restrain this word Body unto that part of man that is a distinct part from the soul, amongst all the ancient Writers that I have seen. And then Master Bellarmine's argument hath no force, because Saint Paul's words may have this sense, Let not sin reign either in your body or soul: and that sin may be in the soul, sin (I say) properly so called, I trust Master Bellarmine will not deny. But the words themselves do most plainly show, that he speaketh in this place of that part of man, wherein sin properly so called may be: for he speaketh of that part of man, wherein reigning sin may be, otherwise his exhortation were needless: but reigning sin, is sin properly so called, as all do confess, therefore sin properly so called, may be in this mortal body, whereof here the Apostle saint Paul speaketh. And therefore Master Bellarmine triumpheth too hastily, when as he concludeth, that Saint Paul plainly signifieth he calleth concupiscence sin, but not properly, but unproperly. But I may more justly conclude against Master Bellarmine. The Apostle speaketh there of sin properly so called. And he speak h of concupiscence: therefore concupiscence is sin properly so called. The minor is confessed here by master Bellarmine, in that he doth allege it to prove his purpose of concupiscence. The mayor also is proved out of master Bellarmine. For, the principal thing that he doth allege to teach us, that Concupiscence is no sin: that it is not in that same part wherein sin can be, but in the flesh only, where can be no sin. But if it be found once to be in that part of man wherein sin may be, he will not then deny, but is also sin. Therefore thus I reason, the apostle speaketh there of that sin that is in that part of the body, 
De amiss. great. l. 5. c. 13  wherein sin is, that is properly so called, as before I have proved: therefore he speaketh of sin properly so called. The other place alleged by master Bellarmine to prove that saint Paul calleth not concupiscence sin in the proper signification, 
Rom. 7.18.  is this, There dwelleth not in me, that is, in my flesh, any good. Therefore concupiscence is in the flesh. How unnecessary a consequence this argument hath, the very children may perceive. And also this word flesh, every one that is acquainted but with the principles of divinity knoweth to be spoken of whatsoever is not regenerate in man, even the very mind of man. But of this I have spoken sufficiently in the answer to the former place. Master Bellarmine also useth some other reasons to prove that the apostles calleth concupiscence sin unproperly but they are not worth speaking of. As this is one. Sin is many times called unproperly, therefore here it is not called sin properly. A kind of reasoning which master Bellarmine immediately afterwards reproveth in Luther, and yet himself useth it. Another reason whereby I prove concupiscence to be sin in the proper signification, 
Rom. 7.23. De Amiss. gratiae li. 5. cap. 6.  is because It rebelleth against the law of the mind. For master Bellarmine himself confesseth that to be understood of concupiscence. As also by The law of the mind, 
Ibid. cap. 10  he understandeth The rule of a good action, which must needs be the law of God. Thus therefore I reason, whatsoever affection or lust rebelleth against the law of the mind, is in truth sin: but concupiscence is lust that rebelleth against the law of the mind, therefore concupiscence is in truth sin. The mayor may be proved out of saint john, 
1. john. 3.4.  who defineth sin to be a Breach of law, or lawlessness. But yet master Bellarmine will not confess that whatsoever rebelleth against the law is sin properly, and namely concupiscence, 
De Amiss. great. li. 5. cap 14.  because it rebelleth only as a thing stirring up, and causing to transgress, as I said of the devil (saith he.) I am glad that concupiscence which the papists will in no wise to be sin of itself, hath deserved no better of her own friends and patrons, then to be matched in the same yoke with the devil, who is a liar and the father thereof. 
john. 8.44.  But master Bellarmine cannot shift off this argument under this colour. We inquire what concupiscence is, he telleth us what it worketh, we would know the nature of it, he telleth us, the effect of it. There are therefore in concupiscence two things to be considered: the one is, what it bringeth forth in us, of the which we say with saint james, 
jam. 1.15.  When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. The other, what it is in itself, or in it own nature. To that we answer out of the apostle in many places, that it is sin, as before it hath been showed: yea and in this very respect, that it hath in it a repugnancy against the law of the mind, and followeth not the direction of the law of God. For even as it is crooked, that is, not even to the strait rule: so is it sin, that is, not agreeable to the most infallible rule of God's law, which I take to be master Bellarmine's meaning, expounding the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saint john useth, 
De Amiss. great. li. 5. cap. 14 1. 1. john. 3.4  he saith It is a departing from the law. If then concupiscence be examined, even before it be consented unto, by God's Law do we not find that it is a motion disagreeing from God's Law? No man can deny it. For look upon the lust that moveth to uncleanness, to stealth, to cruelty, although the heart consent not, yet in that very lust, is that, that disagreeth from God's Law. So that this is not true that master Bellarmine saith, that concupiscence rebelleth against the law only, as it stirreth up or causeth to sin: seeing in itself it hath that nature that swerveth from the law.  
S. August. also proveth my mayor in that definition that he giveth of sin, 
Cont. Faust. li. 22. cap. 27.  saying, that Sin is that which is said, done, or lusted against the eternal law. And that that is a definition of sin, properly so called, master Bellarmine cannot deny. Now for my minor proposition, which is this, That concupiscence rebelleth against the law of the mind, master Bellarmine himself confesseth it in plain words, 
De Amiss. gratiae. lib. 5 cap. 10. & 14  but yet so, as that he seemeth to me to counterfeit jugglers, when they would play a trick of legerdemain. For their greatest skill is Deceptio visus, the deceiving of our sight, whereby they seem to do that they do not, or with a little cleanly conveyance, to beguile the simple. For although he confess, that these lust's rebel against the law, 
De Amiss. gratiae. li. 5. cap. 10.  yet saith he, they rebel against the law as it showeth the end, not as it commandeth the means. But who can imagine that ever saint Paul speaking of this point of Divinity, which is most necessary to be understood of every one, even from the highest, to the lowest, would speak or write so subtly or obscurely? And who told him these lusts strive not against the law, as it commandeth the means, that is to say, as it commandeth to resist, and not to yield to them? Doubtless that lust, which rebelleth against this commandment, Thou shalt not lust, will never yield when it is resisted: for every thing naturally seeketh the preservation of itself. But the resisting of lust is the destruction of it, therefore it will not yield to it. And as reason teacheth this, so saint Paul by experience found it to be true, when he said, Sin took occasion by the commandment, 
Rom. 7.23.  and wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. So that this concupiscence, is by resisting, made more stubborn, and is so far from yielding, that it fighteth more fiercely against the law. And hereof is that combat and battle, which the godly have between the flesh and the spirit. The wicked are not acquainted with it, because they willingly yield to their lusts. But the godly, because they resist the same, Do see another law in their members, rebelling against the law of their mind. 
Rom. 7.23   
Thus we see that this distinction whereby master Bellarmine striveth against truth, is neither according to the meaning of the Apostle, nor hath any colour of truth. But here by the way I must note, how grossly, and how absurdly master Bellarmine in the place next before alleged affirmeth, that he is not a sinner, that attaineth not to the end of the commandment. His reason is, because it lieth not in his power: no more than he is too blame, that being commanded to subdue the enemies, can not do it. But master Bellarmine should consider where is the cause of this want in us, and through whose fault it is that we can not obey this commandment, thou shalt not lust. If it be in man, as in truth it is, because he fell from that estate of innocency wherein he was created, then is there no reason, but that sin should be imputed unto us, for not performing that commandment, thou shalt not lust. And by this also it appeareth, that master Bellarmine his similitude is nothing like, because that the subduing of the enemy was not in their power. But not to lust wickedly was in man's power once, which because through his own fault he lost, the not fulfilling of that commandment, may justly be laid to his charge for sin. Thirdly, I thus prove concupiscence to be sin: Not to love the Lord our God, with all our heart, 
Luke. 10.27  with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our thought, is sin. But to lust, is to fail in this love. 
August. de perfect. justitiae. count celest.  For if the heart consent not, yet at the least the thought by this concupiscence is hindered from this perfection of love, therefore concupiscence is sin. Again, 
De August. gratiae li. 4. Cap. 2. Li. 2. Dist. 3●  Original sin, is sin properly so called, as master Bellarmine confesseth: But Concupiscence is original sin, as the master of Sentences affirmeth, therefore concupiscence is sin, properly so called. Again, whatsoever maketh us hated of God is sin. Andrad. Orthod. Explic. lib. 3. But concupiscence maketh us hated of God, Bellar. de Amiss. gratiae, lib. 5. cap. 13: therefore concupiscence is sin. And thus much briefly, to prove concupiscence not only to be called, but indeed to be sin. But what need I stand so much hereupon? If the church of Rome meant that the light of the truth should shine unto men, she would never cast these mists before their eyes, thus to contend about terms and words. For themselves do ascribe unto concupiscence, both the nature, and the effects of sin, when they say it 
De Amiss. gratiae. li. 5. cap. 13 ●.  is vice, it is truly evil, 
b Can 14.  it is unlawful, condemned, and hated of God, & that Andrad. saith, sin only can work. For all this M. Bellarmine affirmeth of concupiscence, 
c Cap. 13. Orthod. explic. li. 3.  and many such like things, which whether they may be affirmed of any thing but sin, let master Bellarmine and his favourites well consider. But I for my part do think, I may truly conclude, and boldly affirm, seeing the Apostle so often calleth it sin, without any expounding of himself to speak unproperty, seeing it rebelleth against the law of the mind, and maketh such a want in the love of God, that in this and such like respects, concupiscence is sin properly so called, whatsoever the Council of Trent decree to the contrary. 
Sess. 5. can. 5      

Of the works of Infidels, or such as are not regenerate. CHAP. 22.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
WE then being thus infected with the filth of original sin, and by our concupiscence, which can not whilst here we live be rooted out of us, being enticed to sin, and hindered in all good: what can come from them, 
Ephe. 4.18  that have their cogitations darkened, through the ignorance that is in them, but that they walk after the lusts of the flesh, 
Ephe. 2.1.3  in fulfilling the will of the flesh. And so are in deed no better than dead in sins and trespasses, 
5  by their own nature the children of wrath. 
4  So that from such no good can proceed, in thought, word, or deed, and in such no good can be, until God of his abundant mercy, 
1. Pet. 1.3  have begotten them again unto a lively hope of immortal seed, 
● 23  by the word of God, having by his holy spirit renewed the light of their mind, and reform the frowardness of their heart. Until then (I say) what excellent virtues so ever they seem to have, yet is there nothing in them acceptable to God, because they have not that fountain of regeneration, from whence only can spring that which god accepteth for good. Neither have they faith, without which nothing can please God. 
Heb. 11.6.    

THE PAPISTS  
But the papists, 
Andrad. orthod. explic. li. 3.  as they will in no wise that concupiscence is of itself sin, no not in the unregenerate, but only in respect that it is destitute of original righteousness: so do they seek by all means, to cloak and cover the corruption and sinfulness, of our wretched nature. Hereof cometh it that they shame not to teach, that the works of infidels and godless persons, 
Andrad. ibidem  such as we account Turks, or jews, may be without spot of sin, and worthy of notable praise. As though a filthy spring could send forth pleasant waters, 
jam. 3.11 Math. 7.18  or an evil tree could bear good fruit, 
john. 15.4.  or a branch that is not of the vine tree, could have a kindly grape. All which the scriptures deny. Do men gather grapes of thorns, 
Mat. 7.16  or figs of thistles? 
Luke. 6.45.  No doubtless. For, An evil man out of the treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil. It is then most certain, that where the spirit of regeneration is not to sanctify the heart, (as in the infidels it is not) we can look for no works, but such as proceed from that bitter root of sin, which must needs be evil and unsavoury before God.   

It may justly be wondered at, why they, who take upon them the name of holy catholic church, & such as account themselves the members thereof, do so stiffly and stubbornly, maintain so bad a cause, and defend, yea commend the actions of such godless men. For not only the particular writers among them, excuse from sin the actions of Infidels, 
Sess. 6. can. 57  but also the council of Trent doth hold them all accursed that dare say they are truly sin. But their fear is, lest if the nature of man be set forth in her own colours, and duly considered of, the doctrine of merit by works will seem more absurd. But if the works of graceless and godless men, may be thought to be void of sin: how much the rather may we think, that the works of the faithful may be so perfect, that they may merit at God's hands? And in truth no man can deny, but that there is no comparison, between the works of the godly and the ungodly. Therefore that they may prepare a way for their doctrine of merits, they would first make us believe, that even in the wicked there may be good works. And least men should condemn the corruption of this our nature, being not renewed by the spirit of God, as it justly deserveth, and so sincerely confess, that we have in us no good, but that it cometh wholly from God: the council of Trent doth not any thing mislike those opinions, that commend the works even of infidels, yea attributing some merit unto them, as do some of the schoolmen, but only accurseth them that account them to be sin. 
Sleiden. comment. li. 23. An. 1552.  And a Franciscan friar, reading upon the second chapter of the epistle to the Romans, did most blasphemously teach, in the hearing of many of them that were at the council, and in the time of the council, that They who had no knowledge of Christ, and yet lived honestly were saved. Which his unchristian doctrine, was so far from being condemned by that Antichristian council, that the divines that were sent from the protestants to that council, made their complaint to the emperors Ambassadors that he was heard with great liking. And indeed the council did not accurse that doctrine, or him that taught it. No, the council did not determine, but as Andradius telleth us, 
Orthodoxarum explicat. li. 3.  hath left it free for every man to think as they will of the works of them that are not regenerate: this only that council will not permit us to think, that they are sin, because they are not of faith. That therefore that the scripture teacheth us, we may not once think of, but all other absurd opinions of men are very tolerable. Is not this strange dealing, that the spirit of truth only must not speak, and the lying spirits of foolish men, may say what they will? But let us see what reasons they allege to induce them to this persuasion. I will say nothing of that which master Bellarmine, (nothing like a grave divine, which should with all diligence and prayer search out, and with all humility submit himself to the truth, but rather like a foolish & wrangling sophister, whose care were only to contend, to make good that which he saith) most impudently affirmeth, inquiring, what knowledge of moral virtues men may have by the powers of nature, & Gods general help. 
De gram. & libero a● bit. li. 5. cap. 1.  Of two opinions he preferreth one, and why? So much the more gladly (saith he) we do embrace and defend it, how much the more our adversaries mislike it. I see now it is no great marvel, though these pretended catholics, do manifestly and wilfully gainsay and withstand many things, most consonant to the infallible word of God. For I perceive, that if we like of it, it is cause good enough for them to mislike of it. Only this will I say, that because this persuasion is foolish, and dangerous: 
jam. 2.1.  Saint james giveth a good caveat to all that are of such an humour, My brethren have not the faith of our glorious Lord jesus Christ, in respect of persons. But, to like or mislike, in respect of the man, is to have it in respect of persons. But he having thus professed that general reason whereby he is settled in his persuasion cometh afterwards in the same book to other particular reasons. His first reason is this. 
Cap. 9  God is said many times to reward the works of the Infidels, but God will not reward that which is sin, 
The first argument to prove that all the infidels works are not sin.  therefore not all the works of Infidels are sin. If I should examine the particular proofs that he bringeth of his first proposition, the weakness thereof will soon appear. For he must prove that the works of infidels are rewarded of God. For proof whereof his first example is of the midwives, 
Exod. 1.21.17.  that came to the women of Israel in their travel in Egypt, of whom the Scripture giveth testimony that they feared God, hath in that very place, and before also. Why then doth he reckon them amongst infidels. Then also the reward which he saith was promised to them, the best learned in the Hebrew tongue, apply not to the Midwives, but to the Israelites of the increase of their families. 
Ezech. 27.18, 19  The second example is out of Ezechiel where God promiseth to give Nebuchadnezzar and his army as their wages, Egypt for their service which they did against tire. Which service against tire, if master Bellarm. can commend in Nebuchadnezzar as a good work, wherein he had only regard unto his own cruel and proud affection, he will hardly find any evil. His third and last place out of Daniel, 
Daniel. 4.24.  wherein Daniel giveth council to Nebuchadnezzar to redeem his sins by being good to the poor, it is not very pertinent to the purpose, and I shall (God willing) have more fit place afterwards to speak of it. Although therefore it doth easily appear that his mayor is not proved by him, yet I will confess, that God is said to reward such men, in respect that he giveth good success to them, and prospereth them, to set forth by them his own glory: Alluding unto the wages that servants have for their work. Who although they be not always of the best, yet good reason they should have their wages for their work. The minor is, that God will not reward sin. I grant in that respect that it is sin he will not. But in every action, there are to be considered many things.  
First, the deed, as in this that Nebuchadnezzar did fight against Tirus: Secondly, the manner how, and with what affection: with a cruel and proud mind, and not with such compassion and pity as we ought to have in correcting of others: Thirdly, the end is to be regarded, as, whether he did especially respect God's glory, or rather, as indeed he did, to subdue them unto his own dominion.  
Now therefore true it is that God rewardeth not sin. And yet he many times rewardeth and commendeth that action, which himself turneth to his glory, and the executing of his good will, which yet in him that doth it, in respect of his evil affection, and wrong end that he looked unto, in doing of it, is sin. But the sin itself, he is so far from rewarding, that he utterly condemneth it, and him that delighteth therein., Arg. 2 Master Bellarmine's second argument is, that Infidels do or can do good works: therefore, not all their works are sin. That they do or can do good works, mark how he proveth. If ye salute your brethren only, what singular thing do you? Doth not also the Ethnics likewise? Be ye therefore perfect, etc. 
Maath. 5.47.  Now Master Bellarmine must reason thus. The heathen can salute one another, therefore they can do a good work. As strong a reason, as if I should say, 
Matt. 26.49.  judas saluted his Master: therefore he did a good work. Again, the Gentiles that have not the law, 
Rom. 2.14.  do by nature the things of the law. Therefore they do a good work, and so not all they do is sin. These bald proofs, do show that master Bellarmine hath but a barren matter in hand. For by doing the law, he meaneth not that which the Apostle calleth fulfilling of the law, 
Rom. 23.8.  for the Gentiles not regenerate cannot do that. But that they do that which the law commandeth after some sort, but not in such manner as is commanded. And therefore he saith they do the work of the law. But that work of the law, because they do it not, with such a mind, and to such an end as they ought, therefore it is sin in them. And that the apostle himself in that place showeth. For his endeavour is to prove, them to be unexcusable by reason of their sin, although they had not the law written delivered to them, because they had by nature the substance which he calleth the work of the law, written in their hearts: yea, and framed very often their external actions according to the same and yet performed not that holy obedience that they should. Now who will grant such an argument? The Gentiles do the external law: therefore there is not sin in all their actions. For to make our actions void of sin, it is not sufficient that we keep the external law, but they must be good works well done. 
Serm. 5. in cap. 2. ad Rom.  Neither doth chrysostom when he saith, the Gentiles without the law did all the things of the law, mean all the circumstances of the law which master Bellarmine falsely gathereth, but only all those things that externally the law hath commanded, as may appear by his own words a little before, who saith, The greek shall be set before thee, appearing to be a doer of those things that are in the law. Mark, he saith not doing, but appearing or seeming to do. Because he doth that concerning the law that appeareth to the eye, and is external. But with a sanctified affection, or to a holy end, he that is not sanctified cannot do it. Argument 3 As for the testimonies out of the fathers, whereby he doth prove, that the Gentiles & the unregenerate, may have excellent virtues, 
out of the fathers.  it is nothing to this question. For when we say, that the Infidels have not in them any thing that is good: our meaning is, that there is in them no work so perfect, but that it hath sin in it. And that this is true, saint Hierome (who seemeth to speak for him most effectually) doth manifestly prove. 
In eccl. ca 7.  Works (saith he) because they are done by the body, are never without fault. Which if it be true in all works, then can it not be but true in the works of them, which themselves are most faulty, such as are the Infidels. Argum. 4 Lastly, 
from reason  master Bellarmine hath in that place two reasons. The first is this. If works done without faith or Gods special help, be sin, they are sin, either because they are not done to the right end, which is God's glory: or because they proceed from a sinful man: or because those moral works are not of proportion with the strength of nature: or lastly, because these works that are good are too hard, both in respect of the rebellion of the flesh, and the tyranny of Satan. But in none of these respects they are sin: therefore they are not sin. Which his argument briefly thus I answer. That his minor proposition is utterly false, and directly against that which the Apostle saint Paul writeth in the Epistle to the Romans, of the Gentiles, showing how God gave them up, because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. 
Rom. 1.21.  Wherein the Apostle showeth how wickedly the Gentiles abuse that their knowledge, whereby they should be moved to glorify God. And in that he denieth that they can be accounted sinful, because they proceed from sinful man. What doth he else, but give the lie to our Saviour Christ himself, who hath plainly said, 
Matth. 7.19.  that an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit And all the sophistry that master Bellarmine hath, can not salve this sore. For it is impossible to gather grapes of thistles: for that he speaketh of the proportion, between the work and the strength of nature, it would be too long here to examine. Lastly, whereas he accounteth the tyranny of Satan, and subjection to their own lusts, not to be sufficient to make their work sinful: let him see how he can answer, not S. Paul only, who saith, that such are servants to sin, but also our saviour Christ, who telleth the jews, 
Rom. 6.17.  that unless the Son made them free, they could not be free. Then I pray you, what good works, 
joh. 8.36.  wholly void of sin can such work as serve so bad a M. as is sin? His second argument taken from reason, is of the absurdity he imagineth to be in our doctrine. Himself reasoning most absurdly, thus.  
If the Infidels in doing their good works, do sin, it is better for them not to do those works, than to do them: but so to say is most absurd. That to say it is better not to do those external good works than to do them, we will with master Bellarmine willingly confess. But how doth he prove his mayor, namely, that it is better to leave them undone, than to do them? Because in doing them (saith he) they sin, in not doing them, they sin not. 
De amiss. great. li. 1. ca 2  I see Master Bellarmine hath forgotten that which in an other place he telleth us, that a man sinneth aswell in not doing that he should, as in doing that he should not. And therefore Master Bellarmine saith falsely, that in not doing such works as occasion is offered, they should not sin. I might therefore conclude with that golden sentence alleged out of saint Augustine by the master of sentences, 
Lib. 2. dist. 41  The whole life of Infidels is sin, and there is nothing good, without the chief good. Where is want of knowledge of the eternal truth, even in the best manners, is but counterfeit virtue: but that I think it very necessary to show how violently master Bellarmine seeketh to wrest from the true sense, that evident testimony of our Saviour Christ, 
Luc. 6.43. & matth. 7.18  That an evil tree can not bring forth good fruit: which, because it is applied to sundry purposes, as himself confesseth, it is plain, that it is a general sentence, both in the one place and the other, applied as occasion serveth. And for the meaning of it, to the end it should not seem to prove that, for the which it is alleged in this question, Master Bellarmine hath three answers to that place. 
De gratia & lib a● b● t. lib. 5 cap. 10.  First, that as a good tree doth not always bring forth good fruit, so an evil tree doth not always bring forth evil fruit: but commonly, or, for the most part, so it is. Which answer of his, doth flatly deny that which Christ affirmeth, Christ saith, An evil tree can not bring forth good fruit: yes, saith Master Bellarmine (by your leave) but it may sometime. Every tree is known by the fruit (saith Christ:) not so, (saith master Bellarmine) for sometimes the fruit may be good, although the tree be evil. Is not this a saucy mate, so impudently and openly to control the Author of all truth? His second answer, if we will trust his own report, is a plain solution of the argument. And it is this, that this evil tree is the evil will of man. 
De acts cum fol. Manich. lib. 2. cap. 4.  Which answer he would feign father upon saint Augustine, but in the place alleged there is no such matter. I remember that S. Augustine in another place doth say, 
De gratia Christi ca 18  that this evil tree, is a man of an evil will, but not the evil will itself. Well, thus master Bellarmine granteth this place to be true, that an evil tree, that is, lust, or a man that worketh according to lust, cannot bring forth good fruit. But first master Bellarmine hath falsified S. Augustine, as I have said: Secondly, he expoundeth this place otherwise than saint Jerome and Theoph. do: for they understand it even as we do, that an evil man, whilst he is evil, can not bring forth good fruit, but being converted he may. Yea the words themselves are very plain, that our Saviour Christ meant it not of the evil will that is in man, but of the man himself: in that he addeth, 
Luc. 6.45.  A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good, and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil. Yet than this place alleged proveth substantially, that Infidels or heathen men whilst they continue so, can not do any works that shall be perfectly good or void of sin. His third and last answer to this place is this. The evil tree (saith he) is an evil man, and the good fruit is a meritorious work. And after this meaning he thus answereth the place. An evil man cannot do a meritorious work. Is not this a notable abusing of God's word, after his own pleasure to wrest and wring it? what one word induceth him to dream here of meritorious works? Nay the words confute him mightily: for it is said, An evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Evil, 
Matth. 7.17.  I say, not only, not meritorious. And the tree is known by the fruit. The fruit than must be bad that must show a bad tree. And therefore this answer of M. Bellar. is, as are the rest too foolish. 
De gra. Christi cap. 18. 19 Cont. I● lianum Pelag. li. 4. cap. 3.  But S. Augustine expoundeth it so, if you will trust M. Bellar. but examine the places by him alleged, and there is no such thing in them. So small a matter it is for M. Bellar. to abuse his readers at his pleasure, by falsifying the fathers. And now the latter of these places which he falsely hath alleged, for the confirmation of his untrue assertion, I truly apply to the confuting of this their ungodly doctrine, using only the words of S. Augustine. If a heathen man who liveth not by faith, doth  the naked, deliver the distressed, cure the wounded, bestow his riches upon honest friendship, will not by torments be brought to bear false witness, I demand of thee (saith S. Augustine to julian the Pelagian) whether he do these good works well or evil? For if they being good, yet he doth them evil, thou canst not deny, but that he sinneth that doth any thing evil. But because thou wilt not say that he sinneth in doing this, thou wilt doubtless say, that both he doth good things, and he doth them well. Now mark S. Augustine's conclusion upon these words, If it be so, an evil tree may bring forth good fruits, which thing the truth itself saith it cannot be, Thus much out of S. Augustine, not only to show how falsely he is alleged for proof of M. Bellarm. senseless assertion, but also to let it be seen, how he jumpeth with us in this doctrine that the Godless cannot do the work, that shall be without sin. Therefore to conclude this question as Saint Augustine did to the Pelagians, so do I say to our adversaries. 
Aug ibidem.  How can it be that you should not seem, either to be merry or mad in these disputations, who praise the fruit of barren trees? Whose fruits are either none, or if they be evil, they are not to be praised.     

Of Baptism, whether it do extinguish and kill in us original sin, or not. CHAP. 23  


THE PROTESTANTS  
We confess, that in Baptism is sealed up and assured unto us, the covenant that God made with us, for the forgiveness of our sins. Whereby we are also taught, that if we be God's children, we be engrafted into Christ, and planted in him, to the mortification of the old man, 
Ephes. 4.22  the whole body of sin, that having put on the new man, 
24  which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness, we may increase more and more in all spiritual graces, striving always to attain to that perfection, which in this life we cannot have, though we feign would obtain the same.   

THE PAPISTS  
But our adversaries will have sin in Baptism, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 5.  not pardoned only, but abolished also, and taken away, so as nothing that is indeed sin, remaineth in them that are baptised: Contrary to our own experience, whereby we find that we have need continually to say, Forgive us our trespasses: contrary to the manifest words of Saint john, who telleth us, 
1. joh. 1.8.  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and truth is not in us. And contrary to the confessions of David, Daniel, 
Psal. 32.1.2 Psa. 130.3. & psa. 143.2. Dan. 9  and all the godly, who acknowledge their own misery, by reason of sin, and rest only upon God's mercy.   

