THE buckler OF THE FAITH: OR, A DEFENCE OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE reformed Churches in France, against the objections of M. Arnoux the Iesuite. Wherein all the principal controversies between the reformed Churches and the Church of Rome are decided. Written in French by Peter du Moulin Minister of the word of God in Paris: and now translated into English.  
 printer's device of Richard Field, featuring an anchor suspended by a hand from the clouds (McKerrow 192) 
ANCHORA SPEI   
LONDON, Printed by R. F. for Nathanael newberry, and are to be sold at the sign of the star under Saint Peters Church in Cornhill, and in Popes head Alley. 1620.   

TO THE HIGH AND MOST illustrious PRINCE CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES, duke OF cornwall, earl of Chester, &c. son and heir to the most high and mighty King james, King of Great britain &c.  
MOst Excellent Prince, I lay at your Highnes feet this Buckler of the faith, wherein the combats and conflicts of error and truth are lively set forth: Humbly beseeching your Highnesse, that as I haue made it for the defence of that cause which your Highnesse maintaineth: so it may be upheld by your Princely authority. Your virtue which exceeds your yeares maketh you a fit judge of these matters; and your princely affability( whereof I haue had experience) encourageth me to haue access unto you. Besides, I could not better adorn& beautify the frontispiece of this my work, then by prefixing to it the name of so great a Prince: who being now nursed by the Church, shall one day be a nursing Father thereof: who having sucked piety from his mothers breasts, and following the steps of his royal father to frame himself to virtue, hath no need of any other examples then domestical: Being the son of a great Prince, whose actions are rules, and his words wise instructions: Whose zeal not being confined within the limits of his own kingdoms, produceth noble effects in foreign countries. From whose mouth( most noble Prince) you haue learned, how difficult a matter it is to Command: How he whom God bath favoured and advanced above all, hath so much the greater account to render unto him: How it is a thing worthy double commendation in a Prince, to obey the will of God, because he hath more means to fulfil his own: How hard a thing it is to procure to so many persons rest by his travell, and secure repose by his vigilancy: How necessary it is for him, to haue about him virtuous persons, whose eyes and ears he may make use of, lest peradventure otherwise he come last to know the truth: How carefully he ought to guide his actions, sith they are exposed to the view of so many millions, and subject to every ones construction: How his wisdom ought to be armed with Courage, because a virtuous Prince must make account to haue the divell his enemy. These holy Instructions( most noble Prince) which are familiar unto you together with the gifts of nature, wherewith God hath abundantly adorned you, call you to great matters, and promise great effects, and fill with great hopes the hearts of all those that fear God: Who esteem you as a plant which God hath planted, which he dresseth with his own hand, which he watereth with his grace, and will one day make fructify to his glory. For my part sith I can ad nothing to your praise, I will offer my vows to God for your prosperity: hoping that your Highnesse will favourably accept of my affection, and esteem me to be your Highnesse  
most humble and most obedient seruant, Peter du Moulin.   

THE PREFACE TO THOSE OF THE church OF ROME.  
SIRS, that which I intend at this time to offer unto you, it may be, would be better accepted if it were tendered unto you by another hand: howbeit I dare boldly affirm, that never any spake unto you, that was either more void of hatred, of more desirous of your good and salvation. The word of God, whereupon we ground our Religion, commandeth us to love those that hate us; and to beleeue that those which haue persecuted us, haue thought that in so doing they haue done God good service. every man that seeketh the truth, ought to be thus affencted, without which it is impossible to reap any fruit by our communication: for no wound will ever be healed, as long as the inflammation continues. And as in an house that burneth, those that speak are not understood, by reason of the noise and cries of those that gather about it: so we shall never understand one the other, as long as our minds are inflamed with hatred and rancour. The study of sacred truth requireth a peaceable spirit, which deliberately weigheth things, without carping at the persons. For what reason haue we to hate any man because he erreth, or because we think we see clearer then he doth? Now as blind men commonly are mutinous and choleric, so those men are most violent that haue least understanding: so that he that will take vpon him to remedy this ignorance, must seek to pacify their rage. But there is no hope of remedy in him who studieth to be ignorant, and feareth to know the will of God, lest he should be obliged to follow it. Such is the malady of this age, wherein the people make profession to follow without knowledge; and to beleeue the Church, not knowing what the Church ought to beleeue: and rely vpon the faith of another, not knowing the rule of faith, which is the word of God. As if those that are our pastors and guides, ought to be our warrant before the iugdement seat of God; or as if it were a virtue to beleeue in God by an attorney. It is true, that the people ought to obey their guides( provided God be their guide,) and to beleeue that which they teach,( so that which they teach be drawn from the word of God:) which if they hid from the people, and hinder them from the reading thereof, it is an evident sign either that they feel themselves culpable; or that in stead of submitting themselves unto this rule, they would haue their authority to be the supreme rule. For why should the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, be suspected by us to be a dangerous book? 
Index librorum prohibitorum cum regulis confectis per patres à Tridentina Synodo delectos. Regula 4. Cum experimento manifestum sit, si sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus ind ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti quàm utilitatis oriri: Qui absque tali fatultate ea legere seu habère praesumpserit, nisi prius Biblijs ordinario reddi●is, peccatorum absolutionem percipere non posset. Where you must note, that there it is spoken of Bibles translated by catholic roman authors.  Why should children be forbidden to look into their fathers testament? Saint Paul the Apostle wrote his Epistles to the people of Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus, that they might read them: why then should Christians in these dayes be deprived of the reading of them? The catholic Epistles of Saint james, Saint Peter, and Saint John, are written to all the faithful in general: why then should not Christian people read those letters that are expressly addressed unto them, and written for their instructions? Why should not a Christian read the writings of the Prophets, as well as they of Beroea did, 
Act. 17.11.  who having been at Saint Pauls preaching, went and conferred his doctrine with the Scriptures? To what end is it, in our Sermons to allege the places of the holy Scriptures, if the auditory be not permitted to examine whether they haue been faithfully and truly alleged? It is a most horrible thing, that in those countries where the Inquisition reigneth, it should be a crime deserving burning, to haue a Bible in the vulgar tongue; and in the mean time not onely the reading of frivolous fables is tolerated, but whoredom also by the law and public authority is established and permitted. And if it be the translation that displeaseth his Holinesse, at least he ought to take order that there should be one done according to his mind. To allege that some men abuse the reading thereof, is as much as to accuse the Apostles of want of discretion, for having written their Epistles to Christian people, without foreseing that they might abuse them. By the same reason also, preaching likewise should be prohibited, because men abuse it. We also abuse the bounty and goodness of God. And if we must haue special leave to read the holy Scriptures, is it not a miserable case, that we may not obey God without licence? and that God can haue no seruants without the Pope of Romes permission? If they say, that it is not convenient nor fit that ignorant people should read them; I answer, that all men are ignorant in religion before they haue red them; and that, without impiety, a man cannot haue knowledge in religion without the Scriptures. Therefore let me entreat you to shake off this scrupulosity, whereby God is wronged, as if his word were contagious, and a net spread abroad to entangle the consciences of weak Christians; lest that prophecy be accomplished in you which is pronounced by the Prophet Esay, saying, 
Esa. 5.13.  Therefore my people are gone into captivity because they haue no knowledge; and that saying of our saviour Christ, Ye are deceived, 
Math. 22.19.  not knowing the Scriptures. Suffer not this precious treasure, nor this contract of our spiritual marriage with the son of God, to be pulled out of your hands. Suspect those who during the night of ignorance, hid this celestial light, and in the mean time light and set up candles at noon day. never hope to be saved by the faith of other men, for God saith, 
Habac. 2.4.  that The just shall live by his faith; and that If the blind lead the blind, 
Math. 15.14.  both shall fall into the ditch. Now to make you know, that the Scripture is taken away from you, not to keep you within the bounds of sobriety, but to detain you in ignorance, consider that in the Church of Rome they read certain Chapters of the holy Scriptures openly unto you in a language which you understand not. If in those Chapters men spake unto God, it might for an excuse be alleged, that God understandeth all languages: but those Chapters are divine instructions, wherein God speaketh unto men. Tell me in conscience, why should God be, as it were, a barbarian unto us, speaking unto us in an unknown tongue? Why doth he speak unto men, but because he would haue them to understand him? Why are those things( which otherwise would be held to be ridiculous, and contrary to common sense) in religion esteemed to be good and convenient? Is it not rather an intention of the enemy of our salvation, by that means to expose christianity to an open scorn, and to hinder the word of God from being understood by us? to the end also that the threatening pronounced by God unto those people with whom he is angry, might be accomplished, saying, 
1. Cor. 14.21.  By men of other languages will I speak unto this people, and yet will they not hear me. This mischief hath produced another; for that by taking the holy Scriptures from you, which is the book that maketh men wise, they haue given you images, which are termed the books of the ignorant, because by them ignorance is maintained. By them the people is amused, in stead of being taught the truth. In stead of instruction, they give them recreation. But because the second commandement of the law of God is against it, which concerning the service of God, forbiddeth us to make any graven images,& to worship or fall down before any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath: and that this law pronounced with thunder and lightning, thundereth yet against this superstition: these Doctors haue imposed silence to the law of God, and haue been so bold as to race this commandement out of the Houres of the virgin Mary and service books which they give you leave to read: which makes us wholly to suspect them. And it is a thing hardly to be thought or believed, that poor little worms of the earth dare be so bold, as to correct that law which God pronounced with his own mouth: yea the same law, whereby at the latter day they shall be judged. For these practices the holy and sacred name of the Church serveth for a cover. They say, that the Church cannot err: that she is the sovereign judge of the points and doubts of faith: and that she is an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures. By which Church they understand neither the graecian, Syrian, nor African,( although much ancienter and purer then the roman,) but onely the roman Church: which having never been other then a particular Church, is said to be the universal Church; and by this means the Church of Rome is become a judge in her own cause. The Greek Church( much ancienter then the roman) complaineth that the Church of Rome hath revolted and separated itself from her, producing against her, her chairs, her succession, and her antiquity. In this controversy, the Church of Rome boasteth to be judge, and so will be both judge and party. And in the question, whether the Church of Rome cannot err, she herself will be judge: and which is more, when question is made to decide what the duty of the Church is, the Church of Rome will be the sovereign judge, that she may haue no other law then that which she will establish, and which she propoundeth to herself. And when any argument is moved concerning the sense and interpretation of the Law of God, she saith she is the infallible interpreter thereof, and will haue her interpretations to be held to be of equal authority with the Law of God. And yet it is certain, that at the latter day she shall be judged by that Law. There is no absurdity more palpable, then to make sinful men infallible iudges of the sense of that law by which their sins ought to be judged. What obedience, think you, is the sovereign master of all creatures to expect, if his seruants might presume to say unto him, It is true that thou hast commanded us to observe such a law, but we interpret the same otherwise, and judge that thy commandement ought thus to be understood; and thou knowest that we are infallible iudges in such matters, and that our interpretations are of equal authority with thy commandement. After this maner it were better to be a seruant then a master. By which of these two ways, think you, ought the Prelates of the Church to be judged at the latter day? whether by the law of God, or by their own interpretations? Herein I make all men iudges, that haue any spark of common sense, or any free iudgement without prejudicate opinion in them; whether in religion, God governing and teaching the Church by his word, or the Church which ought to receive this word and yield obedience unto him, ought rather to be sovereign judge? And which should rather be judge, either the Scripture that commands that there shall be a Church, and propounds and prescribes laws thereunto; or the Church which onely testifieth the same to be the Scripture? specially seeing that this testimony may be given by a corrupt and disobedient Church to the Scripture? Which shall rather be judge, the Scripture that is one, and which iudgeth without passion; or the Church which is divided into diuers contrary Churches, which cannot be assembled together, and whereof the Pastors are subject to be ambitious, and addicted to covetousness, and that ought to be suspected Iudges, when they onely seek their own profit and authority.  
