The Buckler of the Faith

OF THE BOOKES CALLED APOCRYPHA.

Of the testimony which the Church giveth of the Canonical books.

What the belief of the ancient Church was touching these Canonical books. And whether the Church is the infallible Judge of the sense of the Scriptures.

Of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and whether the Church of Rome is an infallible interpreter, and whether it belongs to every particular person to interpret the Scriptures.

Whether the Church may err: and whether the church of Rome hath erred.

[Section. 10] All this abuse is grounded upon this supposition, that the Church cannot err: that is, that the Church being assembled to decide matters of faith, cannot err. A proposition, which being well weighed and considered, will be found to be rash, without reason and apparence, and by experience contradicted.

For if by the Church, our adversaries understand the Church of the elect predestinated to salvation, which S. Peter in his first Epistle, cap. 2. calleth a chosen generation, and with the Apostle to the Hebrews, cap. 12. calleth, The assembly and congregation of the first borne which are written in heaven: It is a great absurdity to ask, if that Church assembled to judge the differences of religion may err: seeing that it never assembleth to decide any point of faith.

If by the word Church, they understand the universal visible Church, which is, the assembly of all those that make profession to be Christians, it is no less absurd, to ask if that Church assembled to judge the points of faith can err: for that now it is impossible for the same to be assembled: for it is composed of different parts, that is, of the Greek, the Roman, the Syrian, and the African Churches, &c. which are particular Churches, separated from communion. For who shall assemble them? who shall set them at agreement? who shall be arbitrator of their discord? who shall be president in that assembly? seeing that everyone of them attributeth unto herself the perfections & testimonies which God giveth to his Church in his word.

But if by the word Church, our adversaries understand a particular Church, as that of Rome, of Antioch, or of Constantinople, they themselves confess, that every particular Church may err: and say that the Church of Jerusalem founded by Jesus Christ, and that of Antioch founded by Peter erred.

The holy History witnesseth, that the Church of Israel, which under the Old Testament was the only Church in the world, oftentimes erred. It was idolatrous in Egypt, Ezech. 20.7.8. The people in the desert worshipped the golden Calf, to the which also Aaron the high Priest erected an altar, and proclaimed a solemn feast unto it, Exod. 32. Uriah the high Priest erected a pagan altar in the Temple of God, 2. Kings 16. In the fifteenth Chapter of the second of Chronicles it is said, Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law. Which cannot be understood of the ten Tribes that revolted from the covenant of God, for that a little after he addeth, that they turned again unto God, but those ten Tribes never turned. Jeremiah in cap. 2.27.28. reproacheth the Church of Judah, that it had had as many gods as towns; & that the Kings, Priests, and Prophets, said unto the woods, Thou art my father, which is the language of idolaters. He maketh the like complaints, cap. 5.31. and cap. 6.14. and Isaiah cap. 56. saith, His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant, they cannot bark. It is hard to maintain that the high Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, that held Moses chair, and the ordinary succession did not err in the faith, when being assembled they decreed, that whosoever did confess Jesus to be Christ, should be cast out of the Synagogue John 9.12. which is one of the causes (among many others) for the which Jesus Christ warneth his disciples to beware of the leaven of the doctrine of the Pharisees, in the sixteenth of S. Matthew: whose instructions Jesus Christ would have the Jews wholly to observe when they preached in Moses chair, but not when they preached against Moses, and against the Law. For that is not a succession, but an overthrowing of the chair and the doctrine. Among the which Caiaphas the high Priest & head of that succession, judged that Jesus Christ was a blasphemer and worthy of death, Math. 26. Then when the said prelate in the eleventh of S. John, prophesied that one man was to die for the whole nation, he did not prophesy, because the infallible truth was fixed to his chair, but God inspired him extraordinarily, to the end that that prophesy whereby the price and the virtue of the death of Jesus Christ is declared, might be of more weight and authority among the Jews, in regard of the quality of the person.

Then, if the Church which was the only Church in the world, and the Pastors that only held the chair erred, is it credible, that the Church being divided into contrary Churches, in chairs separated from communion, one particular Church may or can presume, not to err, and to subject all others to her will? without producing her privileges? and contrary to the experience of so many ages? and the judgment of all antiquity?

The sixth Council held in Constantinople in the thirtenth Canon condemneth the Church of Rome by name, because she rejected married Priests; and in the five & fiftieth Canon because she fasted on the Saturday. Then those fathers believed that the Church of Rome could err. The Greek and the Roman Churches joined together in the second Council of Nice: did they not err, when in that Council they decreed, (upon pain of cursing and excommunication,) that images ought to be adored, and that they are of as much estimation as the Gospel, and that the image is better then the word, where in the tradition it is said: Major est imago quàm oratio?

And after the death of Pope Formosus, so many times unburied by his successors, and drawn about the town, and after laid honourably in the grave again; how many contrary Councils (wherein the Popes were presidents) were there, that allowed and disallowed the decrees and ordinances of precedent Councils? And you must note, that then there was a question about a point of doctrine, which was, whether the Pope may dispence with an oath made to God, and whether he ought to be held to be lawful Pope, that hath received the Papacie contrary to the oath which he had made never to take it on him.

Did not the Church of Rome err in the Council of Rome holden under Gregory the seventh, anno 1076. where it was declared and defined, that there was no other name under the heavens but that of the Pope? and that no book is canonical without his authority, and that all kings ought to kiss his feet?

Did not the Council of Rome err in the Council of Latran, under Innocent the third, where power is given to the Pope, to dispossess and drive Princes that are excommunicate out of their lands and Signiories? cap. 3.

Or in the Council of Constance holden anno 1414, where she declared, that we must neither observe faith nor promise with heretics, and that it is lawful to put them to death after safe conduct is given them? And that to have the people to receive the Sacrament under both kinds, following the example of Jesus Christ and the ancient Church, is rashness, and an heresy punishable by the secular power?

Or in the Council of Florence, holden anno 1440: where it is decreed that the Pope may add to the Creed?

Or in the last Council of Latran, where the holy Scriptures were laid at the Popes feet, and he called a king most like unto God? where also it is said, that all people ought to adore him: that he hath all power both in heaven and earth, that he is the Lyon of Judah, the Roote of David, the Savior of Zion, and the divine Majesty?

Lastly, shall the Church of Rome continue pure and entire then, when (according to the opinion of our adversaries) Antichrist shall abolish the Mass? or at the time whereof Jesus Christ speaketh, Luke 18. Think you when the Son of man cometh, that he shall find faith on the earth?

To be short, to say that she cannot err, is a language that only belongeth unto God, or to him that maketh himself to be God, whom Saint Paul calleth the son of perdition. The Apostles never bragged that they could not err, notwithstanding that the Spirit of God guided them in all truth. Whosoever saith, I cannot fall by ignorance, is partly fallen by pride: whosoever saith I cannot err in the interpretation of the Scriptures, makes himself infallible Judge of that doctrine by the which one day he shall be judged. He that is fallen shall never rise again, as long as he presumeth that he standeth. He will not be subject to any rule as long as he thinketh himself to be the rule: and there is no riches nor dignity whatsoever upon earth, whereunto he will not aspire, seeing that no man may contradict him. By this means the Scripture will be held and esteemed to be of little necessity: for what need I study, if a man that cannot err leadeth me directly unto heaven? If God, to the end that the people should not be seduced, hath given those Prelates the virtue not to err, it is wonder that he did not likewise give them the virtue never to be vicious, seeing that nothing causeth Atheism sooner to breed among the people, then the profane lives of Pastors, whereof being convinced it maketh the doctrine contemptible. The Canon, Si Papa, in the fortieth Distinction, teacheth us that in most express terms, which saith: If the Pope being negligent of his own salvation, and of the salvation of his brethren, unprofitable and slack in his business, and besides that doing no good, in the mean time he leadeth after him, being himself first a bondslave of sin, innumerable multitudes of people into perdition, to be tormented with him by many plagues: no man may presume or dislike of him for the same, because he that ought to judge all men, ought not to be judged by any man, if he be not found to have erred from the faith. This speech certainly is diabolical: and yet he, that to flatter the Pope hath vomited out so many impieties, freely acknowledgeth that the Pope may err from the faith. Whereupon I am, and have often times been abashed, wherefore the Pope that vaunteth that he cannot err in the deciding of doubts, abstaineth (now many years past) from pronouncing any definitive sentence upon the controversy which is in the Church of Rome, about the questions of freewill and predestination: for the which the Iacobins and the Jesuits in Spain are at continual strife. The props wherewith they support this proud doctrine are so weak, that if you blow upon them they are ready to fall. They allege unto us, that it is said in the second chapter of Malachi: For the Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But it is a great abuse to make a promise of that which is a commandment. And those Priests of whom it is here spoken, seduced the people and corrupted the covenant, as it is said in the next verse.

They also allege, that Jesus Christ in the sixteenth of Saint Matthew, promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church: but there he speaks not of any particular Church, nor of Rome, neither yet of the universal visible Church; which although the power of the devil cannot utterly abolish it, yet he often prevaileth against her diverse ways, corrupting some by vices, seducing others by heresies, and dissipating many particular Churches by persecution. The beast shall make war with the Saints, and overcome them, Apoc. 13. The Church flieth before the red Dragon, Apoc. 12. In that passage our Savior speaketh of the elect Church, which cannot be seduced, nor deprived of salvation by the temptations of the devil, as Jesus Christ teacheth in the thirteeenth of Saint Mark, saying: For false Christ's shall arise, and false Prophets, and shall show signs and wonders to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. Where if he speaks of the universal visible Church, his meaning is, that Satan can never abolish it.

But specially our adversaries make show of the 15. verse of the third chapter of the first to Timothy, where the Church is called the house of God, the pillar and ground of truth. The abuse consists herein, that they take that which is but a description of her duty, to be an infallible perfection of the Church. The Apostle thereby teacheth us, that the Church is established in this world to defend and support the truth; but saith not, that it cannot fail in her duty. So false Churches are pillars and grounds of lies, but it followeth not from thence, that they can never turn to the truth. To think or esteem that the truth of God is grounded upon men, is to make man's authority firmer then God's truth. On the contrary, the Apostle to the Ephesians the second chapter, saith, that we are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles: not upon them as they were mortal men, but upon their doctrine which endureth forever. So the ancient Fathers understand it. Chrysostom in the eleventh homily upon the first of Timothy saith, The truth is the pillar and ground of the Church. And Irenaeus in the first chapter of his third book saith, They have left us the Gospel in the Scriptures to be a pillar and the ground of our faith. Our adversaries themselves say it without thinking thereon, as often as they ground the authority of the Church upon this and other such like places, for thereby they silently confess that the authority of the Church is grounded upon the Scriptures: and so (not knowing it,) dispute against themselves. And it is certain, that whosoever groundeth the authority of the Scriptures upon the authority of the Church, bereaveth the Church of the means to ground her authority upon the Scriptures, & never ought to allege the Scripture for a ground of the Church. He that buildeth the walls upon the foundation, supposeth that the foundation is not grounded upon the walls: So if the Church be the foundation of the word of God, it is not grounded upon the word of God. Why then do they ground the authority of the Roman Church vppn this passage?

Now after all this, if it were granted unto them, that the word of God is grounded upon the Church, they have gotten nothing, if they do not also prove that this Church is the Romaine, rather then the Greek or Syrian Churches, which are ancienter then the Roman, and purer, and also boast of the succession of Saint Peter. They also to the same end apply the words of our Lord in the sixteenth of Saint John, verse 13. Howbeit when he is come, which is the Spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth. This promise properly belongeth to the Apostles, whereof they received the full accomplishment upon the day of Pentecost, when the holy Ghost descended upon them, and taught them the truth of the doctrine of salvation. And if this promise should appertain unto the Church, and should be perpetual in all ages, yet by that, the infalliblenesse of the Church is not hereby proved, much less the infalliblenesse of any particular Church.

They also allege the passage of the eighteenth of S. Matthew: If thy brother trespass against thee, tell it unto the Church; and if he refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man or a publican: but this place shall be examined hereafter when M. Arnoux objects it against us.

For the infalliblenesse of the Romish Church they allege, that Jesus Christ said to S. Peter Luke 22.31. Simon Simon, behold Satan hath desired you, to winnow you as wheat but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Mark that two lines after, he foreshoweth to Peter that he should deny him three times. So it appeareth, that by those words Jesus prepareth him against the temptation and promiseth not to forsake him nor to suffer his faith to fail. Which is evident, for that by the word faith, he understandeth not the doctrine, but the trust and confidence in Jesus Christ: and by the word faith, he understandeth not to err in the doctrine, but to fall by weakness. But what makes that for the Romish Church? doth all that is said to S. Peter, or that is said by S. Peter belong to the Pope? as, go behind me Satan, and silver and gold have I none? &c. or when Jesus Christ sent Peter with his companions to preach without scrip, money, or any provision?

The judgment of the ancient Fathers touching the perfection of the holy Scriptures.

Of the authority of the Church, and whether she be the Judge of the Scriptures, and whether M. Arnoux hath reason to call the Scriptures a dumb rule.

Whether the Priests lips do infallibly keep knowledge.

Of the providence of God, and how God conducteth the actions of the wicked, without being author of sin, or participating with their vices.

[Section. 21] Three maxims or general rules serve for the ground of this matter. The first is, that all things are governed and conducted by the providence of God. As Saint Paul saith, Ephes. 1.11. That God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. The second is, that God is soueraignly just, and is not the author of sin, neither inciteth man to do evil: as it is said in the 45. Psalm, and 7. verse: Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness.

The third is, that man is the cause of his own destruction, and that he sinneth by his own will: as God saith by the Prophet, Hosea 13.9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help. Even as in the generation of creatures celestial causes work with the inferior, and if any imperfection happeneth, as when a monster is engendered, that imperfection is never imputed to the celestial, but to the inferior causes, and to the evil or bad disposition of the matter. So in voluntary actions, although God moveth and sustaineth them, nevertheless if any default happeneth, it ought to be imputed to the will of man, and not to God. Whosoever receiveth not these three maxims, defendeth the reprobates cause, casteth the cause of their destruction upon God, and will teach God to be just, or bind him to yield an accompt of his actions.

But the holy Scripture oftentimes useth diverse manner of speeches, from whence profane men take occasion to make God author of their sin, as if God had thrust them into it, or as if necessity to sin, had been imposed upon them by the will of God, which man cannot withstand. For example the children of Jacob by a wicked conspiracy, sold their brother Joseph to be carried into Egypt, whereof behold what Joseph saith, Gen. 45.7. God sent me before you, to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. Whereby it appeareth, that the selling of Joseph was done by God's providence. And in the first of Sam. 2.25. it is said, That the children of Eli hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them. And in the 25. chapter of the 1. of kings, 10. verse: A wicked spirit came before the Lord, and offered to make the Prophets lie, to whom God said, thou shalt persuade them, and prevail also, go forth and do so. In the second of Samuel chapter 16. Semei curseth David with execrable speeches, whereupon David said, So let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, curse David. And in the 12. chapter of the same book, God intending to punish the murder and adultery committed by David, said, that he would raise up evil against him in his own house, (that is, the rebellion of his own son,) and that he would take his wives before his eyes; and after addeth, For thou didst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel. So God suffered the devil to afflict Job, and the Chaldeans to rob him of all his goods: and all that history is recited to have been done by the providence of God; and therefore Job said, God giveth it, God taketh it, blessed be the name of the Lord. Jeremiah in his Lamentations 3.37. speaketh thus of the desolation of the Jews by the Babylonians: Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most highest, preceedeth not evil and good? Saint Peter in Acts 4.28, speaking of the conspiracy of the Jews, of Herod, and of Pontius Pilate, against Jesus Christ, saith, they gathered themselves together to do those things which the hand and counsel of God had determined before to be done. Thereby showing, that all the evils committed against Jesus Christ, were not done without the counsel of God. The Apostle Saint Paul in the first to the Romans, speaking of profane men and infidels, saith, that God gave them up to their hearts lusts, to uncleanness, to vile affections, to a reprobate mind, to do those things that are not convenient. And God declareth, Exod. 10. and Romans 9. That he hardened Pharaoh's heart. God's words to the Prophet Isaiah in the 6. chapter verse. 10, are fearful, saying, Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed. Words, which being wrung and wrested by some profane man, might give him occasion to make God the cause of his infidelity.

But lest that any man on the one side should abuse these places of Scripture, to brand the justice of God, or to make him author of sin, or ro excuse libertines and profane persons, as if God had constrained them to do evil; and lest that on the other side we should derogate anything from the providence of God, esteeming that the wickedness which man committeth happeneth without his providence, Divines produce and set down certain doctrines and distinctions, which are reduced into the sixteen propositions hereafter following.

1 The holy Scripture speaketh unto us of two sorts or kinds of the will of God, the one the commandment of God, the other, the decree of his providence. The first is the rule of his righteousness which is manifested unto us, the second is the decree of his secret counsel. The first ruleth and governeth our thoughts, words, and works: the second disposeth and ordereth the events of all things which happen and are done in the world. We are bound only to obey the will of God, which is his Law, without enquiring or making question of his secret decrees, and the determinations of his providence, Deut. 29.29. The son that prayeth unto God for the health and recovery of his father that is sick, doth a work acceptable unto God, and according to his commandments, although his prayer be conrrary to God's decree, and his counsel, whereby he hath decreed that his father shall die of that disease. The wicked are not excusable in the execution of wickedness or evil for having served God's secret decree, which the devils also execute. For we shall not be judged according to that whereby we have served God in his secret decree, but according to the measure whereby we have obeyed God's commandments.

2 To speak properly, the decree of God only, which is a determination of his providence, is the will of God. Touching his commandments, they are rather a rule of righteousness, and a declaration of that which God approveth, and which man is bound unto, then a will decreed or determined.

3 When we say, that the decrees of the counsel of God are hidden from us, we must except those which God hath made manifest unto us by the execution and accomplishment thereof, and those that are declared unto us in the word of God, although they are not yet fulfilled: as the decrees of the counsel of God, touching the destruction of Antichrist, and of the resurrection and the judgment to come.

4 There are two kinds or sorts of evil, the one is the evil of the fault, the other the evil of punishment. The first evil proceedeth from man, the second cometh from God, that punisheth the sins of men: nevertheless the evil of the fault sometimes serves for the evil of punishment; when God in his wrath, withdraweth his grace and assistance from a man, because he abuseth it by ingratitude. And then that brydle and restraint being broken, men give themselves over to vices, which draw them into destruction. Then the evil of fault which serveth for a pain or punishment, proceedeth not from God, as it is the evil of fault, or as it is sin, but God only maketh it serve for a punishment.

5 God permitteth or suffereth sin. For if God would let or hinder man from sinning, he is powerful enough to do it. As Saint Paul Rom. 9.19 saith, Who is he that can resist his will? This permission is not a forcible, but a voluntary permission: no man hath constrained him to suffer sin to enter into the world. Therefore then he hath of himself permitted evil. God will have nothing but that which is good. Therefore it was good that God permitted evil, for those reasons which he knoweth better then we do. So then that which we perceive thereby is, that by that means God is much more glorified: for if there were no sin committed in the world, we should not know God's justice in punishing of sin, nor his mercy in pardoning of sin, nor his infinite love in the mystery of the incarnation of his Son have been revealed. Not that God hath any need of the sins of men to maintain his glory, and his beatitude; but I say, that God having determined to make man perfectly happy, by this permission of sin, the way to lead a man to this perfection is opened. For if man had not known what sin and wickedness is, he could never have attained to a perfect knowledge of the goodness and justice of God. The final end for the which all things are made, is, that God might be glorified: and withal the Scripture teaching us, that God punisheth one sin by other sins. If God only permitted this punishment contrary to his will, it should not be a punishment of a Judge, who never punisheth by permitting the culpable to be punished, but by commanding. Look, touching this punishing of one sin by another sin, in Saint Augustine lib. 5. cap. 3. against Julian.

6 There is none but God, that permitting evil can turn it into good: but men ought not to suffer or permit sin, nor to do it, upon hope that good may come thereof. The Pope that permitteth the stews in Rome, to shun and prevent Sodomitical sin, as they say that seek to excuse him, doth not remedy that evil; for Sodomitical sin ceaseth not still to be committed there. Add hereunto, that the actions of God, are not the rules of our life, but his commandments.

7 The permission whereby God permitteth the wicked to sin, is not a vain or idle permission, but such as bridleth the wicked, to the end that they should not pass the limits of the providence of God, or to do hurt unto those whom God will bless and preserve. For although the will of man be corrupted, yet God hath not lost his power, whereby he conducteth all things, and keepeth men's wills in subjection, even those that resist his known will, which is his commandment.

8 There are two faculties in the soul of man, that is, the understanding and the will; the one, whereby man knoweth; the other, whereby he moveth; the one, whereby we are wise or ignorant; the other whereby we are good or evil: That which is in the understanding, is to affirm or deny; that in the will, is to desire or shun. God never puts evil desires into the will of man, nor inciteth him to do evil, but sometimes in his wrath blindeth his understanding. For as a master doth well to put out his scholars candle, when he seeth that he employeth the night in lewdness, or to read wicked books: so God taketh away the light of his knowledge from those that abuse it by ingratitude. As Saint John, 12.40, saith. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, &c. Now as it may happen to that scholar being without light, to stumble and to hurt himself, unless his master guide him: so after God hath blinded the understanding of any man, he falleth into vices and addicteth his mind unto evil, unless God guideth him. So we must understand that which God saith in the Psal. 81.12. I gave them up unto their own hearts lusts, and they walked in their counsels. Look Acts. 14.16. and Rom. 1.25.26. It may also be said, that God hardeneth the hearts of the wicked, in setting before them means proper and wholesome for salvation, as his word and his sacraments; and not giving them grace and virtue, to serve him as they should, whereby it happeneth, that of themselves they wax worse, God by that means punishing their peruersitie. This hardening of the heart, which followeth by accident of the blinding of the understanding, is the reason whereby the Scripture saith that God hardeneth the heart of the wicked. And yet to show that the ground of this hardening proceedeth from man, the Scripture doth not only say, that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but also that Pharaoh hardened or exasperated his own heart, Exod. 8.15. But there are two kinds of those whom God hardeneth, as also there are two kinds of hardening. For besides that hardening which is common to all reprobates that have abused the knowledge of God, there are some men wickeder then others, whom God delivered to Satan by a particular judgment, and an extraordinary manner, as Pharaoh, Saul, and Judas.

9 Even as the Sun is not the cause of darkness, (for of his own nature he produceth nothing but light) although darkness necessarily succeedeth when it is gone down: So God is not the cause of sin; for of his nature he is righteousness it self, although irregularity, sin, and disorder of affections necessarily ensue when he hath withdrawn his grace. Some say, that the Sun withdrawing it self, is the cause of darkness, not the efficient, but the defective cause. But these terms are harsh, and ought not to be attributed unto God: as also that by this distinction a thing that is no more, (as a light put out) might be called a defective cause. Now that which is no more, can in no manner be a cause. But the absence thereof may well be a cause of the truth of some affirmation.

10 Although the wicked work voluntarily of themselves, and without God being any cause of their sin, yet the events that happen thereby, are directed by his providence. For, as the water of a spring, by nature is inclined to run downward, but by man's industry is drained, and by channels made to run where & which way he will: so the wicked are of themselves inclined to evil, and God moveth them not to do evil, but directeth their wicked wills to execute one thing rather then another, by his secrct judgment to punish those whom he will, and to exercise and try his children. The Wise man in the 21. of the Proverbs useth this similitude, saying: The Kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters, he turneth it whither soever he will.

11 God slacketh or looseth the bridle to Satan and to the wicked, to execute their wicked intents, which proceed from themselves, and not from God: nevertheless, all whatsoever they shall do, shall serve to effect the counsels of God. And as Saint Peter saith, They shall do those things which the hand and the counsel of God had determined before, Acts 5.

Even as horsleaches applied to a man's body, intend nothing but to fill themselves with blood; but the Physicians end who applieth them, is to heal his patient: So the wicked, by whom God serveth his turn to chasten his children, have no other end, but to satisfy their inordinate lusts and desires. But God making them his instruments, hath a regard to the salvation and instruction of his children. See Isaiah 10.6.7. Howsoever God useth the service of the wicked, in such manner that he constraineth not their wills, and taketh not from them their free choice, which in the wicked is most free to do evil.

12 As God is necessarily good, and yet most free and without constraint; so the devil and those whom he governeth absolutely, are necessarily evil, and yet do evil without constraint, and with free liberty. Necessity is not opposite to liberty, but constraint. Necessity is so much the stronger, when it is voluntary. If man were driven to do evil by a compulsiue necessity and not voluntary, God should be unjust to punish him.

13 We must carefully distinguish the action from the depravation or imperfection which is in the action. It is one thing to go, and another thing to halt as we go. The soul which moveth a lame man maketh him go, but maketh him not halt. That which is natural (as going) comes from the soul. That which is vicious, is accidental, and proceedeth from some other thing. So the action whereby a man sinneth, is one thing, and the defect and depravation in the action, another thing. There is great difference between the natural moving of the murderer to kill, and the vice or repugnance to the Law of God, which is in the action. That which is natural in this action, proceedeth from God; For by him we have life, moving, and all things, &c. Acts 17.25. And we cannot stir nor move without his aide. That which therein is vicious comes from man and not from God.

14 We must carefully distinguish these three things, the will to sin, the execution of this will, and the events which follow this execution. For example, in the selling of Joseph, the treason and the cruelty was in the hearts of his brethren, and came from them, and not from God. The execution thereof, which is the selling of Joseph, was also done by them, but directed by the providence of God. The events that followed, as the exaltation of Joseph, and the preservation of the people of Israel, are purely and simply effects of the providence of God. Wherein there is nothing so easy as to calumniate, by interpreting that which some of us shall have said of the execution, or of the events after the execution: as if his meaning were to speak of the will to sin.

15 As in natural works or actions, God sustaineth and moveth all creatures not only by a general virtue, but also by his particular assistance: So we must say, that to move men's wills to good, and to direct the wills of the wicked to the end and intent that God hath purposed, God ruleth and assisteth, not only by his general aide, but also by his particular providence: seeing it appeareth that the effects which follow, as the death of Jesus Christ happened by the wickedness of the Jews, and the preservation of the people of God by the selling of Joseph, are things manifestly guided by the special providence of God.

16 When God looseth the bridle to Satan, to tempt man, well may the devil solicit him, or present objects unto him to tempt him, or by some alteration of the humors of the body, move his fantasie, but he hath no power over the will of man, to contstrain him to sin: otherwise, God should be unjust to punish man, and all the fault should be in the devil.

17 Saint Augustine useth hard terms in this matter, which nevertheless, by the distinctions aforesaid, may be mitigated. In the twentieth chapter of Grace and Freewill, speaking of Semei cursing David, upon that which God had said to Semei, curse David: God (saith he) did not command him to do it, that his obedience might be praised, but because God, by his just judgment, did incline his will to that sin, which was evil by his own fault. And chapter 21. God worketh in the hearts of men, to incline their wills which way he will, either to good by his mercy, or to evil according to their merits.

And in the fifth book against Julian, the third chapter, The peruersitie of the heart cometh not without the secret judgment of God, which maketh men not to hearken to the truth, and by that means they fall into sin: and so, that sin is the punishment of precedent sin. And a little after, Then God giveth them over to villanous desires, to do things that are not convenient: but he giveth them justly over, and so those sins become punishments for sins past, and merits for future sins.

Thomas Aquinas followed him, in his commentary upon the ninth to the Romans, the third Lecture, where after he hath said, that God suffereth some to fall into sin, for punishment of precedent iniquities, he addeth: I am of opinion, that in this place there is more to be understood: that is, that by a certain interior instinct men are moved by God to good or evil. Therefore also Saint Augustine in his book of Grace and Freewill saith, that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills which way it pleaseth him, whether it be to good, according to his mercy, or to evil, according to their merits.

Bellarmine is intolerable in the fifteenth chapter of the second book, of Falling from grace, and the state of sin. The second mean (saith he) is, that we understand that God moveth and provoketh some men to evil, or that he commandeth them to do evil, and that he useth them as instruments, because he suffereth them to do evil. And in the 14, chapter, By the judgment of the most mighty God, by precedent sins, man is in such sort destitute of divine aide, that it is impossible for him morally not to fall. After he expoundeth from whence this necessity of falling cometh; that is (saith he) because God doth not call him, nor move him so, as he seeth it fit and requisite for him, that he may follow God's calling him, that is, vouchsafeth him not congruent grace for him in this estate.

Whether man by his free-will, can choose goodness.

That the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us.

Of human Satisfaction.

Of superabundant Satisfactions, and whether the merit of Christ is applied unto us by our own Satisfactions.

What Faith is, and whether it can be without hope, and without knowledge.

Of Justification only by faith: and of the word Iustifie.

How according to Saint James, man is justified by works.

Of the Certainty of salvation, and of perseverance.

Whether a man is saved and elected upon condition that he shall believe, and do good works.

Of the fear of the faithful, and whether it derogateth anything from the certainty of salvation.

Of the first and second Justification, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

Of Merits

Whether God is debtor unto us. And touching the reward.

Of works of Supererogation.

Of Invocation of Saints.

Whether the Saints understand our prayers, and all whatsoever is done upon earth.

Whether Jesus Christ is our only Mediator and advocate.

That the Saints are not our Advocates, and that the Church of Rome inuocateth diverse Saints that never were, and whose holiness is very questionable.

That the mutual prayers of the living, praying one for another makes nothing for invocation of Saints that are dead.

Of the credit and reputation of the Saints in heaven.

Proof of Invocation of Saints by Aristotle.

Confutation of the Invocation of Saints by the holy Scriptures.

Places of the Scripture for the Invocation of Saints.

Of Purgatory.

Of the description of Purgatory,

[Section. 85] To confute Purgatory, we need but paint it out, and show it in the true colors thereof. Baille the Jesuit, in his Catechism of Controuersies, and Cotton the Jesuit, in his Institutions, say, That Purgatory is a prison or jail, and a place under the ground, above hell where the damned are, where the souls that are laden and defiled with venial sins, and which have not here on earth satisfied the divine Justice, are purged by that temporal fire. Yet they make that fire to be as hot as that in hell, and very long; witness the pardons of diverse thousands of years.

This doctrine is cruel, and beareth her condemnation in her forehead. For our adversaries will have:

1. That God which hath given his Son to die for the redemption of his enemies, taketh pleasure to burn his children for their sins already pardoned, and for the which Jesus Christ hath made satisfaction.

2 That God tormenteth his elect in a fire, not for their amendment (for they are justified already before they enter thereinto,) but to satisfy himself, and to content his justice. No father ever punished his children in such manner.

3 That God, to satisfy his justice, exerciseth injustice, taking two payments for one selfsame debt, and two satisfactions for one sin, that is, the passion of Jesus Christ, and the pains of Purgatory; although the first satisfaction, which is the passion of Jesus Christ, is most sufficient, as well for Purgatory as for hell.

4 That the passion of Jesus Christ being sufficient to exempt us from Purgatory as well as from hell, nevertheless God accepteth not the passion of his Son for as much as it is worth, but closeth his hand, and restraineth his liberality, and cutteth off some of the worth of Jesus Christ's death, that his children may not be exempted from torment.

5 That the passion of Jesus Christ is applied unto us by burning and tormenting us for many years; which is to apply the mercy of God by the execution of his justice, to apply pardon by punishment, to apply the remissiō of our debts, by making us pay them: and briefly, to apply the benefit and grace of Jesus Christ, by a means derogating from this grace, and contrary to that benefit.

6 That Jesus Christ making intercession in heaven for all the faithful, their burning souls come not out of that fire by his intercession, but that they come forth by the Popes pardons.

7 That the Pope having power to draw more souls out of that fire then he doth, yet he that boasteth himself to be the common father of Christians, lets them burn therein many years.

8 That the souls entering into Purgatory, are already pure and without sin, and yet have need of purgation: for the fault remaineth no more, and yet nevertheless they say it hath need to be purged. So purgatory is made to purge souls that are pure without sin, and to cleanse filthiness of sin which is no more in them.

9 That sins pardoned are purged by torment, as if a man should call a whip, a wheel, or a gibet a purgation.

10 That sins fully pardoned, are punished in this fire, and that God having fully defaced and taken away the fault, makes them endure pain that have no more fault, and were no more culpable. As if God said unto us I forgive thee all thy sins, but thou shalt be punished in a fire. I forgive thee all thy debt, but not the payment of the debt: for our sins are debts, whereof the punishment is the payment. Certainly pardon is no other thing, then not to punish. And a guilty person would be very well content that the King should not forgive him his fault, so he would remit the punishment. Jesus Christ took our sins upon him, to the end that we should be discharged of the punishment. It were in vain for him to have made full satisfaction for us, if he had not discharged us.

11 That God will have us fully and freely to pardon our neighbors, and holdeth him for a wicked man, that having been injured by his neighbor would pardon his offense, but nevertheless would determine to make him endure punishment for it. Whereby it followeth, that God will have us to be more merciful then himself: seeing that our adversaries say, that after God hath pardoned all our offenses, he maketh us suffer and endure satisfactory punishments in a burnning fire many years.

12 All these abuses spring from a perverse maxim which subuerteth all the Gospel, which is, that Jesus Christ by his death exempteth us from satisfactory punishments, due for sins committed before Baptism, but not for satisfactory punishments due for sins after Baptism. A maxim, whereof there is not one word found in the Scripture: which nevertheless ought to be more clearly set down therein then any other doctrine, seeing that to know what Jesus Christ hath done for us, is that which makes us Christians. It is the soul and foundation of Christian religion.

All that which is said before, is an entrance and an introduction to that which followeth.

13 That the Pope, by virtue of that which Jesus Christ said to Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt loose or vnbinde upon earth, &c. looseth or vnbindeth also under the earth, and can deliver souls out of Purgatory. And by that power, he giveth five or six hundred thousand years of pardon, and erecteth privileged Altars, whereon whosoever saith a Mass upon a certain day, at his choice or pleasure draweth a soul out of Purgatory; and priuiledgeth certain persons, to whom he granteth, either not to enter at all into Purgatory, or to come presently out again. Those are the white Friers, who boast that they have a privilege to be no longer in Purgatory, then till Saturday next ensuing after their deaths: and the Franciscan or gray Friers, to whom Pope Sixtus the fifth granted a free pardon; and the delivering of a soul out of Purgatory, for saying of certain Pater nosters mixed with Ave Mary's on Satterday before Palme Sunday, and on the feast day of Saint John Baptist, and of S. John Port-latin. In the Treasure of Indulgences of the Franciscan or gray Friers, printed in Roan, these words are found; For every day, until the nativity of our Lady, there are 862000 years and 100 days of pardon and remission of the third part of sins granted. The book of Roman Indulgences speaketh of much more.

14 To that end there is a great traffic made of pardons, and the Clergy by that means suck and draw unto themselves the substance and treasure of the Laity, living upon the ignorant fear of poor people, who dying, think themselves to be easily quit of the punishment in hell, if they may only remain in a burning fire for the space of some hundreds of years: and for that cause bereave their children and their heirs, of their goods, to give it unto those that weep not, but to such as laugh and sing; not to those that want and have need thereof, but to rich and idle Monks. For rich men they say diverse Masses and Trentals, for which they pay dear, thereby (as they say) to ease and comfort their souls in that torment; but for the poor, or those that give them nothing, they never say any particular Masses. They die good cheap. They must content themselves with general prayers, whereof nevertheless rich men also have a part. Towards the poor they will have God to use the rule of the Gospel, which is, Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt not come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing, Matth. 5.26.

The opinion of the ancient Fathers, touching the state of the souls of the faithful after they are dead.

[Section. 86] The ancient Fathers were so far off from believing that the souls of the faithful are tormented in a fire before the day of Judgment, that many of them are of opinion, that the soul cannot suffer any torment, when it is once separated from the body. Tertullian in the forty eight chapter of his Apology saith, The soul alone cannot suffer any torment without solid matter or substance, that is, without the flesh. He saith the same in his book of the Testimony of the Soul, chapter 4. Gregory de Nisse in the third oration of the Resurrection of Christ, saith, Fire can by no means touch the soul separated from the body, neither can darkness be troublesome unto it, because it hath no eyes. For these convenient reasons, we are moved and persuaded to allow of the resurrection of the dead.

Chrysostom in his thirty nine Homilie upon the first of the Corinthians, saith, Although the soul remaineth, although it were ten thousand times immortal, as in truth it is it shall not, without the body, receive those unspeakable blessings, nor suffer any punishment. All the punishment which the souls suffer, being separated from their bodies (according to Saint Ambrose, in his 10. chapter of the book of the Benefit of death) is, that they are in great fear and disquietness, attending the punishment which is prepared for them at the latter day.

Staying for the latter day, many of the Fathers place the souls both of the good and the wicked, in holes or dens under the earth, or in certain secret places which they call receptacles: Tertullian, in the 55. chapter of his book of the Soul, saith, We hold for certain, that all the souls are set apart in hell, until the day of the Lord. Irenaeus saith the like in his 5. book, grounding upon this, that Jesus Christ was in hell until his resurrection, whose example all the faithful must follow; for (saith he) the disciple is not above his master. Origen in his 2. book of Principles ca. 12 saith, I am of opinion, that all the Saints going out of this world, stay in a place of the earth, which the Scripture calleth Paradise, or in some place of instruction, and as it were in an Auditory. And from thence he makes the souls to ascend up by degrees higher and higher.

Lactantius in his seventh book chap. 21. saith, All men's souls are kept in a common prison, until such time that the great Judge calleth them to account for all which they have done.

Saint Hilary upon the 38. Psalm saith, It is a law of necessity, whereunto all men are subject, that their souls descend down into hell, after their bodies are buried, which descending Jesus Christ himself refused not, to accomplish that which belonged unto his manhood.

Uictorinus Martyr, on the 6. of the Revelation, saith, that S. John saw the souls of those that were slain and martyred under the Altar, and saith, Sub ara, id est, sub terra: esteeming that the souls of the Saints are under the earth.

Nouatianus in his 1. cha. of the book of the Trinity, saith, The things that are under the earth, are not without power 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 disposed by order: for it is the place where the souls of the faithful and of the wicked are carried, having already a presage of the future Judgment.

Saint Augustine is very uncertain in this matter, yet these are his words upon the 36. Psalm: After this short life, thou shalt not yet be in the place where the Saints shall be, to whom it shall be said, Come ye blessed of my Father, &c. Thou shalt not yet be there: who knows not that? But thou mayest be there where the proud rich man being in torment, saw the miserable poor man in rest; in which rest thou shalt remain quietly til the day of judgment. And in his 12. second book of the City of God, chapter 9. he saith, That part of the city of God, that should be joined to the immortal Angels, being an assembly of mortal men, is, either a pilgrimage on earth in a mortal condition, or as touching those that are dead, consisteth in the hidden receptacles and seats of the souls. And in his Manuell to Laurentius, chapter one hundred and ninth he saith, The time that is between death and the last resurrection, holdeth the souls in secret receptacles, according as everyone is worthy of rest or torment.

Chrysostom, in his eight and twentieth Homilie, upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith, That Abel hath not yet received the crown, nor Noah, and that they are set in a place staying for us; and that that place where the souls stay, by the Fathers is ordinarily called Abraham's Bosom. And yet nevertheless, as well in Chrysostom as in Augustine, there are places found, which say, That the souls of the faithful leaving their bodies, go straight to Jesus Christ, and see God face to face. And Saint Augustine in his first book and fourteenth chapter of Retractations, moveth this question, and leaveth it undecided, without resolution. Whereupon also Sixtus Senensis keeper of the Popes Librarie, in his sixth book three hundred forty and fifth Annotation, saith, that the Church had not as yet resolved upon any certainty touching that Article.

Almost all the Greek Fathers defer the blessedness of men's souls until the resurrection, as Theodoretus, Arethas, Oecumenius, Theophylactus, and Euthymius: with whom Pope John the 22. joined, as Gerson in his Sermon of Easter witneseth, Villanus in the tenth book of his History, and Erasmus in his Preface upon the fifth of Irenaeus. And Okam in his work of 93 days: the rest of the souls in their receptacles by some ancient Fathers is called a sleeping. The Canon of the Mass prayeth for the dead in these terms: Remember ô Lord thy servants which sleep in the slumber of peace. For when that prayer was hatched, they did not believe that the souls of the children of God were tormented in a fire.

Many did not believe that the souls should come out of those receptacles, all at one time, & that some should not rise so soon as others, that is, such as were heavier laden with sins, which should be punished by the delaying of their resurrection. Modicum quodque delictum mora resurrectionis luendo: as Tertullian in the last chapter of his book of the Soul saith. And following that error he will have a woman to pray for her husband that is dead, that she shall ask some refreshing for him, & that she may bear him company in the first resurrection; in his book of Monogamia, cap. 10. Which also is conformable to the prayer which Ambrose made for Gratian and Ualentinian that were dead, desiring God that it would please him, to relieve and raise them up in the best time.

But I find the Fathers to agree in nothing more then in this opinion, that as soon as the dead shall be risen, they shall be singed and burnt by the fire of the day of judgment, which they call a Baptism of fire, & the flaming sword at the entry of Paradise, from which fire they exempt no man, no not the Apostles, nor the virgins Marie.

Ambrose in his twentieth Sermon upon the 118. Psalm, saith, Every man must pass through the flame, yea Saint John the Evangelist whom God loved, and also Saint Peter. And in his third Sermon upon the 36. Psalm: The sons of Levi shall be purged by fire. Ezekiel, Daniel, and they although they shall be examined by fire, shall nevertheless say, we have past through fire and water.

Lactantius in his seventh book chap. 21. saith, When God shall have judged the just, he will examine them by fire. Then those whose sins shall exceed either in weight or number, shall be seared by fire and lightly burnt.

Saint Hilary upon the 119. Psalm in the third part, maketh the virgins Mary to pass through this fire of the last judgment, saying, Shall we desire the day of judgment, wherein we must pass through that continual fire? wherein we must undergo those grievous punishments to purge and cleanse our souls of their sins? And a little after, If the virgins which conceived God, must undergo the severity of that judgment, what is he that dares desire to be judged of God? And in the second Canon upon Saint Matthew. Those that are baptized by the holy Ghost, must also pass through the fire of judgment.

S. Augustine in the sixteenth book, chap. 34. of the City of God: saith, By that fire (which appeared unto Abraham ) is signified the day of judgment, which shall separate those that shall be saved by fire, and those that shall be damned to the fire. And in the twentieth book, and 25. chapter: By the things aforesaid, it appeareth evidently, that in that judgment there shall be some purging pains given to some men. The title of the Chapter showeth that he expressly speaketh of the last judgment.

Origen in his third Homilie upon the 36. Psalm, saith, I think we must all come to that fire: yea though it were a Saint Paul or a Saint Peter, yet he must come to that fire.

Gregory Nazianzen in his four and twentieth Sermon of Baptism, calleth penance a second painful purgation after baptism. But (saith he) who will warrant me that this cure will come to any end, and that the judgment will not overtake us, as being yet indebted, and having need of burning in the fire which shall be there?

Basil in the fifteenth chapter of the book of the holy Ghost (if that be his work) saith: That by the Baptism of fire whereof Jesus Christ speaketh, is understood the trial that shall be made at the day of judgment. Gregory de Nisse speaketh of the same purging fire, in his Oration of those that sleep. And Cyril of Jerusalem in the fifteenth Catechism, saying, That at the day of judgment, the Lord will come in the clouds from heaven, drawing after him a flood of fire, to try men.

Such is the Purgatory of the ancient Fathers, and not a fire under the ground, where the souls of the faithful should be burnt before the day of judgment for sins that are pardoned, nor a prison whereof the Pope is the Jailor. And all the service and the prayers for the dead which are said in the Romish Church, do not in any sort speak of the fire of Purgatory, but of the sleeping of the soul, and that it is not cast into eternal fire. So the Greek Churches pray for the dead, and deny Purgatory. Epiphanius in the heresy of Arius, and Denis in the book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy speaketh of prayer for the dead, and nevertheless presupposeth that the dead for whom they pray are already in rest and blessedness. Saint Augustine in his book of the Care for the dead, approveth prayer for the dead, but in all that book speaketh not one word of Purgatory. The second book of Maccabees, chapter 12. commendeth prayer for the dead, when in that prayer men have a regard unto the resurrection: that is to say, when we pray for one that is dead, that he may rise to salvation, but not to draw him out of Purgatory. The Ancients prayed and gave gifts, and made offerings for the dead to the end aforesaid, to wit, for the quiet resting of souls, for the resurrection, and that the dead may rise one of the first, and to the end that he may be friendly handled by the purging fire of the day of judgment, but never to draw a soul out of Purgatory. And to conclude: in all antiquity there is no mention made of privileged altars, whereon he that causeth a Mass to be said, draweth a soul out of Purgatory at his choice, nor of pardons given by the Pope to the dead.

In the time of Pope Gregory the first, that wrote in anno 595, Satan hatched that which the ages ensuing have disclosed. For by the fourth book of Dialogues written by this Pope, you may see that then they placed Purgatory in the wind, in the smoke of bathes, and in rivers. At last Purgatory was put under the ground and placed near to hell. Bellarmine in his second book of Purgatogy and sixth chapter saith, That in a manner all the Doctors are of one accord, that the damned and the souls in Purgatory are in one self same place, and are tormented all alike. And yet when the souls come out of that fire, they will not have them presently to enter into Paradise. For Beda, and after him Bellarmine in the seventh chapter of his first book of Purgatory, will have the souls when they come out of that fire, to refresh themselves, for a while in a meadow full of flowers which is near to that place. Which is a subject of profound speculation, as if there were green meadows full of flowers in the concauities under ground, where there is no Sun: and as if the souls could smell flowers, then who mowes those meadows? This fabulous doctrine, forged to enrich the Clergy, and to affright the consciences of the ignorant, let us further examine by the word of God.

Confutation of Purgatory by the word of God.

[Section. 87] 1 This doctrine agreeth not with the holy Scripture, wherein there is no mention made of service nor sacrifice made to draw men's souls out of the fire after this life, nor of any power given to the Apostles to deliver any souls out of Purgatory, nor of any privileged altars, nor of any pardons given to the dead. All this proceds from the unwritten word.

2 The second book of Maccabees, which we have proved not to be canonical, in the 12. chapter speaketh of praying for the dead, and saith; that, that prayer is made having respect to the resurrection, that is, to the end, that the dead may rise to salvation, but not to draw them out of Purgatory. On the contrary, there it is said, that if Judah had not hoped that the dead should rise again, it had been a superfluous thing, and full of folly, to pray for the dead. Then the prayer for the dead, which is made in the Romish church, by the judgment of the Author of that book, is foolish, because it is not made in hope, or with any regard of the resurrection, but to pull men's souls out of a burning fire.

3 The holy Scriptures give us many examples of men, that when they died entered into blessedness, Luk. 2.29. Simeon made his account to enter into rest by his death saying, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word. Luke 16.22. Lazarus soul is by Angels carried into Abraham's bosom, where it is comforted, while the wicked rich man was tormented. Jesus Christ said to the good thief at his death, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.

4 They make answer, that these are exceptions which derogate nothing from the general rule. But they that say so, ought to produce that general rule, and find it in the Scriptures. These people will have, that in the Scripture there should be nothing but exceptions without rules. At the least, if they want rules, let them find one only example of a soul that is sent to that fire: But they neither produce examples nor rules. But on the contrary we produce a whole age, wherein all those that shall live, shall be exempted from Purgatory, that is, those that shall be alive in the world, when the day of judgment shall happen. Seeing then you see so many men that shall be saved without Purgatory, and that the Pope himself exempteth many from it, why cannot God exempt the rest, without doing wrong to his justice?

5 The Prophet Isaiah 57.1. speaketh thus of the death of the faithful: The righteous is taken away from the evil to come: he shall enter into peace, they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness. The Spirit of God, Revel. 2.10. saith, Be thou faithful unto the death, and I will give thee the crown of life. Then the faithful by death obtain the crown of life, and are not cast into a fire under the ground. And Saint Paul, 2. Cor. 5.1. saith For we know, that if our earthly house of this tabernacle be destroyed, we have an etenall house in heaven. And Revel. 14.13. The dead which die in the Lord, are fully blessed; even so saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labors, and their works follow them. Paul, Hebrews 9.27. saith, It is appointed unto men that they shall die once, and after that cometh the judgment. He should say as the Papists say, and after that Purgatory.

6 The wise man in Ecclesiastes 12.7. saith, Then shall the dust return to the earth, as it was, but the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. And the Apostle, Rom. 8.1. saith, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. If no condemnation, then in no eternal fire, nor in a temporal fire. And Jesus Christ, John. 5.24. saith, He that beareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but hath passed from death unto life. Then he entereth not into a fire like to that wherein the damned are.

7 And seeing that our adversaries hold the book of Wisdom to be canonical, why do they contradict the words thereof cap. 3.6. which are so evident and clear, saying: The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, there shall no torment touch them? For they hold that the souls in Purgatory are righteous.

8 Add to that the places alleged, and the reasons at large produced against Satisfactions in general, wherein we have shown how castigatorie punishments are compatible with full pardon, and are benefits and spiritual cures, but not satisfactory punishments. Where also we have shown how S. John in his first Epistle, 1.7, saith, That the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. And Saint Paul Col. 2.13. saith, That God hath freely forgiven us all our trespasses. He saith all and freely, to the end to exclude all satisfaction on our parts to the Justice of God. For if we must satisfy the Justice of God by our torments, we can never make satisfaction for the least part of our sins, for that God receiveth no satisfaction but that which is most exact and complete; for the Scripture telleth us, that he which shall call his brother fool shall be punished with hell fire, Matth. 5.22. And that no railers shall inherit the kingdom of God, 1. Cor. 6.10. faults wherewith even the better sort of Christians are sometimes overtaken.

9 The proofs drawn from the definition are demonstrative. Then to know whether God pardoneth our offenses without any satisfying punishments on our behalues, we must know what it is to pardon. I say, that to pardon, is to remit the penalty or punishment deserved and not to impose any satisfying punishments, nor to take any vengeance or revenge. Now God forgiveth us all our offenses, and doth it freely; therefore he expecteth no punishment, nor satisactory pains from us.

10 God also is a most gracious Father. Now a father, (if he be not altogether unnatural) never correcteth his children to draw any satisfaction from them, but giveth correction to amend them. The afflictions of this present life serve to amend us, and not to appease his wrath. But the torments of Purgatory serve not to amend a sinner, seeing that there the souls sin no more. They will have them only to serve to satisfy the justice of the Judge. Then they are not corrections of a father, but punishments of an angry Judge.

11 All satisfactory punishment is a satisfaction for a fault. Now when the fault is wholly remitted, there is no more satisfactory punishment to be endured.

12 And all purgation is to cleanse some filthiness or spot: but in the fire of Purgatory no spots or filthiness are purged; for pain is not a spot nor a filthiness, but the fault. Then the fault being abolished and pardoned, what is there to be purged?

13 To say that after the king hath pardoned a man he will have him to make satisfaction to the party offended, is nothing to the purpose. For the king and the party are two. But here the king which is God, is also the party, who being reconciled, and having remitted all his right, there resteth no more parties to be contented, nor satisfaction to be made unto justice.

14 To say that the benefit of Jesus Christ's passion is applied unto us by burning and tormenting us in a fire, it is not only to speak without authority of the Scripture, but also to contrary the Scripture, which saith, Heb. 1.3. That Jesus Christ hath himself purged our sins. Then not by a fire, not by the tormenting of souls, which he hath bought with so great a price.

15 Touching the ease and comfort which the souls in Purgatory receive by the prayers of the living, Ecclesiastes 95.6, saith, That the dead have not anymore reward, neither have they anymore portion forever in anything that is done under the Sun. Therefore God who in his Law ordained sacrifices and purifications for all sorts of sins and corporal filthiness, even for the Leaper, and for touching or handling of the dead, ordained not any sacrifice nor propitiation for the dead.

16 Nevertheless, to maintain this fire, our adversaries gather heaps of straw, that is, some small and light places out of the Scripture, whereat I wonder how they can be so ill advised, seeing that the same places are of no value for their purpose. They allege Luk. 12.58.59. which saith, While thou goest with thine adversary to the ruler, as thou art in the way, give diligence in the way, that thou mayest be delivered from him, lest he draw thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Jailor, and the Jailor cast thee into prison. I tell thee thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the utmost mite. And Matth. 5.25, saith, Agree with thine adversary quickly, in steed of these words, Give diligence in the way that thou mayest be delivered from him. Our adversaries will have the way to signify life, the Magistrate God, & the prison the fire of Purgatory, the adversary the devil: and by consequence they would have us to agree with the devil. And if in this place it is meant that the devil is the adversary, who shall be the executioner? And are we in the way with the devil? for Saint Matthew saith, Agree with thine adversary quickly whilst thou art in the way with him. For these causes some of them will have the devil to be the sergeant, & the Law the adversary; which is yet worse. For doth the devil draw the faithful into Purgatory? Are we in the way with the Law? Is the Law of God our enemy? Are we to seek means to deliver our selves from it, and to shake off the yoke thereof? For Saint Luke saith, that we must give diligence in the way, that we may be delivered from our adversary. And what absurdity is it, to call a prison a burning furnace? And how is Purgatory a prison, from whence the souls shall not come forth, till they have paid the last farthing, seeing that the Pope, by pardons, taketh souls from thence before satisfaction is fully accomplished? And, albeit we should receive and allow of their Allegories for demonstrations, and according to the sense which it pleaseth them to give them, yet in the end they must prove that this Purgatory is a fire, and not a water or a field covered over with snow, wherein the souls wash, or roll and turn themselves; for in this place there is no more spoken of fire then of water.

The sense of this place is clear and manifest. Jesus Christ exhorteth us to peace and concord with our neighbors that trouble us, and counselleth us, not to wrangle and strive with them in law. That is the counsel which Saint Paul giveth, 1. Cor. 6.4. to end our controversies, rather by the advice and arbitration of brethren of the Church, then to go to law before Judges that are infidels. So Saint Ambrose expoundeth the twelfth of Saint Luke, where he saith, that Jesus Christ speaketh, To make peace between brethren that are at variance. Hilary of the same place, in his fourth Canon upon Saint Matthew. And Jerome in his Annotations upon the fifth of Saint Matthew. Among the Greeks, Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylactus upon the fifth of Saint Matthew. Maldonado the Jesuit upon the same place, by the prison, understandeth hell, by the Sergeant, the devil. But Berradius the Jesuit, and Cardinal Tolet upon the twelfth of Saint Luke, expound this place as we do.

Some allege these words of the Apostle, 1. Corin. 15.29. What shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? From whence they infer, with incomparable subtlety, that therefore there must needs be a Purgatory. To prove Purgatory in that sort, is silently to confess, that there is none. By being baptized they understand, to be afflicted: from whence they infer, that to be afflicted, signifieth, to afflict our selves, to fast, to whip our selves, and to pay for Masses to be said for the dead. For, whosoever (say they) afflicteth himself, and doth penal works for the dead, presupposeth that there is a fire of Purgatory. I think, that saying so, they do not think that they shall be believed; and none of the ancient Fathers ever expounded this place in that manner. For although that sometimes afflictions are called a Baptism, yet it shall never be found, that to be baptized signifieth that a man should afflict himself. As also, that whosoever afflicteth himself for a dead man, doth not necessarily suppose that he is in a fire. Can he not afflict himself, shed tears, and pray, to the end he may obtain God's favor, that the dead shall rise again to salvation? which is the end of the prayer for the dead, which is spoken of in the second book of the Maccabees chapter 12. And why should he that afflicteth himself for a dead man, be more bound to believe that the dead man is rather in a fire then in water?

Touching the true sense of this place, I confess that it is one of the obscure places in the Scripture, whereby God exerciseth our sobriety. Yet I will speak that which I think to be most probable. From Cerinthus came the heresy of the Cerinthians, which denied that Jesus Christ rose again, and thereby weakened the belief of the resurrection of the dead. This Cerinthus lived in the Apostles time, if we believe Epiphanius, and used many means to oppose against them, and to hinder their preaching. Of these heretics Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Cerinthians, which is the eight, saith, That when any of them died without Baptism, they baptized some other man in the name of the dead person, fearing lest he should be punished at the day of the resurrection, because he died without baptism. Against these heretics, who denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, silently made the general resurrection doubtful, Epiphanius esteemeth that Saint Paul in this place disputeth, and seeketh to confute them by themselves, saying, That if according to the doctrine of those false Doctors, the dead should not rise again, how cometh it, that among them living men are baptized for the dead that were not baptized, to the end, that the baptism of the living man received, for, and in the name of the dead man, might be profitable unto that dead man in the resurrection? So the Apostle showeth them that they contradict themselves. This exposition is confirmed by Tertullian, in the eight and fortieth chapter of his book of the Resurrection of the flesh; How (saith he) are they baptized for the dead? Certainly he maintaineth that they ordained this custom, grounded upon this opinion, whereby they thought that baptism received for another, should be profitable to another body for the assurance of the Resurrection. From thence the Marcionites brought up a custom, to put a living man under the bed wherein a dead man lay that died without Baptism, and then asked the dead man, and said; Wilt thou be baptized? whereunto the living man hidden under the bed, made answer and said: I will; as Chrysostom in his fortieth Homilie upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians saith.

The place wherewith they make the greatest show is the 12. chap. of S. Matthew 32. verse, where Jesus Christ speaking against the sin of the holy Ghost, saith, It shall not be forgive • him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. The world to come, (our Adversaries say) is the fire of Purgatory. But how is that possible? seeing that (if we may believe it) Purgatory was before Christ was borne? And why should that world to come rather be a fire then water, or ice? for there is no mention made neither of the one nor of the other. Besides that, how will they have that world to come wherein sins are pardoned, to be Purgatory, seeing that Purgatory is a torment and a punishment? and that (according to their doctrine) sin is pardoned before the souls enter into Purgatory?

The sense of this place is clear, not to pardon sin is to punish it. Then Jesus Christ declareth that God will punish the sin against the holy Ghost in this life, and at the day of Judgment, which is called the other world Luke 20.35. Those that shall be counted worthy to enjoy that world, and the resurrection from the dead.