Although I have spoken before of Baptism, 
Chap. 11.  yet must I here, as occasion is offered, teach, that after baptism, sin is not altogether killed, no not in the faithful. So that as before in the last chapters, I have showed the corruption of our nature to be such, as that in ourselves we find nothing but occasion of death: So now we may see, what remedy God of his mercy hath provided for the same: namely, that seeing we have in this life continually, the law of the flesh rebelling against the law of the spirit, and leading us captives to the law of sin, 
Rom. 7.23.  which is in our members: we should have our especial comfort, in that blessedness which the apostle saint Paul saith is described by the prophet David, 
Rom. 4.6.  even the imputation of righteousness. 
Psal. 32.1.2  Because the prophet saith. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. So that the imputation of righteousness which our adversaries cannot well like of, is taught us by Paul, and confirmed by David. Which imputation of righteousness we stand in need of, because that even the godly whilst here they live, do find themselves to be far from that perfection which they should have, and would wish For (as saith saint Bernard) although their be no doubt, 
In trans. 5. Malac. ser.  but that sin is crucified with Christ, yet was it suffered, though not to reign, yet to dwell in the apostle himself whilst he lived. And therefore the same saint Bernard in another place truly saith, O only happy man in deed is he, to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. For in whom there is no sin, 
Super cant. serm. 23. Rom. 3.23.  there is none. For all have sinned, and stand in need of the glory of God. And by and by after he saith. Not to sin is only God's righteousness but man's righteousness, is God's mercy. And in this respect he reckoneth Malachy in the sermon before alleged a happy man, because by death he was freed from this peril of sinning: 
Gen. 39.12. 2 kin. 2, 13.  Alluding to the cloak of Helia● & Putiphars wife. Helias (saith he) hath left his cloak, he needeth not to fear. He cannot now be touched, much less holden of the adultres, meaning of fleshly or sinful lusts. S. Aug. also upon the 32. Psal. seemeth to be of that mind: So that we must needs acknowledge the complaint which the apostle hath made to be just and true, 
Rom. 11. 1●  that God hath shut up all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all. And therefore although in baptism the forgiveness of sin is sealed up unto us, yet that bitter root, is not utterly pulled out, but still even the godly sigh and groan, because they sin and transgress. Arg. 1 
Bellar. de. sacram. bapt. li. 1. cap. 13.  But let us see how they prove that after baptism there remaineth no sin. The scriptures say our sins are washed, cleansed, taken away, blotted out, therefore they are not only not imputed, but also utterly abolished. Wittingly and wilfully they endeavour to deceive the ignorant, and would make them believe, that we acknowledge no other benefit, but only that our sins are not imputed unto us. But we (as is before showed) are by baptism assured, not only of the forgiveness of sins, but also of the sanctification of the spirit, knowing that He that is dead in sin, 
Rom. 6.2.  must not live therein. We say therefore that a man is not justified only, but sanctified also. What then? must this sanctification be done at that instant as we are baptized? 
2. Cor. 3.18  The church of Rome teacheth us so. But saint Paul saith, We all behold as in a mirror, the glory of the Lord with open face, and are changed unto the same Image, from glory to glory. Mark, that he saith this change is not all at once, 
2 Cor. 4.16. serm. in coena domini.  but that it increaseth from glory to glory. Again, the inward man is renewed daily. Which thing saint Bernard most notably confesseth. In the fall of the first man we are all fallen: And that upon a heap of stones, and in the mire: So that we are not defiled only, but wounded also and sore bruised. We may quickly be washed, but we must have much a do, before we can be healed. And afterwards confessing this washing to be in baptism, yet he complaineth that the beastly motions are not tamed, neither that the itch of that sore may yet be abidden. By the which motions & itch he meaneth that very thing, which in his sermon at the death of Malac. before alleged, he calleth sin. But now let us examine the particular proofs of this argument. 
Psal. 50  David saith, Blot out mine iniquity, wash me thoroughly. Therefore all sin is taken away in Baptism. David had received the Sacrament of Circumcision long before he prayed thus, which was to them in stead of our Baptism. And now having sinned long after, he maketh this prayer, that God would either pardon his sin, or work in him the subduing of the same, or both. But this proveth not, that sin is utterly subdued in baptism: and that he should prove. 
Micah. 7.18.  Again, the Prophet Micah saith, that God taketh away iniquity. We grant it, that he taketh away iniquity by forgiving us our sins, and also by kill sin in us by little and little, and so subduing it in the mean time, that it utterly prevail not against us. But this proveth not that sin is already altogether vanquished. Again, john the Baptist said, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. 
john 1.29.  This also, to our singular great comfort we confess and acknowledge, that he taketh away both the condemnation or curse, and also the guiltiness or corruption of our sin: And therefore he is truly said to take away the sin of the world. Master Bellarmine should prove, that this is perfectly done in baptism, so that no sin after baptism remaineth, but this proveth no such matter. No not one of all these places make any mention of baptism. Only they testify, that either sin is, or the godly would have it abolished, which we also confess and desire. But how, or when it is taken away, there is not any mention in the places alleged. Let us then come to the last proof of this argument. The apostle speaking of Christ's love to the church his spouse, saith: He gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it and cleanse it, 
Ephe. 5.25 26, 27  by the washing of water in the word: that he might make it unto himself a grorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, etc. Now if I should expound this place, 
Ezec. 47.  by the 47. Chapter of Ezechiel, unto the which the apostle may very well seem to allude, I know this exposition would be thought new, and singular. But yet as this exposition hath nothing in it against the rule of faith, so by saint jeroms interpretation of that place of Ezechiel, it seemeth to be warranted. For by the waters mentioned in that place, he understandeth that which our saviour Christ taught, as also both he and Primasius do expound this place of the apostle, As water (say they) washeth the body, 
jerom & Primasius upon Ephes. 5.  so teaching doth cleanse the soul. And so the apostle doth seem to expound himself, when he showeth that this washing is in the word. And thus this place serveth no more for his purpose then the rest. For none of them prove that baptism taketh away all sin. But admit that saint Paul speaketh in that place of baptism, yet this place will not serve to prove that they would have it. For then the apostle teacheth us, how the church of Christ, I say, that complete and whole body of Christ is sanctified, namely by himself in the word, whereof baptism is the sacrament. So that therein appeareth how, or rather by what means, the body of Christ, his wife and spouse shall be without spot and wrinkle, but not in what manner, or in what compass of time, every particular member of this body shall be freed from sin, which is in controversy amongst us. But to end this first argument. As this doctrine of the Romish Church savoureth of Pelagianism: so master Bellarmine and his fellows borrow weapons of the Pelagians to fight withal. For saint Augustine doth note this place amongst those which the Pelagians did allege to prove that man may be without sin. 
De perfect. just. count Celestina.  But more plainly writing to Boniface, he writeth thus. 
Lib. 4. cap, 1  The Pelagians do say that men by baptism are perfectly renewed, and bring for proof the witness of the Apostle to the Ephes. 5. Not one ape is then liker another, than are the Pelagians and Papists, both in their doctrine, and in their proof of it. But of all such testimonies I may say with saint August. Some of them exhort them that do run, 
De perfect. just. count Celestina.  that they run as they should, some other show to what end they should run. And thus much for his first argument. His second argument is this. 
Arg. 2. of M. Bellarmine.  The Scriptures say, that our spots, defilings, or pollutions, and our iniquities are taken away, therefore in baptism all sin is taken away. For by these words is signified (saith he) the very corruption of sin. His argument is not good. For we confess his antecedent, namely, that these things are taken away, as before hath been showed. But it followeth not thereupon, that by baptism all sin is taken away: we acknowledge also that Christ is made unto us Sanctification: but in deed this holiness we say is not in this life perfected. 
1. Cor. 1.30  Begun it is in God's children, which walk not after the flesh, 
Rom. 8.1  but after the spirit. But do what we can, we had need always to pray as our Saviour Christ taught his apostles, Forgive us our trespasses, as saint Augustin doth often teach us, 
De perfect. just. Celestina. De Amiss. gratiae. li. 5 cap. 8  and namely in the end of his book of the perfection of justice: which place I the rather note, because most untruly master Bellarmine writeth, that saint Augustine in that place saith, That the unwilling motions of concupiscence, are so far from being sin, that a man need not for the forgiveness of them say, Forgive us our trespasses: But saint Augustine affirmeth the contrary. For having alleged that place of S. john, 
1. john 1.8  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: then he addeth, that if any will say, that the apostle speaketh there of concupiscence, & that concupiscence if it be not consented unto, is not sin, He putteth a subtle difference, which I would have our adversaries to mark, that they may know that S. Aug. counteth that but a subtle shift. And then he showeth that we do sometimes, somewhat consent to the lusts of that sin, because otherwise we needed not to say, Forgive us our trespasses. So that we see saint Augustine maketh that a reason to prove, that concupiscence often prevaileth, because we have need so to pray. And thus we see how clean contrary to all show of truth, master Bellarmine falsifieth saint Augustine. Which I would wish the simple to consider of: For many times either himself is so deceived, or else he seeketh to deceive his Reader. But to return to his argument, this we say, that even here in this life, God's children begin to have a mislike of sin, & a love of godliness, yea, and also by the assistance of God's good spirit increase therein. But this shall not be perfected in us, until we be delivered from this body of death, 
Rom. 7 Upon john tract. 41  and that made the apostle to cry out as he did. And therefore saint Augustine saith, that none in this life can be without sin, yet sin is diminished in the life of them that do profit, but consumed it is in the life of the perfect: meaning after this life, when corruption hath put on incorruption, who then would allow of this reason. The very filth and corruption of sin, is taken away, therefore it must needs be taken away here by baptism. Whereas on the contrary, we are called children of God, because at the first, not in faith only, but in life also we are beginners and weak, and must grow stronger and stronger in both. Arg. 3 His third argument. In circumcision the flesh only was cut away, not by imputation only. Master Bellarmine very unskilfully doth match together things not of like nature. For as Circumcision is the cutting off the foreskin, so is baptism the washing of the body. But this is nothing to the effect of the Sacrament, to tell us what the external thing doth of itself. Out of that that hath been said it is not hard to answer his 4. 6. 7. 8, and 9 arguments, if we remember that God beginneth in us holiness here, which shall be perfected else where. But in the mean time, for his Christ's sake, he accepteth our unperfect holiness for perfect, and forgiveth, even the many and great sins of his children. As for his fift argument, 
Bella. De justificat, li. 2. cap. 7. Rom. 5.19  which in another place he saith that it seemeth unanswerable, even in that respect that he trusteth so much in the strength of it, I would not omit.  
And it is this, As by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many are made just. But saith he, by Adam's disobedience we were made indeed sinners, and not only by imputation: Therefore by Christ we are not by imputation only made righteous, but also indeed. What if I should answer master Bellarmine, that this word As, doth not signify the likeness in the manner of justifying us, but in the act itself. Namely, that many were partakers of Adam's sin, and many were made righteous by Christ. For this word As, doth not always import an agreement or likeness in every point. Among many examples that may be alleged, this one may serve for all. 
joh. 20.21.  As my father sent me, so send I you. But God sent him from heaven, to take upon him a nature that he had not, with fullness of all power and graces: the apostles were not so sent. So that we see that master Bellarmine can not sound reason because of this word As, that this contrariety between the first and the second Adam, must hold in every point. But what need we to stand upon so narrow a point? Because the argument pleaseth him so well, I will yield to it, and confess it to be most true. And yet shall it nothing help master Bellarmine his cause. But in truth the sum of the doctrine that is taught in that place as Saint Augustine doth gather, 
De peceat. met. & remiss. li. c. 3 cap. 28.  it is this, That as all in Adam die in whom all sinned, so they that are quickened, are quickened by Christ, in whom they are all justified. But if he will needs that this making of us righteous whereof the apostle speaketh, should be by our sanctification, I have showed that it cannot here be perfect. But whensoever that shall be perfected in us, we must ascribe the glory thereof unto Christ. For, what have we that we have not received? 
1. Cor. 4.7.  And that is the meaning of these words here, That by him many are made righteous. But because that there is also another way whereby we are made righteous, namely, in that our sins are not imputed unto us, and that Christ's merit is accounted to us as ours: and that our adversaries will in no wise hear us speak of that: they shall yet hear how Saint Barnard writeth, even alluding unto the words from whence this unanswerable argument in drawn. What (saith he) could man the servant of sin, 
Epist. 190.  and bondslave of Satan do, to recover righteousness lost? Another's righteousness was assigned unto him, because he lacked his own. And then alluding to these words of S. Paul. Why should not righteousness come from another, seeing guiltiness came from another? It is one that maketh us sinners, and another that justifieth from sin. The one in his seed, the other in his blood. Is there sin in the seed of the sinner, and is not righteousness in Christ's blood? And that we may know how he accounteth himself made righteous by Christ, he addeth If the fault conveyed to me is mine, why should not the righteousness given to me be mine? And verily that is safer for me that is given me, then that is bred in me. Many things he hath in that place to this end, whereby it appeareth that he knew his own righteousness would not serve his turn, and therefore that he reposed his trust in Christ his righteousness imputed to him, which he calleth another's righteousness.  
I might also let you see how substantially Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester proveth this. Christ, saith he, did say to some, Thy sins are forgiven thee, therefore no sin remaineth. But his own friends are ashamed of such arguments. For we confess as our creed teacheth us forgiveness of sins. But he should prove that we are also so sanctified, that whilst here we live we be without sin. And that his argument cannot do. Thus than we see, that although we have in baptism the promise of remission of all our sins sealed up unto us: yet we cannot say, 
Prou. 20.9.  I have made mine heart clean, I am clean from sin.     

That we have not of ourselves free will or power to deliver ourselves from sin. CHAP. 24.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
Our nature then being thus corrupted, and our sin hanging so fast on, 
Heb. 12.1.  as before I have taught in the three last chapters: we must needs confess that when we would do good, 
Rom. 7.21.  evil is present with us. The light of our understanding is so darkened, that not only A natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God: 
1. Cor. 2.14.  but even the best men, have great need continually with the Prophet David to pray: 
Psal. 119.12.34.  O Lord teach me thy statutes, Give me understanding. As for our affections, they are so froward, that they will not be subdued to the spirit of God, but do rather follow, the flattering follies of enticing sin. Christ's yoke we account too sore, his burden too heavy, so that if we will come to Christ to serve and obey him we cannot unless the father draw us. 
joh. 6.44. Luc. 18.17.  And if with the prodigal son, we would but think to return to our father again, 
●. Cor. 3.5.  yet we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing (that is good) as of ourselves. So that we must pray, 
Psalm. 80. Psa. 139.24. Psal. 175. Psal. 67.28.  not only, that God will Turn us, but also that he will lead us in the way for ever. And stay our steps in the path, that our feet slide not, and confirm (even unto the end) that which he hath begun in us: acknowledging the beginning of all good, the continuance and ending in the same, to be from him only, 
Psal. 119.36.  who only can Incline our heart unto his testimonies, 
Psal. 51.15.  and open our lips, that our mouth may show forth his praise, 
Psa. 119.133 Phil. 2.13.  and direst our steps in his word. For it is God that worketh in us both the will and the deed, of his good pleasure. Which will to do good, when he of his great mercy hath wrought in us, by his spirit of regeneration, we confess to be good but a free will it cannot be. Because that although To will be present ● i'th' me, yet I find no means 〈◊〉 perform that which is good. Free therefore, that is to fry able to perform the good that it wo●● d, it is not, but willing it may be, ● and ready to obey sincerely.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Church of Rome will not hear of it, that Adam by his transgression rob both himself and us, of this free will to good, they will not have it quite lost or extinguished. It needeth, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. can. 5.  say they, but to be stirred up, 
Ibidem. ca 5.  & helped, and then we may convert ourselves to justify ourselves, 
Andra. Orth. expl. li. 4.  and have in our own liberty some part of our salvation. Yea this corrupt estate of man even before his regeneration, 
Andra. Orth. expli. li. 4.  they compare to a man who is so hindered by fetters that he cannot go but could go well enough if he were not fettered: Even so man having these bonds loosed wherein he was tied, hath as free a will to do good, as ever had Adam before he fell (for as I have said it needeth but to be stirred up & helped. 
Andra. ibid. ) Yea they are not ashamed to affirm, that partly free will and partly grace, are the efficient cause of applying the mind to goodness, dividing and parting that work, which God only doth challenge to himself, between God and man. If then we will believe them, man's free will is not lost. No, he hath by nature strength to do well, and freedom of will to please God: were it not that the corruption of nature, were as it were fetters, to hinder him in his holy obedience S. Paul belike said not truly when he said we were dead in sin. 
Eph. 2.5.  We were but asleep, say they. And what need we be born again, 
joh. 3.3.  as Christ teacheth us we must be. It is a needless matter say they. It will serve the turn if our old, even our own will be but stirred up and helped. So that that renewing whereunto the Apostle so much exhorteth us, is more than needeth. Yea our wills being so stirred up & helped, if we give credit to that they teach, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 6, Bellar. de gra. li. arbit. li. 3 cap. 3. john. 6.44.  are frankly and freely moved to good. What should we then care for that drawing without which no man can c● me to Christ? 
 And yet God saith he must take away our 〈◊〉 hearts, he must give us a h●●● of flesh, a soft heart that may receive his graces ●● e a new 〈◊〉, & a new spirit for that old will not serve the turn.   


 Master Bellarmine's first argument whereby he will p●●● e that man hath free well, is 〈◊〉 in effect. We 〈◊〉 not of 〈◊〉 but of well, so that we may choose whether we will 〈◊〉 or not, therefore we have free w● ll. It is fal●● that he saith we 〈◊〉 not of necessity but of well. For although that were 〈…〉 Adam, in respect of his sin that it was simply voluntary, for I speak not of God's eternal decree: yet by reason of that corruption that we h●●● from him, 
Rom. ● .23.  and cleaneth unto us, We are so led capt●● e unto the law of ●●●● e, and have in us such a fountain of 〈◊〉, 
 that we may truly say w● th' the apostle, we are carnal and fold under sin. And th● s necessity of f●●● ing is in us, by reason of that frowardness of our will. Which although it be so reform in the regenerate, that they have a will to do well: yet because the old man will dwell with us, even so long as we carry this mortal body: and the new man will never be wholly put on, until the old man be put off: there will ever be in us a rep●●●ing against good, & rea●●●● s to evil. So that although it be true in some respect, that we sin of will, because we are very reader & willing thereto, yet is our will drawn with the cords or chains of just and concupiscence that it cannot but sin. And therefore Saint Paul doth very aptly call concupiscence A law in the members, because of the necessity of obeying it.  
And therefore on the contrary I may t●●● 〈◊〉. 
Rom. ●. 1●.  The godly are led captive unto the law of 〈◊〉: therefore they c●● not chu●● whether they will sin or 〈◊〉: but because of 〈◊〉 corruption they 〈◊〉 sin.  
H● s second argument is th●●. 
 If there be o●● free will 〈◊〉 made, than 〈◊〉 ●●● e● no point for reward or punishment. First, for the punishment of the worked, we do confess ● o●● that they have free will to do evil, and also justly de●●●● e the punishment that is law upon the●. Thus far then 〈◊〉 agree. And also for the other part which conceit eth the godly, 〈◊〉 as true, that if you take away free will, you take away the reward that the work might merit or deserve. But we plead God's promise, not o●● deserving, his mercy not our 〈◊〉, ● s shallbe showed by God's grace hereafter. For we know, that as here we have 〈◊〉 good thing in us, but that we have received it of has 〈◊〉 grant: so hereafter we shall have no glory, 
1 Pet. ●●.  but of he● only ●●● cy, Who hath kept us by his power unto salvation through faith. And therefore, although we ● e ●●● full, and so can not deserve the reward that we look for, yet God is faithful, who h●● h pro●● said: and therefore it is a right●●● s thing with him to give us rest with him. Thus then may I reason. The reward of our good works is not given in any respect of our free will: therefore if free will be taken away, yet that reward is not taken away.  
His third argument. If it were not for fire will, 
Arg 〈◊〉  all should be good, or all should be bad: yea, and that all a●● ke good or evil. Which argument is answered by experience itself, and therefore needeth no long confutation. For themselves will confess, that i● the Infidels there is not free will, but a servile will. And yet amongst there some were better, some worse. Yea some among them came so near being good, 
job. 3. 3●.  that some Papists thought they might be saved. And yet free will they could not have, because the Son hath not made them free.  
Arg. 4 
ca 17 De corrept. & great. cap. 2  His fourth argument. Take away free will, and in vain are exhortations, rebukings, praises, dispraises, commandments, councils, admonitions etc. Which argument S. August. answereth for us: They are, that men may know what they should do. And as he writeth of the Law, that it is necessary to be given, although it cannot be kept: so we may answer of these things that master Bellarmine speaketh of. 
De perfect. justit. contra Celestina.  His words are these: Why should not this perfection be commanded unto men, although no man in this life attain unto it? For a man shall never run well, that knoweth not which way to run. And how should that be known, if by no precepts it should be showed? Thus than I reason. Saint Augustine saith, that precepts must be given although they cannot be kept: therefore although man have not free will to perform that is commanded, yet commandments are necessary. 
In Cantic. serm. 50.  And Saint Bernard saith, God doth by that means humble us. As for other uses of admonitions, I will not now speak of them: for I trust this is sufficient for answer to the argument. Which also is an answer unto his fift argument which is this. Arg. 5 
ca 18  In the scriptures many things are forbidden and commanded, and without free will that were in vain: which is all one with the fourth argument. 
De gratia & lib. Arbit. c. 2  But because master Bellarmine doth prove this argument, and that very strongly (as himself saith) because saint Augustine useth that very reason to prove free will, I must needs speak a word of that place. Seeing therefore saint Augustine hath said in the place alleged in the former argument, that precepts are needful though they can not be kept: And now he saith, if there be not free will, precepts are in vain. It seemeth that there were some amongst them, to whom he writeth, that thought that God's grace did so work in men, that they should do nothing at all themselves (for he complaineth of some, 
Cap. 2.  that when grace was defended, though free will was denied.) Therefore he teacheth them, that although we be made partakers of grace, yet we are not without: nay rather we have free wil But what manner of free will? Have we that free will that hath power and strength to do good, and abstain from evil? No, 
In Enchirid. cap. 9  Saint Augustine confesseth that to be lost. Man not using well free-will, lost both himself and that. What then? A will freed from that bondage unto sin wherein it was. A will that now hath a love and liking of that is good, and not altogether delighting in evil as before it did. And indeed in vain are exhortations to them that are not so freed from evil, that they have at the least a plkasure in good things,. Well may exhortations and instructions be to their confusion, but to their comfort they shall not be. This then is is the meaning of that place, that God speaketh to us in vain in the scriptures, if we be, but as stocks and stones, not having so much as a delight therein, and having this willingness, God must also by his grace enable us, or else we cannot fulfil our will. The sixth argument is like the rest. 
Arg. 6. ca 1●.  It hath no necessary consequence. God maketh promise unto us under condition that we shall obey him, therefore either we are able to obey, or else it is saith Master Bellarmine, a mockery, and not a promise. Not so Master Bellarmine. For in such conditional promises, it is not declared what we can do, but what we ought to do, and what in respect of the excellency of our creation, may justly be required of us, and what we must do before we can be perfect. And because Master Bellarmine thinketh it so scornful a thing, that God shouln make promise under such condition cannot be performed of us: I would he would consider with himself, where is the cause why we cannot perform it. Is it in good? No, for he requireth nothing of us, but that he gave us ability to do, if we had kept us in that estate. Is it in our creation? No, we were made good. Is it in the law? But that is pure, just, and holy. Is it then in ourselves? Yea truly. For in Adam we are all sinners, and by sin rob of that power to keep the law, and perform such conditions, as once before we had.  
If then the impossibility of keeping the conditions, is by our own fault, God may justly require of us that debt, which he knoweth we were able to pay, when first we became his debtor. We see then, that it is neither a good argument, to say God promiseth upon condition, therefore we can perform the condition: (for the condition doth but show, what we ought to do, or what mark we must aim at, yea, and what we must do in the end) neither absurd that he should require that of us now, which once we could have performed, and might still have done, if we had not ourselves been in fault. But thus we might reason truly. God maketh unto us many and great promises if we obey him: therefore we must strive to obey him, strive (I say) by prayer, by meditating in God's law, and by all godly exercises. And God would have us indeed, by such means to stir up ourselves to attain to the promises. And because the promises belong but to the godly, and not to the wicked, we will easily confess, that there is in them a willingness to obey. But yet not free will, because it is hindered by temptations without and within themselves, and by it own weakness. So that, be they never so willing, yet they can not obey, but even as they are led by God's good grace. 
In psa. 109. enarration.  It is no great matter (saith Augustine) that God made his Son to show the way, since he hath made him the way itself, that thou mightest go by him ruling thee, that goeth by himself. For in deed we can not walk alone in those ways, we are as babes that cannot go by themselves.  
Arg. 7. & 8. His seventh argument, as also the eight argument, is (in a manner) the very same with the first, 
ca 20. & 21. Deut. 30.14.  and need not be answered again. But yet I will touch that place of Deuteronomie, whereupon he especially resteth for the strength of the seventh argument: and for interpretation whereof he inveigheth against master calvin. Moses saith, or God by Moses: The word is near thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart. By which words master Bellarmine saith Moses telleth us, that this word is easy to keep: and therefore, that we have free will. M. Bellarmine is but too bold in a bad cause, and too ready to speak more than he can prove. That which he had said before, This commandment is not hid from thee, 
Verse 11.  neither far off: he proveth in this place, because it is in their mouth and heart, so that they need not seek far to get it. The Chalde paraphrase can find no free will in these words. Chris. expounds these words of the commandment, that it is easy to be had without travel by sea or land, 
Chrysost. in Rom. ser. 17.  not once dreaming of the easiness of performing or doing it: but most plainly saith Theophilact: 
Upon the Romans the tenth.  God's commandment (O thou jew) is before thy eyes, neither shalt thou need that thou mayest find and enjoy it, either to climb up in to heaven, or go down into the deep. It is at hand, and nearer unto thee: Behold, it is even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: For God by his law hath showed thee all things. How impudently soever therefore master Bellarmine dare affirm, that Moses speaketh there of the easiness of keeping God's law: yet the circumstance of the text, and the judgement of the Writers alleged especially of Theophilact, is flat against him. 
Rom. 10.8.  And to that end doth the Apostle saint Paul apply it also to his purpose, speaking of justification by faith.  
Arg. 9 His ninth argument consisteth of two places of scripture. 
ca 22  The first is out of that talk which God had with Cain, before he killed his brother Abel. 
Gen. 4.7.  Also unto thee his desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over him.  
But that this may be an argument for free-will, master Bellarmine and others contend, that it should be read. The desire of it shallbe subject unto thee, and thou shalt bear rule over it. And so they prove that sin shall be subject unto Cain and he shall bear rule over it: Therefore he had free will. That many of the fathers do expound these words so, it cannot be denied. But not what they say is only to be regarded, but how they prove it: yea the jesuits that wrote, 
In dialog. 2  the censure of Colen will be therein my warrant for they having condemned some of the ancient fathers to have spoken hardly, because they accounted the works of infidels, how good soever they seemed, to be but sin, do then fall to try how their proof will warrant their doctrine. So must I here examine upon what ground the fathers do thus expound it. And this I need not fear to do. For themselves give me leave to examine that they say. If then saint Hilary have given us a true rule to interpret the scripture, when he sayeth, 
Lib. 9 de trinit.  The understanding of that which is spoken, must be looked for of the words that go before, or of those that follow, Let us see what interpretation is to be gathered out of the circumstances of that place: that we may with the Church receive the fathers, but not with the fathers forsake the faith of the Church, 
In Commonitor. contra haeres.  as Vincentius Lirinensis warneth us. First then, even in respect of the very Grammar, if the relative in both places must agree with the antecedent, than this word (It) which is the relative in both places as they would have it, or rather his or him, as we say, being of the Masculine Gender, which themselves cannot deny, the word (Sin) which is of the Feminine Gender, cannot be the antecedent to those Relatives, although it go next them, which master Bellarmine unlearnedly affirmeth. And therefore that translation, and interpretation of the place, standeth not with the rules of Grammar. Secondly, the circumstances of the place, teach us so much. Cain is angry that his brother's sacrifice is accepted of, and his not: Therefore when God hath questioned with Cain of his anger, he bringeth this as an argument to pacify him, because that Cain being the elder brother, should still have the prerogative of the elder brother: and Abel should be subject unto him. And that this is the plain and natural sense of the words, I prove by sundry reasons. First, because in the former Chapter, God speaking of the subjection of Eve unto Adam, as they cannot but confess, 
Cap. 3.16.  useth the self same words there, that are here used. And therefore by all likelihood he speaketh of the same matter also here, that there he did, how Abel should be under his elder brother. Confer the words together, you shall see them agree.  
Secondly, how impertinenly had the promise of free will, been made in that place unto Cain, God having rejected his sacrifice, and knowing his fury towards his brother, yea not any one circumstance inducing thereunto. But thirdly their own doctrine doth strongly confute them. For if they that are not regenerate (as Cain) have the power of their will, by their own confession weakened, and so clogged that they cannot have free will to do good, than this cannot be verified of sin, how could God say that the lust or desire of sin should be under him, or that he should have dominion over sin, being a graceless, and cruel man. Yea, the event did presently declare, that he was subject to sin, and that sin got the dominion over him. So that I cannot see how they can be excused, from seeking to make God a liar, that affirm that God there promised that Cain should subdue sin, the event being so plain contrary. Which because I know it to be far from those godly fathers, I will rather think, that they did but allude unto that place, then expound the words. And thus I trust it is plain, that neither the rules of Grammar, nor the circumstances of the place, neither yet their own doctrine of free will, can well stand with that interpretation that they do bring. As for his second authority which is out of Ecclesiasticus, the book itself, not being canonical, 
Eccle. 15.14, 15, 16.  a necessary argument cannot be gathered out of the same.  
And that man at the first had free will it can not be denied, and of that especially the place mentioned doth entreat. 
De great. & liber. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 23  Now certain other arguments out of the scripture there are alleged, whereunto I will briefly make answer. The first out of Deuteronomie, where Moses having showed them, how he hath delivered to them God's word (in obeying whereof is life, 
Deut. 30, 19  and in contempt of it death:) he then addeth, Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. Wherein Moses doth nothing else, but earnestly stir up the people, to endeavour to the uttermost of their power to serve God: Not showing what they can effectually apply themselves unto, by the power of their will, but what they should do in respect of their duty towards God, or care of their own good. As for that of joshua, 
joshua. 24.15.  Choose you this day whom you will serve, When joshua, who had good experience of the frailty of the people, and their readiness to serve other gods, had set before them the great mercies of God, in their mighty deliverance and preservation from many perils, the more strongly to tie them unto God, he putteth them to this choice, not because he would have suffered them to have worshipped strange gods, if themselves would, (for that had been contrary to the duty, that God required of him being a magistrate) but to this end, that themselves having made choice to serve God, might by this their own voluntary submitting themselves to God, be urged to serve him more sincerely, as by the 22. verse appeareth. And this choice also is rather what external profession they would be of, which is a matter in our own power, rather than of the inward affection, which is the thing in controversy between the Papists and us. For this we deny, and they should prove, that we are able by our free will to do things that are truly good, and to eschew the things that are evil. And that this choice that they were put to, was what external profession they would be of, the words themselves declare. Choose (sayeth he) whether ye will serve the Gods which your fathers served, or the gods of the Amorites, I and my house will serve the Lord. As if a man would say now, choose whether you will profess the Gospel or Popery. His testimony out of Ecclesiasticus, 
Eccle. 31.10  Who might offend and hath not offended? or do evil, and hath not done evil? I marvel be so much commendeth, thinking it unanswerable. Whereas, if it prove any thing, it is but that which we never denied, namely that the wicked have a free will to evil. Now that which he allegeth out of saint Paul, is too absurd: Nevertheless he that purposeth firmly in his heart that he hath no need, but hath power over his own will, etc. What are these words to free will. The power that here he speaketh of, is if he perform his purpose without inconvenience to his daughter, as may appear not only by Primasius, and Hierom, of this place, 
Primasius. Hieronimus. Tho. Aquin.  but also by his own friend Thomas of Aquine, who showeth that then he hath power of his own will, when he knoweth his daughter, hath a purpose to continue a virgin. So that in effect, this is his argument. His daughter doth not hinder his will for keeping her a virgin: therefore he hath free will in himself to do good, or eschew evil. Of the strength of which argument, let master Bellarmine's own friends consider. His last place out of the scriptures is very like this. As every man wisheth in his own heart, 
2. Cor. 9.7.  etc. He speaketh of the contribution to the Saints. You must (sayeth saint Paul) give willingly. Therefore sayeth master Bellarmine, you have free will. We confess that the regenerate have a willingness to do good, and eschew evil, and this the apostle would have in them. But doth this prove that they have free will? And thus far for their arguments for free will out of the scriptures. Out of the father's master Bellar. bringeth many proofs. And although there be just cause, to suspect many of them in this question, because they could not so easily forget that which in the schools of philosophy they had learned: yet that it may appear that they have not so general a consent as they brag of, it is not amiss somewhat to look into and to examine the proofs, 
Bellar. de great. & lib. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 25.  that out of them they brag. But master Bellarmine would make a man afraid to hear his cracks. He braggeth always that his armour is of the best proof that can not be pierced, his arguments such as can not be answered. And first cometh in Ignatius, 
Epist. de. mag.  whose words are so unanswerable, that master Bellarmine seethe no way but to deny the Author. But let master Bellarmine quiet himself, we will admit the author. The effect of that he allegeth out of the first place, is, that look what men do choose that they shall have: and after, If a man do wickedly, he is a man of the devil, so made not by nature, but by the will of his mind. Then let us see his argument: Look what men do choose, they shall go into the place of that they choose, whether it be life or death, so sayeth Ignatius, therefore (saith master Bellarmine men have free will. The force of both his places is this, and the argument that can be gathered out of the same: men have will: ergo they have free will. And are these his unanswerable arguments. That which he allegeth out of Dionysius Areopagita, although he make as great brags of it, as he did of the other: yet it never so much as mentioneth free will. 
De divinis nominibus li. 4. cap. 4. part. 4.  In deed he saith, If a man might not resist sin, he were less to be blamed: But if he that is good give strength, which as the holy Scriptures teach, doth give things convenient simply to every man, etc. That God giveth convenient strength to them which with humility seek it, but what doth this gift of God prove that we have free will. It rather overthroweth it. For if we have not strength but by his gift, than we have it not in us, or by free will. As for Clement of Rome, because himself dare not speak much for the truth of that witness, I let him pass. Then cometh in justine the Philosopher and martyr, whose words for free will master Bellarmine taketh to be so plain, that he saith master calvin neither doth, nor can feign any thing, that will carry any show of an answer. What need we to feign, Master Bellarmine, that have the truth for our warrant. We leave feigning to painters, poets, and papists, who love always to make a show of that that is not. If we consider the occasions why the ancient fathers did write in such sort, their meaning will be plain enough. And that may appear by justinus Martyr here alleged. He saith, I grant. 
Apolog. ad senatum. Apol. ad An.  That if men have not free will to shun evil and do good, they are not to blame for that they do, and deserve neither reward nor punishment. Thus in effect he saith in the places alleged.  
We neither deny the author in this place to be Catholic, nor his words (in his sense to be true. But because there were some that being deceived with that which the stoics taught, concerning that fatal necessity whereby all things were done, as though man could not choose but do the evil that he doth, and that he were by this fatal necessity compelled thereto, in respect of the necessary consequence of causes, and thereby made man to have nothing to do in the works that himself did, but that he were even forced thereto without his own will, as stone or wood is laid in the house, only at the pleasure of the workman, without any disposition in themselves one way or other: because (I say) that some hereby did deny all will or inclination in man to good or evil, as not only Simon Magus, and the Manicheiss of whom master Bellarmine speaketh, but also the Bardesanistes, 
Cap. 35. Cap. 6●.  of whom Saint Augustine writeth in his Book of heresies, who ascribed all man's conversation to destiny, and the Priscilianists, who because they make all their actions to be ruled by the Planets, think that they sin against their will, and therefore doth not justin only, but other of the godly fathers speak so plainly as they seem to do in defence of free will. Not because they think, that man hath such ability being once renewed by grace, that he can do what he will, as the papists teach, but they only impugn these Stoical opinions that affirm that man doth of necessity evil or good. And that this is the meaning of justine the Martyr by his own words doth plainly appear, because in both the places alleged by master Bellarmine, he setteth himself to reason against them that would have men think that all things were wrought by destiny. Against the which, he on the other side reasoneth, that if men had not will or choice in themselves to do things, we should neither deserve punishment for evil doing, nor have reward for well doing. Thus have I truly & faithfully delivered unto thee (good reader,) the cause that maketh this and other of the ancient fathers especially before Pelagius to write so plainly for free will. 
De fide Or. thod. li 2. cap. 7.  As also may well be gathered out of Damascene. For when as yet there were none sprung up, that did attribute too much to free will as afterward the Pelagians did; but there were on the contrary, many that did wholly take all will from man: no marvel if they did wholly oppose themselves against the danger which they saw present before their eyes. And therefore they did teach as they did, to whom also we give our right hands of fellowship and consent in doctrine, 
Gal. 2.9. What we say of man's will.  as james, Cephas, and john, did unto Barnabas and Paul. For we also do teach, that man though by his fall he lost his freedom of will, to him and his posterity: yet his will he lost not, but still had it, and hath it. Whereby very readily and willingly he runneth unto evil. But having his will renewed by God's spirit, it is then good, so much as it is renewed, it loveth good, and would feign do it, 
Ad Bonif. cont● a. 2. e● be't. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 18  and in that sense we also say with saint Augustine, that it is free, that is, willing and ready: but yet not free, that is, not able to perform that good which we would, by reason of the infirmity of our new man, the corruption of our nature, and the manifold enticements and temptations whereby we are withdrawn from holy obedience. And now if the first fathers, did not so plentifully set forth man's weakness, as they did his will or power to do things, it is no marvel because they neither knew Pelagians nor papists, but them that erred in the contrary opinion.  
And this being well considered of, may serve I trust to answer to whatsoever they can allege out of the fathers for free will: & may teach us, that they call it free, not as it is able, but as it is willing, to do good & eschew evil. 
De corrept. & gra. cap. 2. De gra. & libero arbitrio lib. 2. cap. 9  And therefore saint Augustine saith, Men are driven, to the end they should do, not that they should do nothing. And for this cause saint Bernard saith, That a man may not be called, or can indeed be good or evil, unless he be willing. And saint Ambrose, or whosoever wrote the books of the calling of the Gentiles, There is no kind of virtue that may be had, either without the gift of God's grace, or the consent of our will. But of an infinite number of such like places, let these few be sufficient, to teach us, that they meant not to extol the power of man's will, but to lay the fault in man, if he refuse the graces offered, and to stir up men willingly and readily to receive them, and steadfastly to keep, and holily to use them. And thus much generally, for the true understanding of all the testimonies of the fathers that are alleged by master Bellarmine, not only in his fift book, 
Cap. 25, 26, 27, 28.  de gratia & libero arbitrio: but also those other that he hath in his sixth book, where he especially handleth the question of free will, 
Cap. 11.  in things appertaining to godliness. Whereas before he endeavoured to prove it in moral virtues. But because that in the former, he did lay the foundation of that which in the sixth he teacheth, and all belonged to that end. Namely, to the question of free will, which in this chapter I am to handle, therefore have I thought good to answer in this one place whatsoever he saith tending to that end. As for his four arguments out of the scriptures, which he bringeth in the sixth book, 
Cap. 10.  the answer to them I trust may be gathered of that is already answered. Saving only that the first and third require a more special answer. For his second argument in this sixth book, is all one with the fourth in the fift book. And his fourth and last in the sixth, is like the first in the fift book. His first argument in the sixth book is taken especially of the word Cooperarii, Work men together with God, for so the greek word doth signify, not Fellow-helpers, 
1. Cor. 3.  as the common latin translation hath, as though God could not without us work. Well let us see his argument. We are workmen together with God, therefore we have free-will, say they. But we may more justly conclude on the contrary, therefore we have not free-will as the papists teach, itself able to do good, or avoid evil. For that is it that is in question. We willingly confess, that we being regenerate have a willingness to good, and a mislike of evil, but we say that we cannot perform this our good desire. And therefore seeing we cannot work, but as workmen together with God, it is most evident and plain, that our will hath not that power that the church of Rome teacheth it to have, to be freely moved to good. And therefore well saith S. Augustine, That we will, God worketh without us, 
De gra. & li. arb. t. cap. 17.  but when we will, and so will that we also do, he worketh together with us. But without him either working that we may will, or working with us when we will, we have no power to the good works of godliness. And by this also appeareth the answer to the other argument which I said was not before answered. We are saith M. Bellar. helped by God in prayer, or in any good work, therefore we have free wil If we remember how they teach, that a man being once helped and stirred up by God's grace, is afterwards freely able to do good, having his will thus revived, or rather unfettered, a man would not think M. Bellar. to be in earnest in such arguments. Suppose you should undertake to bear a burden far heavier than you could carry, and another much stronger than you, taketh it up, and beareth it you also laying your hands to the same, to help as you can. Will you say you are able to bear it, because your hand also touched it? Even such is our ability in keeping Gods commandments. Or as children when they are first taught to go. Their mother lifteth them up that they may put their legs forward, holdeth up their coats that they be no hindrance to them, yea helpeth them to step forward. There is nothing in the child, but only that it would feign go, but it hath not strength to perform it. Is it now any reason to say, the child is able to go, because the mother doth thus help it. No no, seeing God's help is such that he worketh both to will and to do in us, let us give glory unto him only, by whom we may do all things, and without whom we can do nothing. 
Philip. 2.13. Phil. 4.13. john. 15.5.  And we may justly be ashamed of such foolish reasons: God helpeth us, therefore we have free will. We may perchance conclude thereupon that we do somewhat, but how little it is that we do, nay how we do very nothing, without God's good grace in the works of Godliness, in all this Chapter is I hope sufficiently declared.  
But now for the conclusion of this Chapter, I would gladly know of them that so stiffly maintain free will, how they can clear themselves from the Pelagian heresy, so hated of all the Godly, so often condemned by Counsels, and so mightily confuted by Saint Augustin in many of his books? 
Orth. explic. lib. 4.  Andradius answereth this matter fully. They confess, saith he, our strength to be so weak (he speaketh of them that made the censure of Colen) that unless it be made strong by God's grace, we can neither do nor will any perfect good thing. But the Pelagians will grant thus much: And yet S. August. calleth them heretics, & oftentimes enemies of the grace of Christ, yea new heretics, enemies to the cross of Christ, such as fought against, forsook, yea persecuted the grace of Christ. And yet I say they granted as much as the papists do. First they confess that by grace they were helped that they might become God's children. 
Aug. ad Bon. li. 1. cap. 3.  Yea that they were always helped by God's grace in every good work. And that grace helpeth every bodies good purpose. 
Cap. 19  Now let the reader judge wherein the popish Pelagians, 
Lib. 4. cap. 6.  differ from those old condemned Pelagians. They seem to be birds of one nest. What doth S. Augustine (out of whom I have alleged this confession of the Pelagians) I say, what doth he think of their words? he liketh them wonderful well. In so much, as doubtless, saith he, a man would think this were spoken like a catholic. 
Ibidem.  How then fell it out that still he was accounted an heretic, and his favourites? S. Augustine although he could not mislike much of that he said, yet he could not but condemn their intent and meaning. And therefore when he had said it was spoken like a catholic, he addeth, If they would not think of merit in this their good purpose, to which merit reward should be given as of duty, not of grace. Now I pray you to what end doth the church of Rome defend this doctrine of free will? Is it not that the doctrine of merits may follow? Yes I warrant you. That is it they so earnestly contend for. For thereby they gain both credit and coin. So that they seem then to agree in their words, and in their intent. Seeing therefore this doctrine of free will, doth so conspire with the Pelagian heresy, and so dissent from the word of God as hath been showed: let us say with saint Augustine, Thinking we believe, thinking we speak, thinking we do whatsoever we do: 
Aug. de bon. severantiae. cap. 13.  but concerning the true way of godliness, and service of God: we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. And therefore we live more safely, when we yield all to God, and commit not ourselves in part to him, and in part to ourselves, 
Ibidem. ca 6.  as the same saint Augustine saith else where.     