Here I can easily, as it were with a finger, point out and show unto you, that you are lead and guided in a way wherein it is impossible for you to be saved. For you are taught simply to beleeue in the Church of Rome, and without other enquiry, wholly to depend vpon the authority thereof. And yet nevertheless, you are deprived of all means whereby to know and find out, whether this Church wherein you beleeue is pure, and teacheth true doctrine. For how should you know it? is it by the holy Scriptures? But that book you are not permitted to read. At Rome and in spain, to read it is burning. will you know it by antiquity? But they are greek and Latin books, which the people understand not. What knows an artificer, a woman, or labourer among you, whether his Church teacheth truly according to the Scriptures? or whether his Church was the same that it is now, twelve or fifteen hundred yeares past? or whether in a great role of Popes set down in a paper, the first of them believed as the latter do; and whether time hath wrought no alteration therein? To be short, you haue no other proof for the purity of your Church, but onely the testimony of your Church itself, the Prelates whereof boast and brag that they cannot err. In the mean time they bereave you of all means of discerning error from truth, by hiding from you the rule of truth, which is the holy Scriptures. But why should the Church of Rome rather haue this perfection, then the greek or Syrian Churches( far ancienter and purer then the Church of Rome) founded by Iesus Christ himself and by his Apostles, and which also affirm that they haue Saint Peters chair? Doth the Scripture attribute any prerogative above others to the roman Church? or doth it give her the privilege not to err? From all this there followeth two things that are as clear as the sun at noon day; the one, that your faith is onely grounded vpon the authority of men; and by consequence, that your religion is human, and not divine. whosoever saith, I beleeue the gospel and the word of God, because the Church commandeth it, giveth more credite to the Church then to God. To doubt of Gods truth, is a less crime then to make it to depend vpon men. The other, that of all human testimonies you ground vpon the worst& most uncertain: for you beleeue that your Church is good, because she saith so, and make her judge in her own cause: not once considering, that by this word Church, you understand not the Christian people, nor all Pastors in general, but the Pope and a few prelates, whose rules are called the Rules of the Church; although they tend wholly to the profit of the clergy, and to advance the Empire of the Bishop of Rome. And will you always hold your souls, by God created according to his image, and which he hath redeemed by the blood of his son, in this miserable captivity? Will you draw and heap the wrath and indignation of God vpon your heads, by rejecting the salvation which is offered unto you?  
I confess that the Church of Rome in certain points allegeth the Scriptures; and that between us and her there is great contention touching the interpretation thereof: but we use the Scriptures in other manner then those that teach you.  
1. For they prohibit the people to read them, and we exhort them thereunto.  
2. They persuade you that the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous: but we say, that all things necessary to salvation are therein contained, and may be from thence clearly deduced.  
3. They say, that the Scriptures are an imperfect rule, and will haue another unwritten rule, and traditions of the Church, which they equal in authority with the Scriptures. We on the contrary say, that the holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation: 
2. Tim. 3.15. 1. Cor. 4.6.  and that we ought not to presume above that which is written: and that in those things which are clear and manifest in the Scriptures, and need no interpretation, all doctrines necessary to salvation are contained.  
4. Also when we allege the Scriptures, we allege them as the sovereign judge, and as that which governeth the Church, and gives her her authority. But the Church of Rome allegeth the Scriptures as a doctrine authorized by the Church, and saith, that we must receive them because the Church hath so ordained it.  
5. And when we interpret the Scriptures, we give not our interpretations for laws, as the Church of Rome doth, neither do we make ourselves iudges and infallible interpreters of the holy Scriptures.  
6. Lastly, when we interpret the Scriptures, we draw our interpretations from the Scriptures themselves. But the Church of Rome draws her interpretations from the unwritten word and traditions. 
He took bread& gave it, Do this in remembrance of me.  As for example, we expound these words, This is my body, by these words, The bread which I give you, is the commemoration of my body; which exposition is found in the text itself, touching the institution of the Sacrament: or by these words of the Apostle, 
1. Cor. 10.16.  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? But your Doctors do not interpret the Scriptures so: for they draw their interpretations from the unwritten word, and from Traditions. When the Lord said to Peter, I haue prayed that thy faith may not fail: they say that by those words the virtue not to err was promised to Saint Peter, and to the Popes of Rome his successors. But the Scripture speaketh not of Popes, nor of Bishops of Rome, nor giveth any successor to Saint Peter in his apostolical place. In like sort there is mention in Malachi of a pure oblation that should be offered in all places. 
Mala. 1.11.  This oblation, according to the interpretations of the Romish Doctors, is the mass, wherein they say, that the body of our Lord is really sacrificed. But this interpretation is taken out of the unwritten word: for the holy Scripture speaketh not of the mass, neither commandeth us to sacrifice the body of Iesus Christ; nor establisheth Priests in the Church to sacrifice the son of God. And so when the Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship one onely God, and him onely shalt thou serve: the Romish Doctors interpret it, that God onely forbiddeth the adoration of Latria, but not of Dulia, which is an inferior religious service. But the Scriptures make no mention of the adoration of Dulia, nor of any other religious service, but onely of that which is due unto God. These are interpretations which the Romish Church draws from the unwritten word, which is referred to the discretion of the Church of Rome, and cannot be learned but from her mouth. For I am of opinion, that never any man saw all the doctrines of the unwritten word drawn into one body, because that word altereth and changeth with times and seasons, and is accommodated to the times, and that still the Church of Rome hath power to add new articles thereunto, and namely touching the points of faith.  
The greatest mischief is, that these traditions and doctrines of the unwritten word, are not onely additions to the Scriptures, but manifest contradictions: whereof the mass onely sheweth many examples.  
1. 
Bellar. in Bark cap. 3. Non recte de Ecclesia Christi sentit, qui nihil admittit, nisi quod express in veteri Ecclesia sumptum aut factum esse legit: quasi Ecclesia posterioris temporis aut defierit esse Ecclesia, aut facultatem non habeat explicandi,& declarandi, constituendi, etiam& iubendi quae ad fidem& mores Christianorum pertinent.  For Iesus Christ administering the Sacrament of the Eucharist, spake in a tongue understood by the assistants: but the Priest in the mass speaks in a tongue not understood by the people.  
2. Iesus Christ communicated to all the assistants: but the Priest oftentimes eateth and drinketh alone.  
3. Iesus Christ giveth the cup to all men, and will haue all to drink thereof: but the Priest drinks alone, and denieth the cup to the people.  
4. Iesus Christ offered nothing to God: but the Priest in the mass prayeth God to accept his oblation of Christ.  
5. Iesus Christ lifted up no host: but the Priest lifteth up an host to be adored.  
6. In the institution of the holy Sacrament, there is no mention made of a sacrifice, nor to sacrifice the body of Iesus Christ: on the contrary, the Priest pretendeth to sacrifice the body of Iesus Christ in a real and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead.  
7. In the institution of this Sacrament, there is no adoration of the host, but all the Apostles sate at the table: on the contrary, the Priest causeth the host to be adored. He that at this day should do as the Apostles did, should be held and esteemed to be profane and an heretic. 
Oramus te Domine per merita Sanctorum quorum reliquiae hic sunt& omnium Sanctorum, vt indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea.   
8. There was no relics hidden under the Lords table, nor bones of any of the Patriarkes or Prophets: on the contrary, under the stones of the altar there are bones of the dead, without which relics an altar cannot be consecrated; and the Priest in the mass asketh mercy and forgiveness of his sins for the merites of the Saints, whose bones are hidden under the altar.  
9. The gospel witnesseth, that Iesus Christ giuing bread unto his disciples, said, it was his body: on the contrary, the Priest saith, that the bread is not the body of Iesus Christ, but that the bread is transsubstantiated into the body of Iesus Christ.  
11. Iesus Christ witnesseth, that it was the fruit of the vine which he drank: but the Priest denieth that it is the fruit of the vine.  
11. Iesus Christ will haue us to do it in remembrance of him: but the Priest pretendeth to make Christ himself.  
12. Saint Paul in four places saith, that we break and eat bread: on the contrary, the Priest maintaineth that we neither break nor eat bread.  
13. The Lord instituted a Sacrament, but the Priest celebrateth a sacrifice. In a word, the one celebrated the holy Supper, the other singeth mass, expressly made to disfigure the holy Supper of the Lord.  
The Romish Doctors think to defend their cause by using a childish accusation or objection against us, saying, that seeing we will needs follow our Lord Iesus Christ, we ought to celebrate the holy Sacrament after supper, in a high chamber, and admit no women unto it. But neither the place, nor the hour, nor the sexes of the assistants, are of the essence or any part of the action; and without them the action is still entire: and therein Iesus Christ neither prescribed any rule, nor made any prohibition. But the change and alteration which we object against them, is in essential things, and such as change the nature of the action: seeing that thereby an adoration is induced, which was never commanded, nor yet practised by the Apostles: a sacrifice established which the Lord did not appoint: a superstition touching dead mens bones authorised: a common repast changed into a private mass: and the people deprived of the understanding of the ordinary service; taught to take God in their hands, to eat their Creator, to adore the Creature, and are deprived of half the Sacrament( that is, of the cup) whereof Christ said, drink ye all of this; 
1. Cor. 11.8. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of this cup.  as the Apostle also commandeth the people of Corinth to take the cup as well as the bread. Wherein we propound a way and means for us to agree one with another, which cannot be refused but by him that loveth discord, that hath no Christian blood in him, or that striveth against God. For every Christian confesseth, that Iesus Christ did well, and that there is no exception to be taken against his institution. And although it were lawful to celebrate the Supper in other manner then he did it, yet all men grant, that it should not be ill done to follow his example, to speak as he spake, and to do as he did. This is it that we require. And it is certain, that the Pope might end all the controversies grown and raised vpon this point, which trouble and make a division in christendom, if he would reduce the holy Supper into the form wherein the Lord did celebrate it; laying aside all disputations, and bind the people to the example of the son of God. What discommodities or inconveniences soever might be alleged to the contrary, they cannot equalize nor counterbalance the obedience that we owe unto Iesus Christ, the peace of christendom, nor the revnion of this rapture and separation of the people, which hath been the cause of so many troubles, and hath  shed so much blood, and which openeth the sides of the Church of Rome, as well as it doth ours, exposing the same to the violence of Turkes and Infidels.  
All indifferent persons will easily confess and aclowledge that this is truth; but fearing that your consciences should be touched therewith, they use an artificial means to represent our religion unto you in other maner then it is, and paint it out before you like a terrible monster, making us to speak and teach those things which are altogether contrary to our belief and confession: and withall, diuers of you are so light of credit, and so easily carried away, that you rather desire to learn and understand what our religion is by the invectives of our enemies, then by our own confession. And although we haue protested, that we beleeue nothing of all that which they impose vpon us, yet they will constantly persuade us, that we beleeue that which we believe not. Wherein against their wils they justify vs. For thereby they secretly confess, that our religion being truly set down, cannot be repressed: and that if it were lively described, it would at the first make a strong impression in the spirits and hearts of the auditors, by the evidence of the truth thereof. They say,  
1. That our religion teacheth, that good works are not necessary.  
2. That the elect may commit sin, and live wickedly without danger.  
3. That God rewardeth not good works.  
4. That God constraineth our wils, and forcibly draweth them to goodness.  
5. That we accuse and blame God to be unjust, as having propounded a law unto us, which we cannot fulfil.  
6. That we are enemies to the Saints and to the virgin mary.  
7. That to understand the Scriptures, every one of us boasteth that we haue a particular inspiration given unto vs.  
8. And that we deny the omnipotent power of God in the Eucharist. All this is false, and contrary to our belief.  
1. Our religion teacheth, that good works are necessary to salvation. For men go not into heaven by the way of hell, nor to the kingdom of God by serving the divell.  
2. Our religion teacheth, that those that are predestinated to salvation, are also predestinated to live holy. To say, I may boldly live wickedly because I am predestinated to salvation, is the speech of a reprobate, that will be wicked because God is good, and that maketh Gods grace( which is a provocation and a goad to prick us forward to virtue) a pillow to lull him asleep in 'vice.  
3. Our religion believeth, that God rewardeth good works, but of his free mercy, without desert.  
4. It believeth that God constraineth not mens wils, but boweth them, and causeth them willingly to addict their minds to goodness.  
5. It doth not esteem it a thing unjust, that God requireth that of man which he cannot do, when man is bound to do it, and that his weakness or want of ability proceedeth from himself.  