They also allege the first of the Corinthians, 3.11.12.13.14.15. where Saint Paul saith, For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. And if any man build on this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay or stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is: If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive wages: If any man's work burn; he shall lose, but he shall be saved himself, yet so as it were by fire. Our Adversaries will have this fire to be Purgatory.

I answer, first, That we can ground no doctrine upon allegorical places: Secondly, That seeing our Adversaries understand the words, wood hay, stubble, or silver, allegorically, there is no reason to take the only word Fire properly; specially seeing that that is the only word whereupon the Apostle putteth the note of a similitude, saying, He shall be saved yet as it were by fire. Thirdly, add hereunto, that here he speaketh of a fire which trieth the work, and not of a fire which punisheth the person. Fourthly, of a fire whereby the work shall be made manifest: but what is done in Purgatory is not manifest. Fifthly, Of every man's work: then of the Apostles and the Martyrs works, whom nevertheless the church of Rome exempts from purgatory. Sixthly, also here it is spoken of a fire wherein the work burneth, & not souls. Seventhly, of a fire whereby the workman loseth his work, but in Purgatory nothing is lost. And if men will say that sins therein are lost, there is a benefit in that loss.

The sense of the place is plain. The Apostle speaketh of Pastors and Doctors, which teaching retain the foundation which is Jesus Christ, whereupon some build holy and firm doctrines, which are called gold, silver, and precious stones; other build vain and light doctrines, which degenerate from the price and solidity of the foundation; and are called wood, hay, and stubble. The Apostle saith, that those light doctrines, examined by the word of God as metals by fire, shall not subsist; that the work of such a Minister shall perish, and that proof shall manifest and make known, that there is no firmness in it. But touching the person of the Pastor, although his work perisheth, yet he may be saved, because of the foundation which he hath holden. But yet after a trial of his work hath been made, as metals are tried by fire. Therefore here the Apostle speaketh of a trial that shall be made in this life, and not afterward; and of a trial of the doctrine of Pastors, and not of tormenting of souls in a fire.

Some make a show of the place of Saint Paul, Philip. 2.10. That at the name of Jesus should every knee bow, both of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. And of that which is said, Revel. 5.13. And all the creatures which are in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Praise, and honor, and glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for evermore, &c. With these places our adue saries blow this imaginary fire, saying, that those that are under the earth are the souls that are tormented in Purgatory. They ought also to tell us, what those creatures are which are in the sea: and also show us a reason, why by those that are under the earth, they will sooner understand souls in Purgatory, then the souls of little children that died before they were baptized; because they place thē also under the ground. But there is much more apparence and likelihood, that by those which are under the earth, is understood those whose bodies are in the graves, or those that are in hell: for all men both good and bad shall bow their knees before Jesus Christ at the day of judgment, and shall humble themselves in his presence. For Saint Paul in that place to the Philippians speaketh of the kingdom given to Jesus Christ over all creatures without exception. As also in Rom. 14.10.11, where God saith thus, For we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, I live (saith the Lord) and every knee shall bow to me, and all tongues shall confess unto God. In this place it is plain, that the Apostle taketh, Appeare before the judgment seat of Christ, and to bow the knee before God; for one self same thing. To kindle this imaginary fire, they yet bring a match which will not take light, that is, the 21. chap. of the Revelation, 27 ver. where the Spirit of God speaking of the celestial Jerusalem, saith: And there shall enter into it no unclean thing. From whence they infer, that the souls of the faithful that are spotted with sin, ought to be purged before they enter into Paradise. But the words following show, that by the unclean, is not understood the faithful spotted with sin, but the wicked and the abhominable. This is the whole place: And there shall enter into it no unclean thing, neither whatsoever worketh abomination or lies, but they which are written in the Lambes book of life. Then those unclean are the abhominable and liars, and such as are not written in the book of life. Not therefore the souls of the faithful, which have no need to be put in the crurible or into the fire to be purified. For the blood of Jesus Christ purgeth them from all sin. 1. John. 1.7.

The rest of the places which they allege, have so little show, that we think our adversaries are beholding unto us for letting of them pass, without arguing thereon. If in the Scripture there be any speech of a boiling pot, of the filthiness of the danghters of Zion, of a ditch wherein there is no water; or if it be said that God rebuketh in his wrath, they are (as they say) as many proofs of Purgatory. Covetousness hath made these Doctors expert in fire-wor • es, and most industrious to kindle this fire. They want nothing but the word of God, and common sense.

Places out of the ancient Fathers against Purgatory.

[Section. 88] We have all • eady heard, how diverse ancient Fathers are of opinion that the soul cannot be tormented without the body, an opinion directly against the torments of souls in Purgatory. We have also seen how prayer for the dead practiced in the ancient Church is contrary to Purgatory: and that the prayers for the dead which are at this day made in the Church of Rome, make no mention of the fire of Purgatory.

The book of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, which is at the end of Justin Martyrs works, saith thus in the 75. question: After the souls are departed out of the body, presently a separation is made of the good from the bad, for they are carried by Angels to the places fit for them: the souls of the good into Paradise, where the Angels resort, and are conversant; but the souls of the wicked into hell.

S. Cyprian in his book against Demetrian: This temporal life being ended, we are sequestered into the habitation either of eternal death or of eternal life.

And in the same Treatise towards the end: When we are gone from hence, there is no more place of repentance, nor no fruit or effect of Satisfaction. And then he addeth: If thou askest pardon of God for thy sins, although it be at the issuing of thy soul out of thy body, and at the end of this temporal life, pardon shall be granted unto thee upon repentance and confession of thy sins: and pardon of salvation is granted to the believer by divine grace and goodness, and from death we pass and go into life eternal.

Cyprian throughout his whole book of Mortality expressly speaketh thereof, where among other things he saith, God, at thy going out of this world, promiseth thee immortality and eternal life, and dost thou doubt it? this is not to know God at all as thou shouldest. There also he saith, that death is a passage or way to eternity; that our brethren which are dead, are not lost, but sent thither before us; and that we must not put on black gowns, since our friends have put on white robes. And there speaking of the day of death, he saith, Let us embrace that day which putteth every man in his house, which having drawn us from hence, and unburdened us of the snares of this world putteth us into Paradise, and into the heavenly kingdom.

Saint Jerome upon the ninth of Amos saith, When the soul loosed from the bands of this body it shall be liberty, because of the thinness or lightness of her substance, to fly whither it will, or whither it is constrained to go, then it shall be carried to hell, of whom it is written, Sinners shall be carried or cast into hell; or else it shall be lifted up into the heavenly habitation.

In the Romish Decree, 13 Cause, second question, this place of Saint Jerome is alleged: In this world we know that we can help one another by prayers or by counsel; but when we shall come before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah can pray for any man, but every man shall bear his own burden.

Gregory Nazianzen in the Epitaph upon his brother Caesarius saith, I believe the words & sayings of the wise, that is, that every good soul fearing God, being delivered from this body, (which here on earth it hath,) and separated from it, is presently admitted to the fruition and contemplation of the good which is reserved for it, and enjoyeth admirable pleasure.

Saint Ambrose in the book of the benefit of death, cap. 8. saith, Fools fear death as the principal evil, but wise men desire it, as a rest after their travels and end of their evils. And in the second chapter, speaking of the day of death, he saith, When that day comes, we go assuredly to our father Abraham, to the assembly of the Saints, and to the congregation of the just. For we shall go to our fathers, we shall go to the teachers of our faith, to the end, that although our works fail us, our faith may secure us, and the inheritance be kept for us. Note these words, Although our works fail us; that men should not think, but that he speaketh of the most holy, and the most perfect among men.

Epiphanius in his second book of Heresies, in the 39. Heresy, which is the heresy of the Catharists or Novatians, saith, In the world to come after man is dead, there is no more help by fasting, no more calling for penance, no more giving of alms. And then he addeth, The barns are shut up, the time is accomplished, the combat is ended, the place of the lists is empty, and the crowns are given. And saith, that all this is done when the soul leaveth the body; & a little before he said, there is no more place for alms, nor for penance.

Chrysostom in the second Homilie of Lazarus, saith, While we are here on earth we have fair hopes, but as soon as we have left this world, it is no more in our power to do penance, nor to undo or amend that which we have committed and done upon earth. And in his 75. Homilie upon Saint Matthew he saith, That penance after death is unprofitable.

And in his fourth Homilie upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of Hymns and Prayers which in his time were said at burials of the dead, he saith. What signify these burning tapers, but that we bury the champions of Christ? and these Hymns or songs, but that we glorify God, and give him thanks, because he hath crowned the dead, and delivered him from all pain and grief?

And in his 22. Homilie upon Saint Matthew, he chideth those which weep for the dead, Because (saith he) death is an haven of safety. And in the same Homilie he saith, Why doest thou call the poor after the death of thy friend, why doest thou desire the Priests to pray for him? Whereunto he maketh answer himself, and saith, That it is to the end that the dead may obtain rest, and find his yoke easy. Thinkest thou (saith he) that thou must weep for these things? Dost thou not see, that therein thou doest him wrong, raisin storms against him, when he is safely arrived at the haven?

Gregory Nissen in his book of those that Sleep, saith, The war that is in us being ended by death, our souls rest, having left the field wherein the battle was fought, that is, the body. And a little after: The pains of death are as it were a midwife unto man, to bring him into eternal life. The purging fire whereof he speaketh in the same book, is the fire of the last judgment, which (according to the opinion of the ancient Fathers) must purge all men, yea, and the virgin Marie, as we have proved before. Sometimes also the Fathers call the afflictions of this life a purging fire: Saint Cyprian in the second Epistle of his fourth book, calleth Ecclesiastical penance imposed upon those which by fear were become idolaters, a purgation by fire.

Saint Augustine, or whosoever is the author of the book of the Vanity of this world, in the ninth tome, chap. 1. saith, Know that when the soul departeth out of the body, it is presently placed in Paradise because of her good works, or is cast down into the pit of hell because of her sins. And in the margent these words are set, Vbi nunc purgatorium? And in the second Sermon of the Consolation of the dead, which is in the ninth tome of Saint Augustine's works, cap. 1, he saith: The soul going out of the body is received by the Angels, and placed in Abraham's bosom if it be faithful, or in the infernal prison of hell if it be sinful.

In the eighteenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle he saith, There are two habitations, the one in the eternal kingdom of heaven, the other in the eternal fire of hell.

And in the 232 Sermon which is against drunkennsse, he saith, Let no man deceive himself my brethren, for there are two places, and no third place. He that shall not merit to reign with Christ in heaven, without doubt shall perish with the devil in hell.

In the book of the Desert of sins, and of pardon thereof, cap. 28. He saith, There is no middle way, in such manner that he which dwelleth not with Jesus Christ, must dwell elsewhere with the devil. And it is to be noted, that Saint Augustine in this place maintaineth, that little children which are not baptized, are in hell. Certainly he would not have been so hard and rigorous against those children, if he had known of any other place of punishment, which is not so rigorous, or shorter, as Limbus patrum, or Purgatory.

These places in this Father ought to be taken for a resolation of a doubt which he sometimes had, whether after this life, there is any temporal torment and purging fire. And in his Manuell to Larentius, cap. 68. he saith, That that fire which proveth every man's work, whereof Saint Paul 1. Cor 3.11, speaketh, is the trial of afflictions which is made in this life. And proceeding in that matter in the chapter following he saith, It is not a thing incredible, that such a thing may happen after this life, and we may doubt whether it be such as may be found or whether it be an hidden thing, that certain faithful persons shall be saved by purging fire, some sooner some later, as they loved and affected the things of this world. He doubteth whether he should believe this purgation by fire, which many ancient Fathers referred to the day of judgment.

And in the book of the eight questions propounded by Dulitius, in the first question, he saith, Whether men suffer afflictions only in this life, or whether after this life some such punishments ensue, it is not a thing (as I think) far from the apparence of truth.

In the 26 chapter of the 21 book of the City of God, he saith of transitory tribulation after this life, Non redarguo quia forsitan verum est, I deny it not, because it may be it is true. We have also seen before, two formal places out of the book of the City of God, wherein he putteth this purgation to be at the day of judgment: but in the 21 book and 16 chapter he is of a contrary mind, and saith, That we must believe that there are no purging pains, but those that are before the latter judgment. Which makes me believe that this place hath been corrupted or thrust into his book by malice; and that it is not credible, that this Doctor who in so many other places affirmeth the contrary, should be so forgetful, and that in one self same book he should contradict himself; or that by purging pains he understandeth the afflictions of this life.

We will end this question with an express sentence out of Pope Gregory the first in his 13. book upon Job, cap. 20, where he saith, Because we are redeemed by the grace of our creator, we have this heavenly gift, that when our souls depart out of this fleshly habitation, we are presently carried to the reward of eternal rest. I know not what may be spoken to this purpose more expressly.

Of Indulgences or Pardons.

[Section. 89] The fire of Purgatory being in this manner quenched, Indulgences or pardons whereby the Pope draweth souls out of this fire, grow cold. In such manner, that the Pope hath no need to heap up & gather the superabundant satisfactions of Saints into his treasury to distribute them by his pardons, and to convert them into payment or satisfaction for others, and thereby to draw souls out of Purgatory. This business is altogether superfluous.

For he shall not need to trouble himself to take that out of prison which is not there. And though it were so, yet the afflictions and troubles of the Saints whom God hath sufficiently rewarded in their own persons, would not be an acceptable satisfaction. For the Scripture saith, Gal. 6.5. That every man shall bear his own burden: and 1. Cor. 3.8. Every man shall receive his wages according to his labor. And 2. Cor. 5.10. Every man shall receive the things which are done in his body, whether it be good or evil. And Psal. 49.7. No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him.

As also that the satisfaction of Jesus Christ is sufficient, without borrowing the afflictions of the Saints, or the fastings, pilgrimages, and whippings of Monks, 1. John 1.7. The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin: and Acts 4.12. There is no salvation in any other. He giveth no virtue to the Saints to pay a debt which is discharged, nor to make Satisfaction for that for the which he himself hath fully satisfied. It is a mocking of the Saints, to set them on work to do a thing which is done before.

If the Pope were bound to yield an account of his actions, and to show by what authority he doth that which he doth, could he show in what place God hath given him that power to take souls out of Purgatory? Secondly, who hath commanded him to heap up the superabundant satisfactions of Saints and Monks in his treasury? Thirdly, where and when did God first command him to distribute them to others? I believe he would be hardly bestead: for that the high Priests in the Old Testament did not gather together the superabundant satisfactions of Noah nor of Abraham, nor made any distribution of them: nor never thought of taking any souls out of Purgatory, either by power of iurisdicton, or any manner of suffrages. Seeing also, that neither Jesus Christ, nor the Apostles, nor yet the ancient Church for many years never spake of this treasure, nor did not by Pardons distribute the overplus of human satisfactions, nor established privileged altars, nor took any souls out of Purgatory. And Gabriel Biel in his 57. Lecture upon the Canon of the Mass, and Cardinal Cajetan in the beginning of the book of Indulgences, acknowledge, That in all antiquity there is nothing found touching Pardons.

The abuse thereof is most evident and clear, in this, that the remission of sins is tied to a certain Church, in such manner that he which should elsewhere do three times as many devotions should not have the same pardon. And in this, that when the day of Iubilie is at Rome, those that are near thereunto have their remission at their ease; but those which are three hundred leagues from thence, and want money, or a good horse, or a good pair of legs, are deprived of that spiritual liberality. And herein, that the Pope giveth full pardon of all sins, and a third part of sins besides, that is to say, that he forgives all their sins, and many others. As also herein, that the Pope and the Clergy draw great profits and use a great traffic thereby. The Iubilie is the great harvest of the City of Rome: then offerings and treasure come thither from all places. And in this, that the Pope giveth pardons without any exact calculation, (as having secretly reckoned with God) giving eighteen thousand years of pardon, and as many times forty days, and some days more: there wanted nothing but hours and minutes. And in this, that he throws pardons abroad like a handful of crowns among the press, as when he throws a thousand years of pardon among the press of the people upon the day of his Coronation.

But specially and above all, it is an admirable thing, that Jesus Christ mediateth and entreateth for the souls that are in Purgatory, and that they come not forth from thence by his intercession, but come out by the Popes pardons. Which can neither be blanched nor excused, by that which some say, that the intercession of Jesus Christ doth not exempt the faithful from sickness and other afflictions in this present life. For the intercession of Jesus Christ serveth not to hurt us: but it should be hurtful unto us, if it deprived us of the wholesome remedies which God useth to amend us, which are sickness and afflictions. In which rank Purgatory is not to be reckoned, which serveth not to amend and instruct sinners, and to keep them in the fear of God. We cannot say, that it should be an hurtful thing to those souls not to be burnt, and to be presently carried into Paradise. Christ's satisfaction exempteth us from satisfying, but depriveth us not of corrections and wholesome trials. And the Pope doth not by his pardons exempt men from sickness, but will have them to believe that he draws souls out of Purgatory. Wherein he manifestly exalts himself above God: for if it be God's will to punish his children in a fire, why will not the Popes suffer him to punish them as it pleaseth him? Ask him by what authority he doth that, and he will say, That God gave Peter the power to vnbinde and loose upon earth. Put the case that this were likewise said of the Pope, yet that place speaketh not of loosing under the earth; the power of the Keys extendeth not to the dead.

Of Single life, or perpetual abstinence from marriage.

[Section. 90] To begin this question we declare and avouch, that we honor and much esteem constant virginity, and acknowledge, that it hath many advantages above marriage. And that a man which is not married, if he be chaste and continent, is the fitter to bear the cross of Christ, and to resolve with himself to endure banishment for the word of God. For he is less tied and combred with human cares, and hath more liberty. His mind is less distracted by the cares of this present life. And he hath more time to employ himself in the service of God.

But these praises and commendations belong only to continent and constant virginity, which is not only an integrity of the body, but also a purity of spirit void of all concupiscence. Which is a gift that happeneth to a very few men, and may as well be given to a Lay man as to a Pastor of the Church.

This commendation of Virginitie ought not in any sort to prejudice Marriage, ordained by God in Paradise, and which Jesus Christ would honor with his presence: who also would be borne of a virgin, but yet contracted, and under shadow of marriage, to honor virginity without dishonoring marriage, ordained by God to be a remedy against incontinency, an ease of afflictions, a mutual support, a means of the conservation of human kind, and by consequence, of the Church.

Against this marriage the Popes have banded themselves, and have invented a thousand means to make it odious. Pope Innocent in Distinction 82. forbiddes those that dwell carnally with their wives to be received into any sacred offices, because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy: as if holiness were disagreeing with marriage; or as if the commandment to be holy, belonged only to Ecclesiastical persons. There also he groundeth single life upon the place of Scripture, Titus 1.15. which saith, Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure. And upon that which is said, Rom. 8.8.9. Those that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Pope Syricius in the same Distinction speaketh thus, We understand that diverse Priests and Deacons long time since their consecrations have begotten children, not only in marriage, but in adultery. And a little while after, he calleth both the one and the other Sectaries of adultery, and teachers of vices. Which the Apostle to the Hebrews did not believe, when in the 13. chapter, verse 4, he calleth marriage, The bed undefiled. Nor Epiphanius when he said, that Enoch was not a virgin, and yet he was continent.

Bellarmne in 34 cha. of the book of Monks calls the marriage of Monks a Sacrilege, and saith, it is a greater sin then adultery for them to marry. And yet they are not abashed to see a Priest keep a whore. In Rome the Priests and Prelates go publicly to the Stews. But if any of them marry, he is esteemed a monster, and I think that he should not scape the Inquisition. So the Popes forbid marriage, and permit adultery. The Jesuit Emmanuel Sà in his Aphorisms, at the word Bishop, maketh no difficulty to say, that whore-hunting is by right permitted unto them.

And although that in the church of Rome those that are Bigamies are irregular, that is, that those that have been twice married are not admitted to the Priesthood; yet he is not irregular that hath had diverse concubines, as Pope Innocent the third declareth. All that is done for fear lest married priests should eclipse the goods of the Church, to give them to their children, as Pope Gregory the first saith in the 28. Distinction. By the like policy where any profit may be procured to the Popes and Prelates, they have advanced the dignity of marriage, placing it among the number of the Sacraments of the Church, thereby to draw the knowledge of matrimonial causes to themselves, under pretence that it belongs to the Church to take knowledge of the Sacraments. And yet forgetting themselves, they marry some by deputies, which they would find to be absurd in the other Sacraments, and would not suffer any one to be baptized for another. By the same policy they have forbidden marriage in the third and fourth degree, and forged forbidden degrees of spiritual parentage; because, the more prohibitions that are made, men come the oftener unto them for Dispensations.

1 Touching this question, if we take the word of God for Judge herein, the difference will soon be ended. For the chief Doctors of the Church of Rome confess, that we have no commandment from God touching the same. Thomas, and after him Bellarmine, in the first book of Clerks, cha. 18. teach, that the prohibition made to spiritual persons not to marry, is no divine law, but a human & positive law; and nevertheless we have heard before, and experience witnesseth the same, that this human commandment is inviolably observed, but that adultery is permitted, and the Stews established in Rome, by the Popes permission, contrary to the commandment of God.

2 The Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.2. saith, To avoid fornication, let every man have his wife, and every woman have her own huslband. Note, everyone: to the end that spiritual persons should not be exempted. And to avoid fornication. Then this commandment is made to spiritual persons subject to fornication.

3 In the same chapter verse ninth, it is said; But if they cannot abstain, let them marry, for it is better to marie then to burn. Then an unchaste priest that hath not the gift of continency is bound to marry. It serves not his turn to say, that he hath made a vow not to marry, and that he must observe and keep his vow. For the same priest hath also made a vow not to commit adultery: and although he had not made that vow, yet he is bound thereunto, seeing that God in his Law forbiddeth adultery. Now which promise is most strictly to be observed, either that which a man maketh to God, to observe and obey his commandments, or that which he maketh to the Church, without the commandment of God? Which bond or obligation is the strongest, either that which a man oweth to God whether he will or not, or that wherein we willingly bind our selves, without any necessity, and without the word of God? Then how comes it to pass, that the marriage of a priest, contrary to an unnecessary vow, is called sacrilege; but if he committeth adultery against the commandment of God, the fault is esteemed a thousand times less? I say, that adultery committed by a priest, not only breaketh his vow made to God to obey his Law, but also infringeth the vow of chastity that he made when he was made a priest, so that he breaketh two vows. But if he marry, he breaks but one, and that was made contrary to the word of God. So adultery committed by a priest is a double sacrilege, because thereby two vows are broken.

4 If all men be bound, and that without a vow, to obey God, then priests are bound to obey the commandment of God pronounced by the Apostle, If they cannot abstain, let them marry. Holy, just, and necessary obligations to salvation, cannot be broken by unnecessary subsequent vows.

5 Hereunto I add, that it is an abuse here to allege the vow not to marry: for that vows are good, first, if we vow good things: secondly, if we vow willingly and with knowledge what we do: thirdly, if we vow things which are in our power to do. Now in this vow, not to marry, there wanteth three things. First, for that a man that is not continent, voweth never to marry: that is to say, that he will vow to disobey God, that will have persons that have not the gift of continency, to marry, feeling himself not able to contain, he will vow to abstain from the remedy of incontinency which God hath ordained. This vow being contrary to God's will, is of no force, and yet he is constrained to keep his vow, although he should commit adultery a thousand times.

6 Secondly, this vow also is ordinarily made unwillingly, and without knowing what it is. Men make their daughters Nuns at twelve years, and their sons Monks at fourteen years of age: then when they do not know what concupiscence meaneth: which after beginning to kindle in them, worketh with double force, like cinders that are covered over with ashes, and at the last break out violently into a flame. A father to discharge himself of his duty towards his children, putteth the weakest and imperfectest of them into an house of religion, and offereth the maimed and lame unto God. And those poor children entering joyfully into the Fishers weele, soon after, at their leisure, sigh and groan in their captivity.

7 Lastly, by this vow men promise things which are not in their power: for chastity is a gift which God bestoweth not upon many men. The unchaste life of the most part of those that make this vow, sufficiently showeth it. To quench natural affections, we must have a supernatural gift, which is not in our power. The Apostle 1. Cor. 7 7. feeling himself to be exempted from those desires, said, I would that all men were even as I myself am: But to show that few have that gift, he addeth. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that.

8 Whereupon Bellarmine confesseth, that this gift is not in our power; yet, that every man may ask the same of God. But he considereth not that God will not hear our prayers, if they be not made in faith; as Saint James saith 1.6.7. and also that this faith is a gift of God. Ephesians 2. which gift God giveth not to all men, 2. Thes. 3.2. As also that he which asketh grace of God not to marry, hath no promise that God will hear him. It is true that God promiseth to give us all things that we shall ask in the name of Jesus Christ: but he speaketh of things necessary to salvation, of which number, perpetual virginity is none. And God gave not that gift to those men whom he loved most, as to Moses, to Samuel, to David, and to Isaiah, &c. But, how should Priests and Clerks of the church of Rome be assured to obtain the gift of chastity, which is not necessary to salvation, and which God hath not promised, seeing that they make profession, not to be assured by prayer to obtain the salvation which God promiseth? Then vowing chastity, they vow that which God hath not promised them, and which they are not assured to obtain, and which is not in their power. Whence it followeth, that this vow is rashly made, and by consequence, is not to be observed.

9 Also, we have examples of the Prophets extraordinarily and miraculously inspired, and endued with the Spirit of God; as Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, &c. which were married and had children. The priests also in the old Law were married, and that in such a time, when as in external things, and in cleanness and ceremonial exactness, God required a greater purity then he doth under the Gospel. And if marriage had been unfit for the priests in the old Law, God would have ordained some other means to continue the order of priests, then by succession from the father to the son. To this they make no answer: for that which they say, is no answer: They say that the priests abstained from their wives in the time of their service. A thing invented by themselves, and which cannot be proved. But to the contrary it is found that Aaron and his sons were daily both morning and evening to attend upon the sacrifice, and to burn incense every morning, Exodus 30.7. as also, that the ordinary food of the high Priest and of his family, was that portion of the sacrifices which was allotted unto them.

10 Nevertheless, put case that it were so; can abstinence for a few days serve, or be sufficient to establish perpetual virginity? For such an abstinence did not deprive the priests of the end and intent of marriage, which is to beget children, and to prevent incontinency: but perpetual single life depriveth a man of those things, entangleth him in wicked desires, and resisteth nature. Which serveth for an answer to the like allegations. As the prohibition made to the Israelites, not to touch their wives carnally for the space of three days before the publication of the Law. And that which the Apostle 1. Corint. 7.5. saith, Defraud not one another, except it be with consent fought a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and again come together, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

11 Many of the Apostles were married. In the first of Mark 30. mention is made of Peters wives mother. Ignatius living near unto the Apostles time, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, saith, that Peter and Paul, and the rest of the A •• stles were married. Saint Ambrose upon the 11 chapter of the 2. Corinthians saith, All the Apostles, except John and Paul, had wives. Clemens Alexandrinus in his third of Strom. saith, Do they reject the Apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children. Philip gave his daughters to husbands. And Paul made no difficulty in one of his Epistles, to speak to his companion, being a woman. Which I allege, not that I believe that Saint Paul was married, but to show that Clement did not esteem marriage to be incompatible with the Apostles office. In the 21. chapter of the Acts, verse 9. it is said that Philip rhe Evangelist had four daughters. Platina in the life of Cletus the first saith, that Saint Luke was married, and that his wife was in Bithynia.

12 Our Adversaries answer, and say, that it is true, that those holy servants of God had wives, but that they lay not with them, and had not the carnal use of their bodies. These men divine what they list, without producing any prohibition made to the Apostles touching the same. What would the Apostles have thought, when Jesus Christ call • d them, if he had laid that necessity upon them to abstain from their wives? Who doubts that the high Priests and the Pharisees that sifted him so narrowly, would not have persecuted him therefore, as having imposed a yoke upon them which God had not set down in his Law? Defraud not one another, saith the Apostle, but come together again, 1. Cor. 7.5. If to defraud one another be a vice in other men, why had it been a virtue in the Apostles?

13 It is true, that the Apostles said to Jesus Christ, Matth. 19.27. We have forsaken all, and followed thee: To whom Jesus Christ made answer and said, verse 29. Whosoever shall forsake houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my names sake, he shall receive an hundred fold more, and shall inherit eternal life. But it is a great abuse, to take that which he saith to all the faithful, as if it were only said to the Apostles and Pastors of the Church. For he saith, Whosoever shall forsake, &c. All the faithful ought to forsake houses, fields, wives, children, fathers, mothers, yea and their own lives, when they cannot keep them but by •• nying Jesus Christ, or forsaking that vocation whereunto God hath called them. In that case God will have all human bands broken, and that all natural affections shall in a manner be choked by the zeal and the desire to save our souls and to follow our vocations. Saint Augustine in his 89 Epistle expoundeth that place in this manner, saying: Sometime there happeneth such a necessity, that we must either leave our wives, or Jesus Christ. The place is long, and very express to this purpose, and he speaketh of all the faithful.

14 It is to be noted also, that Jesus Christ there speaks of forsaking wives, children, houses, and goods generally, Then seeing the Church of Rome doth judge, that by this place Priests & Bishops are not bound to forsake and leave the use of their goods, why should they by the same place be bound to leave the use of their wives? If a father that is become a Priest, is not bound by this place to be no more a father, why should he by this place be bound to be no more an husband? If he may keep his goods, why should he not also keep his wife? for these two things are also jointly set down in this place. And we see by the History of the Gospel, that after Jesus Christ had said that to his Apostles, they did not leave the propriety and use of their fisher boates, nor Saint John of his house, whereinto he received the virgins Mary after the death of Christ our Lord.

15 To be short, touching this matter we have the express prohibition of our Lord Jesus Christ saying to his Apostles, Matth. 19.9. No man shall put away his wife, except it be for whoredom &c: and verse 6. The man and his wife are no more twain, but one flesh. Let no man therefore put asunder that which God hath coupled together. Seeing that the Lord spake to his disciples in that place, with what show can they except them only from the obedience of that commandment? And if they must have abstained from their wives, would they have kept them with them? this could not h • ue been without offense. Whither would they have driven them away, and separated them from their children, but there would have been inhumanity and a public scandal?

16 The Apostle Saint Paul in the first to Tim. 4.1.2.3. saith, In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, and shall give heed unto spirits of error, and doctrine of devils: which speak lies through hypocrisy, & have their consciences burnt with an hot iron, forbidding to marry, &c.

To shun this place, they say, that the Apostle speaketh against other heretics, which condemned marriage as a wicked and filthy thing in it self.

Wherunto I answer, that there is no prohibition in the word of God which a man may not shift off by the same means. So thieves may dispense with the Law, which saith, Thou shalt not steal, by saying, that that is spoken against those that steal without necessity, or that steal from their friends, but not to those that steal for need, or that rob a stranger. So adultery may be permitted, by saying that God forbiddeth women to have to do with many men, but not to have a friend in a corner. The Apostles words are general; and without exception condemn those Doctors which forbid marriage. When the King by his proclamation maketh a general prohibition, doth it belong to the subject to make exceptions and restraints upon the same, which are not contained in the Proclamation? and without having any warrant or declaration of the Kings will touching the same? Whosoever brings any exceptions or restraints against a general commandment of God, made unto us in his word, ought to draw and take his exceptions out of the word of God. If it be evil to condemn marriage as a filthy unclean thing, it is not much less to condemn it by tyranny and by superstition. We may run into one self same danger by diverse means: one self same error may enter and be grounded in men's minds by diverse and several reasons. And I see not how those which condemn marriage as being a filthy unclean thing, can speak of marriage in more odious terms, then the Popes Syricius and Innocent aforesaid do, which call it a vice, and an impurity and uncleanness, and esteem it to be contrary to holiness.

17 The same Apostle in the 1. Tim. 3.2. saith, A Bishop must be unreprovable, the husband of one wife, one that can rule his own house honestly, having children under obedience with all honesty: for if any cannot rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God? And in the 12. verse, Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife: and verse 11. Likewise their wives must be honest not evil speakers, &c.

To contend and strive about that, is not to dispute against us, but to give the Apostle Saint Paul the lie, under a color of interpreting his words. For you must note, that he saith not, that the Bishop hath been, but that he must be the husband of one wife. For if the Apostle had understood that a Bishop had been the husband of one wife, we must by the same reason say, that Saint Paul will have a Bishop to have been, but not that he should be, without reproof. By this means the bishopric shall be an entry into vice, and an exemption from doing good.

Again the Apostle ordaineth, that their wives shall be honest, sober, and faithful: he speaketh then of Bishops and Deacons which have wives, and not of those that have none as being dead. For the Apostle instructeth not dead women, but instructeth Bishops wives, lest that by their vices they should dishonor their busbands vocation. Pope Leo the first, in his 85. Epistle understood it so: saying. The Apostle saith, that we must choose a Bishop that hath been, or that is, the husband of one wife.

Not that the Apostle esteemeth or placeth marriage to be one of the virtues in a Bishop, or that he forbiddeth a man unless he be married to be made a Bishop. The Apostle only forbiddeth a Bishop to have two wives, for that as then polygamy, or the having of many wives together, was used among the Jews, as Josephus in the 17 book of his Antiquities, cap. 1. witnesseth saying: It is the manner of our country to have many wives together; and then Herod had nine wives. Saint Jerome to Oceanus saith the same. Theodoret upon this place saith the same both of the Greeks and the Jews. Look also in Chrysostom in his 10. Homilie upon the 1. to Timothy.

A man may have two wives two ways, either by keeping two wives in his house together, or else putting away his lawful wife without any cause of adultery, and marrying with another. For Jesus Christ in Matthew 19.9. declareth, that marriage cannot lawfully be dissolved, unless it be for adultery. In this latter manner a woman may have two husbands, if she have left her first husband, or if she hath been put away without committing adultery, and is married to another husband. A thing which was common, as Saint Augustine in his 89 Epistle, Question 4 declareth. Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Oceanus saith, That Fabiola forsook her husband. Of which women that loved to change, Seneca in the third book of Benefits, cap. 16. saith, That they reckoned their years, not by the Consuls, but by the number of their husbands. Cicero in the eight book of his familiar Epistles, Epistle 7, speaketh of Triarius sister, who without cause made a divorce with her husband. As also the Proculeia of Martial:

Such were the women which the Apostle 1. Tim. 5.9. excludeth from having any charge of ministering in the Church, saying, Let not a widow be taken into the number under 60. years old, and that hath been the wife of one husband. That is to say, that hath not had two husbands together, the one dwelling with her, the other separated by divorce, whether she sought a divorce with the first, or whether her husband put her away for adultery. For you must not believe that the Apostle excludeth a widow from ministering in the Church, that hath married again to another husband after the death of her first husband, seeing that in the same Chapter he commandeth young widows to marry again. For else he should command them to do a thing which would make them unworthy to minister in the Church. Whereupon I cannot but be much abashed at a Romish Decree, wherein they permit a Canon to be extant, which saith, that the Apostle spake both against reason and truth, and that by commanding to marry again, he permitteth fornication. It is the 31 Cause in the first Distinction, Hac ration. The words are these: By this means also the Apostle commanded to marry again, because of the incontinency of men. For according to the Apostles commandment, it is permitted to take a second wife, but according to the reason of truth, it is mere adultery. But seeing God permitting it, it is done puclickly and by license, he committeth an honest adultery. Some being not able to avoid the force of this so clear and express a place of the Apostle, confess that then Bishops were married: but that they were constrained to choose such Bishops because as then they could not find a sufficient number of men that were not married to govern the Church.

To say so, is to weaken the power of Jesus Christ. For it is certain, that it was not by constraint, nor for want of other means, that he chose his Apostles which were married men, namely Saint Peter, seeing he had the hearts of all men in his power, and could inuest the most incapable persons with sufficient graces to that end. And if at this day those only which are endued with the gift of continency were admitted into the priesthood, would there think you, be a sufficient number found to fill the places that are void?

18 The Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 9.5. saith thus, Have we not power to lead about a wife being a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Bellarmine after others saith, that Saint Paul by a wife that is a sister, understandeth not a wife which is joined unto a man by marriage, but a wife to serve them necessarily in the way, and to supply their wants. Such as the women were that followed Jesus Christ, who having been healed by him, did minister to him of their substance, Luke 8.2.3.

But Pope Leo 9 (who by the prerogative of his seat hath the gift not to err) in the 31 Distinction of the Canon Omnino, declareth that by a wife that is a sister, is understood a wise married to an Apostle, from whose carnal company nevertheless he abstained, although he took her with him. And the gloss of the Doctors thereupon saith, Ducebant vxores secum vt seruirent eis in cibis parandis: They took their wives with them, to serve to dress their meat. And Tertullian, although he were a Montanist, and an enemy to marriage, in his eight chapter of the book of Chastity, saith thus against himself: Licebat & Apostolis nubere, & vxores circumducere: licebat & de Euangelio viuere. It was permitted to the Apostles to marry, and lead their wives about with them, and to live of the Gospel.

Reason it self without any other proof overthroweth Bellarmine's exposition. For such women could not have followed the Apostles honestly and without suspicion. Those women that followed Jesus Christ might do it without abandoning or leaving their families. For the way which they w ••• was short, and not above 30 leagues, which is the distan • from Galilie to Jerusalem, whereunto Jesus Christ went to the solemn feast. But to go out of their country, to pass over the seas, to go a thousand or twelve hundred leagues with the Apostles, was a thing which an honest woman neither could nor ought to do: and which natural affection towards h r family would not have permitted. They would rather have paid the charges of some servants to have followed the Apostles in their journeys.

The Apostles words take away all difficulty: for such women would have followed the Apostles by charity, and not by any power which the Apostles had over them: for the Apostle saith: Have I not power to lead about a wife being a sister? He would rather have said in the plural number: Have I not power to lead about women being sisters? For such duties of charity and domestical services, are more easily and honestly performed by diverse women.

19 Among many mean objections of our adversaries, I see but one that hath any show or color. The Apostle, 1. Tim. 5.11.12. saith, But refuse the younger widows, for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have broken their first faith. In this place the Apostle speaks of certain widows which then took the charge upon them of ministration, or being servants to the Church, to relieve the sick, and to succor the poor, Those women entering into that charge voluntarily, promised to end their days in that holy service. But it fell out so, that some of them altered their purpose, either by becoming harlots, and wanton against Christ, (as the Apostle saith) or else by marrying again. Whereby being under the power of an husband, they had no more liberty to continue in that charge which they had taken upon them in the Church. For which cause the Apostle saith, that they are to be condemned or reproved for having violated that faith and promise which they had made to the Church, to persevere in the service of the poor and sick persons. Which to prevent, the Apostle forbiddeth young women to make such promises as might hinder them from marrying, and will have •• ng widows to marry and bring forth children. verse, 14. A •• • orbiddeth to receive or admit any widow into the administration of the Church, which is less then 60 years old, verse 9. at which time the vow of not marrying would be ridiculous. So that this place being well understood, is contrary to the vow of not marrying, seeing that he forbiddeth young widows to do it, and will have none but old women of 60 years of age, and not under, to be received into a charge which disagreeth with marriage. Which is far from prohibiting notorious incontinent Clerks from marrying, as at this day they do.

I need not aggravate the filthiness of their constrained single life, nor the vices as well natural as contrary to nature, which thereby have crept in among those that make profession thereof. The same Prelates which preach continency, live incontinently. As they live, so they dispute against nature, and burning in wicked and evil desires make a promise to God not to use those remedies against them, which he ordaineth in his word. The Pope which forbiddeth Priests to marry, for a recompense hath opened the stews for them, and by rules and public authority hath permitted fornication. Which drew this true confession from Pope Pius the second, that for great causes Priests wives were taken from them, but that for greater causes they ought to be restored unto them again, as Platina in the life of the said Pope showeth.

Of the Difference of meats.

Of the word Church, and the significations thereof.

Whether the Church is visible, and to whom it is visible.

[Section. 93] Then to come to M. Arnoux, which accuseth us that we put the Church out of sight, he saith it without proof, and our Confession saith nothing thereof. But on the contrary we know that there hath always been, and shall be a Church visible in the world. But we must know how, and to whom it is visible. For it is one thing to see the Church, as an assemble of men calling themselves Christians; and another thing to see it to be a true and a pure Church, wherein a man may be saved. Those that are out of the Church, as Turks and Jews see the Christian Church as we see a company of men, but see not whether it be good, and whether in it a man may be saved, which is the sight and the knowledge which we seek for, that we may join our selves thereunto. Infidels see the Church, as the incredulous Jews saw our Savior, without knowing that he was the Savior: and as a young child sees a Mathematician without knowing what the Mathematicians are. As Bellarmine in his 15 chapter of the third book of the Church confesseth. Where nevertheless he slandereth us, and imputeth to us, that we do not acknowledge any visible Church.

Thereby it appeareth, that no man seeth or knoweth the true Church but those that are members thereof, or that after sufficient instructions have determined to enter into the same. If the universal Church were reduced but to twelve men only, yet it should be visible to those twelve. On the contrary, if the Christian Church should contain and possess the half of the world, the other half continuing in infidelity, should not see that to be the true Church, and would not know it to be an assembly of the faithful.

As touching this superficial sight whereby those that are out of the Church, see it and know not whether it be a true or a pure Church, if one should ask whether the Church ought in that sort to be visible to all men in the world, & at all times, the question is easy to be answered. For it is certain, that the Christian Church began first in Judea, at which time it was not visible in France, nor in Denmark. Before the Portugals and Spainards sailed into the Indies, the Roman Church was not visible to the west Indians. And there are always more Pagans then Christians in the world, and an infinite number of people that have not once heard speaking of the Christian Church.

And to rise higher, was the Church visible then when Abraham was yet in Vr in Chaldea, lying in his fathers house, which was an idolater? as it is said in the 24 chapter of Joshua. Was the Church visible unto the Infidels, when the Israelites were in Aeygpt, and there served the Infidels? as it is said, Ezech. 20.7. and 8. Was the Church visible to the Infidels in the time of king Ahaz and Manasseh, when those kings made the Temple to be shut up, and when no continual sacrifice was made, and that Idols were in every town, when Uriah the high Priest placed a Pagan altar in the Temple? But where shall the Church be visible to those that are out of it, where all the earth shall follow the beast? Apocalypse. 13.3. and when the time shall come whereof our Lord Jesus Christ speaketh, Luke. 18.8, saying, But when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Shall the Church be visible to infidels, in whose time our adversaries say that Antichrist shall abolish the continual sacrifice, that is, the Mass, if you will believe them?

To be short, it is an evident and visible thing, that the Church of God is not always visible to all men: but always visible to those that are members thereof.

Of the true Markes of the true Church.

[Section. 94] Touching the marks of the true Churches, that is to say, the marks whereby we may discern a true, orthodoxal and a pure Church, from an heretical and an impure Church, our Confession in that Article putteth no other mark but the word of God purely preached; under which word we also comprehend the pure administration of the Sacraments: because the right and true use of them is prescribed in the word of God. Wherein we speak according to Jesus Christ, who in the 8.31. and 10.27. of Saint John, giveth no other mark to discern his sheep, and those that truly are his disciples, but only to hear his voice, and to persevere in his word; If ye continue in my word, ye are verily my disciples, John 8.31. The sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, and follow him; for they know his voice, and will not follow a stranger. And say that the word of God did not so expressly speak thereof, yet it is certain, that we must be void of common sense, if we cannot conceive, that to discern a pure Church from an impure, there is no other means then to see whether it agreeth with the rule of purity, which is the word of God. As to know whether a Line be straight, we apply it to a straight Rule.

But that displeaseth M. Arnoux, because (in his judgment) this mark is obscure, and as hard, or hardlier to be known then the Church; and that it is the same whereof we dispute, that is, to whom belongeth pure Religion, and who possesseth the word. For he presupposeth, (and with reason) that the marks to know a thing by, ought to be plainer and easier to know, then the thing which we know by those marks.

Then the question is, which of these two things is easiest to be known, either true faith and Religion, or the true Church

Besides the places of Scripture before alleged, which will have us to know the true sheep and disciples of Jesus Christ, that is, if they hearken to his voice, and keep his word; reason giveth us a demonstrative proof, grounded upon this maxim, that definitions and expositions of things ought to be clearer and better known then those things which are expounded or defined. Now the definition of the true Church is, that it is the assembly of true believers. Then before we can know which is the true church, we must know who are true believers, and by consequence, which is true faith. Now if we will define the Church as Bellar. doth, which is, that the Church is the assembly of those which are joined together by confession of the Christian faith; we must necessarily know what is true Christian faith, before we know the true Church, seeing that true faith is a chief point whereby to define the Church. From thence also it followeth that we must know Jesus Christ, that is, his nature and office, before we can know the true Church; for that faith in Jesus Christ, is of the very definition of the Church. But see here a Jesuitical Doctor, that will have us to know the true Church before we know the true doctrine: and by consequence, before we know Jesus Christ. Which is a strange conceit, to imagine that a man may know which is the true Church, without knowing Jesus Christ; and who are true believers, without knowing true faith.

Add hereunto, that it is necessary to know and to be instructed in the word of God, before we can discern the true Church, seeing that by the word of God only we know that there must be a Church in the world. By the which, God who declareth unto us, that his will is that there should be a Church, declareth also what manner of Church he would have it to be, and giveth us marks to know it by.

Our Adversaries themselves unwittingly say the same, as often as they allege the Scripture for themselves, & ground the authority of their Church upon the testimonies of the word of God. For thereby they presuppose, that the knowledge of the contents of the Scripture is necessary, before they can know whether they have the true Church, seeing they ground their Church upon the Scripture.

Add hereunto, that there being diverse contrary Churches, and but one word of God contained in the Scriptures; and acknowledged by all the Churches in the world; an infidel that would become a Christian, but is in doubt to which Church he should yield himself; cannot determine thereupon, but by beginning with the knowledge of that which all Christians receive and embrace, which is the holy Scripture.

And I cannot conceive how in this doubt, which Church is the purest of all, it is possible to take any other mark or any other direction then the rule of purity, which is the word of God. And that if there were any one, who before he had any knowledge of true religion, met with or found out the true Church, and joined himself with the good flock, I say that such a man, as long as he is so, is not a true Christian. He is like a blind man that layeth hold on the first man that reacheth his hand unto him. Such a man hath no heresies, because he hath no knowledge, and by consequence, no faith nor piety. He deriveth his Religion from his birth, or from custom, or from the concourse of civil affairs. If he were borne in another country, or if the State should alter and be changed, he would have another religion: he followeth the true Church, without knowing whether it be the true Church, and is a Christian, and knows not Christ.

Read all the history of the New Testament, and you shall never find, that any man did acknowledge the true Church, before he was instructed in the doctrine of the Gospel. But on the contrary, we see that the Apostles preached Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of Salvation, and that the people by belief in that doctrine joined themselves to the Church, without making any other inquiry touching the marks of the Church.

If men have maliciously made difficulties touching the knowledge of the true doctrine, that ought not to be imputed to the obscurity or incertainty of this Mark, but to the malice of men. For all difficulties laid aside, that which resteth clear and manifest in the holy Scripture, having no need of interpretation, is sufficient to salvation. And besides that, they are difficulties which men may avoid, and whereupon we must crave the aide and assistance of God, which he hath promised. But to know the true Church before we know the true doctrine, it is not only difficult, but also impossible. For, how shall I know whether this Church is a true Church, and pure in faith, if I know not what the purity of true faith is, nor what true doctrine is?

This appeareth by the impossibility and absurdity of the marks which our Adversaries propound, whereby to know the true Church.

Of false Markes to know the Church: and first of the title of Catholic.

[Section. 95] The first mark of the Church, they say, is, that she is Catholic. If by Catholic they understand a sound opinion, right faith, and true belief, as the ancient Fathers often take that word, who for that cause speak of Catholic churches in the plural number, we willingly allow and receive that for a mark: for it is the same that we say, that the purity of doctrine is the only mark of the true Church.

But if by Catholic they understand Universal, then that mark is false, and contrary to common sense. For seeing that the quarrel is between particular Churches, is it not a contradiction against themselves, to seek among particular Churches, to have that to be the best which is not particular, but universal? So in the disputation between the Greek and the Roman Churches, how should I know that the Church of Rome is universal, seeing that there being a Greek Church, it is a proof that the Church of Rome is not universal? And the Greek Church also calleth it self Catholic, and the Patriarch thereof for above 900. years together was called Universal. This disputation between particular Churches, to know to which of them the title of the Universal Church b • longeth, hath no better grace, then if Asia, Africa, and Europe, which are parts of the universal world, should dispute among themselves to know to which of them the title of Vniuersalitie belongeth. Time was, that the Churches of Syria and Egypt, &c. agreed with the Church of Rome: then all those Churches were called Catholics, that is, Orthodoxall, and following the faith which ought to be universal. But neither the Syrian, nor the Egyptian Churches called themselves Roman: but all of them together called themselves, The Universal Church.

Of Antiquity.

[Section. 96] They also produce Antiquity for a mark of the true Church. If they understand that that Church is the true Church whose doctrine is most ancient of all, and that doctrine which is conformable to the Apostles times, we allow of that mark; and by it the Church of Rome will lose her suite, which hath made a thousand new additions, and every age increaseth them, all tending to the advancement of the Papal Empire. For it was requisite to have great alteration in religion, to bring to pass that the Bishop of one town should become the earthly Monarch of all Christendom, and to surpass the greatest Kings of the world in riches. Is it to be found, (I speak not of the universal Church) that any particular Church in the first ages of the Church did exclude the people from the participation of the chalice? or that read the Scripture to the people in a language which they understood not? or that hath forbidden Christians to read the holy Scriptures without special license? or that made pictures and representations of the Trinity? or that worshipped Images? or that called the virgins Mary Queen of heaven, and Lady of the world? or that believed that the Pope can dispose of Emperors and Kings? or that the Pope hath the superabundant satisfactions of Saints in the treasury of the Church, and that he can draw souls out of Purgatory? or hath adored the host with the divine worship called Latria? Where is the least mention made in all Antiquity of the Romish Indulgences, of pardons of 800000 years, of holy grains, and of rosaries? of the least mention of the Court of Rome, of Cardinals, of the order of begging Friars? of praying to God without understanding what a man saith? and that Bishops ought to take oaths of allegiance to the Pope, upon their admissions? Herein our adversaries hold their tongues, and say nothing, and by their silence accuse Antiquity to be ignorant of religion.

Besides that, a doctrine cannot be called ancient, which hath not been so from the beginning. As copper by age will never become gold, so a lie, will still be a lie notwithstanding Antiquity: there is no prescription against God and his word. And as shameless women, the older they grow the impud • nter they are, so untruth is more dangerous by process of time, because it still taketh more root. We dispute not by years, but by reasons; and that which at this day is called ancient, was once new. Let them tell me how many years are required to authorise a doctrine.

I say more, that the oldness of a chair, is a presumption that there is something to be mended, seeing that from the time of the Apostles, corruption then began to creep into the Church, and that Saint Paul saith, that in his time the mystery of iniquity began to be hatched, 2. Thes. 2.

Of Succession. The third Mark.

[Section. 97] Above and before all others, they make account of a lineal Succession, continued from the Apostles times. This mark might have served once, in the ages next ensuing after the Apostles, when all the chairs erected and set up by the Apostles, agreed together, and when the Succession was short, and the memory of the belief (holden by the Bishops after the Apostles times) fresh. But now this mark is unprofitable, because of the length of so many ages, and the confusion and contradiction of Histories, but specially because the chairs which draw their successions from the Apostles are now in discord and separated from communion. Among the which that of Rome which seeketh to draw her succession from Saint Peter, is condemned by the rest of the chairs, which also draw their Succession from Saint Peter, that is, by the Church of Antiochia, and of Alexandria; among which the Church of Rome is the newest and the most corrupt, and condemned by all the rest. So that if we should stand upon the succession of chairs, it will be hard to range it to the Church of Rome.

If the succession of chairs since the Apostles times be a mark whereby ignorant people should know the true Church, how is it possible that plain country people, artificers and women should know this succession, which is learned only by reading of the Greek and Latin Fathers, the length and obscurity whereof wearieth the wisest men, and which oftentimes contradict themselves?

Add hereunto that the pretended succession of the Pope, is partly broken off by heresies which have defiled that chair, & by schisms which have oftentimes cut off the line of that pretended succession and never was knit again, as we have proved in the book of the Vocation of Pastors.

Add hereunto, that the doctrine of the Church of Rome, is contrary to Saint Peters doctrine. The succession of the chair, without succession of doctrine, is rather a subversion of the chair then a succession. We shall not be judged by chairs at the latter day, but by the rules of the word of God. Chaires speak not, but men speak, who not only speak lies in chairs, but also makes use of chairs to tell lies, and seek to authorise lying by the dignity of chairs and by succession. They make a chain of sand which cannot bind men's consciences. They show a list of Popes in print, without showing whether the last of them are of the same religion that the first were. It is a succession in persons, and a contrariety in faith. Those have not the succession of Saint Peter, which have not Saint Peters faith. So saith Saint Ambrose in his first book and sixth Chapter of Penitence.

Of perpetual Continuance. The fourth pretended Mark.

[Section. 98] They also bring perpetual continuance for a mark. If this mark be good, diverse Churches planted by the Apostles were false Churches, seeing they have ceased to be Churches. And there are diverse Churches which the Church of Rome calleth heretics and schismatics, which have continued ever since the Apostles time, and yet to this day continue. But for that the final continuance of a Church cannot be seen but at the end of the world, I would advise that the determination of this question should be put off until the end of the world. For some Church may flourish now, which within short time may have an • nd.

Of Multitude. The fifth Mark.

[Section. 99] Our adversaries place Multitude and greatness of number among the marks to discern the true Church. This mark makes us evidently see and perceive, that our adversaries seek the marks of a particular Church. For as touching the universal Church they confess that it is but small in number, in respect of the Pagans and infidels. But there being many particular Churches which contend together they will have the greatest to be the best. Now there is no color to make that a mark of the true Church, wherein the true Church is surmounted by Mohammedans and Pagans: and much less apparence that to know the true Church we must have a rope to measure the length and breadth of it: or to number the persons, instead of propunding the rules thereof. By this reason, of two small heretical Churches, the less shall always be the worst. And when the ten tribes which made three quarters of the land of Israel, revolted in Roboams time and became idolaters, they were to be followed. By this account Jesus Christ misreckoned himself when he called his Church a little flock, Luk. 12.32. and when he will have us to go in at the narrow gate and straigh • way wherein but few do enter, because the wide gate & broad way whereat many go in, leadeth to perdition, Math. 7.13. and when the high Priests and the Doctors, and the greatest part of the people held with the Pharisees, the Jews should have rather followed the Pharisees then Jesus Christ. There was a time when the Greek Church was at discord with the Roman Church, at which time it was greater then the Roman, and had the power of the Empire to uphold it. The holy Ghost foreshoweth that a time shall come, when all the earth shall follow the beast. Revel. 13. To be short, these people for a mark of the true Church, take the multitude which the Scripture placeth on the false Churches side, as if one should set painting and powders for marks of chastity, and to be without books, for a mark of knowledge.

In the second book of Theodorets History, Liberius Bishop of Rome, speaking to the Emperor Constantine, that upbraided unto him that he was alone, said, Although I am alone, the cause of faith is not the weaker. And Gregory Nazianzen in his oration against the Arians saith, What are they that upbraid us with our poverty? which define the Church by multitude, and despise the little flock? As they have the people, so we have the faith; they have gold & silver, we have faith and doctrine: this is our condition.

Of Miracles. The sixth pretended Mark.

[Section. 100] Of the same nature are Miracles, which they also make to be a mark of the true Church, which Jesus Christ in the later times makes to be marks of the false Church, saying, that There shall arise false Christ's, and false Prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) the very elect, Matth. 24.23. And Saint Paul saith, That the son of perdition shall come with all power and effectual working of Satan, and signs and lying wonders. 2. Thessa. 2.9. Many shall say unto Jesus Christ at the latter day, Have we not by thy name prophesied? and by thy name cast out devils? and by thy name done many great works? And then Christ shall say unto them, I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity, Matth. 7.22.23. So in Tertullian's time heretics boasted and bragged that they wrought most miracles. As the miracles done at the publication of the law, did still serve to authorise the law after miracles ceased in Israel; so miracles done in the publication of the Gospel by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, do yet serve to authorise the Gospel, although miracles have ceased. When king Josiah openly shown the book of the Law which had been suppressed, 2. Chron. 34. he had no need to do any miracle, because he shown no new thing. An evil and an adulterous generation seeketh a sign. Matth. 12.39. It belongeth to the Church of Rome to do miracles, because she propoundeth new doctrine. But what miracles doth she, and when? They are miracles oftentimes condemned of falsehood, and punished by justice. Miracles only wrought to drive out devils, wherein the fiction is very easy, and wherein Satan taketh pleasure, makes himself sport, & coming forth of set purpose to authorise a lie. And yet that is never done before us, for in the presence of a man which feareth God, and bele • ueth in Jesus Christ, Satan loseth his credit.

Of Unity, the seventh pretended Mark.

[Section. 101] They also give for a mark of the Church, that it is one. Which is a pleasant and most certain mark. For there is nothing in the world which is not one; every horse is one, & every tree is one, and the Sun is one. By this means they give us a thing to be a mark of the Church which agrees also to an egg or to lettuce. If by this word one they understand united and living in concord with all the Churches in the world, the Church of Rome shall not be the true Church, for it is at controversy with her neighbors. And there would be no true Church in the world, because it is impossible to agree with all Churches: and Christian religion should be false, because it is divided in sects and heresies Or if by this word one they understand united in it self, and having no discord within it, this union belongeth not to the Church of Rome, wherein there is a great debate touching the principal point of religion, that is, which is the head and sovereign of the Church, the Pope or Councils. For there can be no greater nor more important a quarrel in any State, then to dispute and make question to whom the soueraigenitie belongeth. Also upon the question whether the Pope may dispose of and command kings to be slain, whereof there are infinite books on both sides written. And to speak of particular men, you shall hardly find two men which in all things agree together, one is content to pray unto God without calling upon Saints, another believes not Purgatory, another mocks at pardons, another imagineth a manner to participate in the body of Christ otherwise then his Church believeth. But so a man will go to Mass, and allow of the Popes authority, all this is tolerated. In the mean time the Council of Trent excommunicateth all those which disallow of any of the points of the Romish Churches doctrine. In such manner, that there are not any persons found in the Church of Rome, which are not excommunicated by the general iugdment of their Church. He that would take the pains to read the bull De Coena Domini, which the Pope publicly pronounceth and thundereth out every year on Thursday before Easter, shall find, that the French kings and their Courts of Parliament, and the most part of French men, are therein excommunicated and made as black as a coal, by the strongest & most solemn excommunication which is pronounced in the Church of Rome. And if it were not for the great profits and riches which knit the parts of this body together as twins with different heads, but tied together by the bellies, we should soon see this great body of the Church of Rome scattered and dispersed.