That by our works we cannot be justified, and against the doctrine of merits. CHAP. 25  


THE PROTESTANTS  
BEcause no righteousness can stand before God, but that which is perfect: & the rule of perfection is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, 
Luc. 10.27.  soul, strength and thought, & our neighbour as ourself. We therefore must needs confess, that the works that are done by us, whilst we carry about this body, which is a heavy burden to the soul, 
Wisd. 9.15.  are so defiled with concupiscence (which the Papists themselves confess to be evil and hated of God) that neither we can so freely and zealouly serve God as we would, neither wholly respect God's glory therein as we should: But find ourselves too cold and careless in good things: and that we always will have some respect to ourselves in doing the same. And therefore we are compelled with the prophet David to say, 
Psal. 130.2  If thou (O Lord) straightly markest iniquities, (O Lord) who shall stand? We know, 
job 14.18. job 15.15  that he that found wickedness in his Angels, and no steadfastness in his faints, yea in whose sight the heavens are not clean, no more the child but of a day old, he (I say) will easily find out, 
job 14.4.  that none can make clean that that is conceived of unclean seed, 
job 15.14.  neither can he be just that is borne of a woman, according to the course of nature. But we confess with the prophet Esay, 
Esa. 64.6.  we have all been as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness is as filthy clouts. Yea, and if it might be, that we might live here so, 
1. Cor. 4.4  that we knew nothing by ourselves, and yet we are not thereby justified: how much less than shall we seek to justify ourselves by our works, wherein, by reason of our corruption, we must needs find and feel manifold wants. Which imperfection, even in our best works is sufficiently declared, in that, neither the sacrifices of the jews, neither yet the prayers or spiritual sacrifices of the Christians, can of themselves be acceptable unto God, but only through jesus Christ our Lord: whose mediation they should not need, if of themselves they were perfect. But he must season them, he must sanctify them, he must offer them, that they may be acceptable unto God.   

THE PAPISTS  
BUT the Papists trusting too much in their own power to do good, and not considering truly, what manner of work that is, which may justly be called a good work, to what end, and with what affection it must be done: do teach, that a man may do such works, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. ca 32 Cens. Coloniens. dial. 5.  as that he may merit thereby justification and eternal life even as a due reward. And that this is a point of God's infinite mercy that he promiseth eternal life to them that work well. 
Dialogo 1.  Nay, 
Cens. Colon. dial. 5.  that by Christ's passion and the holy ghost, there is given to our works a certain infiniteness, to the end, that partly being helped by such a gift, they might worthily deserve eternal life: wherein they have in few words many blasphemies. As that there may seem to be some proportion, between the reward, and the work, they have devised how the work itself shall have in it, a certain infiniteness that is, an exceeding excellency. And yet S. Paul saith, 
Rom. 8.18  that the afflictions of this present time, are not worthy of the glory which shall be showed unto us. And if all we can suffer here, have no comparison with that glory, what infinite goodness can we imagine our works may have? And whereas the Scriptures in this matter of justification do take all the glory from our works, 
Rom. 3.26, 27.28  and give it unto God: they so part stakes between God and their good works, that their works being holpen but in part (that is, but a little) by grace do worthily deserve eternal life. So it seemeth that they will not be much beholding to God for their salvation, as the indifferent Reader may soon perceive. Who if they continue in this their blasphemy, 
Aug. in Psal. 31. praefat.  and brag thus of their merits, they shall without question fall from grace. And if they will needs seek to establish their own righteousness, 
Rom. 10.3,  they can not be partakers of God's righteousness. And if they will not have it by faith, without the works of the law, 
Rom. 3.28.  they can never have it. Yet to say our own works cannot save us, 
Act. & Monum. Fox lib. c. 1117.  hath been counted heresy.   

Now that our adversaries are in this point, so stiff upon so small a ground, it being so necessary a point of religion, that without true knowledge thereof, they cannot be saved, I cannot but marvel. For besides that which before I have said of the imperfection of our works, which is confessed by themselves) for Andradius confesseth that the jesuits of Colen say, that it cannot be, 
Orthod. explic. lib. 5.  that we can love God perfectly and sufficiently in this life) besides that imperfection I say, which is in any thing that we can do, which cannot answer for that perfect righteousness, which God justly may require of us: there are sundry other great reasons to induce us, to detest that doctrine, as a thing most dangerous for christians to give ear unto. 
Luc. 17.9.  Our saviour Christ when he hath by the parable of the servant, taught us that it is our duty to do that which he commandeth us, he addeth this, So likewise ye, 
10.  when you have done all those things that are commanded you: say we are unprofitable servants: we have done that was our duty to do. If then it be our duty to keep God's commandments, yea and that not once, but that so long as we live, 
In luc. li. 8.  we must do it, as Saint Ambrose saith: 
In luc. ca 17.  and if as Theophilact saith, that we are bound to keep all God's commandments: I would feign learn of some of our adversaries, how the doing of that thing which we always ought to do, can satisfy God's wrath, for neglect of such duties as we have not done, and such sins as we have committed contrary to God's law? for if now I keep the commandment, it is my duty now and always to do it. Can this than be any recompense to satisfy God for such times as I have omitted my duty? It cannot be, it hath no likelihood of truth. Nay, if he work not (saith Theophilact) he is worthy of many stripes, 
Luc. 17.  and if he work, let him content himself, that he is not beaten. Therefore let him not seek for reward or honour for it. Therefore seeing every work that we do is a sacrifice that then must be offered, a duty that then must be performed, and that also very short I warrant you of that we should perform, if it were well sifted, how can we say that such a work can merit eternal life? Or, if that work can but serve that duty that then is required, what recompense shall we make for all other our sins. For it is a question amongst themselves whether Christ by his death did take away any sins, but only original sin. For Ambrose Catharinus an archbishop, 
In his book de Incruento sacrif.  and a great man at the Council of Trent, doth plainly write, that Christ died only for original sin. As for actual sins, they must be taken away by masses and such helps, saith he. Now if we had no other hope but such paltry popish devices, to take away our sins wherein we continually offend, we were the most miserable of all creatures.  
But to return to the words of our saviour Christ. Out of them we may reason thus. If our most perfect obedience be but duty, it is not merit: but it is but duty: therefore no merit. This whole argument is necessarily to be gathered out of the words themselves, as you see the forenamed fathers do testify. Which place also is very strong against their most blasphemous doctrine of their works of supererogation. For if all we can do, 
Against works of supererogation, Cap. 20.  be scarce our own duty, then can it not serve for others, to satisfy for their sins. And yet is this doctrine defended by them, as by Nichol Burn in his book, yea, and by master Bellarmine, who is so little ashamed thereof, that as it were a doctrine that must needs be granted unto him, he endeavoureth thereby to prove that we may keep God's law: A man (saith he) may do more than God commandeth: 
De justificat. lib. 4. cap. 13  therefore much more may he fulfil the law.  
Now if you will know the mystery of this great abomination, it is this (as they tell us.) Whereas some men, say they, have been so godly that they have done more good works than they needed, these are as it were the treasure of the church, which the Pope may at his pleasure bestow. And so he doth: for the pardons and indulgences have their virtue from these works. So that if there be no such works: then the Pope like a false merchant hath deceived the world for many years, as still he doth. For his pardons, Agnus Dei, his grana benedicta, and such baggage, have no virtue, but from their works of supererogation. And here I can but wonder, at the whorish forehead of the church of Rome in this thing. She can in no wise abide the imputation of Christ's righteousness for our justification: she may not hear of it. All Popish Writers writ against it. And yet their doctrine of merits, especially of the works of supererogation, what is it but the imputation of other men's merits, as they think to satisfy for us, and for our justification. Shall Christ's righteousness imputed to us, be absurd to teach? and to teach the imputation of man's works a sound doctrine? We may see by this, that in the church of Rome, that doctrine is best that is most gainful. For the Pope can gain but little worldly wealth, by preaching the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto us: But by this doctrine of the works of supererogation he gaineth much. For because it is the treasure of the church, whosoever will have thereof must pay well for it to the church, that is to the pope. But how doth master Bellarmine prove, that we can do more than we need. Because that Christ bid one that said he had kept all the commandments, 
Mat. 19.22  Sell all he had, and give it to the poor. I will not press master Bellarmine here with the judgement of the fathers, who find this to be a commandment and therefore not more than need. 
Confess. li. 13. cap. 19  And saint Augustine seethe it to be a law against covetousness. But who so ever will consider of the place, may easily see, that our saviour Christ did purpose by this commandment, to let him see his own ignorance of his estate, and that he knew not his own wants. Not meaning that it should be a commandment, of that he was not by God's law bound to perform, but rather a rule whereby he might try how far he was from keeping the second table of the commandments, and therefore that he might even condemn himself to be much shorter, of keeping the first table. As for his proof out of chrysostom, 
Hom. 8. de poenitentia.  Many do more than they are commanded, it is true that chrysostom, saith so, but it is also true that he speaketh of such things, as are not simply of themselves good works, but indifferent of themselves. But the use or abuse of them, doth make them good works, or evil. His examples that he bringeth are of virginity, that it is not commanded (but this master Bellarmine omitteth of purpose, because it maketh against their doctrine of vows:) neither is it commanded (saith he) that men should not possess any thing. Yea, I know that the Scribes and Pharisees did many things that God never commanded, as also the jews in the time of Esay, 
Esa. 1.12.  to whom it was said, Who required these things at your hands? And this is also an answer to that which out of Augustine he allegeth. What biddest thou? 
De verbis Apost. ser. 18.  That we should not be adulteresses? Commandest thou that? In loving thee, we do more than thou commandest. For he also speaketh of keeping virginity. But master Bellarmine's antecedent is thus to be understood, that we do more good works than God commandeth, or else his argument is to be denied. For we see by experience that the Papists do an infinite number of things that God never commanded. For which as they have no warrant of God, so shall they have no praise of him. And they may do a thousand such works, and be never a whit nearer keeping God's law, but much further off rather. For the more that men satisfy themselves with their own works, 
Mat. 15 & 23  the less care they have to keep God's commandments, as our saviour Christ teacheth us. And master Bellarmine's antecedent being thus understood (as I have said,) that we may do more good works than God hath commanded, is false. For in that it is not a good work, if it be besides God's word, And this is all that he sayeth in that place for the works of supererogation.  
Thus we see this rich doctrine hath a poor proof. But if there were nothing to convince the wickedness of that doctrine, but this one thing, that they will seem to mend that rule of perfection that God hath made, and take upon them to prescribe more perfect rules, than God hath set down, it argueth in them too profane sauciness. But thus much by the way of this kind of work. For my purpose is not to make of it any several discourse, because that if it be proved, that we cannot justify ourselves by our works, 
De justif. 5. ca 5.  it will follow that we can much less help others. Now master Bellarmine finding this weapon too sharp, this place to strong against their merits would feign wrest it out of our hands. And first he telleth us that saint Ambrose willeth us to know what we are of ourselves. We must know the grace, but not be ignorant of our nature, saith saint Ambrose.  
It is true, he writeth so, and that upon just occasion. For the very beginning of that sentence is, Peferre not thyself because thou art called a son: and then followeth: thou must confess the grace, and not forget thy nature. As if he should say, think no wrong that thou art called an unprofitable servant, seeing thou art called a son. Thou art a son by grace, because God hath chosen thee, but if a man look on thy work, it is not worth praising. But what is this to answer the argument? Nothing at all. Master Bellarmine perchance thinketh, that if he bring in the fathers as witnesses, they will speak as he would have them. Yet not Ambrose only, but also Augustine and chrysostom, 
Li. 8. in Luc. de verbis Apost. ser. de humilitate 18. in Oziam  in the places by him cited, and Theophilact upon these words, do teach, that Christ would not have us proud of our good works, that it is our duty always to work, and as Ambrose saith, We own him our service, therefore let us not boast of our work. But as Theophilact saith, If any thing be given us, let us be glad of it, he that giveth it oweth us nothing. But the servant oweth to his master the keeping of all that he commandeth. So all this still strengtheneth my argument, that all that we can do, it is but our duty, and therefore no merit. And although in respect of our election we may justly rejoice that we are Gods dear children: yet when we look upon ourselves, we must needs confess us to be unprofitable and unperfect. Secondly, the repugnancy between grace and merit, set down by saint Paul, 
Merit and grace overthrow one another. Rom. 11.6  is a strong argument against justification by works. If it be of grace, it is no more of works, or else were grace no more grace, or if it be of works, it is no more grace, or else were work no more work. Wherein we see how plainly the Apostle opposeth the one against the other, that we cannot be said to be iustistied by grace, if we may attribute any part of our justification to works. Neither will their common answer serve, that saint Paul speaketh of the first mercy that God showeth us, as that we are called to be Christian men or women, by grace without our works, but that hereby he excludeth not the works that afterwards we do, from merit. For seeing our adversaries must needs confess, that after our first calling, yea, and continually so long as we live, we must acknowledge, that but by grace we cannot be saved: this grace which themselves dare not but confess, taketh away merit: so that if grace be free and without works in our first justification, it can never stand with works in the rest of our life: 
The mistrust of their works.  For still must this be true, if it be of grace it is not then of works, if of works then not of grace.  
Thirdly, the great mistrust which I see themselves do put in this their doctrine of justification by works, maketh me (who see no cause to like of it) the more to shun it. For master Bellarmine, no mean man for learning among them, when he hath taken much pains to deceive other with this doctrine, 
Bellar. a Lutheran, iustif. 5. cap. 7.  yet himself dareth not trust it, and therefore setteth down a very good rule, which if calvin or Luther had written it, it must needs have been called heretical. Because (saith he) of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, the safest way is to put our whole confidence in God's mercy and goodness. Unto which his good and true doctrine, we say Amen, and yet I hope we shall not be called heretics. The safest way to salvation is that we seek: let others pass what perilous places it shall please them. These and such other considerations do make me muse, that ever men will forsake God, 
jerem. 2.13.  the fountain of living waters, to dig them pits, even broken pits that can hold no waters, that they will leave the plain and safe way, and choose the way that hath greatest danger, wherein they deal not only foolishly for themselves, but wickedly also with them that they lead into these blind ways. And I would have all men to mark this well, that that doctrine, which upon pain of salvation and damnation they teach men must believe, is dangerous by their own confession, and the contrary most safe. A great argument to teach us, that they care not so much for the salvation of men's souls, as to get of men profit and credit. And therefore they are the less to be trusted or esteemed in other points in controversy, who deal so unchristianly in the most necessary article of our religion. For you must understand there are two ways to eternal life, or rather (to speak with the Apostle) two kinds of righteousness. The one so hard to hit, that no man or woman, excepting only Christ jesus, God and man, could go it, so full of snares and traps, that none but he could continue in it. This is that righteousness of the Law, 
Rom. 10.5.  which Moses describeth thus. The man that doth these things shall live thereby. And this righteousness did our Saviour Christ speak of, to the expounder of the law that came to him to ask, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? 
Luke. 10.25  He sent him to the law. For if we will be saved by works, we must keep the law. But then must we know, That whosoever keepeth the whole law, 
jam. 2.10.  and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all. Now this ungone, and unbeaten way, so hard for us to hit, so unpossible to keep, the church of Rome teacheth us, that we must keep, and yet never any of her dearest darlings could get to heaven that way. But the righteousness that is by faith, knoweth that Christ descended into the deep, and died for our sins, and ascended into heaven to justify us, and bring us thither. For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, 
Rom. 10.9.  and believe in thy heart that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. But this righteousness pleaseth not our adversaries, because all the glory of working is given from themselves. This way they think too base, because it is not garnished with their works, and strewed with their merits. And yet This is the way, 
Es● ie. 30.21.  walk ye in it. As for that middle way which themselves have devised, which joineth Christ's righteousness and theirs together, as though he only could not save them: it is no good way, for it maketh to wander from the path of God's word, and is dangerous by their own confession. Take heed therefore of it, for it is the way that leadeth to death and damnation. Of this way I may say as saint Augustine doth of them that seek for worldly happiness by good works. 
Aug. in. psal. 31 praefat. M. Bellar. Argument. for merits, Math. 5.12. De. justif. 5, cap. 3.  Although (saith he) thou stir thine arms in good works, and thou seem most skilfully to rule thy boat, yet thou runnest upon the rocks. But now let us see what arguments master Bellarmine useth to prove this their doctrine of justification by works. Great is your reward (or wages, or hire) in heaven. Eternal life (saith he) is the wages, therefore doubtless works are the merits. Master Bellarmine reasoneth thus. Eternal life is your wages, therefore your works have deserved it. The weakness of this argument appeareth at the first: but yet for the more clear understanding of this & such other places, a word or two may be added. That God giveth us eternal life for wages we will not deny, if it be understood aright. Admit therefore that a man hireth two workmen to work with him: the one of them a sufficient workman, who doth his work: The other can work little or nothing, yet he that hired him biddeth him work also, and do his best, and he shall have his wages also. Now the one of these who is the workman, his hire or wages is due to him for his work, he hath deserved it: the others wages is due also, and he may challenge it: not because he hath ● a● n it by his work, but he that hired him, hath made himself his debtor by his promise. We see then, not every wages is deserved. We are that evil workman, we can do nothing worthy of our wages, yet God by promise is indebted unto us. Therefore although our reward or wages be great, yet is it not deserved of our part. 
Praefat. in, Psal. 31.  Our wages is called grace (saith saint August.) If it be grace, it is freely given. What is the meaning of this, it is freely given? It costs us nothing. Thou hast done no good, and forgiveness of sins is given to thee. It is then no good argument to say: eternal life is our wages, therefore we have deserved it. His second argument. God shall reward every man according to his work: Therefore the works are meritorious. The scriptures we confess use often so to speak, but not to establish merit, but to shake off security. And to this end they tell us, that if the work be good, it shall have the reward of a good work, if it be evil, 
Rom. 2.6.  it shall be punished. And so doth Saint Paul, using the self same words, which are also alleged by master Bellarmine expound himself. 
vers. 7.  To them which by continuance in well doing, seek glory, and honour, and immortality: 
8.  eternal life: But unto them that are contentious and disobey the truth and obey unrighteousness: indignation and wrath. Thus than we see that this according to the work, doth not signify according to the merit of the work, but according to the quality of the work. And these kind of speeches are very like to that, that God said to Cain, and perchance are grounded upon it. If thou do well, 
Gen. 4.7.  shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door. And when he telleth us, that in this judgement, God shall be the rewarder, he armeth us against hypocrisy, seeing that he who cannot be corrupted with bribes, nor deceived with ignorance of the cause, shall examine the work. And yet for the comfort of the Godly we must also know, that he accepteth of their work, not according to the imperfection of the work itself, but according to the spirit of regeneration which he hath wrought in them that work it. And so because the fruit cometh from a good tree, he accounteth the better of it. Therefore if he crown in us our merits, he crowneth nothing but his own gifts, as saith saint Augustine. Thus than we see, 
Li. 50. Homiliarum. Homil. 14.  there is not any necessity in this argument: God rewardeth the good work with glory and immortality, therefore the work hath merited that reward. And this is the answer also to his third argument out of these words of saint Matthew, 
Matth. 25.34  Come ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you, etc. For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat, etc. We confess that God rewardeth good works, and that is all that can be proved out of these words. But this reward is not given in respect of the work, but chief in regard of God's promise. And the rather also it is accepted, because of that spirit of regeneration from whence the work cometh. But in the place alleged by him out of the revelation he dealeth not sincerely. For thus doth he cite it: These are they that came out of great tribulation, 
Apoc. 7.14.  therefore they are in the presence of the throne of God. 
15  But saint john hath thus set it down, These are they that came out of great tribulation, and have washed their long robes, and have made their long robes white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they in the presence of the throne of God. Not because they came out of tribulation, but because they did wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb, That is in the grace of God through jesus Christ our Lord, as saith saint Augustine. deceitfully therefore did master Bellarmine leave out the true cause of their being in the presence of God, 
In apoc. Hom. 6.  that he might for fortifying of his error, set down that which was no cause of their being with God, for the true cause. Seeking rather by Sophistry to beguile, than with sound learning to teach. His fourth sort of places are such as speak of the justice of God's judgement, and out of them he maketh this argument. God in justice rewardeth good works, therefore good works are meritorious. Master Bellarmine doth, as many evil Captains do that deceive the Prince, who when they have not men enough of their own, against the muster will borrow some soldiers of some other, to make out their number: but when they encounter the enemy, their borrowed soldiers are not there to fight for them, or to do any service, they were but borrowed to make a show in the muster. Even so falleth it out with master Bellarmine. He maketh a show of many proofs. But of all these which are brought in here, there is not one that proveth directly, that God in justice rewardeth good works. He proveth by them especially, that God's judgement is just, which we deny not but say with jeremy. O Lord are not thine eyes upon the truth. 
jer. 5.3.  And therefore these testimonies are to that effect that were the testimonies alleged in his second argument, 
●. Thess. 1.4.5.6.  and are there answered. The effect of that he saith in the two first places is this. It is a token of God's righteous judgement, 
● Tim. 4.7. ●.  that he dealeth well with the Godly. To this end also is that out of saint Paul to Timothy. I have fought a good fight, and have finished my course: I have kept the faith. Henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord that righteous judge shall give me at that day. We never denied either God to be a righteous judge, or his judgements to be just. What then will our adversaries infer? Must he therefore judge according to the worthiness of our work? 
job. 9.3. Psal. 130.3.  God forbidden. For if God would dispute with man, he were not able to answer one thing for a thousand. And if the Lord should straightly mark our iniquities, who should be able to abide it? And therefore now there is no way for us, but to make our humble suit unto God as doth David: 
Psal. 143.1.  Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified. And yet he is just, yea and so just, that he will not suffer sin unpunished. But rather than he should not be satisfied for the same to the uttermost, he gave his son to satisfy for the same, even to make recompense for us. So that our sin (the punishment whereof ourselves could not bear) is punished to the uttermost in jesus Christ. And by this satisfaction which Christ hath made for us, we may stand without fear before God's judgement seat, and plead not guilty: Because that he in whom God is well pleased, hath paid our debt. And seeing that Christ hath once made satisfaction for our sins, it were against God's justice to punish us for the same. And thus we see how God's justice in judgement, is an unspeakable comfort to our consciences: assuring us, that God looketh not upon us in his judgement as we are in ourselves, but as we are belonging to his son Christ. Neither yet doth he weigh the merit of our works, but how they are made acceptable through Christ: who hath merited by his death & passion eternal life, for all them that believe in him. He looketh not I say what we have done, but what Christ hath done. And it is just he should so do: for he was content to take him to be our surety. And this is also for the understanding of the fourth place alleged by master Bellarmine. 
Heb. 6.10.  For God is not unrighteous that he should forget your work. In which place God's righteousness is taken for his truth and faithfulness in keeping promise, that he is as good as his word, and will reward every good work that is done for his sake, but not for the merit of the work, but for his own mercy. That which is alleged out of Saint james, answereth itself, 
james. 1.12.  if M. Bellarmine had not stopped S. james his breath too soon. Blessed is the man that endureth tentation: for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life, saith S. james. But it followeth, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. And of this master Bellarmine saith nothing. And yet saint james saith plainly that that which they receive, it is according to promise. And out of the revelation. 
Apoc. 2.10.  Be thou faithful unto the death and I will give thee a crown of life. How can he prove merits out of it? Is this a good argument, I will give thee, therefore thou hast deserved it? Two or three places more he there allegeth, but out of that I have said, it is easy to answer them. His fift sort of places are such as promise to good works eternal life. And out of them he reasoneth thus. Promise of reward for a work, doth make that he that doth the work, may be said to merit his reward. That the reward is due but yet not deserved, I showed before in the answer to his first argument, and I need not here to repeat it. His sixth argument, is taken from those places that speak of our worthiness, and are of two sorts. 
2. Thess. 1.5. Luc. 20.35.  For two of them, namely that That ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God: and that also, They shallbe counted worthy to enjoy that world, and the resurrection of the dead, do answer themselves. For that may be accounted worthy, which of itself is not so in truth. As in our works is seen, which are accounted of, not as they proceed from us: but as they are presented before God in the name of Christ, and their imperfection covered, with his perfect obedience. The other two places seem more pertinent to his purpose, but yet being rightly understood, prove nothing for him. The first is in the book of wisdom, which book although it is not Canonical, yet because the place alleged seemeth like unto the words that he allegeth out of the revelation, they may both receive one answer. 
Wisdom. 3.5 Apocal. 3.4.  God proveth them, and findeth them worthy for himself. The other place is, They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. First that this worthiness doth many times signify an aptness or fitness, it cannot be denied. Who (saith Solomon) can judge, 
2. Cron. 1.10  this thy great people worthily? Where by worthily he meaneth not as they deserve (for they were a stubborn and bad people many times) but as is fit or meet to govern them. And so the Apostle willeth us to walk worthy of God, worthy of our calling, worthy of the gospel, that is, as becometh God's children, them that are called, and fit for the professors of the gospel. And this fitness is said to be in us in respect of the new man that is begun within us, not in respect of perfection, that we do or can attain unto. And yet if we should indeed be worthy, we must be perfect, which here we cannot be. And in this sense you see his argument hath no necessity. Men are worthy of love, that is fit to loved, therefore they have deserved it: for this fitness is not of themselves. Secondly, although we be called worthy, in respect of our election in Christ, or in respect of the fruits of the spirit, which God commendeth in us, although they have their wants, that we might not be discouraged, but go on forwards in the ways of godliness, yet this argument will not hold. We are worthy of love: therefore our works have deserved this love, or made us worthy. For our worthiness hangeth nothing upon our works, but that God will vouch us to be so esteemed. But in respect of our works, we must confess with the prophet David: 
Psal. 53.3.  There is none that doth good, no not one. And therefore we must plead, even the best of us, mercy and forgiveness, not merit or worthiness. 
Super Cantic. ser. 61.  My merit (saith Saint Bernard) is the lords mercy: neither am I without merit, so long as he is not without mercy. His seventh argument is grounded upon those places of scripture, that say that God accepteth no persons. But must he needs therefore respect the worthiness of the work? If there be with him no difference between jew and Gentile, bond or free, male or female, must merits needs be established? I have often said, that God respecteth us and our works, but not for our goodness, but for his mercy sake. For this must needs be true that S. Paul teacheth us according to the consent of the scriptures, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. 
Rom. 3. 2●.  Therefore (as saith S. August.) let man's merits be silent, which were lost through Adam, 
De praedest. Sanct. ca 1●  and let the grace of God through jesus Christ reign, as indeed it doth reign. Now for the Fathers, if I should answer to every testimony alleged out of them, it would be too long: especially considering how largely I have already handled this question. Only thus much would I admonish the christian Reader, that when he readeth them, he should remember, they be but men. 
Dial. 3. Impatib.  And if Theodoret said truly of the doctrines of the church, the decrees of the church are to be proved, and not to be pronounced, in manner of a judgement: then how much more should we reject whatsoever any men speak without a good warrant. Then also as they were men, so were many of them great Philosophers, & might somewhat perchance smell of that infection, & speak more of man's worthiness, than had been expedient for christian religion. 
Aduersus Hermog. Orat. 21.  In so much as not without great cause did Tertull. call philosophers, The patriarches of heretics. And G. Nazian. compareth the subtleties of philosophy, which he saith, came unhappily into the church, unto the whips wherewith the Egyptians did scourge the Israelits. 
Ser. de Arian.  In which kind of reasoning the tongue fighteth, the words are spears, the speech is the sword, & there is no end of contention all the day long, as the same father saith in an other place. And no marvel, for the Philosopher is gloriae animal, 
De anima.  even the creature of glory, as Tertull writeth. No doubt therefore but they might be somewhat carried away with her enticing words, especially to think well of that themselves do. Thirdly, as I have said in the former chapter, the absurdities of them that did teach, that God moved man, & wrought in or by him, as a workman might do in or by a stock or stone, they not having so much as will thereto, made the fathers to speak more, not only of man's free-will, as before I taught, but also of the reward of them that work according to the same. And that this did the rather move the fathers to speak somewhat too largely upon this matter, unless they be warily red, it may be gathered even by that place that M. Bella. out of Origen allegeth, 
Lib. 2. in Rom. in ca 2.  first (saith he) let heretics be excluded, that say that the nature of souls is good or bad, & let them hear that God will reward them, not according to their nature, but according to their merits. Now concerning the understanding of these words, 
Rom, 2.  I have spoken in the answer unto his second argument. But here it appeareth that such heretics did then trouble the church. Last of all, not all the vehement speeches of the fathers, are to be taken or understood as they sound: but they must be warily red, and wisely examined by the touchstone of God's word. And then it will appear, that the Fathers, either may well be taken, or justly refused.  
And thus having (I trust) in the judgement of the indifferent Reader, sufficiently confirmed the truth, answered the Scriptures alleged to the contrary, and showed some causes, why the fathers should in this point be read with good advise and judgement: it now only remaineth that I lay open the absurdity of that shift, wherein they trust much, and which indeed is the chief strength of their cause. For being pressed with the testimonies out of scriptures, especially out of saint Paul, which plainly testify that we are justified by faith, 
Rom. 3.28  without the works of the law: first, they devised this answer, that S. Paul speaketh of the ceremonial laws, that we are justified without them, but not without doing the works of the law moral, or of the commandments. But this being so untrue an answer, that master Bellarmine himself is ashamed of it, 
De justificat. lib. 1. cap. 19  and reasoneth against it: Master Bellarmine bringeth another answer, namely, that the Apostle speaketh of the works before faith. So that he would have the words of the Apostle thus to sound: We are justified by faith without the works of the law that were done before we believed. And for the credit of this interpretation he would feign father it upon S. Augustine and S. Jerome, 
De gr. & lib. arb. ca 7. de praedest. sinctor. cap. 7. In praefat. ps. 31 jer. ad Ctesiphontem contra Pelagianos.  but most untruly, as he that examineth those places shall easily see, that S. Augustine and S. Jerome in those places do not so expound those words of saint Paul, neither give us any rule so to expound them. Neither yet do chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophilact, or Primasius upon those words either in the third to the Romans, or second to the Galathians so expound it: 
Rom. 4.4.  Or yet S. Jerome upon the Galathians. And in the Epistle that he writeth against the Pelagians to Ctesiphon, he denieth that those words may be understood of the law ceremonial: but concerning this exposition which master Bellarmine bringeth there is no word.  
As for the reason that Bellarmine hath out of S. Paul to prove this his exposition: let us consider of it. Unto him that worketh (saith S. Paul) the wages is not counted by favour, but by debt. Therefore (saith M. Bellarmine) he speaketh only of those works that are done by the power of free will without grace. How little S. Paul dreamt of free will, hath in the former chapter been declared. And that he doth not in these words expound, what he meant before by the works of the law, the text itself proveth. For, having said, that Abraham believed God, and that was counted to him for righteousness: thereupon the Apostle inferreth: that if he had been justified by works, his justification had been of debt, not of grace. So that he doth not here expound his former words, but beginneth in this fourth chapter an other argument, by the example of Abraham, being already justified and a holy man, to prove justification by faith without works, even by forgiveness of sins or covering them. And as I have showed master Bellarmine's interpretation to stand upon no good ground, but that the place alleged maketh against himself: so that which we gather out of S. Paul's words to be the most true meaning, namely, that works neither before nor after our first justification (as they call it) can merit, the circumstances of the place do prove, & the whole course of his doctrine. He instructeth the Rom. & Galath. in this doctrine, who were already become christians, & already were justified. He doth not only show that the works of the law do not justify, but telleth us, that the nature of the law is to make us to know sin, 
Rom. 7.7. Rom. 4.15.  & to cause wrath, even after we be justified. And S. Paul himself teacheth so much, in that he counted all that was in him to be but loss, yea dung. That he might win Christ, 
Philip. 3.8, 9  & be found in him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, even the righteousness which is of God through Christ. Mark here how the Apostle saint Paul in these words, which were written almost thirty years after his conversion, still relieth upon the righteousness that is by faith: and he calleth it God's righteousness, and refuseth that which cometh by works, and that he calleth man's righteousness. Now of this which is said, I trust I may thus reason. Saint Paul excludeth from justification, not only the works that are done before we believe, but also the works which we afterwards do: therefore master Bellarmine's interpretation is not true. If then works cannot justify (as hitherto I have taught) we may say with saint Augustine, Woe be even to the commendable life of man, 
Confess. lib. 9 ca 13.  if thou Lord setting mercy aside examine it. For, 
Enarrat. psal. 109.  as he saith in an other place, Whatsoever God hath promised, he hath promised to them that are unworthy, that it should not be promised as wages for good works: but grace according to the name of it should be freely given. 
Confess. lib. 9 cap. 13.  O therefore that all men (that with Saint Augustine I may wish that godly wish) would know themselves, and they that rejoice, 
Ad Ctesiphontem contra Pelagianos.  would rejoice in the Lord. For this only perfection is left to men, that they know themselves to be unperfect: as truly and godlily saint Hierome writeth.     