6. It honoureth the Saints, as the same Saints did honour those Saints that were before them.  
7. For the understanding of the Scriptures, it contenteth itself with that which therein is clearly and evidently set down, and leaveth particular inspirations to mad and fantastical persons.  
8. It denieth not the omnipotent power of God in the Eucharist, but it ruleth itself according to his will. It useth the holy Sacrament, not to make Iesus Christ, but to honour him; not to make his body to descend down unto us, but to elevate and lift up our hearts unto him. It taketh not vpon her to take God in this life, but is content that God would be pleased to take us up into heaven when we die. She is not afraid that God can fall, be stolen, carried away by a mouse, or eaten by his enemies. She believeth not that the Son of God and the divell both entred into Iudas together at one time; nor that Iesus Christ did eat himself, seeing it was not necessary for our redemption.  
Our religion is a religion that acknowledgeth no other head of the Church but Iesus Christ, no other rule of faith then his word, no propitiatory sacrifice but his death, no other purgatory but his blood, nor other merits but his obedience.  
It is a religion that will haue the people to read the word of God, because she is not afraid that men therein shall find their condemnation; which speaketh in a known language, because she is not ashamed of her belief.  
It is a religion which teacheth fasting to consist in abstinence from meate, and not in distinction of meats: she fasteth for exercise of humility, and not with opinion of merit or satisfaction: she borroweth not other mens satisfactions, but with the Apostle believeth, 
Gal. 6.5.  that every man shall bear his own burden.  
It is a religion, which distrusting in her own works, trusteth in the promises of God; which preacheth hope and affiance, and not to doubt of her salvation: which recommendeth an humble assurance, and not an arrogant perplexity, by the which those that display or boast of their own merits, make profession to doubt o● their salvation.  
It is a religion, wherein men confess& aclowledge that they haue often done that which God forbiddeth to be done; far from having done more then he commandeth to be done: and is so far from doing superabundant works, that it faileth in doing that which is necessary to be done. It pretendeth not to make God debtor to man by works of supererogation, but confesseth man to be a sinner before God, because of his disobedience.  
It is a religion, which in stead of framing and fashioning stones like unto the image of man, seeketh by all means possible to reform man according to the image of God. In stead of worshipping a cross of wood, adoreth Christ crucified, trusteth in his passion, and glorieth in his ignominy.  
It is a religion which believeth not, that God which gave his son to die to save his enemies, taketh pleasure to torment the souls of his children in a fire of Purgatory, and to punish them for sins already pardonned( and for the which Iesus Christ hath made full satisfaction) by punishments which serve not to amend the sinner, but to satisfy the iustice of God.  
It is a religion which maketh not her prayers by number, neither maketh the efficacy of prayer to consist in the often repetition of the same prayer, but in faith and the disposition of the heart.  
It is a religion which holdeth that faith consisteth not in ignorance, but in knowledge: which equally administereth holy things as well to the rich as to the poor; not as in the Romish Church, where dispensations and absolutions are sold, and particular Masses are never said, but for them that first give something to the Priest.  
To be short, it is a religion which hath little outward show and glory, but much inward comfort, constancy and perseverance, which will be known by the effects; and ordaineth few ceremonies, but ministereth many instructions.  
You make answer to this, and say, that these are new things. How esteem you them to be new, seeing that Iesus Christ himself& his Apostles taught in that maner? It is true, that they are new to those that are nourished in an inveterate error. Healing is newer then the disease: but we must always ascend up to the spring of truth, in regard whereof all old errors are new. No man ever opposed himself against an accustomend rooted error, but he was accused of novelty. But this reproach of novelty, ill becometh the mouths of those persons which hid the true antiquity from the people( that is, the word of God,) and which maintain, that yet at this day the Church may& can make new ordinances touching faith; and which by the Church understand no other then the Romish Church; that in the first ages after the Apostles, cannot produce one man that was of their religion; and which know that in all antiquity there is no mention made of excluding the people from the cup, of prohibiting them the reading of the holy Scriptures, of reading the Scriptures to the people in an unknown tongue which they understand not, of painting the trinity, of worshipping images, of adoring the host with the worship of Latria, of private Masses, of the Bishop of Romes Court, of his Indulgences, of the treasure of the church, of his power to depose kings, and of drawing souls out of Purgatory, nor of many other corruptions which are beautified and set forth with the fraudulent title of apostolical traditions, as if they came from the Apostles themselves.  
Those that boast& brag of antiquity, are they that rudely handle the Doctors, and censure and condemn them at their pleasure; that will haue the Fathers to be interpreters of the Scriptures( so that they themselves may be interpreters of the Fathers, 
Cotton in the Preface of his Cath. Institut. speaketh thus of those two universal councils, saying, Grecia began an. 380. to draw on to rebellion against the holy seat,& to tranerse the authority of the Bishop of Rome, appointing the Bishop of Constantinople to be his equal. After that, an. 450. they said, that they had the same privileges.  and iudges of antiquity,) and that not onely condemn every particular Father, but also whole councils, wherein the Fathers generally spake all together. Three universal councils condemned Honorius Bishop of Rome to be an heretic, but at this day they reject those councils. At the first council of Constantinople, anno 381. there was 150 orthodox Bishops, and 630 at the council of Chalcedon holden an. 451. and yet neither that great number, nor the great antiquity, hindereth our aduersaries from condemning all those Fathers for making the Bishop of Constantinople equal with the Bishop of Rome in ecclesiastical things. The council of Constance holden anno 1416. acknowledgeth that in the primitive Church the faithful received the Sacrament under both kinds, and nevertheless ordaineth that those that would follow the ancient custom, should be holden and esteemed to be heretics, and grievously punished.  
And it is a wonder how these men dare speak of councils, when they know very well, that day is not more contrary to night, then ancient councils are contrary to the new, wherein the Pope ruleth all, and ordaineth all, the other Bishops onely giuing their consents, by bowing their heads in sign of approbation; when at the entering into the same councils, the holy Bible is laid at the Popes feet, to witness that the word of God is subject unto him; where the Pope is set in an high throne,& the Emperour below at his feet. To be short, we see, by the practices of the latter councils, specially the council of Florence, the last of Latran, and by the book of sacred Ceremonies, that a council for certain ages past, is nothing else but a papal Consistory, but held with more solemnity: whereas in the ancient councils, the Bishop of Rome durst not personally appear, and his ordinary Deputies therein had neither presidence nor authority: which is far from ordaining, that no book shall be canonical without the Popes authority; and that all Kings must kiss his feet: and to declare, 
Annal. Baron. an. 1076.  that there is no other name under the heauens, but that of the Pope: which are the decrees& ordinances of the council of Rome under Gregory the 7. an. 1076.  
To conclude, it is most certain, that those which sound in your ears the Fathers and the councils, do it not because the ancient Fathers are any thing favourable unto them, but because they know, that the common people cannot tell how to disprove them, and that in those things you must of necessity refer yourselves unto them. But touching the Scriptures, which you may and ought to know, and which rule all the Fathers, those you are forbidden to read. Yeares are not rules, and lying was from the beginning of the world. And if custom may serve for a law, tell me how many yeares at the least are required to authorize a doctrine? The Church is not in a country governed by custom, but in a country governed by a written law. There is no prescription against the divine truth. In the time of the Apostles this mystery of iniquity began to be hatched. How much then, think you, is it now increased? And in truth both the people and the pastors of the Church of Rome cry out since certain yeares past, that the Church hath need to be reformed. At the council of Pisa, an. 1411. Pope Alexander the fift, in the 20 Session, solemnly promised to spend some time to take order for the reformation of the Church, and to that end to assemble the wisest men of all nations. Not long after that, there was a council helden at Senes, anno 1423. where the proposition of the reformation of the church was laid vpon the table, and after referred to another time; for they saw that they could not stir that ston, without shaking the papal dignity.  
But that which great personages would not do, God hath done it by meaner men, using unexpected and vnhoped for means, to set the doctrine of salvation before the peoples eyes, in despite of all the forces that Satan could use against it. You are bound and beholding unto those that haue taken pains and traveled in this work, for this, that the holy Scripture( which the people saw not) is now translated into our mother tongue; and that the Spirit of God speaketh French, in such maner that no man can be ignorant of the word of God, but he that wilfully shuts his own eyes for fear to see the light. You are bound unto them also for this, that the Pope doth now tyramnize less over you then he did 4 or 5 hundred yeares past,& that your bondage is eased a fourth part: 
Such bulls are found in matthew Paris, and in the third Tome of the councils, at the end of the council of Latran under Innocent the third.  for then the Pope gave those French men that at his commandement armed themselves( besides the remission of all their sins) a degree of honour in Paradise above other men. But if now at this day he would by a Croysado sand the French men into a far country to fight against heretics, or to conquer certain towns( vpon his enemies) for him, as he did not long since, you would mock and iest at his commnndement. Then his manner was, when a King had offended him, to interdict his kingdom, and by that means( as much as in him lay) to excommunicate diuers millions of people, to command an intermission of divine service to be made throughout a great country, to forbid the bells to be rung, to hinder burials, and to expose the country for a prey to him that first could conquer it. England was six yeares and a half in that state in the time of King John; but at this day he pulls his sword no more out of the sheathe, fearing that taking so much vpon him, he should be the means to overthrow his own dignity, which the doctrine of the gospel hath already much shaken.  
You are also beholding unto us, that sellers of pardons run not throughout France from house to house, as they did in the time of Boniface the 9. and lo the 10. who for half a crown sold to every man that would haue them, a remission of all his sins, and the deliverance of a soul out of Purgatory.  
The time hath been, that in France men commonly spake of miracles, of S. Anthonies fire, and of the apparition of damned souls, or such as were come out of Purgatory, which illusions are for the most part vanished away at the rising of the Sun of the holy Scripture, which the night of ignorance had hidden. And if at this day there are any small miracles spoken of, it is secretly, and never before us: for before a man that feareth God, and knoweth him, Satan is as it were chained, and loseth all his force, and the magistrates themselves of your religion haue oftentimes punished such impostures corporally. There are not many persons among you that wholly beleeue in their religion, and that find not fault with the Church of Rome. For it is hard for a man to support the Decrees& the Glosses, which say, 
Tit. 8. de Praebend. cap. Proposuit. Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra iut dispensare. Et ibid. Glossa: Papa contra Apostolum dispensat. Item contra vetus testamentum. Item, in iuramento, Glossa Dist. 34. Can. Lector. Papa potest contra Apostolum dispensare. Et Causa 23. quaest 1. Can. Sunt quidam. Glossa habet, Dispensat in evangelio interpretando ipsum. Glossa extrau. Cum inter Dominum Deum nostrum Papā. council. Later. ultimum Sess. 9. divinae maiestatis tuae conspectus. Bellarm. in Barkl. cap. 31. In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum,& de non peccato peccatum.  that the Pope is above the law, and that he hath power to dispense against the Apostles and the gospel: that call the Pope, God, and divine majesty: or the lying Legends, which in many things compare and equalize S. dominic and S. Francis to Iesus Christ: or the opinion of those that cause S. Francis cowl to be put vpon them when they are dead, because( as their Doctors say) that cowl is as good& as available as a second baptism: nor the runnings of poor people for pardons two hundred miles off, when remission of all our sins is offered at home unto us by the doctrine of the gospel: nor the pardons of seven or eight hundred thousand yeares: nor the privileged altars, whereon a mass being said, a soul is delivered out of Purgatory: nor the opinion of those that teach, that the Pope can make that which is sin, to be no sin, and that which is no sin, to be sin. And it is certain, that although we should say nothing, yet the truth speaketh in the consciences of many persons that are holden under this captivity by the fear of men and their domestical affairs; for the divell tilleth men by the belly, and rocketh them in a cradle of pleasures and honours to bring them asleep: whereby it happeneth, that the sparks of the truth known, are quenched in them, or if they be not quenched, they burn, and torment their consciences,& serve for nothing else but to make them more culpable. For having not onely butted their talent of the knowledge of God in the earth, but also for misspending the same; for having been ashamed to confess the Son of God before men, and not defending his cause when time required, and for fearing to offend men more then God, whose promises are certain, his threatenings horrible, and his judgements eternal and inevitable: who having in our dayes shewed and done so many miracles to repair the ruins of his Church in this realm, will not leave those unpunished that seek to trouble his work, and that expressly wander out of the way at high noon day.  