On the contrary, there are many heretical Churches, whose bodies are over strongly united, and whereof the members live peaceably together. As the Turks, enemies to Christians, who have a very great Empire, never disputing among themselves of any points of their religion.

It is nothing to the purpose to tell us, that we are at variance with the Lutherans and the Anabaptists, for the Church of Rome also is at variance with them: Nor to serve their turns against us with those arguments which the Turks & Jews use against the Church of Rome with the like reason, which object against her, that she agreeth not with so many Christian churches. Discord with other churches is no proof of error, but contrariety to the word of God. But where truth is, Satan seeketh to raise trouble. Add hereunto that there are many Churches which men think to be at discord with us, which nevertheless agree with us touching the ground and the essential parts of piety, and the means to attain to salvation.

Of Holiness. The eighth pretended Mark.

[Section. 102] Lastly, they put holiness for a mark of the true Church. If they understand holiness of manners, the Church of Rome doth not attribute this praise and commendation unto her self, but willingly confesseth the enormity of her vices. If they understand her holiness to be in doctrine, we willingly allow of this mark. For that holiness is no other thing but purity in doctrine.

Which also ought to be said touching the title of Apostolical, for that is the Apostolical Church, which followeth the doctrine of the Apostles. Many Churches founded by the Apostles, striving to hold the chair, have lost the doctrine.

Of the Circle in disputation.

Of the Church, and of the Markes.

Markes whereby M. Arnoux will have the true Church to be known.

Of Licenciousnesse and profane life.

[Section. 110] Touching Licenciousnesse and impiety, wherewith M. Arnoux upbraideth those Churches that are separated from the Church of Rome, therein he speaketh against his own conscience. For he knows well, that in those points the Church of Rome bears away the bell for profaneness of life and impiety, from all the Churches in the world. I speak not of particular persons, among whom I doubt not but that there are many that live with civil honesty, and which think that in their religion they do service to God. I speak only of public orders. For in all other Churches, vices are accounted evils and corruptions, but in the Church of Rome, vices are accounted virtues, and are become laws. None but the Church of Rome teacheth perjury, which by a decree of a Council, declareth that men are not bound to keep faith and promise with heretics: and which teacheth that the Pope can dispense with oaths made to God.

None but the Church of Rome, by public order, hath established the Stews, and by law permitteth fornication.

None but the Church of Rome, giveth remission of sins, upon condition to do evil, and which maketh the grace of God to be a reward of disloyalty and wickedness. So whilst the last wars of the League in France continued, the Pope gave nine years of pardon to all those French-men that should revolt from the obedience of the King. Those pardons were set up upon church doors, and on the corners of the streets.

None but the Church of Rome, maketh God an example of injustice, and of deceitful revenge, in this, that they teach, that God pardoneth men's faults, but not the punishment for them, quitting our debt, but not the payment of the debt. For so he that shall have received any injury, and hath pardoned the party that did it, may, after pardon given, be revenged on him, and say, that he did pardon his offense, but not the punishment of the offense. For, why will they have a man to be more just and merciful then God? We are too much inclined to do evil, without being incited thereunto by the example of God.

None but the Church of Rome, giveth way to cruelty, teaching that he is not a murderer which with zeal to the holy mother Church of Rome, killeth one that is excommunicated, which is Pope Vrbans doctrine, in the Canon Excommunicatorum, Causa 23. Quaest. 5.

None but the Church of Rome, dispenseth with subjects oaths of Allegiance to their Kings, and which inciteth them to rebellion, when it hath pleased the Pope to pronounce sentence of Deposition against a King. Whereof there is a Canon and a Rule in the Council of Latran, under Innocent the third, Canon 3. And the Council of Constance practiced the same against Frederick Duke of Austria in the twentieth Session.

None but the Church of Rome dispenseth with children to be disobedient and to leave the subjection to their fathers and mothers, commanded by the Law of God, when against their fathers and mothers wills, they save themselves, and enter into a Monastery as into a Sanctuary of rebellion. Read Numbers 30.4.5.6. where the vows of a daughter, made contrary to her fathers will, are declared void, and of no force.

None but the Church of Rome permitteth Doctors, by word of mouth, and by writing, to maintain, that it is lawful to use equivocation in justice, and that confessions of enterprises against the lives of Kings and Princes, ought not to be revealed, and that it is lawful for a son to accuse his father, and to procure his death, if he be an heretic.

None but the Church of Rome selleth sacred things, and prayers for the dead, and maketh open traffic of Benefices and Ecclesiastical functions.

None but the Church of Rome suffereth a man which calleth himself, Head of the Church, to wear the Cross of Christ upon his shoe, and to lay the holy Scripture at his seete when he cometh into Councils. The practice whereof was seen in the first Session of the last Council of Latran.

None but the Church of Rome permitteth fables to be read, and forbiddeth the reading of the holy Scripture.

If I would display and set forth what is done in Rome, from whence these rules come, and show how vices against nature are there become natural; how men there burn those which believe that there is no other Head of the universal Church but Jesus Christ, no other Purgatory then his blood, nor other propitiatory Sacrifice then his death; and where nevertheless they let the Jews live in peace, which affirm Jesus Christ to be a deceiver, and which for money buy liberty to blaspheme. It is an easy matter to make long and true discourses upon this subject, and yet I should say nothing, but from the Popes themselves, and from the writers in the Roman Church, which make the like complaints.

And I say that the vices of other Churches are more tolerable then the virtues of the Romish Church, seeing that virtues there are degenerated into outward shows; and piety into a scrupulous devotion: as also that there they presume to do greater numbers of works, and such as are perfecter then God hath commanded, in such sort that God is debtor to men, and is bound to make them restitution. For God easlier beareth with sins for which men repent, then with righteousness proudly presumed on.

Seeing also, that instead of framing men to a voluntary obedience, and to a filial love, by the knowledge of the love which God beareth unto us, she inciteth men to good works, by the fear of a fire prepared for the children of God in Purgatory, planting in their spirits a trembling piety, and a servile fear, instead of a filial love; and to be short, a repentance, whereof they must repent.

Of Saint Peters Supremacy.

Of Saint Peters Successors.

Of the Perpetuity of the Church.

Of Idolatry in the Romish Church, and in how many sorts the Church of Rome is Idolatrous, and what Idolatry is.

[Section. 116] The 28. Article of our Confession saith, that in the Church of Rome all superstitions and idolatries are permitted. This accusation is of no small moment, seeing that, 1. Cor. 6.9. the Apostle saith, that Idolaters shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Therefore we cannot entreat of a matter of more importance, because it concerns salvation, and exclusion out of the kingdom of heaven. If the word Idolatry doth offend our adversaries, we would have them to consider, that we cannot call things otherwise then the word of God calleth them; and also to believe, that our intent is not thereby to offend them, but to make them know and feel their own evil: which cannot be done by flattering them, or by disguising the truth. And that if they be offended at this which we say of them, God is much more offended at that which they do unto him. And if for propounding the word of God unto them, they hate us, we nevertheless will not cease to take compassion on them, and lend them our helping hands, at least to discharge our own consciences.

I say that in six things the Church of Rome committeth idolatry. First, by adoring the host which the Priest holdeth in his hands, and calling that God which is not so. Secondly, by attributing that honor to Saints which only appertaineth to God; by calling upon them, by making them mediators, by asking salvation of God by their merits, and by believing that they know the hearts and thoughts of men. Thirdly, by calling the virgins Mary the inuentrix of grace. Queen of heaven, and Lady of the world: for the royalty and empire over all creatures belongeth to God only. Fourthly, by adoration and worshipping of images. Fifthly, by adoring the cross. And sixthly, by worshipping the bones, apparel, and other relics of the dead. The first sort of idolatry, shall be spoken of in the end of this work. The second and third sort hath been declared and discoursed on at large in the 24. Article of our Confession. There remain the three last, that is, adoration of images, of the cross, and of relics. Upon all which in general we say, that we call those idolaters which yield a worship and religious service to creatures, or that partly or wholly transport to creatures, that honor which is due to God. By which definition it appeareth, that the most holy and most excellent creatures may be transformed into idols by those that are superstitious: so far, as that ancient Christians called the Arians idolaters, because denying Jesus Christ to be the eternal and sovereign God, nevertheless they called on him, and yielded religious service unto him. From whence it followeth, that those which honor Saints with such honors whereby God is dishonored, do wrong to Saints by honoring them, seeing that as much as in them lieth, they transform them into idols.

Of the words Image and Idol. And of the Hebrew words Pesel and Temunah, which God useth in the Law.

[Section. 117] Before we proceed further, you must understand the words: Image is a Latin word, and Idol is a Greek word: both the one and the other in their first original, and as they are taken and understood by good and ancient Authors, signify resemblance and representation. Tertullian a great Doctor touching significations of words, calleth all figures and representations Idols, in his third chapter of the book of Idolatry. Idos in Greek signifieth a form or representation, from whence the diminutiue Idolon is derived, which signifieth a little form or figure, and therefore every figure or form should be called Idol. Cicero of the same in his first book De finibus saith, Images which they call Idols, by which we both see and think: Taking Image and Idol for one thing. Chrysostom upon the third chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, Homilie 10. saith, We beautify and set out our houses, placing Idols and Images in them. And Xiphilinus the Abridger of Dion, in the life of Seuerus, instead of saying that there was an image or figure of wax at the funeral pomp of the Emperor Pertinax, representing the dead Emperor, saith, That there was an Idol of wax triumphantly adorned. In all these places and infinite others, Image and Idol signify one self same thing, and the word Idol is taken in good part, and simply signifieth a resemblance or representation. Read Isidore in his eighth book of Originals, cap. De Dijs Gentium.

Therefore Johannes Molanus appointed to be Censor and Examiner of the Nomenclator of Adrian Junius, upon the chapter of the Tooles, Instruments, or Mooueables of the Church, giveth this censure, saying, The Nomenclator hath not done amiss to take the words, proportion, carved, representation, Image, Idol, and figure, all for one thing. Nevertheless, the Reader ought to remember, that some of these words, by the use of the Scripture, and Ecclesiastical Authors are taken in evil part.

These words therefore in their proper signification, signify all one thing. But common use hath restrained the signifition of the word Idol, in such sort, that now it is taken in evil part: and in the New Testament written in Greek, the word Idol is taken for the Image of a false god, or for an Image which men do abuse unto Idolatry. From whence it followeth, that he should be thought to speak amiss that should say that Jesus Christ is the Idol of the invisible God, instead of saying, the Image; or that should say, that God made man according to his idol or likeness. In this sense, and according to the common use, Image is more generally used then Idol, and every Idol is an Image, but every Image is not an Idol.

The words by the which God in his Law forbiddeth us to make any graven Image, or the likeness of any things which are in heaven above, or in the earth below, are Pesel and Themuna; whereof the last signifieth every image and resemblance, but the first signifieth a graven image or figure: and is not taken in evil part, but when the sense and circumstance of the place constrains us to take it for an Image forbidden, and which is abused for Idolatry. Therefore the word Pesel by the Greek Interpreters is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth a carved or graven Image, as in the first verse in the 26. of Leviticus, and Deuter. 4.16.25: and 5.8. and in many other places, and sometime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Idolum, as Exod. 20.4. sometime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth Image and resemblance, as Isaiah 40.18.20. The Romish translation ordinarily translateth Pesel, sculptile, that is, a graven Image and also an Image or representation, specially in these places alleged, out of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah.

Our Adversaries, which make a controversy about these words, thereby to hinder the examination of things, will have men to translate the second commandment of God, in this manner; Thou shalt make no graven Idol, nor any resemblance of things which are in heaven, &c. And say, that Idol is the resemblance of a thing which is not, but that Image is the representation of a thing which is; wherein they contradict their own Bible. These are the very words whereby this commandment is set down, Deut. 5.8. in the French Bible translated in Louaine, and approved by the Facultie of Divines there: Thou shalt make no graven representation, nor any likeness whatsoever, of that which is in heaven, &c. And in Deuter. 4.16. To the end, lest peradventure being deceived, you should make to yourselves a graven similitude, • or the Image of male or female: And Isaiah 40.18. To whom then have you likened God, and what Image do you set for him? In which places the word Pesel, which our Adversaries would have translated, a graven Idol, is translated in our Adversaries Bible, resemblance, Image, and graven representation. And their Latin Bible hath, Non facies tibi sculptile: Thou shalt not make any carved or graven Image.

And whereas in this commandment they will have Idol to signify the representation of a thing that is not: it proceedeth from a voluntary blindness; for the words following, Nor resemblance of things which are in heaven, &c. show, that God speaketh of the Images of things that are. It is true that S. Paul 1. Cor. 10.19.20. saith, that The Idol is nothing; because it is no divine thing, but only wood or stone; but that may also be said of the Images of things which are, and that become Idolles, when religious service is attributed unto them. And it is certain, that although the Sun and the Moon are fixed and seen, yet to adore the Sun and the Moon, is Idolatry.

Of the Images of God, and of the Trinity.

[Section. 118] The Temples of the Romish Church are full of Images of the Trinity; they paint an old man sitting in a chair appareled like a Pope, with a Papal triple crown, and a robe, to the end (it may be) that he should be respected because of his clothes. They also make a Pigeon hanging at his beard, and a Crucifix in his arms. Such pictures are printed at the beginnings or titles of the Bibles printed at Rome, by authority of the Popes, Sixtus the fifth, and Clement the eight. They also serve for Signs for Alehouses and Inns, which is a common thing in Paris: where they say, Monsieur is lodged at the Trinity, and his men at God's head, making a derision of divinity. The title of the 8. chap. of Bellar. book of Images, is, That the Images of God are not forbidden. That seems to be done, to render to God as much as he hath done for us. For seeing that God hath made man according to his Image; man, in recompense, makes God according to man's image.

This error is of late times crept into the Church of Rome, by the connivance of an obscure age, wherein the holy Scriptures being taken away, the people had no other knowledge of God, then that which was given them in Pictures. The second Council of Nice, wherein it is ordained that Images should be adored, excēpteth the Images of God, as a thing whereof as then they spake not. Baronius in the 726. year of his Annals speaketh of two Epistles written by Pope Gregory the 2. a great defender of Images; in the first whereof he saith, that they painted the Son, but not the Father; saying, Why do we not set before men's eyes and paint the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because we know not what he is, and the nature of God cannot be painted nor set forth to men's sight. Whereupon Baronius noteth in the margent, that since that time they have used to paint God in Churches, and found it requisite to do so, against that Popes determination. Nicephorus, a new Author, in libr. 8. cap. 53. saith, The Armenian heretics paint the Image of God the Father, and of the holy Ghost, which is most absurd. Auentine, libr. 7. of the Bauarian history saith, that Pope John the 22, which lived in anno 1318. calleth certain men (that dwelt in Bohemia and Austria) Anthropomorphites, (that is, men which thought God to have human shape and members) because they painted the divine majesty in form of an old man, with a young man and a pigeon; and condemned them to be burnt. And among the new Doctors of the Romish Church, Durand, Abulensis, and Peresius, condemn those Images, and will not have the Image of the Trinity to be painted in any manner.

1 Against this abomination we have a formal commandment in the first Table of the Law of God, according to our Adversaries translation: Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven representation, or any likeness whatsoever of that which is in heaven, &c. Deut. 5.8. Could he more expressly forbid the making of the likeness of God which is in heaven? And in the 4. of Deut. 15.16. it is said, Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven Image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female. And in Isaiah 40.18. To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness will you compare unto him? In all these places it is formally forbidden to make any resemblance of God, or to represent him by Images, and that according to the translation received in the Church of Rome, as also in the Hebrew.

2 Therefore, neither in the ancient Tabernacle, nor in Solomon's temple, was there any picture or Image of God: although it was then a time of shadows and figures.

3 The Apostle Saint Paul Rom. 1.23. among the causes for the which God blinded the Gentiles, placeth this for one, Because they turned the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man.

4 And without the word of God, Reason it self is most evident and plain against it: for every Image and representation, ought in some sort, to resemble that which it representeth. Now what resemblance can the infinite Spirit have with a piece of wood? an invisible and immaterial substance, with a visible picture? or a Spirit without body, with a substantial Image? What King will endure to have his picture made like a Frog or an Ant? And yet the distance and difference between the greatest Monarch in the world, and the least creature that is, is not infinite, for that both the one and the other are finite. But between God which is infinite, and a mortal creature, what excellency soever it is of, the distance and inequality is infinite. For this our Adversaries bring some small excuses, not for an answer, but because they will not seem to say nothing.

5 They say, that in representing God, they intend not to represent his essence. But it is to no purpose to show to what end men represent God by images, seeing the commandment given by God, not to represent him by images, is general and without exception. Also it is certain, that no man was ever so brutish, as to think he could represent the essence of God in a picture seeing y ^t it is impossible to paint the essence of a man, or of the least beast that is. By this distinction then it may by said, that the prohibition which God so expressly maketh (with thteatnings) not to represent him by any image, is made to nobody, seeing that no man ever went about to represent the essence of God. And there is no Pagan idolater but may excuse himself by this means.

6 They add, that the Scripture attributeth feet, hands, eyes, and mouth to God; and therefore that we may represent God in the same form. This argument hath as good reason as if they should say, Because the Scripture in words maketh figures, let us also make images of stones; let us paint God with wings, and in form of a bird; or let us paint him like a rock, or like a fountain, or like a Lion, because the Scripture saith that God covereth us with the shadow of his wings, and calleth him our rock, the fountain of life, and compareth him to a Lion. This reason therefore is without reason: for the word of God which attributeth feet, hands, and eyes unto God, expoundeth it self, and oftentimes elsewhere declareth, that God is a Spirit, and that he is infinite. But the images of God expound not themselves, and there are no other images that speak to prevent the error and their gross conceits. The people of God, and all the Patriarchs and Prophets understood not this subtlety; for from those figurative words whereby God spake unto them, they drew no such strange consequences, neither took any liberty there by to erect images of God.

7 The reason ensuing, which is, that whereof they make the greatest show, doth also make against thems • lues. They say, that God sometime appeared in form of a man, as to Daniel in form of an old man. From whence they infer, that we may paint God in the same form wherein he appeared. But they ought rather to reason thus, and to say that God appeared to Daniel in form of a man, and yet the Church at that time did not represent God in that form, but obey • d the commandment of God, which forbiddeth them, to corrupt themselves by making God after the image of male or female, Deut. 4. Therefore we ought to do as the Church at that time did, and obey the commandment of God. For here we argue not what God hath done, but what God will have us to do. The commandments and not the actions of God, are the rules of our lives. It is by his commandments & not by his apparitions that we shall be judged at the latter day. It is mad religion to violate the commandment of God, and to counterfeit his actions: as if a man should despise the Law of God and go about to counterfeit thunder. And I cannot find that God ever appeared in that form wherein the Church of Rome represents him. He never appeared with a Miter with three Crowns, in a Popes robe, nor set in a Pontifical chair.

8 Bellarmine was not ashamed to reason in this manner, God made man according to his image: then we may make images of God. But this Cardinal, which plays with God, and maketh a jest of his word, is not ignorant, that man is created after the image of God, because his soul is illuminated with knowledge, and his will adorned with righteousness and holiness: those are the lineaments and prints of image of God. In this sense it is good and necessary that man should frame himself after the image of God. But from this, that God hath created man with righteousness and holiness, to infer, that man may paint God after the image of man, is to have more need of a Physician then of a teacher, and of purgation then of instruction.

Whether it is lawful to set up pictures and images of the Saints that art dead, in the Church, for aides and helps of piety and devotion.

[Section. 119] The Romish Churches are full of images and pictures, diversely adorned and set forth, one with a sword; another with keys; another with a hog, as Saint Anthony; another with a dog, as Saint Roc, another with rats and mice, as Saint Padagond; and those beasts also have part of the incense, and are as much lighted with candles as the Saints themselves. Saint Anthony could not read, yet over the gate of Saint Anthony's Abbey, not far from Paris, he is made with a book in his hand. There are diverse images of Saints which are poorly clad: and there are diverse images of one Saint, some appareled in silk, laid on with lace of gold, and which oftentimes change their apparel; others dustie, and before whō they light not many candles. Hard by an image clothed in white damaske; you shall see one stark naked, which is the image of God. At the death of a Prince you shall see both he and she Saints clad in black, and our Lady enduring part of the affliction. They say, they are helps in devotion, yet they hide them in Lent time, which is the time of devotion. They call them the books of the ignorant: and there are many Saints which were never in the world, and which are Saints and never were men. As the three kings, Saint Longinus, Saint Vrsula, Saint Catherine, Saint Margaret, Saint Martial, Saint Christopher, and the 11. thousand virgins, &c. And if the idol be an image of a thing which is not, it is certain that such images are idols, and by consequent, those that serve them are idolaters.

The natural inclination of man hath hatched this error, but the subtlety and policy of the Bishop of Rome hath been the nurse thereof. For naturally man loveth images: little children love babies, specially if they be finely clothed, and having set them in some eminent place, bear them I know not what • espect. This childish humor hath crept into religion, and as babies are children's idols, so images and pictures are men's babies. For in regard that all our knowledge cometh by sense, man desireth to see an object of sensible devotion: and will have something to bind or provoke his attention. Whereunto also the pleasure of the eye & easiness inviteth him. For it is an easier thing to see pictures then to comprehend doctrines, and to form prayers to the image of man, then to form man to the image of God.

Popes by their subtlety have dexterously served their turns with this inclination, to draw the light of the Scripture from the people, that in a dark misty night they might lay the foundation of their Empire. For the people did easily neglect instruction, when they fed them with recreation, and were used to have images instead of sacred books, pictures for doctrines, and candles lighted at noon day, instead of the light of the holy Scripture, which driveth away the obscurity of ignorance. And we see in Histories, that as fast as ignorance increased, images also multiplied, and the Popes Empire was strengthened.

Against this permission to fill Churches with images, we have the commandment of God, which not only forbiddeth to serve images or to worship them, but also to make them. For the first table of the Law is expressly made to order religion and the service of God. Then I say, that in matter of religion, God forbiddeth to make images. The words are very direct: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, nor in the earth below, nor in the waters under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them. There it is manifest, that in matter of religion and piety, he forbiddeth two things, one to make any image or likeness of things that are in heaven or earth: the other, to bow down to them, or worship them. He saith not, Thou shalt make no any graven image to worship it, but he saith, Thou shalt make no graven image, nor worship it. For although the end for the which images are forbidden in matter of religion, is for fear lest men should fall into idolatry by worshipping them, yet God knowing that man is naturally given to idolatry, did not only forbid the worship of images, but also the making of them for any religious use, and hath prohibited the means and inducements thereunto for fear of the end. The like prohibition is made, Levite. 26.1. You shall make you no idols, nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall you set you up any image of stone in your land to bow down to it. For I am the Lord your God.

Therefore also the Israelites in their Temple and in their Synagogues, had not the images of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, nor David; persons nevertheless which were of as much worth as S. Juniper, or S. Amador.

Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 23. and 24. saith, that the Gnostiques had certain painted images, and others made of other matter, saying that they were the figures of Christ made by Pilate.

Saint Augustine in his book of Heresies, cap. 7. speaking of the Carpocratians, saith, They served the images of Jesus, worshipping them, and offering incense unto them. The Collyridians are blamed for the same by Epiphanius in his 79, Heresy: who also being at Anablata, tore a veil in a Church wherein there was a picture of Christ, or of some other Saint; saying that it was contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, as he reciteth in an Epistle translated by Saint Jerome, and which is found in the second Tome of the said S. Jerome's Epistles.

The 36 Canon of the Council of Eliberia, held at the same time that the Council of Nice was holden, saith thus: It hath been ordained that there should be no pictures in Churches, for fear lest men should adore that which is painted upon the walls.

Our adversaries reasons to the contrary, are rather excuses and shifts then proofs. They say, that images are the books of the ignorant; and they say true, for they maintain ignorance. It is hard for them that have chosen stones to be their teachers, to attain to any instruction: as S. Augustine saith, So they deserve to be seduced, which have sought Jesus Christ and his Apostles, not in the holy Scriptures, but in painted walls. The books of the ignorant are good, when they are a remedy of ignorance. Such are the sacred books of the old and new Testaments: which they hide from the people, lest they should instruct the ignorant. And it is not without a mystery, that in Lent, which is the time of preaching they hide the images, to show that images ought to hide & draw themselves out of the way, before the preaching of the Gospel. And certainly they would hide themselves forever, if that which they preach in the Church of Rome were the doctrine of th • Gospel. The Prophet Habak. cap. 2.18. calling the images of idolaters, teachers of lies, without doubt answereth to Pagans and Jews that were idolaters which made the like excuse. And Athanasius in his Oration against the Gentiles saith, that Pagan idolaters made this excuse, saying, That images served men instead of books, wherein reading, they might comprehend the knowledge of God: and a little after, If these things serve you for books, as you falsely allege, to behold and contemplate God.

They also say, that Moses by God's commandment made a serpent of brass, which was a figure of Jesus Christ, in that it healed the bitings of the old serpent, which is the devil. But speaking in this manner, they make answer unto themselves, and confute their images. For they say that Moses made that serpent by the express commandment of God, but they set up images in the Church without God's commandment, and against his commandment. And yet it is false that the serpent was properly an image of Jesus Christ, (howsoever it were a type of Christ's grace:) for what resemblance had the form of a serpent with the humanity of the Son of God? Considering also that our adversaries say, that idols are figures of things which are not, but that images are figures of things that are. But then the humanity of Christ was not; and therefore the brazen serpent could not be an image of Jesus Christ: howbeit the saving virtue which God displayed in the serpent, was an example and a figure of the saving efficacy of Jesus Christ, & of the healing of our souls by his virtue. The figure was not in that heap of brass, but in the healing.

They also allege the image, of the Cherubims or Angels, placed upon the Ark by God's commandment. But what makes that for the images of Saints, which God hath not commanded? And yet it is false that those Cherubims were the images of some Angels: for let them tell me of which of the Angels those Cherubims were figures? As also that the resemblance of Angels which are invisible and incorporeal, cannot be made in any corporal figure. Then we must say, that those Cherubims were not the images of any Angels, but symbols and characters of their office, in the same manner as men paint virtues and vices. So we paint Envy lean, Pride swollen and puffed up, Justice with a sword and a pair of balance. Which symbolical pictures produced diverse Saints, as S. Christopher, S. Margaret, and S. George which were not the images of any Saints that ever lived in the world, but figures and characters of Christians and combats of faith, as Baronius in his book of Martyrs is oftentimes constrained to confess.

Being put from these weak proofs, they always return to this, that we must translate, Thou shalt make no graven idol, and not, no graven image. What need have we to dispute hereof, seeing that the words following do avoid the disputation: for God addeth, Nor resemblance or similitude whatsoever. These words cut it clean off, and admit no exception. Besides we have shown before, that our adversaries Bibles, both Latin and French, translate the words as we do, graven image, and representation.

Our adversaries themselves sufficiently show, that this commandment displeaseth them, seeing they have taken it out of their Ladies Houres and Service books, which they suffer the poor people to read. Behold word for word how the first table of the Law is set down in our Ladies Houres after the manner of Rome, and which at this day are most used.

1. Commandment.

I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have, nor worship any other God but me.

2. Commandment.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

3. Commandment.

Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day, and feasts.

With the like corruption they have put the commandments of God into verse, where the prohibition to make any graven image is clean omitted. So the Council of Ausbourg which is in the last Tome of Councils, holden anno 1548. puts the commandments of God in high Dutch as they are to be propounded to the people, wherein there is no speech of images: nor of the resemblance of things which are in heaven or in earth.

Herein our adversaries do as he doth, that out of ten bags of money stealeth one, & then puts one of the nine that are left into two bags, to the end y ^t his theft may not be perceived. For having taken one out of the ten commandments of the Law, they cut the last in two, making the not coveting of a man's wife, the ninth commandment, and the not coveting of the house, the man servant, and the maid servant, &c. the tenth. By this means they might make 14. commandments, if on everything whereof God forbiddeth the coveting they would make a commandment apart. But God, by his providence hath taken all excuse from our Adversaries: for in the 20 of Exodus, the not coveting of our neighbors wife, which they make the ninth commandment, is thrust into the middle of the tenth, and put after the not coveting of thy neighbors house, whereby it followeth, that according to the Church of Rome, in the 20. of Exodus there is no ninth commandment.

Whereupon we should give them good matter to make fowl exclamations against us, if we should follow them. For what would they say of us, or rather what would they not say, if we had been so bold as to cut off or to suppress one only syllable of that most sacred Law which God pronounced by his own mouth, and wrote with his finger in Tables of stone? which he published from the midst of the fire and the smoke, with an extraordinary majesty? Shall worms of the earth be so audacious to correct the Law of God, or to find anything superfluous therein? Will men be so bold to enterprise to cut off, and to change that sovereign Law, by the which they must be judged at the latter day? to the end that they may be culpable, to have not only transgressed the Law by disobedience, but also to have pared it through contempt, yea and to have made it shorter by a commandment, wherein God speaketh with great majesty calling himself strong and jealous, and thereunto adding his threatenings and his promises?

Of adoration of Images, and of the service and worship which is yielded and given unto them.

[Section. 120] The holy Scripture speaketh of two adorations, one civil, the other religious. Civil adoration is that which is given to Princes and Superiors, yea although they be wicked. So Genesis 23, Abraham bowed himself before the Hethites; and Genesis 33. Jacob bowed himself before his brother Esau. In which places the Hebrew word is the same which we translate to worship, when we speak of the worship of God.

Religious adoration, is an action of religion, whereby a reasonable creature humbleth himself before one, calling upon him, and serving him with service belonging to religion, appearing before him as before one that knoweth his heart and his thought and that can hear his prayers. When we dispute of the adoration of Images, we understand religious adoration: for this adoration is done in the Church, and by order from the Pastors; and is an act of religion, by the which in worshipping the Images of Saints, men think they do service to God.

In this point, the Church of Rome hath unmeasurably gone astray, and hath directly striven against God. The second Council of Nice, which the Church of Rome placeth among the general Councils, whereof Pope Adrian the first was the procurer, above twenty times ordaineth that Images should be adored. And finally, for conclusion setteth down this determination, which is found in the seventh Act: We hold that we must adore, and salute the Images of the virgins Mary the undefiled mother of God, and of the glorious Angels, and of all the Saints. And that if any one be of a contrary opinion, and doubteth or wauereth touching the adoration of venerable Images, our holy and venerable Synod holdeth him to be accursed. In the same Council there is an Epistle written by Pope Adrian to Thaerasius Patriarch of Constantinople, where the said Pope faith thus; Let your Holiness persevere to serve and adore the Images of all the Saints. There also Images are advanced to such degree of excellency and holiness, that in the fourth action it is said, That Images are of like and equal value with the holy Gospel. Also, Major est Imago quàm oratio. And, to the end that men might paint Angels, it is said in the fifth Action, that The Church holdeth, that Angels are corporeal and not invisible, having a body either of air, or of fire.

Now, to the end that by adoring we should not only understand to reverence, honor or respect, but also to yield and to give them religious worship, the Patriarch Tharasius, which was President at that Council, pronounced this sentence in the 6. Action: All those which confess that they reverence Images, & nevertheless refuse to adore them, are reproved by the holy father Anastasius to be hypocrites: for when they refuse that adoration, which is a sign or mark of honor, it is manifest that they do the contrary, that is, that they speak injuriously of the Saints.

Following this doctrine, our Adversaries have written diverse books De cultu Imaginum: Of the worship of Images. Cardinal Bellarmine, in the 22. chapter of his book of Images, will have them to be adored, not only in regard of that which they represent, but also in themselves; saying, The ordinary adoration which men give to external Images, is in themselves, and properly. And in the 21. chapter he setteth down this maxim in great letters, saying, that the Images of Christ, & of Saints ought to be worshipped, not only by accident, and improperly, but in themselves, and properly: in such manner, that the worshipping is limited to the Image considered in it self, and not only in this, that it representeth the person for whom it is made.

Gregory de Ualentia the Jesuit, in his second book of Idolatry, cha. 7. hath these words; It is not absurd to think, that Saint Peter would say, that some religious service of Images (which are sacred Images) is good, when he would expressly withdraw the faithful from unlawful worship of Idols. The reason is, seeing that Saint Peter forbiddeth the unlawful worship of Idols, it is a sign that there is a lawful worship.

But this is worse, and such as would make a man's hair to stand upright upon his head to hear it. Uasques the Jesuit, De adoratione, lib. 3. disp. 1. cap. 2. p. 458. printed in Moguntia, anno 1601, in 8. maintaineth, that all things, even unreasonable creatures, and without life, may be adored with God, as being his Image. In such manner, that according to this Doctors opinion, men may worship a Frog or a Mouse, considering them to be the Images of God, and in as much as God is present in them. Nay, he proceedeth further, to maintain that it is lawful for Christians to worship a straw. saying, The Wicklessians in vain object against Christians which worship Images, that they may as well adore a straw, because in it there appeared some sign or token of the Trinity. For Leontius would as willingly have confessed the same touching a straw, which he confessed of all other things; so far off is it to be thought to be absurd.

Then seeing that the Doctors themselves are so blinded, it is no marvel that the common people are so furiously superstitious, about the service and worship of Images. For they fall down before them, they light Candles unto them, they put costly apparel upon them, and bring them offerings. In the beginning of Lent, the people go on procession to the Image of our Lady, to have leave to eat butter. Poor old women rub their kerchers upon the feet of an Image, and then kiss them. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, thinks it good, that before the Image of an he or a she Saint, men should say, Our Father which art in heaven. It is an ordinary thing to speak to a piece of wood or to a painted Image, as if it understood them. There are particular prayers which are made to the Image of the face of Jesus Christ, printed in a piece of linen cloth, wherein the words are directly spoken to the painted cloth and to the Image, and are not agreeable to Jesus Christ. The prayer saith: I salute thee, oh holy face of the Redeemer, printed in a white cloth, given to Ueronique in sign of love. Cleanse us from vices, & join us in society with the blessed. Oh blessed Image, and happy figure, cause us to see the face of Jesus Christ. With the like abuse, when they lift up the Image of the Cross, they say, Ave lignum triumphale, All hail triumphant wood. And, Ave crux spes vnica, All hail ô cross our only hope, increase righteousness in the faithful, and pardon sinners. This superstition began already to enter into the minds of some particular persons in Saint Augustine's time, of whom he speaketh thus, Libr. 1. cap. 34. of the Customs of the catholic Church: saying, I know that there are many worshippers of Sepulchers and Pictures: I know many which drink excessively over the dead.

Against this so prodigious an abuse, and so lamentable blindness, we have the commandment of the Law of God, which our Adversaries have put out of their Ladies hours and services; Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything which is in heaven above, nor in the earth below, nor in the waters under the earth, thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them. This word pronounced with thunder and lightening, as yet thundereth against idolatry, and lighteneth darkness. So Jesus Christ said to the devil, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Read Levite. 26.1.

Against this so clear and manifest word of God, accompanied with terrible threatenings, our adversaries shroud themselves with weak reasons, as if a man should hide himself in the water, against rain.

1 They contest about the words Idol and Image, but the Bible of their own translation saith, graven image and representation. And the general prohibition not to make any resemblance of things which are in heaven and in earth, (which is added thereunto,) stops all evasions whatsoever.

2 They say y ^t they reserve all divine worship called Latria unto God & yield an inferior religious worship called Dulia, to Saints and their images: but the word of God speaketh but of one religious service, and that is to be performed to God only. When the prohibition to adore Images is general in the Law, it belongs not to man to make any restraints or exceptions against it, drawn out of their own brains. Such distinctions are to be received when they are contained in the word of God. It belongs to the law maker, and not to subjects, to make exceptions upon the law. Now our adversaries neither bring places out of the Scripture, commandment of God, nor any examples, which in any sort do approve or establish religious adoration of creatures. But on the contrary, in the Scripture this religious service which our adversaries call Dulia, is expressly reserved to God only, with an express prohibition to attribute it to any other but to God. So in Sam. 1.7. The Greek hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Direct or prepare your hearts to the Lord, and give Dulia to him only. And Paul, Gal. 4.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Then when you knew not God you gave Dulia, that is, you served those who by nature were no God's. And whosoever understandeth Greek, knoweth that Latria is less then Dulia; for Latria simply signifieth service of honor, reverence, and subjection; but Dulia, (besides that,) importeth a slavish servitude. Saint Augustine in his 20 book, cap. 21. against Faustus a Manichee, & in his Questions upon Genesis, lib. 1. cap. 61. useth this distinction, but in contrary sense to our adversaries. For he saith, that Dulia is given to men that are alive▪ and consequently by the word Dulia he understandeth no religious service. And in fine, who seeth not the p • ruersitie of this proceeding? For after they have suppressed the second commandment of the Law, if any one make it known to the people, they set before them a forked distinction of words in bad Greek, which the people understand not, and which those that are wise know to be mistaken, raising up a cloud of dust with their Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia, to escape through this thick mist.

3 If these two sorts of religious adoration were received, the proofs which the Scripture useth to prove the divinity of Christ, would be weak and of no force. As when the Apostle, Hebr. 1.6, proveth Christ's divinity by this which he writeth of him, That all the Angels of God worship him; the enemies of his divinity would say, that there he speaks of an inferior adoration, and which may be attributed to a creature.

4 They say, that the honor which men do to Images, turneth to the honor of that which they represent; which is the speech of all idolaters. So Michaes mother, Judges 17.3. determining to make a molten Image in the house of God, said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the Lord from my hand, for my son to make a graven Image. And thereupon Micah persuaded himself that God would bless him. It appeareth by the 5 and 6 verses of the 18 chapter, that the prayers made before that Image were directed unto God. The same excuse a Pagan made kneeling on his knees before an Image, as Saint Augustine saith upon the 113. Psalm, saying, I worship not the Image, but thereby I represent unto myself the resemblance of that which I should adore.

5 If we consider what honors men yield and give unto Images of Saints, we shall find that the honor is properly done to the Image, and that the Saint is never the more honored; and that Bellarmine hath reason to say, that the Image is worshipped for it self. For when they clothe an Image, the Saint is not adorned thereby; if they offer to an Image, the Saint hath no part thereof; if they set up candles lighted before an Image, the Saint is not lighted therewith; if any man speaks to an Image, the Saint esteemeth himself to be no more honored then if a King should think himself to be honored, when a man speaketh to his picture before his face.

6 The abuse is evident, in that our adversaries to untwine themselves, twist intricate cords of dark words, giving us an adoration of Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia, and each of them either absolute or relative; in such manner, that there are six sorts of religious adoration which the people neither understand nor practice, who falling down before an Image, come thither with all their devotion, and divide not their intents into so many parts. Whosoever shall enter into the examination of these adorations, shall find that in them there is not only deceit and intricatenesse, but also manifest foolishness: for the last refuge of our adversaries is, to say, that the adoration of Images is a relative adoration, and which hath regard to the thing represented by the Image. But that is nothing, for to adore an Image relatiuely, is to adore the Image; and to adore an Image, having a regard to the Saint which it representeth, is no adoration of the Saint. And seeing that the adoration of the Image is relative, and the adoration of the Saint is absolute and not relative, it followeth, that the adoration of the Saint, and the adoration of his Image are two sorts of adoration. And which is more, If this relative adoration be received, there is no creature in the world but it may be adored. So men may adore and worship the Sun, and the Moon, and beasts, and trees, and say that such adoration is relative to God, & that they adore them because of him that created them, and in respect of him.

7 Add hereunto, that all these distinctions only serve to show what the intent of the Church of Rome is, but not to ground this intention upon the word of God, nor to show that God or the Saints approve this relative adoration. For if it were lawful to worship and adore Saints, yet before we should adore their Images with relative adoration, it were good to be assured that the Saints will be honored in that sort. Seeing it is not likely that a king would think himself to be honored by him that should do reverence to his picture, or that should speak to his cloke, although he should say, that the honor he doth is relative, and the reverence respective.

8 They add, that the abuse offered to an Image redoundeth to him that is represented by that Image; whence, say they, it followeth, by a reason drawn from cōtraries, that the honor which is done to an Image, is an honor to him that is represented thereby. I answer, it is false, that the disgrace done to an Image, doth always disgrace him that is represented thereby: for oftentimes he which is represented, hateth that representation. So the King ordaineth that his Image stamped upon false money shall be cut in pieces, and molten. The Israelites worshipped the brazen serpent in honor of God▪ and yet Hezekiah did well to break down that serpent; for it is not credible that those which worshipped that brazen serpent did believe that a piece of brass was the sovereign God: but they referred an inferior adoration unto it, in remembrance of the virtue which God had shown thereby.

9 They mend the matter much, by saying that they worship not the Images of false gods, as the Pagans did, but the Images of the friends and servants of God. For we must not transport that religious service which is due to God only, to his friends nor to his enemies. If it be evil to honor evil things, it is evil to abuse good things, and to use God's friends to provoke him to jealousy. Idolatry in the Scripture is called adultery. A woman is not excusable, although she giveth her body adulterously to none but to her husbands friends. Then this excuse shall be allowed, when they have proved that God will have the Images of his servants to be adored.

10 They also allege a number of false miracles, done by Images. But if they were true, doth it follow y ^t we must adore all that whereby God hath done miracles? Then we must adore the asses iaw which Samson used, Moses rod, and the water of Jordan which healed Naaman, and many such like things.

11 Wanting reasons, they have recourse to the Scripture, hoping that that will serve them without reason. The second Council of Nice, and Pope Adrian which expressly made a declaration fought the defense of that Council, with a ridiculous subtlety collected an heap of places out of the Scripture for the adoration of Images: as in the second of Cant. it is said, Shew me thy face, & let me hear thy voice. In the second of Genesis it is said, God made man after his own image. And Exod. 18 Moses bowed down to Jethro his father in law. And Rom. 15. Paul saith, That all things which are written, are written for our instruction. And Psalm 47, As we have heard, so we have seen. And Luke. 18, No man after he hath lighted a candle, setteth it under a bushel. Upon these places those reverend Fathers grounded the adoration of Images. They forgot Goliath combat with David, and Samsons foxes, for those may be alleged to as good porpose for the adoration of Images. Whosoever doth not acknowledge the absurdity of these proofs, is blinder then images themselves.

12 New comers use other weapons. Bellarmine in the 12 chap. of the book of Images, saith, that the Jews worshipped the Cherubims placed upon the Ark. First I say, if that be true, it must needs be that God commanded it, but that is nowhere to be found. Secondly, if the Israelites adored the Cherubims, they would much more have adored the Angels figured, as they say, by those Cherubims; which before we have shown to be false. Thirdly, if the Israelites adored the two Cherubims placed upon the Ark, then the Cherubims must needs have been the Images of some certain Angels, otherwise they should have adored they knew not what. In the Church of Rome it self, they worship not any Image whose name they know not, and what Saint it representeth: but those Cherubims had no names, nor were the figures of any particular Angels. Then to worship them had been a service done to an unknown Cherubin, as in Athens they worshipped the unknown God. Fourthly, add hereunto, that if the Israelites adored those Images, then it must needs be that they saw them. But the Cherubims were shut up in the Sanctuary, and the people saw them not, no more then those that were painted in the curtains in the holy place. And for the space of 500 years and more after Solomon's time, the people saw them not. God by taking them away from the people's sight, prevented idolatry. Fifthly and lastly, put the case, that the people did adore the Ark, (which nevertheless is false) yet thereby it followeth not, that they adored the Cherubims placed upon the Ark. He that saluteth the king, doth he salute his hat, or his clothes? There is neither reason nor apparence thereof.

13 In the end, failing of better proofs, they produce two notable falsifications of the Scripture. They say, that in the Psalm 98. verse 5. it is said, Worship the stool under his feet. From whence they draw this ridiculous consequence, that we must adore Images. But according to the Hebrew it is, Worship towards the stool under his feet. So the holy place is called, towards the which the people turned their faces when they worshipped; in the same manner & terms as it is said in the last v. of the same Psal. Worship toward the mountain of his holiness. The Chaldean Paraphrase expounds it so, & Nicola • de Lira, Pagninus, and Arias Montanus do the like. It is true, that to adore God, or to fall down before God, are all one thing. And when we speak of civil adoration, to worship the king, or to kneel before the king, is all one. But when we speak of things insensible, to kneel down before an altar, or before a mountain, is not to adore the altar or the mountain: specially in matter of religious adoration, which God reserved to himself only, and which is enjoined by his commandment.

14 With the like falseness and to the same end, they allege Hebrews, 11.21. where it is said according to the Roman translation, that Jacob dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph, and worshipped the end of his staff. But in Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he worshipped upon the end of his staff. The second Council of Nice in the second Act translateth faithfully, saying, Jacob in summitate virgae adorauit, and not summitatem. The Jesuits Ribera and Immanuel Sa, translate this place as we do. The thing is as clear as day, and the falsification of the place most evident.

Of adoration or worshipping of the Cross. And of the sign of the Cross made in the air.

[Section. 121] The Cross of Christ is the glory of the faithful, the support of their hope, and their principal consolation. This Cross is a terror to the devils the victory of hell, the death of death eternal. It is the body of the shadows of the Law, the truth of figures, the substance of Prophecies, the foundation of the Covenant made with God, the effect of the Gospel. For in it consisteth our learning to know Jesus Christ and him crucified. This Cross is more worth then kings Crowns; the sufferings of the Son of God surpass the triumphs of mighty Monarkes, his death is more worth then the life of all men.

But by the Cross of Christ I do not understand a piece of wood, but the sufferings and passion of our Savior, Colos. 1.18.19. it is said, For it pleased the Father by him to reconcile all things to himself, through peace made by that blood of the Cross. God hath washed our souls in his blood, and buried our sins in his death. There is nothing sweeter to our consciences then the remembrance of this bitterness, nothing more honorable then this reproach.

Ancient Christians in Tertullian's time, that is 200 years after the birth of our Lord, marked their foreheads with the sign of the Cross, to witness that they were not ashamed of the Cross of Christ. Not long after they proceeded to paint the figure of the Cross. The Labarum or standart borne in the wars before the Emperors of Rome, namely before Constantine, was made like a Cross. But Constantine added thereunto the name of Christ, which made some say, that Constantine fixed the sign of the Cross in his standart. Kings made that sign to be stamped upon their moneys, and carried it in the flags of their Christians ships. Until that time there was nothing to be disliked therein.

But when devotion began to degenerate and turn to superstition, every age adding some new thing, after that men had once learned to make wisdom or comeliness a rule, instead of subjecting themselves to the rule of the word of God, the sign of the Cross made both in the air, and painted, did insensibly change his nature. Men began to make the sign of the Cross in the air by form of coniuration to drive away devils: and to make a precise multitude of Crosses upon the host, and upon the chalice by order; and if a Priest failed in that number, the mystery was spoiled. Pope Innocent the third in his book of the Mysteries of the Mass, cap. 58. saith, That the Priests make signs of the Cross upon the host to withstand the force of devils, lest they should prevail against the Priest, or against the host, which is Jesus Christ, (if we will believe it.) This did come in good time to Jesus Christ. It is no small benefit that a Priest doth to his God to defend him with signs of the Cross made in the air against the force of the devil.

With an abuse much worse then that, they adore little pieces of wood, which they say to be pieces of the wood of the true Cross, with divine worship called Latria, that is, sovereign adoration which belongeth to God only; as almost all the Doctors of the Romish Church teach. And they adore the Image of the Cross with religious worship, as Cardinal Bellarmine in the 30 chap. of his book of Images saith, We worship all Crosses because all of them are Images of the true Cross, yea and simple Crosses without the crucifix. We adore (saith he) the Cross it self without the crucifix thereon. Therefore also they offer incense unto it, as we see in the Pontifical. And when they lift up the Cross, they say, Ecce crux, adoremus. And they speak to the wood of the Cross, saying, Ave lignum triumphale, All hail triumphant wood, and Ave crux spei vnica, auge pijs iustitiam, reis{que} dona veniam: I salute thee oh Cross, our only hope, increase righteousness in the faithful, and pardon sinners. You must note that they do not worship the Image of the Cross but after it hath been consecrated, and that he which did consecrate it, presently thereupon doth worship it, as the Pontifical teacheth, in the chapter of the Blessing of a new Cross: and that when the Cross is blest, they be se • oh God, that that sign of the Cross may be a saving remed • e, the redemption of souls, and a defense against the cruel arrows of adversaries.

But we, who by so many afflictions and persecutions have learned to bear the Cross of Christ, and to glory in his reproach, and which with the Apostle, Galat. 6.14. say, God forbid that I should rejoice, but in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world; because of the abuse have left off making the sign of the Cross and painting it in our Churches, knowing how therein d • ceite is easy, and superstition credulous, and the effects dangerous, so far as to worship a piece of wood with that worship which is due unto God only.

1 Then to begin with adoration of pieces of the Cross, Paul Rom. 14.13. saith, that whatsoever i • not of faith is sin: and speaketh this concerning the use of meats, in which that a man sin not, he will have him to use them in faith, that is to say, with assurance that God liketh that which he doth therein, & that it is not contrary to his word: by greater reason then, we must have this assurance in matters of adoration, and when question is made touching the yielding of religious service to the creature. For first, how shall a man be assured that that chip of wood is a peeece of the true Cross? seeing that if the wood of the Cross which at this day is kept in relics, were all put together in a heap, it would be wood enough to load fifty carts? Specially seeing there was a public traffic made of that wood in our fathers times, and that the same wood is distributed abroad like merchandise? In the year of our Lord 1239. John de Brennet calling himself king of Jerusalem, having need of money, sold the Crown of thorns to Lewis the ninth king of France, a meek, upright, and religious Prince according to the time, but easy to be circumvented: and the true Cross to the Venetians, who sold the same again for twice the value that they paid for it, to the said king Lewis: who for those relics only caused the holy Chapel in the palace of Paris to be built to keep them in.

2 Secondly, it is impossible to worship pieces of wood with assurance that God liketh of that adoration, seeing that God hath not commanded it, and that there is not one word spoken thereof in the Scripture: besides that God hath forbidden to worship and serve any other but himself, as we have proved in the precedent Section, and that the Prophets in all their Prophecies condemn those that worship wood and stone.

3 Add hereunto, that if a piece of wood which men by conjecture suppose to be a piece of the true Cross, ought to be adored with religious worship, much more the whole Cross. And if at this day a piece of rotten worm eaten wood ought to be worshipped, by greater reason the whole Cross ought to have been adored when it stood upright, and was yet bloody and hot with the blood of Jesus Christ: and yet the Apostles did not then adore it, nor commanded the faithful to adore it. It had been an easy matter for everyone of them to have cut a piece thereof to bear about them, to serve them for a preservative against evil air, against thunder, and against the devils; but they never thought upon it. And not only they, but also the Christians after them for the space of three hundred years, left that Cross, without once troubling themselves to seek for it. Certainly our adversaries by their scrupulous diligence accuse the Apostles of carelessness and negligence.

Bellarmine in the Book of Images, cap. 20 and 22, perceiving that in it there is an abuse, opposeth himself against that multitude of Doctors who will have the Cross to be worshipped with divine worship called Latria, which is due to God and will have the Cross to be worshiped with an inferior worship, by that means making the worshipping of the cross to be another worship then that wherewith men worship the crucifix, which ought to have sovereign worship. And hereby he troubled the imagination of the people, who worshipping the Cross, think they do but one worship but Bellarmine will have them to do two at one time, and to cut their devotion in two pieces. But how soever he pretend to adore the Cross with inferior religious service, yet still he yieldeth religious service to the creature, and so incurreth that punishment set down in the Law of God, against those that serve the creature instead of serving God only.

It is to no purpose for them to say, that the wood of the true Cross is to be worshipped, because it touched the body of Jesus Christ. If that be so, that part of the Cross which touched the body of our Lord, ought to be more worshipped then that part which touched it not. And by that reason we must worship the ground whereon Christ went, and the river wherein he was baptized, and their hands that struck him, and Judas mouth that kissed him. And we must thereupon have some commandment of God, to worship those things which touchted the body of our Lord.

Certainly if the body of our Lord by being touched did sanctify insensible things, in such manner as to make them worthy of worship, much more would he have sanctified those, who bearing great love unto him, had touched him. Then why would he have deprived Marie Magdalene of that grace, saying unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father? The Church of Rome doth not worship empty chalices, although they believe that the blood of Christ hath been in them. It doth not worship the Priest when it believeth that he hath Jesus Christ in his stomach. And certainly after the death of a Priest, it is a wonder that his stomach which was wont to be the ordinary receptacle of Jesus Christ, is not laid up among Relickes, and consecrated for that touching.

Touching the adoration of the Image of the Cross, we have already condemned it to be idolatry, by all that which we formerly produced against adoration of Images. And if it be idolatry to worship the Image of a living thing, much more to worship the Image of a senseless thing. And I would gladly know, to whom they speak, when in the Romish Church they say, I salute thee wood. Do they speak to Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is not wood. Do they speak to the wood? That wood understands them not. Do they speak to that wood in honor of Jesus Christ? That whereunto men speak in honor of Jesus Christ, ought to understand what a man saith. No man (if he be not mad) doth speak to the wood of the kings chair in honor of the king. But on the contrary, he were worthy to be bound with Hyppocrates bands, that speaketh to a painted chair, and doth reverence thereunto. That is it which is done in the Romish Church: where they not only speak to the Cross, but also to the Image of the Cross, adoring it.

To be short, we must always have recourse to the commandment of God, and to the prohibition to make any Image, nor the likeness of things which are in heaven or in earth, nor to fall down before them, nor to do any worship unto them.

Touching this custom of carrying a piece of the wood of the true Cross about men, note by the way, that the nature of false religions is to change virtues into outward shows, and necessary piety into superfluous ceremonies. And so to obey the commandment of our Savior, that will have us to bear his Cross; & for example, in the Church of Rome they bear a piece of wood hanging about their necks. They carry the Cross hanging down upon their bellies, but that belly is an enemy to Jesus Christ. But touching the true Cross whereof Jesus Christ speaketh, which is affliction for the Gospel, the Church of Rome makes us bear that: persecuting those which say the Cross of Christ is our only satisfaction, our only merit, and our only propitiatory sacrifice.

Of Relickes, and of their worship.

[Section. 122] Our difference is not, whether we must with honor keep the relics of Saints, or whether their sepulchers ought to be set in decent places, and their memories honorable. That is not questionable: for if with a commendable curiosity we visit the Sepulchers of ancient Pagan Emperors, and persons of great fame, either for military virtues, or knowledge in good learning, and doing so we are not blamed: how much more willingly would we see the tombs of the Apostles, and of thoses organs of the holy Ghost, which yet speak now after they are dead? And if their sepulchers were in an indecent place, or exposed to the comtempt and disgrace of infidels, it were a godly duty and a good work, to transport them into some more convenient and sure place. If Vigilantius said, that the bones of Saints ought to be cast upon dunghills; & if Jerome did truly and without passion report the opinion of that person, there is not one of us but would abhor those profane words. It is true, that our adversaries object against us, that during the troubles and civil wars, we burnt the Saints relics, and melted the shrines wherein their bodies lay: But if those relics had been true relics, and worthy of reverence, yet they do wrong to impute that to the religiō which was done by the insolency of certain soldiers, whereof a great part were of the Romish Church; & serving those that first hired them, had authority among ours to have part of the booty. They ought also to remember, that those things were done by the soldiers without warrant frō the Church, to revenge those massacres and burnings which were done upon and against us many years before we thought upon our own defense. It is a small matter to spoil Churches, in respect of burning and massacring of the faithful, which are the temple of God. And it is an hard & a difficult thing, when men are once entered into arms, to retain and hold them that are provoked to anger within the bounds of mediocrity. But the chief point is, that all those relics which were in that manner dispersed, were of the same nature with those which are yet left, that is, false relics of true Saints, or true relics of false Saints that lived not long since, and were beholding to the Pope for their title of Saints. Which if those that worshipped them had buried in perpetual oblivion, they had thereby healed Christendom of a great wound and had abolished strange superstition. Add hereunto, that by the dissipation of relics objected unto us, the number of relics is rather increased then diminished. For soon after they forged others in greater number, which being newer and less used, ought to be of greater value, and have more virtue.

Who could here declare the enormity of this abuse? In the Church of Rome they adore bones old clothes, milk, and hairs: they speak unto those relics, they kiss them, they perfume them with incense they offer unto them, and they carry them about in procession. When they show them unto the people, always the basin is hard by, whereinto everyone throws a piece of money. The second Council of Nice holden anno 787. in the 6 Action, will have their bones, ashes, and old clothes worshiped. Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of the book of Relickes grounded the worshiping of them upon these words of Chrysostom, in his Sermon upon Iuuentius and Maximus: Tumulos martyrum adoremus: Let us adore Martyrs tombs: putting adoremus for adornemus, by an evident falsehood. Cardinal Baronius in his 9 tome, an. 821, saith, that Pope Clement the 8, sent him to view and to worship the venerable body of Caecile. Without the quire of Saint Paul's Church in Paris on the left side, the miracles of Saint Roc are painted, with this inscription, That men are healed of a bile or a plague-sore by adoring his precious body. The catechism of the Council of Trent, in the exposition of the third commandment, approveth the custom to swear by the relics of Saints. Now to swear by anything, is to take it for a witness of the purity of our conscience, & for a revenge in case of perjury: which belongs only unto God, whose commandment in the sixth of Deuteronomy is thus, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt serve him, and swear by his name. This was the form and manner of an oath used in Israel, The eternal liveth, and, As true as God liveth, &, I call God to witness. But they never sware by the creature. It is a frivolous excuse to say, that to swear by relics, is to swear by God which hath sanctified them: for by the same reason we may swear by the Sun, and by heaven, and by the earth, and excuse our selves and say, that we understand by them God which created those things. As also when they speak to those relics, worshipping them, they say things unto them which are not agreeable unto God. When they say, God preserve thee triumphant wood, they speak not to God, which is not wood. Or if men speak to wood in honor of God, that thing whereunto one speaketh in honor of God, must always understand that which is spoken unto it. The worship of relics ought to be relative, so the greater part of our adversaries say. Then to adore relics, is not to adore God, for we must adore God with absolute adoration, and for the love of God only. So the prayer which they make to the Iron point of the spear, is spoken in terms which are not agreeable with Jesus Christ; for after they have said unto it, I salute thee triumphant Iron, they say unto it, Wound us with the love of him, whom thou didst pierce. To these relics the people go with such fervent desire, that the service of God is key-cold in respect of that. All the Angels together have not the fourth part of the honor which the people in Paris give to the shrines of Saint Geneuiefue, and Saint Marcel.