Of justification by Faith: and what Faith is. CHAP. 26  


THE PROTESTANTS  
ANd this justification, which by our works we can not deserve, yet by faith we do obtain. Not because our faith can of it self work any such effect. 
What faith is.  But it being a lively and certain persuasion of our heart and conscience, that God for Christ jesus his sake, forgiveth us all our sins, and in him accounteth us holy and righteous, doth thus justify us, not as that that worketh our justification, but as that which apprehendeth and taketh hold of that righteousness, that Christ hath wrought for us. And so by faith he being made ours, is unto us wisdom, 
1. Cor. 1.30.  and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. And being thus justified by faith, 
Rom. 5.1  we have peace with God, through our Lord jesus Christ.   

THE PAPISTS  
BUT our adversaries, because they like not that Christ should be the only salve for our sores, neither will they have faith to be the hand that apply this sovereign medicine to our maladies. But they are content to confess that it doth justify, yea, 
Bellar. de justif. 1. ca 15. Con. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 6. Orth. explica. li. 6.  and that faith doth somewhat merit our justification: because it doth prepare and dispose the heart to justification: or as Andradradius saith, because it goeth before to open, as it were the door to hope and charity, and is the beginning and foundation of justification: but that it justifieth as the instrumental cause, that maketh us to rest and settle ourselves for our justification only upon Christ, without any regard to the merit and work of Faith, they will not grant.   

A great cause of the difference between us and the papists in this question, is that we agree not in the signification of the word, what it is to be justified. This therefore is the question, whether we that are not only by nature sinners, but also even after our regeneration, have that Law in our members rebelling, against the law of the mind, 
Rom. 7.27 Bellar. de Amiss. great. li. 5. ca 13.  which saint Paul calleth sin, and the papists themselves confess to be evil, damned and hated of God: whether I say we being such sinners shall appear righteous before God, in having our sins pardoned, covered and not imputed unto us, and Christ's righteousness accounted ours: or in that goodness or holiness, or those good works, which Gods grace worketh in us. We say that Christ by faith is made ours: Christ I say with all his holiness and righteousnesses, 
Ephe. 1.7  By whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to his rich grace. And in this assurance we stand even before God's judgement seat without fear, and say with the apostle Who shall lay any thing to the charge of gods chosen? 
Rom. 8.33.34.  It is God that justifieth who shall condemn us. It is Christ that is dead, yea or rather is risen again. Who is also at the right hand of God, and also maketh request for us. And in this faith and assured persuasion, we have peace of conscience here, and are in Christ and for his sake accounted righteous elsewhere, even before him that shall judge the quick and the dead. They teach us that after baptism sin is so killed within us, 
Popish justification.  that we are able to do such works as do merit justification and eternal life. 
That justification is not by works, but by imputation. Gen. 22.18.  And by this righteousness that is in us, we are made so just and righteous, that we are so justified before God. To confirm that which we teach, we have the promise made to. Abraham That in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. In his seed I say, not in ourselves we must all be blessed. And that Christ is this seed, saint Paul to the Galathians doth affirm. 
Gal. 3.16.  Secondly the justification of the people of the jews, which they by their sacrifices obtained, is a right pattern of our justification. For though the blood of of the beasts could not make them holy, yet the sacrifice being offered for them according to the law, 
Hep. 9.9.  did work so much, that they who before were accounted unclean, and might not appear before the Lord, now were accounted clean, and might serve before him. Even so we, though we be not in ourselves, yet by this our sacrifice that hath offered himself a sweet smell unto God the father, we are accounted clean and without sin, 
Rom. 5.2.  and have by him access unto that grace wherein we stand. Thirdly, this justification is commended unto us by David, 
Psal. 32.1.2  Blessed is he whose wickedness is forgiven, and whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity. And for this cause he stirreth up his soul to praise the Lord: 
Psal. 103.3  because saith he, He forgiveth all thine iniquities. It is promised by jeremy, I will forgive their iniquities, 
jere. 31.34  and remember their sins no more. And the Prophet Hose teacheth the people to pray for it, 
Hose. 14.2  saying thus. Take unto you words, and turn to the Lord, and say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously. Where this is also by the way to be marked, that the prophet here biddeth us come to God, with such words, as if he had said, Your works are evil, and cannot help, they cannot merit, Yet come with good words, be suitors for grace. Fourthly, our saviour Christ doth commend unto us this justification which we have by him, & apprehend by faith. Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, 
john 3.16  but have everlasting life. Of whom the apostles also have learned that we are justified by faith, that righteousness is imputed unto us, & that we are accounted righteous. 
Rom. 3.28 Rom. 4.3.11  Lastly, we see how the apostle doth exclude works from justifying, than which there can be no stronger argument against this inherent justification which the papists contend for, or for the imputation of righteousness by faith in Christ jesus, which we according unto the scriptures do preach. And therefore he doth not only exclude works in general from justification, 
Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.11. Rom. 4.  justified by faith without the works of the law: But also those works that Abraham did after his first calling, when now he was regenerate, even then, I say, attributing justification to faith and not to his works. And likewise for his own works long after he was regenerate, 
Phil. 3.9.  he rejecteth them that he might attain unto righteousness by faith. So little did he trust unto that inherent righteousness, that he counted it but dung: and so wholly did he depend on that righteousness that we have by faith in Christ jesus. But of this I have spoken in the end of the former chapter. And I trust this may serve the turn, to show how far we are from that inherent righteousness and keeping of the law, which our popish Pharisees dream of: especially if we consider what great perfection the law requireth to be in our works, 
Master. Bellar. his proof for inherent justice. De justif. 2. cap. 3. Rom. 5.19.  and what want through our corruption there is in the same. But master Bellarmine bringeth some arguments to prove this inherent righteousness. The first is out of these words, As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many are made just. Of this argument, because I have spoken at large, towards the latter end of the 23. chapter, I leave the reader to that place. His second argument is this, All are justified freely by his grace, 
Rom. 3.24.25.  through the redemption that is in Christ jesus, whom God hath set to be a reconciliation. In which place by grace master Bellarmine understandeth that righteousness that God hath given, or infused into us: for so he speaketh. But saint Augustine in that place understandeth by Grace, 
De gratia Cristi count pelag. & Celestina. cap. 31. Prim. upon this place.  that which is set against works. And Primasius saith, By (his grace) because he paid for us that which he ought us not, that he might save us being freely redeemed. Thus doth Augustine and Primasius take this word Grace, for God's love to us, not for any virtue inherent in us, clean contrary to master Bellarmine's mind. And by these and some other places he would feign prove, that the word of justifying, may sometime signify an inherent righteousness. And what if we grant that to him? yet thereof it followeth not, that that inherent righteousness doth justify us before God, which master Bellarmine would feign prove. As for that which he saith of Abel and Noah, that they were accounted just: if he will by that commendation that is given to them, exempt them from all sin, saint Augustine will be directly against him, 
De peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 12. 13.  who speaking of jobs righteousness, showeth, that perfection was not in job, neither that it can be any. But in comparison of others he was just. And if perfection cannot be in any, then shall no man by any inherent righteousness, answer Gods just judgement. 
Ber. epist. 34.  For Our greatest perfection is desire to be more perfect, and always to confess our imperfection. Two or three arguments more hath master Bellarmine in that place, but because they are not worth answering, of purpose I omit them, concluding with that golden saying of saint Ambrose: 
Amb. epist 32 lib. 5.  not the law, but faith maketh a man just, because righteousness is not by the law, but by faith.     

That good works are necessary duties for all Christians to perform. CHAP. 27.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
But although we deny that our good works, can any thing merit our justification, 
Ephe. 1.4.  yet we affirm that God hath chosen us unto himself before the foundations of the world were laid: 
Ephe. 2.19.  so, we are his workmanship, created in christ jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them. For the same spirit of God, that worketh in us faith, and maketh it to take sure hold of Christ, doth also make it as a fruitful plant, to bring forth fruit in great abundance of holy obedience. Neither can this faith, if it be a true faith, be idle, but it will work by love. By love, I say, towards God, whereby we will be ready to love him, careful to serve him, and willing to please him. By love also towards our neighbour, to the performance of all Christian duties in mercifulness, and brotherly kindness. For we know that God hath given unto us his law, that though we cannot be saved by it, yet we should walk in the same law with our whole endeavour.   

THE PAPISTS  
But our adversaries teach us, not to do good works for God's sake, 
Mat. 5.16.  That men seeing our good works may glorify our father which is in heaven: but for our own sake, namely to purchase heaven thereby, and to satisfy for our sins. So that this is the difference between us and then That good works should be done, we cry it as loud as they: But we differ sometime in the work itself: for we say, that is only a good work that is done according to God's commandments. 
Mat. ● 5.9 And ad. Orthod. expli. lib. 5.  They teach for doctrines the precepts of men, yea, that men may offend God more sometime in breaking the laws of the church, than God's law. Which how blaspemously it is written, let the world judge, We also direct our works to another end than they do We do good works to glorify God, and because he hath commanded us, that we may so offer unto him a sacrifice of obedience. They work that they may merit thereby, and so do disgrace the merit of jesus Christ.   

And thus much I thought good to set down concerning this point, to stop the mouths, & to stay the pens of slanderous papists, who go about to discredit our true doctrine with the simple and ignorant, as though we spoke against good works: when as in truth we exhort earnestly all men, to show their faith by their works, and to walk worthy of their calling. Only this we admonish all men out of God's word, that they esteem not as good works, the foolish fancies of man's device: (for we must give God leave, to teach us what is good, and what is evil, for he is our lawmaker) then also that they refer unto God's glory the good works which they do, and to no other end, and that they do them in singleness of heart, to perform their dutiful obedience to God. And these points being observed, we instantly exhort, yea, & command all men, 
Gal. 6.9.10.  whilst they have time to do good, and never to be weary of well doing.     

Of prayer: to whom, and how we should pray. CHAP. 28.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
Prayer is a good work, commended and commanded of God, and therefore to be used, a most ready mean to supply our wants, a most sure stay & comfort in all our dangers and distresses, and therefore not to be neglected, For how can we either relieve our necessities better, or in heaviness comfort ourselves more effectually, than if we converse and talk with God? 
Greg. Nissen. orat. 1. in orat. Dominicam. 1. Thess. 5.17.  Which thing we do in prayer. And therefore the Apostle willeth us to pray always, or continually even without ceasing: Because we always stand in need of comfort and help. Yea Christ would have us always to pray and not to wax faint. 
Luc. 18.1.  But we must ask all good things of God only, from whom only cometh every good giving, 
jam. 1.17.  and every perfect gift. And that in the name of Christ jesus, and for his sake. We must also pray in faith if we will be heard, and with understanding that we may pray in spirit.   

THE PAPISTS  
OUR adversaries also speak much of prayer: but their prayers have many faults. For first they pray not to God only, but also to the Saints and creatures, expressly against God's law. Then also they number their prayers upon their beads, as if they would know how much God is become indebted unto them for their prayers. Thirdly they pray in a tongue unknown to them that do pray many times, namely in latin. And four out of these ariseth another fault in their prayers, that the prayers that are directed to any other than to God, and are also such, as they that do pray know not what they ask, or what they pray for, because they pray in latin: therefore they pray not in faith, and so their prayers are turned into sin, and provoke God to anger.   

First we must pray unto God only, in respect of God's commandment. Thou shalt have no other Gods but me. For thereby God doth challenge unto himself, not only that we should acknowledge him to be God, but also that we should perform to no other but to him those services and offices that are due unto God, amongst which invocation or prayer is one. Secondly, that commandment, which more particularly toucheth this point, 
Psal. 50.15.  Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, is flatly broken if we do call upon any other. Thirdly, the prophet David doth seem to make it a property belonging to God only, to hear our prayers, Thou that hearest our prayers, to thee shall all flesh come. 
Psal. 65.2.  And therefore if we will be heard, we must pray to God only. Fourthly, 
Cont. Arian. Orat. 2.  Athanasius proveth Christ to be God, because he is prayed unto in distress. Whose argument had not been good, if any other besides God might have been prayed unto. Fiftly, faith only belongeth to this life, so that the Saints have it not in the life to come, 
De justif. 2. cap. 4. & 7.  as master Bellarmine himself affirmeth very truly: but prayer without faith availeth not, and How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Therefore the saints after this life cannot pray for us, or at the least their prayers cannot avail. Sixtly, as it is not an office laid upon the saints to pray for us, in all the scriptures, so they regard nothing in the life to come, but only God's glory, as may appear by the exercise of singing praise to God only, as in the Apocalypse many times is ascribed unto them. So little care they have of their own private estate, much less of our affairs, but of those things only, that belong to god's glory. Thus than we see, concerning this first point in controversy concerning prayer, that we must not pray unto any creature, but to God only. 
De beatitud. Sanct. li. 1. cap. 19 Popish arguments for invocation. Gen. 48.16.  But yet let us see how M. Bellar. will prove that we may pray to the creatures. jacob saith of joseph's children, The angel that delivered me from all evil, bless the children, therefore jacob prayeth unto the angel. That which there he calleth the angel is God, as appeareth not only by the words, because before he called him God: but also chrysostom expounding this place, 
vers. 15. In Genes. Hom. 66. job. 5.1.  not once naming the angel, maketh him to ask all these things of God. And that which he allegeth out of job, is of like force. Call now if any will answer thee, and to which of the saints wilt thou turn? for many of the Hebrews understand this of the saints that are alive, as if he had said, what good man is of thy mind, or will take thy part? Some expound this place of the angels, but so as they make Eliphaz to ask this question (to whom amongst the angels job will turn) scoffingly. As if he had said, if thou shouldst ask of them it were in vain, they would not answer thee. But howsoever it is, it is certain, that here is no mention of invocation or prayer unto the angels, 
Philippus Presbyter in job.  but rather as it seemeth by Phillippus Presbyter upon this place, a taunting reproof of job, if he believed not Eliphaz his words. But howsoever it is expounded, here is no good argument for invocation or prayer unto angels. For the Godly have often turned themselves unto the angels, but not to pray unto them. As for that that Moses said, Remember Abraham. Isaac, and Israel thy servants, 
Exod. 32.13.  respecteth not the merits of these fathers, but the promise made to them, as in that place appeareth: for it followeth, To whom thou sworest by thine own self, and saidst to them. I will multiply your seed. Which words do plainly burden God with his promise made to them. Neither doth that which master Bellarmine allegeth out of Theodoret, prove any thing ● o the contrary. For he saith that Moses used the help or defence of these patriarchs. And why not rather in respect of God's promise, which we know he is able and ready to perform, then of their merits. 
Theod. quest 67. in Exod.  So that if there were any invocation or prayer to them, as there is not (it is only a request that God will remember them) and therefore this place belongeth not to the matter now in question, but if there were any prayer unto them, we see that it cannot be concluded out of this place that Moses would have God to regard their merits. But master Bellarmine will help the matter with a testimony out of the Psalms. Lord remember David and all his kindness. 
Psal. 131.2.  There saith master Bellarmine, Solomon prayeth in respect of his father David's merits: but the word upon which his whole argument dependeth, that here is translated kindness, may be translated Affliction. And S. Hierom translating the psalms according to the Hebrew doth so translate it. And how can he think with such uncertain proof, to make good so bad a cause? But I hasten to that argument, that could never yet be answered, for so master Bellarmine saith. And it is this. We may desire them that are alive to pray for us, therefore we may pray to the saints that are departed. If master Bellarmine had not liked so well of this argument, I should not have thought it worth any answer. For to pray one for another whilst we are alive, is both warranted and commanded of God: but to pray to them that are gone, we have neither commandment nor promise. And there is great difference between prayers, which the papists would make to them that are dead, and such requests as the godly have made, or we may make to them that are alive to pray for us. But master Bellarmine will strengthen his argument, by removing the causes that may hinder this invocation, or rather their intercession for us. First if we say they will not pray for us: he answereth, they have greater love than they had, and therefore they will. But what manner of love they have to us ward, is not described in the Scriptures: And therefore we cannot of that their love which is uncertain, gather any certain argument. But sure I am, their love towards God and our saviour Christ is so great, that they will not rob either God of his glory, or Christ of his office of mediation. And they cannot pray for us because, as before I have showed even out of master Bellarmine, that they want faith. And whether they know that we pray or not, it is uncertain. As for the wrong that is done unto God, if any but he be prayed unto, which master Bellarmine imagineth to be the fourth let why they cannot pray for us: he answereth that if that be any hindrance to God's glory, 
Coloss. 2.23.  it also is against God's glory, that they who are alive, should request other to pray for them. Which his answer how foolish it is, the very women and children may easily perceive, how the one hath commandment, the other must go amongst the wil-worshippings: especially if we consider the practice of invocation in the popish church. For although now to make some fair show of their doctrine, they will teach us, 
De beatitud. sanct. li. 1. ca 17.  that the saints Are not the immediate intercessors unto God for us, but obtain our requests of God through Christ, as master Bellarmine teacheth: yet it cannot be denied, that men and women have had confidence in the saint itself, have vowed, and performed their vows unto the same for their deliverance, have prayed unto the same for help. 
Act. & Mon. pag. 1117. 1443.  And these men have not been reproved, no they were thought to have a good devotion, and to merit thereby: but some have been accused of heresy for not praying in their travel to the virgin Mary. Yea they have published a blasphemous thing, called the Psalter of the Virgin, compiled by Bonaventure, in which whatsoever in the Psalms and some other scripture is spoken of the Lord, is most wickedly by them applied unto the Virgin Mary, whom they call lady. Yea to be short, it is almost as full of blasphemies as of words. An infinite number of their own prayers, might be brought against them out of their own books to testify against themselves, of that superstitious confidence which they have had in the creature: and yet would they now persuade the world, that they never meant they should make intercession to God for us, but by Christ: but in truth they made them rather gods than mediators. As when the virgin Mary is willed to command her Son, and to show her to be his mother: Or when unto her they pray thus: In all our trouble and distress help us, most holy virgin Mary. And thus have I thought good, briefly to examine their proofs out of the scripture, and to take away that show of reasons, that they made out of God's word. I might have brought their own fellows to testify against them, that whilst they will seem to allege scriptures, they do but wrest them. 
In Enchirid. cap. 15. De Theol. loci. li. 3. cap. 3  For Eckius a stout Papist doth frankly confess, that the invocation of saints is not expressly commanded or taught, either in the old or new Testament. But Melchior Canus better learned than he, doth say, that neither plainly, nor yet covertly, it is contained in the Scriptures. And therefore we see that they do allege God's word, but to blind men's eyes, as though they had some warrant out of it, not because they think their arguments p● oove that which they teach. Seeing therefore their doctrine, is so quite void of all warrant out of God's word, and that which they do seem to bring, is so weak and wrested, as may appear: I trust I may conclude with Tertullian that this commandment, 
De praescrip. adversus haer.  ask and ye shall receive, agreeth to him that knoweth of whom to ask, even of him of whom somewhat was promised, that is, of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob. Now for the second point, which is, 
Christ our only mediator.  that Christ jesus is this only mediator between God and man, to offer up our prayers unto God. Wherein our adversaries do not deny but he is the mediator, but they had wont to tell us, 
Eckius in Ench. cap. 15  that he is the only mediator of redemption (and yet they rob him also of that office, by the Pope's pardons, and such baggage) but there may be many mediators of intercession say they: But master Bellarmine hath found out another shift, namely, that they are but intercessors by Christ (as before I have showed.) But how doth master Bellarmine prove, that the saints make intercession by Christ for us. He hath not so much as one word out of scripture for it, neither yet out of any ancient father. His only proof is out of saint Bernard, who lived eleven hundred years and more after Christ. Is this a doctrine to be received now as catholic, that hath so long been buried in silence, and will not yet perchance be very well liked of. Indeed, that Christ is our mediator he proveth well: but that which he would especially have us to believe, is left without witness, as I have showed.  