All this which hath been spoken proceeds from an ardent desire that we haue that you should be saved, and that God might be served; for herein we haue no other interest then your salvation, seeing that from the defence of this cause, we receive nothing but trouble, hatred and discommodities. We rather much more desire to live in peace and amity with our fellow citizens under one selfe same religion, if we could or might do it, without offence unto God; and cease not to pray& beseech the Father of mercy( whose compassion surmounts our iniquities) that he will pardon those that hate us, that he will touch their hearts with repentance, and illuminate their understandings with his light, to know the day of their visitation, and the way of eternal salvation, for fear that in the end he should turn his favour from a people that turn their backs unto him, and sand greater darkness then the first, vpon a nation that striveth against the light of the gospel.  
If these considerations move any man, it will be no small ioy unto me, and an ample reward of my labour. If it happeneth otherwise, we shal at the least haue delivered our souls, and discharged our consciences, and served for a witness in so hard and stiff-necked an age, attending till the son of God come from heaven, to hear our griefs, to deliver his children, and to reward every one according to his works: to him be glory eternally. Amen.   

THE buckler OF THE FAITH: OR, THE DEFENCE OF THE CONFESsion of the reformed Churches of France, against the objections of M. Arnoux a Iesuite.  

THE FIRST ARTICLE.  The Confession. 
WE beleeue and confess, that there is one onely God, of one onely and simplo essence, spiritual, invisible, immovable, infinite, incomprehensible, unspeakable; that can do all things, that is altogether wise, altogether good, altogether just, and altogether merciful.   

THE SECOND ARTICLE.  This God manifesteth himself to be so unto men, first by his works, as well in the creation, as in the conservation, and government thereof. Secondly, and more clearly, by his word, which in the beginning, being revealed by oracle, hath since by writing been reduced into the books which we call the holy Scripture. 
M. Arnoux dealeth not at all with these two articles, and consequently, by his silence approveth them.   

THE THIRD ARTICLE. Wherein the canonical Scriptures are spoken of.  All this holy Scripture is contained and comprehended in the canonical books of the old and new Testament, videlicet, The five books of Moses, which are, Genesis, Exodus, Leuiticus, Numbers, and deuteronomy: Iosua, Iudges, Ruth, the first and second books of Samuel, the first and second books of Kings, the first and second books of Chronicles,( otherwise called Paralipomenon) the first book of Esdras, Nehemia, the book of Hester, job, the psalms of david, the proverbs or Sentences of Salomon, the book of Ecclesiastes, called the Preacher, the Canticles of Salomon, the books of Esay, ieremy, the Lamentations of ieremy, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osea, Ioel, Amos, Abdias, jonas, Michea, Nahum, Abacuc, Sophonia, Aggee, Zacharias, malachi, the holy Gospels of Saint matthew, Saint mark, Saint Luke, and Saint John, the second book of Saint Luke, otherwise called the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galathians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrewes, the Epistle of Saint james, the first and second Epistles of Saint Peter, the first, second and third Epistles of Saint John, the Epistle of Saint Iude, and the Apocalyps or the revelation of Saint John. 

OF THE books CALLED APOCRYPHA.  ARNOVX. 
Out of this Canon they cut off the books of toby, judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, the wisdom of Salomon, and the maccabees, and all whatsoever displeaseth them, out of the Scriptures.  moulin. 
He that can read the Hebrew tongue, knows well that this accusation is false and untrue. The Hebrew Bible is the original of the old Testament; for it was necessary and convenient, that those books which contain in them the doctrine of the people of God, should be written in the natural language of the people of God. Now the books of Tobias, and of judith, &c. are not found in the Hebrew Bible, how then can we cut those books out of the Bible, which were never therein? The Apostle Saint Paul in his third Chapter to the Romans, verse 2. saith, that The divine Oracles of God were committed unto the Iewes. Now the Iewes never acknowledged these books. They were not red in their Synagogues, neither did the Priests nor the Scribes ever expound them to the people.  
The testimony of the Church of the old Testament is of more credit touching the books of the old Testament, then the roman Church that now is. For here I speak of the Iewes; not such as they are at this day, but then when they onely were the Church and people of God. read Iosephus against Appion, alleged by Eusebius, lib. 3. cap. 10. There you shall see, that the jewish Church did not receive these books of judith, Tobias, &c. And Iesus Christ himself and his Apostles, who often and many times allege the books of the old Testament, never allege those books:( M. Arnoux that saith, 
Pag 21. of His answer.  that Iesus Christ and his Apostles alleged them in the new Testament, should produce examples for the same.) But those that speak but by here-say, commonly are most bold in their assertions. Iesus Christ in the last of Saint Luke, verse 44. comprehendeth all the Scriptures under the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the psalms. under any of these parts, neither the books of Tobias, judith, Ecclesiasticus, Susanna, nor the maccabees are contained. Hereunto let us add the false fables which in these books are set down unto us for truth. In the fifth Chapter of Tobias, the angel Raphael is falsely said to be one of the Tribe of Nephtaly, captives in nineve.  
The Author of the book of judith, in the fourth Chapter thereof, verse 2. and Chapter 5.16. speaketh as if this history happened after the destruction of the Templo, and after the return from captivity: and yet in the first and second Chapters, this history is recited as having happened under the reign of Nabuchodonosor reigning in nineve, dead above sixty yeares before; King Arphaxad reigning in Media: but then there was no king Arphaxad, for one king then reigned both in Assiria and Media: and likewise nineve at that time was destroyed, witness the last verse of the book of Tobias, conformable to the prophesy of Nahum: and not long before it had been taken and destroyed by Cyaxares King of Media, as Herodotus writeth in his first book.  
In the 49. of Genesis, I●cob lying vpon his death bed, condemneth the spoiling and murder of the Sichemites, done by Simeon and levi, as an impudent and cruel action. nevertheless, judith in the ninth Chapter praiseth and exalteth that action. There also she desireth grace of God to deceive with her lips: and purposely, being curiously and bravely attired, to move the Pagan Prince to be in love with her, she commendeth his valour and brave spirit, saith that she cannot refuse to do any thing that he requesteth. Cap. 12.13. She promiseth to conduct and guide him throughout all judea, and to place his throne in jerusalem, cap. 11.16. so far as falsely to interpose the Name of God for a coverture of her lies, verse 13.14. and 15.  
Saint Augustine in his second book of Retractations, saith, that the book of wisdom was not made by Salomon. Saint jerome attributeth it unto Philo the jew, in his Preface vpon the books of Salomon: nevertheless the Author of the book affirmeth himself to be a King: and speaketh as if he were Salomon.  
Saint jerome in his Preface vpon the Commentaries of Daniel saith, that the book of Susanna, 
Susannae Belisque ac Dragonis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico.  and of Bell and the Dragon are fables. And what appearance or likelihood is there, that a handful of Iewes, captives in babylon, should haue Israelites for Iudges in babylon, that should command one absolutely to be executed to death without appeal, and that a child should make himself a judge of Iudges, who without other form of proceeding were condemned to die? Who knows not, that in babylon, the vulgar language was Chaldean, and not greek? 
{αβγδ}.  and yet the history of Susanna with her Greek allusions vpon the etimologies of the holm and the mastic trees, presupposed that the ordinary language which they used in iudgments and public actions was greek.  
In the books of maccabees, Antiochus the famous died three times in several manner: in the first book cap. 6. he died at babylon in his bed. But in the first Chapter of the second book, he died in the Temple of Nannaea overwhelmed with stones: and in the ninth Chapter of the same book he died in the mountaines, falling out of his chariot as he returned out of Persia; and all that is said to happen in the time of Iudas Machabeus, in whose time there was but one onely king Antiochus.  
In the eight Chapter of the first book of maccabees, it is said, that the Romans had taken king Antiochus the Great prisoner, and that they had given the Indies to Eumenes. All that is false. The Romans overthrew Antiochus in three battels, but never took him prisoner. They never had any part of the Indies, their greatest Empire never extended itself much beyond the river Euphrates. See Saint jerome vpon Daniel, Appian Alexandrine, Zozimus and justin.  
Little children know, that then the Romans every year made two Consuls that had sovereign power: but in the sixteenth verse of the eight Chapter of the first book of maccabees it is said, that the Romans every year committed the government of their signiory to one man alone.  
In the twelfth Chapter of the first of maccabees, there is an excellent thing to be noted, which is, a letter written by Arius king of Sparta, to Onias the high Priest of the Iewes, wherein it is said, that they of Sparta,( which are the lacedæmonians,) are of Abrahams race. Can there be a foolisher thing alleged? And it is to be found, that in the time of Onias, there was no such king Arius in Sparta. For Arius( as Pausanias in his Laconiques, and Plutarch in the life of Pyrrhus say) lived above eighty yeares before that.  
In the first Chapter of the second book, and nineteenth verse, it is said, that the Iewes were lead captives into Persia, in stead of saying, into Babylon.  
In the second Chapter it is said, that ieremy hide the ark of the Lord in a ditch, that it might be found again when God should reassemble the people, when they returned out of captivity: which is contradicted by ieremy himself in the third Chapter and sixteenth verse, 
Rabbi Shelomo, larki mino prophetiae Aggaei, v. 8.  where it is said, In those dayes, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, the ark of the covenant of God. And in the Temple built again by Zorobabel the ark was no more there.  
And at the end thereof, the Author acknowledging his weakness, doubteth whether he hath said well or no. If( saith he) I haue done well, and as it is fitting the history: and a little after, If I haue spoken slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. The Spirit of God doubteth not whether he hath said well, excuseth not his style, nor confesseth his imbecility. In the vulgar translation the Author asketh pardon, saying, If I haue not spoken as I should do, you must pardon me. Is it a convenient thing for the Spirit of God to ask pardon of men? And which is more, in the second Chapter, verse 19. he advertiseth us what account we should make of his book, saying, We will assay to abridge the five books of Iason the Cirenien into one volume. What, shal the abridgement of a profane book be a canonical book? To follow the inspirations of the Spirit of God, must we follow the steps of a profane book? He also saith that he hath made that abridgement with great labour and much watching, as if he had taken extreme pains to make a small book full of fables.  
The book of the rest of the history of Hester, in many things cotrarieth the book of Hester which is in the Hebrew Bible. In the first Chapter it is shewed that it happened in the second year of king Artaxerxes, which in the true history, cap. 2. vers. 16. is placed in the seventh year of Assuerus. Haman is called a Macedonian, cap. 6. verse 10. who in the true history is said to be an Agagien, that is, an Amalekite. And this lying book in the fourteenth verse saith, that Haman sought to transport the Empire of the Persians to the Macedonians. As if one should say, that some French man should haue enterprised to transport the Empire of the Turkes to the king of Iuetot: for then the kings of Macedonia were little kings, unknown to the Persians, and of no power.  ARNOVX. 
They quote no text in the margin. This Canon of the Scriptures made according to their pleasures, and without authority, hath no proof in the Scripture, by the which they can justify this enormous abridgement of the number of the books in times past received in the ancient Church. Therefore I challenge this fundamental article to be false, and nought worth.  moulin. 