But if we look nearer into these relics, we cannot but admire their ingredients, and the diversity of trinkets and toys contained in them. The cautions of the Mass ordain, that if Mice have eaten the body of our Lord, those beasts shall be taken and burnt, & their ashes put into coffins or shrines for relics. The same commandment is made touching the casting up of the sacrament by a priest, or a sick person that shall have cast his god out of his belly. At Beauvais in Beauvoisis, there is one of S. Christophers teeth, so great, that a dozen such teeth will fill the mouth of an oven. At Rome, in Saint John de Latrans Church, they keep the foreskin of Jesus Christ. In the Church which is in the Park of wood at Vincennes, they have some of the powder of Saint Martins cloak, and one of Jesus Christ's sucking teeth. At Courchiuerney near to Bloys, they keep Joseph's hem at the sound of his breathing when he hewed timber. Our pilgrims from Galicia bring feathers of hennes that are of the race of that Cock which crowed when Saint Peter denied Jesus Christ. Cardinal Baronius, in the nine hundred and two and twentieth year of his Annals, maketh mention of a lock of the hair of Saint Peters beard which did miracles: And although (saith he) those that do sit in his Throne, seek to overthrow it by evil manners. And these relics are kept so many years, and never corrupt. They say, that the virgins Mary's Milk hath continued sixeteene hundred years, and never was sour.

In the mean time, we see the hosts which are called Jesus Christ, become mouldie in a few days, and the presence of Jesus Christ which is life it self, cannot keep the accidents of this ridiculous corruption from moulding; by the which they will have the roundness, the breadth, the whiteness, and the softness, to mould and breed worms; that is to say, that from Accidents they should turn into Substance. But not long since some relics are become corrupt. For Gregory of Tours, at the end of his History, saith, That having visited the relics in S. Martins church in Tours, he found them to be very rotten, but many years after they were all whole again. The falsehood of these relics appeareth not only by the absurdity, but in this, that they are contradicted by the truth of ancient Histories, as also by our adversaries themselves.

At Chartres they have the virgins Mary's smocke, which was brought from Constantinople into France by Charles the Bald, as they say that keep it. And so saith Fauchet (from their reports) in his eleventh book of the Antiquiies of France, chap. 7. But Charles the Bald was never in Constantinople. And in the virgins Mary's time they wore no smockes, which was the reason they used so many baths to wash the sweat from their bodies.

The Council of Constance, in the tenth Session saith, that Saint John's head is in Saint Siluesters Monastery of Nuns in Rome. But Amiens and Arras brag that they have it: and Saint John d' Angeri hath long time been famous for that relique.

Who shall decide the controversy between Treues in Germany, and Argentueil near Paris; for both of them boast to have the coat without seames which our Savior Christ wore? Baron. in his Annals, anno 1052 produceth a Bull of Pope Leo the ninth; whereby he declareth that those of Saint Denis by Paris mistake themselves, pretending that they have the body of Saint Denis Areopagita; and saith, that the body of that Saint is whole in Ratisbone, to a very finger.

All men know, that in Saint John Baptists time, there were no altars in Judea, but those that were in the Temple in Jerusalem: yet the book of Romish Indulgences printed in Rome, saith, that Saint John de Latran was guardian of the altar whereon S. John the Baptist said Service in the wilderness.

Baronius, in his Preface upon his Annals, 1. Tome, alledgeth a place of Chrysostom which saith, That the manger wherein Jesus Christ was borne, was of earth. Which he confuteth, because that which is kept in Rome is made of wood. Sigonius in the 7. book of his History of Italy, saith, That at Genes they keep a Cup made of Emeralds, wherein our Lord Jesus Christ celebrated the holy Supper. But Baronius, in anno 34. of his Annals, §. 63. (following Beda ) saith, That it was a silver cup with two handles or ears, and that the Sponge is in the Chalice.

At Collen men go to worship the three Kings, which never were. They call them Gasper, Melchior, and Baltazar: whereof the two first names were Dutch. This fable is confuted to be false, by all circumstances of times, places, and the history of Saint Matthew, as also by all antiquity.

Spain boasteth, that at Compostella in Galicia they have the body of S. James the Apostle brother of our Lord, which they say died there after he had converted Lupa Qu. of Spain, and planted Christianity in Spain. But Pope Innocent the first denieth that any other Apostle besides Saint Peter, did teach the Gospel in France and in Spain, And the truth is, that then there was neither King nor Queen in Spain, it being at that time wholly under the dominion of the Roman Empire. And Saint James death which happened not long after the death of Christ, Acts 12. gave him not time nor leisure to make so long voyages. From this Saint James in Galicia Pilgrims bring Schallop shells, as from Saint Claude they bring Whistles; and from Rome holy grains. It is good, upon this subject, to hear what Vasques the Jesuit in his third book of Adoration, saith: his words are these: As touching this, that sometimes among relics some are uncertain, that hindereth us not from worshipping those reverently which we hold to be certain by conjectures, and human reasons. To be short, even as in the first Disputation, chap. 3. we have said, that it is no sin of Idolatry, to worship a beam of the light under the which the devil hides himself when any one thinketh it to be Christ: so when any one thinketh that that is a part or member of a Saint which is not, yet nevertheless he loseth not the merit of his devotion.

George Cassander in his Consultation, in the chapter of the worshipping of relics, after he hath said, that in times past, when the memory of Martyrs was fresh, and their relics certain, miracles were done at their sepulchers, but abuse had crept in: That in the times of Basil, Ambrose, and Augustine, assemblies made in memory of Martyrs, were changed into Fairs, and into feasts, where the people are drunk: That to beguile the people, men have supposed false relics, and false miracles, and that oftentimes, by diabolical illusions, superstitious persons have been abused: That travelers, for profit and gain have made merchandise of false relics: That the custom to lay the bodies of Saints under the altar, is changed, and that now they laid them upon the altar. At last he addeth these words, saying, At this day, when every place seemeth to be full of Relics of Saints, it is to be feared, that if Bishops and Princes would take that pains which they should do, to search for and to examine which are true relics, great and detestable impostures would be found, as it hath happened in some places: and as heretofore it happened to Saint Martin, who going to a place of his Diocese, famous because of the sepulcher of one whom they reported to be a martyr, found that the people reverenced, and came, not to the sepulcher of a Martyr but of a wicked thief, which he presently caused to be razed and pulled down to the ground. This testimony out of the mouth of one of our adversaries is much to be considered.

Confutation of this worship of Relics by the word of God.

[Section. 123] Besides the places of Scripture produced in the precedent Sections, whereby we are forbidden to give any worship, or to do any religious service to any other but only unto God, there are particular places against the worshipping of Relics.

1 In the Old Testament we see that the bodies of holy Patriarchs and Prophets were buried, and put in the sepulchers of their fathers. Joseph dying, ordained that his bones should be kept until the people went out of Egypt, Genesis 50.25.

2 Moses being dead, God would not let the Israelites know the place where he was buried, lest they should have abused it to Idolatry.

3 In the 2. and 23. of Kings, King Josiah forbad the people to take up the body of a dead Prophet out of the earth, and willed them to let it lie where it was buried. He made no transportation of his bones, nor did no worship, no service, no offering nor adoration thereunto. The like is said in general of all the bodies of the Saints, as of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, and David, whose bones have not been removed, worshipped, nor separated one from the other, that diverse towns might have their parts thereof. S. Peter in the 2.29. of Acts, witnesseth that then in his time David's sepulcher was to be seen, whose bones were not removed from thence.

4 In the 2. of King. 13.21 verse, God raised a dead man, by touching the dead body of the Prophet Elisaeus: God by that miracle authorising the authority of that Prophets doctrine. Yet for all that it is not found that his body was taken out of his grave, nor laid upon an altar, nor that the people fell down before his bones, nor that they offered unto it, nor that they kissed his bones, nor carried them about in procession.

5 If any man thinketh that the bodies of the Saints under the Old Testament were polluted, or less holy then the bodies of the faithful in this time, he is confuted by this example: for if ever any sepulcher of a Saint may be said to have been sanctified by God, it was that of Elisaeus, at the which God shown forth so admirable virtue. Then the death of the just was precious before God, as it is said, Psalm 116. And our adversaries show that they esteemed not the bon • s of the Saints under the Old Testament to be less holy then others, seeing that they have some of them yet among their pretended relics. And this evasion cannot serve but for the bones of the Patriarchs and Prophets, but not for their apparel and moveables, which then were not kept in shrines, as at this day they keep small rags and torn coats and shirts of the Apostles and other Saints.

6 The Prophets, Isaiah 14. and Jeremiah 22.19. among the threatenings and curses of God, make want of burial one. Then how is that which God placeth among his curses, at this day turned into an honor? Why do men take the Saints bones out of the places where they rest? Why are they laid open to the sight of men? Why are they separated and carried to diverse places?

7 And to come to the New Testament, Acts 8. certain men fearing God, laid the body of Saint Stephen which was stoned into the ground, but worshipped not his body, nor did not dismember it, to separate his bones into diverse places.

8 In the 19 of Acts many were healed by touching the kercher and linen clothes that came from Saint Paul's body: yet those linen clothes were not put into a shrine, nor any worship done unto them. These miracles were not done to cause them to adore those clothes, but to authorise the preaching of the Apostle.

9 The Prophet Isaiah 8.19.20. after he had reproved diuiners and enchanters which went to the dead to ask counsel for men that lived, saith not unto them, Why do you not rather go to the relics of Saints that are dead, but sends them to the Law and to the Testimony, if they would be illuminated by the true light.

10 And to be short touching this worshipping of Relicks, when our adversaries are pressed to produce one only place of the word of God for it, they are at a stay, and say nothing. And if they produce anything, it is rather to mock God, then to instruct men. Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of the book of Relickes, falsely and against all truth, saith, that the holy Scripture approveth the worshipping or religious service done and used to the sepulcher of our Lord, to the skirts of his gown, to the shadow of Saint Peter, and to S. Paul's kercher. A wise man cannot affirm it, unless he speaks against his own conscience: for he knoweth, that in the Scripture there is not one word spoken of religious service done to those things. And it is a wonder, seeing among the relics which are worshipped he placeth Saint Peters shadow, that the Church of Rome doth not keep some pieces of that shadow, as well of the blowing and breathing of Joseph.

The same Cardinal in the beginning of the third chapter, falsely allegeth Isaiah 11.10, in these words, His sepulcher shall be glorious: but according to the Hebrew, it is, And his rest shall be glorious. A sepulcher may be honored without religious worship.

In the mean time, an indifferent Reader will consider what religion that may be, which hideth the writings of the Apostles from the people, and shows them their bones; which burieth their doctrine, and vnburieth their bones. As if a son should carefully keep old bootes, or a piece of his fathers skull, and hide away his Testament The best relics of Saint Peters and Saint Paul are their writings divinely inspired. That which only should be cherished, and sought for, is the only thing which is neglected: as the Jews did, who beutified the sepulchers of the Prophets, and persecuted those which followed their doctrine. Wherein mark their policy. For they seek for, and worship the bones of the Apostles, instead of seeking for their writings, because those bones speak nor, but their writings speak, and say things that are odious unto the Papists: as also because instead of those bones they can have others; but they cannot make another holy Scripture. And because it is not so easy for them to traffic with places in Scripture, as with pieces of relics, whereof they only sell the sight, and make a traffic of merchandise, and never deliver it.

Of Saint Peters Supremacy.

Of the perpetual stability of the Church of Rome.

Of Excommunications in the Church of Rome.

[Section. 139] The Church of Rome makes Admonitions and Excommunications to serve for the finding again of things that are lost. He that hath lost an horse, causeth an excommunication to be published against him that hath stolen it, if he bring it not again. Whereby it happeneth sometimes, that a father causeth his son to be excommunicated not knowing it; & for the body of an horse, causeth his sons soul to be delivered to the devil. The Council of Trent in the 25. Session approveth these Excommunications made to find things lost: but will have none but Bishops to publish them.

They do worse then that: for they excommunicate for future time, and for sins not yet committed. That is, the Bishop pronounceth or causeth a writing to be pronounced, signifying thereby, that he excommunicateth all those that shall touch the stocks or trees of the Lord of a town or village, although no man hath once laid hand upon them.

At the re •• est of a creditor that hath a desire to be paid his money, they excommunicate a debtor if he payeth not within a certain time.

The Pope only excommunicateth Kings, and censureth them: as Emmanuel Sà the Jesuit saith in his Aphorisms. The example of Ambrose disliketh him, who being but Bishop of Millane, durst take upon him publicly to suspend Theodosius the Emperor, without communicating the same to the Bishop of Rome.

The Pope can give power to a Lay man, yea and to a woman, to excommunicate; as Cardinal Tolet after Panormitanus and Antoninus say. For the keys which are spoken of in the Scripture, are not tied to the preaching of the Gospel; therefore diverse persons use them, which cannot preach the Gospel.

The Pope also may give commission to any one to excommunicate a man, without showing him the cause or reason wherefore he doth it. As the same Cardinal saith, in the 16. chapter and first book of Instruction of Priests.

And if the Pope excommunicateth any man unjustly (for they all confess that he may judge amiss, (because he may err in action, and condemn him that is innocent, to be culpable) yet Pope Gregory the 1. declareth, that the sentence of a Pastor, whether it be just or unjust, is to be feared.

But that which in this matter is most pernicious, is the common rule, that an excommunicated person is suspended of his charge, and cannot exercise any act of Jurisdiction, and that all the sentences which an excommunicated judge pronounceth, are of no force. By this rule the Pope pretendeth that he hath power to depose Kings, and to displace the Officers of the Crown and all Judges, as well sovereign as inferior, whom when it pleaseth the Pope, or the Prelates to excommunicate them, their acts, ordinances, and judgments are of no effect, (if we believe the maxims of the Roman Church:) and by consequence their places must be supplied by other persons the Popes friends, that their judgments may be available.

Our Kings and their Officers, and Courts of Parliament, are dealt withal in the like unjust manner, in the Bull de Coena Domini, which is a solemn excommunication which the Pope thundereth out every year on Maundy thursday before Easter. Upon which day the Pope appeareth standing in a Porch of a gate, with two Peacockes tails on each side of his ears or head, and there in the presence of the people being assembled about him in Saint Peters Palace, he pronounceth a long excommunication; wherein expressly he nameth the Chancellors, Presidents and Counselors of the Courts of Parliament, ordinary Judges, and extraordinary Commissioners; as also Emperors, Kings, Dukes, &c. which shall appeal from the Pope to any future Council: or that lay or impose new taxes and tallages upon their subjects without special permission from the Pope: or that take tithes of the Clergy: or that in any sort take knowledge of Ecclesiastical causes. In which clauses of excommunication, our Kings, and their Officers, and Courts of Parliament, are entangled, who every day cross and contradict those prohibitions; and for recompense of so many good deeds which the Pope receiveth from them, are excommunicated by the Pope, and every year sent to hell by the strongest and most solemn excommunication which is made in the Church of Rome.

Our Churches in this 33. Article declare, that they approve not of excommunications made for things that are lost, nor to molest men that are in debt, nor for future sins not yet committed, but for scandal and rebellion against the Church, and perseverance in impenitence: according to Jesus Christ's commandment, who speaking of him that had wronged his brother, ordained, that if he despised the admonitions of the Church, he should be esteemed as a Pagan or an Infidel, and by consequence, put out of the communion of the faithful. For in the verse following, he giveth faithful Pastors power to bind and to loose sins, with promise that their judgment shall be ratified in heaven. Which power the Apostle Saint Paul will have the Corinthians to use against the incestuous persons, 1. Cor. 5.3. saying, Put away that wicked person from among you.

Of the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation.

[Sect. 2] Confirmation is a Sacrament of the Church of Rome not to be reiterated, which ought to be celebrated fasting, which imprinteth an indelible character in the soul, and which is not conferred but by a Bishop: wherein there are godfathers and godmothers, between whom and the child that is confirmed by that Sacrament, there is a spiritual parentage begotten, which hindereth marriage, and which also causeth the dissolution of marriage, notwithstanding the prohibition made by Jesus Christ, forbidding the dissolution of marriage unless it be for adultery, saying, Matth. 5.32. and 19.6.9. Let no man therefore put asunder that which God hath coupled together. &c. Nevertheless, the Pope by special privilege, sometimes permitteth a man to marry his gossip: as it is said in the book of the Taxing of the Apostolical chancery, where the Datarie of the Popes Bulls which hath made this tax, speaketh in the 23 leaf, saying, A dispensation to contract marriage between spiritual kindred costs 60 groats, nevertheless I granted one for 50 groats; but that was done by favor.

This Sacrament is administered in this manner: A child is presented to the Bishop by a godfather if it be a boy, or by a godmother if it be a daughter. The Bishop sits down, washeth his hands, layeth them upon his breast, and says certain prayers, by the which he asketh or requireth the sevenfold spirit. Then he asketh the godfather the child's name, and dipping his right thombe in the sacred oil, which is called Chrism, which they bring in a bottle, whereon the Bishop breatheth to sanctify it, speaketh to the oil saying, Ave Chrisma, I salute thee Chrism.

That done, the Bishop annonits the child's forehead therewith in manner of a cross, saying, Signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te chrismate salutis, in nomine patris, & filij & spiritus sancti. I mark thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee by the Chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, &c.

After that he gives the child a blow on the ear to strengthen him in the faith, then he kisseth it, and having rubbed his thombe with crumbs of bread, after many signs of the cross by him made, he commands the godfathers and godmothers to teach the child the Creed, the Pater noster, and Ave Maria.

While this is doing, the child if it can stand upright, setteth his right foot upon the right foot of his godfather or godmother, if it be a daughter. The action ended, they bind the child's forehead with a clothe, and upon the band put certain golden spangles in manner of a cross, and so the whole action is ended.

Touching the efficacy and fruit of this Sacrament, the Canon Omnes, in the 5. Distinction of Consecration, saith, That all the faithful ought to receive this Sacrament, Vt pleni Christiani inueniantur, to the end they may be found to be full Christians; as if without that Sacrament they were but half Christians. Therefore also in the same Distinction, in the Canon, Vt ieiuni, it is said, That he shall never be a Christian, which hath not been anointed by Episcopal Confirmation. Following this doctrine Thomas the Angelical Doctor, in the third part of his sums, 72 question, Article 9. saith, This Sacrament is administered to give perfection to Baptism, as if without Confirmation Baptism were imperfect. Therefore also the rules of the Romish Church import, that this Sacrament ought to be more honorable then Baptism: as it is expressly said in the Canon De his, in the fifth Distinction of Consecration, which saith, This Sacrament ought to be reverenced & observed with greater reverence then Baptism. Nevertheless, to mitigate the matter, there is added, That these two Sacraments are in such manner conjoined, that they can by no means be separated one from the other, unless death prevent them, and that the one cannot be perfect without the other. Then by this reckoning, Baptism is either nothing, or imperfect without Confirmation.

Bellarmine in the first chapter of the book of Confirmation, maketh Confirmation worthier then Baptism in three things, first, Ration ministri, In considerarion of him which administereth, which ought to be a Bishop, but Baptism may be administered in the Church of Rome by a porter and by a woman. Secondly, Ration subiecti, in consideration of the subject, that is, of the part of the body, for Confirmation is done in the forehead. Which are two comparisons as wisely made, as if a Prince having given a penny for an alms, and a subject having given 10 crowns, I should say, that that penny is of more worth then the ten crowns, because of the quality of the giver, and because the one laid the penny upon the poor man's head, and the other put the ten crowns into his hand. Thirdly and lastly, he will have Confirmation to surpass Baptism, Ration virtutis, because of the virtue, which is the principal point. For in the beginning of the 11 chapter, he saith, that this Sacrament conferreth a grace, which maketh the person acceptable, yea a greater grace thē that which is conferred by Baptism, as touching this point, to fortify the soul against the assaults of the devil. To that end the blow on the ear serveth. Which being so, I marvel▪ why Jesus Christ would be baptized, and did not think upon receiving of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

The 25. Article of our Confession, by receiving none but Baptism and the holy Supper for Sacraments in the Christian Church, silently rejecteth this Sacrament of Confirmation, as injurious to Baptism, seeing that the Church of Rome in the places aforesaid, is not content to make Baptism inferior in dignity to Confirmation; but also accuseth Baptism of imperfection, adding a Sacrament thereunto, without the which men are but half Christians, and which supplieth the want and imperfection of Baptism.

But I will pass over all these trifles of ceremonies, which have a show of coniuration. Our adversaries, to prove this Confirmation by the Scripture, say, that Jesus Christ the same day when he instituted the holy Supper, taught his Apostles to consecrate the Chrism which they use in Confirmation: which is some dreamers tale: whereupon nevertheless the custom in the Church of Rome to consecrate the oil on thursday before Easter day is grounded. This fable is found in a Decretal of Pope Fabian, which as well as others of the three first Ages, is acknowledged to be false by the wisest among our Adversaries. This is rather to mock then to defend the cause, that they ground their Confirmation upon this, that the holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in form of fiery tongues. From whence they infer, that a Bishop ought to anoint and strike a child to strengthen him in the faith. Tobias Dog might as well serve for a proof thereof. But our Adversaries mistake themselves. They have no less reason to ground their Confirmation upon Acts 8.16 and 19.6. of the same, where the Apostles laid hands upon certain persons that were already baptized, who by that laying on of hands received the holy Ghost. For is there anything spoken of Chrism or Unction in those places? which is the essence of this pretended Sacrament (for in the very form which they use in Confirmation there is mention of these things, as also of the blow, and of the headband, and such inventions. The Imposition of hands by the Apostles, was not to celebrate a Sacrament, to perfect or strengthen Baptism, but to confer miraculous and extraordinary gifts, as it is said Acts 19.6, After Paul had laid his hand upon them, the holy Ghost came on them, and they spake the tongues, and prophesied. The same appears Acts 8. where Simon Magus offered money, perceiving that by imposition of hands the Apostles gave the holy Ghost; which he could not have seen, if some visible and extraordinary miracle had not been shown. Certainly he would have given nothing for the confirmation of the Romish Church. Those extraordinary graces were sometimes conferred before Baptism, as to Cornelius and his family. Which makes Bellarmine in his book of extreme Unction, cap. 2. to say, that Confirmation was given to Cornelius before Baptism: a thing nevertheless forbidden in the Church of Rome.

Touching the word Sacrament, if any man will call this Imposition of hands by the Apostles, a Sacrament, we will not contest with him touching that, for it was a sacred sign of the graces of God, as the Serpent of brass, and at this day the Rainbow are the like. But they are not Sacraments in that strict sense, in which the word Sacrament at this day is taken: that is, for a sacred sign of Jesus Christ, and of his graces, common to all believers, and perpetual in the Christian Church. Of such Sacraments we acknowledge but two, that is, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because Jesus Christ ordained but these two. Saint Augustine, in his 118. Epistle 9. chapter, 3. book of Christian Doctrine, restraineth himself to these two Sacraments; and it is usual with him to say, That the Sacraments of the Christian Church, issued out of our Lord's side, when blood and water came out of it.

Saint Ambrose book of Sacraments speaketh but of Baptism and the Eucharist. When the Fathers call other ceremonies Sacraments, they take that word in another general signification, whereby they call the Gospel a Sacrament, and the Incarnation a Sacrament, and to be short, all other things wherein there is any sacred mystery.

The ceremony of ancient Christians to impose hands with unction, was not a Sacrament apart, but was done at the time of Baptism, presently after Baptism was done, if it were possible. For the manner was that the Catechumen were baptized by troupes. And in the same place, after they were baptized, they received the unction with imposition of hands by the Bishop, and were exhorted to perseverance in faith. Which was no part of Baptism, but a dependence and a ceremony, nothing like to the Confirmation practiced in the Church of Rome. The Supplement of Philastrius puts this among the errors of the Greeks, to wit, that they hold the Pope and all the Latin Churches for excommunicated, and that they conferred Confirmation presently after Baptism.

The Church of England retaineth that which is commendable in this custom, where Confirmation is no other thing, but a profession which the child (having attained to the age of discretion) maketh to keep the promise which his godfathers and godmothers made in his name when he was baptized, and answereth touching his faith & instruction: which done, he receiveth the Imposition of hands, and the blessing of the Bishop: which ceremony is not called nor held by them a Sacrament. Our Churches instead of that, cause children to be presented at Catechizing, and to answer publicly touching their faith, before we admit them to the holy Supper: which is done with prayer, that it will please God to extend his blessing on them. Which customs being of their nature free touching exterior form and order, the end thereof ought to be the welfare and instruction of those which are in that manner received, together with the edification of the Church.

Of the Sacrament of Penance.

[Sect. 3] The word Repentance in French, and the word Penitence in Latin, are all one thing. Penitence is the conversion of a sinner, which consisteth in grief for his sins fore-passed, and in amendment of life in time to come. The Hebrews call this virtue, a Returning unto God, and the Greeks, an After-mind and changing of the will.

The Church of Rome, to pervert the thing, hath corrupted the signification of the word; for Penitence in the church of Rome is taken for whippings, fastings, pilgrimages, and corporal and pecuniarie punishments. Of a virtue they have made a punishment: and of a repentance of the heart, a corporal exercise: according to the manner of false religions, which change virtues into outward shows, and into corporal exercises, whereof the Apostle 1. Tim. 4.8. saith, Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness is profitable to all things, which hath the promise of the life present, and of that that is to come.

Luther acknowledging this abuse, preached, that the best Penance of all is for a man to amend his life, and to become an honest man. For which heresy, among many the like, he is blasted with thunderings & excommunications, in the Bull Exurge, of Pope Leo the 10, which is at the end of the last Council of Latran, where he is condemned for saying, that the best Penance is a new life. In which Sentence of condemnation Jesus Christ himself is comprised, who, Apocalypse 2.5. speaketh thus to the Church of Ephesus, saying, Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works. In the Romish translation it is, Age poenitentiam, do Penance. Which Jesus Christ maketh to consist in the study of good works.

The difference between us is not, whether Penance be necessary to salvation, and whether we must confess our sins, and turn unto God by earnest repentance: but whether this Penance is a Sacrament or a sacred sign, wherein a contrite sinner ought punctually to confess his sins to his Curate, from him to receive judicial absolution, upon condition to make satisfaction unto God by corporal or pecuniarie Penance, which whosoever doth not accomplish in this life, shall accomplish it in Purgatory, from whence nevertheless the Pope draws out men's souls by Pardons.

We say, that admit there were no evil at all in this, and that this kind of Penance were conformable to the word of God, yet it can in no wise be a Sacrament: Our reasons are these.

1 All our adversaries with us acknowledge, that every Sacrament is a sacred and a visible sign of an invisible grace of God. The Romish Decretal in the second Distinction of Consecration, maketh this definition of a Sacrament, drawn out of Saint Augustine: A Sacrament is a form or visible apparence of an invisible grace. And this sentence of S. Augustine is received among our adversaries, that The word ought to be added to the element to make it a Sacrament. That being granted, it is manifest that this Penance is no Sacrament: for where is the element? where is the visible sign instituted by Christ? for they compose this Sacrament of four pieces, which are, Contrition, Confession, Absolution, and Satisfaction. Contrition of the heart is no sensible nor visible sign. Confession also is no sign of the grace of God, but a declaration that we are unworthy of his grace. Confession is not ordained to signify the grace of God, but to ask it. Moreover the sacred signs ought to be administered by the Pastor, but Confession is made by every particular man. I say the same of corporal or pecuniary Satisfactions, which are accomplished by the sinner, and commonly in his house, by fastings or whippings, or abroad by pilgrimages: whereas sacred signs are administered in the Church, by the hands of the Pastor. Absolution also cannot be a sacred sign of the grace of God: seeing that if it be good and available, it is the grace of God. Add hereunto, that this absolution is not an element nor a visible sign of an invisible grace, for the words are not seen. If they answer, that it is sufficient that significantly it is the grace of God 'I say, that by the same reason the preaching of the word of God is a Sacrament, for it is sensible and a signification of the grace of God. It is not sufficient that Sacraments should be sensible signs, they must be visible, as the definition aforesaid saith, which is drawn out of the ancient Fathers, and received by the Church of Rome. The word must be joined to the element, but here they will have the word to be an element.

I confess, that the imposition of the Priests hands is a visible sign, but it is no element but an action, as the distribution of the bread in the Supper is not the element, but the bread sanctified. Moreover this imposition of hands was not ordained by Jesus Christ, for he did not command that the Priest should lay his hands on a man to confer Sacramental absolution. If these words, absoluo te, &c. be a visible sign, or a sensible element, by the same reason these words in Baptism, Baptizo te, &c. should be a sensible sign, and an element, and not a word added to the element to make it a Sacrament. Certes in disputing with our adversaries we are constrained to speak as it were to children, to beat into them the first principles of reason and common sense.

2 The proofs which follow are no less plain and evident. Our adversaries make Contrition of the heart the first part of this Sacrament, which Contrition and grief of heart is so necessary, that without it Penance is a kind of mockery, and mere hypocrisy. But thereby they wound and overthrow their imaginary Sacrament: for besides the absurdity therein found, which is to make a virtue or disposition of the soul part of a Sacrament, as if one should make faith part of the holy Supper▪ there is a further matter, which is, that the Priest is uncertain whether thereby he conferreth a Sacrament, because he cannot be assured of the Contrition of the sinner, and knoweth not whether the declaration which the sinner maketh, to be sorry for offending God, be true or feigned. And yet if that Contrition be not had, there is no repentance, and by consequence no Sacrament of Penance. Surely this must needs be a presumptiue Sacrament which a man must guess at, and a Sacrament which dependeth upon the will and disposition of the sinner, who if he will, can make it no Sacrament.

3 Add hereunto, that all Sacraments are ministered by the Pastor; but of this Sacrament three parts, (that is, Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction) are done by every particular man, who, if he be but half contrite, if he maketh but half a Confession, if he maketh but half Satisfaction, it is but half a Sacrament: which are extravagant conceptions, and a strange kind of an irregular Sacrament.

4 But the grossest absurdity of all appeareth in this, that oftentimes the Priest enjoins a sinner to make satisfaction within diverse years: in the ancient penitential Canons, there are penances found of 10, and of 20 years. Then seeing that this satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament of Penance, we may say that a man is 20 years administering a Sacrament, as if a man should employ 7 or 8 years to baptize a child, or to confer extreme unction. But this is worse: for there are satisfactions which are made by respits, or spaces of times, as when a sinner is condemned to fast three years together, three days in a week, that is a Sacrament which is celebrated by respites, and hath a thousand delays. So full of inventions is superstition, and our adversaries so ingenious to disguise religion.

5 But to show the root of this evil, if Penance be a Sacrament of the Christian Church, then Jesus Christ ordained it. The Council of Trent in the 14. Session and first Chapter, findeth the institution thereof in the 20. Chapter of Saint John, where Jesus Christ blowing upon the Apostles, said unto them, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained. In these words of Jesus Christ, our adversaries (which infer quidlibet ex quolibet ) find Auricular Confession, and pecuniary and corporal Satisfaction.

Note that these words are spoken to the Apostles after the resurrection of our Lord. Whence it followeth, that repentance preached by the Prophets, was no Sacrament. And in the Gospel, when S. John the Baptist preached saying: Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand, that repentance was no Sacrament, for then Jesus Christ was not risen again. And which is more, when in Mark 1.15. Jesus Christ said, Repent, and believe the Gospel, that repentance was no Sacrament, for then the Lord was not yet risen again. And after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Acts 2.38, when Saint Peter exhorted the Jews (not then baptized) to repent, saying, Agite poenitentiam, Repent, or amend your lives, that repentance was no Sacrament: for the Council of Trent in the same place saith, That Penance is no Sacrament before Baptism. There is no other Penance found to be in the Scripture; and it is not to be found, that this word Penance is proved to be a Sacrament, or an exterior sign of the grace of God, but is said to be an earnest conversion and an amendment of life. With the which Penance if we content our selves, we cannot be blamed for not receiving other Penance then that which the Prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles preached.

6 And if we must have a Sacrament of Penance, we have Baptism, whereof S. Mark speaketh thus in the first chapter, fourth verse, saying, John preached the Baptism of amendment of life, for remission of sins.

Which hindereth not, but that after Baptism we should seek to amend our lives, and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. That also is no hindrance, but that all faithful Pastors, as successors of the Apostles, may bind and loose • of which power we will speak hereafter.

Of Auricular Confession, a part of the Sacrament of Penance.

[Sect. 4] Confession of sins is necessary to salvation. He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but who so confesseth and forsaketh them, shall have mercy, saith Solomon. So sinners came to John the Baptist confessing their sins. This Confession is made, either to God only, or publicly to the Church, or privately to the Minister of the Church, or to our neighbors whom we have offended. All these Confessions are good, and are practiced in our Churches: wherein, besides the Confession which everyone maketh apart unto God, the Confession of sins publicly committed, and known to the most part of the people, are made publicly before the Church: which public Confession the Council of Trent commandeth, and saith, that the Apostle, 1. Tim. 5.20. ordained it. It was the manner of the ancient Church publicly to confess their faults. As Socrates and Zozomenus witness.

Besides this public Confession, we have private Confessions of faults that are not public, which are made, either to the Minister alone, when the sinner comes unto him privately to discharge his conscience, and to seek for comfort and assurance of remission of sins; or to the Consitory, which is with us, the assembly of Pastors and Ancients, to whom the managing of Ecclesiastical discipline among us belongeth. Finally there are Confessions of sins, which particular persons mutually make one to another, after they have offended one the other, of which mutual confessions Saint James 5.16 speaketh saying: Acknowledge your sins one to another, and pray one for the other. The Greek and the Latin word signify Confess your faults mutually and reciprocally. That which is added, And pray one for another, evidently showeth, that as Saint James commandeth us not to pray only for Priests: so he doth not command us to confess our faults only to Priests. He speaketh therefore of a reciprocal prayer, and of a mutual succor, as also of a mutual Confession to be made between particular persons after quarrels and off • nces given, So Saint Augustine understood it in his 54 Epistle saying. The righteous are intercessors unto God for sinners. Sinners are admonished to do it one for another. For it is written, Confess your sins mutually, and pray one for another. Cardinal Cajetan doth the like in his commentary upon this Epistle, saying, Here it is not spoken of sacramental Confession, as it appeareth by that which is said, Confess your sins one unto another. But sacramental Confession is not made one unto another but only to the Priest. The Apostle speaketh of that Confession whereby we mutually acknowledge our selves to be sinners, that men may pray for us, and of the Confession of faults which are made on either side, to appease and reconcile men mutually together.

If Saint James did hereby command us to confess our sins to the P • jest, yet that makes nothing against us which admit this Confession; we only • eiect auricular Confession, which all the East Church rejecteth: and that racking of consciences which bindeth a man to tell all his thoughts in the ears of a man, and not only to discover all his sins unto him, but also all the particular circumstances, which change (as the Council of Trent saith, ) the nature of sin. Whereof if a man willingly omitteth anything, the absolution is void, and the Confession without fruit. Besides, the silence of this secret Confession is so inviolable, that when by a Confession a Priest shall have understanding of any enterprise to be made against a king, he may not disclose it. No more do we allow of the distinction which the Council of Trent maketh, which ordaineth that a man shall confess all his mortal sins, but touching venial sins, (that is, such as are pardonable,) it bindeth him not to confess them. By this means a man shall confess nothing, for mortal sins are pardonable to those that repent and amend their lives.

The fruit of this auricular Confession is, First that Priests and confessors make themselves fearful to those whose iniquities they know. Secondly hereby they know the secrets, infirmities, and purposes of Princes, whereof the Pope is presently advertised. Thirdly, that in a rebellion of subjects against an excommunicated Prince, they persuade bloodshedding and rebellion secretiy in the people's ears, as it happened in the last troubles. Fourthly, that thereby they know all the dishonest women in a town, and know those with whom they may commit fornication or adultery without difficulty. Fifthly, that thereby they take pleasure it asking immodest questions, and teach vices under pretence of sounding men's consciences, and make enquiry of married men's secrets, whereof also they have made rules. Read the 19 book of Burcharts Decree, the Roman Penitentiall, Nauarrus, Sanches, Immanuel Saes Aphorisms, and other Casuists, Cardinal Tolets Instruction to Priests, and the immodest book of the Benedictines touching Confessions. There you shall see a thousand secrets of enormous unchastity: the shameful tricks of Couents, and profane curiosity whereby they teach and reduce vices into an Art, as well natural as against nature, under color to reprove them.

Of Absolution and sacramental Satisfaction.

[Sect. 5] Our Lord Jesus Christ hath given power to his Apostles and to their successors to pardon sins, and to bind and lose sinners, Matth. 16.19. and 18.18. and John. 20. A sinner is bound as long as he is obliged to the punishment due for sin, and is vnbound when he is absolved, and that his conscience is discharged of that obligation to the punishment in which he was before bound.

This power of faithful Pastors is exercised not only by the preaching of the Gospel in general, whereby remission of sins is promised to all believing and repentant sinners, and the judgment of God pronounced against all incredulous and impenitent persons: but also by Ecclesiastical discipline, whereby the penitent sinner is admitted and reconciled to the Church, and the impenitent put from the Communion of the faithful. Which receiving or rejecting God declareth to be ratified in heaven, Matth. 18.18. That is the power of the keys which God hath put into his servants hands, who pronounce this pardon not as Judges, but as Ministers, and Heralds of peace and of reconciliation: declaring to the penitent 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 sinner, that his sins are remitted by the authority which God giveth to the Preachers of his word. There is none (to speak properly) but God, that can absolutely forgive sins. It belongs to the party offended absolutely to pardon. It is in him to pardon sins, that can punish souls. It is is in him certainly to pardon, which knoweth the hearts, and the interior repentance of sinners. Now there is none but God to whom these things are proper. In the pardon whereby a Priest pardoneth a sinner for an offense by him committed to God, there are two things to be considered, one, that there is no pardon if the sinner doth not earnestly repent, the other, that he himself which pardoneth hath need of pardon. Of these two points, the first is the cause that the Priests pardon is conditional, because he knoweth not the heart, the other is a cause that the Priest should consider of himself, that he is rather a delinquent then a Judge: and to teach him to fear, lest that after he hath pardoned others, he himself may not obtain pardon. It is a thing certain, that if a sinner seriously converting and believing in Jesus Christ, cannot obtain absolution of his Pastor which is passionate, or badly informed of the truth: God will pardon him. On the contrary, if a Pastor that is indulgent, and winketh at vices, or that is deceived by apparence of repentance, absolveth an hypocritical sinner, and receiveth him into the communion of the faithful, that hypocritall sinner remaineth bound before God, and shall be punished not withstanding. For God partaketh not with the errors of Pastors, neither regardeth their passions, nor can be hind • ed from doing justice by their ignorance.

As God in the Scripture saith, That Pastors save men's souls, because God useth their ministry to save them: so Pastors pardon sinners, because God useth their ministry to pardon them, giving efficacy to their words pronounced, either to all men publicly, or privately to sinners confessing their sins, and thereby imprinting an assurance of absolution in sinners hearts, or thereby aggravating the condemnation of those which despise the pardon by them propounded: this despising being contrary to God himself, who in the same place where he giveth them power to preach, saith, As my Father sent me, so I send you. Whose sins, &c. The places of Scripture where it is said that Pastors save men, are 1. Cor. 9.22. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And 1. Tim. 4.16. For in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. Lombard, the father of the Romish School, joineth with us in his fourth book, Distinct. 28. saying, The Lord hath given power to Priests to bind and vnbinde, that is, to show that men are bound or vnbound.

The absolutions of the Church of Rome, (as well absolution sacramental, whereby they say, that the fault of mortal sin is remitted, as indulgences or pardons, by the which satisfactory penance is remitted and released) are of another nature.

For their Priests pardon with authority of jurisdiction over men's souls. And the Pope gives absolutions sealed with lead, in form of a judicial sentence in a Court, although he knoweth not the sinners repentance. He hath reserved the power to himself to pardon all sorts of sins: and hath limited the power of Bishops and Priests to certain cases. And under the shadow and pretence that it was said to Saint Peter, All that which thou shalt vnbinde on earth, he pretends to vnbinde upon earth, and to draw souls out of Purgatory, whereby he reapeth great profit.

And under pretence, that in the Scripture there is mention made of vnbinding sins, he taketh upon him to discharge men of their oaths, and of the subjection and fidelity which they owe to their natural Princes, and children of the obedience which they owe to their fathers and mothets, whensoever by despite or despair they run into monasteries, as into a sanctuary of rebellion. By the same power he dissolveth marriages lawfully contracted, if he find that they have both been gossips at the christening of an Infant, or are allied by the sacrament of Confirmation. Which are evident proofs, that the Scripture is alleged by our Adversaries to uphold this power, more in mockery then for any hope that they have to be believed.

The absolution of Excommunication, although it be different from that of the sacramental absolution; yet in regard of the affinity unto it, deserves a line or two. The abuses therein are enormous.

The Doctors of the Church of Rome teach, that unjust absolution is available. Also in the Church of Rome a man is absolved by a Proctor. And there a sinner is absolved when he knoweth it not, yea and against his will, which is as much as to save a sinner whether he will or not. I have seen those that have caused absolution of their sins to come from Rome by bills of Exchange. The same Doctors say, that an heretic and an excommunicated person may give absolution at the hour of death. Tolet saith it in his first book of the Instruction of Priests, chap. 15. That is to say, that an excommunicated person may administer the Communion, and confer those graces, which he himself hath not, and whereof (if he had them) God maketh him no distributer.

Immanuel Sa the Jesuit, in the beginning of his Aphorisms showeth us what words the priest useth in giving absolution. Among other things the Priest saith to the sinner: The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the merits of the most blessed Virgin Marie, and of all the Saints; and all the good which thou shalt do, and the evil which thou shalt patiently endure, serve thee for remission of thy sins, and for increase of grace, and for reward of eternal life. But the Scripture saith, That the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1. John. 1.7. And, That we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.24. And, That by him God freely pardoneth all our offenses, Coloss. 2.14. And, That there is no salvation in any other, Acts 4.12. Away then with merits, either of our own, or borrowed of others, and all travels and human perfections whereby men pretend to merit pardon before God. For if in all these works and labors there were nothing to be disliked, yet they are things which we are bound to do. For he which oweth an annual rent, in paying that years rent cannot satisfy and discharge his old debts. Moreover, to join these things with the infinite merit of the Son of God, is, as if a man should tie a black coal to a bracelet or chain of bright shining diamonds, and couple most unequal things together.

To be short, in what place of the Scripture do they find one word, to prove, that by our merits, or by the merits of other men, we should deserve pardon of God? That is a new Gospel, a rule of merchandise serving for traffic: and a doctrine drawn out of the unwritten word. The more we stir this matter, the more the abuse is discovered: it is like a common sink. The tax of the Apostolical Chancery rateth letters of absolution for every particular sin at a certain price, without excepting parricide or incest. And always sins committed against the Pope are rated at an higher price, then those sins that are directly committed against God. This traffic extendeth it self even unto the dead. For in the 44. leaf of the said Tax these words are found: For a dead man that is excommunicated, for whom his parents are suppliants, a letter of absolution is sold for a ducket and nine Carolus.

And when there is an absolution to be given to an excommunicated King, that is done upon profitable conditions for the Pope, but prejudicial and ignominious for the King. Sometime those poor Kings are condemned to certain stripes in their own persons; as Henry the second King of England, that was whipt by a number of Monks: or in the persons of their Ambassadors, as Henry the fourth of famous memory, our late king deceassed, was beaten by Pope Clement 8. with diverse blows with a staff, in the person of Monsieur de Perron Bishop of Eureux his Embassador: Or else the Pope condemns them to send certain troupes of soldiers to aide his Holiness, and to make their kingdoms tributary to the Papal Seat, as he did to Henry the second, and to John and Henry the third, Kings of England. By these practices he hath impoverished the Emperors of Germany, and brought a puissant Empire into a poor estate, as we see at this day.

The Council of Trent maketh this sacramental absolution vain and of no effect; declaring, that notwithstanding the faith and contrition of a sinner, yet he ought not to presume that by this absolution his sins are truly pardoned, if the Priest at that time had not an intent to absolve him; as oftentimes there are profane priests, or incredulous, or such as hate those to whom they give absolution. Now this intent of the P • jest is unknown, and only to be presumed. They also make their absolution vain by the satisfactory penances which they impose on men. For, vnloosing the sinner by Absolution, at the same instant again they bind him by corporal punishment, which they impose upon him. They pardon him, and in the mean time make him subject to a punishment. They pardon the fault, and yet contstrain him to suffer the punishment. Jesus Christ did not so: For in the 8. of Saint John, pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he only said unto her, Go, and sin no more: without imposing any satisfactory penance, either corporal or pecuniarie on her, after her absolution. All the Ecclesiastical censures which the ancient Church used, and thereby humbled the sinner, were made before Absolution and Reconciliation to the Church. By those exercises of Penitence, the sinner satisfied the Church, but not God's Justice, which Jesus Christ hath fully satisfied.

Yet this is not all, for our Adversaries having imposed satisfactory punishments upon a sinner, presently after they dispence with him for money, and change corporal into pecuniary punishments, as we have shown in the 38. Section of the first book. Bellarmine in the 13. Chapter 4. book of Penitence saith, that the Pope by his pardons dischargeth us from the obedience of the commandment of God, which saith, Do works worthy of repentance. That is to prefer the Pope before God.

You must also note, that the Council of Trent, will not only have those satisfactions to serve to amend the sinner, but also to take vengeance of sins pardoned. A doctrine which contradicteth it self: for God taketh no vengeance after he hath pardoned.

Touching cases which a Priest cannot absolve, but are reserved to the Bishop, whose power also is limited, many cases being reserved only to the Pope himself, the Council of Trent in the 14. Session, groundeth those reservations upon Romans, 13.1. noted in the margent of the said Council, where Saint Paul saith, Quae à Deo sunt, ordinata sunt: Those things that are of God, are ordained or set down in order. From whence he inferreth, that superior powers ought to reserve some things to themselves, above inferior persons. But this place is falsified both in sense and words: first in the sense; for this place of Saint Paul speaketh of civil Magistrates which bear the sword, and not of Pastors of the Church, nor of powers set in rank and order, but ordained and established by God. Secondly, in the words, for according to the Greek original it is, For the powers that be, are established or ordained of God. And so the French Bible translated by the Doctors of Louain hath it. With such quotations the margent of that Council is filled.

Those Prelates quoted not Matthew 18.18. nor John 20.23. where Jesus Christ giveth all his disciples equal power to pardon all manner of sins, without reserving any cases to Saint Peter, saying, Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

Of the pretended Sacrament of Marriage.

[Sect. 6] Our adversaries call Marriage of Priests and Clergy men sacrilege, and nevertheless call the Marriage of lay men a Sacrament, which conferreth justifying grace. By this device the Prelates have drawn the knowledge of Matrimoniall causes to themselves, because (as they say) it belongeth to the Church to judge of Sacraments. It is not known what great profit they reap thereby, and how many persons come to Rome for matrimonial causes. The same avarice which forbad Marriage to Priests, thereby to preserve the goods of the Church, hath made Marriage a Sacrament, thereby to take the knowledge of matrimonial causes from the Magistrate. Truth herein is so manifest, that untruth finds no place wherein to hide it self. For our adversaries say, that a Sacracrament is a sacred sign instituted by Jesus Christ, proper to the Christian Church, whereby justifying grace is conferred to those which receive it. But nothing of all this agreeth with Marriage.

1 Every Sacrament of the Christian Church was instituted by Jesus Christ. But Marriage was not instituted by Jesus Christ: for Marriage was used in the world before Jesus Christ was borne. If they answer, and say, that Jesus Christ changed the nature, or the use, or the signification of Marriage, and that he ordained that from thence forward Marriage should be a Sacrament, then they must produce that ordinance of Jesus Christ. Which they could never yet do: it is a thing drawn from the unwritten word.

2 Sacraments are remedies against sin, & aides to our infirmities: Marriage therefore is no Sacrament, because it was ordained before sin entered into the world, and then when there was no infirmity in man.

3 The Sacraments of the Christian Church are not used among Pagans. Marriage therefore is no Sacrament of the Christian Church, because it is used among Pagans, whose marriages are lawful, as the Apostle teacheth us, 1. Cor. 7.13. For counseling a believing wife not to leave or forsake her husband that is an infidel, he presupposeth that their marriage is lawful, although it was before the conversion of the wife unto the faith. Whereupon Ambrose noteth, that John the Baptist would not have said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brothers wife, if there had been no Marriage among infidels. And if a man and a woman that are infidels become Christians, shall their Marriage which was not a Sacrament, become a Sacrament? Or if that be absurd, and that their Marriage is not a Sacrament after their conversion, shall there be Ch • istians whose Marriages are lawful, and yet it is no Sacrament?

4 The Church of Rome in effect acknowledgeth that Marriage is no Sacrament, by this that Marriages are there permitted to be made by a Proctor. For the Sacraments are not administered by a Proctor. To baptize a man for another man, and after a man hath for himself been participant of the holy Supper, to participate the same again for another man, is as much as to make a play of Christian religion.

5 In all Sacraments the word must be joined with the element, that it may be a Sacrament: but here there is no element: for neither the words nor actions are elements.

6 And when a Priest (not knowing it) hath married two persons together, whereof one is defective and incapable of marriage by their rule, either he hath truly conferred a Sacrament, or he hath not conferred a Sacrament. If he hath not conferred a Sacrament, then marriage is a Sacrament which dependeth upon the integrity of the body of those which receive it: and an action which to a man that is entire and sound is a Sacrament, but to a man that is defective is no Sacrament. And so it shall fall out, that the Priest doth that which he thought not to do, and thinking to administer a Sacrament, he administereth nothing. But if those persons have received a Sacrament, what is it when the marriage within short time after is dissolved, by complaint made by one of the parties? That were an undoing and defacing of a Sacrament, as if Baptism should be frustrated, or the Lord's Supper disanulled, being received by a man that is ill disposed.

7 Add hereunto, that the Church of Rome holdeth, that Sacraments confer justifying grace, ex opere operato, that is to say, by bare action, without the necessary virtue and holiness of him that conferreth it, or the attention of him which receiveth it. Then let them show me what this action precisely is in Marriage which conferreth justifying grace. Is a men regenerated by solemnizatiō of Marriage in the Church? If it be so, how cometh it to pass, that a man then becometh more licentious in superfluity of apparel, banquets, dancing, &c. Is that the justifying grace which thereby is conferred?

8 If they will that Marriage since the institution made by Jesus Christ, doth confer justifying grace, then they must produce the promise made by the Son of God, which promiseth this justifying grace to those that are married. This puts our adversaries to a non-plus, and they are fain to send us to the unwritten word.

9 By the Apostles counsel, 1. Cor. 7.37. one that is continent, and not tempted with evil desires, doth wisely not to marry. Which should be false, if Marriage were a Sacrament conferring grace. For is it a commendable thing to abstain from a Sacrament which conferreth grace and justifieth?

10 But why should the Marriage of Patriarchs and Prophets be no Sacrament, and the Marriage of a vicious Christian, which marrieth incontinently, and against the will of his parents, be a Sacrament? What more holy or more mystical things are there at this day in the marriages of Christians, then were in the marriages of the Prophets and Apostles? For if Marriage be at this day called a Sacrament, because it is a figure of the union of the Church with Jesus Christ, it signified the same in the Old Testament, where that spiritual union is oftentimes represented under the figure of Marriage: as we see in the 45. Psalm, the Canticle of Solomon, the 16. of Ezekiel, and the first and second chapters of Osee. And if ever any Marriage was sacred and full of mystery, it was the Marriage of Adam and Eve. For as God used the casting of Adam into a profound sleep, in the mean time to form a wife for him, so God used the sleep of the death of the second Adam, to get him a wife, that is, the Church. Or if the Marriage of Christians be esteemed to be a Sacrament, because it is indissoluble, how doth the Church of Rome separate Marriages only because the parties married did both together present a child at Baptism, or at Confirmation? Add hereunto, that the inseparability doth not make a thing to be a Sacrament. If that were so, faith and repentance should be Sacraments, because they are inseparable. And it is not found that the Marriages of Christians are more indissoluble then the Marriage of Adam with Eve, or of Abraham and Sara. And when Jesus Christ, Matth. 19.8. abolished the liberty of diuorces used among the Jews, saying, Whosoever puts away his wife, except it be in case of adultery, he draweth them back to the first institution, and saith, In the beginning it was not so.

11 The Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 4.11. calleth circumcision, The seal of the righteousness of faith, showing thereby, that Sacraments serve not only to signify some graces of God, but also to ratify the same unto us, and to confirm the promises of God in us. If then they will have Marriage to be a Sacrament, it must not only be a figure of the union of Jesus Christ with his Church, but also seal and confirm unto us some particular promise of God which is found in his word. But they say nothing to this, that is anything likely.

12 Sacraments are tied together by a natural bond, one hindereth not the use of the other: but the Church of Rome hath forged two discordant Sacraments, whereof the one impeacheth the use of the other, that is, the Sacrament of Orders, by the which a man being made a Priest, becometh incapable to receive the Sacrament of Marriage, and then that Sacrament of Marriage becometh sacrilege and an abomination unto him. There are Ecclesiastical functions which differ one from another, as serving the tables, and preaching of the word, Acts 6.2, because of human infirmity, which cannot attend diverse things at once. But it shall never be found, that a thing which is holy and sacred to some men, is profane and abhominable to others, and that the same which is a Sacrament to one man, is sacrilege & an abomination to another.

13 And to conclude, this error doth wrap and entangle it self so many ways, that this pretended Sacrament, is a Sacrament which men must divine and presume of: in such manner, that in the Church of Rome no man can assure himself that he is married, although he hath had a dozen children by his wife. For the Council of Trent pronounceth excommunication and a curse against all those which shall say, that the intent of the Minister in conferring a Sacrament is not necessary. It is a doctrine generally received in the Church of Rome, that if he which baptizeth, or marrieth, or singeth Mass, hath not an intent to do that which the Church ordaineth, or hath not an intent to celebrate a Sacrament, Baptism and Marriage solemnized by him are nothing, and neither Consecration nor Transubstantiation is made. Now this intent must be diuined or presumed upon. Wherein nevertheless there is matter and subject enough to doubt of: for the Church of Rome is full of Priests, which acknowledge and detest the abuses of the Church of Rome, & which condemn their own actions: without speaking of Atheists, whereof the world is full, who in their hearts laugh and mock at all that which is done in the Church.

14 For these causes or the like, Durand is of opinion, that to speak properly, Marriage is not a Sacrament. And which is more, Pope Leo the 1. in his 90. Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbonne saith: Quod societas nuptiarum ab initio constituta est, vt praeter sexuum coniunctionem, haberet in se Christi & Ecclesiae Sacramentum: That the society of Marriage was established from the beginning, that besides the conjunction of sexes, it might be a Sacrament of Christ and his Church. This Bishop saith, that Marriage hath been a Sacrament of Christ and the Church, ab initio, from the beginning, and not only since the coming of Jesus Christ.

To be short, if we should say nothing, the thing it self would speak: for Marriage hath been made infamous and abhominable to Priests, for the preservation of Ecclesiastical goods, lest they should take upon them to withdraw some part thereof from the Church for the benefit of their children, as Pope Gregory the 1. in the 28 Distinction, in the Canon De Syracusana, saith. But where it was profitable for the Clergy to exalt Marriage, Popes have found means to advance it so far as to make it a Sacrament, conferring justifying grace, to draw the knowledge of matrimonial causes to themselves.

Which appeareth by dispensations and other practices, whereby in this matter the Pope exalteth himself above God. For the counsel of Trent in the 24. Session pronounceth all those to be accursed which say, that the Church cannot dispence with degrees of consanguinity prohibited by the word of God in Leviticus. And that men may know that in those dispensations the Pope is ruled by human respects and worldly considerations, in the same Council, and the same Session, can. 5. prohibition is made, not to dispence with the second degree, but only between great Princes, and for public causes. If marriage in the second degree be permitted by the word of God, why doth the Pope prohibit it? If it be prohibited by the word of God, why doth the Pope dispence with Princes for the same? Have Princes privileges to offend God? This artificial device also appeareth herein, that the Pope hath invented degrees of imaginary kindreds between godfathers and godmothers & the infant, which may not marry without dispensation, and a great privilege. He hath extended the prohibition of marriage to the fourteenth degree of affinity, but he dispenseth therewith and with the first degree of affinity, always paying for it. The tax of the Roman Chancery imprinted at Paris with privilege and approbation, in the 40 leaf hath these words. The penitenciary may dispence with the first degree of affinity at the bar of conscience, and the bill is sold for 9 duckets and six gross. That is, that the Pope may give permission to a man to marry the sister of the wife deceassed, against the express prohibtion thereof made Levite. 18.16. and 20.21. Innocent the third did it, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, in the 28 chapter of the book of Marriage. The Almaine Doctor in the 12 chapter of the book of spiritual and temporal power hath these words, saying, Martin the fifth with ripe deliberation granted a dispensation between certain perfons in the second degree of consanguitie, which is prohibited in the divine Law. Likewise in our time the Pope gave a dispensation to a certain man to marry two sisters one after the other, contrary to the Law of God. &c. Whereupon this Doctor produceth the authority of Panormitanus and Angelus, who maintain that the Pope may dispence against the Law of God.