De beatitud. sanct. li. 1. ca 17  Well then, I will take it as a thing granted by master Bellarmine, that Christ is only our immediate mediator to God, and no saint, no angel, or any other creature: which thing the scriptures prove plentifully. And I will (by God's grace) show also, that they may not be mediators by or to Christ for us. First, there is no warrant for it in the word, and therefore it must not be received of us, whose rule for life and religion the word ●● st be. Secondly, I have showed, that the saints departed have not faith, and therefore they can not pray. Thirdly, to join them with Christ in the office of Mediation, doth show that they fear, that either he can not by himself perform that office which God hath laid upon him, and that is blasphemous: Or, that he will not at our request do it, unless he be entreated by others.  
Seeing he hath died for my sins, shall I doubt whether he will hear me if I do pray? If he bid me ask, seek, knock, and promiseth thou that I shall have, find, and to open, will he not be as good as his word? 
Hebr. 2.17  In all things it became him to be made like unto his brethren that he might be merciful, 
18  and a faithful high priest in things concerning God, 
Ebr. 4.15.  that he might make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he suffered and was tempted, 
16  he is able to secure them that are tempted. Our high priest is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Let us therefore go boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Let us, I say, our own selves come unto him in this assurance that he will not fail to hear and help us. For he calleth Come unto me all ye that are weary and laden, and I will ease you. 
Matt. 11.28.  Shall we be afraid to draw nigh unto him, that calleth us so lovingly? Or shall we think that we shall need to send mediators to entreat him, that sendeth his ambassadors to us to entreat us? Now we are ambassadors for Christ (saith saint Paul) as though God did beseech you through us, 
2. Cor. 5.20.  we pray you in Christ's steed, that you be reconciled to God.  
Let us therefore say with S. Augustine, or whosoever it was that writ those books that go in his name, 
Lib. 2. cap. 1.  Of the visitation of the sick. I speak more safely and sweetly to my jesus, than to any of the holy spirits of God. Yea this gross and absurd persuasion Saint chrysostom in many places seeketh to remove, as they that do read his works may find. 
In Matth Hom. 5.  God (saith he) will give to us salvation, not so much at others entreaty, as at our own. And this he proveth by the examples of the woman of Canaan, 
Mat. 15.23.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Luk. 7 Luk. 23. 4● .43.  the sinful woman and the thief that was put to death with Christ, and at his own suit obtained paradise. And chrysostom seemeth in that place to yield a good reason why we should sue for ourselves. Because it will make us more careful to amend our lives, to the end we may the better please God. So that hereby we may gather, that they who teach us that we may have other advocates or mediators to God, teach us to be careless of our own conversation how we do live. Whereas if ourselves only must of necessity entreat God for his son Christ's sake, we will be more careful to serve him, that with greater confidence we may come to entreat him.  
This good seed of Invocating and calling upon God, continued about some two hundred years in the church until that envious man at the last, whilst God's servants were asleep, did sow that evil seed of praying to the creatures. And although some did like well of it, yet was it misliked also by some of the godly, as most notably appeareth in Epiphanius against the heretics called Collyridianis, 
Haeres. 79  who offered a bun or cake to the virgin Mary, or for her sake: and of that they had their name. And so the Papists do offer their wax candles, yea many times very precious things unto their saints. But Epiphanius compareth such to a common harlot, that run a whoring from one only God: and saith this old error shall not prevail, to leave him that liveth, and to worship the creature. He will not have her worshipped, neither yet that they should offer in her name. Bellarmine endeavouring to answer this place, 
De beatitud. sanct li. 1. ca 15  saith that Epiphanius reproveth that heresy, because they would make a god of her. But the place is marvelous strong against the Popish ceremonies, in their superstitious services. For Epiphanius gathereth of this that they did to the virgin Mary, that they made her a god, not that they esteemed or called her a god (for they never denied the one God) but that they did to her that which the Gentiles do to their gods. And (I pray you) did they any more to the virgin Mary than our Papists do? Let it be examined. They offered bunnes or takes in her name: the Papists do offer sundry sorts of things: and, the more, and the costlier, the Priests think the better of it. At a certain day in the year some women used to trim some Wagon, and cover it over with a sheet, and for certain days would set there some bread, and offer it in her name, being assembled together: The Papists make many as pretty shows as this could be: for, the worship of their Saints have their days set down for it. The women also do with those heretics, celebrate those holy mysteries. How many religious orders the Popish church hath to celebrate the mysteries in honour of their Lady, as they do term her, let the world judge. But our Papists being compared with those heretics, go as near (I warrant you) to make their saints gods, as ever did the Collyridians' to make a God of the Virgin Mary. And how doth Epiphanius confute this heresy? What Scripture (saith he) hath taught us this? which of the Prophets commanded a man, much less a woman to be adored? If then the Scriptures must teach us, and the Prophets must direct us in our religion: because this invocation of the creature hath no warrant in the word, we may safely reject it. And that our prayers, whether they be private or public, 
Prayers must be in a tongue that we know. Orat. in sulitt. In Genes. hom. 29. De Orthod. fide li. 3. c. 24  must be in a tongue that we understand, it is by many reasons to be proved. For if that prayer be as Saint Basil defineth it, A requesting of some good thing of God, powered out to God of the godly: or as chrysostom saith, It is a talk with God: or as Damascene doth write, The ascending of the mind unto God, or, the craving of things fit to be asked of God: then is it most necessary, that whether we pray in public, or privately, we should understand what we say, lest in steed of good we ask that which is evil, and our talk should not be seemly or agreeable to the majesty of God, with whom we talk: neither can our mind ascend in prayer, if the understanding of our words be not as it were a wing to help it up. Therefore chrysostom exhorteth unto sobriety, especially when we should pray, and would have us in prayer to gather together the powers of our mind, 
In Genes. hom. 29.  That our mind may accompany our words to God, for fear lest our prayer turn to our condemnation.  
And most plain is that that the Apostle saith, If I pray in a strange tongue, 
1. Cor. 14 14  my spirit prayeth, but mine understanding is without fruit. 
1. Cor. 14.26  Thus than I reason: All things ought to be done to edifying, But the prayers that are made in a strange tongue that the people understand not, are not done to edifying, therefore they are not such as they ought to be. This whole argument is saint Paul's. For the first proposition is his very words. The second is necessary to be gathered out of his words. For if such prayers are without fruit, as the apostle saith they are, 
Regal. breviores quaest. 278.  than they do not edify. For when (saith Basil) the words of the prayer are unknown to them that are present, than the mind of him that prayeth is doubtless without fruit, because none is the better for it. For as the same father in his answer to the next question saith of the understanding of scripture, 
Quaest. 278.  so may we say of prayer. he compareth the understanding of the scriptures unto the taste of our meat. And saith that men hear profitably, when the understanding of the word is unto their mind, as the taste of the meat is unto the body. And so may we likewise say, that then we pray with fruit, when in our mind we understand what we pray for, as well as our mouth tasteth our meat what it is that we eat. Which place of saint Paul troubleth master Bellarmine so, that after that he hath seen and viewed many answers scarce any can please him. 
De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 16  But at the length he resolveth upon this, that the apostle speaketh not of their common prayers, but of such spiritual songs as themselves made. But that answer will not serve the turn. For he that commanded that all things that are done in such meetings, should be done to edifying, would not only that such spiritual songs should be understood, but also all other their prayers and exercises. And therefore chrysostom thinketh that they who come not to edify others, may as well be away. And that this edifying should, 
Hom. 36. in 1. Cor.  if not only, yet especially be regarded, Let nothing (sayeth Primasius) be in you, 
Primas. upon this place.  wherewith you do not edify one another.  
And if edifying be especially to be regarded in our Christian assemblies, than they that edify the greatest number, do either win or confirm most in the faith, and so do best service to God. And therefore I can not but marvel at master Bellarmine, that he is so willing to defend the very dregs of popery, that he will rather speak against all sense, than he will seem to say nothing. Who would once imagine that which he often affirmeth, 
De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 16.  that all the people need not understand the prayers? What then do they in the assembly, if they understand not what is said? All had wont to say Amen, as master Bellarmine noteth out of justinus Martyr. 
1. Cor. 14.16  But saint Paul thinketh it absurd that they should say Amen to that they understand not, therefore all people should understand.  
But yet more foolish is that he sayeth, that the people needeth not understand the prayers, because they are made not to the people, but to God, and it is enough that God understand them. What, is master Bellarmine in earnest, or but in jest? is he waking, or but in a dream? The prayers are made to God, it is true, they should be so. But the Popish Church will have us also to pray in Latin to the Saints, many of which when they were alive, understood no Latin, whatsoever they now do. Well, we should pray to God.  
But master Bellarmine will confess, that in the public prayers, every member of the Church should have his share, which he cannot have unless his heart join in consent with the words of the minister. S● that although God understand what we would have, y● t that is not enough, unless we also know what we sue for unto God. For it is not in this case as it is with worldly princes, as master Bellarmine most profanely surmiseth. For although he for whom another maketh suit unto the prince, needeth not to care whether he understand or not the words that he that maketh request for him doth speak: yet if he make request for himself, it is very needful he should well understand his own words. Now the prayers of the Church, although they be pronounced by one man to avoid confusion, yet they are not the prayers of one, but of the whole Church, and therefore should the whole Church say Amen unto them. So they did in the time of justine the Martyr and long after: 
Apolog. 2.  showing thereby that they all had interest therein, not only in respect of the benefit that they looked for: but even in respect of that very sacrifice of prayer, which the church did offer, wherein they had their part. And this is one part of the communion of Saints, that we join together in one to praise God, or pray unto him, as one body, though many members, yea, as one mind in many bodies. And this they did when The Christians looking up to heaven, 
Tertul. in Apolog.  stretching out their hands (for they were harmless) bore headed (for they were not ashamed) yea and without any to put them in mind to pray (for they prayed even from their hearts) all praying together, prayed for all. etc. as Tertullian reporteth of those times. For these their outward actions, did show the affection of their mind, and agreement in that they prayed for.  

Numbering of prayers.  Now for the numbering of their prayers upon their beads, or otherwise, I doubt whether it can have any colour of excuse. For why do they score them up? Is it because they will go nothing beyond the number of prayers? or that they may be sure to pay God all they own him? To think they can give him all his due, is too great wickedness. And so to stint themselves in their prayers, howsoever they find themselves affected to pray, doth plainly show that they know not what it is to pray. For if it be the cry (as one sayeth) of the heart, and not of the mouth: then is it time to make an end of praying, when either our heart is satisfied, in having the request that it made, granted, or else it wax faint, and fall down as Moses his hands did, 
Exod. 17.  that it cannot lift up itself to God.  
And seeing men cannot be always alike minded in prayer, it is but folly to appoint themselves, always the like measure of prayers. And such prayers are many times turned into prating and vain babbling. Or do they number ●● eir prayers, that they may say to God: Thou art indebted unto us for so many prayers? It may so be: For such is the foolish imagination of man, when he once refuseth to be directed by God's word, that there is nothing so absurd, no toy so childish, but they will account it to be a religious serving of God. And so in this, by a little lip labour, they seek to buy those paltry pardons, of such presumptuous Popes, as will take upon them by making a gain of men's sins, to tread under foot the most precious blood of Christ. But what needed so rich a ransom, as Christ his blood, if so vile a price may serve the turn? If I would I might bring many examples of such pardons, for saying a certain number of prayers. But it is a filthy sink, that I love not to rake in  
The ground of this blasphemous doctrine, is the blasphemy of all other blasphemies, the sum whereof was uttered at Trent, in the time of Pope Pius the fourth, by Paulus Guidellus, in the hearing of many of the fathers. That the Apostles and their scholars, 
Popish blasphemy  did lay the foundation of Christian religion, upon their own blood and merits, as upon a most sure rock, and thereby it came to pass that Christ's kingdom was enlarged.  
What greater injury could they do to the blood of Christ? But this persuasion being once entered, that the blood of the Saints is so available, they will hope well, if they can mumble up a number of prayers to please them, that they shall have pardon of their sins for many years. If the Papists be ashamed of this doctrine, as justly they may, let them show it condemned in that their Council. If they allow of it, they are ashame to the name of Christianity. But, that prayers cannot be meritorious, it followeth of that which before I have said in the five and twenty Chapter. For if no works can merit, than not prayer.  
The last abuse in prayer, is, that as it is many times nothing zealous, or earnest, so it is not of faith, but without all assured persuasion of God's goodness, or readiness to hear us. Yea, many times men speak the words of prayer, neither considering what they ask, or how greatly they stand in need to be heard, or to whom they speak, or with what boldness they may come unto him, in respect of his abundant mercies. But because this is rather the fault of the men than of the doctrine, I will not meddle with it. But yet I cannot but marvel at master Bellarmine, 
De bovis operibus in particulari. lib. 1. ca 9  who thinketh that a man needeth not in prayer to have such faith, as that he is assured thereby that God will hear him, but only a general persuasion of his power, will, etc. Against which dangerous doctrine, I will for this time only say thus much. Our faith the more particular it is, the stronger it is, and the stronger it is, the better hold shall it take of God's mercies, and the more readily obtain at God's hand: Therefore still weakness of faith is reproved. 
james. 1.6.  And saint james willeth us to pray in faith without wavering. But this their general or historical faith, is sufficiently confuted, if we compare it with that exceeding great, and particular persuasion of God's goodness, which the Apostle did feel in the eight to the Romans, where he assureth himself that no body can condemn him, no, neither yet accuse him, 
Rom. 8.  nothing can separate him from God's love: which his particular faith also appeareth in many other places, and did make him pray with assurance. And thus I have (I trust) proved, that we must pray to God only. I can ask these things (saith Tertullian) of none but of him, 
In Apolog. ● Tim. 2.5.  of whom I know I shall speed, for it is only he that giveth it. And that by one only mediator, between God and man, the man Christ jesus. And we must pray in humility, and yet faithfully. Because although our prayers are not of themselves worthy to be heard, yet Christ shall offer them up unto God as a sweet perfume, 
Apoc. 8.3.  as saint john in the spirit of prophecy did see.     

Against Images in Churches, or any where else for Religion's cause. CHAP. 29  


THE PROTESTANTS.  
ANd as we must have one only God, in whom we must trust, to whom only we must pray: so we dare not make unto ourselves any Image of God, or of any creature, to do any kind of worship unto the same. For first God hath commanded us, that we should not have any graven thing, no nor yet the likeness of any thing in heaven, in the earth, or in the waters to worship it. Then also man's great weakness maketh us afraid to have them. Because more easily we will worship the thing that we see, than that which we see not. Thirdly, the godly among God's people did always carefully take heed thereof, counting it a thing most unlawful. Lastly, the best teachers of truth Christ & his apostles, did never commend them to us but rather the contrary. Which doubtless they would have done, if they had been needful.   

THE PAPISTS  
But the Papists, whom neither God's commaunment can restrain, neither experience (that teacheth even) fools) can admonish, though they may daily see (if themselves were not like their Idols, having eyes and see not, ears and hear not) the manifest and manifold superstitions that by them are crept into their Churches: and although they want all warrant of the word, and have no example, of the purer times of the primitive church to induce them thereto: yet do they daily set up those dangerous stumbling blocks in their churches, I mean● the Images, before which men do pray, unto which men do bow and kneel and serve. And that they might the easilier lead men and women to superstition, they will sometime make them to wag their head, move their eyes, foam at the mouth or show other such signs, that they are either pleased or angry with such as come to them.   

And if in any article of their religion, then sure in this, in my judgement, they have a most miserable defence, seeing they cannot commend their Images as things commended to them of God, or used of the Godly. They can only plead not guilty. Our Images are not Idols. We worship them not with any unlawful worship. And so all that they can do, is to excuse themselves from being Idolaters. No it is more than they can do, considering how God hath forbidden them, and good men have detested them. Are they not careless think you of their own, or other men's salvation, that will commend that to the people as good and necessary, whereof when they have spoken the best they can, they cannot truly say it is not evil? But let us see by what arguments they will prove that images are not evil, images I say that have any worship done unto them. For such images as are not in danger to be worshipped, we speak not against. First they put a difference between an Idol and an image, & say that an Idol is a false likeness of a thing, an image doth truly represent things unto us. 
Bellar. lib 2. de Imag. c. 5.  First in matter or substance they will confess that there is no difference between them. For both are made of gold, silver, wood, stone or such like. Secondly, in form they agree, for they are like some man or woman. Thirdly, they are of like might or power either against mice or rats, or dust and cobwebs, and alike able they are or rather unable to help themselves, or others. Fourthly, the use of the Idols that the gentiles had, 
De preparat. evang. lib. 3.  and that the papists have is all one. For Eusebius showeth that the gentiles did use their Idols as books, to learn by them God himself and his power, 
Contra gent. lib. 1.  and to express and set forth the invisible things of God, by their images? And Athanasius a little before him affirmeth the same. For he reporteth that such as were the wiser sort of them said, they were as books or letters, wherein they might read and learn to know God. And are they not used in the popish church to be lay men's books? Let themselves speak. We desire in this cause no other witnesses. Why then saith Athanasius in the place before alleged, what is there in the image that doth represent God? Is it the matter? What need was there then that a shape should be given unto it? Or what need we seek that in few places that is in many? For stone, wood, gold and such like may easilier else where be found then in churches. Is it the form, the likeness of men or other creatures? Why then should it not be thought that men themselves, or other creatures, should more lively represent God than their image? Is it the cunning or workmanship? Then men that devised this skill may rather teach us, than the image which they made. Thus we see how this ancient writer doth confute soundly, not only the opinion that Pagans had of the use of their Idols, but also that popish use of images to be lay men's books. And seeing in all these points they are so like, as if they were twins of one birth, why should we doubt but they are all one. But they are not more like in any thing, than in that definition of an idol which master Bellarmine himself hath set down. 
De Imag. li. 2 cap. 5. The image of God the father. De Imag. li. 2 cap. 8.  An Idol (saith he) is a false likeness. But the popish images are false likenesses, therefore they are idols. First the image of God the father to be made like an aged man, which master Bellarmine liketh well of, is but a false likeness. For grey heirs, and age, are rather a token of weakness, than a picture fit to set forth God's majesty: and show him rather to be pitied than powerful. Yea but God appeared (saith M. Bellarm.) to Daniel having The hair of his head like the pure wool. 
Daniel. 7. ●.  It is true, but he bid not Daniel paint him so. He appeared in that shape to Daniel only, whom he had endued with a principal spirit, but did not show himself so unto the people. He appeared unto his servants in sundry shapes not often in one sort, to show that he must not be made like unto any one of them, for none of them all can set him forth unto us, as he should be set forth, & therefore if we will make them they are but lying similitudes. 
The image of Christ.  And for the image of Christ, it is but a lying likeness. For his very shape, or outward form is not by them expressed, but one painteth him after one sort, another after another sort. But the especial things that we should receive comfort or instruction by, cannot be painted, his godliness of life, & his office of being redeemer and mediator. These things which are the chiefest, the graver cannot grave, the painter cannot paint. These are lively described in God's book. But they that are most given to images, care lest to learn these things. And seeing the image cannot teach us these things, for we see nothing in it but a stock or stone, or some other metal made like a man, which cannot stir or move or help itself, therefore it is a false likeness. But false also are such images in another respect, namely, because the eye beholding it, draweth the mind from the consideration and meditation of better things, and hindereth more heavenly cogitations. 
False because they entice to lies. jer. 10.14.15. Habac. 2.18.  And therefore well saith God by his Prophet jeremy, Their melting is but falsehood, they are vanity and the work● of errors. What profiteth the Image? (saith God by Habacucke) For the maker thereof hath made it an Image, and teacher of lies. These books then, they are of a false print, and teach not truly, but as are idols, even so are these images false likenesses. 
De consens● evang. li. 1. cap. 10.  And therefore worthily did S. Augustine find fault with them Who sought for Christ & his apostles, not in the holy scriptures, but in painted walls. And this is indeed a dangerous falsehood, under pretence of religion, to draw us from true religion. And by satisfying the eye with a fair show, to rob the soul, of the spiritual comfort and instruction. lastly, they are like in name also. Which thing although M. Bell. & others would feign deny, yet G. Martin a great enemy to us even in this cause, 
Against our english translat. ca 3. sect. 15. In Exod. 20.  cannot but grant that the greek word Idolum may signify an image. And Caietanus also another pillar of popery doth make an idol & an image alone, although M. Bellar. censure him for it. And the Hebrew names are so general, 
De imag. li. 2 cap. 7.  as that they may very well serve for image or idol: yea there is in the use of them small difference. Sometime their names show and tell what they are, as vanities, lies, abominations, yea dirty and dungy. Sometime they are called according to their making graven or molten. Sometime according to the effect that they work in such as serve them, they are called fleabogs: 
Cap. 3. sect. 5 Psal. 106.36.  and where Gregory Martin translateth, they Served graven Idols, the word signifieth vexation. Because idols bring vexation to them that serve them, they are so called.  
But the words as I have said, are very general. And therefore unjustly and without cause doth Gr. Martin find fault with our english translations, for translating, 
Ca 3. sect. 20. Exod. 20.4.  Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image. For the words do so well bear it, that even their own latin translation, which they allow so well of, doth often translate that very word image as we do, for the most abominable Idols that are: as the images of the temple of Baal, 
2. Kings. 11. 1●. Ezec. 7.20. & 16.19. Ezec. 23.14.  the idolatrous images which the Israelites made, the images of the Chaldeans. And that word which with the Hebrews most properly signifieth a likeness or image, doth their old translation translate an Idol, 
De Imag. li. 2. cap. 5.  if this word Simulacrum do signify an Idol, as master Bellarmine saith it doth. For Tselamim which in Hebrew signifieth likenesses or images, that latin translation calleth Simulacra Idols. 2. Cron. 34.3. Hos. 11.2. and else where. If the old translator might indifferently use the words that are of one signification, why may not our translators do the like, but they must by and by be falsifiers and corrupters? And more evidently to prove that the old translator did not acknowledge this nice difference: mark the place that we allege against them out of Habacucke, 
Habak. 2.18.  and it will appear, that he maketh images, & that graven thing which in this commandment (Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing) is forbidden, all one, putting no difference between them. For thus doth he translate that place. What profiteth the graven thing, For he that made it hath graven it a molten thing, and a false image. Where he plainly calleth that an image, which before he did translate, as the word doth in truth signify, a graven thing. If this be no fault in him, I trust the indifferent reader, will not think it to be a fault in us. Well then images and idols agreeing so well as they do, in matter, form, unability, use, definition, and name, why may they not be birds of one nest? and whelps of one litter, one of them taken for the other? If we also consider how in other places of Scripture the idols are described, and compare those descriptions, with that which we see and know to be in their images, 
Psal. 115.4.5.6.  we shall see them to be alike. Their Idols are silver and gold the work of men's hands. They have mouths and speak not, eyes and see not, ears and hear not, noses and smell not, hands and touch not, feet and walk not, neither make they a sound with their throat. Are not the images such? Much like unto this, is that that the Prophet Esay saith of them, That they must be borne upon men's shoulders, 
Esa. 45.7.  they must be carried and set in their place. So do they stand and can not remove from their place. Though a man cry unto them, yet can they not answer, nor deliver him out of his tribulation. If this be not true of their images also, than we will confess they are no idols. And this is a thing well worthy to be noted, 
Bellarm. de imag lib. 2. cap. 5.  that whereas the usual names that the scriptures give idols are these, as master Bellarmine confesseth, Elilim, false, or Auanim, lies, or Sheqed, a lie: neither these, nor any other of the most opprobrious names that are given unto idols are used in the commandment, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, but such a name as they can not deny, but that it may be truly applied to their images. The holy ghost thereby preventing this their subtle shift, when they say that images are not thereby forbidden: for the words as well forbidden images as idols, yea any thing that is graven: yea, and the sense of the commandment extendeth to any thing that is made with hands. For that that man can make, is not fit to be a god. And therefore Moses that man of God having threatened to the transgressors of God's law desolation of their land, and captivity to themselves in a strange land, he addeth: 
Deut. 4.28.  And there shall ye serve gods the work of men's hands, wood, and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. Yea Moses before in that chapter, expoundeth unto them this second commandment, and teacheth them what is meant by that graven thing, 
Verse 15, 16  and how they should understand it. Ye saw not (saith he) any likeness in the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire: lest peradventure ye might be deceived and should make unto yourselves, any graven likeness, or any image of man or woman, etc. Wherein Moses telleth them, that God appeared not in any form, because he would not have them to make any image. In which place I use their own translation, because they may see, that not idols only, but images also are by it condemned. Lastly, the very practice of God's people, and the detestation that they always have against images, may sufficiently persuade us how they understood the commandment. For as Bellarmine saith of the jews, that after Christ's time they were most superstitious against images, 
Lib. 1. de Imaginib. ca 7  and say that they are forbidden by God's laws: so he and all his fellows will never be able to prove, that the godly among them would at any time admit of images, unless it were some few that were but to beutify the temple, or that God commanded to be used in the temple, as the beasts that held up the cauldron, or such like, and the cherubes over the ark, which are no proof for popish images. For popish images had no commandment, but the images in the temple of jerusalem had. Again, the images that were in the temple were not prayed unto, or any way worshipped, as were popish images. Yea, and if Bellarmine will believe josephus a jew, writing of their story, he shall find that the jews were very scrupulous and precise in that point, 
josep. anti. cap. 11. Cap. 4.  insomuch as they would not only suffer the emperor's image to be placed in their temple, but his very banners wherein the emperor was painted from the waste upward, and those that had the eagle painted in them, they would not admit into their city, though no worship to them were demanded or looked for: & all because they would not break the second commandment. Whether they did herein well or evil, I do not define. But hereby it appears how they understood this commandment, which could not have been, if their forefathers had at any time before admitted of images, (other than such as God commanded) to be used among them. This (I trust) may suffice to prove that images, such as the papists set in their churches, are idols: and that the haui●● and ●● rshipping of the 〈◊〉 against the second commandment. Now let us see 〈…〉 ●●cuse themselves 〈◊〉 doing vnla●● ul 〈…〉 They say they do not worship 〈…〉 ● ut ho● them as God's creatures. 
Of the worship of Images.  I●● e 〈…〉 ●● ter of the im●●● e as the wood or stone is gods ●● ea●● e, & therefore good, & so in their kind to be honoured. But the image itself is th● work of men's hands, & none of gods creatures, but a dangerous stumbling block in the way of the simple, & cursed of God. And this very image itself, 
De imag. li. 2 cap. 21.  to speak in Bellar. own words, is, to be worshipped not only by accident or improperly, but of itself and properly, so that the worship hath respect but unto the image considered in itself, not as it representeth that whereof it is an image. We see then the papists will have their images worshipped. And then for the external worship, as capping, kneeling, bowing, censing and such like, 
De imag. li. 1. cap. 12.  M. Bellarmine confesseth, they are all one that are done to God, and to their images. So that he thinketh the difference between the worship of God and the image only to consist in this, that in the worship of God, the mind is in the highest degree humbled, and abased with an apprehension of God as the chiefest good. O miserable blindness that possesseth the hearts of these blind guides? how can it be, that the nature of man, being so inclining to Idolatry, as the common experience of all times teacheth us, having his eyes fastened upon an Image, and having a purpose to worship it, should not strive to do the greatest worship that he can do to it, and think that all that he can do is to little? These colours may well serve the simple, or such as are willing to be deceived, to make their eyes dazzle, that they shall not well judge between truth and falsehood. But I warrant you that whosoever will set himself devoutly to pray before an Image, as they use to speak, will humble himself as devoutly as he can before the same. As for that their distinction of Latria 
Latria  which is the worship that they will allow God: and Dulia 
Dulia.  which is that that other images must be content withal: I need not stand to confute it. For M. Bellarmine confesseth that these words are not of their own nature proper to divine worship, but that the schoolmen have devised this distinction. Then let the schoolmen play with such toys, and fight with such babbles. But God's people should be fed with sounder food. But what meaneth this caveat that M. Bellarmine giveth, 
De Imaginibus li. 2. c. 22  that a man must not say, especially when he preacheth unto the people, that any images are to be worshipped with that worship that belongeth to God? If it be true, why may not the people know so much? Perchance M. Bellarmine doubteth whether that their opinion will prove true, 
Ibid. cap. 20  that the same honour is due to the Image that is due to him, whom it representeth. And therefore that the image of Christ should be worshipped with that worship that belongeth unto God. Indeed these their rules can never prove good, because they are not commanded of God. For it is always in such things true that Tert. saith, 
De Monogamia.  that which the scripture doth not set down, it doth forbid. He learned it of Gods own mouth, who answered the superstitious jews pleasing themselves in such services as they had devised, 
Esay 1.12.  who required these things of your hands? But as they have no warrant for that they teach, and therefore ought not of christians to be heard: so their opinions are in themselves so absurd, that but to show them, is enough to make such as have any care of their own salvation to shun them. But how shall the afflicted minds, which would give all that they have for a little comfort, unto whom the fear of death is nothing, in comparison of the terror of sin: how shall they find comfort in the conflicts of conscience, when feign they would ask, but they know not of whom: and pray, but they know not how? for, if their teachers and Doctors, at their best leisure, can not yet resolve themselves, how they should pray unto their stocks and stones: how shall he that hath to think of death, and to strive against the assaults of sin, and many fears, know in such a case which way to turn him? And therefore, as Cyprian saith to the christians that sacrificed to idols, O wretched man, 
De lapsis.  why bringest thou an offering with thee? when thou comest to offer or entreat, why dost thou lay on thy sacrifice? Thou thyself comest an offering and a sacrifice unto the altar: thou hast there offered thine own salvation, thy hope. In those wicked fires thou hast burned thy faith. Even so I may say to those miserable men and women that are carried away after such vanities, that their own imaginations shall punish them, and They shall eat the fruit of their own way, 
Prover. 1. 3●. Prover. 22.8. Esa. 50.11.  and be filled with their own devices. For it is good reason, that he that soweth iniquity should reap affliction, and see by the sparks of the fire that he hath kindled.     

What Fasting is: and of the true use of fasting. CHAP. 30.  


THE PROTESTANTS  
AS prayer is a good work commanded of God, so is Fasting also in the scriptures commended unto us. But not because it is of itself good, or a thing wherein God hath delight, but as it is a mean to humble us, and make us more fit, 
What fasting is.  any way to serve God. And it is an abstinence from all meats and drinks (but I speak here of such fasts as upon sudden or extraordinary occasions the godly have used) & not from flesh only, or from certain meats: we must therefore fast, not thinking thereby to deserve any thing of God, but only to tame ourselves I mean our flesh, which is many times more unruly than is expedient, & that the spirit thereby may more earnestly come unto God. Whereby we learn also the fittest times for fasting to be, either when we see the flesh rebellious, or dangers at hand.   

THE PAPISTS  
BUT our adversaries like the ravening fowls that Virgil speaketh of, who defile all that they touch: do also with their superstitions pollute this christian and necessary exercise: partly, in that they have in fasting a chiefest regard to make choice of some meats, rejecting others: partly also in that they have their certain days and times, set down for their fasting, and those many times in the honour of some of their Saints, and do not regard such particular occasions as may force men to humble themselves before God: but especially, because they esteem fasting to be such a work, as is meritorious, and deserveth at the hands of GOD, 
Bellar. de bonis operibus in part. lib. 2. cap. 11.  So that thereby he is satisfied, and his wrath and indignation against us appeased.   