This discourse is as much as nothing, for it hath no ground. This Doctor requireth of us a passage in the holy Scriptures, which containeth the catalogue& number of the canonical books. I answer, that as to prove there is but four evangelists in the new Testament, it is not necessary to produce a passage which saith, that there is but four books of the gospel, that is, Saint Mathews, Saint marks, Saint Lukes and Saint Iohns, but it is sufficient to read the titles, and to look over the inscriptions of the books: so to prove by the Scripture, the number of the canonical books, it sufficeth to take the Bible in the original tongue, and look over the titles of the books. By this means you shall there find all the books contained in the article of our Confession:& there you shall not find Tobias, judith, the maccabees, &c So the Apostles Creed is found by pieces in the Scripture, although it be not found whole in any one passage alone. The holy Scripture saith, that God is Truth, Rom. 3. Then it followeth, that books full of lies, as judith, and the maccabees, are not the word of God. Then touching this Discourse made by M. Arnoux, we will, as he doth, say nothing.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture, Apocalyps 22. verse 19. If any man shal diminish of the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from those things which are written in this book, Deuter. 12.32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it. And more plainly, Chap. 4.2. You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it. These passages according to the sense which they give unto them, and according to the use whereunto they employ them, without reply overthrow the third article quoted before: because they haue no force against our traditions: which is an argument against him that so hardly presseth vpon them. For if by these passages they ordinarily dispute against our traditions, as pieces that are out of the formal passage of the holy Scriptures, by the same passages I reverse their Canon, whereof I find no formal passage, which to haue, it is necessary that the excluding of the passages which they reject, must be formally marked in some place of the Scripture; with the numbering of all those books which they receive.  moulin. 
I haue already answered to that, and shewed that the numbering of the canonical books is expressly proved by the Scriptures: whereby the passages which condemn those that add or diminish, to, or from the word of God, touch not us at all; but are as many thunder-bolts against the church of Rome, which establisheth traditions, and an unwritten word, to be of like authority with the holy Scriptures: but that shall be made more evident in the Section following.  ARNOVX. 
Then I say, That the Canon of the Scriptures is an article of the faith.  moulin. 
To speak properly; The articles of the faith, are the doctrines of Christian religion. In this sense, the numbering of the canonical books is no article of the faith, but a declaration and numbering of the books from whence the articles of the faith and the instructions of Christian religion are drawn. In the same maner, as the numbering of the books of Hippocrates and Galen is not a precept of physic, but an assignment to the places and the books wherein the precepts of physic are to be found; and that is the meaning of our Confession. For seeking by order to set down the articles and doctrines of Christian faith, at the beginning it declareth from whence these doctrines are drawn. Which declaration is no addition to the Scripture: first, because that this numbering of the catalogue is proved by the Scripture, as we haue shewed. Secondly, by this, that to declare that such books are canonical,( that is, rules of our faith,) it is not to add any thing to those sacred books, but rather to declare that we must not add any thing unto them. It is an acknowledgement that we make of their perfection, and of our obedience. When we say that the Scripture is sufficient to salvation, thereby we understand, that we must reject all those doctrines which add any thing to the Scriptures. Now to say that these books are canonical, is not to add any thing to the Scripture, but to declare that we must not add any thing thereunto. Then it is false that master Arnoux saith, that setting down this number of the canonical books, we add something to the Scripture, seeing that on the contrary we thereby declare, that we must add nothing thereunto; for that those books are the canon and rule of our faith.   

Of the testimony which the Church giveth of the canonical books.  ARNOVX. 
Then I say: The Canon of the Scripture is an article of the faith, and being an article of the faith, either they receive it immediately from the Church of God,( whether it be judaical or Christian,) or from the holy Scripture. If from the Church, they do vainly attribute the discretion and knowledge of this Canon, to the interior persuasion of the Spirit, and falsely teach in their fift article, that the Scripture is the rule of all that which we ought to beleeue. If from the Scripture, let them quote some formal passage, together with the book and the chapter, where this Canon is set down, and the excluding of the rest of the books which the Church receiveth: which because they neither do nor can, let them confess, that this Canon, which is the foundation of all their belief, is grounded vpon nothing, and not vpon the word of God, and by them added to the Scripture.  moulin. 
We haue already confuted that, and proved that the numbering of the canonical books, 
Before, 4. Section.  contained in the article of our Confession, and the excluding of the rest that are apocrypha, is clearly proved by the Scripture; and that, if it could not be proved by the Scripture, yet this numbering doth not add any thing to the Scripture. Touching that which he demandeth, whether we receive the canon of the Scripture immediately from the Church of God: I aclowledge, that every one receiveth the holy Scriptures immediately from the Church in his country where he dwelleth, whether it be a pure, or an impure and heretical church; as the Apostles received the books of the old Testament from the High priests and the Scribes, enemies to Iesus Christ. So the Nestorians and the Eutychians gave the Scriptures to those whom they taught: but therein the Church( be it pure or impure) onely dorh the office of a witness, and not of a judge. She attesteth onely, that those books are sacred and canonical, but she maketh them not sacred, nor yet giveth them any authority. The tradition of the Church testifying that those books are divine and canonical, is but a protestation of her subiection to the Scriptures, and not an addition to their imperfection, nor an usurpation of authority over the written word of God. The Booke-seller that sheweth a chapman a book of the ordinances and laws of this realm, doth not thereby authorize those ordinances. He that sheweth the King to a stranger, is not therefore above the King, neither giveth authority to the King. An inferior may testify before a greater person then himself. And it hath often times fallen out, that a man having received the Scriptures by the hands of the church in his country, by the same Scripture hath corrected and justly condemned the same Church of heresy, from the which he received the Scripture. That which is most worthy to be considered of in this place, is, that as the Church attesteth that these books are the holy Scriptures, so the holy Scripture attesteth, that there must be a Church in the world; and that the Scripture abundantly teacheth what Church it ought to be, and prescribeth laws unto it. So it appeareth, that the testimony which the Scripture giveth of the Church, is much stronger then that which the Church giveth of the Scripture. For the witness which the Church giveth of the Scripture, is a simplo declaration to aclowledge those books to be the word of God, and a protestation to obey them. But the witness which the Scripture giveth to the Church, is a rule, and a law, making the Church subject thereunto: for by the Scripture we understand not the paper and the letters printed thereon, but the divine instructions contained therein. The Church is compounded of men, who both in gross and retail, are subiects to this word, and shall one day be judged by the same, howsoever they( with abominable pride) brag and boast themselves to be Iudges of the holy Scripture, and give authority thereunto. Touching particular inspiration, and the perfection of the holy Scriptures, it shall be spoken of hereafter.   

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.  ARNOVX. 
As for us, in this respect we are out of danger, because we receive the Scriptures and the interpretations, Canon, and true sense of the same from the hand of Gods Spouse, and freely confess that this Canon is a tradition, whereby we haue the truth, and the purity of the holy Scriptures.  moulin. 
Our aduersaries to cover themselves against the Scripture, haue recourse to the Church, which Church nevertheless they bely, and openly contrary it. Master Arnoux saith, that he hath received the canonical books from the Church, and in the mean time he opposeth himself against the number of the canonical books, and openly contradicteth the consent of all the ancient Church, as well of the old as the new Testament.  
Touching the Church of the old Testament, we haue shewed, that by it the books of Tobias, judith, wisdom, maccabees, &c. were never received, nor holden to be canonical.  
Touching the Church of the new Testament, Iesus Christ and his Apostles never used nor alleged them. The council of Laodicea holden about the same time that the first council of Nice was holden, maketh a catalogue of the books of the old Testament, wherein the books of Tobias, judith, Ecclesiasticus, wisdom, Susanna, and the books of the maccabees are not numbered.  
S. jerome in his Preface vpon the books of Salomon, speaking of Ecclesiasticus and the wisdom of Salomon, saith; As the Church readeth the books of judith, Tobias, and the maccabees, but receiveth them not among the canonical Scriptures; so also let her read these two volumes, but not to confirm the faith of the Church. Note here that he saith, that it is the belief of the Church. He saith the same in his Prologue.  
Saint Cyprian, or rather ruffian, in the book of the Exposition of the Creed, after he had made a catalogue of the canonical books, saith: Ye must understand that there are other books which the ancient Church did not call canonical, but ecclesiastical; as the wisdom of Salomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, judith, and the books of maccabees. All which they would haue to be red in the Church, but not to be cited for the confirmation of the authority of the faith. Saint Athanasius in his book entitled Synopsis, names all the books of the old Testament, conformable to the Hebrew Bible, and then addeth, and saith: Besides these, there are other books of the old Testament, which are not canonical, which are red onely unto Catechumenians, as the wisdom of Salomon, the wisdom of Iesus the son of sirach, judith, Tobias, &c.  
Eusebius in his Chronicle vpon the 117 olympiad, saith, The Hebrew history of the maccabees reckens from hence the reign of the Grecians, but those books are not received among the divine Scriptures.  
Pope gregory the first, in the 19. of his Morals vpon job, cap. 19, seeking to allege a passage out of the maccabees, excuseth himself in these words: Of which thing we speak not without reason, if we produce the testimonies of the books that are not canonical, but written for the edification of the Church.  
Meliton Bishop of Sardis, in an Epistle to Onesimus, recited by Eusebius in the fourth book of his history, cap. 25. numbereth the books of the old Testament, wherein he placeth not judith, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, nor the maccabees.  
Origen, in Eusebius, lib. 6. cap. 24. Saint hilary in his Preface vpon the psalms, gregory Nazianzen in his verses of the holy Scripture, Eusebius lib. 3. of his history, cap. 10. Epiphanius in his book of Measures, and diuers others, make catalogues of the books of the old Testament, and put not judith, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, wisdom, nor maccabees into them, but all with one accord say, that there are but twenty two books in the old Testament, agreeable to the letters in the Hebrew Alphabet.  
The fourth council of Carthage, in their latin copies put the books of maccabees among the canonical books; but in their greek copies they are not found to be there. It is most ●ertaine, that there is no book more falsified nor corrupted then the latin tomes of the councils.  
Against this so universal a consent of the ancient Church, they oppose the onely testimony of Saint Augustine, who lib. 2. of Christian doctrine, cap. 8. putteth Tobias, judith, and the maccabees among the canonical books. But ye must understand, that in the same place he maketh two sorts of canonical books, the one of greater, the other of lesser authority; the one really received, the other received by some Churches of less authority. 

In Canonicis scriptures Ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurium quamplurium authoritatem sequatur.  
In eis quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas quas plures grauioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ecclesiae tenant. Imago Samuelis mortui Sauli regi vera praenunciauit. See the 15 Chapter of the book, de cura pro mortuis.  
Hoc tanquam non Canonicum definiunt omittendum.   In matter( saith he) of the canonical Scriptures, we must follow the greater number of catholic Churches. And a little after, Among those which are received of all, we must make more account of those, which more Churches, and of more authority receive. And he himself in the 23. cap. of his 2. book against Gaudentius, saith, that the book of maccabees is not unprofitably red, if it be red discreetly:& that the same book is none of those whereof Iesus Christ witnesseth. Also in the same place of the 2. book of Christian doctrine, he acknowledgeth that the book of wisdom was not made by Salomon: which is a proof that the Author thereof lieth, which affirmeth himself to be Salomon. And in the same place he omitteth the book of Susanna, and the history of Bell and the Dragon, as not being canonical. And in the three and twentieth Chapter of the same book, as also in diuers other places, he believed not that Samuel appeared to Saul, but is of opinion that it was his image, and a devilish illusion: therein contrarying the book of Ecclesiasticus. In the seventh tome hilary Bishop of Arles writeth to Saint Augustine, and telleth him, that diuers seruants of Christ in France did not think well of him, that he had alleged a passage of Ecclesiasticus in his book: They define( saith he) that the same passage ought to be omitted, as not being canonical. It is to no purpose to say, that diuers Fathers allege these books, for they also allege the third and fourth books of Esdras, which the council of Trent receiveth not for canonical. Ambrose allegeth them in the tenth Chapter of his book of the benefit of death, cap. 10: and Augustine in the sixth Chapter of the fourth book to Boniface. The allegations of particular persons are no public rules, nor the opinion of the universal Church; a man may allege a book which is not holden to be canonical, S. Paul alleged Aratus and Epimenides Pagan Authors. 
Acts 17.28. Tit. 1.12.   
Now it appeareth whether M. Arnoux hath any knowledge of Antiquity,& whether he hath reason to say, that he hath received the Canon of the Scriptures from the Church: seeing that all the ancient Church rejecteth those books which the Church of Rome receives for canonical. 