To make Marriage a Sacrament, our adversaries produce Ephesians, 5.32. which in the vulgar translation is thus set down, This Sacrament is great, but I say in Jesus Christ and the Church. But in Greek it is thus, This is a great secret or a mystery, but I speak concerning Christ, and concerning the Church. In this place the Apostle speaketh of the sacred union between Jesus Christ and his Church: which union he compareth to corporal Marriage between the husband and the wife. His intent was not to exalt the mystery of Marriage, but the union of the Church with Jesus Christ. This mystery then whereof he speaketh, is the mystical union between Jesus Christ and the Church, and not the union between the husband and the wife. For having said, This is a great mystery, that we should not think that he speaks of the mystery which is in Marriage, he addeth, But I speak touching Jesus Christ and his Church.

But be it so, that Saint Paul calleth Marriage a mystery or secret: and that the vulgar translation hath truly translated Mystery by the word Sacrament, what is that to prove Marriage to be a Sacrament of the Church? Will our adversaries have all those things which in the vulgar translation are called Sacraments, to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome? By that reckoning, the great whore shall be a Sacrament of the Romish Church: for in Apocalypse 17 7, according to the vulgar traslation, it is said, I will show thee the Sacrament of that woman, and of that beast that beareth her. And the seven stars in Apocalypse. 1.20. should be a Sacrament, for in the vulgar translation they are called so. And three times in Dan. 2. in the same translation dreams & visions are called Sacraments. And in 1 Tim. 3.16. Piety is called a great Sacrament, in steed of a secret or mystery. But most of all the fraud of this translation specially appeareth herein, that in the chapter following, verse 19. S. Paul prayeth the Ephesians to pray for him, that utterance might be given unto him to open his mouth boldly to publish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the mystery, or secret of the Gospel. In this the vulgar translation, aith, Mysterium Euangelij, and not Sacramentum Euangelij. Here are two places one near unto the other, in one Epistle, where one selfsame Greek word in one place is translated mystery, & in another Sacrament. Let them translate these two places both alike, and the difficulty is ended. Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged the same in his Commentary upon this place, where he saith, Prudent Reader, here thou dost not learn of Saint Paul that Marriage is a Sacrament: for he saith not, this Sacrament, but this mystery is great, and in truth the mystery of those words is great. I confess that Marriage is a figure of the union of Jesus Christ and his Church: but by the same reason, the union of the head with the members, and the stoeke of a vine with the twigs and branches thereof should be Sacraments. Add hereunto, that Marriage prefigured the same in the Old Testament, when Marriage was no Sacrament, if we believe our adversaries. This might serve for an answer to the words which M. Arnoux addeth.

Of extreme Unction.

Extreame Unction is a Sacrament of the Church of Rome, wherein the Priest annointeth the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands and feet of the sick person, with consecrated oil, making the sign of the cross with his thombe dipt in oil, and beseecheth God to pardon the sick person all the sins which he committed by those parts of his body. Then he turneth to the sick person again, and annointeth his reins, because in them is the seat of the sin of lecherie. That done, he washeth his hands with Water and Salt, and casteth the water into the chimney.

All this is done after the reading of the Litany, wherein fifty Saints at the least are called upon, with diverse prayers which crave health and remission of sins for the sick person.

This Sacrament is administered to none but to sick persons, which are in danger of death. It is not permitted to be administered to those that go to be hanged, or which go to place a petard under a gate, or which enter into a dangerous combat, or which go a long voyage by Sea.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent saith, that this Sacrament serveth to deface and blot out small and venial sins: for touching mortal sins, penitential absolution hath defaced them before. The Council of Trent in the 14. Session, saith, that by this Sacrament the rest of men's sins are cleansed.

To ground this pretended Sacrament they produce two places of the Scripture, the first is, Mark 6.13. where it is said, that the Apostles Cast out many devils, and anointed many that were sick with oil, and healed them: The second is, James 5.14.15. where it is said, Is any sick among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray for him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. If he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

In the exposition of these places, our Adversaries are divided into contrary opinions, and their contention is great. Some of them, as Thomas Waldensis, Alphonsus de Castro, and Maldonado in his Commentary upon Saint Mark, are of opinion, that in the sixth of Saint Mark there is nothing spoken of extreme Unction; and that both Saint Mark and Saint James speak of sacramental Unction.

Cardinal Bellarmine on the contrary denieth that the Unction spoken of in Saint Mark, is the same that is spoken of in Saint James, and is not of opinion that that whereof Saint Mark speaketh, is the Sacrament of extreme Unction.

Cardinal Cajetan is of another opinion: for he formally denieth that Saint James speaketh of sacramental Unction, and believeth not, that upon that place extreme Unction can be grounded, saying: These words of Saint James are not meant of sacramental Unction, neither if we consider the words, nor the effect thereof, but rather of the Unction which the Lord Jesus ordained in the Gospel, to be used by his Disciples to the sick. For the Text saith not, Is any sick to death? but absolutely, Is any sick? and saith, that the effect of that unction is the easing of the sick person.

Among these mixtures of opinions, the Council of Trent takes a new way, saying in the 14. Session, that in the sixth of saint Mark Jesus Christ insinuateth the Sacrament of extreme Unction. And the Catechism of the Council of Trent saith, that our Savior giveth a scantling, and a beginning or an entrance. It is the manner of this Council when it findeth anything against it, to use ambiguous and wrested words, which every man may interpret for his own advantage.

All this difference and contention may be drawn to these two heads.

1 The first is, whether this ceremony of annointing the sick ought to be perpetually in the Church.

2 The second, whether this Unction practiced in the time of the Apostles, is one of the Sacraments of the Christian Church

1 The first question is void, because these two places, one the sixth of Saint Mark, the other, the fifth of Saint James, say, that this Unction served for the healing of the sick. They anointed diverse sick persons with oil, and healed them, Mar. 6. Let them anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. Whereby it appeareth, that while the gifts of healing, and the virtue of miraculous restoring of health, were in the Church, it was expedient to observe that Unction▪ as an exterior sign of the virtue of God whereunto God gave efficacy. But since that virtue ceased, there is no more reason to observe that ceremony, then if a blind man should still use spectacles: or if one should use to comb himself when all his hair is fallen off and gonc. Interior virtue ceasing, exterior observation ought to cease. God himself giveth us an example thereof, in this, that he took the tree of life from Adam, when by sin he fell into death. Not that life depended upon that tree, but because God will not have unprofitable signs.

2 From hence it appeareth▪ that Saint James speaketh not of extreme Unction, seeing he speaketh of an Unction whereby a man is restored to health. The Unction is extreme which is given in extremity, but this unction is given to those which are to live still, and that being restored to health might in the same necessity use the same remedy again.

3 Add hereunto, that Saint James speaketh not of oil consecrated by a Bishop, nor of oil kept in the Church; for the Apostles (in that healing) used such oil indifferently as was at hand; neither doth he speak of that heap of ceremonies at this day used in the • hurch of Rome. And as the Apostles anointed all those with oil indifferently which were brought unto them, so Saint James makes no distinction of persons. But the Church of Rome giveth extreme Unction to none but to those that are baptized, and which have received the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, and which are not by justice condemned to die.

4 The commandment therefore of saint James ought yet at this day to be practiced, touching the prayer of faith made by Priests or Ministers, to the which remission of sins is promised, but not touching corporal annointing, which was used for healing. So Christians in the first ages used it. Tertullian against Scapula, chap. 4. saith, that the Emperor Seuerus until he died, kept Proculus a Christian in his house, which had healed him of a disease by annointing him with oil. And Sulpitius in the life of Martin, saith, that Martin healed a maid of the palsy, by pouring oil into her mouth. We have the like example in Gregory of Tours, in his 1. book 46. chapter. Cassander, in the 22. Article of his Consultation, reciteth the form of the ancient annointing of the sick, which is worthy here to be set down. In times past (saith he) the sick person was anointed with oil (which was called Oil for sick persons, or for lunatic persons, or such as were possessed with evil spirits,) in all their members, but specially in that member or place where his pain was, and then they added this form of prayer: I anoint thee with sacred oil▪ in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, beseeching the mercy of God, our only Lord and God, that all the pains and griefs of thy body being driven away, thou mayest recover thy strength and thy health, in such manner, that b • ing healed by the operation of this mystery, and by the unction of this sacred oil, and by our prayer, thou mayest receive thy first and strongest health, by the power of our Lord. Words which testify, that the principal end of this unction, was the healing of the body. To the same end are the most part of the prayers, which the Priest saith over the sick; specially that wherein he prayeth, that the sick person may be healed by that medicine.

That which Saint James addeth, is nothing repugnant thereunto, when he saith, If he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. For those words are as much in • ffect, as if he had said, that health shall be restored unto him, those sins for the which God had afflicted him, being pardoned. Jesus Christ himself teacheth us that, Matth. 9.5. where he saith, that to say unto a sick person, Thy sins are forgiven thee, and to say, Take up thy bed and walk, are all one in effect. For, the cause of the evil being taken away, by necessity the evil ceaseth. Saint James therefore in that place followeth the words of his Master. Besides, he attributeth not this remission of sins to the virtue of the oil, but to prayer made in faith, saying, The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

6 Thereupon our adversaries ask us, why S. James in that place speaketh of sick persons, and not of deaf and blind men. But this is not to dispute against us, but to demand of Saint James a reason of his speech. It may be that the Apostle by one kind of corporal infirmity, did also understand others: and it may also be, that Unction was used to none but to those that lay sick in their beds, and that they used not that kind of remedy for deaf, blind and impotent persons, as we may see of the lame person spoken of, Acts 3.2.

It is to no purpose to object, that many also besides Priests had the gift of healing; and that therefore it was not needful to call them to perform this annointing to heal the sick. For then God more commonly conferred those gifts upon Pastors, and in a greater measure then upon others, to authorize their preaching.

It is also to no purpose to say, that if as often as Priests anointed the sick they were healed, no man would have died in those times: for many had no desire to call them, and many had not the means nor the leisure. And Saint James did not promise that they should heal all without exception. For in the ninth of Saint Mark, the Apostles could not heal a man possessed with a devil. And it is not unlikely, that when God revealed to an Apostle, that the time of the sick parties death approached, the same Apostle abstained from using of that remedy which he knew would not prevail.

Now for the second point, which is to know whether the Unction which the Apostles and their Disciples used, may be called a Sacrament.

Touching that I say, If we take the word Sacrament in the same sense which the ancient Fathers and Romish Bible ordinarily take it, that is, for a mystery, or for a sacred sign, nothing hindereth but that we may call this Unction a Sacrament, seeing it was a sacred sign of the grace and assistance of God.

But this Unction cannot be called a Sacrament, in the same sense that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are called Sacraments, that is, sacred signs and seals of the Covenant made by God in Jesus Christ, instituted by Jesus Christ himself; I say that in this sense, the Unction whereof Saint James speaketh cannot be called a Sacrament.

1 For Sacraments taken in this sense, are instituted for the health of the soul, but that Unction specially and principally served for the health of the body.

2 Not only the practice of Sacraments (as of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper) but also the institution of them by Jesus Christ are found in the Gospel. But none of the Evangelists do recite the institution of this Sacrament, neither where, when, nor how Jesus Christ did institute it. Only we see a practice of this Unction by healing of the sick, which of a miraculous medicine is changed into an ordinary Sacrament, laden with a thousand ceremonies after the custom and manner of superstition, which is to multiply ceremonies after the virtue is lost. I do not deny that this Unction was commanded by Jesus Christ: for it is not credible that the Apostles did anything without his commandment. But everything which Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to do, is not a Sacrament. He commanded his Apostles to do many things which were personal to themselves, and which ought not to be perpetual: as when he commanded them to go and preach the Gospel, without money, and without provision for themselves. And if this Unction were a perpetual Sacrament, the Evangelists would carefully have recited the Institution and the commandment thereof to be perpetually observed in the Church.

3 The Sacraments of the Christian Church ought to be administered in the Church: but this extreme Unction is never administered but in particular men's houses.

4 The fruit & use of this extreme Unction witnesseth that it is no Sacrament. For the Council of Trent in the 7. Session, in the 6. and 7 Canon, saith, That Sacraments contain the grace which they confer, and that they confer the same to those which duly receive them. Therefore the sacramental words of other Sacraments are conceived at the present time when they are conferred, as in Confirmation, Signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te Chrismate salutis, I mark thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrysme of salvation. And in Baptism, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, &c. and so in all the rest. There is none but this Sacrament only, which doth not confer grace, but only maketh a request: which saith not, I heal thee, or I absolve thee, but only asketh health and remission of sins. Then if it be a Sacrament, it must be an optatiue Sacrament, and not a Sacrament conferring the grace of God, an irregular Sacrament, which by his signs doth not represent graces but desires. For our adversaries might perceive, that if they had said, I heal thee, they had been confuted by experience, because very few sick persons escaped death after extreme Unction, which was carried to none but to those that were at the point of death, as if that Sacrament served only to end life, and not to prolong it. They might also consider, that if they said, I forgive thee thy sins, this Sacrament should usurp upon the Sacrament of Penance.

5 In the mean time by this manner of optatiue speaking, they imprint a scruple in men's minds: for seeing that of two things which the Priest requireth of God, that is, healing of the sick person, and remission of sins, it appeareth that God doth not hear him in the one: how then shall we be assured that God heareth him in the other? seeing that the place of Saint James whereon they partly ground this Sacrament, equally promiseth health and remission of sins?

6 Lastly, • eeing that before this Sacrament the sick person hath received absolution by the which all his sins are remitted what sins were they which still remained to be remitted by this extreme unction? If by the Sacrament of Penance mortal sins are remitted, why should not the same Sacrament remit small and venial sins? Why should not that which effecteth the greater effect the lesser? Thereby it manifestly appeareth, that this Sacrament is unprofitable, and is like a plaster laid upon a wound that is whole, and which seru • th to ask remission of sins, which are said to be pardoned before.

7 To prove this Sacrament to be new, and unknown in the ancient Church, it app • areth by this, that there is no trace or sign thereof in all antiquity. For the Canons of the Council of Nice translated out of the Arabian tongue, are an invention of Turrian the Jesuit: for, (if it may be credited,) none before him ever knew what the Canons of that so famous a Council were. Innocent the first which wrote in anno 407. or 408. speaketh of this unction, but calls it not a Sacrament. And every man knows how much all those Decretals are suspected of falsehood, and to be of small au • horitie. Bellarmine setteth down a place of Chrysostom in the 3. book of Priests, but such as placeth not this unction among the Sacraments. The places of Saint Augustine which he produceth are drawn out of the Sermons De tempore, and out of the book of the Glass, and out of the book of the Visitation of the sick, which are suspected books. The oldest witness that speaketh, is the eleventh Council of Chaalons upon Soame▪ holden 800 years after the birth of Jesus Christ; and yet was but a particular Synod. But notwithstanding that Council, the Canonist Doctors which have written Glosses upon the Decretals, are of opinion that extreme unction is not a Sacrament. What reason is there (say they) why it should not be reiterated, seeing it is no Sacrament.

Of the Sacrament of Orders.

[Sect. 9] The conferring of sacred Orders in the Romish Church is called a Sacrament. Those orders are 7. viz. Porters, Readers, Exorcists or Coniurers, Acolyths or such as minister to the Priest at Mass, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests, under the which Bishops are contained. For the Church of Rome doth not make two orders of Priests and Bishops.

Our adversaries do not say that Jesus Christ did institute these seven Orders aforesaid: and no Sacrament is of force which was not instituted by Jesus Christ. But they say, that Jesus Christ did execute and exercise those seven Orders, and supplied those functions. They say that he did the office of a porter, when he said, I am that door of the sheep, John. 10.7. That he did the office of a Reader, when he took the book of the prophesy of Isaiah, and read it in the Synagogue, Luk. 4.16.17. That he did the office of an Exorcist, when he drave out wicked spirits. Pope Inocennt 3. in the first book of the mysteries of the Mass, cap. 3. saith, that Jesus Christ did the office of an Acolyth (or a seruer of the Priest at Mass,) when he said (I am the light of the world:) for that office was to bear wax candles. And in the fourth chap. he saith, that Jesus Christ did the office of a Subdeacon, when he washed his disciples feet, and in the fifth chapter he saith, that Jesus Christ did the office of a Deacon, when he distributed the Sacrament, and when he waked the disciples when they slept, Luk. 22.45.46 Lastly all of them say, that Jesus Christ did the office of a Priest, when he sacrificed his body in the Eucharist, under the sign of bread. But which of these seven offices did he, when he preached the Gospel? That is a point wherewith those subtle Doctors do not trouble themselves: and in truth it is not a necessary thing, for a man may be a Priest among them without being a preacher. There rested nothing but to make Jesus Christ an Abbot, or a Cardinal, or a Pope; for the Scripture would have furnished these Doctors with places which they might wrest to their purpose with the like dexterity.

Everyone of these orders are conferred by words and ceremonies clean differing one from the other. Whereupon it followeth, that each Order is a Sacrament apart, and that it is an abuse by them committed to reckon but seven Sacraments in the Church of Rome, when there are thirteen.

To examine each of these Orders, were as much as to pick staws, and to show diligence where there is no need. The Order of Priests only deserveth and requireth some discourse, for that upon the purity and lawful exercise of Priesthood, the integrity of all other Orders, and the purity of all religion dependeth.

Whether the order of Pristhood be a Sacrament.

The office of the Priest, or Minister, or Pastor of the Church, is conferred by imposition of the hands of those which confer that Order, and which establish a Pastor in his office. This imposition of hands was used in the Old Testament, as you may see Numbers 27. and 34. of Deut. where by God's commandment Moses laid his hand upon Joshua to establish him in his office. This custom was practiced by the Apostles wh • n they established Pastors. The Apostle Saint Paul saith to his disciple Timothy, 1. Tim, 4.14. Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, and the laying on of the hands of the company of the Eldership. And in the 5. and 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man.

The question between us is, whether this Order may be called a Sacrament. I answer, that if the word Sacrament be taken simply for a sacred sign or for a mystery, which is the sense wherein this word is ordinarily taken among the Latin Fathers, and in the translation of the Romish Church, we • asiely admit this imposition of hands to be called a Sacrament, because it is a visible sign of an invisible grace, used by the Apostles.

But to be called a Sacrament, in the same sense that Baptism and the holy Supper are called, there are many things that hinder. For this imposition of hands, is not a sacred sign of the covenant of God in Jesus Christ, and is not common to all the faithful: neither is the express Institution thereof, found in the histo • ie of the Gospel. For Jesus Christ did not establish his Apostles in their offices by laying his hands on them, but by breathing on them, and saying unto them, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins soever you remit, they shall be remitted, &c.

The Church of Rome hath a particular reason not to place sacred Orders among the Sacraments: for by prohibiting Marriage to Priests, and calling a Priests Marriage sacrilege, it maketh the Sacraments fight together, and causeth one to exclude the other, and to become sacrilege.

But this disputation, whether the ordaining of Priests may be called a Sacrament, is not the principal difference between us; and we could be content to call it a Sacrament, so Priesthood did not change nature, and that the functions thereof were ruled and limited by the word of God. But the corruption therein is so great, that Priesthood at this day is not the ministry of the Gospel. For of Preachers of the Gospel and Ministers of the Sacraments, Priests are become sacrificers of the body of Christ, which they maintain to be a real and propitiatory sacrifice. Their office is to make Jesus Christ with words, to sacrifice him to his Father. By the same corruption the bishopric among them is become an earthly principality, and a dignity of a Prince of the Popes Monarchy. This requireth a chapter apart.

Of the order of Priesthood in the Church of Rome, and of their sacrificing.

[Sect. 11] In the Scripture the office of Priests is to labor in the word, 1. Tim. 5.17. and to feed the flock of the Lord, Acts 20.17. In the 2. chap. of the Acts, the offices of Pastors are, to continue in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, & breaking of bread, & prayer.

At this day the office and duty of a Priest consisteth not in preaching the Gospel: for in the Church of Rome the greatest part of the Priests preach not. To be a Preacher, they must have another dignity besides Priesthood. By the manner of their ordination they are made sacrificers of the body of Jesus Christ.

The Bishop putteth the cover & the chalice into their hands, saying, Receive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses as well for the living as for the dead.

By these words the Bishop conferreth a charge which Jesus Christ did not institute, yea and such a charge as surpasseth all the dignity and power of Angels, whose virtue and excellency is nothing in regard of making Jesus Christ, and of offering him to God for a sacrifice: which deserved a formal commandment and an express institution of Jesus Christ. But there is no such thing found in the Scripture.

1 For the Apostle, Ephesians 4.11. and 1. Cor. 12.28. nominateth the offices which Jesus Christ established in his Church. He himself (saith he) gave some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. There is no mention neither there nor elsewhere made of the sacrifice of the body of our Lord.

2 And further, in the same place, their functions which God would have them to exercise, are particularly declared: Which are, for the repairing of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edification of the body of Christ. But not to sacrifice the body of Christ.

3 And it is not without cause, that oftentimes in the New Testament all the faithful are called Priests: but there is no place in the Scripture to be found where Pastors of the Church are expressly called sacrificers. The holy Ghost foreseeing that there would some Pastors arise that would take that title upon them in an injurious sense against the Son of God.

4 For, not to speak of the injury done to the sacrifice of the cross, whereof I will speak hereafter: I say, that by this office of a sacrificer of the body of Jesus Christ, the Priest exalteth himself above Jesus Christ. For it is manifest, that to sacrifice, is a more excellent thing, then to be sacrificed: as Aaron was more excellent then his offerings, or the things that he offered; for Aaron represented Jesus Christ sacrifising, as the thing offered represented Jesus Christ which was to be offered. The dignity of the sacrificing priest makes the offering acceptable. The Priest therefore sacrificing Jesus Christ, exalteth himself above Jesus Christ, because the Priest is the Sacrificer, and Jesus Christ is the Sacrifice. For although y ^t in the Mass they pretend that Jesus Christ is also the sacrificer, yet this is certain, that the Priest sacrificing Jesus Christ in the Mass, is more excellent then Jesus Christ, in as much as he is there sacrificed. For when we shall have examined and considered all the actions whereby the Priest pretendeth to accomplish his sacrifice, as the pronunciation of the consecrating words, the elevation of the Host, the prayers which beseech God to accept of that offering the breaking; and the eating, we shall find that the Priest doth all these things, and that they cannot be attributed to Jesus Christ. From whence it followeth, that in the sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus Christ is not sacrificed.

5 It also appeareth that in the Mass the Priest exalteth himself above Jesus Chrlst, in this, that he holdeth the Host in his hands, he breaketh it when he will, he carrieth it whither he will, and when it pleaseth him he may throw it into the fire, or tread it under his feet. For that Jesus Christ which he pretendeth to sacrifice, is without sense and motion, and cannot defend himself. He cannot breathe, nor open his eyes, nor stir his hands. And although the Priest were a murderer, an incestuous person, or a Sodomite, yet (according to the opinion of the Romish Church,) he hath Jesus Christ in his power.

6 If we ask our Adversaries, wherein the sacrifice of the New Testament, and that perpetual office of sacrificing according to the order of Melchizedek consisteth: they answer, that it consisteth herein, That every day the Priest sacrificeth the body of our Lord, under the accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist. How then comes it to pass, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is one of the longest, and which (in a manner) speaketh of no other thing then of the sacrifice of the New Testament, and of the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, speaketh nothing of the Eucharist, nor of the sacrifice of bread and wine, nor of any earthly sacrifice? but speaketh of no other sacrificer then Jesus Christ, nor of any other Sacrifice then of his death? How did he forget that wherein at this day they make the Priesthood of the Christian Church only to consist? The Apostle by this reckoning, doth like one that writing of the duty of a King, speaketh neither of his kingdom, nor of his subjects: or, as if one should write of the art of Horsemanship, without speaking of horses. For the Apostle hath at large written of the continual office of the Sacrificing in the Christian Church, without speaking of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, wherein they will have this office of Sacrifice only to consist.

7 Further, if we ask our adversaries, when this Sacrament of the order of Priesthood was instituted, they answer, that Jesus Christ did institute it when he celebrated the Eucharist among his Apostles, and say, that then they received the order of Priesthood. But in that action, where was there any conferring of that Order? Where was the imposition of hands? or any other ceremony which supplied that want? Where was there any instructions touching the office of Priests? seeing that priesthood (according to themselves) hath many other functions, besides sacrificing of the body of our Lord?

8 But who will believe, that Jesus Christ celebrating the holy Supper, did institute two Sacraments by one action? Two different or several Sacraments should necessarily be instituted by different words or several ceremonies. We cannot by like words and actions administer Baptism and Marriage; or confer Confirmation, & extreme Unction.

9 If the Apostles were made Sacrificers when Jesus Christ said unto them; Do this in remembrance of me: it followeth, that they might sing Mass (as at this day they say) while Jesus Christ was upon the Cross, or in the Sepulcher; which necessa • ily at one time maketh one Jesus Christ suffering upon the Cr • sse, and another Jesus Christ (not suffering) in the Host: one dead and laid in the Sepulcher, and another living in the Mass, both at one time.

10 From hence also it would follow, that the Apostles were for a while Priests without keys, and could sing Mass without giving absolution: for the power to remit sins promised unto them in the 18. of Saint Matthew, was not actually conferred unto them, but in John 20.23, certain days after the resurrection of the Lord.

11 Let the Reader that hath any care of his salvation, earnestly consider that which I shall say: which is, that Saint Matthew and S. Mark, reciting how, and in what manner Jesus Christ instituted & celebrated the Eucharist among his Disciples, have set down these words, Do this, and add no more. Then if by these words, Do this, the Lord did establish Sacrificers of his body, and instituted the sacrificing Priesthood of the New Testament, as the Council of Trent saith: and if by those words Jesus Christ instituted a Sacrament, we must say, that those two Pen-men of the holy Ghost, whereof the one, that is, Saint Matthew, was present at the action, have made a rehearsal unto us of this institution, which is defective in the principal point, and have omitted the institution of this Sacrifice so important, and of this office of Sacrificer of the New Testament. If they had done as S. John doth, who speaketh not at all of the Institution of the Supper, it might be thought to be less strange that S. Matthew and S. Mark had omitted both the institution of the holy Supper, and of the office of Sacrificer. But reciting the institution of the holy Supper; and omitting those formal words, whereby they say he instituted an office of a Sacrificer and a Sacrifice, it is manifest and most evident, that they were ignorant of that office of Sacrificer, and of that imaginary sacrifice.

12 I would likewise have them show me, who conferred the office of Sacrificer to Saint Paul the Apostle, and who gave him authority to sacrifice the body of Jesus Christ: for he was not at the Table with the Apostles, when the Lord said unto them, Do this in remembrance of me. In the Acts of the Apostles we see, how Jesus Christ called him, and how he established him in his office of Apostle, in which office he saith, he was not established by any man, but by Jesus Christ. And the office whereunto Jesus Christ called him, was not to be a Sacrificer of his body, but to be an instrument, to bear his name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the children of Israel, Acts 9.15. Behold here then an Apostle without the office of a Sacrificer, to whom Jesus Christ never said, Sacrifice me in remembrance of me.

13 And seeing that our Adversaries are of opinion that Jesus Christ celebrated Mass in Emmaus with two of his Disciples, whereof we read in Luke 24. I ask then, If in that action he made those two Disciples Sacrificers of his body? If, saying unto them, Do this, he did not make them Sacrificers; it followeth, that these words, Do this, do not signify, Sacrifice me. But if by these words he made them Sacrificers, it will follow that there were Sacrificers which had not their vocation from Saint Peter.

14 The Apostle S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11.14. rehearseth the institution of this holy Sacrament, that the Corinthians might be confirmed therein. There he witnesseth that Jesus Christ saying, Do this in remembrance of me, spake to all the faithful: for those to whom he directed those words, are they (who in the verse ensuing) he commandeth to declare the death of the Lord, and to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup after they have examined themselves: which is a commandment made to the people, and which every faithful Christian ought to do. By this means every Christian shall be a Sacrificer, and may sing Mass.

15 If these words, Do this in remembrance of me, were words that ordained the office of Sacrificers, every time, & as often as we should exhort the faithful in that holy action, to do that in remembrance of Jesus Christ which Jesus Christ did, we should establish as many sacrificers as there are communicants.

16 The Apostle Saint Paul to the Hebrews speaketh absolutely against this invented office of sacrifice; for besides that which he saith in the 5. Chapter 4. verse, that No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was, in the chapter 7.23.27. he giveth two peremptory reasons, for the which the sacrifice and the office of sacrificing ought to be abolished. The one, that the sovereign sacrificers of the Law were subject to die, and that death hindered them from continuing. The other is, that they were bound to sacrifice first for their own sins, and after for the people's sins: which also concerned inferior sacrificers, who also being mortal and sinners, died and were taken away. What is in all this that equally concerns not the sacrifices of the Church of Rome, who are likewise mortal and sinful? And what cause may be given, why the Priests should continue and be suffered in the Church, which may not as well be for the continuance and maintenance of the Priests of the Law? Was the Apostle so void of sense, as not to see and perceive that speaking in that manner against the office of the legal sacrifice, he also spake against the office of sacrificing under the Gospel? Would he not (think you) have taken away this scruple, and prevented this objection?

17 To be short, the Bishops of the Church of Rome are continuing there still, and yet could never show their power, nor their commission from Jesus Christ to establish sacrificers of his body in the Church.

Of the sacrifice of the Mass.

[Sect. 12] The Council of Trent in 22. Session and 2. Canon, thundereth out excommunications and curses against all those that say that our Lord Jesus Christ by these words, Do this in remembrance of me, did not confer the order of Priesthood to his Apostles, nor commanded them to sacrifice his body and his blood.

The ordinary exposition which they make of these words, Do this in remembrance of me, is, Sacrifice my body and my blood, really under the kinds of bread and wine, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. To expound the Scripture in this manner, is not so much to wrest it, as to play therewith. These Doctors contrary to all apparence of truth, will have that to be Jesus Christ's meaning, which the words of our Lord can by no means bear.

1 For we cannot sacrifice Jesus Christ, in remembrance of Jesus Christ. The memories of things are of other nature then the things themselves: as men's pictures are not the persons themselves. And there is nothing more absurd nor extravagant then the affirmation of these Doctors which hold, that in the Mass Jesus Christ is the figure of himself, and the sign, and the thing signified, as if a man should say that the Kings picture is the King, or that the King is his picture.

2 Add hereunto, that remembrance is necessarily understood of things absent. Men may well make rehearsals or remembrances of the valors of a King in his own presence, but those rehearsals or remembrances are not remembrances of the Kings person being present, but of his actions past. So the sepulchers of Martyrs were called the memories of Martyrs, because they put men in mind of their sufferings past. It cannot but very improperly be said, that the person of a Martyr is in his tomb, when the best part thereof is in heaven, and that which resteth is consumed to dust. The ashes of a Martyr are not the person of the Martyr.

3 These words, Do this, are so clearly and manifestly expounded by the Apostle Saint Paul, that there is no contradiction to be made. For 1. Cor. 11.25.26. after he had said, Do this in remembrance of me, for an exposition of these words he addeth, saying, For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death till he comes. To do this therefore in remembrance of Jesus Christ, is to eat this bread and to drink this cup, to show and celebrate his death, and not to sacrifice it.

4 Moreover in all the action of this Sacrament, we see no show nor apparence of a sacrifice. First, Jesus Christ speaketh not of a sacrifice nor of an offering. Secondly, Jesus Christ presenteth nothing unto God, but to his disciples, saying, Take, eat. Now whosoever offereth a sacrifice to God, presenteth something unto him, and prayeth God to accept of his offering. Thirdly, Jesus Christ did not lift up the host, which is a common custom and use in all sacrifices. Fourthly, the Apostles did not adore the host, but sat still at the table without using any adoration. For although they had Jesus Christ ordinarily present with them, yet they did never eat him, nor ever were present at any such kind of sacrifice. And if every sacrifice requireth adoration, how much more then such, and so admirable a sacrifice? specially in an action, which should serve for a pattern and an example in the Church, to conform men thereunto in time to come? And if any one (when the host is lifted up) to conform himself to the example of the Apostles, should sit still, without adoring it, should he not be thought and esteemed to be a profane person? And if he were in Spain or Italy, should he not be sent to the Inquisition? And yet in the person of such a man they should make a process against the Apostles.

5 It is to be considered, that if the body of Jesus Christ be really sacrificed in the Mass, it is convenient and very necessary, that the bread should be consecrated before they sacrifice it. And therein we agree with our adversaries. Which being granted, I reason thus: Whosoever offereth an oblation unto God, necessarily speaketh unto God. But in this action, after the words which they say are consecrating words, Jesus Christ speaketh not to God, Ergo, in this action after the consecrating words, Jesus Christ offereth no oblation to God. The action of thanks-giving and the blessing of the bread went before the words that are called consecrating words; therefore they can be no part of that sacrifice. For that to bless bread, and to give thanks to God, is not to sacrifice it to God. This blessing is used at all meal times, and Jesus Christ did it at the distribution by him made of the loves of bread in the desert.

6 It is to be noted that the Council of Trent saith, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that in the Canon of the Mass, the Priest saith, that he offereth a sacrifice for the redemption of souls. If the Mass be a sacrifice of redemption, necessarily it must be called so, either because the death of Jesus Christ is applied unto us thereby, or because Jesus Christ dieth in the Mass, and suffereth there for our redemption. But it is not because Jesus Christ dieth in the Mass; for Rom. 6.9. Jesus Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more. Then the Mass must be propitiatory, and a sacrifice of redemption, because in it the death of Jesus Christ is applied unto us, which only is the price of our redemption. But if that be so, Baptism and the preaching of the Gospel, and faith in Jesus Christ, are sacrifices of redemption, and sacrifices truly propitiatory. Add hereunto, that to apply the sacrifice of the Cross unto us, which is the death of our Lord, it is neither convenient, nor possible to sacrifice the Lord again. For as to apply a plaster, or to make a payment of money, we need not another plaster, nor another payment: So to apply the real sacrifice of the body of Christ unto us, we must not really sacrifice the body of Christ. By that reason, to apply the death of Jesus Christ unto us, we must make Christ die again. And in so important a thing, we must ground upon the word of God, and show that God will have us to apply the death of our Lord, by sacrificing him really in the Eucharist.

7 There is no reason more absurd, then to apply a ransom paid for us, unto us by paying it again. Yet this is done in the Romish Church, which will have the faithful to apply unto themselves the redemptiō of their souls made for them on the cross, by offering the same redemption again, and by sacrificing Jesus Christ again in a sacrifice of redemption.

8 Moreover, that which our adversaries do is clean contrary to that which they pretend to do: for to offer Jesus Christ to God▪ is not an application and an appropriating of him unto our selves. There is as much difference between these two things, as there is between giving a thing to another, and keeping it for our selves. In the holy Supper we apply the sacrifice of Jesus Christ unto our selves, by receiving and accepting it by faith, as giving himself unto us; and not by offering him as a sacrifice to God.

9 I would have our adversaries tell me, whether the redemption or propitiation which the Priest offereth and maketh to God in the Mass, be all one with the propitiation which Jesus Christ offered and made on the cross, or another. If it be the same, necessarily the Priest must offer a real sacrifice of the death of Jesus Christ, which is impossible; for Jesus Christ dieth not really in the Mass. If it be another redemption and propitiation, then there is two prices of redemption, and another propitiation for our souls besides the death of Jesus Christ, and under shadow of applying the redemption made on the cross, to us, they substitute another redemption, and so forge another Gospel.

10 The Apostle to the Hebrews witnesseth excellently of this matter, he speaketh much of the office of a sacrifice according to Melchizedek, without speaking of the Eucharist: whereby it followeth, that the Eucha • ist is not the sacrifice of Melchizedek.

11 Besides in Hebrews 10.14. it is said, That Jesus Christ with one offering hath reconciled forever them that are sanctified. Here is one only oblation or offering, and the virtue thereof forever. And to exclude the reiteration thereof, in the tenth verse he saith, That we are sanctified even by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made.

12 They answer and say, that he offered himself but once in a bloody sacrifice, but that he is offered diverse times in a sacrifice that is not bloody. Which is a manifest error; for, to offer himself diverse times in a sacrifice without blood, is always to offer himself diverse times, and so to contradict the Apostle. Add hereunto, that the bloody sacrifice is found in the Scripture, but there is no mention made of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ without blood. To mock the Scripture by distinctions unwritten, is under pretence of interpreting, to correct the Scripture. And our adversaries having racked the words of the institution of the holy Supper, find nothing therein but their own condemnation. For, to allege the words of Jesus Christ saying▪ This cup is the New Testament in my blo • d which is shed for you, to prove a sacrifice without blood, is to condemn themselves: because those words speak of effusion of blood, and not of a sacrifice without blood. To prove a sacrifice wherein there is no blood shed, by a place that speaketh of shedding of blood is as good an argument, as if to excuse theft, a man should allege the law which saith, Thou shalt not steal.

13 Therefor the Apostle preventeth this excuse; for Hebr. 9.25.26. after he had said that Jesus Christ did not offer himself oftentimes, he addeth, That then he must have suffered oftentimes. Manifestly showing, that he acknowledged no other sacrifice of Jesus Christ but his passion. And to cut off all difficulty, he addeth, verse. 27.28. And as it is appointed unto men that they should once die, and after that cometh the judgment: So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many, and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation. Now where is the distinction of a bloody and no bloody sacrifice? seeing that the Apostle showeth, that as a man can die but once, so Christ offered himself but once? How ridiculous a thing should it be, for one to say, that a man can die but once bloodily, but diverse times vnbloudily?

14 The same Apostle, in the same chapter and the 22 verse, after he had spoken of sacrifices and purifications of the law, concludeth by this general maxim, That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. If then the Mass be no bloody sacrifice, there is no remission of sins made by it. And you must note that he speaketh of the present time, saying, There is no remission of sins: lest men should think that he spake only of Judaical sacrifices that were abolished. The Apostle will have this rule to be certain at this present time. Note also, that the Apostle saith not, that there is no remission of sins, but by the virtue of blood-shedding: but he saith, that in sacrifices there is no remission of sins without effusion of blood. It is nothing to the purpose, to seek in the Old Testament for examples of propitiatory sacrifices, wherein no blood was shed: as the goat of Azazel, or the Scape-goat, which was sent away alive into the desert laden with the sins of the people, Levite. 16.20. That is not to dispute against us, but against the Apostle. And yet that goat was but a part of the sacrifice: there being two goats, whereof the one was killed, the other let go, and both of them were but one sacrifice. As in the sacrifice of two sparrows, whereof one was killed, the other let fly away; one to represent the death of our Lord, the other, to be a figure of his resurrection: which two things could not be represented by one beast. If our adversaries find reasons to prove that propitiatory sacrifices without shedding of blood, ought to be practiced under the New Testament, the same reasons of like force are to be found under the Old Testament: where nevertheless they were not suffered to be done.

15 He that is careful of his own salvation, will consider what kind of religion that is, which maketh two sacrifices of redemption, wherein Jesus Christ is really sacrificed. Two sacrifices of Jesus Christ differing in specie and in definition, in propriety, in accidents, and in efficacy. For the sacrifice of the cross is the death of Jesus Christ, but the sacrifice of the Mass is not the death of Jesus Christ. The one is a painful sacrifice, the other without pain. The one bloody, the other without blood. The one wherein the body of Jesus Christ is broken, the other wherein it remaineth whole. The one visible, the other invisible. The one done but once, the other which is done a thousand millions of times. The one done immediately by Jesus Christ, the other by the hand of a Priest. The one which being offered was sufficient for the redemption of all mankind; the other, which is repeated a thousand times, to draw one soul out of Purgatory. The one which is done freely, the other which is sold for money. The one offered for the remission of sins, and for the salvation of men's souls; the other which is offered for a sick horse, for corn that is blasted, for the success of a voyage, and to be short, which serveth for all things, but not for the salvation of souls. White is not more contrary unto black, nor heaven more distant from the earth, then there is difference between these two sacrifices.

16 This pretended sacrifice without effusion of blood, is contrary to the nature of all sacrifices so called properly. For both we and our adversaries say, that in every sacrifice properly called a sacrifice, the thing that is offered must be visible, and that visible thing must be destroyed by the sacrifice. In this it is clean contrary. For in this sacrifice, Jesus Christ which is the thing sacrificed, is not seen, nor perceived; and he is so far off from being visible under the species or accidents of bread, that on the contrary, it is the accidents that hide him, & make him invisible, if we believe our adversaries. And that which is destroyed in the Mass, is not the thing which is offered unto God. The body of Jesus which they pretend to sacrifice, suffereth no destruction in the Mass. For the destruction of a living thing is nothing else but death. The accidents only are destroyed, which are not offered unto God. And if (as our adversaries say) the sacramental being of Jesus Christ is destroyed, it followeth that the same sacramental being is sacrificed. Then that sacramental being is the price of our redemption: for that which is sacrificed to God, ought to be the price of our redemption. Now Jesus Christ in his natural being is our redemption, which was destroyed upon the Cross, and not in a sacramental being, that is, significantly, which is a Chimaera, and a mere fiction. So that nothing is destroyed in the sacrifice of the Mass which can be our redemption. Add hereunto, that the destruction of the species or accidents being done only in the Priests stomach, when the same species dissolve by digestion, we ought to say, that the sacrifice is not done till certain hours after the Mass is finished, and that the Priests stomach is the altar, and that the sacrifice is made two or three hours in the afternoon.

17 And when it is to be defined, in what action or part of the Mass the sacrifice formally consisteth, nothing troubleth our Doctors more then that, notwithstanding all their subtlety. If they say, they sacrifice consisteth in the elevation of the host, then Jesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he used no such elevation: if in the breaking of the consecrated bread, then Jesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he brake the bread before he pronounced those words wherein the Church of Rome make the Consecration to consist. And if that which is broken in the Eucharist or Sacrament is sacrificed, by that reckoning Jesus Christ sacrificed nothing but bread. And Jesus Christ remaineth whole under the species of bread and wine, and by consequence is not broken under the species, and therefore is not sacrificed.

And if they say, the sacrifice consisteth in the eating, then the Priests mouth is the altar for the sacrifice; and by that reason, as many as are communicants are as many sacrificing Priests.

They are no less troubled touching the Consecration, that is, whether the Sacrifice formally consisteth in the Consecration; for they agree not among themselves about the words by the which Christ consecrated. Pope Innocent the third, in the sixth chapter and fourth book of the Mass, is of opinion, that Jesus Christ did not consecrate by these words, This is my body, but that he had consecrated before by his divine virtue. And all the ancient Fathers with one accord say, that Consecration is made by prayer. Whereupon the Grecians call Consecration, Invocation, and Prayer. At this day they say, that Consecration is done by these words, This is my body, which are no words of Sacrifice nor Oblation, because they offer nothing unto God, neither are directed unto God, but to the Apostles; Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. And if to consecrate be to sacrifice, then by this reason it will follow, that consecrating of days, of the Temple, and of the vessels belonging thereunto, are so many Sacrifices.

18 Touching this point we have invincible reasons, which hold our Adversaries so fast bound that they can by no means unloose themselves. They say, (and that with good reason) that in all Sacrifices, that which is offered unto God ought to be consecrated. But in the Mass, that which is sacrificed to God, is not consecrated. Therefore nothing is sacrificed unto God in the Mass. That no consecrated thing is offered to God in the Mass, it appeareth hereby; that if any consecrated thing is offered to God in the Mass, it must either be the Bread, or the accidents of the Bread, or else the Body of Christ. But it is not the Bread, for it is no more bread, (as they say) after the consecrating words are pronounced; nor the accidents of the Bread, for they are not offered unto God: The color, the roundness, and the breadth of the bread, without bread, is not a fit and proper offering for our redemption. Nor the body of Jesus Christ, for he cannot be consecrated by us; seeing that on the contrary, it is he that consecrateth us, as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 10.14. For with one offering hath he consecrated forever them that are sanctified. So there is nothing that is consecrated in the Mass which the Priest can offer unto God. Here our Adversaries are at a stay, and say that the bread is consecrated, but tell not what consecrated thing is offered to God in the Mass.

Reasons which our Adversaries allege for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

[Sect. 13] The proofs which our Adversaries bring for this matter, are very weak and miserable.

1 They say Melchizedek offered Bread and Wine. Be it so, but what do they infer thereupon? By that they conclude that the Priest in the Mass sacrificeth the body and blood of Christ. This consequence is ridiculous, and made as it were of set purpose to discredit their cause: for from thence rather it should follow, that the Priest sacrificeth nothing but bread and wine, no more then Melchizedek did.

I could show by Philo the Jew, by Josephus, by the Chaldean Paraphrase, and by diverse of our Adversaries themselves, as by Hugo de S. Uictore, and by Cardinal Cajetan, and also by the Romish Bible, that in Genesis 14.18. from whence this place is taken, it is not said, That Melchizedek sacrificed, but that he brought forth, or presented bread and wine, to refresh Abraham and his soldiers, not to make an offering unto God. I could likewise show, that the Apostle in Hebrews 7.1. compareth Melchizedek to Jesus Christ, not in this, that he sacrificed bread and wine, but herein, that he is set down to be without father or mother: Also in this, that he was a King and a Priest: and in this that he blessed Abraham, and took tithes of him, as his superior. I could also show that the Romish Bible hath falsified this place, and have put an enim for an &, and translate, For he was a Priest of the most high God, instead of, And he was a Priest of the most high God, according to the Hebrew, and the Chaldean Paraphrase: or as the seventy Interpreters translate it: But he was a Priest. But it is needless to take so much pains to confute so ridiculous an argument, and which is alleged to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice of bread and wine. One thing is not to be omitted, that is, that our Adversaries make two sorts of Sacrifices, one bloody, the other without blood: one according to the order of Aaron, the other according to the order of Melchizedek: one of less excellence, the other of more excellency; and say that the Mass is that excellent Sacrifice, according to the order of Melchizedek. By this means they make the Mass to be more excellent then the death of Jesus Christ: which is a bloody Sacrifice, and which by consequence is not a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek. But the Apostle in Hebr. 5.6.7. maketh Melchizedechs Sacrifice to be bloody: for there he showeth, that Jesus Christ at his death did execute the office of a Priest, after the order of Melchizedek.

Howsoever, seeing that the Priesthood of Melchizedek continueth forever, Psal. 110.4. Hebr. 5.6. I cannot see how our Adversaries can affirm that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Melchizedek; for they say that it shall no more be done after the day of judgment, and that before the day of judgment Antichrist shall abolish it.

2 With the like subtlety they allege the Paschal Lamb, to prove that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice. They say, the Paschal Lamb was a Sacrifice: and therefore, that the Eucharist which is ordained instead thereof, is a Sacrifice. Whereby they go about to prove that which is not in question between us: The special point of difference is. Whether the body of Christ is really sacrificed in the Eucharist; and not, Whether the Eucharist is in some sense a Sacrifice.

3 They likewise make a great show of the place in Malachi 1.11. where it is said; For from the rising of the Sun, even unto the going down of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place Incense shall be offered unto my Name, and a pure offering. In this place I see nothing spoken of sacrificing the body of Christ, nor of making a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and for the dead. In more then a dozen places of the New Testament, prayers, alms, purity and innocence of life, and the work of the Ministry are called Sacrifices. In that sense I doubt not but that the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice; but yet a Sacrifice of Eucharist, that is, a sacrifice of Thanks-giving. And the word Oblation in Malachi is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 minha, which signifieth a Cake, with aspersion of oil, which was not offered in a propitiatory sacrifice, but in a sacrifice of Thanks-giving.

This exposition disliketh our Adversaries: for they will have this pure oblation to be the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein Jesus Christ is sacrificed. An interpretation drawn out of the unwritten word. For the Scripture speaketh not of sacrificing the body of Jesus Christ in the Mass; neither is there any show thereof in that place.

The reasons why they reject our exposition, although it be grounded upon the Scripture, are, because prayers and alms are no new things, in that they were used in the Old Testament; and here (they say) he speaks of a new Oblation. I answer, that the ministry of the Gospel, and the profession of Christian faith, are new things, and not used in the Old Testament: and those things also are called Sacrifices, Rom. 15.15.16. I say the same of the holy Supper, which by the same reason may be called a Sacrifice of Praise, and of Thanks-giving. And also, that touching the manner and form of praying in the name of Jesus Christ, it began with the publication of the Gospel. And it is evident, that the same which Malachi specifieth to be new, is, that prayers and spiritual offerings should begin to be offered to God, from the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same, by the vocation of the Gentiles.

But they reply, That prayers, alms, and spi • ituall Sacrifices, cannot be that pure offering, seeing that we say, that our best works are unclean and imperfect. I could show, that they wrong us herein; but it sufficeth at this time, that the Ministry of the Gospel, and the Sacrament of the holy Supper, cannot (without blasphemy) be called impure or unclean; for although that he which administereth them is a sinner, that changeth not their nature. The purity of the Gospel and of the Sacraments dependeth not upon the purity of those that pronounce and administer them.

4 The rest of the places which they allege out of the Old Testament, seem rather to be alleged in ieast, then for instruction; in 1. of Samuel 2.35. God foreshoweth to Hely, that he would take the office of Priest from him, and would raise up unto himself a faith full Priest, to whom he would build a sure house. And Proverbs 9.1. Wisdom hath built her house, she hath killed her beasts, she hath mingled her wine, she hath also furnished her table. Therefore (say they) the Priest sacrificeth Jesus Christ in the Mass. To prove the Mass by those places of the Scripture, is all one as to warm themselves by Moon light.

5 Now let us come to the New Testament. First, they allege these words, This is my body. But we will speak of the sense of these words hereafter when we come to Transubstantiation. Now we say, put the case it were so, that by these words the bread should be transubstantiated into the body of Christ; what makes that for the sacrifice? Is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed in every place where it is? And say that the body of Jesus Christ should be really in the Priests hands, yet the Priest must not sacrifice it, unless God command him to do it. Now that is it which we desire to see, but they could never yet produce it.

6 Being put from that, they insist upon the words that follow, This is my body which is given for you, or which is broken for you. From whence they infer, that seeing those words are spoken of the present time, it must needs be that Jesus Christ at that present time brake his body, & gave it to his disciples.

This is to play with the Scriptures, and (in effect) to renounce the Bible and their belief. For they which dispute in that manner, might learn by the Romish Bible, by the Mass, and by their own Doctors, that Jesus Christ by those words speaketh of giving his body to die for us, and of the breaking of his body upon the cross. For that which Saint Paul saith, Which is broken for you, the Roman translation saith, Quod pro vobis tradetur, which shall be given for you. And in the consecration of the cup, instead of Which is shed, both the Romish Bible and the Mass, have Effundetur, which shall be shed. To give them to understand, that he spake not of any effusion then made, but of that which should be made at his death. It was our Saviors manner and use to speak in that sort. Matth. 26.45. Before any of the Jews were come to lay hands on him, he said, Behold the Son of man is given into the hands of sinners. And John. 10.17. I lay down my life, that I might take it again: and 17.11. Now I am no more in the world, and a little after, When I was in the world, &c. And Saint Paul 2. Tim. 4.6. I am already offered: speaking of his death which was near. And Jesus Christ administering that Sacrament had reason to speak of his death as present, because it was the evening before he died. So Saint Chrysostom understood it, in his 83. Sermon upon Saint Matthew; his words are these. This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins: he said that, to show that his passion and his cross is a mystery. The Jesuit Sa upon the words of Saint Matthew, saith, In Greek it is said which is shed: the present for the future tense. And Cardinal Cajetan upon the 22. of Luke saith, Even as the Evangelists by the present tense have expressed the future effusion of blood, saying, is shed, S. Paul saying, is broken, signifieth by the present time the breaking of his body which was after to be done upon the cross. Barradius the Jesuit in the 4. Tome of his Harmonie of the Evangelists, lib. 3. cap. 4. saith, The Lord useth the time present, instead of the future time which then approached; for the words ought to be understood of his future passion which then drew near, in this sense, This is my body which shall shortly be given for you, to suffer and to die.

It cannot be said, that these words, is given and is broken, can be understood presently and futurely: for one self same word cannot signify both present and future. For the Mass and the Romish Bible should do wrong to translate those words in the future tense, if they were to be understood in the present tense. Those interpreters which translate that which is spoken in the present tense, by the future tense, do it because there is an inconvenience to understand it in the present tense, & to follow precisely the letter. And it is not to be doubted, that if he which set that down in the Canon of the Mass, had believed the real sacrifice, as at this day it is believed, he would have left the word effundetur in the present tense to ground his own opinion, and would not have rested himself upon so weak a ground as otherwise the Gospel affords him; I say a weak ground, because those words read in the present tense, and translated according to the Greek copy, make nothing for the real sacrifice of Christ's body in the Eucharist. For the action it self which is a Sacrament, bindeth us to believe that they are sacramental words, and that the sense of those words is, that in the Eucharist the body of our Lord is broken, and his blood sacramentally shed, to represent the breaking and the shedding of his body and blood upon the cross. In the same manner that the bread in that place is called the body of Christ, and the cup the covenant. Therefore it is expedient to translate it in the present tense, that all the speech may be sacramental, and conformable to the nature of the action. For the clearing of the truth hereafter, nothing maketh more then the diversity of the words which Saint Luke and Saint Paul use touching the same; the one saying, Which is given, the other saying, Which is broken. For if Saint Luke understands, that the body of our Lord is really and actually given in the Sacrament, we must also say that Saint Paul understood, that in the same Sacrament the body of our Lord is really and actually broken. For they are things disagreeing, to say, that the body of our Lord is really broken under the species of bread and wine, and yet that it is whole under the species. The body of our Lord is not broken under the species, seeing it remaineth whole under the species. They are as much combred about the shedding of the blood. For they say, that the blood of our Lord is shed in the Eucharist, and yet that it stirreth not, and that it comes not out of the body nor from the veins. That it is shed under the species, and yet that it stirreth not from under the species. And as it is certain that all shedding is a moving, they make a shedding without moving. They say that the blood of the body of Christ is shed, and yet that not one drop of blood comes out. These men are angry when they are contradicted, and in the mean time they contradict rhemselues: they will be believed, and yet they believe not that which themselves say.

And this is yet more absurd which the Romish Churches believe, to wit, that the body is whole in every drop of the wine in the cup, and that in the cup the blood is not out of the body: in such manner, that it is the body which is shed and the Priest drinks the flesh and the bones. It seems that these men were in doubt to be believed, and took pleasure to heap up a number of absurd conceptions.

7 Some much please themselves with an opinion of acuteness in reasoning on this manner: All shedding of blood made for remission of sins, is a propitiatory sacrifice. But Jesus Christ saith that his blood is shed in the Eucharist for the remission of sins. Ergo the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifi • e.

The first proposition is not universally true. For there is a sacramental and not a real shedding of blood, which is made to represent the shedding of Christ's blood upon the cross: that is no propitiatory sacrifice. Therefore to take away the ambiguity, the first proposition ought to be made in this manner, All real shedding of blood made for the remission of sins, is a propitatory sacrifice. And yet still the proposition will bear exceptions. For in the circumcision of Jesus Christ, there was real shedding of the Lord's blood made for the remission of our sins, and yet circumcision was no sacrifice. The real shedding of blood is then a propitiatory sacrifice, when it is made by the death of the thing offered.

The second proposition also is false: for in the Eucharist Jesus Christ saith that his blood is shed, but saith not, that it was shed in the Eucharist. In this question we speak of a real shedding, without which there can be no real propitiatory sacrifice.

8 Their most usual objection against us is out of Acts 13.2. where it is said, As they ministered to the Lord, and in the Romish Bible it is, Ministrantibus illis Domino. That is, as they served the Lord in their ministry, conformable to the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They would needs have (but I know not why) this service to be the Mass. For these our Masters command it shall be so. Say it were so, (although there is neither reason nor color fought it to be so) and let us believe that there it is said, that the Apostles were assembled together to sing Mass: yet still the difficulty remaineth, that is, whether in that sacrifice they sacrificed the body of Jesus Christ. I know not what moveth them to interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to sacrifice. By the same reason we must say that the Angels sing Mass, and sacrifice Jesus Christ, seeing that in Heb. 1.14. the Angels are called ministering spirits, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . We must also say that Epaphroditus sacrificed and sung Mass, seeing Saint Paul, Philip. 2.25. calleth him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , administrator. But Saint Paul confuteth that, and expoundeth himself, saying, He that ministered unto me such things as I wanted.

9 Some also allege this place for the Mass, Hebr. 13.10. We have an altar, whereof they have no authority to eat which serve in the tabernacle. By this altar they will have the Apostle to understand the sacrifice of the Mass, and that in this Mass Jesus Christ is sacrificed: which are great suppositions without proofs. But Cardinal Bellarmine in the sixth chapter of his first book of the Mass, rejecteth this place, and all whatsoever they can allege out of that Epistle for the Mass. For he acknowledgeth that the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrews speaketh nothing of the Eucharist, saying, That the Apostle maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread & wine. And a little after he saith, The Apostle hath expressly omitted the oblation of bread and wine, lest he should be constrained to expound the mystery of the Eucharist, which was too high a subject to be comprehended by those to whom he wrote. Read the whole place of the Apostle, and you shall see that he speaketh of the death of Jesus Christ, which he suffered without the gate: of which sacrifice the cross was the altar. Where also he speaketh but of one altar in the singular number. In this sacrifice the Apostle saith that those that serve in the tabernacle of ceremonies have no participation.

How and in what sense the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice.

[Sect. 14] The holy Scriptures call alms, prayers, an humble and contrite heart, martyrdom, the ministry of the Gospel, and generally all kinds of good works, sacrifices.

1 But there are two particular reasons why the holy Supper may be called a sacrifice. First, because that Sacrament was instituted to declare the death of our Lord, until he comes again, 1. Cor. 11.26. In that sense the holy Supper may be called a sacrifice, because it representeth the sacrifice of the death of our Lord: as the manner is, that signs and representations ordinarily have the names of that which they signify.

2 It may be said, that in the holy Supper we offer Jesus Christ unto God, in as we pray much as unto God that he would receive the sacrifice of his death for a satisfaction for our sins.

3 Thirdly, the holy Supper is a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the benefits which God hath bestowed upon us; specially for the benefit of our redemption by Jesus Christ.