Fasting there is, public and private: And of both sorts there are divers kinds. But I speak not here of the spiritual fast which is the best, and without the which the other fasting is nothing else but a mockery. Nether yet do I speak of that civil abstinence, which in some politic respects is commanded amongst us, and is many times called a fast. But of those fasts only do I entreat, which are in question between us and that superstitious church of Rome, that we knowing the true use of fasting may more use it, and shun that superstitious and popish manner of fast. Sometime the cause of fasting, is the mortifying of our flesh, by denying the body that whereby it is puffed up and made wanton and rebellious. Sometime some imminent danger which we see hanging over our heads or not far of, or some fear of God's wrath doth move us unto it. And this is for the most part public and not always after one manner: 
judg. 20.26 Hest. 4.16.  for some fasted the whole day from eating or drinking any thing: Some did fast so three days together as Hester commanded the jews. Then was there another kind of fast wherein they did not abstain from all meats and drink, but from delicate fare. 
2. Sam. 12.17 ● Cro. 10.12 Dan. 10, 2.3.  So David fasted seven days when his child was sick. So also did the people when Saul was dead. And Daniel fasted three weeks, all which time he did neither eat pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in his mouth. But these are for the most part private fasts, although not always: for we see the people did fast after Saul was dead, as it seemeth, publicly seven days. And of the first cause of fasting, which I have said is the mortifying of our flesh, and making us more fit to serve God, perchance we have an example in Anna, who served God with fasting, 
Luke 2.37.  and prayers night and day.  
But of the second cause of fasting, we have in the Scriptures many examples. joshua 7. judges 20. and in many other places, which for shortness I omit. And doubtless there is a great fault, I must needs confess, in this our realm in this point, that that viperous generation of popish tyrants and traitors, seeking so many ways, by poisoning, fire, murdering, and all villainous practices to root out the truth, to make havoc of this our Country, and to shorten the most quiet government and happy days of so merciful and gracious a prince, of whose most gentle regiment, they have no just cause to complain, unless it be that of her tender, and evil rewarded clemency, and gentleness, she suffereth such dangerous popish snakes, so near her bosom, even in all parts of the Realm, so untouched and almost unregarded, we, I say, seeing with our eyes, and daily hearing with our ears of these pestilent, and brutish, and most unnatural practices, and manifest dangers, do not humble ourselves before our God in fasting and prayer. Why do we not follow the infinite examples of the godly, of all ages, and the good practice of our near neighbours on every side almost, in such present peril to proclaim a fast, that with the Ninivites we might cry mightily unto God? 
jonah. 3.8.  But as our enemies have forgotten that they are men, and casting off all human nature, are become more brutish than beasts in their practices, and shame not of any thing that they can do, so that they may work wickedly enough: so we on the other side do not consider, that through our sins we have deserved all these shake of God's rods over us, and threatenings of his wrath. And that is the cause that we seek not by public fastings and prayer to make a public conversion unto God, against whom so publicly we have sinned. God move the hearts of them that are in authority, to rouse up themselves at the length, to think better of their duty in this point, and of our common safety. For surely he that was angry with his own people, 
Esa. 22.12.13  because When he called to weeping and mourning, and baldness, and girding with sackcloth, They continued in their careless life that before they led, so that he said, that Iniquity should not be purged, 
14  but by their death: how can he but punish, and that severely, so little regard in us, of his so many and manifest proclamations of his conceived anger against us.  
And thus would I with one breath, if I could, both move our godly Magistrates as occasions are offered, to make this our realm better acquainted with this most Christian and godly exercise: and also let our adversaries, see that it is not fasting that we speak against, but the abuse thereof, that we justly reprove. Why then, we confess that fasting is good and commendable, it is a most godly and necessary exercise to be used. But not every abstinence is true fasting. First we see, the true use of fasting is not in the popish church: For the godly did join fasting and prayer together, not thinking that outward humiliation to be of itself a thing that God regarded, but it was used and practised that they might be more apt to pray, as we may see in the examples that the Scripture ministereth unto us. And therefore saint Hierome writing unto Demetrias saith, 
Epist. ad Demetr.  that Fasting is not itself a perfect virtue, but the foundation of other virtues. And most plainly saint chrysostom, 
Hom. 29. in Genes.  Prayers must always go with fasting. And afterwards, You see that fasting standeth in need of this help. And in another place, 
Hom. 10. in Genes.  he seemeth not to make any great account of their fasting if it be alone. But the papists do say, that it doth appease God's wrath, and that it meriteth forgiveness of sins. For this is their common doctrine, and this doth master Bellarmine endeavour to prove. 
De bonis operibus in part. li. 2. ca 11.  The children of Israel (saith he) fasting with Samuel, appeased God, and got the victory over their enemies. In deed there is once mention of fasting in that place. 
2. Sam. 7.6.8.9.  But the story saith that Samuel promised to pray for them, when that they wept: for that he meaneth when he sayeth, They drew water, meaning out of their hearts, they fasted and confessed their sins: and so little they regarded the merit of their fasting, that they could not satisfy themselves therewith, but they also desire Samuel to pray, yea, that he would not cease to cry unto their God for them. Samuel offered a sacrifice, and prayed for the Israelites. Mark then how deceitfully master Bellarmine hath dealt in this place. The people wept in abundance, confessed their sins, craved Samuel his prayers to God for them: he offereth sacrifice and prayeth to God to appease his wrath: & yet master Bellarmine like a subtle sophister, to make men believe that that is the cause which in deed is not, speaketh nothing of all these means that they used to entreat God, but only of fasting, as though that only had turned away God's wrath, and yet we see by the story, they made least account of it, but especially of praying. Neither is this a good argument: They did fast and God delivered them: therefore their fasting merited this their deliverance. His second proof is out of the example of Achab, who may in deed be a good pattern of popish meriting, 
1. Kin. 22.27 29  for he continued wicked still. But he is in this, much like as faithful as the other: For Ahab rend his clothes, and put on sackcloth, fasted and lay in sackcloth, and went softly as men use to do in heaviness. So many tokens of sorrow or fear did Ahab show, and yet master Bellarmine could see nothing in him but fasting. And in the story of the Ninivites, 
jonah. 3.7.8  which is the third example, they put on sackcloth, sat in ashes, fasted, (but far otherwise than the Papists do, and therefore what is this to their fast) cried mightily to God, turned from their wickedness, and God saw (not their fasting only) their works: but master Bellarmine can see nothing in them but their fasting. In deed in his fourth example which is the story of Hester there is no mention in the place cited by him, 
Hester. 4.16  of any thing that was done, but Hester commanded a fast. But shall we imagine that they did not otherwise humble themselves but only by fasting, nor seek to entreat God by prayer, as though this fasting could deserve that they desired? God forbidden. For in the ninth Chapter he saith, they did not fast only, but pray also. 
Hester. 7. 3●.  But as before I said, because they did these things and God delivered them, doth it follow that all the works that they did, merited their deliverance. Master Bellarmine can never prove that argument. Much less than shall he be able to teach, that fasting alone could merit. And that is it he would prove, and in deed that he should prove, or else he proveth nothing to serve his purpose. 
judith 4.9.10. ● 12.13 14.15.  They fasted likewise in the story of judith, but they also prayed earnestly, put on sackcloth, sprinkled ashes on their heads, afflicted themselves marvelously, offered burnt offerings continually, and the people's free gifts, crying unto the Lord with all their power. Lastly he allegeth out of the Prophet joel, 
joel. 2.12.  Turn to the Lord with fasting, weeping, and mourning. What then will he conclude of that, that these things merit or deserve God's wrath to be turned away? He cannot prove it. We deny not but God looketh upon these things, but not for the merit of them, but for his own mercies: And therefore master Bellarmine hath not yet proved that fasting doth merit. And this is the thing that he should prove. But on the contrary, 
A true use of fasting.  in our fasting we acknowledge ourselves to be unworthy of God's creatures, and that by our sins we have deprived ourselves of the use of his benefits, and deserve not even these his ordinary graces, which the very beasts themselves may freely enjoy. And in this hearty acknowledging of our own unworthiness, we prostrate ourselves before God's mercy seat, seeking for mercy, not pleading, but fearing and refusing our merit.  
Now, of this popish opinion of merit by fasting, hath sprung up another abuse in fasting, 
Of popish fasting days.  That the papists have dedicated these their fasting days, not only to the service of God (for they supposed that they could by such means please him, whereas it is all one to him, whether we come full or fasting, so that we come so, as our hearts may be most sit to serve him) but also to the honour of their Saints, imagining thereby to deserve some favour at their hands. And for this cause did they devise to fast upon their Saints evens, and at such other times, as we see the Popish Church useth, not so much to tame the flesh, for that fasting we also affirm to be necessary, neither yet in any politic respect, which belongeth not to our question: but even because they foolishly think that in so doing they worship God and the Saints, and do a thing acceptable to him. And to this end is also appointed their lent fast, their wednesday and friday fast, saturday fast, embar fast, the fasts of advent and cogation week. But that these cannot be accounted times of necessity to be kept and observed for fasting in respect of any religious observation of the same, it cannot better be proved, than by that diversity of opinions and judgement, which M. Bellarmine himself is forced to confess to be in the ancient fathers. 
De bonis operibus in part. li. 2.  As they shall understand that read of the book before alleged the fifteeneth, the seventeenth, eightteenth and nineteenth chapters. As for their fasts upon saints eves, they come after all the rest. Seeing therefore there is herein such diversity, it is plain enough, that neither any certainty of doctrine can here be gathered, neither can they call it a catholic religion, that is like jacobs' coat of many colours, far from unity of faith. But with saint Hillary I may say, 
In ps. 118. A  It is most hard for a man by the doctors of this world, to understand the meaning of heavenly precepts. And this I could wish, that at all times we would strive, by this and other good means, to tame our rebellious flesh: and that we also would prepare ourselves unto the holy exercises of our religion, either by this or any other way that may further therein: but that fasting itself doth make us acceptable to God, we must not think. And out of this their opinion of the merit of fasting, ariseth another most absurd doctrine of binding the conscience to their laws of fasting, 
Their laws of fasting bind not the conscience. Li. 2. de bonis operibus in part. ca 7. jerem. 5.6.  as the church of Rome teacheth with one consent, as M. Bellarmine confesseth. And he will prove it by the example of the Rechabites, who upon the commandment of jonadab their father, abstained from drinking of wine. A weak proof. The Rechabites obeyed the politic law that their father jonadab gave them: therefore the church may bind men's consciences with the law of fasting. It is one thing to bind the conscience, another thing to require external obedience. The fast and holy day which is commanded to be continued in the story of Hester is like unto it, 
Hester. 9.31.  for a day of remembrance of God's great benefit towards them, but not to bind the conscience. Such also is the fast mentioned in Zachary, of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months, which although it might perchance upon good and godly consideration be taken up, and we debar none, but exhort all persons to humble themselves unto the Lord: yet how little their conscience is bound thereto, it partly appeareth, because God faith in the former Chapter that they did not fast unto him, and willeth them to hearken unto the ministery of prophets, and to execute true judgement, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother, & not to oppress: for these are in deed good works that God regardeth, in comparison of which he little esteemeth those their fasts. Partly also because God will turn their fasting into feasting, into joy and gladness and prosperous high feasts, as there he saith. 
Act. 15.29.  And lastly he bringeth that law that the apostles set down, of not eating the blood and things strangled. A law I say, made by the direction of God's spirit, as there is witnessed for a law: whereof they can find no such praise. A law that was made according to the necessity of that time, to avoid division, and for the better uniting and gathering of the church of the jews and gentiles, as M. Bellarmine confesseth, and therefore such a law, as lawfully might be made. For in things indifferent, the church may take order for the quietness or any other way for the benefit of the fame. Whereby they would establish a law for ever to bind the conscience. A law I say, which themselves will confess we are not bound unto, but do against that law that the apostles made. But how could we break that law if it bond the conscience? Or if it do not bind the conscience, why doth M. Bellarmine bring it to prove that the church may tie or bind the consciences of the faithful, unto their laws of fasting?  
Thus we see that not one of all the places alleged by him out of the scripture, doth prove the necessity of these laws of fasting, which so straightly they command. Therefore by the weakness of their proof, we may see the falseness of their doctrine. 
Difference of meats.  Now I come unto the last point of their doctrine which we mislike, which is the difference of meats that they make. Wherein if they do not conspire with the Ebionites and sundry other heretics that did condemn flesh as a thing unpure: yet it seemeth that they have been brought up in the school of the heretics called Apostolici, 
Serm. 66. in Cantica.  of whom S. Bernard reporteth that they would eat no whit-meate, milk and whatsoever came of it, or whatsoever was engendered. But our adversaries tell us, that the Ebionites, Tatianites, Manichees, Priscillianists, and such other heretics, do utterly condemn flesh, as unclean or unlawful, to be eaten at any time: But themselves think it only at certain times unlawful. Admit it be so. If they will not go in the rank with the old heretics, let it then be an heresy, devised (in such sort as now it is) by popish heretics. 
De violandis virginibus.  For if heresy be, Whatsoever savoureth against the truth, although it be even an old custom, as Tertullian very well defineth it, then doubtless this popish forbidding of certain meats for conscience sake, will be found heresy. For the truth saith, that they who command to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with giving of thanks, 
2. Tim. 4.1.2.3.  depart from the faith, give heed unto spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, and that they speak lies through hypocrisy, and have their consciences burned with an hot iron. But the church of Rome teacheth, that this is a catholic doctrine, a sound religion. And they that teach it are good catholics. The church of Rome then savoureth against the truth, as in many other articles so in this also, and therefore it is heretical. But I know their answer, that Saint Paul speaketh against the E●bionites, Tatianites, and such heretics as did utterly condemn flesh as an unclean thing of itself. It is true he doth so, but not against them only, but rather against the popish heresy than against any other. And that for these reasons. First the circumstance of the time moveth me to it. 
1. Tim. 4.1.  For he saith that these men shall be in the latter time. Now it were absurd to think, that he that speaketh here by the spirit of prophesy of this false doctrine, should account for the latter times the times of those heretics, the world enduring so long after as now it hath done. And Ebion that was the first, as I remember, that devised that heresy, lived in the days of the apostle, and did sow his seed of that heretical doctrine, very soon after the apostles death. Yea and Tatian also taught the same heresy, about some seventy years after Saint Paul. If therefore had saint Paul meant of that heresy especially, he would never have pointed so far, as to have told us of the latter days, but rather would have said, that it were at hand. The apostle therefore had respect chiefly to more dangerous heretics than they were, that could carry the matter more cunningly than wholly to condemn the creature. His words also are very plain if we mark them well. For he doth not say that they shall condemn or dispraise meats, which God hath made, which was the heresy of those old heretics: But, they shall command others to abstain from them, to refuse them, not to receive them: and this is flat the heresy of the papists. And the apostle confuting this heresy, doth not commend the goodness or pureness of the creature, as it had been needful for him to have done, if he had chiefly meant his words against them: but he showeth the lawful use of the creature, that it is to be received, and it is not to be refused. Which especially armeth us against the Romish infection, for to speak as Saint Ambrose doth upon these words, 
Ambrose upon these words.  When such doctrines are heard, we may know the devil hath devised them.  
Thirdly, the apostle seemeth to have regard unto such as should teach the doctrine unto that end, that some in his days did among the Colossians, to put some religion in these outward and bodily exercises, exhorting them thus: Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all perish with the using, 
Coloss. 2.21.22  and are after the commandments and doctrines of men. And therefore the apostle saith by and by after, 
1. Tim. 4.8.  that Bodily exercise profiteth little. Amongst which bodily exercises saint Ambrose counteth fasting. And thus in deed do the papists use their fasts, thinking that a little pinching of their body, should satisfy for their sins. Against which foolish persuasion it is a sufficient confutation to say with the apostle, 
Coloss. 2.16.  Let no man judge you in meats and drink. Let no man think you worse, for eating, or better for not eating. 
Rom. 14.17. 1. The. 5.22.  For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy ghost. Now I cannot but marvel, seeing the apostle willeth us to abstain from all appearance of evil, what is the reason that our adversaries will come so near those heretical opinions, which are so condemned by the godly of all ages, 
john. 4.24.  and do not rather seek to worship in spirit and truth as our saviour Christ telleth us we must do, than to put any holiness in these external observances, which we see so many heretics have delighted in. I would therefore exhort our adversaries to be more wise in that point: for they get them an evil name, by having so great a smack of such corrupt opinions, and have had luck in the choice of their observances, wherein they notwithstanding repose a great piece of holiness. For those two things wherein they suppose they commend themselves very much unto the world, which is forbidding of marriage to some sort of men, and meats at some times to all, and at all times to some men, do most evidently bewray their superstitious religion. Wherein they are not only noted before of the apostle, and pointed at to be had teachers, but also almost all those heretics that condemned flesh as unholy, were also enemies to marriage, as in part at the least the papists are. And thus whilst they will seem more holy than others, in not using holily and with thanks giving; Gods good ordinance and creatures: they come so near those profane and wicked heretics that have gone before them, that all good men take them to be a branch out of that root, and water of the same spring. 
Bellar. de bonis operibus in part. li. 2. cap. 5.  But what arguments have they to justify this their doctrine? Master Bellarmine can afford us but one, that maketh any show of proof, that flesh is more unlawful to be eaten than other meats, and that but a simple one. 
Dan. 10.3.  It is out of Daniel where he saith, I have not eaten any pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth. Master Bellarmine's arguments are like to fruit that showeth fair at the first, but is rotten at the heart. For, what can he prove out of this? Daniel abstained from flesh, therefore no man that will chastise his body must eat flesh. First, that that Daniel did, is no law to us, because it is not commanded unto us. Secondly, he did it but for a time, namely, for three weeks: what is this to prove that it must be a continual law for fasting? He did it voluntarily: what warrant can that be to force other men to it? But to come to the very point. I would ask of our adversaries, whether they think that Daniel commendeth unto us his fast, in that he abstained from flesh only, or that he abstained from all dainty fare? If because he abstained from all dainty fare (as saint Hierome in plain words doth expound it, than it maketh nothing for the forbidding of flesh only. 
jero. in Dan. cap. 1.  But that is it that the Papists so stiffly maintain, and so superstitiously hold, that they suppose themselves more to break their fast, in eating but one bit of flesh, be it never so mean, or of little nourishing, or never so little whitmeate, than if they should eat a sufficient meal of dainty and nourishing fish. Now if one should ask them whether one bit or less of flesh doth more pamper our body, than a good quantity of dainty fish, our adversaries must needs confess, that a sufficient meal of the one, nourisheth more than the small quantity of the other. And yet a crumb of flesh doth break their fast, and a meal of fish doth not. So that they make the unlawfulness to be in the meat itself: which, how near it cometh to the former heresies, let the world judge. If they do answer, that the commandment of the church doth make it unlawful: I reply, that the church hath not power to take away our christian liberty, neither must in things indifferent set down a constant and continual order, for all times and places. And also the reason that master Bellarmine giveth, why the church forbade flesh, is, for taming of the flesh, which in this case set down is more pampered by the fish. 
De operibus bonis in part. lib. 2. cap. 4.  And therefore the very respect that their church had in giving this commandment, maketh not simply 'gainst the use, but against the abuse of it. So that still the straight forbidding of the use of flesh, with such scour, washings, and cleansings of any thing that hath come near flesh as they use to have, seemeth to come from no other but those ancient heretics. But they will not be compared to them: Yet they must not take scorn to be yoked with the Manichees, whose fastings saint Augustine describeth, as like the Popish fasting as one egg can be like an other, not in their diet only, but in their opinion of it also. For he there showeth how the Manichees using in their fasts, dainty fare, and much spice, and costly drinks, would yet prefer their fasts before an other that had not touched a piece of resty bacon with his lips, whose folly he much inveigheth against. And who knoweth not, 
De moribus Manichaeorum li. 2. c. 13  that the fasts of many (even of them whom they call religious men) amongst the Papists are more nourishing unto the body, than the best feast that many a poor man getteth throughout the whole year. Yea, one draft of their spiced cups, is much better than his Christmas dinner? And yet these men, whose meanest meal should be a poor man's feast, are said to fast. And the other, whose greatest fare is with scarcity, doth not fast. Let our fast then be an abstinence from any thing that may pamper the flesh, yet not superstitious, not joined with opinion of merit, not thinking any meat unlawful, but in Christian sorrow for sins to humble ourselves.     

Of Purgatory. CHAP. 31  


THE PROTESTANTS  
AS for Purgatory we know none, neither any purgation for our sin, or any remedy for the same, 
1. john. 1.7.  but only that blood of Christ which cleanseth us from all sin. 
john. 1.29.  Only that Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, by virtue whereof because we know our sins are satisfied for, and we reconciled unto God, as here we cannot, so else where we need not make other attonment with god for them. For he that is so purged shall not perish, 
john. 3.16. john. 5.24.  he shall not come into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life, as he that cannot lie, hath told us.   

THE PAPISTS  
OUR adversaries teach, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. ca 2.  that because there are sinners which are not in Christ fully purged, 
Cens. Colon dialog. 10.  and we may perchance die before we have done due penance, or fully satisfied for our sins: therefore there is no remedy but to purgatory we must go. For although we be reconciled to God by Christ, 
Cens. Colon ibidem.  and received to his favour, yet is not that sufficient to bring us to heaven, until we, or others for us, have added somewhat to that satisfaction of Christ. 
Se. 6. Can. 30  And he that will teach contrary to this, is accounted accursed by the council of Trent.   

The absurdity of this their doctrine, maketh me loath almost to meddle with it: for, what christian ears can hear the blasphemy of the council of Trent in the place before alleged, 
The blasphemous saying of the ● ouncel of Trent, & the jesuits.  that there are some (they mean of such as shall dwell with God) that are not fully purged in Christ? And yet the scriptures do only and wholly ascribe unto Christ, our perfect redemption, whereof his blood is the price, his death is our ransom. Or, who can but detest the folly of those jesuits, who are not ashamed to write, that God receiveth such to favour, as he will not suffer to come where he is, until they have satisfied for their punishment? No, they blush not to affirm, that God is like to a froward man, who although he can be content by entreaty to forgive, yet will he not forget the offences that are committed against him, but will have them punished with temporal punishments, either here or elsewhere. Which not to be true, among other the thief upon the cross may teach us. For what satisfaction did he make for his temporal punishment? None at all: for Christ said to him, 
Luc. 23.43  This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Yea this example proveth, that it is not according unto God's justice so to deal. For if he being a malefactor, had no punishment enjoined unto him, but were freely pardoned, how can we imagine that God will deal more hardly with other? Again, to say that we must make any satisfaction, is to overthrow that free grace and mercy of God, and the only merit of jesus Christ, and so to diminish the benefit that we have of his gracious goodness, or to charge him with weakness and impotency, as though he were not able without our satisfaction for our sins, to take away the same. And how doubtfully they set down this their doctrine, their Writings do testify, to bear witness of their own uncertainty of that which they do teach. For, Allen that most unnatural country man of ours (but he that sitteth in heaven, hath defeated his purposes, and laughed him to scorn) concerning this point he thus setteth it down, that Often there remaineth a due temporal punishment for satisfaction. And master Bellarmine saith, 
Defence of purgatory chap. 1. De purgat. li. 1. cap. 7. Censur. Colon. dial. 10.  that all the temporal punishment is not always pardoned with the sin. And the jesuits of Colen say, that this cometh often to pass. And so they all teach, that not always, but often it is so. But this is a very doubtful doctrine for the afflicted conscience that would feign find comfort and release of sins. But so must it always be, nothing but doubting, nothing but wavering, so long as we trust to our own satisfactions. No quietness and security, but only in Christ. But because I have spoken elsewhere of our satisfactions or works, how little available they are, I mean not to stay upon this point. But for the example of David, which is alleged both by Allen, 
2. Sa. 12.14.  master Bellarmine, and the rest, whereby they chief endeavour to prove, that punishment may be inflicted, the sin being pardoned, it maketh little for them. For seeing there are in sin two things, as themselves will confess, the very corruption itself, and the danger or condemnation that followe● h it: the condemnation being taken away by forgiveness of sin, yet the corruption or infection of sin still remaineth (as before hath been taught in the three and twentieth chapter. 
The cause of chastisements. Esa. 48.10.  God therefore sometime chasticeth his servants to humble or reform: So he chastised the jews. Sometime to try and prove them whether their hearts be right or not: so did he prove the Israelites in the wilderness forty years. 
Deut. 8.2.  Sometime to glorify his own name, and for example to others: as in the story of job appeareth. Then they can not reason thus: David was afflicted: therefore it was to satisfy for his sin. For God we see may send affliction for many other causes, and not that we might satisfy any thing by temporal punishment. But master Bellarmine replieth against this answer out of the very words. For there it is said, 
2. Sam. 12.14  Because thou hast caused the enemies of the Lord by this thy deed to blaspheme, the child that is borne to thee shall surely die. Where he noteth the cause saith master Bellarmine, why David should be punished. True, but not thereby to satisfy for that he had done: But that the enemies of God seeing the chastisements that God layeth upon his children, and how that God's judgements begin even at his own house, and with his own dear servants, 
1. Pet. 4.17.  they may the rather look for his heavy wrath, if they turn not to him. And thus much for the right understanding of the place. But what is this to purgatory, for David's sin was mortal, and therefore could not be helped by purgatory, by their own doctrine? 
De purgat. li. 1. cap. 9  for M. Bellarmine saith, they all agree therein. To what end then do they bring in David's punishment for a mortal sin, to show how God will take away venial sins? or how doth it follow, David was here punished for his sin, therefore all men here or else where must be punished. But to handle this question as briefly as I can, master Bellarmine himself, doth handle it doubtfully, 
Iren. lib. 5.  and so uncertainly, yea, and as Irene speaketh so unconsequently, and so evil agreeing with itself, that he giveth just cause to suspect the truth of it. Where the place of purgatory is they have not yet agreed, 
Bellar. de purge. li. 2. c. 6 Cap. 6.  but are of eight sundry minds. And although in the first book of purgatory master Bellarmine hath alleged sundry fathers for proof of it: 
Cap. 1.  yet in the second book he telleth us that they are not agreed of it, who shall come thither. Some will have all but Christ, neither will exempt from thence so much as the virgin Marie, others are of another mind. But who must satisfy for them that are in purgatory? 
De purge. li. 2. cap. 17.  only he that is just. Why then where shall they find priests to serve the turn. For they are commonly as bad as who is worst. And the time will scarcely serve them to reckon up their own, 
Li. 2. cap. 10 de purgat.  much less shall they be able to satisfy for others sins. Other doubts also there are which M. Bellarmine speaketh of, but cannot certainly resolve. Is this doctrine to be received as catholic, of so many points whereof even the greatest Doctors among them do disagree. No certain place, no certain people, no certain proof of it. What should we do with such an uncertain religion, especially where so little good cometh towards us, and so much of our goods go from us? For only venial sins they tell us, 
Venial sins only taken away in purgatory.  can be taken away by purgatory. But for such small faults, because they do not (as the Papists would make us bebeleeve) turn us from God, they can tell us many more easy remedies, Holy bread, holy water, giving a little alms, pardons, Pilgrimages, Pater nosters, and Aves. And to be buried in a Monks cowl, and boots, it is a sovereign remedy for such things, or else they lie. But one thing I cannot but muse at, that in this life these venial sins may so easily be satisfied for, as they all agree: and yet after this life their torments should be so grievous as they report them to be. For master Bellarmine bestoweth a whole Chapter to prove the pains of Purgatory to be most bitter, 
De purgat. li. 2. cap. 1●.  and that no torments that are in this life, may be compared with them.  
Can a little holy water wash them away here, and must the fire be so sharp that must burn them away elsewhere? But I think I know now the mystery of it. The more that men's sins are here mitigated, or the less grievous that they appear unto their judgement, the less careful will they be to satisfy for the same here, or rather to avoid them, and will live more securely. But when upon their deathbed, they shall find any conflict of conscience, and can find no rest, then must they give much for Masses and Trentals: then must the bellows of the Priests false and lying tongues, blow the fire of purgatory, until they have made it so hot, that a great piece of that which he hath left behind him, and should serve for the maintenance of wife and children, must be bestowed in the slaking of that great heat, and the quenching of that tormenting, and unsatiable fire.  