Baron. Annal, anno 1076. sect. 33. Quod nullum capitulum, nullusque liber Canonicus habeatur absque illius authoritate.  But now at this day, when we speak of the Church, we must by the Church understand the Pope. For the council of Rome, holden in the year 1076. under gregory the seventh, ordained, that no chapter nor book should be held to be canonical, without the Popes authority. Must we haue an approbation from the Pope to receive the five books of Moses, and the four evangelists for canonical? What is he that doth not abhor the impious words of the Romish decree, in the 19. distinction of the Canon, In Canonicis: whereof the superscription is, 
Inter canonicas Scripturas decretales epistolae connumerantur.  That the decrees of Popes are reckoned among the canonical books? Which they prove by a passage out of Saint Augustine, wickedly falsified.  
With the like impiety, at this day, they will haue the Church to be judge of the sense of the Scriptures. There are two kindes or sorts of judgements, the one a iudgement of discretion, the other a iudgement of authority. By the iudgement of discretion we judge of meats, not to prescribe laws, but to discern what is good for vs. Of this iudgement the Apostle speaketh in the first of the Corinthians, chap. 10. verse 15. I speak as unto them which haue understanding, judge ye what I say. By this iudgement, Saint John in his first epistle chap. 4. will haue us not to beleeue every Spirit, but that we should try the Spirits. But there is another kind of iudgement, which is a iudgement of authority; which serveth for a law, and which maketh decrees, against the which it is not lawful to resist: In that maner the court of Parliament iudgeth capital crimes. Between these two kinds of judgements, there is a third kind, which participateth with the other two, which being a iudgement of discretion, in the mean time hath a kind of authority: As when diuers learned and wise men give their advice vpon any difficult matter; specially if they be men, to whom, by the iudgement of God, we owe respect and reverence. Whom,( although subject to err) and though that they pronounce not iudgement with sovereign authority and infallible certainty, we are nevertheless ashamed to contradict; and we are bound to be content with their iudgement, until the thing be better known and examined. Such is the iudgement of diuers Pastors assembled in a national or a provincial synod. Whose iudgement nevertheless is not sovereign, but subject to be examined by the word of God: as latter councils oftentimes correct precedent councils. But to esteem that the Church may judge of matters of faith, and of the sense of the Scriptures, with a iudgement of sovereign authority, and with infallible certainty; it is a thing not onely unjust, and absurd, but also impossible. For, in the question whether the Church is judge, or not, is it possible that the Church should be sovereign and infallible judge therein? And when question is made, to know what the duty of the Church is, is it reasonable that the Church should be judge, with full authority of deciding the same? for by this means, she shall be bound to do no more then she will herself, and to obey those laws which she shall give unto herself. And when question is made of the infallibleness or authority of the Church, if the Church be judge thetein, she shall be judge in her own cause. Seeing therefore, that all the Prelates of the Church are sinners, and by consequence culpable, and punishable by the Law, what appearance is there, that criminals should be sovereign and infallible Iudges of the sense of that Law which concerneth their crime? by this means they shall never be condemned. It is a ridiculous and profane conceit, to imagine that transgressors of the Law should be infallible Iudges of the same Law whereby they ought to be judged. If the Church were an infallible judge of the sense of the Scriptures, her authority should be much greater then that of God: for such an interpreter would be much more obeied then the law-maker; for that the people should not be subject to the words of the law, but to the sense and the interpretation which that interpreter would give thereunto: which is the means whereby the Pope hath made himself so great, and so rich; for still he interpreteth the word of God for his profit, and hath proceeded so far, that in the Romish decrees, there are glosses that say, that the Pope may dispense with the Scriptures, by interpreting the same.  
nevertheless, 
Causae 25. quaest. 1. Can. sunt quidam. Dispensat in evangelio interpretando ipsam.  let us say that so absurd and impossible a thing is just and receiuable; yet, before the authority of a judge& an infallible interpreter of the Scripture be referred to a Church, wee ought to be well assured, that the same Church is sound of iudgement, and pure in faith. Into the which examination, if we enter by the Scriptures, then such a Church is subject to be judged by the Scripture. Or if to know, whether such a Church is pure in faith, men refer themselves to the iudgement of the same Church, she will be sure not to condemn herself. And there is no Church, how corrupt soever it be, which vaunteth not of herself to be pure. And among diuers Churches, as the Syrian, the greek, the roman, and the african, who all draw their successions from the Apostles, and boast that they haue Saint Peters chair; why should one be judge rather then the other? Then we must necessary haue recourse to the Scripture, which is one, and received by all; and an uncorrupted judge, and wherein, that which is clear and evident, having no need of an interpretation, is sufficient to salvation. Where, if in things necessary to salvation, there are any obscure passages, they are found to be interpnted and expounded in diuers other clear passages. For no man but the lawgiver, can give interpretations to the Law, that are of equal authority with the Law. And if there be any obscure passages found in the Scriptures, which are not expounded elsewhere, it is better to be ignorant, then to presume to be infallible Iudges of the sense of the Word, by the which God shall judge us: for that which therein is clear and manifest, is sufficient to salvation.    

THE fourth ARTICLE OF THE CONFESSION OF THE FAITH. Wherein M. Arnoux handleth particular inspiration, and the interpretation of the Scriptures, and of the witness which the Church giveth to the Scriptures.  We confess these books to be canonical, and certain rules of our faith, not so much by the common consent and agreement of the Church, as by the interior testimony and persuasion of the holy Ghost, which makes us to discern them from the other ecclesiastical books, vpon the which( although they be profitable) we cannot ground any article of the faith. ARNOVX. 
This is to make every faithful person a judge established by God, to approve and reprove the Scriptures by a more then infallible spirit in every one of them; which is not in the universal Church, seeing, that by their saying, it may err, notwithstanding the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost: and nevertheless every faithful person particularly hath a sure and a domestic spirit which maketh him a certain judge of the Scriptures, and of their sense and translation, without the which, the sense cannot be penetrated by them that know no languages.  moulin. 
Here the adversary doth, as he useth to do in all other places, that is, he changeth the words of our Confession, and maketh us say things that we do not beleeue; which is a manifest and evident proof that the truth of our religion is very strong, seeing that they cannot dispute against it, until they haue first changed it. By this means our aduersaries strive not against our Confession, but against their own inventions. M. Arnoux imputeth to our Confession, that it maketh every man a particular judge established by God, to approve and reprove the Scriptures, and infallibly to judge of the sense and translations of them. But the article of our Confession saith nothing so. Therein we speak not of a judge established by God, nor of judging infallibly of the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures, for none of us attribute unto ourselves the quality of a judge, judging with authority and infallible certainty.  
For to discern whether such a book be canonical, it is not necessary to haue a particular revelation: onely we say two things. The one, that the Spirit of God witnesseth to all Christians that God is no liar, and by consequence he witnesseth, that the books of judith and of the maccabees are not divine books, because therein untruths are palpable. The other, that the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures is full of efficacy, and that the Spirit of God useth the same to touch the hearts without any need of particular revelation. For he that feareth God, feeleth by a lively motion,& taketh pleasure in the language of the Spirit of God, which of itself maketh a man sufficiently to understand, having another manner of virtue then the languages of men. Which virtue, if our aduersaries do not feel, they ought not to mock at a thing which they know not: but rather therein aclowledge the just iudgement of God, which doth justly, to take away from his word the efficacy thereof in them for a punishment, because they do it injury, accusing it of obscurity, ambiguity, and imperfection, adding thereunto an unwritten word, bereaving it of the dignity to be a perfect rule& sovereign judge, to cloath& invest the Prelates of the Church,& mens traditions with that dignity. Why should she make her spiritual motions to be felt by those that charge her with injurious words, and which forbid and prohibit the reading thereof? Saint Augustine in the third Chapter of the eleventh book of his Confessions, acknowledgeth the interior efficacy of the Spirit of God, giuing testimony to our hearts, touching the truth of that which is contained in the Scriptures, and speaketh by experience. Vpon which passage, Bellarmine in his sermon, De lumine fidei, saith, this light of the faith, is a certain testimony of God, by the which it is said unto the secret cogitations of our hearts, That is true, thou needest not to doubt thereof. even as he that knoweth not that the sun is the sun, but onely because his mother  told him so, and pointed to it with her finger, should ground vpon a proof a thousand times less clear then the sun: so he that knoweth not that the holy Scripture, is the Scripture, but onely because the Church wherein he lived  told him so, without being touched in his heart, with the efficacy thereof, groundeth himself vpon a proof a thousand times weaker then the holy Scriptures: which maketh itself to be sufficiently felt by those that do not contend and strive against the same, and without the which we should not know, that there must be a Church in the world.  
It is true, that the Church putteth the Scriptures into our hands. But after that by the same Scripture, God hath touched our hearts, we do no more beleeue that it is the holy Scripture, because the Church  told us so, but because the Scripture itself hath caused us to know it, and that God thereby hath touched our hearts: without the which virtue the testimony of the Church is but a probable aid, which giveth a confused belief and a light impression. For no man can know, with a certain knowledge, that the testimony which his Church giveth to the Scripture, is true, if before that he knoweth not that the same Church is orthodoxal, and of a true iudgement touching the faith. Which a man cannot assuredly know, until he hath first known the rule of the true faith, which is the word of God. To be short, when we are once drawn to the reading and meditation of the Scripture by the testimony of the Church, and haue begun to taste the same, and to comprehend the doctrine thereof, we may say as the samaritans did to the woman, whereof it is spoken in the fourth of Saint John: Now we beleeue, not because of thy saying, for we haue heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed that Christ the saviour of the world.  
Here I would gladly demand two things of our aduersaries: the one, whether they will haue every faithful Christian to receive and approve the holy Scriptures, without knowing, understanding, and comprehending them? To receive them without knowing any thing in them, is to receive them without fruit. Or if they will haue the people to haue knowledge in the Scriptures, whether they will haue them to discern them, and learning them, that they may be instructed with iudgement and discretion? The other, why they will not haue the people to judge and discern that the books of the Scripture are sacred and divine, and yet in the mean time they will haue them to know and discern the true Church, to distinguish it from the false? To discern the true Church from the false, is it not requisite that every Christian should be particularly assisted, and inwardly conducted by the Spirit of God? If it be so, why will they not haue every faithful Christian to haue need of the same assistance of the Spirit of God, to discern the word of God from the word of men? If for an evasion they say, that to know certainly which is the orthodoxal and pure Church, there is no need of the aid and assistance of the Spirit of God, do they not make their religion profane, and show it to be lead by opinion, custom, and human reason?  
In the mean time, all being well weighed and considered, it will be found that the same iudgment of discretion, which God giveth to the faithful to discern the word of God from the word of men, is the same iudgment whereby we discern the true Church from the false; because that is the true Church, which believeth and teacheth the true word of God. whosoever saith, that the people ought to discern the true Church without discerning the true word of God, speaketh things contradicting one the other, and doth like one that would haue men to know who are just, without knowing the rule of righteousness.  ARNOVX. 
Passages quoted in the margin of the Confession. Psal. 12.6. The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psal. 19.7.8. The Law of God is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simplo; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandement of the Lord is pure, enlighting the eyes. Not one of these passages do contain one onely word of that, in confirmation whereof they are alleged; which is, that it appertaineth to the members of the Church, rather then to all the Church, to discern the true Scriptures from the false. If they be alleged as an elegy and recommendation of the word of God, whereof there is no question, it is a deceiving of the reader, that persuadeth himself, that they are quoted for a proof of that which is in controversy, and whereof he seeth no other proof then in the margin.  moulin. 
These two passages are not quoted in the margin, to prove a thing that we beleeue not, and which M. Arnoux falsely attributeth unto us, that is, that it belongeth to the particular members of the Church, rather then to the whole body of the Church, to discern the true from the false Scriptures. These passages serve not to prove that: they are employed to prove these words of the article of our Confession; which is, that those canonical books are a most certain rule of our faith: which is a point in controversy between us& our aduersaries, that accuse the holy Scripture to be insufficient and obscure, calling it a piece or part of a rule, and a two handed sword, as we shall hereafter see. 
A delphic sword or a sword for both hands.  And what hurt is there done to allege these passages vpon things that are not in controversy? Can we not instruct without disputing?  