4 The ancient Church had a particular reason to call the holy Supper a sacrifice: for then the custom and manner was, that every communicant brought gifts and presents which they set upon the table, whereof one part was employed for the holy Supper, the rest was for the nourishment of the poor: and those presents were called sacrifices and oblations. Saint Cyprian in the ninth Epistle of his first book commandeth Priests, that receiving the offerings of the people which contributed, they should not depart from the altar nor from the sacrifice. And in his Sermon of Alms, he saith, Thou rich woman, which thinkest to celebrate the Supper of the Lord, which hast no care to bring an offering, which comest to the Supper of the Lord without a sacrifice, which takest part of the sacrifice which the poor have offered. Read Theodoretus in the third book of his History, chap. 12. and lib. 4. cap. 19. For these causes the ancient Fathers ordinarily called that Sacrament a sacrifice. Which they did the rather, because that thereby they brough • infidels and Pagans to Christian religion: for their opinion was that a religion without sacrifices was no religion: as by the reproaches that Pagans gave to Christians it appeareth. For Origen in his fourth book against Celsus, faith, that Christians had neither altars, images, nor temples. And in the Dialogue of Minutius Felix, the Pagan Caecilius saith, Cur nullas aras habenti Christiani, nulla templa, nulla nota simulacra? How cometh it that the Christians have no altars, temples, nor images that are seen? And in the beginning of the 7. book of Arnobius, the Pagans said, Do you think that no sacrifices are to be made? Whereunto the Christians answered and said, No, none at all.

Therefore, there are two sorts of sacrifices, the one propitiatory for our redemption, the other the Eucharisticall or sacrifice of thanksgiving. The holy Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice significantly and in commemoration, in the same manner that the cup is the Testament, that the bread is the body of Christ, that circumcision was the covenant of God, and that the rock from whence water issued forth was Christ, as the Scripture saith. But to speak properly, the holy Supper is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, & as it is said in the Canon of the Mass, Sacrificium laudis, a sacrifice of praise. Therefore the ancient Fathers called it Eucharist, that is, a thansgiuing.

You must not think it strange that one self same action should be called a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Albeit there is as much difference between a Sacrament and a sacrifice, as between giving, and taking or receiving; for you may observe both these in the Lord's holy Supper, which is a Sacrament, because therein God giveth and communicateth his graces unto us; and a sacrifice, because therein we offer praise and thanksgiving unto him.

The opinion of the ancient Fathers touching the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

[Sect. 15] This is a point which every man takes upon him to know. For there is nothing easier then to collect diverse places out of the ancient Fathers, taken upon trust, and so to make a book. But to sound into the depth of them, and to find their manner of writing for the time, their alteration of words and customs in several ages, their intents, and the occasions and consequences of abuses which ages and times ensuing have disclosed, is a thing whereunto few men attain, and for which 20. years study is a small time.

For the four reasons aforesaid, the ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a sacrifice, and a sacrifice of the body of Christ, and a sacrifice of our redemption. But where occasion served, they gave us enough to understand, that their meaning is sound, and altogether contrary to our adversaries opinions. To prove it I will produce a few places out of them.

The book of Faith written to Peter the Deacon, were it Augustine's or Fulgentius his disciples, in the 19. chapter saith, The universal Church throughout all the world doth not cease to offer a sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charity. For in the carnal flesh-offerings (of the Old Testament) there was a representation of the flesh of Christ, which he being without sin, was to offer for our sins; and of his blood, which he was to shed for the remission of our sins. But in this sacrifice (of the Eucharist) there is a thansgiuing and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which he offered for us, and of his blood which the same God shed for us. Note here specially that they offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, in commemoration of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ that was broken and shed for us.

And in the 17. Chapter and 17. book of the City of God, he saith, To eat the bread in the New Testament, is the sacrifice of Christians.

And in the 20. book against Faustus the Manichee, cap. 21. he saith, This flesh & blood of Christ was promised before his coming, by the resemblance of sacrifices: in his passion it was truly exhibited. After the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of commemoration.

In his 23. Epistle to Boniface he saith: Oftentimes when the passion approacheth, we say, To morrow or the next day is the passion of our Lord, although there are so many years past since he suffered, and that the same passion was done but once. And upon the Sabbath day we say, This day the Lord rose again, though there are so many years past since his resurrection. Why doth not some vain fellow tell us that we lie, in saying so, but because that day is called the Sons day, which is not the same day, but like unto it, by reuolution of Time? Was not Christ once sacrificed in his body? and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred sign, not only at every solemnization of the feast of Easter, but also every day. And yet he lieth not, who being asked that question, maketh answer and saith, That he is sacrificed. For if the Sacraments had not some resemblance of the things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments. Now for this resemblance most commonly they have the name of the things themselves.

And to show how he understandeth the word Sacrament, in the tenth book and fifth chapter, of the City of God, he saith thus, The visible sacrifice is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of the invisible Sacrifice. And a little after, That which men call a Sacrifice, is a sign of the true Sacrifice. And in his 5. epistle to Marcelline, he saith, The signs when they belong to divine things, are called Sacraments.

In the Canon, Hoc est, taken out of Saint Augustine, in the second Distinction of Consecration, these words are found: The sacrifice of the flesh which is made by the hands of the Priest, is called the passion, the death, and the crucifying, not in truth, but in a significant mystery, in the same manner as the Sacrament of faith, whereby we understand Baptism is called faith.

In the book of the Sentences of Prosper, gathered out of Saint Augustine, in the same Distinction, this place is alleged; Jesus Christ was but once sacrificed in his own body, and yet he is every day sacrificed in the Sacrament: that is, (as he expounded it before) in a sacred sign. And thereupon the ancient Glosses of the Romish Church note in the margent: Christ is sacrificed, that is, his Sacrifice is represented, and a commemoration is made of his passion.

Therefore the Fathers not only say, That the Sacrifice which is offered in the Church, is the Sacrifice of the body of Christ, but also, that the same Sacrifice which they offer, is his death and passion. Saint Cyprian, in his third Epistle and second book saith: In all the Sacrifices which we offer, we make mention of his passion, for the Sacrifice which we offer, is his passion. And Chrysostom in his 21. Homilie upon the Acts, speaking of the holy Scripture, saith, While this death is finished, and this dreadful sacrifice, and these unutterable mysteries. The body therefore of Jesus Christ is taken and sacrificed in the Eucharist, in the same manner as he dieth there, that is, as it is said before in the Romish Decretal, not in truth, but in a significant mystery.

Chrysostom in his seventeenth Homilie upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith. We always offer the same Sacrifice: or to speak more properly, the commemoration of the same Sacrifice.

Eusebius in the tenth chapter of his first book of the Demonstration of the Gospel, saith▪ Seeing that we have received the memory of this Sacrifice to celebrate the same upon the Table thereof by the signs of his body and of his blood, according to the institution of the New Testament, we are taught by the Prophet David, saying, Thou hast prepared my Table, &c. And it is to be noted, that the same chapter being very long, speaketh of nothing else but of the Sacrifices both in the old and New Testament; but speaketh not of sacrificing of the body of our Lord in the Eucharist, but only of celebrating the memory thereof.

Justin Martyr against Triphon saith, The oblation of the Cake of fine flour was a figure of the bread in the Eucharist, which Jesus Christ hath commanded us to do in commemoration of his death.

It is the property of Grammarians, and specially of those that make Dictionaries, to name things by their names, and to speak simply. So doth Soudas the Grammarian, in the word Ecclesia. The Church (saith he) maketh an oblation of the signs of the body and of the blood of Christ, sanctifying the whole lump by the first fruits.

The Priest in the Mass speaketh as though he believed not that that which he sacrificeth is the body of Jesus Christ, seeing he offereth that Sacrifice by Jesus Christ; and desireth that the Angels would present that Oblation unto God and carry it to his heavenly altar; for Jesus Christ hath no need of the aide of Angels to present him to his Father. And it also appeareth in this, that he calleth his oblation, gifts, and presents, in the plural number, which God blesseth, createth, quickeneth, and always sanctifieth: of all which words, none can be applied to Jesus Christ. For it is hard to be conceived how the consecrated Sacrifice or Host may be called, All these good things, if Jesus Christ be the Host. And it is likewise more hardly to be comprehended how God continually createth Jesus Christ: and how he blesseth and quickeneth Jesus Christ by Jesus Christ. These words have a good meaning, being spoken of the bread and wine, but not of Jesus Christ. If by these words the Priest understandeth that he speaketh of the bread and the wine, and giveth thanks to God, because he always createth and quickeneth those things, he falleth into three inevitable absurdities. The first is, that he giveth thanks to God, because he createth the bread and the wine in the Eucharist, when according to their doctrine there is neither bread nor wine. The second is, That he showeth the bread and the wine as being present, saying All these good things, whē those things are no more those things, being (as they say) transubstantiated into flesh and blood. Add hereunto, that these words are said at the very same time when the Priest lifts up the Host to cause it to be adored. But is not this a thing against all reason and apparence, that then when men adore the Host, and when they sacrifice the eternal Son of God to God for the redemption of souls, instead of praising God for so great a benefit, they give him thanks▪ because he maketh the corn to grow, and that he createth and blesseth it continually? That is all one in effect, as if when God admitteth any one into the Church by Baptism, men should give thanks unto God, because he created the water, and maketh fountains and rivers continually to run.

To be short, the Truth is so strong, that our Adversaries out of the heat of disputation, ordinarily say as we say. Read Lombard in the fourth book of Sentences, the twelfth Distinction, at the letter G: and Thomas Aquinas in the third part of his Sermons, Question 83. Article 1. and you shall see that they wholly agree with us: and that they say, that the Eucharist is called a Sacrifice for no other reason, but because that therein a commemoration is made of the sacrifice of the Cross, and because the sacrifice of the death of our Lord is therein applied unto us, that we may be partakers of that benefit.

Of Baptism, and of the necessity thereof.

The same 35. Article of our Confession speaketh of Baptism, and particularly of the baptism of little children, in these words:

Nevertheless, because God receiveth little children into his Church with their fathers, we say, that by the authority of Jesus Christ, young children that are begotten by Christian parents ought to be baptized.

Against this M. Arnoux reasoneth in this manner.

Of the signification of the word Baptism.

Of the necessity of Baptism in persons that are of years of discretion.

[Sect. 18] Touching those that have attained to that age to be capable of inst • uction, the Church of Rome makes a show to disagree with us therein, but in effect, they hold with us, that the baptism of water is not absolutely necessary for them, & that if a man being of years of discretion dieth without baptism, yet he may be saved, so that that want of baptism happened not unto him by reason of contempt, or for want of will and desire, but by want of means and conveniency. The Council of Trent in the sixth Session, 4. chap: saith, That a man cannot be admitted into the state of grace without the washing of regeneration, or without a desire or religious promise; that is, that no man can be acceptable unto God without baptism, or for want of baptism, without the desire or will to be baptized. And Thomas in his Commentary upon the third of Saint John saith, that to enter into the kingdom of God, a man must be baptized vel in re, vel in voto, vel in figura, either in effect, or in desire, or in figure, &c. In the 43. title of the Decretals, cap. Apostolicam, Pope Innocent 3. declareth, that a Priest dying without baptism enjoyeth eternal glory, because he persevered in the confession of the name of Christ. For which cause, in the same chapter Saint Augustine is alleged in the eight book of the City of God, saying. Baptismus inuisibiliter ministratur, quem non contemptus religions, sed terminus necessitatis excludit: Baptism is invisibly administered to him that hath been debarred thereof, not by contempt of religion, but by necessity of time preventing him. And thereupon the Gloss of the Canonists Doctors noteth that the Emperor Valentinian died without baptism, and that nevertheless Ambrose in his Oration made upon the death of that Emperor, saith that he was blessed in heaven. That which is specially to be noted in this History, is, that the Emperor Valentinian was a Christian borne, and had a thousand means to have been baptized, if he would.

To the same end, and to make baptism by water unnecessary, the Church of Rome speaketh of two other baptisms which supply the want of baptism by water, which are, baptism of the spirit, which is sanctification and interior renewing wrought by the Spirit of God; and baptism by blood which is martyrdom. But these two allegorical baptisms are no Sacraments. For conversion and renewing of a man's mind from sins, are not conferred by the ministry of men, but it is a work of the Spirit of God: wherein there is no element, nor any words added to the element. This can be no Sacrament of the New Testament, seeing that the same spiritual renewing was necessary in the Old Testament. And it cannot be said that this work of the holy Ghost in the hearts of the faithful doth supply the want of baptism, seeing it is necessary to salvation, whether a man be baptized, or not baptized.

Martyrdom also is no Sacrament of the New Testament, for that the same was in the Old Testament. And the Council of Trent declareth, that Sacraments are not conferred, if he that conferreth them hath not an intent to confer them. And it is not to be thought nor believed, that the executioners of martyrs have an intent to confer a Sacrament at their executions. And there is no likelihood, that of two Martyrs, whereof the one is baptized, the other not baptized, the martyrdom of the one should be a baptism, and the others none. Neither can I see how the martyrdom of a man that is drowned or strangled without any effusion of blood, can be called a baptism or washing in blood. Besides that, we often deceive our selves in this word Martyr. For 1. Cor. 13.3. the Apostle showeth, that a man may give his body to be burned, and yet have no charity. It is a common thing among men to suffer martyrdom, to win reputation. Among a number of the faithful that are massacred in their beds without any leisure to speak, it is not unlikely but that some of them would have recanted for fear, if they had had any respite given them to think thereon. So that in calling him a Martyr which in God's judgment is not so, we give the name of baptism to sufferings which are unworthy the name of martyrdom.

To be short: that rule so often times repeated in the Gospel, which is, That whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ, shall have life everlasting, will bear no exception. Therefore he that hath the faith of a Martyr, and loveth God more then his own life, although God exempteth him from marryrdome, doth not lose the same reward. For God doth not reward the pains but the virtue of a man. Because dolour and pain for martyrdom cannot be suffered by Hypocrites, but faith is proper to the children of God, to whom life eternal is promised: for the want of baptism by default of means cannot annihilate God's promise.

Of the necessity of Baptism in little children.

[Sect. 19] Touching baptism of little children, the discord is greater. Our adversaries say, that baptism with water is simply necessary for them to salvation. And proceed so far therein, that Lombardus saith, That if any infant which is brought to the Church to be baptized, dieth by the way, it shall be damned. This they affirm by words, but deny it in effect. For they are of opinion, that martyrdom supplieth the default of baptism with water, and that a child which is not baptized with water, entereth into the kingdom of God by martyrdom. And to prove it they allege the little children that were slain by Herod in Bethlehem and there abouts as soon as they were borne, & all those that were two years old, whom the Church of Rome doth reverence for Saints and Martyrs, without any distinction between those that were circumcised, and those that were not circumcised.

But seeing that in the Church of Rome the godfather believeth for the child which is baptized, and forsaketh the devil for him, saying, Credo & abrenuntio, I marvel why the same godfather cannot also make a vow for the child, seeing that the Council of Trent teacheth, that a vow supplieth the want of baptism.

It is likewise very requisite to be noted, that our adversaries are of opinion, that the baptism which Jesus Christ conferred by the hands of his disciples, John. 4.2. was not necessary to salvation. Bellarmine in the 5. chapter of his first book of Baptism, saith, That the Baptism of Jesus Christ, was neither a necessary means, nor a necessary commandment before the death of Jesus Christ. And Pope Leo 1. in the 4. Epistle to the Bishops of Sicily 3. chapter, saith, That Jesus Christ from his resurrection began the gift of regeneration. For so he calleth the grace of God given in Baptism. But there is no apparence that that Baptism which at this day is conferred by a Pagan, by a Jew, or by a woman should be more necessary, and of more efficacy then that which was administered by Jesus Christ and by his Apostles. It is to no purpose to say, that circumcision did then supply that which wanted in the baptism which Jesus Christ conferred. For the Church of Rome is of opinion, that circumcision by virtue of the action did not confer justifying grace. And Pope Innocent the 3. saith, That by circumcision a man doth not attain to the kingdom of heaven. Then it could not supply those wants which they say were in the baptism of Christ, seeing that those to whom it was conferred were also circumcised.

Many Doctors of the Church of Rome, being confuted by the force of truth, believed that children might be saved without baptism with water. That is the opinion of Gerson Chancelor of the University of Paris, in his Sermon of the Natiuitie of the virgins Marie; and of Gabriel Biel upon the 4. book of Sentences, Dist. 4. quest. 2. and of Lombardus master of Sentences, that maintaineth the necessity of Baptism, and nevertheless (constrained by force of the truth) in the 4. Distinstion, in the letter E. saith. That it is certain that God hath not tied his power to the Sacraments, and that S. Augustine upon Leviticus plainly saith, that some have invisible sanctification without the visible Sacrament.

Howbeit, our adversaries had rather contradict themselves then agree with us, and with the truth. And to that end build an imaginary lodging for little children that die without Baptism, which they call the Limbus of little children, forged by men's brains without the word of God: where they say those poor children lie in eternal darkness, in a hole or cave under the earth, deprived of God's sight, and of eternal salvation, without dolour and torment, and by consequence without grief; for perpetual grief and sorrow for the loss of our sovereign good, is a perpetual torment: and if without grief to be excluded from the presence of God, then also without knowledge of God, and without the love of God, which is the greatest evil that can be in a reasonable creature.

This Limbus is a field fit to exercise the subtlety of these Doctors, and a subject to be disputed of when men are fasting, to know what the souls of those little children do in that prison under ground, seeing that there they have no communication with God, nor with the Saints in Paradise, nor any remembrance of those things which they saw and heard upon earth, because there they neither saw nor heard anything. As also whether those children shall rise again at the latter day, whether they shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ: what sentence the Judge will give; and how they can hear or comprehend that sentence. Whether they shall remain still in that cave under the ground then when the earth shall be no more, or whether the Pope hath appointed them any other lodging. To what end their eyes and their ears shall serve them in that Limbus after the resurrection: Whether the Pope can draw them from thence by Indulgences, as well as Pope Gregory 1. drew the Emperor Traians (a Pagans) soul out of hell, if we believe our adversaries. When that horrible custom began which is used in the Hospital of Paris, where they throw little children (that are dead without Baptism) into a deep well, as unworthy of any burial. And lastly, whether that any one ever came from that Limbus to bring them that news, seeing that God never shown us of any such thing.

A deciding of this difference by the holy Scriptures.

[Sect. 20] 1 The Scripture draweth us out of this difficulty, Genesis 17.7. where God saith to Abraham, I will be thy God, and of thy seed after thee. Now children that died before circumcision cannot be excluded from Abraham's posterity. Then God is also their God, and by consequence they are inheritors of eternal life. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. So saith Jesus Christ, Matth. 22.32. And Acts 2.39. Saint Peter saith to the Jews that were converted to the faith of Christ, For the promise is made to you, and to your children. Where speaking of children in general, he also comprehendeth as well those that are new borne, as those that had received Baptism. Then if God (without exception) declareth himself to be the God of the children of the faithful, and acknowledgeth them to be his, and if to them the promise and the covenant of God belongeth, is it not a rash judgment, and an injurious cruelty against the goodness of God, to condemn them to eternal damnation?

2 The Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 7.14. speaking of a man and a wife, whereof the one is an infidel, the other a Christian, and of children borne in that marriage, saith that their children are holy, Otherwise (saith he) your children were unclean, but now they are holy. If children borne in marriage where but one of the parties is a Christian, are holy by the Apostles judgment, what apparence is there for men to think that those children which are borne of two Christian parents are not holy? and that they should be excluded from the grace of God, under pretence that they died without Baptism? Many of our adversaries to save their honesties, say that by the word holy is understood children lawfully borne; and that by unclean children, the Apostle understandeth bastards and children unlawfully begotten. Thus they play with the Scriptures, and contradict themselves. For the Church of Rome is of opinion with us, that Marriages between Pagans are lawful, and their children legitimate. Saint John the Baptist said to Herod, That it was not lawful for him to have his brother Philip's wife, Matth. 14.4. Then he esteemed that the marriage between Philip and Herodias his wife was indissoluble, and consequently lawful. Ancient Christians acknowledged the Pagan Emperors children to be lawful successors in the Empire, and obeyed them, which they had not been bound to do, if they had esteemed Pagans marriages to be unlawful. Then if Pagans children are legitimate, and that the Apostle calleth all children legitimate (as our adversaries say) the children of Turks and Pagans are holy. But it is certain, that the Apostles intent was not to show us how children are holy in that sense, but to show us by what means children are consecrated to God. The Scripture also never calleth a child holy because it is lawfully begotten, but it is an ordinary thing in the Scripture to call those persons and those things holy, which are consecrated to God, and dedicated to his service. So in the Law every first borne that opened the matrice was holy unto God. In the same sense the Temple, the vessels, the sacrifices, and the Sabbath day were holy to the Lord. So are children that are borne of Christian parents. And seeing that God acknowledgeth them to be holy, why should the Church of Rome esteem them to be profane, and excluded from the covenant of God? It is true that they are borne in original sin: but Saint John saith, that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin: the virtue of which blood and the efficacy of his death, is not tied to the water in any such manner, as that when time and means fail & are wanting to be baptized, God therefore cannot cause his grace to be felt, and manifest his goodness towards the children of the faithful, borne within the covenant of God.

Hereby M. Arnoux discourse is confuted, which saith, That children are called holy, because they are lawfully begotten, and issued from an holy marriage. We grant him that in that place the children are called holy, in the same sense that in the same place it is said, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the woman. For the Apostle thereby teacheth, that the faith and holiness of one of the parties, sanctifieth the marriage betwixt the husband and the wife, in such manner that the children born in that marriage are consecrated to God.

3 Matthew 19.14, Jesus said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. Those children which were presented unto him had not as then been baptized by him nor by his Apostles, and yet he declared that the kingdom of God belonged unto them. It is true that it appeareth not whether they were circumcised or no, but that is to little purpose, seeing that our adversaries say, That circumcision doth not bring a man to the kingdom of heaven. Then baptism was necessary for those children to enter into the kingdom of heaven, if we believe our adversaries. Add hereunto, that Jesus Christ saith not, that the kingdom of heaven belongeth to childrē that are circumcised, but simply to children. He considereth the Infancie, and not the Circumcision in them.

4 To this purpose those places of Scripture may be alleged, which say, That God never punisheth the innocent for the guilty, and doth not punish the son for the fathers sin, if the son doth not participate in his fathers sin. As Ezekiel 18.20. saith, The soul that sinneth, it shall die: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The Church of Rome sinneth against this rule, when they will have a child to be forever excluded from the kingdom of heaven, because his father negligently delayed his baptism. That is, to punish the innocent for the guilty. The example of Adams sin, which brought so many evils upon his posterity, is not contrary to this rule; for Adam sinned not as a particular man, but as representing all mankind in the root. For having received certain benefits for himself and for his posterity, he lost them for himself and for his posterity. Moreover, that evil descended from Adam upon us by natural propagation, which no way can be applied to the willful negligence of parents, in not baptizing their children.

5 If we desire to have more pertinent examples, the holy Scripture furnisheth us sufficiently. Every man knows that Circumcision was the same to the faithful in the Old Testament, that Baptism at this day is unto us. And yet infinite numbers of people were saved under the old Testament without Circumcision, as all the faithful women, and those which truly repented among the Gentiles.

6 Circumcision was conferred upon the eight day after the child was borne. In which time of eight days a great number of children died, which according to our Adversaries doctrine must have been eternally damned. The goodness of God towards all men, specially towards his own people, and those which fear him, bindeth us to believe, that if Circumcision had been necessary to salvation, God would have commanded children to have been circumcised presently after they were borne. He would not have excluded millions of souls (borne of faithful parents, and of Abraham's posterity, and to whom the blessing of God was promised,) from his grace, by the delay of eight days. For God taketh no pleasure in the destruction of his creatures, much less in losing children borne under his covenant. If the people of Israel had believed that which the Church of Rome believeth, they would have desired Moses to have had a shorter time limited unto them for circumcision. And there would have been great and extraordinary lamentations made by the Jews for those children that died before those eight days were expired. And it is manifest that the people of the Church of Rome do not believe that which they are taught, seeing that the mothers whose children die before they are baptized, are so easily and so soon comforted, and trouble their minds no more with the eternal perdition of their children.

7 But specially the children of Israel that died in the Deserts, are a notable example herein: For those people omitted the use of Circumcision for the space of forty years together, in which time there was above six hundred thousand men borne, and that died therein: which great multitude of souls are eternally lost, by the judgment of the Romish Church. And yet those men were they for whom Manna rained down from heaven, & whom God covered by day with a pillar of a cloud, and lighted by night with a pillar of fire: which offered sacrifices unto God, and whose sacrifices God did accept: whom without doubt Moses would never have suffered to have been uncircumcised, if he had believed that without circumcision they could not have been saved.

8 But what is more contrary to God and to his word, then to make God subject unto men, yea, and that he should be subject to the will of his enemies, in such manner that he openeth and shutteth the entry into Paradise at their pleasure? And yet that is the belief of the Church of Rome. For Pope Nicholas the first defined, that Baptism conferred by a Jew or a Pagan is good and available, so that the same Jew or Pagan did baptize in the name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Jesus Christ. By this means, if either a Pagan or a Turk hath a Christiā child in his keeping, he can save or lose the soul of that child: and if he will baptize that child, it shall be saved; but if he will not, that child dying, is presently cast headlong into eternal darkness. By this reason, the salvation of a Christian child dependeth upon the will of a Turk or a Pagan, of whom it is to be believed, that he doth confer baptism no otherwise then for a mockery or in despite.

9 The like absurdities rise from the baptism of Midwiues, who receiving a child that dieth in the birth, must have the salvation of the child in their powers. By this reckoning the Apostles with all their means, and with all their wisdom and doctrines never did more good to any man then such a Pagan or such a woman do unto a child, which without them had died without baptism.

10 But is it not an easy matter for a Jew or a Turk hypocritically to cause himself to be baptized? Do we think or imagine that the same Jew or Turk shall be more acceptable unto God for profaning the sacrament of his Covenant? and that dying thereupon, he goes strait into Paradise?

An examination of that which our Adversaries produce out of the Scriptures for the absolute necessity of Baptism.

[Sect. 21] M. Arnoux, to prove that no man can be saved without baptism with water, alledgeth the third and fifth verses of the third chapter of S. John, where Jesus Christ saith to Nicodemus, Verily verily I say unto thee, except a man be borne again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. And, Except a man be borne of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And verse 7. You must be borne again. But our Adversaries serving their turns with these places, overthrow that which they have set up. For the Church of Rome is of opinion, that this place doth not prove the absolute necessity of baptism with water to all persons: seeing it saith, that Martyrs may be saved without baptism with water; that those which have vowed to be baptized, and have not had convenient time and commodious thereunto, may be saved without it; and those also that are sanctified by the holy Ghost, as we have already declared. All those may be saved (as they say) without baptism with water. And which is more, although our Lord Jesus Christ spake unto Nicodemus, yet our Adversaries say, that baptism with water was not necessary for Nicodemus, because he was circumcised; and that the baptism of Christ was not necessary to salvation (by their judgment) but after his resurrection, as we shown before. Above all things, it is to be considered, that Christ did not only speak to Nicodemus, but also for Nicodemus, which spake of himself, and in respect of himself, when he said, How can a man be borne again when he is old? By this is discovered the nature of error, which is, to interrupt it self, and to undo that which it hath done. For it is evident, that the Lord spake of a new birth, without which Nicodemus could not be saved. But our adversaries say that Nicodemus might be saved without baptism, because he was circumcised. How should a man believe these Doctors, seeing they believe not themselves? and having set down a general rule to prove, that no man can be saved without baptism with water, presently after they break that rule by a multitude of exceptions? The sense of this place is clear, Jesus Christ spake to Nicodemus, and in him to all those persons that are capable of instruction, and showeth them that they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, if they be not borne again in newness of life, and regenerated by the holy Ghost: whose grace being infused into our hearts, is a baptism without the which no man can be saved. And it is most certain that this rule can bear no exception. For as in Matth. 3.11. it is said, that Jesus Christ baptizeth us with the holy Ghost and with fire, understanding thereby the Spirit moving and purifying our hearts: so in this place Jesus Christ saith, that to enter into the kingdom of heaven, We must be borne again of water and of the spirit; understanding thereby, a spiritual washing, or the Spirit washing and purifying the heart. The words to be borne again, can receive no other exposition. For, to be borne again, doth not signify to be baptized with water, but to be renewed and regenerated in a new life by the Spirit of God. And Jesus Christ plainly showeth, that he speaketh only of the efficacy of the Spirit secretly working in our hearts, when (verse the eight) he addeth and saith, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every man that is borne of the Spirit. Then to be borne of water and of the Spirit, by our Savior Jesus Christ's own exposition, is to be simply borne of the Spirit: and this comparison of the wind blowing invisibly cannot agree with anything but only with the Spirit of God.

Yet to gratify our adversaries, let us grant them that Jesus Christ in this place would say, that without the Sacrament of Baptism with water, we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; why should they not herein use the same equity of judgment, and the same discretion which they use in the exposition of those places whereby they say that Jesus Christ speaketh of the necessity of the Eucharist? In John. 6.53. Jesus Christ saith, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. There our adversaries restrain Christ's words to persons that are of the age of discretion, and that are capable of instruction, and that have means to participate the Eucharist. Then let us say the same in this place, that is, that Jesus Christ speaketh to men that have attained to years of instruction, and to those that have means to be baptized, which cannot be saved if they despise baptism. By this means our disputation would be at an end, and we should be at agreement with our adversaries touching the necessity of baptism. And that is it which the Master of Sentences acknowledgeth, saying, That the same place ought to be understood of those that may be baptized, and despise baptism.

The marriage of pride with superstition hath begotten this error. For pride seekerh to exalt the necessity of the ministry of men, and to persuade that the grace of God necessarily passeth through their hands. And superstition layeth hold upon the exterior action, as if God did nothing without it.

But in the mean time, while the Church of Rome exalteth the necessity of baptism, it imbaseth the worthiness thereof, persuading those that believe her, that the benefit of Jesus Christ is in such sort applied unto them thereby, that by the same they are not exempted from satisfying God's justice for the punishments and pains of sins by them committed after baptism. They have abridged the benefit of Jesus Christ, to make way for their trade. They say that it is no reason that the benefit of the redeemer should as equally exempt those from punishment which have wittingly sinned after baptism, as those that sinned by ignorance before baptism. But may it not fall out, that a man may sin willingly before baptism, and ignorantly after baptism? Then why shall sin which is wittingly committed before baptism be remitted without any satisfaction: and rhat which is committed by ignorance after baptism, not be remitted without satisfactory punishments imposed upon it by God?

The Church of Rome also hath embased baptism, by permitting women and Pagans to administer the same, whereas Confirmation is only conferred by the Bishop: as also by adding thereunto spittle, salt, and blowing into the ears of those that are baptized: and by baptizing bells and gallies, as if they condemned baptism to the gallies.

And in like manner the book of Sacred ceremonies, lib. 1. cap. 8. in the seventh Section saith, that the Pope baptizeth Lambes made of wax.

The belief of both parties.

[Sect. 24] The Church of Rome is of opinion, that presently after these words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, are pronounced, the substance of the bread changeth into the body of our Lord by transubstantiation, and the substance of the wine into the blood of our Lord. In such manner nevertheless, that by concomitance the body also is whole in every drop of the wine in the cup, as the body is whole in every crumb and under every part of the host, which is done by virtue of the words; which being pronounced as well over the substance of the bread as over the accidents, do not work but upon the substance, so that the accidents remain without a subject; not that the body of Jesus Christ which is set on the right hand of God, cometh into the host, but it is made there by transubstantiation.

Upon condition nevertheless, that the Priest must have an intent to consecrate. For without that, the consecration is not made: and yet in the mean time the people out of a pious and an holy presupposition do not cease to adore the host at all adventures. Bellarmine in the first book of Sacraments, chap. 27. saith, It is sufficient that the Priest hath an intent to do as the Church of Rome doth.

To confirm this transubstantiation and real presence, our adversaries produce diverse miracles, wherein the host (as they say) being pricked hath shed many drops of blood, and in some of them the host appeared like a little child, entering into some men's mouths. And say that certain shepherds having pronounced the words of consecration upon their bread being at breakfast, changed all the bread into flesh.

And because many inconveniences happen, either that the consecrated cup may freeze, or that the consecrated host may be stolen, or is eaten by mice, or vomited up again by weakness of body, the penitential Canons, and the provisions of the Mass have ordained certain rules for everyone of these inconveniences, and say, that it is not to be thought a strange matter, that a rat or a dog doth eat the whole body of Jesus Christ, now when he sitteth at the right hand of God in his glory, seeing that while he was in his infirmity here on earth fleaes might suck the drops of his blood, and dogs might lick up his blood that fell down from the cross.

By this doctrine the Priest may do that which all the Angels and Saints together cannot do; for he can make Jesus Christ; and having made God by certain words, he hath God in his own power. From thence proceedeth their manner of speaking to lift up God, to eat him, and to receive their Creator. From thence proceedeth this prodigious doctrine, that a Priest may transsubstantiate whole vessels of wine, and change all the bread in the market into flesh. From thence proceedeth the adoration of the host in the Priests hands, but not after it is gone down into his stomach, although it be present there as well as in the host.

To show in what manner the body of our Lord is in the Eucharist, they say, that his body is there, but not corporally: and that his body is there, but spiritually, with as much reason, as if they said, that a spirit is present corporally. They likewise say, that he is in this place, but not locally; that he is visible under the species, & yet that the species hinder us from the sight of him: that he is there in length without extension: that he is a body without a local space; that in every part of the host he hath his greatness, and that in every crumb of the bread he hath his full magnitude as he had upon the cross: that he hath two eyes in one self same point: that he cannot move nor breathe under the host: that he is whole in heaven, and whole in earth, and yet not in the region between both, nor separated from himself: that in the host, there is quantitas, & nihil quantum, length and nothing that is long, savor and nothing that sauoreth, whiteness and nothing that is white. This is it which they call the accidents without subject. See the divinity of this age.

It is one of the greatest graces which God hath shown unto us, that we are freed from so strange an error, and that in our Churches they speak not of making of God by certain words, nor of adoring Jesus Christ made by men's hands: as also that we believe in one Jesus Christ, which is very man, and hath a true human body, and who by this means is our brother, by his conformity with our nature, and by the union of his Spirit, who being ascended up into heaven, will come again unto us the second time, at the latter day.

Touching the holy Supper, we believe with the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.26. That we eat bread to show forth the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. And 1. Cor. 10.16. That the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. Which bread is called the body of the Lord, because it is the commemoration thereof; as Jesus Christ addeth to expound his meaning, according to the manner of the holy Scripture, which is, to give the signs the names of those things which they signify. Not that we believe that those signs are only bare figures bereft of all truth, but with the Apostle we believe, that breaking that bread we communicate the in body of Christ. Those signs are not only significative, but also exhibitiue of Jesus Christ, and of his benefits. For although Jesus Christ is not enclosed in that bread, yet is he truly made ours if with true faith, and love of God we participate of this holy Sacrament, and put all our trust and confidence in the death of Jesus Christ. Therefore we do not adore the Sacrament, but Jesus Christ which is in heaven: taking the Apostles for an example, who did not adore the host in the holy Supper, as neither Jesus Christ did command them to adore it, neither yet used they any elevation.

A proof of the doctrine of our Churches by the words of the institution of this Sacrament.

[Sect. 25] Our Lord Jesus Christ after the last Paschal lamb celebrated with his disciples, instituted another Sacrament, which Saint Paul calleth the Supper of the Lord, at the which he will have bread to be broken and eaten by the faithful, and a cup with wine distributed in remembrance of him, and to declare his death till he comes again. This institution is found in Saint Matth. 26. in Mark 14, in Saint Luke 22. and 1. Cor. 11. From these places, not by peacemeale, (as our adversaries do,) but wholly, and compared together, the truth ought to be drawn.

Saint Matthew saith, That Jesus Christ took the bread, and when he had blessed it, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. Saint Luke saith, that he added, Which is given you; do this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul in steed of saying, Which is given for you, saith, Which is broken for you. The holy Ghost which guided the hands and the spirits of the Apostles and of the Evangelists, used that diversity, that it might serve for a declaration and opening of the truth, and to the end that one Evangelist should serve to make the other to be understood.

All the words of the Evangelists are true, not only taken altogether, but severally. Then let us first examine them severally and apart, and after that altogether.

1 I say that the Gospel witnesseth, that Jesus Christ took bread, that he blessed it, and that he brake it. Then seeing that Jesus Christ took, and brake bread, how comes it that in the Church of Rome they say, that the Priest doth not break bread? and that it is no more bread, when the breaking of the Sacrament is made?

2 The Gospel saith, that Jesus Christ took bread, that he brake it, and that he gave it. Then it is true that he gave bread, contrary to the Romish Church which saith, that in the Mass the Priest giveth no bread. And note these words, That Jesus Christ gave bread. Which is not given but after consecration; it is bread therefore still after consecration.

3 And S. Matth. witnesseth, That Jesus Christ took bread, that he blessed it, and that he brake it, and that he gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. Therefore we must believe, that the bread which Jesus Christ brake, & gave, was his body, & not as the Church of Rome, which believeth that it is no more bread, but only the body of Jesus Christ, made by the conversion of bread. He that will not be culpable of changing the words of the Gospel, ought constantly to hold these two truths set down in the Gospel: the one, that Jesus Christ gave bread; the other, that that bread which he gave was his body: and must not do as the Church of Rome doth, which under a pretence to lay hold on the second truth, overthroweth the first, and imagineth a transubstantiation whereby the bread is abolished.

4 These words alone, This is my body, whereon they build their doctrine, cannot bear up this frame of Transubstantiation. For they are declaratiue words of that which is, and not effective of that which is not: and which presuppose that the same bread was already the body of the Lord, before he pronounced those words.

5 And indeed both we and our adversaries agree, that the bread is made the body of Christ by consecration, but consecration is not made by these words This is my body, but by prayer and blessing which went before, as the Canon of the Church of Rome acknowledgeth, which beginneth Corpus, in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, and saith, We call that the body and blood of Christ, which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer, is directly taken by us for spiritual salvation, in memory of the passion of our Lord. And Pope Innocent 3. in the 4. book of the Mysteries of the Mass, cap. 6. saith, That Jesus Christ did not consecrate by these words, This is my body: but that he consecrated by his divine virtue before he uttered those words. And certainly reason confirmeth it: for we must be void of sense, if we know not, that to consecrate bread to God, we ought rather to speak to God then to the bread. But our adversaries had rather go against reason, their own Popes, and their Decrees, then obey the Gospel, placing consecration in these words, This is my body, by which the Priest speaks not to God, but to the bread.

6 Moreover, no man can deny, that when Jesus Christ said, This is my body, but by that word This, he understood that which he held in his hands. Now both we and our adversaries acknowledge, that when Jesus Christ pronounced the word this, he held nothing but bread in his hands. It followeth then that by the word this, he understood that bread: and by consequence that these words, this is my body, signify this bread it my body, and not under these species is my body. Nor this shall be transubstantiated into my body, as our adversaries understand it. The Decretal of the Romish Church saith as we say, that, Panis est corpus Christi, The bread is the body of Christ. That which is seen (saith the Canon) is bread and a cup, as our eyes witness. But touching the instruction which faith requireth, the bread is the body of Christ.

7 Since therefore the sense of these words, This is my body, is, This bread is my body, we must know how this bread can be the body of Jesus Christ. Which he himself declareth in all the words that follow, which we will particularly sift and examine.

8 Jesus Christ (as the Apostle Saint Paul saith) having said, This is my body, addeth, Which is broken for you.

The bread of the holy Supper must needs be the body of Christ, in the same manner that the body of Christ is broken in the holy Supper. But he is not therein really broken; for it is impossible: only there he is sacramentally broken: therefore in like sort, the bread is not really the body of Christ, but sacramentally, and as the signs ordinarily take the names of the things by them signified, in the same manner as in the line following, the cup is called a Testament; as circumcision is called the covenant of God, Gen. 17.9.10. As the pascal Lamb is called the passover, Exod. 12.11. and 21.2. and 2. Chro. 30.15. &c. As the Ark is called the Eternal, 2. Sam. 6.2, & Psalm 24. because it was a sign of the favorable presence of God amongst his people. As the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10.4. saith, that the rock was Christ, because it was a figure of Jesus Christ. The Scripture is full of such examples: it is the ordinary style thereof, to give unto the signs the names of those things which they represent. And reason also alloweth it; for what is more natural and proper then in sacraments to use sacramental words, and in an action which is figurative, to use a figure conformable to the action? To the end that by calling the signs by the names of those things which they signify, we may apprehend the union which the sign hath with the thing signified. Because God all at one time representeth the signs unto our eyes, and the thing signified unto our faith.

To say, that hereby we open a gap unto heresies, and thereby favor the Marcionites, who in like manner might figuratively interpret these words of Saint John, The word was made flesh, is nothing to the purpose; for Saint John in that place, speaketh not of a Sacrament: and therefore the sacramental manner of speaking agrees not to that place. This imputation may justly be laid upon our adversaries themselves, who to establish their Transubstantiation, wrest and wring all the words of the institution of the Eucharist, and therein induce a dozen unaccustomed and prodigious figures, as hereafter we shall see.

Then to return to these words, Which is broken for you, we must understand that the Romish Churches translation, and the text of the Mass, have corrupted this place, and have translated that in the future tense which Jesus Christ spake in the present tense, and have put shall be broken, for is broken, frangetur, for frangitur: which translation although it be good touching faith, yet it hindereth men from knowing that the purpose of Jesus Christ is sacramental, and that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign.

9 Then to make the truth manifest, we ask our adversaries, whether the body of Jesus Christ be really broken into pieces in the Eucharist? or whether therein it be only broken sacramentally, and significantly in a mystery? If they say it is broken sacramentally, then they are bound to interpret these words in the same manner, This is my body, and to say, that that which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples was his sacramental body, and a remembrance of him. But if they will have the body of our Lord to be really broken in the Mass, thereby they fall into three inconveniences: The first is, that they wrong Jesus Christ, who being impassible, can no more be broken. The second is, that they contradict their Mass and their Bible, which hath translated, shall be broken, in the future tense, because there is no other real breaking of the body of our Lord, but that which was to be done the next day upon the cross. The third is, that they contradict themselves: for the Church of Rome believeth, that the body of Jesus Christ cannot be broken, and that when the Priest breaketh the host, there is nothing but the accidents that are broken, and that the body of our Lord remaineth whole in every piece thereof. So that it is a mockery for them to say, that the body of our Lord is broken under the species, seeing they say that he remaineth whole under the species. That which remaineth whole under the species, is not broken under the species. Whereby they speak as wisely, as if I should say, that a sword is broken in the scabbard, when the scabbard only is broken, and the sword is whole and not broken.

Herein they ought to give glory unto God, and yield to the force of truth, and acknowledge, that seeing • he body of Christ cannot be really broken in the Sacrament, that therein it is broken sacramentally, in the same manner that the bread is the body of Christ. This breaking hath relation to that upon the cross, and taketh the name of that which it representeth.

10 I say the same of the words which Saint Luke useth, This is my body which is given for you. For Jesus Christ did not say, This is my body which I give you to eat: but said, This is my body which is given for you. Which words, for you, are as much as, for your redemption; which was really done upon the cross, but is sacramentally done in the Supper, and for a remembrance, as Jesus Christ addeth, saying, Do this in remembrance of me.

These words decide the question. For if that which Jesus Christ giveth be the remembrance of Jesus Christ, it is not Jesus Christ: nothing is the remembrance of it self. And there is nothing so absurd, as that which our adversaries say, that in the Eucharist Jesus Christ is the figure and the remembrance of himself; as if one should say, that the king is his picture, and that he is the image of himself. It is to no purpose to allege diverse respects, and to say, that Jesus Christ in the Mass is the figure of Jesus Christ on the cross. For whatsoever diversity of respects may be alleged, yet the king sitting at the table shall never be the figure of himself on horseback. And if the king himself should represent one of his battles, yet he should not be the figure of himself, but his present action should be a figure of his action past. Add hereunto, that visible things may be figures of invisible things. But here they will have Jesus Christ (invisible in the Mass) to be the figure of Jesus Christ on the cross, where he was visible.

11 Beside, remembrance is of things past or absent, as Aristotle saith in his first chapter of the book of Memory and remembrance. So when the ancient Fathers called the tombs of Martyrs, remembrances, they shown thereby, that those Martyrs were in heaven. And the Manna that was kept in the Ark, was not a remembrance of that portion of manna that was in the Ark, but of the miraculous feeding of the people in the desert. And whosoever extolleth the valor of a king in his own presence, doth not renew the remembrance of the kings person that is present, but of his actions past, So to have a remembrance of God, is to remember his marvelous works, his promises, or his commandments. The same is to be found in all other examples.

It cannot be denied, that the holy Supper is a commemoration not only of the person of Jesus Christ; but also of his death, seeing that the Apostle commandeth us to eat that bread, to show forth his death. 1. Cor. 11.26. and Jesus Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me.

Then we have the exposition of these words, This is my body, given us by Jesus Christ himself, that is, that the bread which he gave was the remembrance of his body.

12 Whereupon it is necessary to set down something, whereby to stop the mouths of those that have their spirits hardened, and are most resolute to contradict the truth. Then it is to be understood, that the language of the Jews in the Old Testament was the Hebrew tongue, which was still called the Hebrew tongue although it fell from the purity thereof, by mixing it with the Syrian tongue. In this Hebrew tongue, the word signify or represent is not found: but the ancient Hebrew Testament instead of signify always useth the word is. So Joseph in Genesis 40.12. interpreting the dreams of Pharoes cup-bearer and of his baker, saith, The three branches of the vine are three days; and in the 18. verse, The three baskets are three days, that is signify three days: and in the 41. chapter verse 16. The seven fat kine are seven years, and the seven full ears of corn are seven years. And the seven lean evil-favored kine which came up after the other, are seven years: and the seven empty ears of corn blasted with the east wind, are seven years of famine. And in four places of that chapter the word are is put for signify or represent. So in Ezekiel 37.11. These bones are the whole house of Israel: to show, that it was represented and figured by those bones. And Daniel 2.38. It is thou ô King that art this head of gold, instead of saying, It is thou that art signified and prefigured by the head of gold. And 4.20.22, The tree which thou sawest is thou ô King. And 7.17. These four great beasts, are four kings. And 24. verse, The ten horns are ten kings. And in the 8. chap. 20, and 21 verses, The ram which thou sawest having two horns, are the Kings of Media and Persia: and the rough goat is the king of Greece. In all these places and many others, the word are is as much as to signify or represent. From thence it comes, that although the Greek tongue wanteth no words to say, signify, figure or represent; yet the New Testament in Greek, which oftentimes imitateth the Hebrew phrase, ordinarily saith, is for signifieth. So the Apostle 1. Cor. 10.4. speaking of the rock from whence water issued forth in the desert, saith, that the rock was Christ. And Galat. 4.22.24. it is said that the bond servant and the free, that is, Agar and Sara, are the two covenants: and Apocal. 17.9.18. The seven heads are seven mountains whereupon the woman sitteth, and the woman which thou sawest is that great city.

Then because Jesus Christ could not in his language, say, This signifieth or representeth my body, because those words are not in the Hebrew tongue, he spake as the same language led him, and followed the manner of speaking used among the Jews, and continued in the holy Scripture. But foreseeing that Satan by those words would plant idolatry in the Church, he added, that that which he did was a remembrance, which is as much as if he had said, This is the remembrance of my body.

13 Let us follow the words of the institution of this Sacrament, and let us come to the second part, which is the distribution of the wine. Matthew 26.27. describeth it in these words: Also he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it them saying, Drink ye also of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of sins.

Saint Luke that wrote since, setteth down these words 22.20. in this manner, saying, This cup is that New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Saint Paul saith the same 1. Cor. 11.25.

These two pen-men of the Spirit of God, Saint Paul and Saint Luke, which wrote after the rest, serve for expositors, and make a paraphrase of the words of our Lord rehearsed by Saint Matthew. For it is to be presupposed, that he which writeth after another, writeth not to obscure him, but to expound and make him evident. It were a great abuse to make Jesus Christ to be the expounder of Saint Paul's words, seeing that Saint Paul wrote expressly to expound the words of Jesus Christ, to cause the same to be understood.

Our Savior Jesus Christ having said, that the cup is his blood, the Apostle Saint Paul teacheth us in what sense that ought to be taken, that is, This cup is the New Testament, or the new covenant in his blood.

These words of Saint Luke and of Saint Paul, This cup is the New Testament, or this cup is a new covenant, (for the Greek signifieth both the one and the other) lead us directly to the knowledge of the truth.

14 For I demand of our adversaries, whether that which is in the cup be a covenant sacramentally and in a significant mystery, or whether they will have it to be the Testament & covenant of God in effect. If that which is in the cup be not really the covenant of God, but in a mystical signification & sacramentally, we must say, that that which Jesus Christ brake and put into his disciples hands, was not really the body of Jesus Christ, but sacramentally, & in a mystical signification.

But if they will have that which is in the cup really to be a Testament, and the blood of Jesus Christ (which they pretend to be in the cup) to be a Testament, thereby they say and affirm that which they themselves believe not. 1. For will they have the wine to be transubstantiated into a covenant, or to become a Testament? 2. Can they speak more absurdly, then to say, that the blood of Jesus Christ is a covenant or a testament? For a covenant and a Testament is a relation, or an action, but the blood of our Lord is a substance 3. A Testament consisteth in clauses and promises, which agreeth not with the blood of Christ. 4. What an absurdity is it, to call Jesus Christ a Testament, seeing he is the testator, or to call him a covenant, seeing the covenant is between him & us? 5. If one of the parties contracting may be called the covenant, the faithful also may be called the covenant, because the covenant is contracted with them. 6. If the blood of our Lord be the covenant and testament, the Priest (as they say) making the blood of Jesus Christ every day, maketh the covenant of God, and the Testament of Jesus Christ. But the covenant of God is no more made, it is eternal, and the Testament of the Son of God is not reiterable; and to apply the same, we must not make it. 7. Besides, if the blood of our Lord in the cup be really the New Testament, then it follows, that the New Testament began at that time, which notwithstanding was before. For before the institution of this Sacrament, the Gospel was already preached, which beareth this inscription, The New Testament. And Baptism also was then already instituted, which is a Sacrament of the New Testament. 8. And Saint Matthew saith, that That which is in the cup is the blood of the New Testament; then it followeth, that that blood is not the New Testament. For as Philip's cloak is not Philip himself, so the blood of the New Testament is not the New Testament it self. And yet our adversaries fully hardened in error, obstinately maintain that the blood of the Lord which they say is in the cup, is truly and really a covenant, and that the wine is transubstantiated into a covenant.

Howbeit truth is so strong, that it makes them say the truth when they think not thereon. For they say, that the cup is called the covenant, because that by the cup the covenant is confirmed, and that it is the seal thereof; which is the same that we say, and by which we prove, that the cup is not the covenant really, but the Sacrament thereof: for the confirmation of a thing is not the thing it self, and a seal set upon a letter is not the letter it self. So that against their wills they yield unto us. For seeing that the cup is called the covenant, because it is the seal thereof, by the same reason the bread also must be called the body of Christ, because it is the seal and the confirmation thereof, which is our belief. For the Sacraments are seals, as Saint Paul, Rom. 4, calleth circumcision, The seal of the righteousness of faith, although in it there was no transubstantiation.

16 And in saying that the cup is the seal of the covenant, they confess (against their wills,) that the cup is not really the blood of Jesus Christ. For the seals and confirmations of a covenant, and the signatures of a Testament, ought to be visible, and exposed unto our senses: but the blood in the cup is invisible. For it is not only hidden under the accidents and apparence of wine, but it is also hidden in the body: for our adversaries say, that the body is in the cup, and that the blood which is in the cup, is in the veins of the body, in its natural places.

17 And if these things were not as clear as the Sun, yet the words that follow are strong enough to force those that are most obstinate to yield, and to make such as are willfully blind to see the truth. For the Gospel saith, This cup is the New Testament in my blood.

These words, in my blood, clear the point, and manifestly show, that that which is in the cup is not really the blood of Jesus Christ. For say, that by this cup we must understand this blood, and let us see what will ensue thereof. Is not this to make the words of our Lord ridiculous, to make him say, This blood is the New Testament in my blood? What? is that blood of Jesus Christ in the blood of Jesus Christ? Must we by this means make two sorts of blood of Jesus Christ, as Bellarmine doth, for fear of putting the blood of Jesus Christ into the blood of Jesus Christ? For it is certain, that that which is in a thing, whether it be contained therein, whether it be infused therein, or whether it be adherent therein, is not one self same thing with that thing. For seeing that the Gospel witnesseth that Calix est in sanguine Christi, it saith evidently, that Calix non est sanguis Christ: a cup which is in the blood of Christ, is not really the blood of Christ, but sacramentally, and by commemoration, as it is added.

18 Our adversaries charged with so many absurdities, defend themselves by impiety, which casteth them headlong into other absurdities. They say that there is mention made of two sorts of blood of Jesus Christ, where of the one is a cup, the other was shed upon the cross; whereof the one was poured upon the other, and whereof the one is the Testament, and the other not. But still it is the same blood. If these several respects, should make several bloods of Christ, there would be a thousand sorts of blood, one at the table, another in the ship, and another after the resurrection, &c. And if the blood in the cup hath the honor to be the covenant, why should we deprive the blood of the cross of that honor? Then to effect this, they must forge two sorts of covenants, and by that means creep among thorns as snakes do, and cover rhemselues with a thousand wrested devices against the force of truth.

19 Saint Matthew addeth, This blood, or as Saint Luke and Saint Paul say, This cup is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The understanding of these words depends upon those that went before; for seeing we have proved that the Lord giveth to the signs the names of the things signified, it is agreeable to reason, that as the cup is the blood of Jesus Christ sacramentally, so it should be shed sacramentally. For you must note, that the Evangelists say, is shed, and speak in the present tense, saying effunditur, and not effundetur, as the Mass and the Romish translation say. For although that this sacramental shedding of the blood of Christ for the remission of sins, hath relation to the effusion upon the cross, yet we ought to translate the words faithfully. Also the translation in the present tense doth hinder us from knowing that our Saviors intent was sacramental, and that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign.

20 Herein our Adversaries are much troubled. For if this shedding be sacramental and a commemoration, we have won our cause: and the Doctors of the Romish Church are on our side, who having glossed upon the Decretal in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, say, Sanguis effunditur, id est, effundi significatur, The blood is shed, that is, it is signified or represented that the blood is shed. The Mass it self also, translating in the future tense effundetur, shall be shed, leadeth us the right way, to give us to understand, that the effusion in the Sacrament was a signification and representation of the effusion the next day upon the Cross.

21 Yet our Adversaries contend with us herein, and affirm, that the blood of Jesus Christ is really and effectually shed in the Eucharist. But if you ask them, whether in the Eucharist the blood issueth out of the body, or out of the veins; they say, no, and so contradict themselves, and confess that the blood is not really shed. They themselves call the Eucharist a Sacrifice without blood; which should be false if therein blood were really shed. They also contradict themselves when they say, that the blood of our Lord stirreth not in the Eucharist, nor moveth, and yet it is shed therein, for all shedding is a moving.

22 In this perplexity their only refuge is, never to answer anything to the purpose. For being asked, whether the blood of our Lord is shed in the Mass, they say it is shed under the species. But we ask them not, under what thing the blood is shed, but whether it be shed therein, or no. Add hereunto, that the blood which cometh not out of the body under the species, and which stirreth not from under the species, is not shed under the species.

23 They say, that the accidents which they call species, are shed, which is a capricious kind of Philosophy, to imagine that the Priest poureth our lines, taste, and color of wine without wine, and that the blood is shed without issuing out of the body. So that the Priest filleth out, and drinketh, bones, flesh, and a liquid and potable human body, which is whole in every drop of the wine.

24 The Lord concludeth his intent by a clause which definitively decideth the controversy, saying, Matth. 26.29. I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine. Saint Mark saith the like. Our Lord could not more plainly say that it was the fruit of the Vine which he drank, and not blood. For the fruit of the vine and wine are all one thing. It is true that Saint Luke speaketh of two cups, one of the pascal Lamb, the other of the holy Supper, and witnesseth also, that Jesus Christ called the cup of the pascal Lamb the fruit of the Vine. But Saint Matthew and Saint Mark speak only of the cup of the Eucharist, which they call the fruit of the Vine. It cannot be said, that they call that wine in the Cup the fruit of the Vine, of which they speak not at all. Then to make the Evangelists to agree, we must necessarily say, that Jesus Christ spake twice of the fruit of the Vine, and that administering the cup of the Eucharist, he used the same terms. For it were an intolerable boldness to correct Saint Matthew and Saint Mark by Saint Luke, and to charge them to have troubled the order and method of our Saviors words in so important an action, whereat Saint Matthew himself was present. Pope Innocent the third, in the fourth book of the mysteries of the Mass, 27. chapter, acknowledgeth, that Jesus Christ called that the fruit of the Vine which he consecrated in the Cup.

Being put from that, they have another refuge, and say, that the wine is called the fruit of the Vine, in regard that it was so before. As if we should call a man of fifty years of age, a child, because once he was a child: and ripe grapes veriuice, because they have been so. This is to say that a thing is that which it is not. The examples by them alleged of Moses Rod, that was called a Rod after it was changed into a Serpent; and of the water, called water after it was changed into wine, John 2.9. are to no purpose. For that Serpent had been a Rod, and that wine had been water; but the blood of Christ never was wine. And that Rod was turned into a Serpent, which it was not before. But here they will have this wine to be turned into blood, which was so already before the conversion. Add hereunto, that such a figure is repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament, which requireth that the name of the thing signified should be given unto the sign, and not that the name of the sign should be given to the thing signified. When we call the wine, blood, we speak according to the custom and nature of Sacraments; but when we call the blood of our Lord wine, or the fruit of the Vine, we overthrow the nature of the Sacrament, and embase the thing signified; and to shun a natural and usual figure in these words, This is my body, induce a figure against nature, which is not usual, in these words, I will drink no more of this fruit of the wine.

Proofes thereof by the circumstances of the action.