De purgat. lib. ●. cap. 3.  Now for his proofs of purgatory out of the scriptures, they have either so little weight, or are so obscure, and so wrested from their natural sense, that the simplest (if without partiality they could weigh them) would find them too light, to satisfy their consciences to be persuaded of the truth of that doctrine. The two first, the one of the Maccabees, 
2. Mac. 12. Tob. 4. 1. Sam. 31.30 2. Sam. 1.12  the other of Toby, are out of the books that are not Canonical, and therefore can prove nothing. Thirdly, the inhabitants of jabes Gilead fasted when Saul was dead seven days, and David mourned and fasted for Saul and jonathan. It may be thought (saith master Bellarmine) although they seemed to do it in token of heaviness, yet that they did it especially to help the souls departed. So here we must take master Bellarmine's, it may be thought, 
2. Sam. 12.17  as a proof for purgatory. But how he will prove it, out of David's fasting and prayer for his child while it was alive, I can not see, & he cannot well tell us. But whereas master Bellarmine, most falsely, without all warrant affirmeth, that this was the cause why the patriarchs so carefully desired burial in the land of promise, as jacob and joseph did, that they might be partakers of the prayers there made, 
Gene. 47.30 Gene. 50.25 In Gene. Hom. 65.  and the sacrifices there offered, chrysostom telleth us it was for another cause, namely to assure their posterity, that the promised land at the length should be theirs. And this he confirmeth by Scripture, 
Gene. 50.25  even by joseph his words: Surely God will visit you, and you shall carry my bones hence. Fourthly, 
Psal. 38.1.  O Lord rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy wrath. Where is purgatory here? Chastise me not in thy wrath, that is, Let me not be in purgatory. No authority of man, no credit of person can make this a good proof. His fift place, We went through fire and water, 
Psal. 66.12.  & thou broughtest us into this wealth, showeth how God had dealt with his people here, but what is this to purgatory, which is else where? or what is this to prove our state that must be hereafter? Sixtly, 
Esa. 4.4.  The Lord shall wash the filthiness of the daughters of Zion, etc. with the spirit of burning. Now this burning must needs be in purgatory fire, master Bellarmine thinketh, 
jero. in Esa. 4. Math. 3.  otherwise here is no proof for purgatory. But S. Hierom expoundeth it by that place of Matthew, 
Esa. 9.18.  He shall baptize with the holy Ghost, and with fire. The seventh, Wickedness burneth as fire: it devoureth the briars and thorns. What is there no torment of sin, or for sin here, none else where but that purgatory must needs be proved out of this? Let the indifferent reader judge of it. The eight place, 
Mich. 7.8.9.  Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, though I fall, I shall rise, when I shall sit in darkness, the Lord shall be my light, I will bear the wrath of the Lord, because I have sinned against him. 
Li. 2. in Mic. 7  Saint jerom expoundeth these words to be the words of jerusalem to Babylon, that the Babylonians should not rejoice at their captivity. What proof is this for purgatory? Perchance they were in purgatory in Babylon, that was not this popish purgatory, which they would pick out of it. Ninthly, he will prove it by that lake that Zacharie speaketh of, Wherein is no water. 
Zach. 9.11.  Where the prophet speaketh of their deliverance out of Babylon. But if we will have it expounded figuratively, S. Hierom understandeth of that lake wherein the rich man was, and that was a place out of which he could not come. Lastly, 
Malac. 3.3.  the place in Malachi, is to this effect, that he will sanctify the priests, that they may offer holy offerings. What? And shall they come out of purgatory to offer sacrifices? If not, he might have spared this place, as also all the rest. For there is not one that hath any show of proof of that, for which they are brought. Surely, fit for these proofs, were that conclusion which I remember a preacher in Queen Mary's time made in a funeral sermon. Nec est qui se abscondat a calore eius, Neither can any man escape purgatory. And was not this clearkely handled? 
Psal. 19.6.  The prophet speaketh of the sun whose heat none can hide themselves from, and he perchance in a dream or some vision, learned to expound it of purgatory. But here I must admonish the reader, that in most of these places alleged. M. Bellarmine bringeth perchance some one in, or some more of the fathers so expounding the same: but therein he playeth but the part of Cham, 
Gene. 9.22.  who hide not, but proclaimed the nakedness of his father. 
De purge. li. 1. cap. 4.  It had been his part rather, to have buried in silence, those their senseless and singular interpretations. But now let us see what he bringeth out of the new Testament? Whosoever shall speak against the holy Ghost, 
Mat. 12.32.  it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come: therefore, say they, some men's sins be remitted in the world to come. 
Mark. 3.29.  But Saint Mark coming after saint Matthew expoundeth his words, He shall never have forgiveness, but is culpable of eternal damnation. A direct answer to their objection. Secondarily, they object out of saint Paul, 
●. Cor. 3.15  Himself shallbe safe, yet as it were by the fire. Out of saint August. M. Bellar. confesseth this place to be hard, and in deed is diversly expounded, by reason of the hardness of it: and therefore, out of an uncertain place, he cannot gather a certain argument. But of purgatory it cannot be meant, because he maketh this fire a trial of every man's work, 
De civit. dei. li. 22. cap. 26.  as saint Augustine well noteth. And though themselves shall be saved, yet is it as it were by fire. But I trust they will never thrust saint Peter and the other apostles into purgatory. Yea, they teach that some come not there. Therefore this fire whereby Every man's work is tried, cannot be purgatory. Saint Augustine in the place named, thinketh it to be tribulation. Saint Ambrose seemeth to expound it of the confusion of mind. 
Ambrose upon this place. 1. Cor. 15.29  But of purgatory, I have showed it cannot be meant. His third proof is far fetched, even beyond all compass of reason, What shall they do that are baptized for dead? that is, (saith master Bellarmine) what shall they do that pray, fast, mourn, and afflict themselves for the dead. So that to pray, fast, or lament, if we will believe master Bellarmine, is to be baptized. Hath he not wrung hard, think you, to wring such a meaning out of these words? To point unto his folly, I trust, is sufficient confutation of it. 
Mat. 5.26.  Fourthly, Thou shalt not come out thence, until thou have paid the uttermost farthing, therefore it must be paid, say they,. First in the words, there is no such necessity. joseph knew not Marie, 
Mat. 1.25.  until she had brought forth her first begotten son, that is, as they will confess, never. So we say, in that place, thou shalt never come out thence. Secondly, the place is wholly parabolical, & therefore out of such speeches, infallible arguments cannot be gathered, Thirdly saint Augustine by this prison meaneth hell, 
De salut. docu. cap. 64  from whence the sinner shall never come. Now what is this to purgatory? The fift place alleged by master Bellarmine, is out of the same chapter, 
Mat. 5.22.  Whosoever is angry with his brother, etc. Here master Bellarmine gathereth out of S. August. that all these punishments belong to the life to come. Then also that there are three sorts of sins. 
De ser. dom. in mont. li. ●  He might also have told us out of S. Augu. that in God's judgement, anger that is the least of these sins, deserveth hell. But that maketh against purgatory, and therefore he would not see it. And it is most certain, that our saviour Christ there teacheth us, that the commandement, Thou shalt not kill, is sundry ways broken: Neither can out of these words be gathered, that there must be satisfaction after this life, which Bellar. would prove. Moreover he reasoneth out of S. Luke, Make you friends of riches of iniquity, 
Luke 16.9.  that when you shall want, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. If by friends in this place we should understand the saints, yet it maketh not for purgatory, as may appear. For in this argument there can be no necessary consequence. The saints must receive us into heaven: therefore we must go by purgatory: but the saints cannot neither must they have that honour given to them, that they should receive us into the everlasting habitations: 
Mat. 25.34.  it is Christ that must say Come ye blessed: He must give that inheritance, that hath bought it with his precious blood: or else a man may give it unto the wicked, that shall never come there, or to such as out live him, neither of which can be there to receive him. By all which reasons it appeareth, that in those words our saviour Christ doth but allude unto such as whilst they have ability, do make others their friends. So would he have us whom God hath made his stewards, with well using of our riches to please God, that he also of his gracious goodness may show mercy to us. 
Luk. 23.42.  Seventhly, Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom, said the thief that was put to death with Christ, therefore saith master Bellarmine, he thought that sins might be after this life remitted. So that this is his meaning, as the papists would persuade us: remember me, that is, let me be prayed for when I am dead. 
Vers. 43.  But they do not remember how Christ promised he should not come in purgatory, but be with him even that day in Paradise. His eight place, He loosed the sorrows of death (so it is in greek, 
Act. 2.24.  but M. Bellarmine that he might get an argument out of that place, would have us read the sorrows of hell.) It is not worth answering, because he must alter the words, or else he must have one argument fewer than he looked for. His last place himself misliketh, and thinketh it not to prove any thing for them, and therefore I will not speak of it. Now for their arguments out of the fathers, he that will but indifferently consider of them shall find the fathers to be in this point very uncertain. And the question being amongst us, whether purgatory be a catholic doctrine, we have not to regard what they in their private and doubtful opinions do set down, but what with one consent and constantly they teach. Seeing therefore that neither the fathers with one consent teach it, neither themselves know well what to say of it, as in many places of master Bellarmine his two books of purgatory may appear: I will conclude with that golden saying taken out of Gelasius a pope. We read that Christ raised the dead, 
Causa. 24. Q. 2. ca legitur.  but that he absolved such as died in error we do not read. And afterwards speaking of the authority of binding and losing, given in those words, 
Math. 16. 1●.  Whatsoever thou shalt lose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, etc. Gelasius thus inferreth, In earth saith he: for he that is dead being bound, he said not that he should be absolved, or loosed.     

An abridgement of Vincentius Lirinensis: with some observations upon the said Author. CHAP. 32.  
NOw in steed of a conclusion unto this treatise of controversies, I have thought good to draw into a brief sum that book of Vincentius Lyrinensis against heresies, which is so much alleged against us. Whom because they so confidently produce against us in defence of their cause, I take his authority to be so much the stronger against them, that even by the judgement of their own witness (for so they reckon him) they may be convinced of newness and falsehood in their doctrine, and of untruth in challenging to their errors the name of catholic faith, and to themselves of catholic men or women. But before I come to the treatise itself, that we may the better understand upon what occasion he so greatly accounteth of the ancient tradition of holy men, for the interpretation of the scriptures: first we must persuade ourselves, that this learned father could not be ignorant of that way to find out the true meaning of the scriptures, which the godly fathers a little before his time had set down, namely by conferring one place with another, and by weighing the circumstances of the place itself. As S. Hillary de trin. li. 1. Ambr. in Psal. 118. Serm. 8. Hierom upon Esay. 19.1. Basil in reg. breu. quaest. 267. chrysostom upon Gen. hom. 12. And saint Augustine in many places have plainly taught. Neither yet must we imagine, that Vincentius contrary to that which himself teacheth throughout this whole book, would that this his rule should be accounted the only way to find out the truth of God's word, and that which so many before him with such a full consent have taught us should be rejected. Therefore it is cettaine that his meaning is, to such godly ways as others before him have used for trial of the truth, to add this also as a rule that may be profitable, and do much good, if it be used wisely, and truly considered of. And the rather did he teach us this way, because the Pelagians so boldly and confidently preferred their new doctrine before the ancient faith, whereof this author complaineth fol. 15. And Nestorius condemned all that were before him as if they knew nothing in comparison of himself, as we may see fol. 54. For this cause Vincentius teacheth us in this his book which he therefore calleth Commonitorium, an admonition or caveat to avoid the new devices of private men, and to hold fast the ancient faith of the universal church. And yet although Vincentius Lyrinensis did then see, that that which was than catholic and ancient it was also true, and therefore that then it was a good rule to try doctrines by: yet the argument of the Church of Rome is too too foolish when thus they reason. This religion is old, and hath had approbation of the greatest number for some hundreds of years: therefore it is good. For Vincentius did look unto that faith that was then ancient and catholic, many hundred years before many articles of popish religion were hatched. But the papists think it enough for them, if they can prove their religion to be now old. Whereas in truth, and according to Vincentius his rule also, that which was not then old, is not now good. That which was not then catholic, is now of all good men to be rejected. But let us see what Vincentius saith.  
After that he hath declared, how that by opportunity of time and place he was moved to write: he showeth that to find out the falsehood of heresies there are two ways. The one by the authority of God's word, 
God's word sufficient.  Whose rule is perfect, and of itself sufficeth for all things abundantly: Yet because it is diversly expounded (such is the depth thereof) as by example of sundry heresies doth appear: The second way to find out heresies he maketh this: By the tradition and rule of the catholic Church to interpret that which is set down, in the writings of the Prophets and apostles. But so as we take heed, that we receive not for Catholic, every thing that is holden in the Catholic Church: 
Catholic  but that only that is believed in all places, and so hath universality, at all times, and so hath antiquity, of all or almost all the godly and learned, and so hath consent. So that a Catholic Christian must more regard the soundness of the whole body, than a part thereof that is corrupted.  
And where the infection is general, that which hath been taught of old, is to be preferred before the new. But before the ancient error of two or three, or of one city or country, a man must prefer that which universally, the universal Church hath decreed, if any such be. If not, than he must consider of the judgements of the sincerest fathers, not of a few of them, but of all. What they have holden, written, taught, 
When the father's a●● to be believed.  with one consent, plainly, often, not changing their mind, that he may boldly believe. So did the godly fathers in Africa, against Donatus, and also others against that heresy of the Arrians that had infected almost all christendom, and caused great destruction and cruelty, because there were brought in superstitions invented by men, in steed of the Heavenly doctrine, as is proved out of saint Ambrose, and new devices for ancient decrees. Yea so they withstood all heresies, whilst in the very antiquity of the church they defended that only that was also universal, that is to say, Ancient Universality. 
Ancient universality.  And the more devout that men were, the more stiffly did they oppose themselves to new inventions. As for example, Stephen bishop of Rome with his associates, did set themselves against the new opinion of Agrippinus bishop of Carthage, yea and against the council of Carthage. For he knew that nothing can in account be godly, 
We must follow religion and not lead her.  Unless all things were sealed up to the children as faithfully, as the fathers received them. And that we must not lead religion, which way we will, but follow her which way she will go. And that it be seemeth not christian modesty or gravity, to deliver to their posterity any thing of their own, but to preserve that which is received from the fathers. And by occasion of the Donatists, who under colour of the decrees of the council of Carthage, said that they baptized again such as were baptized by heretics, he teacheth that some deceivers going about in some other bodies names, to set forth their own heresy, 
A lively description of popish teaching.  Do snatch some of the writings of the ancient fathers, such lightly as are most obscurely written, which for their obscurity, may after a sort agree with that they teach, to this end that whatsoever they say, they may be thought, neither first, nor only to say it. Whose fault is double, both in that they broach heresies, and also open that in the fathers which should be hidden, as did Cham: whose reward upon him and his posterity should fear them. But to alter the faith, or corrupt religion, men should be afraid, not only in respect of ecclesiastical discipline, but also in regard of the censure of the apostle against such. Gal. 1.6.7. 2. Tim. 4.3. 1. Tim. 5.12. Rom. 16.17. 2. Tim. 3.6, 7. Tit. 1.16. 1. Tim. 3.1. 1. Tim. 6.4, 5. 1. Tim. 5.13. 1. Tim. 1.19. 1. Tim. 2.16, 17. 2. Tim. 3.9. 
Such a●● our Seminary priests, who for their own benefit endanger many, not men only, but even countries.  And because there came amongst the Galathians such as carried about errors and set them on sale, whom the Galathians hearing, did loath the truth, vomiting the Manna of Apostolic and catholic doctrine, liking well of the filth of novelties, the apostle denounceth that they should not hear either the apostles or an angel from heaven if he should preach any thing besides that he had preached Gal. 1.8, 9 And this caveat belongeth not to the Galathians only, no more than the other precepts of godly life, so that it hath not been, is, or shall be lawful, for catholic christians to teach any thing besides that that they have received. And to hold accursed all those, 
Take heed of believing unwritten traditions.  who preach any thing else, than that which is Once received, it always hath been, is, and shall be our duty: So that to preach any thing else is too much boldness: and to hear any thing else is too much lightness. Although some frogs, midges, and flies, of a short time, such as the Pelagians cry against it, seeking to draw us from that, which hath been committed unto us by our fathers: and notable persons are thus many times infected, 
Why the learned are heretics.  because God will by them prove whether men love God unfeignedly or not, Deuteronomie 13.3. But this is a dangerous tentation, and may deceive many, as by Nestorius, Photinus, and Apollinaris may appear: whose heresies he describeth, as also the catholic doctrine, with some confutation of Arrianisme, and Manicheisme, and the other forenamed heresies. Against which danger of being by such men deceived, he would have us to hold this property of true catholics, 
How far the fathers are to be heard.  with the Church to receive the Doctors, but not with the Doctors to forsake the faith of the Church.  
Then having showed the danger that the great learning of Origen and Tertullian brought unto the Church when they erred, he repeateth trial, to be cause of heresies many times, 
A true catholic.  and then gathereth, Him to be a true catholic who loveth God's truth, the church, the body of Christ, who esteemeth nothing more than God's religion, than the catholic faith, Not the authority of any man, not the love that he beareth him, not his wit, eloquence or philosophy. But despising all these, steadfast, and settled in faith, doth make reckoning, that he must hold and believe only, whatsoever he knoweth the catholic church of old believed. He confirmeth also that heresies are for the trial of the godly by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.19. with a long and lively description, of such as are wavering and doubtful in faith, marveling much at their madness, that content not themselves with the rule of faith, 
The Papists are possessed with this mad spirit.  which of old once hath been received, but day by day seek new things, and delight always to put something to, or to change, or to take somewhat from religion. Not remembering that it is a heavenly doctrine which once to be revealed sufficeth, but as if it were an earthly institution, which cannot be perfected, but by continual mending or rather controlling it. This chopping & changing in religion, he proveth to be dangerous by three other testimonies of scripture, Prover. 22.28. Eccl. 8, 17. Eccle. 10.8. but especially insisteth upon that of Saint Paul 1. Tim. 6.20. O Timothe, keep that which is committed unto thee, and avoid profane and vain babbling, and opposition of knowledge falsely so called, And showeth what is meant by this word depositum. 
What is meant by That which is committed to thee.  That which is committed: that is, that which thou art trusted with, not that thou devisedst: that thou hast received, not invented: a matter not of thine own wit, but of an others teaching: not for thy private use, but for to deliver to all. A thing brought to thee, not brought forth by thee: wherein thou mayest be, not the Author, but the keeper: not the teacher, but the scholar: not the leader, but the follower. This, as pure gold must be kept pure without corruption. It must be beautified and fitted, but in any wise we must So teach that we have learned, 
We must teach no new thing. Growing in faith but no changing.  that when we speak after a new manner, yet we bring no new matter. Yet we must grow, and the faster the better. So that it be but growing and not changing. In the very same doctrine, the same meaning, the same understanding. Even as children grow in their body, but are the same that they were. But if any parts or members should be added, or turned into another shape, it were a monstrous thing. Such and no other must be our growing in religion, to no other, but to more perfection in the same. which he also maketh manifest by the example of wheat, Which being sown by our fathers in the primitive church, must be husbanded and dressed by us, but the seed must not be changed. Yea in these plants of religion, we may, nay we must use all diligence to trim them and dress them, but to change them, to mangle or maim them, it is great wickedness. Yea they must still keep their Fullness, sincerity, and property. 
He seemeth to have prophesied of the mischiefs of popery.  For do but once give liberty to this deceit (of cutting or corrupting the Scriptures) and religion is in danger to be quite overthrown. If some may be cut off, nought will be left, if some may be mingled, nought will be pure and sincere. 
The true church keepeth safely her own.  But the Church of Christ is a careful and wary keeper of doctrines left unto her, she never changeth any thing, diminisheth it not, addeth nothing. She cutteth not of things necessary. She putteth not to things needless. She doth not lose her own, she will have nothing that belongeth to others. Yea and in all her Counsels the church did nothing else, but set down that in writing, which before was known only by tradition, and utter by new terms, 
The counsels taught nothing in faith new. Teachers of news must be avoided.  matters of faith not new. We must also by all means possible shun and avoid such as bring not the catholic and universal doctrine, which hath continued one and the same from age to age, by one undefiled tradition of the truth, and shall continue for ever without end.  
And this newness of words the Apostle calleth profane, because it hath in it nothing holy, nothing religious. These profane novelties therefore we must avoid: for, to receive them is the manner, not of catholics, but of heretics. 
The words thus [] included, I was loath to leave out, because the Papists brag much of them, as though they did mightily convince us to be heretics. And yet if a man do well consider of them, he may justly doubt whether they be Vincentius his words, or added since, because they are brought in so impertivently to his matter, and nothing in all the book either afore or after that soundeth that way. But, admit that they are his words, it is no hard matter to prove this, in very many of the doctrines of the church of Rome, because therein they do jump and draw in one yoke with the old heretics, of whom the stories mention, by whom, how, and when they began. But they will tell us their doctrines were not condemned by any council, which they profess. And how could they, when they that taught them had gotten the sovereignty over princes and prelates? Yea, he whom they call the catholic king, as in some respects they may truly, not because he loveth catholic religion. (For in a man of so excessive greediness intolerable pride, and unnatural cruelty, as many of his practices and purposes show him to be, what religion can there be?) but because he scarcely can comment himself with the whole world, this man (I say) usurpeth Navarre, and intrudeth himself into the kingdom of Portugal. And yet so long as he ruleth them, their parleaments or counsels dare not, no, they can not proclaim him to be an usurper or an intruder into other men's right, although he is so: neither would our saviour Christ have regarded any thing this defence, that the Scribes and Pharisees and Priests of the jews might have used. In what counsel was that condemned that we teach? but on the contrary he telleth that by their power and authority, they shut up the kingdom of heaven before men, and suffer not them that would enter, Math. 23.13. And so did the Church of Rome.  [What heresy hath been at any time, but it hath been under some certain name, in some certain place, at some certain time?] And no man doth maintain any heresy, but that he first separateth himself from the consent of the universality, and antiquity of the catholic church. As he proveth by the examples of Pelagius, Celestius, Arrius, Sabellicus, Novatianus, Simon Magus, Priscilianus. Yea, but Heretics do allege Scripture for all in a manner that they say, and therefore are they the more dangerous. And that practice did Satan use before against our saviour Christ. But how then shall catholic men know how to judge between truth and falsehood in the holy Scriptures? 
Interpreting scripture.  even by interpreting the same according to the traditions of the universal church, and the rules of the catholic doctrine, and the consent that hath been at all times, and in all places amongst the teachers.  
And yet not every question must be thus decided, 
This way is to be used only in the greatest matters.  but only matters of faith, such as the very foundation of catholic doctrine resteth upon (for so he saith after fol. 50.) neither are all heresies thus to be confuted, and at all times, but only new heresies, even at their first beginning, 
And lately sprung up heresies.  Before they have falsified the rules of the ancient faith, and the writings of the fathers. But old heresies which have had long time to steal away the truth must be convinced if need be, 
Stealing the truth, such then●● are the papists, as their coorupting the fathers proveth. When the fathers must be heard.  by the only authority of scripture, or must be shunned, as being condemned in the old counsels. As for heresies newly sprung up, they, by the judgements of the fathers are to be rejected, of those fathers (I say) that continued in the faith: so that all, or most of them, have set it down, in one and the self same meaning, plainly, & often, continuing in it, as it were in a council of such masters, agreeing in one. And such a full consent must not be despised. Then he maketh a recapitulation of that which he hath said in these two caveats, and induceth the example of the council of Ephesus, wherein the judgement of the ancient fathers being examined, Nestorius was found to be against the catholic old faith, and Cyril to agree with holy antiquity. And to make the matter more plain, he setteth down the names of those holy fathers, by whose uniform consent and judgement, both the testimonies of God's law were expounded, and also the rule of the holy doctrine was established. And so reckoneth up sundry of the Greek church, than also of the Latin and west churches: wherein he maketh mention of certain letters written unto some from Foelix and julius two bishops of Rome. And, 
Bellarm. de Roman. pontiff. lib. 2. cap. 16. endeavoureth by this testimony to prove the Pope to be head of the church. But consider (I pray you) how negligently he performeth it. Vincentius saith that the city of Rome was the head of the world: and we confess whilst the empire flourished it was so called, as by the stories appeareth. Now he proveth by this that the pope is head of the church, by a strange Metamorphosis changing the city into the Pope, and the world into the church, contrary to the Author his words or meaning.  that not only [The head of the world:] but the sides also might yield their testimony to that judgement, Cyprian and Ambrose consented thereunto. And lastly he confirmeth this by the judgement of Capreolus bishop of Carthage, who endeavoured to overthrow newness, and to defend antiquity. Which was also approved by Cyrils' testimony, who would have the doctrines of the ancient faith confirmed, 
New doctrine condemned.  and that which is new, and superfluously invented, and wickedly published, to be rejected, and condemned, whereunto the whole council agreed. And though there were many in that Council, 
The council of Ephesus ●●rst devise no new doctrine,  men of singular great learning, & in such sort gathered together (which might have emboldened them to decree somewhat of their own) yet would they alter nothing, but took all heed possible, that they delivered nothing to their posterity, but that they had received of their predecessors, leaving also to them that example. 
Ancient faith, the only good faith.  He inveigheth against the pride of Nestorius in defence of antiquity, alleging that of Xistus bishop of Rome, Let not newness do any thing, because it is not fit any thing should be added unto antiquity. And that of Caelestinus, who would not have Newness to trouble antiquity. Whose meaning is not that antiquity should cease to overthrow newness, but that newness should cease to molest antiquity. Which thing whosoever will not yield unto, he must despise the authority of Celestinus, Xistus, Cyril, Capreolus, the council of Ephesus, who all had learned of God to decree, that not any thing should be delivered to their posterity, but that only, that sacred antiquity of the holy fathers, and agreeing with itself in Christ did hold: yea not to yield unto this, is to justify Nestorius by them condemned, and to despise the whole Church of Christ, 
The praise of the church to keep the faith deliu● red to her, not to invent a new.  and the teachers therein the Apostles and Prophets, but especially the Apostle saint Paul. The Church of Christ, I say, that never yet departed from a religious reverencing and adorning of the faith delivered to her, by saint Paul, who said, O Timothy, keep that which was committed to thee, avoiding newness of words, And, Ifanie preach to you any other thing, than that you have heard, let him be accursed. And if neither the laws of the apostles, nor decrees of the church are to be broken, according to which heretics are worthily condemned: it behoveth all men, that will be accounted the true children of their mother the church, to stick even to the death, 
True children of holy church.  unto the sacred faith of their holy fathers, and to hate that that is new.  
Thus have I set down, I trust, truly and faithfully, the sum of this whole treatise of Vincentius Lyrmensis, especially whatsoever may be thought pertinent to the matter for which the Papists so triumphingly allege him. And as I endeavoured to be short, yet so that I omit not any material point by him touched, so that his meaning may the better appear, I have (as near as I could) kept his own words: yea, I have set down even his most material sentences, that his whole mind and intent, may the better be known unto the Reader. judge now, I pray thee, Christian Reader, what Catholic and ancient faith it is that the Church of Rome so much braggeth of. Compare it with this that Vincentius commendeth. If they be any thing like, I desire no credit. I will but give thee a taste hereof, even out of one of their chief points of their Religion. 
Cap. 2.  I have showed before even by their own confession, that traditions must needs be admitted, or else the Church of Rome must needs fail in proof in many articles of their Religion. Their Religion therefore in such points cannot be Catholic. It cannot be that which was Committed to Timothy, which was Once delivered, as Vincentius speaketh often: whose growing is without change, whose perfection is without addition, so that their doctrine of traditions, is a strong argument to prove that their faith is not Catholic, according to Vincentius rules. Then also we see how plainly he defineth, that old heresies must not be confuted by such arguments, but only such as are newly sprung up. And yet the Papists, whose religion is almost nothing, but a sink of such old and unsavoury heresies, cry still to be tried by their universality, and antiquity, and the judgements of men, flat contrary to Vincentius his rules. And this trial he will not have to be used but in great questions of faith, but they make it a proof for their most foolish toys. So that although they readily call him in, because he nameth Antiquity, universality and consent, unto the which they would feign seem to make claim, yet they will (I trust) from henceforth rather stop his mouth, than suffer him to speak, because his witness is their overthrow. Let us therefore keep that faithfully, which is once delivered unto us, which to change, is to mar it: to put to it, or take from it, is to corrupt it, Let us hold (I say) that faith which is always old, and always one, knowing that whatsoever we hold besides it, it is not new only, but even stark nought also:   