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.  ARNOVX. 
contrary passages. Saint Peter in his second Epistle, Chap. 1.20. No prophesy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. Therefore it is contrary to the apostolic commandement, that every one of you should take vpon him to judge the true sense& understanding of the Scriptures. The interpreter hath his manner of interpretation, and assureth himself to be judge by a particular spirit, and for a foundation of all that which he shall beleeue, layeth this presumptuous and prohibited assurance.  moulin. 
The passage of Saint Peter is not contrary to the article of our Confession. S. Peter in this passage rejecteth particular interpretations: but in this fourth article of our Confession, there is nothing said of interpretation, nor of the sense or intelligence of the Scripture. This man doth not understand himself. And to what purpose should he impugn particular interpretations, seeing that we also condemn them? For it is so far from us to receive the interpretations of a particular man for laws, that we receive not the interpretations of a particular Church, how great soever it be, when such interpretations are given for infallible rules, and are equalized in authority with the holy Scriptures, as the interpretations of the Popes and of the Romish Church are.  
It is true, that in our Sermons we interpet the Scriptures, but we give not our interpretations for laws: and allege no other interpretations of the Scriptures, then those which the Scriptures themselves afford. whereby it is not our interpretation, but that which God himself giveth.  
But this requireth a little more discourse, to let you see wherein our interpretations differ from those of the Romish Church: wherein there are five notable differences.  
1 The first is, that the interpretations of the Scripture which we bring are drawn out of the Scripture itself. But the Romish Church draweth the most part of her interpretations from an unwritten word, and from traditions. As when the word saith, Thou shalt worship one onely God, and him onely shalt thou serve, the Church of Rome understandeth, that the adoration of Latria is here onely reserved unto God, but that the same hindereth not man from adoring Saints, Images, and the relics with the adoration of Dulia: but the Scripture speaketh not of this adoration of Dulia given unto creatures. So when the Apostle in the ninth Chapter and tenth verse to the Hebrewes so often inserteth, That as it is appointed unto all men, that they shall once die, so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many, and that by the offering once made he hath sanctified us: the Romish Church understandeth, that he speaketh there of the bloody sacrifice;& say, that besides that sacrifice, there is another sacrifice of the body of Christ which is not bloody,( that is, the mass:) but the Scripture speaketh not of this sacrifice of the body of our Lord without blood. So, when Iesus Christ saith to Saint Peter, feed my sheep; the church of Rome understandeth that to be said to Peter,& to his successors, in the charge of the head of the universal Church. But the Scripture saith not, that Saint Peter should haue successors in his apostolical place, as the other Apostles also haue had none;& faith not that his successors should be Bishops of Rome. I could produce an infinite number of such examples.  
2 The second difference is, that when we draw an interpretation of a passage in the Scripture, out of the Scripture. we exhort the people to look into the place, and to read the Scripture, that every man may know whether we allege it truly, and proceed sincerely therein: according to the example of those of Beroea, in the seventeenth of the Acts, who after they had heard the Apostle S. Paul, went to confer his words with the Scripture, to know whether it were so, or not. On the contrary, the Doctors of the Romish Church, interpreting the Scripture to the people, will not haue them to consult with the Scriptures, which in those places where the Pope is absolutely obeied, is a book wholly prohibited to the people. And in spain or italy, if an Italian or a Spanish Bible be found in any Lay mans hands, it is a crime deserving burning, and an Inquisition case.  
3 The third difference is, That we give not our interpretations for laws, as if we were infallible interpreters, neither make ourselves iudges of the holy Scriptures. For we say, that in the clear passages of the Scriptures that haue no need of interpretations, all that which is necessary for our salvation is contained. On the contrary, the Church of Rome attributeth unto herself, the power to be an infallible judge of the sense of the Scriptures, and of giuing interpretations that are of equal authority and force with the holy Scriptures. A prodigious thing, that sinners and guilty persons will take vpon them to be infallible iudges of the sense of the laws which concern their crimes and offences: That sinful men should be iudges of that word, by the which at the latter day they shall be judged. And whereas our sences and our wills ought to be subjecteth to the word of God: that the word of God should be subjecteth to the sense and meanings of men. That master is like to be well served, whose seruants be the interpreters of his commandements, and think it lawful for them to say to their master, Thou hast commanded us to do thus, but we judge that it ought thus to be understood. This is to subject religion unto men, whereas men should be subiects to religion. Certainly, no man but the King can give interpretations to the Kings proclamations and precepts, that should be of equal force and authority with the Kings Edict. None but God can bring interpretations to the word of God, which are of as much force and authority as the word of God is. I say, if there be any Prelates that are infallible interpreters of the word of God, and that vpon the sense of the Scriptures pronounce irrevocable decrees, that such Pastors haue much more authority then the law of God; because the people are not bound to follow the words of the law, but the interpretation of those Prelates. It were better to be an interpreter in this maner, then to be a lawgiver: and it is impossible that such an interpreter should be subject to the law. For it is fit that he should be without sin, lest he should make his interpretations of the law, couertures and cloaks of his sin.  
Therein, besides the impiety, the absurdity is most manifest; for, before that men should give the church of Rome the authority of an infallible judge of the sense of the Scriptures, it is necessary to be first assured that it is sound, and of a good iudgement in faith. Into the which iudgement if we enter by the holy Scripture, then the church of Rome is subjecteth to be judged by the Scriptures. Now if to know whether the Church of Rome be pure in faith, we must refer ourselves to the testimony of the church of Rome itself, then she is judge in her own cause, and she will be sure not to condemn herself. So, when question is made, to know what the duty of the Church is: If in this question the Church be judge, she is both judge and party, and will haue no other laws but those which she herself will make and ordain. And seeing that in the interpretation of the Scriptures, the Greek, Syrian, african and Roman Churches are different; how shall a simplo artificer know which interpretation is best? seeing the other Churches are ancienter then the roman, and boast of Saint Peters chair, and of diuers Apostles? We must therefore come to this point, that if they understand the word judge, to signify Discerning,( as when we judge of meats by the taste,) every saithfull person ought to pray unto God for grace to judge, to discern, and to know the true sense of the Scripture. But if by judging, they understand, to pronounce decrees, and definitive and infallible judgements, touching the sense of the Scriptures, thereby to bind other mens consciences, there is no man in the world that hath that power. That which is clear and manifest in the Scripture, having no need of interpretation, is sufficient to salvation; or if there be any obscure places, they are clearly expounded else-where. And if there be any passages that are obscure, and can not be understood by other passages, it is better to be ignorant therein, then to play the interpreter with authority of a judge. For, for this cause God thought it requisite, that in his word there should be some places that are obscure, among a great number of clear& manifest places; that by those that are clear he might instruct our ignorance, and by the obscure, prove our sobriety and temperance.  
4 The fourth difference between the Interpretations that we make of the Scriptures, and those of the Romish church, is, That they never as yet accused us of wresting the Scripture for our own profit, nor to haue given it a sense which serveth to make us rich, or to advance us to worldly dignities; which is one of the great mischiefs in the church of Rome. covetousness and Ambition, that are ingenious to wrest and rack the Scriptures, haue found out and invented admirable interpretation. In the first Tome of the councils there is a Decree attributed to Anacletus, which saith, that Peter is Cephas, 
Cephas, id est, caput& principium Apostolatus. It is the 72. in the Hebrew.  that is to say, chief or Head, and holding the principal place among the Apostles. In the ninth Session, of the last council of Lateran, the seventy one psalm is alleged, where it is said, All Kings shall fall down before him, and all nations shall serve him; as if it were spoken of the Pope. And a little after, that is attributed to the Pope which Iesus Christ saith in the 28. chapter of Saint matthew, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Pope Boniface the eight in the extravagant, unam Sanctam, sheweth, that all the world ought to be subject to the Pope, because in the tenth of John it is written, There shall be one sheepfold and one shepherd. There also he proveth the superiority of the Pope, by that which is written, In the beginning God created heaven and earth, For, saith he, there is, in principio, in the singular number, and not in principijs in the plural number, which is a notable observation. There he proveth, that both the Swords are in the Popes power, that is, both the spiritual and the temporal, because that in the 22. of Saint Luke, the Apostles having said, Lord, behold here are two swords, he said unto them, It is enough. To the same end he applieth that which God said to ieremy, chap. 1. See, I haue this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms. Bellarmine in his book against Barkley, proveth the power of the Pope to depose Kings, by that which is said to Saint Peter, feed my sheep: also by that, that Saint Paul will haue, those that preach the gospel to live of the gospel. Kill and eat, alleged by Baronius, applied to move& incite the Pope to thunder against, and to persecute the Venetians, is a ridiculous manner of interpreting the Scriptures. I could allege a thousand such like interpretations, which are as many confessions of a bad cause, seeing it cannot be defended but by wrested passages, and violent and rash interpretations of the Scriptures. Therefore the churth of Rome usurpeth the title of an infallible judge of the sense of the Scriptures, to the end that where reason wanteth, it may be supplied by authority: for such proofs haue no force, but onely by the authority of him that propounded them.  
5 The fifth& last difference is, that we cannot be charged nor accused to make profane and ridiculous interpretations, thereby to expose the holy Scriptures to be laughed at, as the church of Rome doth. The second council of Nice, which our Aduersaries place among the universal councils, vpon pain of cursing and excommunication commandeth the adoration of Images, and faith, that they are of as much estimation as the gospel. To prove this detestable doctrine, the Fathers of that council produce diuers passages of the Scriptures, with a strange compass, and extravagant subtlety: and because the Iconoclastians mocked at those allegations, Pope Adrian the first expressly made a book, 
Tom. 3. council. Editionis Colon. pa. 205.  and dedicated the same to charlemagne, which is found at the end of the said council, whereby he maintaineth all those passages to be well alleged. The Fathers of that council for the adoration of Images had alleged the passages in the second of the Canticles: Let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; and God created man in his own image and likeness, Gen. 1. Abraham worshipped the hittites, Genes. 23. Moses worshipped jethro his father in law, Exod. 18. jacob blessed pharaoh, Genesis 47. and, No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it under a vessel, Luke 8.16. Pope Adrian defendeth these passages, saying, Rectè illud protulerunt: They haue truly alleged them, & valdè nimis atque pulchrè contra eos qui Imagines contemnunt dixerunt, poni lucernam sub modio. They haue spoken excellent well, and with a good grace, against those that contemn Images, that they set a lamp under a bushel. What man is he that hath any free or common sense, that will not detest such profanation of the Scriptures? And nevertheless, this is the interpretation of the Church, it is a council that speaketh, and a Pope that defendeth this council. He that desireth to see the horrible profanation of the passages of the Scripture, alleged in manner of a jest, let him read those that writ of the mysteries of the mass, and of the ceremonies of the Romish church: As Innocent the third, of the mysteries of the mass; The book of sacred Ceremonies: Durants Rational: Tolet of the instruction of Priests: Titleman, &c. and there he shall find the Scripture most ridiculously wrested. They say, that the Altar must be of ston, because it is said, Petra erat Christus: That tapers are set vpon the Altar, because it is written, I am the light of the world: That the Priest kisseth the Altar, because in the Canticles it is written, Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth: That the Priest turneth his back to the people, because it is written; Thou shalt see my back parts, Exodus 33.23. That the clerk that serveth the Priest, moveth and stirreth his body as the Priest doth, because it is written, Where I am, there also my seruant shall be. That the Priest washeth his hands twice, because it is written, Amplius laua me, Psal. 51. That the Bishop at mass changeth his hose and his shoes, because it is written, Put off thy shoes for this place is holy, Ex. 3.5. With the like subtlety the Pope at this day, when he is crwoned, casteth certain copper money among the people, saying, silver and gold haue I none, but that which I haue, I give thee. Where religion is changed into a comedy, it is no marvell that the Scriptures are exposed unto laughter, and turned into a ridiculous sense. Thus much touching the interpretation which father Arnoux saith to be received from the hand of Gods Spouse, that is( as he understands it) the church of Rome. Thus you may see how the word of God is dexterously alleged, and God worthily served.   

Whether the Church may err: and whether the church of Rome hath erred.  
All this abuse is grounded vpon 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 appearance, and by experience contradicted.  
For if by the Church, our aduersaries 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 Hebrewes, cap. 12. calleth, The assembly and congregation of the first born 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 every one of them attributeth unto herself the perfections& testimonies which God giveth to his Church in his word.  