[Sect. 26] All the circumstances of the action speak for, and fight with us against transubstantiation. For, as Jesus Christ made no lifting up of the host, so he did not command the Apostles to worship that which he held in his hands; and it is certain that they sat at the Table, which is an unfit action for those that adore. For if at this day any one should do as the Apostles then did, he should be held among them to be a profane fellow, and a contemner of God. It is to no purpose to say, that the Apostles had Jesus Christ daily with them: for they did never eat him, nor swallowed him down into their stomachs, nor ever were present at such a sacrifice. And such an adoration had been necessary in the first institution of that Sacrament, and in an action which was to serve for a pattern and president in time to come.

2 The time also when the Lord celebrated that action, is very necessary to be considered. For then his body was weak and passable, but the body which they will have Jesus Christ to have given to his Disciples, was impassible, and could not be broken, as being whole in every crumb, and spiritual and indivisible. There shall never any example be found, wherein a body is weak, and passable in one place, and elsewhere impassible and without infirmity. Contrarie things may agree in one self same subject at several times, or in several parts of the subject, or in diverse respects, that is, being compared to diverse things: As for example a man may be white today, and the next day black; he may be white in one part of his body, and black in another; he may be rich in comparison to one that is poorer, and poor in comparison to one that is richer. But that at one self same time, a man being whole, and not compared to another, can be white and black, or poor and rich, it is impossible. This is it which they do to the body of Christ, when they make it to be whole, and at the same time, without comparing it to another body, make it mortal and immortal, passable and impassible, weak and without infirmity, visible and invisible, speaking, and moving it self at the Table, and not speaking nor being able to move under the species of bread. Thus you have two contrary Jesus Christ's, and one of them more perfect then the other: for, to be impassible, is a perfection, and to be passable is an imperfection.

3 They agree with us, that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist did eat and drink with his disciples; then it followeth, (according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome) that Jesus Christ did eat himself, and that he swallowed his whole body down into his stomach. And seeing that naturally Jesus Christ's mouth stood in his head, by this doctrine we must say, that at one self same time he had his mouth in his head, and his head in his mouth. And yet he did not eat himself as he was, for when Jesus Christ did eat, he was weak, and Jesus Christ eaten by Jesus Christ was without infirmity. Which being a greater miracle then the conception and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, yet they can produce no fruit thereby, nor show us how that can profit us touching our redemption. And if Jesus Christ did that to serve for an example to the Priest, then it followeth that the Priest should eat himself in the Mass. And it is hard to say, what the body of Jesus Christ did in the body of Jesus Christ, and what efficacy it had therein. And seeing that they say, that the soul is within the host, to what end should Christ's soul enter into Christ, seeing it was there already? Do our adversaries think to be believed in all these things? Is not this the way to paint the house of God with Chimaeraes, and to expose religion to open obloquy?

4 It is also to be noted; that our adversaries hold, with S. Augustine and Saint Jerome, that Judas received the Eucharist with the rest of the Apostles. And indeed Saint Luke after the administration of the Sacrament, witnesseth that Jesus Christ said, Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me at the table. But it is manifest, that the body of Jesus Christ did not enter into Judas: for the Gospel witnesseth that Judas being at the table, the devil entered into him. Jesus Christ and the devil could not well have lodged both in one place: for then the devil prevailed in Judas, and so it must follow, that the devil got the upper hand of Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ dwelleth not in any man, without producing the effects of salvation in him. Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life eternal, John 6.54.

5 It is a notable circumstance to be considered, that Jesus Christ celebrating the Eucharist was troubled, as now entering into his passion; and when he arose from the table, he said that his soul was very heavy, even unto the death, and sweet drops of blood for grief. And yet at one self same time our adversaries make one Jesus Christ to be in the mouths and stomachs of the Apostles, which being impassible, suffered no pain nor grief, neither sweat drops of blood; which not only makes two contrary Jesus Christ's at one time, but also one Jesus Christ which is not our Savior, seeing he is exempted from passions.

6 Lastly, it is to be thought, that the bread being broken in so many pieces among the Apostles, some crumbs or small pieces thereof did fall down, and that there was some of it left; yet Jesus Christ did not command them to take them up, nor to reserve the rest, which he would have done, if every crumb & piece thereof had been Jesus Christ's body fully and wholly.

7 But say that there was no bread remaining, yet the Apostles in the mean time that Jesus Christ was upon the cross, or in the sepulcher, might among themselves celebrate the Sacrament: and so there should be one Jesus Christ upon the cross, with his hands and feet pierced with nails and tormented, and another not on the cross, that had not his hands and his feet pierced, neither suffered any torment. And if in the host Jesus Christ is also crucified and whipt, then they must put the cross, and the executioners, and the whips into the host, or else they must say that he was crucified under the host without the cross, and whipped without whips, which are apparent contradictions.

Other places of the Scripture touching this matter.

[Sect. 27] The only institution of this holy Sacrament may suffice to overthrow their errors, and to confirm and establish the truth: yet you shall see a number of places more out of the Scripture touching this matter; which we will set down.

1 The Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11.26. having declared the institution of the holy Supper, addeth: For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he comes. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. This excellent Apostle three times in this one place saith, that we eat bread, and it is not eaten but after consecration. This showeth then that that which Jesus Christ said to be his body, was still bread in that sense, and for the reasons aforesaid.

Then I ask our adversaries, if when the Apostle three times in one place saith, that we eat bread, whether the word bread ought to be taken properly and without a figure, or whether it ought to be taken figuratively for the body of Jesus Christ. If it be taken properly, we are satisfied, and so it is bread still after consecration. But if they will affirm that S. Paul three times together spake figuratively, and that we must expound the figurative words of Saint Paul by Jesus Christ's words this is my body; therein they manifestly discover their unfaithful dealing. For they know that Jesus Christ is not an expounder of the Apostles words, but that the Apostles are expositors of Jesus Christ's words. And who ought to speak more clearly, either he that is expounded or he that expoundeth? He that spake first and briefly, or he that speaketh after him and more at large? Specially considering we see that Jesus Christ saying, This is my body, did sufficiently expound himself; but Saint Paul saying three times one after another, that we eat bread, addeth no exposition. And if by this word bread so many times rehearsed by the Apostle we must understand flesh, should not the same Apostle be culpable of holding the people in an error, and of digging a ditch to make them to fall into it? seeing he knew that sense and reason witness that it is bread, whose reports men naturally believe?

But seeing that our adversaries turn all things into figures, let us see how they expound those figures: they will have the body of our Lord to be called bread, because it was bread before consecration. Which is false, for Christ's body never was bread. Besides, it is more convenient to call things by those names which they are, then by those things which they are not anymore. And if there be a place or two in the Scripture where that is used, there are thousands that call things that which they are, and not that which they have been. 2. Also they say, that Saint Paul saith, that we eat bread instead of saying, that we eat the body of Christ, because it seemeth to be bread. That also is false, for the body of our Lord never seemed to be bread. It is true, that our adversaries say that the body of our Lord is covered over with the species of bread, but men never give things that are covered, the names of those things which cover them; we call not a scabbard a sword, we never say that a man is a chest although he should be hidden in a Chest.

Notwithstanding the extenuating of this sacred bread, redoundeth to the dishonor of Jesus Christ; as when men tread the kings great seal under their feet, the king, & not the wax is dishonored thereby: so to profane this bread, is to profane the Son of God; therefore he which receiveth it unworthily, receiveth his own condemnation, because he discerneth not the body of our Lord. They would make the Apostle to say, that such an one doth not discern that it is the body of our Lord which he hath eaten: whereas the sense of the Apostles words are, that such an one doth not discern the body of our Lord, which he hath wronged and dishonored.

2 In Acts. 2.46. it is said, that the disciples did break bread from house to house; and Acts 20.7. When the disciples came together to break bread. Which place our adversaries confess, is meant of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. They therefore who deny that they did there break bread, will be wiser then the Apostles, and condemn the words of the Spirit of God, which at this day would be ridiculous. For which of our adversaries would endure a Priest, that instead of saying, I go to sing Mass, should say, I go to brake bread? Here also our adversaries find another figure, and by the word bread, will have us to understand flesh.

3 In 1. Corinthians 10.16. the Apostle saith, The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Add hereunto, that he saith that we break bread: and it appeareth that by bread he understandeth true bread, and not the body of Christ, because he saith the bread is broken. The body of Christ cannot be broken, it is not broken under the species, if it remaineth whole under the species. Besides he saith, that this bread is the communion of the body of Christ; but the body of Christ is not the communion of the body of Christ. It must then be bread: and when we break that bread we participate in the body of Christ, unless we will give the Apostle the lie thrice in one line, by saying, that it is no bread, but flesh; that the flesh is not broken, and that it is not the communion of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ it self. The communion of the body is not without the body, but yet it doth not hence follow, that the communion of the body is the body. In a flame of fire, the brightness is not without the heat, yet the brightness is not the heat.

4 In Acts 3.21, Saint Peter saith, Whom the heaven must contain until the time of restitution of all things. The Greek word sometimes signifieth contain, and sometimes receive, but here it cannot be taken for receive. For it is false that the heaven receiveth Jesus Christ until the day of judgment. He hath been once received therein, and there is contained forever; and if he be contained there, he is no more on earth.

5 Jesus Christ, in Saint John 17.11. being ready to leave the world to go unto his Father, speaketh as being already departed out of the world, saying, And now I am no more in the world. And 16.18. I leave the world and go to my Father. And 12.8. For the poor always ye have with you, but me ye have not always. And 13.1. John saith, When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father. Here Jesus Christ declareth that he is no more in the world, that he left the world, and that we should not always have him with us. These speeches dislike the Church of Rome, for she will have us to have Jesus Christ always with us, and that he should now be oftener & more on earth, then he was when he lived here on earth in his infirmity: for then he was but in one place at one time, but now they will have him to be in a thousand places all at one time; and not only that his body should be here among men, but also in the power of men, who keep it under lock and key, for fear of mice, or lest it should be stolen away.

They make answer and say, that in these places Jesus Christ saith that he is not visibly in the world, that he leaveth the world, and that we shall not have him always, as touching his visible presence. This is a kind of mockery. For to have Jesus Christ invisibly, is always to have Jesus Christ, and to be always present inuisiblie, is not to leave the world. He lieth that saith he hath no money, because his money is hidden in his pocket; or he that should say that he hath no soul, because his soul is invisible. He that is in Paris, and hideth himself in a place where no man can see him, cannot therefore be said that he is not in Paris.

But there is nothing that more evidently confuteth this evasion, then the promise of Jesus Christ made to his Apostles, John 14.15. whereby he promiseth them, that going from them, he would for a recompense, and for their comfort, send them the holy Ghost, whom he calleth the comforter. Certainly if Jesus Christ is really present under the species in the holy Supper, our Lord could and would have comforted them otherwise touching his absence, by saying, You shall no more have me present touching my visible presence, but I will be really present under the bread, in your mouths and in your stomachs, in such manner that I will be much more present & nearer unto you, then I was during my visible conversation here on earth.

6 These considerations put us in mind of the prophetical advertisement of our Lord Jesus Christ, given Mat. 24.24. saying, There shall arise false Prophets and false Christ's, who shall show great signs and wonders, and shall say, behold Christ is here, or he is there, or that he is in the secret chambers; whom he forbiddeth us to believe. Then when our adversaries say, there is Christ in the host, or that God goeth by, or that he is in the pyx, or in a chamber under lock and key, and that thereupon men tell us of miracles, we admire the Prophetical words of the Son of God, and adore his judgments, touching the hardening of men's hearts.

A brief and certain exposition of these words: This is my body.

[Sect. 28] Out of all that which is said before, it is an easy matter to set down a brief and certain exposition of these words, This is my body, drawn out of the most express words of the Scripture.

The understanding of these words depends upon the right and true exposition of the word This, and of the exposition of the words my body.

By the word This, it is out of question that Jesus Christ understood that which he brake and gave to his disciples, and that which he commanded them to eat. The Gospel witnesseth that Jesus Christ brake bread, He took bread, and blessed it, and brake it. And Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 10.16. saith: The bread which he break. And Acts 20.7. Being come together to break bread. And the Gospel witnesseth that Jesus Christ gave bread, He took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it. The Apostle Saint Paul also, 1. Cor. 11. witnesseth that it is bread that we eat, saying, When you shall eat of this bread. And again, But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread. Then the sense of the word This, is thus; The bread which I break, and give you to eat.

And by consequence, these words, This is my body, are as much to say as, this bread which I break, and give you to eat, is my body. Which proposition being not true, if it be taken in the literal sense, (seeing that bread is not really and actually the body of Christ) it is certain that in these words there is a figure.

Now to know this figure, we must learn it by the words following, which Jesus Christ addeth, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. And by the nature of the present action, which is a Sacrament and a sacred sign, to the which by consequence sacramental phrases are convenient. They are called sacramental phrases when the sign is called by the name of the thing signified, in the same manner that in the line following the cup is called the covenant: because it is a sign and a Sacrament of the covenant. Which is the usual manner of speaking in the Scripture, as we have shown before.

This then is the exposition of these words, This is my body, gathered out of the Scripture: The bread which I break, and which I give you to eat, is the remembrance of my body.

Which exposition whosoever rejecteth, gainsayeth all the express places of the Scripture as have been alleged, and against the nature of a Sacrament; and to shun a simple, natural and an usual figure in the Scripture, fit and convenient for the present action, induceth a multitude of other unaccustomed figures, without any example, and contrary to the nature of a Sacrament, as we will show. And so affirm that Jesus Christ did eat himself, that the body of our Lord and the devil both at one time entered into Judas. And that the Lord had a mortal body which sat at the table with his disciples, and that at the very same time he had a body without infirmity, and impassible in the mouths and stomachs of the Apostles. Which obstinacy of men resolute in error, God hath punished with so great blindness, that they have proceeded so far, as that they believe that rats or mice can eat the body of our Lord, now when he is in heaven fitting on the right hand of God.

With what liberty our adversaries forge figures, and wrest the words of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles.

[Sect. 29] Our adversaries exclaim against us because we take these words, This is my body, in a figurative sense: although the figure which we make therein is ordinary, and perpetual in the Scripture touching matter of Sacraments, and in regard that Jesus Christ could speak no otherwise, for that in his language there is not a word whereby he could say, This representeth or signifieth my body: as also that Jesus Christ expoundeth himself, saying, that it is a remembrance; and for that all the action, and all the words of the institution, and all the expositions added by the Apostles, enforce us to understand it so, as we have already shown.

Notwithstanding they themselves, to shun this usual and natural figure for the present action, forge a multitude of unaccustomed figures, contrary to the nature of the action, and there is not one word found in the Scripture touching this matter, to the which in a manner they give not a blow, and wherein they do not forge some figure, which diffigureth the sense, and corrupteth the doctrine.

1 In these words, This is my body, they say that by the word this, we must understand under these species, and that this, is an indiuiduum vagum, which signifieth no certain thing, but the sense whereof hangeth in suspense until such time as the words are fully pronounced.

2 They also say, that by the word is, we must understand shall be, for they say that transubstantiation is not done till the words are pronounced.

3 In these words, He took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant, they say that the word cup, is a word of two significations, and that at the first, the word cup signifieth the wine, and in the second place it signifieth the blood.

4 So, when Saint Matthew saith, This is my blood, the blood of the New Testament, by the word Testament, they understand the covenant of God. But when Saint Luke and Saint Paul say, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, they will have the Testament to be Jesus Christ himself, and that the Testament and the testator should be all one.

5 In these words, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, they will have us by the cup to understand the blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and that by the words my blood, we must understand the blood shed upon the cross, making another blood of Jesus Christ to be poured into the blood of Jesus Christ.

6 And when Christ calleth that which he drank the fruit of the vine, they say, that by the fruit of the vine we must understand the blood, because it was wine before the conversion, or because it hath an apparence thereof.

7 For the same reasons, when Saint Paul three times one after the other saith, that we eat bread, they will have the word bread to signify the body of Christ.

8 And when Saint Paul saith, The bread that we break is the communion of the body of Christ, they say, that by the bread we must understand the body, and deny that the bread is broken, because the body (as they say) remaineth whole in every piece of the host.

9 So when Jesus Christ so many times declareth, that he leaveth the world, and that he will be no more in the world, they add, visibly, and so by the addition of one word, corrupt and pervert the meaning of many places of the Scripture.

10 And when the Lord, John. 6.51. saith, That if any man eateth his flesh, he shall live forever; they plainly perceive, that if in those words Jesus Christ speaketh of the participation of the Sacrament, it must of force follow, that Judas and diverse hypocrites which did, and do participate therein, shall live forever: which to avoid, they add to the Lord's words, and say, that his meaning is, that if a man eateth the flesh of the Lord worthily, he shall live forever. But we maintain that a man cannot eat the flesh of the Lord unworthily, seeing that it cannot be eaten but only spiritually and in faith; which cannot be done unworthily. It is true that the Scripture speaketh of eating the bread unworthily, but not of eating the flesh of our Lord unworthily.

11 So, when in the 53. verse the Lord saith, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; they plainly see, that if there it is spoken of the holy Sacrament, the good thief, and many faithful persons, which died, and die without having means of participating therein, shall be excluded from everlasting life. Therefore they add another piece to the word, and tell us, that Jesus Christ's intent was to say, If you eat not my flesh, when you have means to do it, ye shall not have life eternal. But the sentence of our Lord is true, simply and without exception. For whosoever eateth not the flesh of our Lord in faith, hath not life eternal.

12 And when our Lord saith, If you drink not my blood, you shall not have life eternal: that they may not by this sentence be bound to minister the cup to the people, they say, that by the word drink, the Lord understood to take it without drinking, because the blood also is in the host.

Now where are these men that are so great enemies to figures, and which stick so fast and scrupulously to the letter? But therein they think they have a privilege: for they say that the Church of Rome cannot err in her interpretations: and therefore the Gloss upon the Decretals boldly saith, that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle, and against the Old Testament, yea and that he dispenseth with the Gospel, giving it interpretations.

That Transubstantiation overthroweth the humanity of Jesus Christ, and exposeth it to great opprobrie and disgrace.

[Sect. 30] The worst mischief is, that by this doctrine the humanity of Jesus Christ is abolished, and the dignity of Priests exalted, contrary to the honor of the Son of God. This of all others is a principal heresy. For to overthrow the human nature of Jesus Christ, is to cut the band in twain which uniteth us to God, and a stopping of the pipe whereby God maketh his celestial benefits to fall down upon us. God doth not acknowledge us to be his children, but only because we are brerhren to his Son. But we should not be brethren to the Son of God, if he were not a man as we are, and had not an human nature like unto ours. He was content to participate with our human nature, that we might be partakers of his divine nature, & to put on our flesh, to clothe us with his Spirit. That is it which the Apostle Hebrews 2.17. saith, Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren. And 4.15. he saith, He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin: That he might be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and that having a brother which is inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, we might be coheirs with him by virtue of that alliance.

This doctrine of Transsustantiation striketh piety at the very root, and wounds religion at the heart.

1 For Jesus Christ hath not a true human body, if the parts of his body be not different in situation, and if in every part of the host his body be whole, so that his head and his feet are in the whole host, and his head and his feet in every particular part thereof.

2 To take from a body those things whereby it differeth from a spirit, is to make it no more a body but a spirit. But by transubstantiation the body of our Lord is bereft of all the properties and differences whereby a body is distinguished from a spirit. For under the species they make it to be without space, and without circumscription, having no place, no measure, nor space, nor parts or members situated apart in their places.

3 And as in a point there is neither length nor breadth, whosoever placeth an human body all whole under an indivisible point, bereaveth it of all length and breadth, and by consequent maketh it to be no more a body.

4 In the Eucharist they make the body of our Lord to be more spiritual then the souls. For a soul is but in one place, it is never separated from it self, as they say the Lord's body is, which is whole in heaven, and whole in an hundred thousand places all at one time here on earth, and is not in the region between both.

5 Also every human body hath his interior parts situated in their natural places, as the heart enclosed in the heart-case, the brain that filleth the membranes and the inner hollowness of the head. If that be not in Jesus Christ, he is no man. Then seeing it is manifest that the interior parts of the body of Jesus Christ occupy a space, and are circumscribed by the place, which is the interior superficies of the body which containeth them: is it not a contradiction unto themselves to say, that the several parts of the body of Christ do fill a space, and are contained in a place, but that all the body doth not fill any space, neither is contained in any place? As if one should say, that every several part of a body is white, and that the whole body is black.

6 Again, by transubstantiation they make and produce a body, which was a body before they make it. For the body of Jesus Christ which is already in heaven, is made by the Priest here on earth: as if while M. Arnour is at Paris, he should be begotten in Rome.

7 We have shown before that this doctrine gives Jesus Christ two contrary bodies at one time, one body sitting at the table, the other in the mouths of the Apostles, which sat not at the table: one body speaking and moving, the other not speaking, nor able to stir it self. One a weak and passable body, the other without infirmity and impassible. One body which suffered and sweat drops of blood, the other in the stomachs of the Apostles, which suffered no pain: which of these is our redeemer?

8 And when they say that the consecrated host is round, what mean they by the host? Do they understand Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is not round. Or do they understand the accidents? Those accidents are not the host. In this matter they can hardly speak three words without contradicting themselves.

9 It serves not their turns to give the body of Christ two beings, the one natural, the other sacramental. For besides that one thing can have but one being; and to give Jesus Christ a sacramental being, that is to say, significative, is to build castles in the air: our adversaries confess, that under the species Jesus Christ hath also his natural being. Whereby it followeth, that also in that natural being which is under the species, these things must happen unto it, to be in no place, to have no space, to have his length under a point, and such like things disagreeing with a true body.

10 The worst is, that by scattering the body of our Lord in many places at once, the Church of Rome maketh the History of the Gospel not only doubtful but also ridiculous. For if the body of Jesus Christ can be in diverse places at once, and distant one far from another, and nevertheless still remain an human body, who can assure me that then when Jesus Christ was upon the cross, he was not walking in another place? and that when he was before Pilate in Jerusalem, he was not asleep in Alexandria? and that when he was in the blessed virgins Mary's womb, he was not in other women's wombs? And why Jesus Christ went so often from Galilee to Jerusalem, seeing that without stirring from Galilee he might be in Jerusalem? Why Joseph and Marie having left him in Jerusalem against their wills, turned back again to fetch him, seeing that he might have stayed in Jerusalem, and yet by their doctrine he might have followed them all at one time?

11. For it is to little purpose to say, that as then the body of Christ was not yet glorified: seeing that in the institution of this Sacrament he was yet weak and not glorified, and yet they say, that then his body was whole under every part of the host, and in everyone of his disciples mouths.

12. If for an answer thereunto they ask us, and say, Is not God powerful enough to do it? I will likewise answer them, and say, That God is no less powerful to do otherwise, and that he is wise to do no such thing. All that which is written in the Alcoran may be proved in the same manner, by saying that God is able to do so. The will, and not the power of God is the rule of our belief. It is a great wrong to bind the omnipotent power of God to do all that which we imagine or conceive, and to bind it with ridiculous bands, under pretence of exalting him, to make him captive to us. God is omnipotent because he doth all whatsoever he will, and not all that we will prescribe unto him. But we have seen before that the will of God is clean contrary unto that which our adversaries will have him to will.

13. And though we ought only to endeavor to exalt the omnipotency of God without making inquiry of his will, yet it shall appear that we exalt the power of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that our adversaries diminish and derogate from it.

For, it is much more agreeable to the power of Jesus Christ to communicate himself unto us without coming down here upon earth: as the Sun is much more admirable by making it self present with us so far off, and making us feel his virtue, then if he should come down nearer the earth.

14. Add hereunto, that under the host, Jesus Christ is not only put into the power of a man, but also made so unable, that our adversaries acknowledge, that under the species he can neither breathe, move, nor open his eyes: for how should he there change place seeing he hath no place? How should he go under the species, seeing they put him whole under one indivisible point which hath no length? For all moving requires some extension.

15. Is it an exalting of the Majesty and greatness of the eternal Son of God, to make him subject to the will of a Priest, which many times is not an honest man; who maketh Jesus Christ when he will, carrieth him whither he will, and keeps him under lock and key? and to make cautions, and provisions against all inconveniences that may happen, if the blood shall chance to be spilled, or to freeze, or if rats gnaw or eat the body of Jesus Christ, or if the Priest by weakness or drunkenness, casteth up the host out of his stomach? Is it an honoring of God, and of his eternal Son, to call God an host, that may be stolen away? that may receive cuts with a knife, like the Jesus Christ of Billetes in Paris? that may be carried away by beasts? that may fall into the dirt, and being fallen cannot rise again? For although they say that Jesus Christ suffereth nothing by all that, because he is impassible, yet thereby he is greatly dishonored, and the Son of God is openly derided, and exposed to the laughter of the enemies of the Gospel.

16. It is also a dishonor to Jesus Christ to make men believe that the bones and relics of Saints, dead at the least 12. or 15. hundred years before, can remain without rotting: and yet by experience to acknowledge, that the host becometh mouldy in a few days, and that the presence of Jesus Christ, which is in it (as they say) doth not preserve it from vermin and the teeth of beasts.

17. But Jesus Christ is specially dishonored hereby, that in the Papal procession the host is carried upon a curtall with a lantern, but the Pope is borne upon the shoulders of Kings and Princes, or upon the shoulders of their ambassadors. And that in the papal Mass the Pope is ten times more honored, and there is ten times more reverence and religious honor done unto him then to God, which (as they say) he holdeth in his hands.

18. The ancient Fathers spake of the body of our Lord with more respect; for they were so far off from believing that it could be eaten by rats, that on the contrary they believed that profane persons eat it not, although they receive the Sacrament. Saint Augustine in the book of Sentences collected by Prosper, saith, He that disagreeth with Jesus Christ, eateth not the flesh of Christ, nor drinketh his blood, although he receiveth the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation. And in the 59. Treatise upon Saint John, he saith, that the disciples did eat the bread, which is the Lord, but that Judas did eat the bread of the Lord, against the Lord. For this Doctor believed that Jesus Christ is not eaten but by faith.

That in the sixth chapter of Saint John there is nothing that maketh for Transubstantiation, and that there is not anything at all spoken of eating the flesh of Jesus Christ with the mouth.

[Sect. 31] The Capernaitan Jews followed Jesus Christ into the desert, not to hear his words, but to be fed with bread. But Jesus Christ making their gluttony a means to instruct them, from thence took occasion to speak unto them of another kind of food, and of celestial bread, whereof whosoever eateth, liveth eternally, and that bread is himself. And it is to be noted, that then the holy Supper was not instituted, nor in two years after.

The difference between us & our adversaries consisteth in this eating. We say, that in this Chapter he speaketh only of a spiritual eating which is done by faith in the same manner, as in the fourth Chapter Jesus Christ speaketh to the Samaritan woman, of a water, whereof whosoever shall drink, shall never thirst: where he speaketh not of a material water but of a spiritual grace. But our adversaries say, that in this Chapter he speaketh of two sorts of eating, the one spiritual by faith, which is continued from the 32. to the 50. verse: the other corporal, which is done by the mouth of the body, by the which Jesus Christ is really eaten with the mouth in the Eucharist: whereof they say Jesus Christ speaketh in the rest of the Chapter.

But if we examine the whole tenor of Christ's speech, we shall not find any one clause therein, which is not contrary to this kind of eating of Jesus Christ with the mouth.

1. In the 32. and 50. verses he saith, that he is the bread that came down from heaven, showing, that that bread is not only the flesh of Jesus Christ, (for that descended not from heaven) but also his Divinity. Then if that bread which descended from heaven should be eaten with the mouth, we must also eat the Divinity.

2. In the 35 verse he saith, I am the bread of life: words which serve for the understanding of these words, This is my body. For if by these words, This is my body, we must understand, This is transubstantiated into my body; we must also by these words, I am the bread, understand that Jesus Christ is transubstantiated into bread.

3. Jesus Christ addeth, He that believeth in me, shall never thirst. Where plainly he putteth, to believe, instead of, to drink; seeing he saith, that by believing our thirst shall be quenched. The coherence of his discourse, and the natural consequence, requireth that he should have said, He that drinketh shall never thirst: but he said, He that believeth, instead of, He that drinketh; to teach us, that he speaketh of a drink which is taken by faith. Bellarmine acknowledgeth the same, and confesseth that in that place there is nothing spoken of the Sacrament, but of faith in the incarnation.

4. The 47 verse is likewise plain, where the Lord saith, He that believeth in me hath life eternal: I am that bread of life. There he showeth, that this bread is taken by faith. For, seeing that he which believeth in him hath life everlasting, from thence he inferreth, that he is the bread of life.

5. In the 50 verse he addeth, If any man eateth of this bread he shall not die: and in the 54 verse, He that eateth my flesh, hath life everlasting. Then wicked persons eat not the flesh of our Lord, because they have not life eternal. For it is certain that Jesus Christ speaketh not of eating with the mouth, nor of the Eucharist: for many eat thereof, which have not life eternal; as Judas, and an infinite number of hypocrites. Our adversaries to excuse themselves, add somewhat hereunto, which is fetched out of their own brains, and not to be found in the word of God: for they say, that Jesus Christ understood, that he that eateth his flesh worthily, hath life eternal. But this word worthily, is unworthily added by them, and clean contrary to the truth, seeing that thereby they suppose that a man may eat the flesh of our Lord unworthily. For seeing that to eat the flesh of the Son of man, is to trust in his death, as we have proved (and our adversaries confess it,) it is manifest, that no man can unworthily believe in Jesus Christ, seeing that all our worthiness consisteth in believing in Jesus Christ. Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11. speaketh of eating the bread unworthily, but not of eating the Lord's body unworthily. A man may take the sign, but not the truth unworthily. Therefore, as to excuse themselves touching the place in Saint John, they add their own imagination to the word of God; so to defend themselves against this place of Saint Paul, they make a figure thereof. And this word worthily being by them added, yet that place is still contrary to the Church of Rome, which believeth, that many which have taken the host worthily, are damned.

6. The 53. verse is of no less force, where Jesus Christ saith, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. There it is plain, that he speaketh not of eating the Sacrament with the mouth: for he speaketh of an eating necessary to salvation, without the which man cannot have eternal life. Now many attain to eternal life, which never participated in that Sacrament, as Saint John the Baptist, the thief crucified with Jesus Christ, and many faithful persons that died before they were partakers of the same. If we do not eat the flesh of the Lord but in the Sacrament, what shall become of so many faithful persons which did not participate in the same? Then here again they add another piece unto the word of God: for they say, that Jesus Christ would have said, If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man while you have means to do it, you shall not have life eternal. There is no express sentence in the Scripture, which may not be perverted, by thrusting in of words, and adding somewhat of our own imaginations. And yet this being added, this place condemneth the Church of Rome, which believeth not, that all those that receive not the host at Easter, when they have means to do it, are therefore damned. The Church of Rome never giveth the consecrated host to men that are condemned to die, yet our adversaries do not believe that they are damned.

7. In the 56 verse the Lord addeth, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. This concerneth not eating with the mouth, either in regard of hypocrites, or in regard of the faithful. For if an hypocrite hath received the Sacrament, that makes him not to dwell in Jesus Christ: and if a faithful person hath received it, the Church of Rome doth not believe that Jesus Christ dwelleth in him: for she saith, that as soon as the species are digested in the stomach, the body of Jesus Christ is no more there.

8. Lastly, Jesus Christ, to advertise his disciples that his words ought not to be taken in a carnal and gross sense, but to show them that they are quickening and spiritual, saith unto them, These words are spirit and life. But they give not life, if they be not taken spiritually.

9. You must also note, that in all this discourse, wherein he promiseth to give his flesh to be eaten, he spake to the Capernaitan Jews, to whom he never administered the Eucharist, and which continued obstinately in their Jewish opinions. It is certain that Jesus Christ is no liar. If he had promised to administer the Sacrament to the Capernaitans, he would have kept his promise. And the unworthiness of the Capernaitans could not have kept the Lord from offering the Sacrament unto them according to his promise, which nevertheless he did not. By this means our adversaries, as much as in them lieth, make Jesus Christ a liar.

10. We must likewise remember, that the Eucharist was not as then instituted, till two years after; and yet at that time Jesus Christ was the true bread of life. For in the 35 verse he saith, I am the bread of life: and in the 50 verse, This is the bread, &c. and in the 54 verse, He that eateth my flesh, &c. From that time therefore this bread was eaten by the faithful, although the Eucharist was not then instituted.

We must not think it strange, if sometimes he speaketh in the future tense, saying, This bread which I will give you, &c. for he had a respect to his death, wherein he was to give himself for the life of the world.

We must not likewise wonder when the Lord saith, that his flesh is meat indeed: for this word indeed, doth not hinder but that the word flesh may be taken figuratively, no more then when Jesus Christ in the 15.1. of S. John saith, I am the true vine; where the word true excludeth not the figure. Figuratiue words cease not to be true: seeing that the flesh of Jesus Christ crucified is the true food of our souls. The soul hath two principal faculties, the understanding and the will: the understanding is nourished by instruction, the will by consolation. The flesh of Jesus Christ crucified furnisheth these two nourishments. For by the death of Jesus Christ we are certified and instructed of and in the means that God hath ordained to reconcile himself unto us; and that only is our sovereign consolation, for without it our souls languish and wither in despair, like a member fallen into a consumption, or like a body destitute of nourishment.

We must not think it strange, that our Savior Jesus Christ used this allegory, seeing that not long before he used the like allegory, speakng to the Samaritan woman, of a water whereof whosoever shall drink, shall never thirst. And that it is an ordinary thing in the Scripture, to call the word of God and his graces, sometimes bread, sometimes milk, and sometimes strong meat. Besides that, Jesus Christ had particular reasons to move him to speak in that manner to the Capernaitans, that had as it were forcibly constrained him to use that allegory, importunately asking him, if he could do as Moses did, that gave them bread from heaven. As also that they were incredulous, to whom he used to speak by figures and parables, as Saint Matthew 13.34. saith, And without a parable spake he not unto them.

Our adversaries themselves acknowledge, that to the 50. verse, Jesus Christ did not speak of eating of the Sacrament with the mouth, but by faith: but in the verses following they say, that he speaketh of eating with the mouth. And yet in all that chapter there is nothing said of two kinds of eatings, nor anything that should move us to understand that speech of Jesus Christ otherwise.

And I wonder how they dare in such manner contradict Pope Innocent 3. who in the 14. chapter and 4. book of the Mysteries of the Mass, declareth, that in those verses which our adversaries allege for eating with the mouth, Christ speaketh of spiritual eating by faith, & saith, The Lord speaketh of spiritual eating, saying, If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink not his blood, you shall not have eternal life in you. In this manner those only that are good eat the body of our Lord. And therefore he saith, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. For he that dwelleth in charity dwelleth in God, and God in him. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.

With the like obstinacy they oppose themselves against Pope Gelasius, who in his book against Eutyches, and against Nestorius, speaketh thus of the holy Sacrament. Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord which we receive, are a divine thing, and so by them we are made partakers of the divine nature. And yet the substance or nature of bread and wine still remain. And certainly the image and resemblance of the body and of the blood of Christ is celebrated in this mystery. But our adversaries had rather disagree with their Popes, then to agree with us. But if that book was not made by Pope Gelasius, as the title importeth, but by Gelasius Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine, as Bellarmine suspecteth, the book shall be the more ancient and of greater authority. Nevertheless, Photios speaking of Gelasius works, maketh mention of a book entitled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which were of the Sect of Actius, but speaketh nothing of the book against Eutyches and Nestorius.

The Decretal of the Romish Church, in the second Distinction of Consecration, is full of express sentences to that purpose. In the Canon Prima quidem, Understand that which I say spiritually. You shall not eat that body which you see, nor shall not drink the blood which those that shall crucify me will shed. I have recommended a sacred sign unto you, which being understood spiritually, will quicken you.

And in the Canon, Ut quid. Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Believe and thou hast eaten: for to believe in him, is to eat the bread and the wine; he that believeth in him eateth him.

Which contrarieth not those that by eating understand something more then to believe, and therein also comprehend the effect of faith, which is to be nourished and quickened: which comes to one, for of necessity the one followeth the other.

We conclude therefore, that in this chapter Jesus Christ speaketh not of eating his body with the mouth, neither understandeth that he must go down into our stomachs. For the nourishment of the soul is not received by the mouth of the body. To feed the body by hearing, and to feed the soul by the mouth, are two like absurdities. It is not more absurd to feed the stomach with songs, then to cause the nourishment of the soul to pass through our teeth and our throats. Jesus Christ cannot be eaten by his enemies, much less by beasts. He is the bread of children, and not of strangers. This bread is given to the living, and not to the dead: to dwell in us, and not to pass through us. It is a meat necessary for salvation, and not as the Sacrament of his body, without the which many are saved, and which turns to many men's condemnation. It is a remedy against all our sins, and not only against venial sins, and those whereof men's consciences are already discharged, as the Church of Rome teacheth: making the Eucharist to be a plaster for a wound that is healed, and a mean to discharge men's consciences of sins, whereof they are already discharged. Whereby they make the Eucharist to be a thousand times of less efficacy then Baptism, wherein there is no transubstantiation made. For they say, that Baptism is simply necessary for salvation, and that by Baptism all precedent sins, as well mortal as venial, are blotted out, both for the guilt and for the punishment.

That the Mass, and the Decretals, and Glosses of the Church of Rome, overthrow Transubstantiation.

[Sect. 32] Although the mark of Papal religion, is to go to Mass, yet the Mass is much contrary to the Papacie. For the Canon of the Mass is composed of diverse pieces set together, whereof the greatest part are ancient Doctors which overthrow Merits, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation.

You must understand, that in the Primitive Church, the sacred table stood in the middle of the Church, whereupon the people came to offer gifts & presents of bread & wine, and of fruits; which presents were called oblations and sacrifices. Of that bread and wine in gteat quantity brought and set upon the table, the Minister took one part for the celebration of the holy Sacrament, as much as needed to communicate the same under both kinds unto the faithful; the rest was for the poor. Before the administration of the Sacrament to the people, they made all the Catechumen, Penitents, and such as were possessed, and all those that either would not, or could not receive the communion, to go out of the Church.

Ouer these presents and gifts of the people, appointed for the celebration of the holy Supper, diverse prayers were said, whereof the greatest part are at this day said in the Mass, but changed into another sense. For as instead of a quantity of bread to communicate to all the assembly, at this day they have but a little round wafer, which they call god: so whereas those prayers were said over the bread and the wine, now the same prayers are said over the consecrated host, which they say is Jesus Christ. Whereby it happeneth, that in those prayers the Priest speaketh against his own intent, and plainly contradicteth his Churches belief, and pronounceth words that are injurious to Jesus Christ.

For after the words of Consecration, offering Jesus Christ to God, he speaketh in this manner to God, saying, Upon which things may it please thee to look with a good and favorable countenance, and to accept of them, as thou diddest accept of the presents of Abel thy righteous servant. This prayer might be said upon the offerings and alms of the people, but in no sort can be upon Jesus Christ. For is there any likelihood that Jesus Christ should be called These things, as if they spake of diverse Jesus Christ's, and of things without life? Again, can he without impiety desire God to accept as well of Jesus Christ, as he accepted the beasts sacrificed by Abel? Their ordinary excuse in this is, that the Priest doth not desire God to accept as well of Jesus Christ, as he did accept of the lamb offered by Abel, but that God would be pleased to accept as well of our devotion as of that of Abel's: But the words of the Mass will not bear this exposition, which compare not Abel's devotion with ours, but the presents which the Priest offereth to God, with those that Abel offered, saying, Accept as well of these sacrifices and of these presents, as thou diddest accept of Abel's presents. The host and the present is not the devotion. There is great difference between a present and the will, which oftentimes is accepted without a present.

The Priest addeth, We beseech thee most puissant God, to command that these things may be borne by the hands of thy holy Angel into thy heavenly Palace, into the presence of thy divine Majesty. Is there anything in all this that can be applied to Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ presented by the Angels to his Father? Hath he any need of the help of Angels to be presented to God?

There followeth a prayer for the dead, saying, Lord remember thy servants which have gone before us with the sign of faith, and that sleep in peace. For then they believed not that men's souls were burnt in a fire.

After this there followeth a long catalogue of the names of many Saints; which rehearsed, they make this prayer to God, saying, In whose company we beseech thee to receive us, not regarding our merits, but pardoning our offenses. This is contrary to merits.

But the words that immediately follow, are specially to be considered, where it is said, By Christ our Lord, by whom, oh Lord, thou always createst for us all these good things, thou sanctifiest, quickenest, and blessest them. Is there anything in all this that agreeth to Jesus Christ? For can they call the consecrated bread (which they call the host) all these good things, if that host be Jesus Christ? Doth God always quicken Jesus Christ? Doth God create & quicken Jesus Christ, by Jesus Christ? These speeches are fit being applied to the bread and wine, but not unto Jesus Christ. If by these words they understand that he speaketh of the bread and wine, considering them as they were before consecration, thereby they fall into three inevitable absurdities. The one is, that they give thanks unto God, because he created the bread and the wine in the Eucharist, when that bread and wine is no more bread and wine; The second is, he showeth the bread and the wine, as being present, saying, Haec omnia bona, All these good things, when those things are no more those good things; using a demonstrative pronowne of a thing present, to show nothing. The third absurdity is, that those words are spoken then when the Priest is about to lift up the host to cause it to be adored. Is not this a thing against all reason and apparence, that then when men adore the host, and pretend to sacrifice the eternal Son of God to God, the Priest giveth thanks to God because he causeth the bread and wine to grow? and remembereth not to give him thanks, because he hath put Jesus Christ into his hands to sacrifice and to eat him? As if then when they are to render up their souls unto God, they should give thanks unto God, because he maketh it rain upon the vines, without giving him thanks for redeeming our souls from hell, by the death of Jesus Christ.

The many signs of the Cross which the Priest maketh upon the host and upon the cup, witness that the belief of the Church of Rome hath been changed. For Pope Innocent the third, in the second book of the Mysteries of the Mass 58. chap. saith, that the Priest makes signs of the Cross upon these things to drive away the devil, lest he should prevail against the Priest, or against the sacrifice, that is, against Jesus Christ. But it is not credible that those who brought in that custom, would be so ridiculously officious, as to take on them by signs of the Cross made in the air, to defend Jesus Christ against the devil.

The Gloss of the Romish Decretal upon the Canon Hoc est, in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, is no less express touching this subject, then if it had been made at Geneva: The celestial Sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly: And therefore it is called so after a sort, but not in the truth of the thing, but by a significant mystery: So that this is the true sense, it is called the body of Christ, that is, it is signified thereby. These words are very considerable.

In the same Distinction it is said, He that disagreeth with Jesus Christ, eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, although every day he receiveth the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation.

The like in the Canon De hac: It is permitted to eat of this host which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Jesus Christ. But no man is permitted in the same to eat of that which Jesus Christ offered upon the altar of the Cross.

And in the Canon Quia Morte, (likewise taken out of Saint Augustine ) It is said, Because we are delivered by the death of our Lord, in remembrance thereof, when we eat and drink, we signify his flesh and his blood, which were offered for us.

The Mass (as we have seen) hath diverse formal prayers against Transubstantiation: yet there is a manifest fraud used, and a changing of the ancient Liturgy. The Priest saith: Which oblation, may it please thee oh God in all things to make it, bless it, register it, ratify it, and accept it, that unto us it may be made the body and the blood of thy most dear Son.

But we have the same prayer in the 5. Chap. of the 4. book of Sacraments, among Saint Ambrose works, in these words: Make this oblation for us to be esteemed as reasonable, and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

An horrible depravation; for whereas the ancient Fathers said, that this oblation is the figure of the body of Christ, they say, That this oblation may be made unto us the body of Christ. This deserves seriously to be thought upon.

Certain places out of the ancient Fathers touching this subject.

[Sect. 33] Tertullian in his third book against Marcion, the 19. chap. saith, God hath so revealed it in your Gospel, calling the bread his body, that thereby thou mightest understand, that he hath made the bread to be the figure of his body.

Also in his fourth book against Marcion, 40 chapter, disputing against the Marcionites which denied that Jesus Christ had a true body, he saith, Jesus Christ having taken bread and given it to his disciples, made it to be his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body, which should not be a figure if he had not a true body. The reason is, because we cannot truly prefigurate those things that are not.

Cyprian in the third Epistle of his second book saith, We find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that which he called his blood was wine.

Origen upon the 15. of Saint Matthew saith: This meat which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as touching the material substance descendeth into the belly, and is cast into the draught, and of his own nature doth not sanctify. There also he calleth that which we receive in the Eucharist, a symbolical or figurative body.

Eusebius in the eight book of Evangelical Demonstration, cap. 1. saith, We have received this custom, to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice upon the table, by the wholesome signs of his body and of his blood, according to the laws of the new covenant.

Saint Augustine against Adimantus, Chap. 12. saith: The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. There he doth not only say, that the Lord gave the sign of his body, but also expoundeth these words, This is my body, by the sign of my body.

Upon the third Psalm he saith: Jesus Christ received Judas to the feast, at the which he recommended and gave the sign of his body and of his blood to his disciples.

In the 45 Treatise upon Saint John, This rock was Christ. He saith Behold then, that faith remaining, the signs are diverse. Then the Rock was Christ, and now that which is set upon the table is Christ. Will you learn of Saint Augustine how that which is set upon the table is Christ? It is, as in time past the Rock was Christ.

Upon the 38 Psalm he saith, Understand that which I have said unto you spiritually; you shall not eat that which you see, nor drink the blood which those that shall crucify me will shed: I have recommended a sacred sign unto you, which b • ing understood spiritually, will quicken you.

And in the 50 Treatise upon Saint John: Shall I take Jesus that is absent? How shall I stretch out my hand to heaven (where he is set) to lay hold on him? To this that holy personage answereth and saith: Send thy faith thither, and thou hast laid hold upon him: thy ancestors (the Jews) had him bodily among them, hold thou him in thy heart. And in the first Treatise upon the first Epistle of Saint John, he saith, Ipsum iam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus, sed fide contingere: Being set in heaven, we cannot handle him anymore with our hands, but we may touch him with our hearts.

In the 23 Epistle to Boniface, he saith, The Sacrament of the body of Christ, in some manner is the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ. And to show how the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, he saith for example, it is, as Baptism which is the Sacrament of faith, is faith; and as we are said to be buried by Baptism.

And in the third book of Christian Doctrine, cap. 16. he saith, If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink not his blood, you shall not have life in you; it seemeth that he commandeth a wicked thing. Therefore it is a figure, commanding us to communicate the passion of the Lord, and sweetly and profitably to have in remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Note, that he doth not only say that there is a figure in these words (If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man,) but also that he expoundeth this figure, thus, that in the sixth Chap. of Saint John, to eat the flesh of the Lord, is to have his death and passion in remembrance, which is an exposition which the Church of Rome receiveth not.

Ephraim Patriarch of Antiochia, alleged by Photios in his Librarie, saith, The body of Christ which the faithful receive, loseth not his sensible substance; and is not separated from the intelligible grace. So Baptism being wholly and only spiritual, keepeth the property of his sensible substance, that is, water, and loseth not that which it was before. This is an excellent place, for it showeth in what sense the ancient Fathers called the Sacrament the body of Christ, seeing it is said, that it keepeth his first sensible substance, that is, the substance of bread, even as the substance of water remaineth in baptism.

Uigilius in his fourth book against Eutyches, saith, If the Word and the flesh have but one nature, how cometh it to pass, that the Word being in all places, the flesh also is not in all places? for when it was here on earth, it was not in heaven; and now when it is in heaven, it is not here on earth. Our adversaries seek to defend themselves against this place, by saying, that the flesh of Christ is no more visible here on earth. But this excuse might as well have served the Eutychians, who said also, that the flesh of the Lord is no more visible here on earth. They dispute therefore against Uigilius, and join with the ancient heretics. For Uigilius said, that the flesh of Jesus Christ being on earth, was not in heaven, neither visibly nor invisibly. Then it followeth, that he also meaneth, that the flesh of our Lord being in heaven, is not on earth, neither visibly nor invisibly; otherwise there should be no correspondence between these two propositions, nor no consequence in his discourse.

Theodoretus disputeth against the same heretics, in his first Dialogue entitled Immoueable, where he saith, The Lord gave the name of his body to the sign. Nothing can be more expressly spoken. There also he called the sign his blood.

And a little after he saith, Jesus Christ honored the visible signs with the names of his body and of his blood, not having changed their nature, but having added grace to nature. Every word in this sentence is of great force.

In the second Dialogue, the Eutychian heretic maintaineth the changing of the substance of the bread into flesh after consecration; thereby to infer, that in like manner after the incarnation of the Word, the flesh was changed into the divine substance. But see what Theodoretus saith against it: The mystical signs do not change their nature after consecration: for they remain and continue in their first substance, figure and form, and are visible and palpable as before; but they are understood to be those things which they are made to be, and are believed and reverenced as being made that which they are believed to be. So Gentian, Heruet, and Bellarmine translate it, and also the Greek is clear and manifest; and Theodoretus meaning cannot be otherwise expounded: for he disputed against an heretic which affirmed that the substance of the bread and wine were changed in the Sacrament. But Theodoretus contradicting him, necessarily maintaineth that the substance of the bread and the wine still remaineth. For that occasion being offered to show, that after the incarnation, the substance of the flesh of our Lord remained; Theodoretus should have spoken very improperly and against himself, if to show it, he should have alleged, that the substance of the bread being changed, the accidents and the apparence of bread remained. That had been as much as if he had pleaded the Eutychians cause, that would have, that the substance of the flesh of Christ being changed, the apparence thereof remained.

Gelasius in his book of two Natures saith, And yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do still remain; and certainly the image and resemblance of the body and the blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.

Chrysostom in his 82. Homilie upon Saint Matthew saith, When Jesus Christ gave the mysteries, he gave wine.

Chrysostom, or whosoever is the author of the imperfect work upon Saint Matthew, in the 11. Homily saith, If it be a sin and a dangerous thing to put the sanctified vessels to private uses, as Baltazzar teacheth us, who drinking in the sacred cups, lost both his kingdom and his life: if, I say, it is so dangerous a thing to put those sacred vessels to private uses, wherein the true body of Jesus Christ is not, but the mystery of his body is therein contained; how much more the vessels of our bodies? It is to no purpose to say, that the Arians did corrupt that book: for the Arians had no other opinion touching that point, then those that hold the orthodoxal and true faith.

Saint Macarius the Egyptian in his 27 Homily saith, In the Church bread and wine is offered, being the figure of his flesh and of his blood: and those that participate that bread which is seen, spiritually eat the flesh of our Lord.

Maximus which hath made notes upon Denis falsely surnamed the Areopagite, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , These things are signs, and not the truth.

But not to be too tedious, (for a man might set down a thousand such places) I will content myself with the producing of certain Councils. In the volume of the Canons of the Councils of Africa, the 37 Canon saith, To the end (as the Lord himself hath taught us) that in the sacred Service, we should offer nothing but the body and the blood of our Lord, that is, nothing but bread and wine mixed with water. Here by the ordinance of a Council, the exposition of these words, My body and my blood, is set down, that is, bread and wine mixed with water. And the same Canon is repeated in the Council in Trulle, Canon 32.

The 2. Canon of the Council of Ancyra forbiddeth Deacons that had sacrificed to idols no more to present the bread and the cup. And the last Canon save two of Neocesarea, forbiddeth Priests of country villages to give the bread and the cup in the presence of a Bishop, or of a Priest of a town.

The Council of Constantinople holden anno 756. composed of 338. Bishops, condemning images, expressly speaketh of this Sacrament, saying, Behold the image of this quickening or lively body, &c. And a little after: Jesus Christ commanded that we should set upon the table an image totally chosen, to wit, the substance of bread, lest, if it should be figured by human form, idolatry might steal in. A place which the 2. Council of Nice authorizeth, by condemning it. For nothing pleased that abhominable Council, but that which displeaseth God.

It is a mockery to say, that the Fathers spake in that manmer, lest they should be understood by the Catechumen, seeing that both their Sermons, and their books, and the Councils are not expressly made for the Catechumen, but for all the faithful. And it is not credible that the Fathers speaking to the faithful would lie for fear of offending the Catechumen, which would have been much more offended, if they had understood that the Fathers had told the faithful one thing and them another. Much less is it to be believed, that if the consecrated host be Jesus Christ himself, that the Pastors of the Church would have persuaded the Catechumen that it is not so; seeing that at this day they make little children believe it. I know that the Fathers spake of the mysteries of faith with more sobriety before the Catechumen, but it is one thing to speak to the Catechumen, and another thing to write and preach to the faithful, as the Fathers in these places do. Let us hereunto add ancient customs. The Christians in Saint Paul's time made a banket in the Church, wherein they did eat the remainder of the Sacrament. In many places they gave that which was left to little children. And in other places they burnt the rest of the sacred bread which was left. Saint Ambrose in the book of Widows teacheth us, that in his time they used women to administer the body of our Lord. And he speaks of widows; a thing which at this day would be held to be profane; & which in truth would be very inconvenient, if that which were given them to bear and administer were the true and natural body of the Son of God. Then also they gave the Sacrament into the hands of the people, and sometimes they suffered them to carry it home to their houses. Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose, hung it about his neck, and swam therewith.

Things which would never have been suffered if they had believed that the bread had been the true body of Christ. Then they spake not of concomitance, nor of putting the whole body into every drop of wine in the cup: nor of accidents without substance, nor of a body without a place. They used no lifting up of the host, and the people reverenced the symbols and signs, but adored not the Sacrament as God. They adored Jesus Christ in the action of the Eucharist, not as being enclosed in the bread, but as being in heaven on the right hand of God. And the consecration of the bread was not made by these words This is my body, but by prayer. Justin Martyr at the end of his second Apology, called that which they received in the holy Supper, a meat consecrated by the prayer of the word proceeding from God. S. Augustine in his 4 chap. and third book of the Trinity, saith, That which is taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystical prayer. Theodoretus alleged before, bringeth in the Heretic speaking in this manner, saying, The signs of the body and of the blood are one thing before the invocation made by the Priest, but after invocation they are changed, and made other things. Origen in his 8. book against Celsus saith, We eat loaves of bread which by prayer are made a body, which is some holy thing. Basil in his book of the holy Spirit, cap. 27. if that book be his, calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The words of the invocation when they show the bread. Which showing of the bread was not done by lifting up a round wafer over the Priests head, but by drawing of curtains which hung between the table and the people. As S. Chrysostom saith, in his 3. Homilie upon the Epistle to the Ephesians. Then consecration was done before they said these words, This is my body, which Pope Innocent the 3. acknowledgeth, as we have already shown.

That which deceiveth many men, is diverse books falsely attributed to the ancient Fathers, as the book of the Supper of our Lord attributed to Saint Cyprian: the Catechetical Orations of Gregory Nissen: the Catechesis Mystagogicke placed at the end of Cyrils Catechism: and diverse the like false books, which were not brought forth till many years after the death of the authors of whom they bear the name, the style and doctrine thereof wholly repugning the authors to whom they are attributed.

To no better purpose they produce the rhetorical amplifications of certain Fathers in their Homilies, where they speak of chewing and grinding the flesh of the Lord between their teeth, of thrusting their fingers into his wounds, of embracing his cross, of making the altar red with the blood of the Lord: of hot coals brought with tongues by Seraphim, &c. Excessiue speeches used to ravish the spirits of the auditors, and such as if a man press according to the letter, would bring in a thousand absurdities.

But the greatest matter which they allege, and whereat they stumble, is, that oftentimes among the ancient Fathers that which is received in the Eucharist, is called the body of Christ, and that they say that the Priest with his sacred mouth, maketh the body of Christ. But he that hath read the ancient Fathers, knoweth that they make two sorts of the body of Christ, one that was crucified for us, the other which is received in the Eucharist, whereof the last is eaten by the faithful, but the other cannot be eaten with the mouth. Saint Jerome upon the Epistle to the Ephesians saith: The flesh and the blood of Christ is understood two ways, either that spiritual and divine flesh, whereof he himself saith, My flesh is meat indeed; or that flesh which was crucified, & that blood which was shed by the soldiers spear. And the same Father in 2. Distinction of Consecration saith: We are permitted to eat of y ^t host which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Christ. But it is not lawful for any man to eat of y ^t same host which Christ offered upon the tree of the cross.

Saint Augustine oftentimes speaketh of eating the body of Christ: but to the end that men should know that it is another body then that which was crucified, writing upon the 98. Psalm, he produceth Jesus Christ speaking in this manner: You shall not eat this body which you see, neither shall you drink the blood which those that shall crucify me shall shed. What body then do they eat? He expoundeth it himself and saith: I have recommended a Sacrament unto you, which being taken spiritually will give you life.

So before we heard Origen call the bread of the Eucharist, the body of Christ symbolically; and a body which in some sort is an holy thing, to discern it from the natural body. And S. Cyprian in his third Epistle of his second book saith, Corpus Domini non potest esse farina sola, nec aqua sola: The body of our Lord cannot be meal alone, nor water alone; because meal must be kneaded with water. There also he will have water to be mixed with wine, because wine is the blood of Christ, and water the people, for that the blood of Christ must not be without the people.

Ephraem before alleged by us, saith, that the body of Christ which the faithful receive, loseth not his sensible substance, even as water in baptism is still water. It is clearer then the day light, that by the body of Christ, he understandeth not the natural body of our Lord, seeing he maketh that body in the Eucharist to be the same that water is in baptism, that is, an external sign. And Ephraem should in vain say, that the natural body of Jesus Christ doth not lose his substance in the Eucharist; for whoever imagined that the natural body of our Lord loseth his substance in the holy Supper, or is no more a man?

The same also appeareth by this, that the Fathers oftentimes speak of pieces or parts of the body of Christ which are given to the people in the Eucharist, which cannot be said of the crucified body.

So in the Canon, Comperimus, in the second Distinction of Consecration, Pope Gelasius complaineth of some that having taken a part of the body of Christ, abstained from the cup.

Gregory Nissen, in his book of Baptism, saith that the consecrated bread is no more common bread, but is called, & is, the body of Christ. But he declareth how it is bread, and yet it is the body of Christ, by the similitude of the water in baptism, and of stones of an altar, which are of the same nature that others are, but become holy by blessing. By these examples he manifestly excludeth transubstantiation. The place is long and worthy to be read.