An exhortation to Christian Magistrates, for to defend this truth. CHAP. 33.  
THus hitherto have I stood in defence of christian truth against popish falsehood, endeavouring according to my simple talon and slender skill, not only to admonish you of the baggage dross which they bring unto us in steed of fine gold, what filthy water they would have us to drink for pure wine: but also in the balance of truth, to try what stuff it is, wherewith they seek to commend the same unto us. And although the due acknowledging of mine own manifold wants & weakness, did discourage me a long time to enter into these lists: yet the readiness that I see in many to take hold of the shadow of truth, neglecting in the mean time the body of the same: and on the other side the simplicity of others, to discern between light and darkness, good and evil: to stay the first, and to help the latter sort, I have thought good at one view, to set before thine eyes (gentle reader) that truth that we teach, that thou mayest know how they have slandered it: and that falsehood which they maintain, with some touch of their chief arguments, that thine own self although ignorant and unlearned, may have some trial of their corrupt doctrines. Now the especial cause that moved me to take upon me this enterprise (God is my witness) is that duty that I, and such as I am do owe to the defence of the truth by word, or writing, or any such means, whereby we are bound to occupy until our Lord and master come, the talon that he hath committed unto us, to his most gain and glory. Neither can I satisfy myself, that I have thoroughly performed my duty, when I have set down what is truth, and what is falsehood: unless I endeavour also to stir up all Christian magistrates to the defence thereof, to their uttermost power, in singleness of heart: whom for that cause God hath set in high rooms, and to whom God hath committed that great charge, and at whose hands he shall call for a straight account for that duty. 
Psa. 10.11.12  Be wise therefore now, O kings, be learned ye that are judges of the earth: Serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice in trembling. Kiss the son lest he be angry. And if you will know how princes may, nay, how princes must serve the Lord in fear, Saint Augustine teacheth it: 
Epist. 50  In forbidding and punishing with religious severity, those things which are done against God's commandment. So that this service of the Lord consisteth of two points. First in making of good laws, for the maintenance of the truth, and abolishing of idolatry. Secondly in punishing such as offend against the same, with a religious severity. This then is the first thing that is required in all godly Magistrates, even from the prince that sitteth upon the throne, unto the meanest that beareth office in the common wealth, but especially of them that have the sovereign authority, that they have a watchful eye, and a continual care, to consider and find out what things they are, whereby either the glory of God is most hindered, and his service profaned, or sin is within their common wealths ● r several charges occasioned and maintained. Which when they espy, they must seek by godly laws, and ordinances, to provide some speedy remedy for the same. For when I affirm, that princes & magistrates must make decrees for the truth against idolatry and superstition, my meaning is not to enter into that question against the papists, whether civil magistrates may meddle with matters of religion or not (although even the truth thereof also, by the way may appear) but because I speak to such as acknowledge and confess this to be their duty and have given notable testimony of their persuasion therein: my desire and endeavour is to stir them up, that neither they will be unmindful thereof, but always and earnestly think of it, neither unwilling thereto, but readily and diligently perform it. 
Esa. 44.28.  For this cause God calleth princes sometime shepherds, (so was Cyrus, to teach them that they ought to be as watchful and painful for the good of their people, as is the shepherd for the good of his flock: yea they must be watchmen over their people, and take great heed that through their fault the people perish not: for if they do, it will also turn to their own destruction. 
De pastoribus. cap. 9  For as saint Augustine saith Their negligence shall slay them. Their negligence, I say, whereby they are slack in performing their duty. They are also called heads over their people, not only because they should have eyes always to pry and spy (for the eyes are in the head) what danger may fall upon the people, and find means to avoid it: but also because they should in all careful and christian discretion, guide and direct them that are under them. And because it is true that saint Paul saith, 
Rom. 13.4.  He is the minister of God for the wealth of the people, and that he beareth not the sword for nought, but for to take vengeance of them that do evil: It is most necessary that he provide such laws as may tend to those ends, and set down such decrees as my bridle disobedient & ungodly persons, that they who feign would, 
1. Tim. 2.2.  may the more quietly live in honesty and godliness. Such is that law or statute that Asa king of judah made, when he saw how ready his people were to fall to Idolatry and superstition, and had taken away the altars of the strange gods, and broken down their images and high places. 
2. Chro. 14.3 4.  He commanded judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do according to the law & the commandment. Wherein it seemeth unto me that their case and ours is very like, therefore we cannot find a fit pattern to set before us for redress of our evils, than by such laws as he made. And seeing he did this in the beginning of his reign, he teacheth Magistrates a good lesson, that it beseemeth not princes or others to make any delay to serve the Lord, but to take all opportunities to do it. For delay many times bringeth coldness, and coldness groweth to neglect of duty. And so did jehosaphat his son after him. 
2. Chron. 17.6.7.  In whose story appeareth a marvelous diligent care that he had, to take away all occasion of Idolatry from amongst his people. And also there appeareth, 
2. Chro. 19.4  how he charged both the civil Magistrates that were under him, and the Priests also and Levites, and had an eye to them that they slipped it not. Yea, 
2. Chro. 29.8 5  and he did not only set Levites and Priests at jerusalem, for the better performance of these things, but also judges city by city, in every strong city of judah. For he knew that it was a dangerous thing for Magistrates to be Non-resident, 
non-residents.  (for there are more Nonresidents, than they that are commonly cried out against.) And for my part, the more that there are, the more, I think, is the land defiled with sin. But jehosaphat because he would have the magistrates always ready to attend upon their charge (as I also confess it to be the duty of ministers to attend upon their charge) he appointed them their cities, and made a progress through the country, to see these things done. As also it is a notable good practice for godly Princes in their progresses to inquire of such defaults as are in the country where they remain. Yea I know not whether there be now any other way so good, for reformation of such general disorders as are amongst us, as that the sovereign authority will use some way to look into the doings of such as are under her in the church, and common wealth, and with speed reform the same. I fear it would be found that from top to toe, there would almost be nothing sound, 
Es. 1.6.  From the sole of the foot, to the crown of the head nothing whole. For we are fallen into times wherein almost every man seeketh his own, I say his own will, profit, pleasure, estimation, without any great regard of church or common wealth. But I would that were the worst. For alas we have too many, & those great ones, who do notably abuse their greatness and authority, 
Mi● h. 2.1.  to the undoing of many other. Their hand is according to their power, as the Prophet saith, to do as much hurt as they can: And their must be obeyed more carefully than any law. If they be not so shameless that they will say, yet they think as the ungodly of whom the Prophet David complaineth, 
Psal. 10.3.4.  That they contemn the Lord: that they are so proud that they seek not for God. They think always there is no God. And again. With our tongue will we prevail, 
Psal. 12.4.  our lips are our own, who is Lord over us. Now although he that sitteth in heaven shall laugh (at these their foolish thoughts) and the Lord shall have them in derision: 
Psal. 2.4.  yet must Princes (unless they will neglect their duty) have a great care to reform or remove such ungodly persons: being well assured that the highest powers must not only answer for their own negligences, but also for the oppressions, wrongs, and negligences of such as they place under them: unless they have a due regard to place in authority such as are worthiest, and also when they hear of their defaults they seek speedily to reform the same. So that Princes have high places, with a heavy charge, their honour is great, but greater is their burden, as appeareth by the sixth Chapter of the book of Wisdom. Which Chapter I would wish all Princes to be well acquainted withal, that they would make it as it were their looking glass wherein they would use to look daily. For if these things were well remembered, (as alas it is too easy a thing for the best of us to forget our duties, and mighty ones, have not only their sovereignty, which maketh them many times too proud, but also many flatterers to commend in them even that which is evil) but I say if these things were well remembered, Princes in placing of Magistrates either in church or common wealth, would not so much be abused by them, who being corrupted by bribes, or moved by favour, or in some other worldly consideration, are content to commend such to be fit to govern others, as could never yet guide themselves well. Princes I say, that have due consideration of their own duty, and the straight account that they must give if they do it not, and that before that great and just judge, who will not be corrupted, nor cannot be deceived, will never commit their people to be governed by such bad guides, neither their duty to be done by such negligent or unfit deputies. And here would I most humbly crave of her most gracious Majesty, that as it hath pleased God to advance her grace above all other within her highness dominions, so as she tendereth the good of her people, the discharge of her duty, the defence of the church whereof she hath her title, and the salvation of her own soul, she will continually beg of this our good God, by earnest and hearty prayer, not only that herself may carefully endeavour to serve the Lord: but also that he will give her the spirit of wisdom to take heed that she advance not any within her majesties dominions to the rule of others, but such as herself knoweth, 
Exod. 18.11.  or by good men is perfectly informed, that they are as indeed they ought to be, Men of courage, fearing God, dealing truly, and hating covetousness. And that she will not think any fit for government, either in religion or civil policy, but such as will execute their office, In the fear of the Lord, 
1. Chro. 19.9  faithfully, and with a perfect heart. Then shall she according to the duty of a Christian Magistrate perform her office faithfully, maintain the truth zealously, encourage the godly, discourage and daunt the hearts of the wicked, relieve the oppressed, reform the oppressors. So shall she bring increase to the truth, glory to her government, safety to her person, quietness to her Realm. 
Esa. 26.11. Pro. 29.14.  For, Salvation shall God set for walls and bulwark, And a King that judgeth the poor in truth, his throne is established for ever. But on the contrary, if government be still committed to ungodly men, religion shall dwell in contempt, wickedness shall abound. Such as God hath not encouraged to do good, although they would feign, yet shall be afraid to serve the Lord. 
Prou. 29.1.  For, When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice, but when the wicked bear rule the people sigh. Take heed I pray O ye Magistrates, that that reproach may not justly be laid upon us, that was spoken against the jews, who were called God's people before us. 
Esa. 1.23.  Thy Princes are rebellious and companions of thieves, every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards, they judge not the fatherlesee, neither doth the widows cause come before them. For By swearing, and lying, and killing, 
Hos. 4.2.  and stealing, and whoring, they break out, and blood toucheth blood. But it is most certain that sin breaketh out in every corner in great abundance by sea, by land: yea and if it be not maintained by some, yet is it too much spared, and too little punished almost by all men that have authority. If such disorders may still be permitted, that is, if offenders may still go unpunished, and they that bear with and wink at such things may still bear authority, can we look for any other thing than that God should say unto us, as he said in his wrath unto his own people, whom he loved as dearly as us, Arise, depart (out of this land) this is not your rest. 
Mich. 2.10.  Because it is polluted, it shall destroy you, even with a sore destruction. For God in Leviticus 
Levit. 18.25.  pronounceth that a land is so defiled with sin, that it must vomit out her inhabitants. Have we not then just cause to fear God heavy wrath, seeing that idolatry, and superstition, blasphemies, murders, whoredoms, robbings and stealings do so abound in many places of this land, and yet so little reformation, yea so much forbearing of such had persons, yea of such as are most notorious offenders, so much speaking and writing for them, so much pitying them upon their tears, so much reprieving them after their judgement, that they might have time and means to procure their pardon, as though we feared nothing more, than that the weeds should be weeded out, lest they should hurt the herbs, or the tars plucked up that they choke not up the corn. This our well liking of sin, this forbearing of so bad men is it, that I more fear, and will indeed sooner bring this land to desolation, than all the cruel practices of professed enemies or faithless friends. This I say, if we repent not, shall make us weak, & our enemies strong, this shall more hastily bring upon us, and against us the Spaniard, & more strengthen his hand, than all that he can devise, bear he never so cruel a hatred against us. So that whosoever or whatsoever they be, that will not now, when by their authority they may, nay when they ought to procure peace & safety unto the oppressed, by punishing offenders, shall one day, if with speed they amend it not, 
Luc. 19.42. Esa. 48.22.  see that all things that belong to their peace shall be hidden from their eyes. For there is no peace to the wicked If any man think that I note any particular persons herein, they are deceived. I rather touch all. For I see such horrible vices abound almost in every place, and such disobedience against God and man, and so little punishment especially of such as can procure the friendship of some great men, although their offences be great, that I say with the Prophet, Wickedness saith to the wicked man even in my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. So that almost the continual breach of all good laws, by them that have any delight to sin, doth proclaim it in the ears of men more shrill than the sound of a trumpet, that many of our Magistrates are far short of that duty that they should perform. Which as we feel in these north parts, to be the undoing of many a poor man in particular, yea almost the ruinating of the country, so I hear the south parts are not in much better case: But whosoever is boldest to sin, findeth many friends to sue for his pardon. Which if it be true, let us assure ourselves, that our general contempt of religion, and justice, and that after so many warnings and so plain, given by God's messengers against this, shall bring upon us, and our land a general plague. Neither let us flatter ourselves in our own strength, or our allies, or that our enemies are weak or otherwise occupied. If we provoke the Lord he shall never want whips to whip us withal. And thus much by way of digression, upon occasion of good jehosaphats great care that he had to examine and see, that they bear office under him, did deal zealously for the truth, and justly and truly, with his people. A godly care, a good but a rare example. Which point although jehosaphats example gave me good occasion to enter into, yet the necessity of these times doth the rather force me to handle the same. Yea this is so necessarily belonging to the matter that I am in hand withal, that neither godly laws and decrees, can easily be devised & published, neither being made can at all be executed, unless this be chief regarded. But to return to my matter again. When Ahaz the king of judah had polluted the land with idolatries of sundry sorts, after him cometh Ezechiah his son, 
2. Chron. 29.  who opened the doors of the temple that Ahaz had shut up, he called for the Priests and commanded them to sanctify themselves, teaching them their duty, he gathered the Princes together to the house of the Lord, he commanded the Priests to offer, and he and the Princes commanded the Levites to praise the Lord: appointing how, namely, with the words of David: yea, 
2. Chro. 30. ●  he also by Posts sent to all judah and Israel, 
2. Chron. 3●.  that they should come to keep the Passeover. And josiah his diligence to serve the Lord, by commanding to reform such things as were amiss, is notable in his story. In which example of josiah it is worthy the marking, how he gathered together all the Elders of judah and jerusalem, and the people also, and made them go up with him unto the lords house. And Ezechiah and he (as in the story of Ezechiah is noted) commanded them to come to celebrate the Passeover. And in Ezechiah his days it is to their eternal praise set down, that they had not one Recusant, 
2. Chro. 31. ●  but God gave them one heart to do the commanment of the king. If Princes might then make laws to bring their people to the church, and constrain them to be partakers of their rites and service: why may not princes now do the like? Nay, if it were then the duty of the Rulers amongst God's people, to be careful to make such laws, how can our Rulers excuse themselves, if they be found slack herein? For (as before I have showed) I seek not by these examples to show what Princes may do, but what they can not but do, unless they will run in danger of God's displeasure. But, 
2. Chr. 34. 1●  to proceed in the story of josiah, when Hilkiah the priest had found the book of the law, it was not reserved with the Priest, as though he only might meddle with religion, but it was carried by Saphan to the king, 
16  and the king commanded Hilkiah the priest with others to go to inquire of the Lord for him, and for judah, 
20  to turn away God's wrath. In all which examples mark how godly kings have had a very watchful regard always, to give commandments and make laws, to take away superstition, or negligence in coming to God's service, and to further the true worship of God. To these I might add a cloud of witnesses out of Ecclesiastical histories, but in a matter so plain I trust I need not produce the particular examples of Emperors and Kings, as well elsewhere as in our own land and country this realm of England, who have made sundry laws, given sundry commandments, unto ecclesiastical persons in matters of religion, whereby they have declared, that if not their only, yet their especial care was, that God might be religiously served, not of themselves only, but of their people also. Now therefore it remaineth, that our godly Magistrates make profit of these good examples, not only by learning what they may, but in knowing what they must do. For as saint Augustine very well and profitably noteth, 
Epist. ad Bonifacium 50.  the kings that amongst God's people did not forbid and overthrow whatsoever was contrary to god's precept, are reproved, & they that did forbid such things, are praised. Yea, that ancient father there commendeth to us the examples of the kings of Ninive, who compelled the whole city for to appease God's wrath: 
jon. 3. Dan. 6.  And Darius, who commanded the Idol to be broken, and daniel's enemies to be cast unto the lions: and of Nabuchadnezzar, who by a fearful law prohibited the blaspheming of the true God. 
Dan. 3.  Out of all which we may learn, not only what the godly Princes did, but even how careful they were to do it: so that it doth seem to have been their continual meditation and study, how they might remove such stumbling blocks as did lie in their people's ways, whereby they might be hindered from serving the Lord sincerely. For they knew it to be true, that Saint Augustine saith, that the happiness of kings doth not consist in their long reign, 
De civit. Dei ib. 5. cap. 24  or succession of their children, in vanquishing their enemies, or subduing their rebellious subjects, but if they govern righteously, if they make their power serve to the furtherance of God's service, if they be slow to revenge and ready to forgive, but so as their revenge be for the necessary ruling and defending of the common wealth, and if their clemency be not to have sin unpunished, but the sinner reform. Continue therefore (O gracious Sovereign) that godly race which hitherto you have most happily run, for the maintenance of God's truth, and never be weary of well doing, but still as need requireth, let precept be after precept, statute upon statute, commandment upon commandment, law after law, so long as Idolatry and superstition is not sufficiently abolished, so long as popish heresies are so readily embraced, so long as so many ignorant men and foolish women, without regard of duty to God or man, without any show of reason, yea without due care of their own souls, under pretence of conscience, do against all conscience.  
For with what conscience (I pray) may they prefer a foreign power, before the government of their natural Prince, or make the supremacy of the Pope a necessary article of faith, which was never taught by Christ, his Apostles or the primitive Church: nay never thought upon, until the Bishop of Rome came to his excess of pride of late years? Or by what colour of conscience can they despise God's word, contemn his Sacramente●, and separate themselves so wilfully from that body that dareth not receive any thing but that they are sure that Christ hath taught? Until such time I say, as such as profess the name of christianity within your dominions, may in external show be compelled to come unto Christ, or at the least, not to dare openly to deny him and his truth, godly Magistrates ought still to make their laws more perfect, that they may have a remedy for every inconvenience.  
And these laws should be so strong, that they might hold as well the mightiest as the meanest, and not like the spider's cobweb, which can take only the small, or weak flies, but can do nothing to hold the strong ones. And that is it that Saint Augustine doth mean, when he saith, 
Epist. 50.  that Laws should be made with convenient strength: For, if Popery and Idolatry be evil in one, it is not tolerable in any. And if some may without danger of punishment break laws, or have exemptions to transgress the same, it much emboldeneth other to do the like. And how in policy wise men can judge it to be convenient I know not, but in christianity I can not see how it may be tolerable, that in a land, where the light of the Gospel shineth, Popery may be any thing tolerated to any without any punishment: For it is as evil as the Idolatry, which the godly kings of judah did so bend themselves to destroy, and for the destroying whereof they are commended. As for the exemptions which many of our Recusants have from the penalty of the law, I doubt not, but hoping of doing good, and of winning by fair means will be the colour for the same. But I do see none more obstinate, or of whom there is less hope, than such persons as have found such favour. Neither are these disobedient persons at any time so ready to conform themselves to dutiful obedience, as when they fear some execution of laws against them. Which thing, because it is so manifest that none can but see it, it maketh many to think, that such immunities are procured often upon other considerations, than hope of winning them unto Christ. Yea some sue for them sometimes, that perchance hope to win something to themselves thereby. But of compelling by fear, such to come unto God, as for love will not, and of inflicting punishment, where meekness and lenity prevail not, I am now to entreat: for this is the second point, wherein Magistrates must serve the Lord. And although I do not like of extremity or rigour: yet so long as we see remissness to be hurtful to the church and common wealth, that which saint Augustine calleth a religious severity would be used: that is, magistrates ought to take that way, not that best pleaseth their own humour, but that serveth best for reducing offenders to the service of God. If therefore lenity be abused, and breed licentious liberty, so that they who were evil, grow worse thereby: then lenity ceaseth to be a christian virtue, and is nothing else but that foolish pity that marreth the whole city. In these north countries, we have too good experience hereof. For, meekness some call it, but I take it to be an excessive want either of care or courage in the lords cause, hath brought these countries to that pass, that the sins of the country, as murder, whoredom, thefts, and spoiling do abound more than ever they did for many years. As for recusants, not men only and women, but even in sundry places the children also, either may not, or will not come at the church. And that more is, and to be wondered at, there are that dare reprove them that will perform that duty. And yet the church of Rome hath not much to brag of this their plentiful harvest, as in many of their books they do: for it is full of filthy weeds. For even the better sort of them rest upon I know not what name of conscience, without any reason of their religion, or ground of their faith. And they being deceived through their ignorance, do fall into the pit which false teachers, as ignorant almost as themselves, have made to catch them in. And though amongst them that do profess religion, there are too many that do know too little: yet for them to seem to have a better persuasion in religion than the common sort, who have scarce so much knowledge as the common sort hath to ground their religion upon, is a great scorn. Yea, many there are whose conscience (as it is thought) will serve them, some to take their neighbour's horse, cow, ox, or sheep by stealth, some to bear with, and wink at such as do such things, and yet their conscience will not suffer them to come to the church. Others have conscience, that will suffer them to live in continual whoredom, and to lead a most filthy life, even almost in the sight of the sun, but to show themselves dutiful to God and man, it will not suffer them. Seeing therefore that as in a sore, if the surgeon forbear to search it to the quick, it doth but corrupt and putrefy: so in this our malady, nothing hath so much increased the same as too much lenity: there is now no other way to mend that is amiss, but by some due punishments to beat down the pride of the obstinate, and to restrain their insolency. I mean not, that life or limb of any should be touched for religion only (unless perchance the word of God expressly do command it) for as mildness hath been a precious ornament to her majesties person, So I am well assured that it hath been as a strong pillar to uphold her estate. 
Prou. 20.28.  For mercy and truth preserve the king, and his throne shallbe established with mercy: yet would I have many pitied rather than one: That is, that one or some few should rather be punished, than whole multitudes by too much gentleness should be emboldened to follow that which is evil. Neither are the punishments for religion by our law of such quality as that there is just cause to complain of the rigour of the same: although the papists that they may seem to have a great number of martyrs and confessors, with many a loud lie, cry out against the cruelty that is used amongst us. Restraint of liberty only, would not in the late time of persecution in Queen Mary's days, have been thought cruelty, when most sharp and uncomfortable imprisonments, and in the end cruel death, was thought too little for them that could not be charged with any thing, but only dissenting in religion from the Church of Rome. The payment of a little money, would then have been thought an easy redemption for the liberty of conscience: and these are the most grievous punishments, that our law in such case hath set down. And that these chastisements should now with some severity be executed, it is high time: when as so many upon a mere will, or to please some other, will not stick to revolt from that holy profession, which once they followed. Yea, it seemeth unto me a necessary policy, that that penal statute against recusants should more severely be executed: not only to have the greater treasure in store, for the necessary defence of the realm: but also to withdraw from hollow hearted subjects, that wherewith they do either unmeasurably enrich and furnish themselves against that evil day which so long they have looked for, or in the mean time relieve bad persons to be trumpets of rebellion. For howsoever those lying spirits blow it abroad, that catholics' (for so they falsely term them) are in most cruel manner persecuted in England for religion: yet it is most certain, that there are an infinite number of known and stubborn recusants among us, that feel no smart at all. Which thing also I would wish that by some means they might be made publicly to confess, thereby to confute and confound the shameless slanders of their lying masters. And such as are imprisoned can not justly complain of want of any thing necessary, unless it be liberty. They are not forced to lie upon the ground, or to sit uneasily in the stocks, They are not loaden with bolts and fetters, or any other way cruelly handled, as many good men were in the days of our late persecution. No, no, we willingly leave those cruel torments to the bloody papists, to that purple Harlot that sitteth at Rome: who is even drunken with the blood of the saints, and hath a delight to torment and make havoc of the people of God. 
Lib. 2.  To such as Dinothus in his story of the wars of France speaketh of: For he reporteth that when the papists, that savage generation, had won Aurasia, they spared no sex, no age, no estate, no not sucking babes: they devised new & those cruel torments (for to kill only cannot suffice that catholic humour.) And toward women when they were dead, they passed the limits I will not say of christianity, or of human modesty, but they showed themselves more beastly than beasts. And that they might the rather be encouraged impudently to commit all these excesses, they had a fit watchword for their purpose which did both show their meaning and with what spirit they were guided, which was this: I curse god thrice. O catholic watch word! It seemeth they were at defiance not with good men only, but with God also. Of like beastly cruelty also, and shameless despiting of the dead bodies the same author writeth in the very latter end of that his second book: even such as any man excepting Romish catholics' would be ashamed to commit. But the more shameless in cruelty that they are, the more like themselves. For if we will believe even their own stories, we shall find that they always made little account of that which is precious in God's sight. Such cruelty. I say, beseemeth that popish crew, but we hate and detest the same. We are content if they be not dangerous to the state, that they live at ease and in liberty also, so long as it confirmeth not themselves in their error, nor withdraweth other from the tru● worship of God. Yea, there are who for religion being imprisoned, have enriched themselves, and increased their revenues. We only seek to reform them, not to torment them, and to lay upon them gentle chastisements to amend them, not cruel punishments to destroy them. But yet, as I said before of laws, that they would be made for a restraint for all sorts of men and women, so the punishment would be inflicted upon all in like sort, that offend in like manner. And although I will not take upon me to define, whether princes may bear with recusants or not, because they are enemies to God, namely, such as despise wilfully God's word, and contemn his Sacraments: yet I may be bold to affirm, that the magistrates who will suffer unpunished, the breaking of the first table of the commandments, do show therein no great zeal to their high Lord and master.  
And here would I wish this one point to be considered upon, whether it be not very convenient and necessary, that whereas God by his law expressly hath set down that Idolaters should be stoned to death, 
Deut. 17.2, 3 4, 5, 7.  whether (I say) the papists, whose service and ceremonies, are almost nothing else but Idolatry and superstition, should be judged according to that law, concerning that point of their religion, wherein they defend and practise the worshipping of Images, and praying to those that are no Gods. Hereby two commodities I doubt not would ensue: First that the papists should be known to be as they are, Idolaters and worshippers of false gods: which sin if the people did know that they were subject unto, they would never be so deceived by them. Secondly, thereby many would be afraid to call upon stocks and stones, as now they do. For to defile the land with their manifest idolatries, why should not we account it a sin worthy of death, seeing it is a breach of that commandment, which especially concerneth the honour of God. Which how fervently and sincerely we should maintain, we may among many other notable precedents, learn of the children of Israel, who with full consent, 
Josh. 22,  did gather themselves to fight against the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, because they had thought that an altar (which they built for a memorial, and witness, that the tribes beyond jordan, worshipped the self same God, and professed the same Religion that the other did) they thought (I say) it had been built, to offer sacrifices upon, and so to dishonour God. Which thing rather than they would suffer unrevenged, they would venture their lives. So zealous they were, and we should be, of God's honour. For even to that end were we created, and that duty we must as loving and obedient children, zealously perform to our heavenly father. Yea, seeing they account us as heretics, in whose doctrine neither they, neither yet their fathers, could ever, or yet can, prove by the word of God, the least suspicion of heresy: to the end that themselves may be known what they are, that thus dare slander the professors of the truth without just cause. Why should not they whose doctrine and doings being examined by Gods written word, do plainly prove themselves to be idolaters, why should not they (I say) be called idolaters, as in truth they are. Well, seeing it is before plainly proved, that godly princes did make laws, to restrain and reform the sins of the people yea, and that in matters of Religion, and have as it were watched all opportunities, to serve the Lord in such sort (and this I take to be that serving of the time, 
Rom. 12.11.  whereunto the Apostle exhorteth, for so many do read it) I trust it cannot be denied, but that it belongeth unto the duty of Christian magistrates to do the like. And if they may make laws, may they not also punish the breakers of the same? I have before showed, that it is necessary (if we consider our estate) that they should. And that it is their part so to do, it cannot be denied. 
Rom. 13.4.  For He is the minister of God to take vengeance of them that do evil. And what Nehemiah did herein is worthy to be remembered: whose authority was not very great, being but as it were a captain, yet did he not only make decrees, as of other matters, so also concerning the breach of the Sabbath day, 
Nehe. 10.17  (a sin too common in England, and too lightly accounted of) but also did execute the same, 
20 21  yea, and threatened to lay hands upon them that were cause of it, if they made that fault again. Yea, did not Asa command them upon pain of death to turn from their Idols and false gods, 
●. Chr. 15.23  making this covenant, nay, taking this oath of all judah and Benjamin, that Whosoever will not seek the Lord God of Israel, shall be slain whether he be small or great, man or woman. Mark, there is in this no respect of kind, or kindred: yea he suffered not his own grandmother to be regent, neither thought her worthy to be a governor, Because she had made an Idol in a grove: and he broke down her Idol, and stamped it, and burned it at the brook of Kidron. Christian princes and Magistrates should always set such examples before their eyes, comparing that which they did, and God's spirit commendeth in them, with that which they do, to provoke themselves thereby in godly zeal to serve the Lord. Now therefore seeing I have endeavoured (as God hath enabled me) to stir up all christian magistrates, more watchfully to regard, and more speedily to redress, than of late especially hath been done, the state of religion, grown I know not by what negligence, almost into contempt amongst many: I would wish that a chief care should be taken (among many other, to avoid two very dangerous conceits, which are as Scylla, and Charybdis: 
1. Tim. 1.19.  at one of the which it is an easy matter for all them to make shipwreck of faith, 
Rom. 1.18.  that strive not to hold fast a good conscience, but withhold the truth in unrighteousness. The one is popery, the other is Atheism. Of papists, and recusants I have said already somewhat. They are too many, and upon every small occasion of hope of their bloody day, very bold (whereby we may consider what subjects they are.) They are dangerous snakes to carry in our bosom. If inquiry should be made how many have been presented, that were never called before authority, and how many called, that have been sent home again, as free as before they came to the magistrate, and yet as bad also as ever they were, I suppose they will be found many. And for them that are imprisoned, it is many times more for the gain of their keepers, than the reformation of themselves. So that they are almost in no place, more free to do, or say what they will, than in their prisons, whereby they corrupt many. This fault I trust, is not general, but in some places it is so. Well, of them I will only say thus much, that they are in such sort dealt withal, as themselves are much confirmed in popish heresies, they that bear good will to the truth, much discouraged, and hearty and sincere obedience, not to the gospel only but to her Majesty also is much hindered. 
Atheists.  As for that godless and graceless sort, who dare say not in their heart only, but even with their mouths also, not privately, but also in their meetings and assemblies, to their perpetual shame, that there is no God: although they be nothing so dangerous, as are the Papists, who deceive under a colour of religion (and therefore more craftily) such as have not a love to the truth: yet are they of all other creatures most to be detested as being more unthankful than the beasts themselves, and to be counted more vile than the dung of the earth, which we tread under our feet: seeing they are so injurious to that good God, that hath made them such excellent creatures, and do so by their impiety blemish and defile the excellency of their creation. 
Psal. 145.15.  For, if The eyes of all do wait upon God, who giveth them meat in due season. Of all I say, even the beasts, and not men only, then do they after their manner confess that there is a God that feedeth them, 
Psal. 147.9.  as he doth also, The beasts and young Ravens that cry. And in that all things keep their course, whereunto God appointed them, it argueth that they yield a sovereignty to that divine power, that hath created and appointed them to that end. And shall any man endued with reason, nay such as call themselves Christians, and some of them perchance such as have received of God's hand, more abundant graces than many other: shall such I say, as have so many causes to know and confess him, dare set themselves against him that made them, and deny his power? 
Act. 17.28.  In him they live, and move, and have their being, and will they not confess him? The creation, the preservation, and the administration which he useth over all things, doth prove him to be God. Yea which way can we turn our eyes, but that we must behold his power? 
Psal. 19.1.  The heavens declare the glory of God. And the earth also is full of his greatness. They that go down into the sea in ships, 
Psal. 107.23.24.  and occupy by great waters, They see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep. In the Scriptures what have we but the goodness of God, the might of God, the wisdom of God, the justice of God? To show that we cannot be without him, and from him we cannot hide ourselves. Much less shall that wicked crew stand before him, but that his hand shall find them out. And although that accursed company will (no doubt) deny the Scriptures, and count them but as fabulous, yet God's acts and deeds therein contained, as also the story of all times doth sufficiently testify unto the world, that God is wise, mighty, good, and just. The very heathen men therefore, found him out by his works, and could not but confess that there must be a God: although not seeking to know him by his word, they became vain in their imaginations, and conceits of this God: But that there is a God, they did all see it. Shall the Scriptures bear witness, and his works testify of him, yea shall the very heathens find arguments enough to convince them, and make them confess him, and shall such as are borne and brought up amongst Christians, be as blind as beetles in so clear light, and so bring a stain to their profession, their country, their blood? God forbidden that in any christian common wealth there should be any found so wicked and witless, as once to think so irreligiously. But to speak it, and that not in secret, but in the hearing of others, or to defend it as an opinion that they would have to be believed, is so detestable a sin before God, as if it be suffered will be the utter ruin of this land. Take away the assured persuasion of God, out of the hearts of the people, and how shall obedience be performed to Magistrates, honour to parents, service to masters, or duty to all superiors for the lords sake? Let their profane opinion prevail, and neither shall the godly have any encouragement to serve in fear, neither the wicked any bridle to restrain them from evil. These corruptions therefore of a common wealth, these enemies to all honest and Christian life, ought not to be suffered to live amongst men, much less to enjoy any estimation or credit by christian Magistrates. Neither can this persuasion once enter into the heart of any, unless they be such, as because they would live dissolutely in all lust and pleasure, as the prophet Amos saith, 
Amos. 6.3. Soph. 1.7. joel. 2.11.  Do put far away the evil day, even that day of the Lord whereof Sophony speaketh, and of which day the prophet joel saith, The day of the Lord is great and very terrible, and who can abide it? And therefore that they might sin without all fear of God, they would feign persuade themselves that there is no God. Or else such as being drunken in their prosperity, and advanced perchance far above their worth, do think as did the wicked men of whom Malachy speaketh, 
Mal. 2.17.  that if there were a God of justice, it could not be so well with them, and so in their excess of pride they deny God & say who is Lord? And although I trust that none amongst us, are come to the depth of that impiety: yet because it is too true, that many will have such profane talk, and delight too much therein, & that some of them such as seem not little in their own eyes: if sharp punishments be not inflicted, for such irreligious and wicked speeches, themselves will more & more be hardened in their evil, and others more encouraged to like of their ungodliness. Therefore these biles & sores of a common wealth, are of all christians to be shunned as unworthy to live among God's people, & of all godly magistrates, such are to be restrained, not by laws only, but by the sharpest punishments. And if magistrates would not do their duty therein (which God forbidden) yet let all true christians take heed they touch no such pitch, 
Eccle. 13.1. 1. Cor. 15.33. jud. 52.  lest they be defiled with it, nor give ear to such talk, lest it corrupt their good manners. Yea let them put away such spots from their feasts, for the company is the worse that they are in, what account so ever they make of themselves. Withal diligence therefore, inquiry would be made for detecting, and straight order taken for the punishing of such: For as all sins procure God's wrath, especially if they be borne withal, and God in his wrath sendeth his plagues: so especially such great blasphemies as this, as hath with it a manifest contempt of God and his word, bringeth for the most part a general destruction. 
Prou. 8.15.  If Princes therefore be God's lieutenants, and supply his room, as indeed they do, if by him they bear rule as Solomon affirmeth, it is their duty to watch all opportunities, to reform if it may be, or else to root out their masters enemies, and to employ their whole power in defence of his glory, who setteth them in honour, establisheth their authority, subdueth unto them their subjects, giveth peace in their land, when need is if it seem good to him, vanquisheth their enemies, to be short, without whom they have no power. Let it never be said, that in a land wherein the gospel is so constantly and zealously professed, and by so many godly laws established, it shall be lawful for some seduced, but very self-willed folks, such as recusantes are for the most part, to reject it without all fear of punishment, or for a profane crew, such are these Atheists, to blaspheme God without controlment. If we love the truth, let us with courage set ourselves against the enemies thereof. If we fear God truly, let us also fear to be partakers of their sins that will not acknowledge him. But private persons that allow, or do not reprove, Magistrates that do not reform such sins, are partakers thereof. Rouse up yourselves therefore (O Christian magistrates) be zealous in his cause, that is so loving to you. Be faithful unto him, that never deceived any that trusted in him. Beat down sin, maintain the truth, cherish the godly, against all popish heretics, against all profane Atheists, that such as do evil may fear, and know that Magistrates bear not the sword for nought. 
Rom. 13.4.  Think it to be the best policy to serve the Lord sincerely: For so Moses teacheth the Israelites (but his lesson is not of many politics well learned) Keep therefore (saith he) and do them, for that is your wisdom: And that it is no wisdom to be cold or careless in God's cause, 
Deut. 4.6.  for it procureth his wrath, for Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently. Yea and when God will have his judgements sharply executed, 
jerem. 48.10.  Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood. And as those are accursed, that do not execute those sharp judgements of God, against his enemies: so shall not they be free from wrath, that are too remiss in inflicting of gentler punishments when occasion requireth. Serve the Lord therefore, and he will save you. Defend his cause, and he will defend you. Rest not upon your own strength or policy: do his will faithfully, and he will not fail you. So shall you bring safety and quietness to yourselves, and God's blessing upon your people. Whereas on the contrary if such despisers of God and his truth, be not in some reasonable sort bridled and reform, God is by such want of zeal provoked, the offenders by such remissness are encouraged in their evil, and many not evil persons are much discouraged, from their dutiful obedience to God and man. The Lord therefore open the eyes of our christian Magistrates, and give them wisdom, that they may see and wisely consider, of these things. The Lord I say, by his holy spirit work in their hearts so earnest a zeal to God's truth, that they may, as in duty they ought, seek sincerely to maintain the same, and to grow not in knowledge only and outward profession, 
Psal. 78. 7●.  but in practice also and holy conversation. That as David did feed the people, according to the simplicity of his heart, and guide them, by the discretion of his hands: so they may walk every one in their place and calling, uprightly, and with a sincere heart before the Lord, to guide their people in the good ways, & to bring them to the wholesome pastures, that they and we their subjects may with one heart serve Christ our Lord here, and reign with him elsewhere: to whom with the father and the holy ghost be all honour and glory now and for ever.   
FINIS.