This being so, it shall not be amiss to know how Saint Ambrose will have the bread still continuing bread, nevertheless to become the body of Christ by divine virtue. Which he declareth in the fourth chap. of the fourth book of Sacraments, where he propoundeth this question, Hoc igitur astruamus, quomodo potest qui panis est, esse corpus Christi: Let us show how that which is bread, may be the body of Christ. By which question it appears that he will have bread & Christ's body at the same time. And thereupon he produceth diverse works of God, whereby he hath made things to be that which they were not. And so inferreth, that by greater reason God can make things that were, to be the same still, and yet to be changed into other things. His words are these. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermon Domini Jesus, vt inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? Then if there be such virtue in the words of our Lord, to make those things that were not to begin to be, how much more can he make those things that were before, to be the same that they were, and yet be changed into another thing? He will have the bread to remain bread, and nevertheless to be the body of Christ.

Howbeit, such kinds of speaking have been stumbling blocks at which the ages ensuing have stumbled, specially since the holy Scriptures have been hidden from the people: and that men to advance themselves above Angels, have boasted that they make God with words, & create their creator.

An answer to the Prosopopoeia of M. Arnoux.

[Sect. 34] Now I think we shall easily answer M. Arnoux Prosopopoeia, in which he prescribeth God what he should say, and makes God demand of us at the latter day, why we have contradicted his four Evangelists? why we quarrel with his Church? and why we have placed a figure in steed of the truth? He ought rather to examine himself, and to think how he shall make answer unto God: and what reason he will yield unto him for making himself to be an advocate of a doctrine clean contrary to the Gospel? Why he hath sung Mass in steed of administering the holy Supper of the Lord? Why he hath intruded himself to sacrifice the body of our Lord without commandment? Why he hath usurped the office of a sacrificing Priest not ordained by Jesus Christ? Why he hath lifted up an host in the Mass to cause it to be adored as God, seeing that Jesus Christ used no such elevation, nor the Apostles any adoration? Why he hath sung particular Masses without communicating, or any assistants, seeing that the Apostle calleth the Supper a communion? and that the Lord communicated to all the assistants? and that the word coena, signifieth a common supper? Why he did not communicate the cup unto the people, seeing Jesus Christ said, Drink ye all of this? Why he speaks in the Mass in an unknown tongue, not understood by the people, contrary to the example of Jesus Christ? Why he turns his back to the people, seeing that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist turned his face unto his disciples? Why in saying Mass he prayeth for salvation by the merits of those Saints whose bones are hidden under the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ caused not any dead bones to be laid under the table? and that salvation is not gotten or obtained by men's merits? Why the Evangelists having said that Jesus Christ brake, and gave bread, he hath taken upon him to teach, that the Priest doth not break nor give bread in the Mass? Why Jesus Christ having said of that bread which he gave, that it was his body, he hath taught that that bread is no more bread, but becometh the body of Christ? Why he durst belie the Apostle Saint Paul, who four times saith, that we break and eat bread? Why, seeing that the holy Sacrament is instituted for the remission of sins, he hath winked at the profanation thereof used in the Church of Rome, to say Mass for horses, & sick hogs, and to sing particular Masses to draw souls out of Purgatory, if they be rich men's souls that have given something to the Church? What can these venerable Doctors answer hereunto? Will they say, Lord, the Church hath judged otherwise, and hath found it convenient to change the institution of this Sacrament, and that his Vicar the Pope may dispence against the Apostles, and against the Gospel in giving it interpretations. Do they think that such excuses will be admitted in that fearful judgment, or that thereby they can defend themselves from that heat of the fire that shall consume the adversaries?

But these repugnances in such things which are the grounds and the very essence of this holy Sacrament, and which make part of the action, are other matters then such as they object against us, when they ask us, Why we do not celebrate the holy Supper after supper, why we do it not in an high chamber, and why we admit women unto it? They ought to add hereunto, and ask us, Why we are not appareled like Jews, and why we do not celebrate it only upon a Thursday, and after we have eaten a Lamb? which are ridiculous questions, made to exempt themselves from answering to their corruptions, which destroy the whole nature of Sacraments. Among the which the taking away of the cup from the laity requireth some large discourse.

Of taking away the Cup in the holy Supper, or of the Communion under one kind only.

[Sect. 35] 1. Our Lord giving the Cup to his disciples, said unto them, Drink ye all of this: the Church of Rome correcteth that, and saith, You shall not all drink thereof, for to drink at the Mass is the privilege of Priests, and of Kings and Princes.

2. They make answer and say, that Jesus Christ spake only to Pastors, for all those that then were present were Pastors of the Church. But the Church of Rome giving the Cup to Kings and Princes, showeth that she doth not believe that that commandment was made only to Pastors of the Church.

3. Moreover, Jesus Christ's disciples being with him, were not as Pastors, but as sheep and disciples, and in that action are also called disciples.

4. It is manifest, that in the institution of the Supper, the commandment to eat and to drink was indifferently made to those persons that were present. And if the people are not bound to communicate the cup, because those to whom Jesus gave it were Pastors; by the same reason the people may disspense with themselves touching the participation of the bread, under pretence that those were Pastors to whom Jesus Christ said, Eate. And so there is nothing in the whole institution of the Sacrament which bindeth the people to receive any of the two kinds, nor yet at all to participate this Sacrament. What is he that can judge or discern, that these words of our Lord, Take, eat, are directed to the Pastors and to the people, but that these words Drink ye all of this, are only directed to Pastors? There is nothing then in the institution of the Supper which directeth the faithful, and yet the institution of the Sacrament is the rule it self. And though we look elsewhere for the commandment to eat made to the people, we shall always find that there also is mention made of drinking.

5. Our adversaries themselves confess, that Jesus Christ by these words, Do this in remembrance of me, commanded his disciples to do the same to the faithful that he did to them: He commanded therefore to give the cup to the faithful.

6. Besides, our Lord administering the cup, said, That it is the New Testament in his blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. Then it appeareth, that to deprive the people of the cup, is as much as to deprive them of the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. For our adversaries say that there is no effusion of blood in the host.

7. And when Jesus said, This is my body which is given, and broken for you, did he understand that it should only be given for Pastors, or broken for their salvation, and not for the salvation of the people? And if it be impious to affirm that touching the body, why should it be less impious to be said touching the cup?

8. S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. cutteth off all evasions; for he writeth to the Corinthians, and as he himself saith, cap. 1. verse 2. To all those that call upon the name of Jesus, and saith unto them, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. Even as the commandment to examine himself is made to all the faithful, so the commandment to eat of that bread and to drink of that cup, is made to all the faithful. He saith not (as some affirm) Examine yourselves before you drink. The Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let him eat, which is the Imperative mood, and a word of commandment, and not a conditional word, if he will eat, or when he would eat, let him examine himself. If the King ordaineth that a soldier should arm himself, and that he should fight courageously, he commandeth him to arm himself & to fight: so when the Apostle saith to the faithful, that they should examine themselves, and that they should eat and drink that bread and that wine, he commandeth them both to examine themselves, and to eat that bread and drink that wine. And if the Apostle had said no otherwise, but that the faithful must examine themselves before they drink, he would presuppose thereby that the faithful drank, and that in Corinth the people participated the cup.

9. It is true, that it sufficeth to receive one of the species unworthily to make a man culpable; whereupon the Apostle saith, Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But that hindereth not the faithful from participating both the one and the other kind. Yet I am not of opinion, that a man that taketh one of the species unworthily, can take the other worthily.

10. But the nature of falsehood specially appeareth in this, that it contradicteth it self. For when Jesus Christ, John 6. said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you: here our adversaries expressly affirm and maintain, that Jesus Christ spake of the Eucharist, and of eating with the mouth: treading the authority of Pope Innocent 3. under their feet, that determined the conttary, as we have shown before. Howbeit by this they make a process against themselves, and testify, that as much as in them lieth, they deprive the people of life eternal. For it is said, If you drink not, you have no life in you.

Their answer is, That the blood is also in the host, and that in taking the body we take the blood also. For to take the blood under the host, is not to drink; but Jesus Christ commandeth us to drink, saying, If you drink not, &c.

If to take the dry host, is to drink, we must say that the Priest drinks twice in the Mass, once when he takes the host, the other when he takes the cup. Which discovereth the childish subtlety of those that say, that Jesus Christ in this place of Saint John doth not express the manner how to communicate, but showeth the substance of the thing. For he speaketh of drinking, and drinking is the manner of communicating. Is there any hope ever to bring these men to reason, that play with the word of God, and perceiving themselves to be grounded, have their recourse to such ridiculous defences, as to maintain that to eat the host, is to drink? If we take eating and drinking for believing (as Jesus Christ in this chapter expoundeth it) it is certain, that to eat and to drink are all one thing. But between eating the Sacrament with the mouth, and drinking, there is great difference.

11. Add hereunto, that he which taketh the blood under the host, taketh it not as being shed for us, nor with the Sacrament of the shedding of his blood, which is the manner whereby Jesus Christ will have every man to participate the same. The faithful in eating the bread may remember the shedding of his blood, but God will have the memory and the exterior sign to go together. And we must not content our selves with the memory, to abolish a part of the Sacrament, because it is instituted to celebrate the memory of the shedding of the blood. For, if the memory of the shedding of the blood were sufficient, without participating the Sacrament of the shedding of the blood, we might also dispence with our selves for participating the Sacrament of the body, for that the preaching of the word might refresh our memories therein.

12. The ambition of the Clergy hath begotten this monster. For by giving the Cup to none but to Priests and to Kings and Princes, Priests have made themselves companions with Kings: in the same manner as the Pope hath exalted himself above the Clergy, in disdaining to drink out of the Chalice, and sucking it by drops out of a quill which is put into the Cup, and giveth the rest to the Deacon. A custom which having been practiced in the latter times by some ambitious Prelates, is now reserved for the Pope only, for a mark of his greatness. Gerson in the second Treatise of the Communion under both kinds, puts this among the causes why the people should be deprived of the Cup, to wit, that thereby the dignity of lay men would be equal with the Priests. Their only intent therefore herein is, the honor and exaltation of the Clergy.

The Council of Constance holden anno 1416. which is the first Council that forbad the Cup to be administered to the people, upon pain of heresy, and punishment to be imposed by the secular powers, confesseth that Jesus Christ did institute the holy Supper under both kinds, and that the primitive Church did so practice it. Notwithstanding it saith, that the contrary custom ought to be holden for a law; and declareth all those to be heretics and punishable which contradict it. You shall see the whole Canon, which (as error loveth darkness) those Fathers have purposely obscured, promiscuously handling it with the question touching the receiving of the Eucharist after supper. The words of the Canon are these:

Seeing that in some parts of the world, some men dare rashly affirm, that Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and ordinarily give the Communion to the laity, not only under the form of bread, but also under the form of wine, and that after supper, or otherwise not fasting; and obstinately affirm that it must be so communicated, contrary to the laudable custom of the Church, reasonably brought in, which they damnably seek to reprove as sacrilegious. For this cause this present sacred general Council of Constance, lawfully assembled by the holy Ghost, against this error, seeking to provide for the salvation of the faithful, after ripe deliberation had by diverse Doctors as well spiritual as temporal, declareth, decreeth, and defineth, that although Jesus Christ after supper did institute and administer to his disciples, this venerable Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine; notwithstanding, the authority of the sacred Canons, and the commendable and approved customs of the Church have declared, and do declare, that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after supper, nor by the faithful to be received but fasting, unless it be in case of weakness, or other necessities permitted by law or by the Church. And likewise, that although in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds, nevertheless, this custom hath with reason been induced, that it should be taken, by those that consecrate, under both kinds, and by the laity under the form of bread only. For that we must constantly, and without any doubt believe, that the whole body and blood of Jesus Christ is truly contained as well under the form of bread, as under the form of wine. Therefore, seeing that this custom hath been reasonably induced, and long time practiced by the Church and by the holy Fathers, it must be holden for a law, which it is not lawful to reprove, or to change at our fantasies, without the authority of the Church. Therefore to affirm, that to observe this custom or law, it is sacrilege or an unlawful thing, that opinion ought to be held to be erroneous; and those that obstinately affirm the contrary of that which is said before, ought to be banished as heretics, and grievously punished by the Diocesans of the places where they reside, or by their Officials, or by the Inquisitors of heretical peruersities, &c. To speak in this manner, what is it else but to spit in the face of the Son of God, and to tread the Gospel under their feet?

An examination of the Reasons alleged by our Adversaries.

[Sect. 36] To maintain this error against the word of God, they allege certain weak reasons of human wisdom: as if men's reason might contrary the Gospel; or as if our adversaries were sharper sighted then Jesus Christ, or as if they could propound some inconvenience which Christ did not foresee. Gerson that was at the Council of Constance, propoundeth the reasons that moved the Council to prohibit the Cup unto the people.

1. He saith, that it would be dangerous lest any drop of the wine should fall down upon the ground. But he should rather beware lest he fall into disobedience, or to suffer the authority of the word of God to fall down.

2. He saith, that it is done lest the common people should wet their beards in the cup. But it were better that men were without beards, then without the Sacrament of the blood of Jesus Christ: and yet women and young men without beards might communicate without that danger.

3. As also lest the Chalice being kept, should take wind, or wax sour. But that is to take great care for Jesus Christ. For if he be present and whole in every drop of wine within the Cup, his presence would be sufficient to keep the wine from souring: seeing that (if you believe our adversaries) the milk of the virgin Marie waxeth not sour, nor the bones of Saints putrefy in so many hundred years. To speak nothing of this new Philosophy, which giveth us sharp lines, puffed up in length and breadth.

4. They also allege, that thereby the Church of Rome sought to stop another heresy. But we must not remedy one evil by another, nor an error by an abuse: neither shall it ever be found that the prohibiting of the chalice did remedy any error, but only that it serveth to strengthen the error of Transubstantiation.

5. They likewise say, that some countries have no wine. I answer also, that there are countries that have no bread; and that if men can carry the one thither, they may carry the other also: or if that be impossible, it is better in such a country to use that which serveth there instead of bread and wine, rather then to be wholly or in part deprived of the Sacrament. And that if there be such a country, whereunto men cannot carry wine, the same discommoditie happeneth as well to the Priests as to the people. Add hereunto, that if some countries cannot have wine for the Sacrament, it followeth not but that they may be furnished from an infinite number of other provinces where they may have wine. This consideration is as badly grounded, as if I should say, that we must not hear the word of God, because those that are deaf cannot hear it: that so in matter of instruction to salvation, there may be no difference among men.

6. Lastly, our adversaries (as they suppose) find examples in the New Testament of celebrating the Eucharist without the Cup. Put case that such examples were to be found, what would that make for them? For the question between us, is not, whether the holy Supper may be administered without the Cup; but, whether the Cup being there, the Priest alone, and not the people, ought to drink? Therefore they vainly allege the 2. of Acts, 42. verse where it is said, that they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. And Acts 20.7. where it is said, that the disciples came together to break bread. In these places it is not said, that there was a cup, whereof the Pastor drank and the people drank not. And if under pretence, that in these places there is nothing spoken of drinking, it followeth that the people should not drink; it will follow thereby, that Pastors also ought not to drink; for there is nothing spoken in those places of them touching that.

It should be a ridiculous consequence, if I should say, that in the 31. of Genesis it is said, that Jacob invited his brethren to eat bread with him; and therefore that they drank not. It is the ordinary manner of the Scripture, by bread to understand all that is set upon the table at meal times, Gen. 37.25. Luk. 7.36. and often in other places. And there is no reason why this manner of speaking should not be allowed in a sacred Supper, as well as in a common repast. So there was no beast sacrificed under the Law without some aspersion of wine, and yet in all the sacred history, where it is said that such a King or Priest did offer sacrifice, there is nothing spoken of sprinkling of wine. For, as to know how men ought to celebrate sacrifices, we need not seek in Histories or examples, but must go to the rules thereof contained in the books of Moses: so to know how the Sacraments ought to be celebrated, we must not have recourse to examples summarily recited, but to the rules, and to the first institution thereof.

In Pope Gelasius time, that lived in anno 495. this abuse began to spring up, against the which the said Pope pronounced this sentence, saying: We have been advertised that some persons having only taken a piece of the sacred body, do abstain from the Cup of the sacred blood, who, without doubt (because it is said rhat they are led by I know not what superstition) ought, either to receive the whole Sacrament, or to be wholly excluded from communicating: because the division of a Sacrament cannot be done without great sacrilege. Note these words, should be driven away: that men should not think that he spake only of Pastors.

A means of agreement.

[Sect. 37] Some men desirous of peace, and calling to mind the great quantity of blood that hath been shed, and the miseries and desolations that have happened among Christians, the wounds whereof still bleed, and whereon at this day men power vinegar and not oil; will say unto themselves, Is there no means of reconciliation? is the mischief so desperate? Certainly the agreement is very easy, and to be made by so just and easy means, that no man can contradict it without making open war against God, and declaring himself to be degenerated from the blood of his brethren, whom Jesus Christ redeemed with his blood. For all men confess, that Jesus Christ did institute the holy Sacrament as it should be, and that there is nothing to be contradicted therein. Then let the Pope restore the holy Supper to the same form that Jesus Christ did institute it; let men speak in this action, as Jesus Christ spake; let them do as he did, without further disputation, and then we will willingly assemble together with them, that we may with one accord glorify God. If that were done, there would be no Masses without communicants, the Service would not be done in a strange language: all men should communicate under both kinds; there should be no adoration, nor lifting up of the host; neither should the Priest, bowing himself upon the altar, require remission of sins of God by the merits of the Saints whose bones are hid under the altar. But the advocates of the Mass are grown to such a pride and contempt of the Son of God, that they presume that the Church of Rome doth better then Jesus Christ, and that many things are wanting in his institution: to that effect alleging the saying of the Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11.34. And the rest will I set in order when I come. But the Apostle saith not, that he would change any things in the Lord's institution, or that he would establish the contrary to that which the Son of God had commanded. He speaketh not of essential things, nor of that which God hath commanded or prohibited, as adoration, Service in an unknown language, propiciatory sacrifice, the communion of the faithful, and the participation of the Cup, which are essential points in religion, and wherein if we would conform our selves after the example of Jesus Christ we should be at an agreement. The Apostle speaks of circumstances, and of exterior order, which concerns comeliness, and not necessity, as the Council of Trent acknowledgeth; for which things we would not strive, so the substance might remain, and that such human constitutions were not made equal with God's institution.

Of the exemption of the Clergy.

[Sect. 39] The Council of Constance in the 31 Session, declareth, that the Laity (that is, Kings and Princes) have no jurisdiction nor authority over Clergy men. The Council of Trent in the 25 Session and 20 chapter saith, that The exemption of ecclesiastical persons was instituted by the ordinance of God, and by canonical constitutions. Bellarmine in his book of Clerks, 28. chapter, saith, That Clerks may not be punished by the civil Judge, nor by any means be brought before the judgment seats of secular Magistrates. And in the same place he saith, The sovereign Bishop hath exempted Clerks from the subjection of Princes, & therefore Kings are no more Sovereigns over Clerks. And if our Kings and their Courts of Parliament do reserve any jurisdiction to themselves over the Clergy, as Appeales, their regal right upon vacant Benefices, tithes, and the patronage of certain Benefices, then the Clergy rage, and cry out, and say, that they violate the liberties of the Church. For the liberty which Jesus Christ obtained for the Church, which consisteth in her deliverance from the ceremonies of the Law, and in her deliverance from the servitude of sin and the devil, at this day is converted into an exemption from all subjection to Magistrates, and into franchises and temporal immunities. And if the Magistrate taketh any knowledge of a crime committed by any Clerke, and layeth hand on him to punish him, (as not long since it happened in Venice,) it is enough to thunder down an Estate, and to threaten a Commonwealth to interdict it. And not to seek for more proofs of so, manifest a thing, the Pope yearly on maundy Thursday, thundereth an excommunication against Kings & Magistrates that shall take any knowledge of Ecclesiastical causes and crimes, or that shall raise any tithes of the Clergy. This is it which it called the Bull De coena Domini; where in all cases reserved to his Holiness are orderly set down.

These exemptions are a great prejudice and weakening to our Kings; partly in respect of the multitude of persons that are withdrawn from the obedience of the King, which have their Judges and their prisons apart, and their causes are carried to Rome by Appeale: and partly in regard of their goods and possessions; for the Clergy possesseth the third part of France, and the goodliest pieces of ground and houses, upon which the King loseth his right. For a foeffe escheating to the possession of the Clergy falleth into a Mortmaine, and oweth no more personal serucie to the King, to aide him in his necessity: and in case of high treason, his goods cannot be confiscate, nor his person punished, if it pleaseth not the Bishop to degrade him, that he may become a lay man, and so punishable by secular power. By this means the Pope hath erected an Estate temporal for himself in the middle of the Estates of Christian Kings. From thence it proceedeth that our Kings, in a great kingdom, raise small armies, and that the Clergy wax fat, and the Nobility & the third estate become poor, as the arms and the legs wax weak, when the belly swelleth with excess. Which maketh the head (which is the sovereign Prince) draw the less service from them. Therefore it is not without cause that many years since Ecclesiastical persons have hidden the Scripture from our Kings, because it speaketh so expressly touching this matter.

1. In the Old Testament the Priests and the Levites were subjects to Kings. It was not in the high Priests power to punish Levites with corporal or pecuniarie punishment.

2. King David in the first chapter of the first of Kings calleth Sadoc the high Priest and Nathan the Prophet, his servants, saying, Take with you the servants of your Lord, and let Sadoc the high Priest and Nathan the Prophet anoint him there King over Israel.

3. In the second chapter, verse 26. King Solomon putteth Abiathar from the office of high Priest, and confineth him to Anathoth. And the actions done in the beginning of Solomon's reign are generally commended, in the third chapter, verse 3.

4. In the 17. of Saint Matthew Jesus Christ paid tribute, and Saint Peter with him. It cannot be said that he did it for fear, seeing he had power enough to exempt himself from it. It is true that being of the royal race, he had been exempted frō paying tribute, if he had been acknowledged in that quality, as he himself saith in that place, That the children of Kings are free. But knowing that he could not allege his royal descent to the collectors of tribute without offending them, he subjected himself thereunto, in that giving us an example to conform our selves to do the like.

5. He himself appeared before Pilate, as before his lawful Judge, and to whom that power was given from above, John. 19.11.

6. The Apostle Saint Paul appealeth to Caesar, and not to Peter. Which he did not for fear, for he would not by fear or by fraud prejudice the right of the Church: for Saint Luke Acts 23.11. witnesseth, that he did it by the motion of the Spirit of God, the Lord appearing unto him in the night. Wherefore Bellarmine much wrongs himself, to say, that S. Paul's cause was for a point of religion, the knowledge whereof appertained not to the Magistrate. For in Acts. 24. Tertullus accused Paul to have raised sedition, and Saint Paul 25.8. defendeth himself by alleging, that they accused him to have offended Caesar.

7. The Apostle Saint Peter in his first Epistle writeth to all the faithful, and by consequence to Pastors of the Church. And therefore to them it is that in the 2.13. he saith, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him.

8. But Saint Paul's words, Romans 13.1. are most expressly set down to that end, where he saith, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And to the end lest some Sophister should think to avoid this, by saying, that Clerks or spiritual persons are subjects to the Pope, and that he in respect of them is the superior power; the same Apostle in the 4. and 6. verses showeth that he speaketh of the power which beareth the sword, and whereunto tribute is paid. For then, & long time after that, there was no superior powers which bare the sword, and to whom men paid tribute, but the power of secular Princes. The interlineat Gloss confesseth it, where upon these words, Potestatibus sublimioribus, the Gloss saith, Id est, saecularibus bonis & malis. And it is to be noted, that then Nero reigned, a Pagan Emperor, who as he was the greatest, so he was the wickedest of all men, & a persecutor of the Church, to whom nevertheless S. Paul would have Christians yield obedience. Therefore Chrysostom in his 23. Homilie upon the Epistle to the Romans, expoundeth that place in this manner, saying: He commandeth that to all men, both to Priests and cloister men, and not only to secular persons: yea although thou art an Apostle, or an Evangelist, or a Prophet, or whatsoever thou art.

9. And to the end that men should not say, that fear of punishment, or present necessity drew those words from the Apostle, he saith that we must be subject to the higher powers, Not only because of wrath, that is, not only because we are afraid to offend the Prince, But also for conscience sake. And in the second verse he saith, Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.

10. It is either in despite or in mockery, that Bellarmine in the 28. chapter of his book of Clerks, for the exemption of Clerks, alledgeth an example of the Egyptian Priests that were not constrained to sell their lands through poverty, as the other Egyptians were. For, doth it from thence follow, that their lands and possessions were exempted from tallages or tributes? And say they had been so, may a Pagan example serve for a law in the Church of God?

11. Reason also is most evident therein. For is it reasonable that the King should pay soldiers that go to war, and that he should fortify the frontiers of his kingdom, to the end that Clerks and spiritual persons may sleep securely, and that they should not contribute something towards his charge?

12. And being borne French men, and subjects to the King, why should that natural subjection be defaced by their shaving? Or who can suffer that a French man borne in France, of French parentage, should not be subject to the King of France? and that in temporal things he should acknowledge another Sovereign out of the Realm? and so be exempted from the commandment, unto which God in his word bindeth all Christians?

13. This also is clearer then the day, that Christian religion doth not deprive any man of his goods, nor of that lawful power which he had before he was converted to the faith. All men confess that while King Clouis reigned, and was a Pagan, and all men generally were subjects unto him, in all the countries contained within his kingdom. Then why should his conversion to the faith deprive him of a part of his power, and exempt a part of his subjects (that is, spiritual persons) from being punishable by secular Judges?

14. And seeing that the sovereign Prince ought to foresee as much as possible he may, how to prevent all disorders that happen in his Realm, how can he do it, if one part of those that live in his Realm, and which possess great wealth, are not subjects unto him? Shall he without remedy therein taken, suffer certain Clergy men to corrupt the good manners of his subjects? or that they should have secret intelligence with strangers? or that they should cōspire treason against his life, or against his State? And if a Bishop being accessory to the same crime, will not degrade a Clerke, shall he go unpunished?

15. The examples which Bellarmine produceth to defend this cause, sufficiently show what we may judge of these exemptions. For in that the Pope separateth marriages and exempteth children from the obedience of their parents, he inferreth that he may also exempt Clerks from due obedience to their sovereign Princes. That is to say, that the Pope may disannul the rule of Saint Matthew 19.6. which saith, What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder: And exempt children from the commandment of God, which saith, Honor thy father and thy mother, &c: And, Children obey your parents in all things, for that is well pleasing unto the Lord, Coloss. 3.20.

16. To say that Clergy men have received these privileges from the liberality & courtesies of Princes, is to contradict the Pope & Bellarmine, who maintain that the Pope hath exempted Clerks from this subjection, and that he may do it without asking counsel of any Prince. You must also know, that as a father cannot exempt his son from obeying the commandment of God, who will have children to honor their fathers and mothers, by obeying them; so a Prince cannot exempt one part of his subjects (as long as they dwell 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 in his realm) from subjection to punishment for their faults, seeing that subjection is ordained by the word of God.

17. To say that Clerks ought voluntarily to subject themselves to the laws and governments of Magistrates, but if they do otherwise, that they may not be punished by the Magistrate, is as much as if a man should say, that laws are no laws to them. A law without punishments added thereunto, is only a counsel. It is a commandment with a condition to do nothing, unless we will our selves. Men ordinarily disobey laws, notwithstanding prescribed punishments: how much more then will they disobey them when they fear not to be punished?

Of the Popes power over the Crowns and lives of Kings and Princes, and over all the temporalties of kingdoms.

[Sect. 40] Popes for the space of 550. years, have attributed power unto themselves to dispossess Emperors and Kings of their kingdoms, and to dispense with their subjects from keeping and observing their oaths of fidelity to their Princes, as also power both over spiritual and temporal Magistrates.

Gregory the 7. first drew out this sword against the Emperor Henry the 4, whom he deposed from the Empire, but to his own hurt, and his to whom he transferred the Empire, that was Rodulphus Duke of Sweueland, that died of a wound given him in his hand; and Gregory being driven out of Rome, for grief thereof died in Salerne.

Anno 1212. Innocent 3. deposed John king of England, and gave his realm to Philip Augustus king of France, upon condition to conquer it at his own cost and peril. After that he absolved the said king John, upon condition that he should become the Popes vassal, and hold his kingdom in fee of the Church of Rome, and that he should yearly pay a thousand marks of silver, in sign of subjection.

The Council of Latran holden anno 1215. under the same Pope, in the third Chapter, giveth the Pope power to absolve subjects of their oaths of fidelity made unto their Lord's, and to give their lands to other Catholic Princes.

Anno 1191. as Baronius declareth, the Emperor Henry the sixth came to Pope Celestine the third, and fell down at his feet. At which time the Pope with his foot spurned the Emperors Crown from off his head, to show, that it was in his power to take the Empire from him, and to pull off his Crown.

Anno 1245. Innocent the 4. in an open Council holden in Lions, deposed the Emperor Frederick the second, and would never accept of any submission nor reconciliation. And from Gregory the 7. to Lewis of Bauiere, to whom the Empire entirely fell, for the space of 260 years, there was nothing but deposing and excommunicating of Emperors, unless it were those that maintained themselves by force; from whence ensued infinite bloody wars, and about an hundred main battles, and an innumerable number of towns taken and sacked.

Anno 1302. Pope Boniface the 8. wrote arrogant letters to Philip the Faire king of France, whereby he declared that king Philip was subject unto him in temporal things: that no collation of Benefices belonged unto him, and that all those that spake against it were heretics. And resistance being made by Philip, the Pope gave his kingdom to the Emperor Albertus, upon condition to conquer it. What answer Philip the Faire made, and how he revenged himself, every man knows.

Anno 1511. Pope Julius the second deposed John Albert king of Navarre, and gave his kingdom to Ferdinand king of Castile, who seized upon it, and his successors still hold it. Our good King Lewis the 12. was likewise thundered at, but he overthrew the Pope and his adherents in a battle at Rauenna; and at Pisa assembled a Council against the Pope, causing certain crowns of gold to be stamped with this superscription, Perdam nomen Babylonis.

Alexander the sixth, gave the West Indies to the Spaniards, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 and the East Indies to the Portugals, placing the Meridian which passeth by the Azores, for their limits.

Pope Pius the 5. pronounced a sentence of degradation and deposition against Elizabeth Queen of England, and caused Ireland to rebel against her, as Genebrard writeth, an. 1581. of his Chronicle, saying, Sanders and other Catholics, warranted by a Bull made by Pope Pius the 5. made war in Ireland against the Queen, for their country and for religion.

With the like injustice Henry the 3. king of France, having been deposed by Sixtus the 5. and excommunicated, was not long after killed by Iaques Clement a Iacobin.

Anno 1592. monitorie Bulls were sent from Rome by Pope Gregory the 14. into France, whereby King Henry the fourth was declared incapable of the Crown of France; which Bulls (by a Decree made by the Court of Parliament then resident in Tours, bearing date the 5. of August,) were torn in pieces and burnt by the hand of the common executioner.

The Pope pretends that he may depose sovereign Princes for heresy, as he pretended against Queen Elizabeth, and Henry the fourth late King of France deceassed: Or for being upholders of heretics, as Henry the third: Or for want of capacity and weakness of spirit. So Pope Zechariah in the Canon Alius, in the 15. Cause and 6. Question, boasteth, that he deposed Chilperic King of France, and translated his kingdom to Pepin. Or for violating the privileges of Monasteries, as it is declared in the pretended privilege of the Abbey of Saint Medard in Soissons, which is added to the end of Pope Gregory's 1. works. Or for attributing unto themselves the collation of Prebends and Benefices, which was the cause for which Pope Boniface the 5. thundered at Philip the Faire, and gave his Realm to Albertus the Emperor.

By this means affairs have been much altered: for before this usurpation, Emperors deposed and punished Popes, as subjects to their Empire.

The Emperor Constantius, son to Constantine the Great, drave Liberius Bishop of Rome, out of Rome, and banished him to Beroe, and put Felix in his place, giving Liberius five hundred crowns to maintain himself in his banishment.

Anno 420. the Emperor Honorius drave Boniface and Eulalius competitors for the Bishopric, out of Rome, and not long after called Boniface thither again.

Theodoricke a Goath, King of Italy, sent John Bishop of Rome Embassador to the Emperor Justinian, and after calling him home, caused him to die in prison.

Bellizarius Lieutenant to the Emperor Justinian, anno 538. drave Siluerius Bishop of Rome out of Rome, and set Vigilius in his place, who by the Emperor Iustinians commandment, came to Constantinople, where he was honorably received, but not long after the Emperor being offended with his bold speeches, made him to be beaten till he was almost dead, and to be drawn with a rope about his neck through the city, like a thief, as Platina reciteth. The things following are recited by Nicephorus in his 16. book, and 17. chaptet.

Anno 654. the Emperor Constantius, caused Pope Martin to be bound in chains, and banished him to Chersona, where he died.

In the times of these Emperors, the Popes paid 20. crowns for their inuestitures to the Emperor, as to their Prince, as we may see by Iustinians Authentickes 123. cap. 3. The Emperor Constantine le Barbu, released this tribute to Pope Agathon, anno. 679.

And since the Emperors of Constantinople lost Italy, the successors of Charles the Great drave away and punished diverse Popes. Anno. 963. the Emperor Othon drave John the 13. out of the Papacie: anno. 1007. Henry the second deposed 3. Popes, Benet 9. Sylvester 3. and Gregory the 6. whom Platina calleth three horrible monsters.

From these excommunications and degradations of Kings, spring the enterprises against their lives. The excommunication sent out against Elizabeth Queen of England was seconded by many conspiracies against her life. From the deposition of Henry the 3. by Sixtus 5. ensued the parricide committed by Iacques Clement, for the which the said Pope gave thanks to God in open Consitory. His oration was put in print by our adversaries. And the Jesuit Mariana extolleth that fact as an heroical act, worthy of great commendation. Bellarmine openly approveth such murders of Kings in the 7. chapter of his book against Barkley, saying, The Popes were wont to absolve their subjects of their oaths of fidelity, and, if need were, to deprive them of their regal authority, touching the execution it belongeth to others. And the Jesuit Suarez in the 4. chapter of his 6. book against the King of great Britain, saith, If the Pope deposeth a King, he may not be driven away nor killed, but by those to whom the Pope shall give order to do it. But if the Pope deposeth a King, without giving express commission to kill him, in that case (he saith) it belongeth only to his lawful successor if he be a Catholic, or if he will not do it, it belongs to the common people to do it. And generally all our adversaries that write in the defense of the Popes power over the Crowns and temporal jurisdictions of Kings, As Bellarmine, Becanus, Francis de Verona, Suarez, Ribadinera Gretzer, Eudaemon Johannes, and Immanuel Sa, &c. allege the example of Queen Athaliah, deposed and slain by the commandment of Ioiada the high Priest, and maintain that the Pope hath the same power. Therefore the judgment of the Court of Parliament in Paris pronounced against John Chastel, that condemned this doctrine to be heretical, and tending to the subversion of kingdoms, was censured at Rome; to the which censure, was joined the story of the late President of Thou, and of certain books of Mariana, wherein he speaketh of monies, without once mentioning the book which he wrote of the institution of a King, in the which the murder of Kings is approved. Nevertheless, with this moderation, that it is better to poison a Tyrant, in his chair, or in his clothes, (therein imitating the Kings of the Moors,) then to poison his drink, or his meat, lest that Tyrant should be culpable of killing himself, and that so it might be prejudicial to his salvation. For with a great example of humanity or mercy these fathers have a care of those souls whose bodies they cause to be killed.

To support this bloody doctrine, they note certain maxims of devilish divinity, as that it is better to suffer a King to be slain, then to reveal a confession: that the Pope may dispense with the accomplishing of an oath made to God. That the Lord gave to Saint Peter, and by consequence to the Pope, power to make that which is no sin, to be sin: and that which is sin, to be no sin. Which is Cardinal Bellarmine's maxim in his book against Barkley, cap. 31. That to kill a King that is deposed, is not to kill a King, but a particular person. That being taken, it is lawful to use equivocation before a Judge to escape punishment. That a religious person ought to obey his Superior with a blind obedience, that is, without judging whether it be good or evil. That a man must not keep faith and promise with one that is excommunicated. That he is not a murderer that killeth an excommunicated person; as Pope Urban saith in the 23. Cause and 5. question: We esteem thē not to be murtheres, who being possessed with zeal (towards our mother the Chatholike Church,) against those that are excommunicated, shall chance to kill any of them. That the sentences, decrees, and judgments of Judges that are excommunicated are void and of no authority. That the Pope either directly or indirectly is Lord of all the temporal possessions of kingdoms. That being Pastor he may confirm, and destroy furious Rams, that is, Kings which are not obedient unto him. And also that he hath power over infidel and Pagan Kings, although for certain considerations he doth not use that power. These are propositions whereof the writings of the Jesuits are full, and which the Jesuits of France have oftentimes been moved and solicited to condemn, and to write against them, but never could be induced thereunto.

Some, (as the Cardinal du Perron in his oration made to the States in Paris upon the 15. of January, 1615) do not find it good that Kings should be killed, but allow that the Pope should depose them: which is all one; for, to pronounce the sentence of deposing against a King, is as much as to condemn him to die, because (as they say) from the time of his deposing he is no more a lawful King, but is held to be an usurper. A mere usurper of a kingdom may justly be killed. In reos maiestatis & publicos hosts, omnis homo miles est. So saith Tertullian. Take from a King the title of a lawful King, and you take that from him which is the defense of his life, which may easily be taken from him by every man that is careless of his own life. Add hereunto, that every King which is deposed, seeketh means to uphold his honor, to retain the government of his Country, and to defend himself against those that make any attempt against his Crown. In this public confusion, the King incurreth a thousand dangers, and exposeth his person to the dangers of war. And there are not many sovereign Princes found that have suruiued their Empires, or that have preserved their lives when they lost their Crowns. For a King is set in an high place, from whence he descendeth not by degrees, but falleth down headlong. And he that deposeth him goeth against all rules of human wisdom, if he suffereth him to live whom he hath deposed from the Empire, who without doubt will seek to lay hold upon that which he hath lost. Then whosoever he be that will not have Kings killed, but will have them deposed, speaks as if he should say, Let us not kill them, but let us disarm them, that they may be killed. Let us not take their lives from them, but let us take the means from them to save their lives. Let us not kill him while he is a King, but let us depose him; for by that means, he that shall kill him, shall not kill a King. These things are full of contradictions, and are very weakly set together: As the King of Great Britain hath excellently well shown in his Declaration against the said Cardinal, whereby he did that to the said Prelate which the Pope doth to the new Cardinals the first day of their sitting in Consitory; at which time the Pope stoppeth their mouths; but herein is the difference, that the Pope openeth their mouths again at the next Consistory following, but that great and wise King stopped the Cardinals mouth forever, and in that matter put him to perpetual silence. He did sufficiently condemn himself in his Oration, by saying, That for the same cause he was ready to suffer martyrdom; and yet it is a question not decided by the Scripture, nor by any Councils, and besides the Pope himself suffereth it to be accounted a Problem, (that is, problematicall and uncertain:) from whence it followeth, that the martyrdom which a man suffereth for such a cause should be problematicall and uncertain.

Now that which is most hard and intolerable in this matter, is, that our adversaries confess, that the Pope may err in his judgment, and depose an innocent King, and nevertheless they will have that King which is so unjustly condemned to be peaceable, and not to contend, but to leave his kingdom, and to stay till the justice of his cause shall be tried. It is Bellarmine's speech in the 17. and 31. chapters of his book against Barkley. For he presupposeth that the new king that shall have seised upon the kingdom, will not put the deposed king to death, but finding him to be innocent will receive him again, and reestablish him in his kingdom. What is this, but as much as if a man should spit in Kings faces, and lead them about like buffons, by adding evident laughter & mockery to injustice?

To support this doctrine which trampleth upon the majesty of God, in the persons of his anointed and his Lieutenants, our adversaries gather together a great number of places in the Scripture, as first, the Lord said to S. Peter, Feede my sheep. Therefore the Pope may thrust Kings out of their thrones. And Saint Peter saying, Here are two swords; the Lord said, It is enough. And God said to Jeremiah, 1. chap. 10. verse, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms. And Saint Paul said, 1. Cor. 2.15. The spiritual man judgeth all things. This spiritual man is the Pope. And God said to Saint Peter. Whatsoever thou vnbindest on earth shall be vnbound in heaven. Therefore the Pope may discharge subjects of their subjection which they owe to their Prince. In the beginning of Genesis it is said, that In the beginning God made heaven and earth. It is in principio, and not in principijs, to show that there is but one beginning, which is the Pope. These are of private use, All things are given unto me of my Father, Matth. 11.27. And All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Matth. 28.18. And the devils said, If thou wilt cast us out, send us into the swine that we may enter into them, Mark. 5.12. By this the Pope may dispose of temporal kingdoms. For it is said, John 12.31. And I if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Therefore the Pope being exalted, ought to draw all temporalties to himself. And see other places which are hard to be answered: Jesus Christ said to Peter, Put forth into the sea, and cast out the nets. And he saith, Luke 19.30. You shall find a colt tied whereon yet never man sat, loose him, and bring him hither. Ergo, the Pope may dispose of all temporal things, and put Kings from their thrones. With such places of Scripture the Popes and their Champions establish their Empire. Time is too precious to stand long to confute these childish proofs, which are not fit to be proposed but with the sword in hand. To propose these things is to refute them, and it is not credible that any man will receive or allow of these proofs, but he that willingly will be deceived.

Cardinal du Perron was ashamed of such allegations, and would not produce them in his Oration, but he alleged others which were no better then they. He said that the Prophet Samuel deposed King Saul, that the Prophet Ahia deposed King Roboam: That Azarias the high Priest drave King Osias from the government of the Realm: That S. Paul said to the Corinthians, that it is a shame for Christians to be judged by Judges that are infidels. All which allegations are false, and by the Kings majesty of Great Britain are manifestly and clearly confuted.

That this power of the Pope over the Crowns of Kings, and over the temporalties of kingdoms, is contrary to the word of God, and to all reason

[Sect. 41] 1. In this point if we will believe and give credit to the Scriptures, the controversy is ended. There were many idolatrous Kings in Judea, as Ahaz and Manasseh, against whom the high Priests did not pronounce any sentence of deposition.

2. The Prophet Jeremiah 27.12. saith, Bring your necks under the yoke of the King of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. He will have the Jews to serve a Pagan King, as established by God. Conformable to that which Daniel 2.37. saith, speaking of the same king. Thou ô King art a King of Kings, for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

Nero was a monster in nature, the shame of human kind, and the first Emperor that began to persecute the Church. Nevertheless, the Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 13. speaking of that power which thē was in being, saith, that it was ordained by God & that whosoever resisted the same resisted the ordinance of God. Cardinal du Perron in his Oration seemeth to persuade, that this commandment was but by provision and for a time. Which is a means to avoid all the commandments of God, and to dispense with them when we will. He should at least have shown how long that prouisionall commandment continued, and at what time it began to bind men's consciences no more. This doth wrong the ancient Christians, and bereaveth their sufferings of the title of martyrdom, seeing that by his assertion they yielded to the violence of Pagan Princes, (not to obey a necessary and certain commandment of God,) but to a prouisionall rule, made for a time, till the Church (having recovered force by multitude of people) might shake off the yoke of their sovereign Prince. And thereby the Apostle is accused of hypocrisy, for teaching Christians to fain and dissemble, commanding them to be subjects to the Emperor, not thereby to obey God, but to accommodate themselves to the time, and to yield to present necessity. All this is confuted by the same Apostle in the same place, where he saith, That we must be subject to the Prince, not only because of wrath, that is, for fear to incur his displeasure, but also for conscience sake.

Compare Jesus Christ paying tribute to Caesar, with the Pope which maketh Caesar pay tribute unto him, and bindeth him to lay a quantity of gold at his holiness feet, that day when he setteth the Crown upon his head. Compare Jesus Christ counseling the Jews to pay tribute to a Pagan Emrour, with the Pope that dispenseth with subjects touching their obedience to Christian Emperors and Kings: And Jesus Christ, saying, that his kingdom is not of this world, with the Pope which hath erected a worldly Empire for himself. Compare Jesus Christ, who being on earth, had power to destroy and overthrow all Monarchs of the earth that were enemies to God, but would not do it; with the Pope, that hath no power to give nor to take away kingdoms, but yet will do it, and attributeth a power unto himself which he cannot execute: And Jesus Christ refusing to be arbitrator in a controversy for an heritage between two particular persons, with the Pope, which intrudeth himself to be Sovereign and absolute Judge of quarrels between Princes, and distributer of kingdoms.

Add to this the rule of the word of God, which forbiddeth perjury, and will have us to keep our promise although it be unto our own hindrance. To the which commandment it is better to obey, then to the Pope, that boasteth that he can dispense with oaths made unto God: wherein he doth manifestly exalt himself above God. For he that will dispense with a servant for obeying of his master, is greater then his master. And hereby it will be found, that God shall not be served nor obeyed, but in such manner as the Pope will permit it, and that if by the Popes permission, any man be faithful towards God, God is beholding to the Pope, because he provideth him servants, and such persons as are faithful unto him. Therefore to obey God, those Officers who at the entrance into their offices took oaths of fidelity to their Kings, must be faithful to the Pope, what thunderings & inducements soever to rebellion shall happen to come from Rome to overthrow the Realm. If they reply and say, that by suffering a King that is an heretic to reign, Catholic religion incurreth great danger: I answer, that oftentimes the Pope taketh on him to depose Kings that are of his own religion. Was it for heresy that Henry the 3. King of France was deposed? Was it for heresy that John Albert King of Navarre was deposed, and deprived of his kingdom by Pope Julius 2? and so of Henry the 4. of the Emperor Frederick the 2. of Philip le Bel, of John King of England, and diverse others. And although true religion should be persecuted by a king that is an heretic, yet we must not remedy an evil by a sin, nor defend piety by disloyalty. God hath no need of our vices to defend his cause. The preservation of true religion is God's cause, and his work, which he will not abandon nor forsake. When human means seem to fail and decay, he watcheth and taketh care for the preservation of his Church: and if he will afflict it, we must humble our selves, and when he will deliver it from danger, we need not to bring perjury and sedition to aide him, as if he had no other means to do it.

This also passeth all absurdity, to imagine, that Saint Peter and the Bishop of Rome after him, had power (as they say) to depose the Emperor Nero or Domitian. Without doubt those Emperors that knew not that there was a Christian Bishop in Rome (so poor and miserable were the said Bishops) are excusable for not acknowledging and honoring those Bishops as their superiors in temporal things, and who had power to thrust them out of their Empires.

But why did not those Bishops advertise and show the Emperors of the authority which they had over Empires, that so the Emperors might not pretend cause of ignorance? Why did not the Bishop of Rome depose those Emperors when they violently persecuted the Church? Was it because they would use courtesy and clemency unto those poor Emperors? But that clemency had been cruelty towards the Church. Was it because they feared the power of those Emperors? So it may be said, that the obedience which they yielded to their sovereign Prince, was done by dissimulation and by force. Add hereunto that Tertullian in the 37. Chapter of his Apology, and Cyprian against Demetrius, say, that in their times every place was full of Christians that were able to defend themselves, and that they held the greatest part of the Empire of Rome, and yet did not defend themselves against the violence of those Emperors. In the time of the Emperor Julian the Apostate, three parts of the Empire were Christians, and his armies were composed of Christians, and yet the Bishop of Rome did not think upon deposing him from the Empire. The same Bishop also did not pronounce sentence of deposition against the Kings of the Goths that were Arians, reigning in Spain; nor against the Kings of the Vandals that were Arians, reigning in Africa; although they were far distant from Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome had no cause to fear their forces.

Who will believe that Jesus Christ gave Saint Peter and his successors a charge for so many years together, without power to execute it? and that he gave them a sword to hang up a thousand years together against the wall, and never to be drawn out but of late years? Is it credible, that the Popes began first to know the nature of their charge, then when their Sea or seat fell into all manner of vices, as the greatest flatterers of the Pope confess and acknowledge? Besides, it is evident and most manifestly known by experience, that the Pope never began to employ that power, but for his own profit: and thereby increased in riches and greatness; never giving any absolution to a Prince, but upon gainful conditions for the Pope, as he did to Henry the second, and John, Kings of England. But when his thunderbolts cannot prevail, and that the excommunicated King getteth the victory, then his Holiness with paternal compassion receiveth him into his favor, and bestoweth all manner of spiritual benedictions upon him. As Pope Clement the 5. in the Exrrauagant Meruit did, where he commendeth and exalteth the piety of Philip the Faire, and of his people, notwithstanding the hard usage shown unto him by Boniface the eight his predecessor.

It is no less incredible, that if a Pagan Prince becometh a Christian (as Clowis King of France did) he should have less kingly authority then when he was a Pagan; and that his conversion to the faith, should be a diminishing of his power Yet that is the Popes and the Jesuits opinion. For it is out of doubt, that Clowis being a Pagan, did not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for his superior, or that there was any Bishop either within or without his kingdom that could depose him of his Crown. And if the Pope may change and depose Christian Kings, it followeth that Clowis Crown upon the day of his conversion lost the splendor and sovereign dependence thereof, and began to be in the disposition of another, and that then he began to acknowledge a Superior in temporal things: which is, to be a Sovereign no more. By this doctrine it will be hard to persuade a Pagan Prince to become a Christian.

But what reason is there that Kings should be more subject to the Pope, then their subjects are? and that Kings should be hardlier dealt withal then particular persons? For if a subject of France shall err in the faith, or commit adultery, or use his servants tyrannously, the Pope never to this day durst undertake to drive him from his house, or to deprive him of his office; then why should a King falling into the like faults be hardlier dealt withal? Why should the Pope have more power over him, then over particular men? depriving him of his Crown, and by consequence of his life? Is it because the Pope thinketh that our Kings have less spirit and less courage then particular persons? Or rather because the Pope abusing Kings in that manner, raiseth himself to sovereign greatness, and becometh thereby distributer of Empires and kingdoms?

We have somewhat largely spoken of this subject, that every man may see whether M. Arnoux hath reason to speak of us as of men that repugn all human order, and are enemies of all subjection. Our Confession protesteth the contrary, and experience justifieth us. We never attempted anything against the lives of our Kings. Iaques Clement, John Chastel, Rauaillac, Garnet, Oldcorne, and such monsters, and all those who having sought to kill the King, and feigned madness to save themselves, were not of our religion: but the most part of them were Jesuits, or Jesuits disciples. We never spake of deposing our Kings, neither believe that any man living in the world can depose a King, or dispense with his subjects touching their oaths of fidelity. And they that know the truth, will acknowledge, that the reason which hath moved the Pope and the Clergy to persecute us with fire and sword, hath not been so much because we do not believe Transubstantiation, nor the sacrifice of the Mass, nor invocation of Saints, but because (if we might be believed) our Kings Crown should no more depend upon the Pope. And causes of Benefices and of matrimony should no more be called to Rome, the Realm should be no more tributary, under pretence of Annates, Dates, Dispensations, and Absolutions. And French men should run no more to Rome for pardons; whereby his Holiness profits would much diminish. Which if we would not meddle withal, he would by special privilege suffer and permit us to believe the Gospel.

Whether the power of Kings, Princes and Magistrates is ordained by the divine law of God, or whether it be an human ordinance, as M. Arnoux saith.

[Sect. 42] Thomas the chief of the Schoolmen, saith, that the power of Princes and sovereign Lord's, is but an human institutiō, and proceedeth not from God. With whom Cardinal Bellarmine joineth in his book against Barkley; and M. Arnoux, who upon the 30 Article of our Confession, calleth the power of Magistrates an human law; conformable to the Apophthegme of the reverend father Binet the Jesuit, that said to M. Casaubon, that it were better that all Kings were killed, then to reveal a confession: because the power of Kings is ordained by human laws, but confession by divine law.

The reasons which they allege for this opinion, are, that the first King that was in the world, that is Nimrod, made himself King by force, and not by the ordinance of God. Secondly, that the greatest part of Empires and kingdoms that ever were, were erected by conquest, one nation having overcome another, or one Prince moved by ambition, having moved an unjust quarrel against his neighbor Prince. Thirdly, that Emperors and Kings are established by human means, whether they attain to the Crown by hereditary succession, or by election: seeing there is neither any extraordinary revelation, nor rule in the word of God which bindeth a nation rather to follow hereditary succession then election. Fourthly, that there is no express commandment set down by God to obey Henry or Lewis, or to acknowledge this or that man more then another to be King. Fifthly, that for these considerations, the Apostle Saint Peter calleth the obedience to Kings an human order, saying, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as supreme, or unto Governors, &c. 1. Pet. 2.13.

We on the contrary maintain, that obedience due to Kings and Magistrates proceedeth from the divine Law, & is grounded upon the ordinance of God. To that end all the places of Scripture hereafter set down do serve, to show that God commandeth obedience to Kings and Sovereign powers, as to those whom he hath established, whom no man may resist without resisting God. There is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God, whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. Rom. 13.1.2. And verse 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. And S. Peter in the same place which they object against us, will have us to yield obedience to Kings for the Lord's sake. And although Nebuchadnezzar was an ungodly King and a scourge used by God to destroy nations, nevertheless God speaketh thus unto him by his Prophet Daniel, in the 2. chapter 37. verse, saying: Thou ô King art a King of Kings, for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. Moses the first Prince and Law-giver in Israel, was established by the ordinance of God, & Joshua after him. Nū. 27.18. Saul first King of Israel, and David his successor were anointed by Samuel, and consecrated to be Kings according to God's ordinance. And 2. Kings 9.1.2. God sent a Prophet to Jehu to anoint him King of Israel. He looseth the bonds of Kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle, Job 12.18. But God is the Judge, he putteth down one, and setteth up another, Psal. 75.7. He raiseth the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill, that he may set him with Princes. Psal. 113.7.8. And if the providence of God extendeth it self so far as to feed birds, and giveth food to the beasts and to the young ravens which cry unto him, Psal. 147.9. so far as that he numbereth all our hairs, so that not one falleth to the ground without his providence; who will believe that when a man is to be placed above others, and to be made head and ruler of so many millions of people, the counsel and providence of God doth not therein rule, or that he suffereth things to be done by chance or adventure?

The reasons which they allege against so evident a truth, halt, and fly but with one wing.

1. They say, that Nimrod the first King in the world attained thereunto by force. But it is false, that before Nimrod there was no Sovereign Prince in the world. Before Nimrod the fathers and heads of families were Kings, Priests, and sovereign Princes of their families. For after the flood men lived 5. or 6. hundred years. Then it was an easy matter for a man to see 50. yea an 100. thousand persons of his posterity, over whom he exercised paternal power, and by consequence sovereign power: then when there was no other form of a Realm upon the earth; to which children, their servants being added, one family alone made a great commonwealth. Likewise in Abraham's time, whē man's life was much shortened, we read that Abraham was by the Hethites called a Prince of God, that is, an excellent Prince. Gen. 23.6. And that out of his family he took 318. soldiers to go to war therewith. If you add his servants and such servants as were unfit for the war, you must confess that although he had no children, his family would have peopled a whole town.

2. They also object, that the greatest part of Empires and kingdoms began by conquest, and by force of arms, therefore not by the ordinance of God; and that if the conqueror invaded another man's territories by the ordinance of God, the inhabitants of that country had offended God in defending themselves. Whereunto I say, that those whose countries a strange Prince seeketh to invade, do well to defend themselves. And that if in that defensive war the usurper chance to be slain, he is justly punished. But if he getteth the upper hand, if the race of the ancient possessors of the same country be clean extinguished, if the States of the country assembled together do agree upon a new form of government, and if all the officers throughout the country have taken their oaths of fidelity to the new King: then we must believe that God hath established such a Prince in that kingdom. Then I say, that the people ought to yield to the will of God, who for the sins of Kings and of their people transporteth kingdoms, and disposeth of the issues of battles at his will and pleasure.

3. It is to no purpose to say, that Princes enter into kingdoms, either by hereditary succession, or by election, which are ordinary means by custom, and not by the ordinance of God. For the question is not, by what means a Prince attaineth to his kingdom, but whether by the ordinance of God we ought to obey him after he is established therein. And our adversaries will have the power of Popes to proceed from the ordinance of God, although they enter into the Papacie by election, by indirect courses, by artificial devices, and by worse means then human ways.

4. If there be no commandment in the word of God to obey Henry or Lewis, it sufficeth that there is a commandment to obey the King, and a commandment to keep our oaths of fidelity made to the King, and by consequence to be faithful to that King to whom we swear obedience and loyalty. Neither is there a commandment of God to be found that binds us to obey Clement or Boniface as Popes, to whom nevertheless our adversaries esteem themselves to be subject by the Law of God. If this consideration might take place, it would follow that no man in the world is bound by divine ordinance to fear God, or to believe in Jesus Christ, because the Scripture doth not particularly ordain that Thibault, Anthony, or William, should fear God, and believe in Jesus Christ. If sufficeth that the word of God containeth general rules, which bind particular persons without naming them.

5. It is true that S. Peter in the place before alleged, calleth the obedience that men owe unto Kings, an human order, either because Kings command diverse things which of their own natures are not derived from the divine Law, as the forbidding of knocking by night, or to go by night without a candle; or because they attain to that power by certain human means, induced by custom: which hinders not but that their power is grounded vpō the word of God after they are once established. For in this question our difference is not touching the means whereby a Prince attaineth to a kingdom, but what obedience is due unto him after he hath attained thereunto. Therefore after S. Peter had called that order an human order, he commandeth us to subject our selves thereunto for God's sake: and so to obey his commandment.

Whosoever buildeth the authority of Kings upon men's institutions, and not upon the ordinance of God, cutteth off three parts of their authority, and bereaveth them of that which assureth their lives and their Crowns more then the guards of their bodies, or puissant armies, which put terror into subjects hearts, instead of framing them to obedience. Then the fidelity of subjects will be firm and sure, when it shall be incorporated into piety, and esteemed to be a part of religion, and of the service which men owe unto God.