But if by the word Church, our aduersaries 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 Iesus 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 onely 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. ieremy in cap. 2.27.28. reproacheth the Church of Iuda, 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 Esay 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ warneth his disciples to beware of the leaven of the doctrine of the pharisees, in the sixteenth of S. matthew: whose instructions Iesus Christ would haue the Iewes 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 Caiphas the high Priest& head of that succession, judged that Iesus 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 Iesus Christ is declared, might be of more weight and authority among the Iewes, in regard of the quality of the person.  
Then, if the Church which was the onely Church in the world, and the Pastors that onely 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 iudgement of all antiquity?  
The sixth council held in Constantinople in the thirteenth 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,( vpon 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: Maior est imago quàm oratio?  
And after the death of Pope Formosus, 
Platina. Stella. Anastasius. Luitprandus. Sigibert, &c.  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 dispense with an oath made to God, and whether he ought to be held to be lawful Pope, that hath received the papacy 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, 
Baron Annal. anno 1076.  that there was no other name under the heauens 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 haue the people to receive the Sacrament under both kinds, following the example of Iesus 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 lion of Iuda, the Roote of david, the saviour of Sion, and the divine majesty?  
Lastly, shall the Church of Rome continue pure and entire then, when( according to the opinion of our aduersaries) Antichrist shall abolish the mass? or at the time whereof Iesus 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 onely belongeth unto God, or to him that maketh himself to be God, 
2. Thess. 7.  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 vpon 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 slacken 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 haue 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 haue often times been abashed, wherefore the Pope that vaunteth that he cannot err in the deciding of doubts, abstaineth( now many yeares past) from pronouncing any definitive sentence vpon the controversy which is in the Church of Rome, about the questions of free-will and predestination: for the which the jacobins and the Iesuites in spain are at continual strife. The props wherewith they support this proud doctrine are so weak, that if you blow vpon 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 commandement. 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 Iesus 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 divell cannot utterly abolish it, yet he often prevaileth against her diuers 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 read Dragon, Apoc. 12. In that passage our saviour speaketh of the elect Church, which cannot be seduced, nor deprived of salvation by the temptations of the divell, as Iesus Christ teacheth in the thirteeenth of Saint mark, saying: For false Christs 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 aduersaries 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 vpon men, is to make mans authority firmer then Gods truth. On the contrary, the Apostle to the Ephesians the second chapter, saith, that we are built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles: 
{αβγδ}. evangelium in scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum& columnan fidei nostrae futurum.  not vpon them as they were mortal men, but vpon their doctrine which endureth for ever. So the ancient Fathers understand it. Chrysostome in the eleventh homily vpon 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 haue left us the gospel in the Scriptures to be a pillar and the ground of our faith. Our aduersaries themselves say it without thinking thereon, as often as they ground the authority of the Church vpon this and other such like places, for thereby they silently confess that the authority of the Church is grounded vpon the Scriptures: and so( not knowing it,) dispute against themselves. And it is certain, that whosoever groundeth the authority of the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Church, bereaveth the Church of the means to ground her authority vpon the Scriptures,& never ought to allege the Scripture for a ground of the Church. He that buildeth the walls vpon the foundation, supposeth that the foundation is not grounded vpon the walls: So if the Church be the foundation of the word of God, it is not grounded vpon 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 vpon the Church, they haue gotten nothing, if they do not also prove that this Church is the roman, 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 vpon the day of Pentecost, when the holy Ghost descended vpon 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 al ages, yet by that, the infallibleness of the Church is not hereby proved, much less the infallibleness of any particular Church.  
They also allege the passage of the eighteen 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 vs.  
For the infallibleness of the Romish Church they allege, that Iesus Christ said to S. Peter Luke 22.31. Simon Simon, behold satan hath desired you, to winnow you as wheat but I haue 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 Iesus 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 Iesus 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? 
Math. 16. Acts 3.  as, go behind me satan, and silver and gold haue I none? &c. or when Iesus Christ sent Peter with his companions to preach without scrip, money, or any provision?  ARNOVX. 
Also to the Galathians 2.1. Then fourteen yeares after I went up again to jerusalem with Barnabas, and took with me Titus also, I and went up by revelation,& declared unto them that gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but particularly to them that were the chief, lest by any means I should run or had run in vain. Behold also S. Paul as well as Saint Peter, who formally both by example and words condemn the interior persuasion of the holy Ghost. He received his gospel from the son of God, and is well assured that it is canonical, nevertheless, he taketh not that for a rule, that the holy Spirit truly persuadeth him thereunto, but rather the iudgement of the apostolic college, and the revelation that he should go unto them, and feareth to run in vain if he doth it not.  moulin. 
It is false that in this place Saint Paul condemneth the interior persuasion of the holy Ghost and I am abashed how it is possible that a man which maketh profession to teach divinity dares deny that Saint Paul was lead by an interior persuasion of the holy Ghost. For in the Acts 13.9. it is said, that Paul was filled with the holy Ghost: 
Gal. 1.12.  and a little before in the passage which M. Arnoux allegeth the Apostle saith, that he had received the gospel by revelation from Iesus Christ, which could not be, unless Iesus Christ inwardly touched his heart by his holy Spirit, therein to imprint the doctrine of salvation. Saint Peter in the first chapter of his first Epistle saith, that the Apostles preached the gospel by the power of the holy Ghost; in the sixteenth of the Acts the holy Ghost forbiddeth S. Paul to preach the Gospel in Asia. And if S. Paul refused the persuasion of the holy Ghost to be a rule, and accepted the iudgement of the apostolic college for a rule, we must say, that he preached three yeares without rule, seeing that he had no conference with any of the Apostles till three yeares after his conversion, Gal. 1.7. and 18. where S. Paul saith, that when it pleased God to reveal his son unto him, he returned not again unto jerusalem to those that had been Apostles before him, but went into Arabia. Three yeares after he went to jerusalem to confer with the Apostles, not to receive or take any rule which he had not before, but to the end that this conference might be a public profession of concordance, without the which he and the other Apostles had run in vain, and their labour bad been fruitless. Not that I am of opinion that any man at this day can take Saint Pauls example therein, for a rule to dispense with himself for a certain time, from conferring and communicating with his brethren, under pretence or shadow of particular inspiration: for Saint Paul had gifts and prerogatives, which no man at this day can nor may usurp without great pride and presumption of himself.  ARNOVX. 
To be short, it is possible that the Spirit of God should be more assuredly in the heart of every particular person, then in the whole Church, wherein it resideth, and worketh this common agreement and consent?  moulin. 
The adversary in these words makes us say that which we do not beleeue. Let those that beleeue it answer him: In the mean time let him procure those parties( whereof the universal Church at this day is composed) as the greek, the Syrian, the african, and the roman Churches, to agree together, before they can pronounce an assured and true iudgment. And for the rest no man denieth that in an orthodoxal Church we must give more credit to the iudgement of the Pastors and Ministers assembled together, then to a particular mans iudgement.    

THE FIFTH ARTICLE: Of the Confession of the Faith. Of the perfection of the Scriptures, and of Traditions.  We beleeue that the word contained in those books, proceedeth from God, from whom onely it hath authority, and not from men. And for that it is the rule of all truth, containing all that which is necessary for the service of God and our salvation, it is not lawful for men, no nor for Angels, to add unto, diminish from, on to change the same. From whence it followeth, that neither antiquity, custom, multitude, wisdom of men, judgements, sentences, edicts, decrees, councils, visions, nor miracles, ought to be opposed against the same holy Scripture; but on the contrary, all things ought to be examined, regulated, and reformed by the same: and therefore we allow the three symbols, the Creed of the Apostles, of Nice, and of Athanasius, because they are conformable to the word of God. ARNOVX. 
This utterly excludeth the unwritten word of God, which we call traditions, and induceth us to beleeue nothing, but all that onely which is distinctly contained and set down in the Scriptures; and to make us renounce and reject all antiquity, councils, decisions, interpretations of Doctors, observations and customs of the Church; and to prepare and make us docible to the glosses which a Minister shall make vpon the Scripture according to his particular sense. To be short, it is not strictly to observe the Scriptures, but by their proper sences and glosses, to cover and defend themselves against the sense of the Church, which onely can deliver unto us both the letter and the sense of the holy Scripture, whereof she ●s the inheritrix.  moulin. 
Will this man never deliver nor set down our belief truly? for in all this speech, all whatsoever he allegeth to be said by us, is clean contrary to that which we beleeue, and is contained in this fifth article. It is false, that we beleeue nothing but that which is distinctly set down in the holy Scriptures: for we beleeue many things which are not found distinctly nor in so many words in the Scripture, but are therein set down in equivalent words, and by consequence necessary: As that the Church of God shall continue for ever: That God by his providence governeth all things: That in the divine essence there is a trinity of persons: and diuers such propositions which are easily proved by the Scriptures, although they are not found there in so many precise words: in the same manner that Apollos proved by the Scripture, 
Acts 18.  that Iesus was that Christ, although it be not distinctly and in so many syllables found therein. For if we must receive no more but that which is distinctly in so many words contained in the Scripture, no man should be bound to beleeue in Iesus Christ; for in the Scripture it is not said, that Charles or Henry ought to beleeue in Iesus Christ: onely there all men are commanded to beleeue in Iesus Christ. From whence the duty of particular men to beleeue in Iesus Christ, by consequence is drawn. It is false that by this fifth Article we renounce all antiquity and councils; for we onely say, that neither antiquity nor councils ought to be opposed against the Scripture. It is false, that we would establish the glosses and interpretations of any particular Minister, as we haue shewed in the seventh and ninth Section.  
Lastly, it is false that we reject Traditions, seeing that the Scripture itself is a Tradition: and that there are many things which concern ecclesiastical policy and exterior order, which are not specified in the Scripture. We onely reject those traditions, which being received, it would thereupon follow, that the Scripture containeth not all the doctrine which is necessary to salvation.  
Such is the unwritten word, whereunto our aduersaries haue recourse, when the Scripture faileth them; and that heap of human traditions, which are equalised in authority with the holy Scriptures, which we affirm to be the rule of all truth, and to contain all that which is necessary to salvation: and prove it by these passages: Saint Paul in the third chapter of the second Epistle to timothy, verse 15. speaketh thus unto his disciple, saying: From thy infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Iesus Christ. Then the holy Scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation, seeing they can make us wise unto salvation by believing in Iesus Christ. For what do we seek for more, then to be wise in such manner, that we may be saved by believing in that word which teacheth the faith in Iesus Christ?  
Saint james saith of the same word, that it is able to save our souls, james 1.21.  
Saint Paul in the first to the Corinthians cap. 4.6. bounding or limiting the power of Pastors and their authority in the Church, saith, that no man presume above that which is written.  
The same Apostle in the twentieth of the Acts verse 27. saith, For I haue kept nothing back, but haue shewed you all the counsel of God. Then it followeth evidently, that the traditions of Popes and of the Church of Rome, added from age to age, since Saint Pauls time, are none of the counsels of God.  
In the fourth of Deuteronom. verse 2.& in cap. 12.31. God saith: you shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it. Then, if it was forbidden to the Iewes to add any thing to Moses law, when there was no other doctrine to salvation but that, there is no appearance, that now at this day, the law of Moses, the Prophets, the evangelists, and the waitings of the Apostles, are not sufficient, and that it is allowable to add traditions& an vnwriten word thereunto.  
None of our aduersaries ever yet durst deny, that the doctrine of the gospel is sufficient to salvation, and that the gospel is not wholly& entirely set down in the new Testament: otherwise, the title should be false, and we must change the title and right part of the gospel, and after seek the other part in the unwritten word. We must also change this word of Testament, which is set at the beginning: if that book be but a part of the Testament of the son of God. And we must no more call those books canonical, if they be no more the entire rules of our faith.  
The Apostle Saint Paul to the Ephesians, cap. 2.20. grounded our faith vpon the Prophets and Apostles: And are built( saith he) vpon the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets. If our faith be grounded vpon the unwritten word, it must haue another ground then that of the Prophets and Apostles. For how should we know that this unwritten word comes from the Apostles? But it is easy for us to note the original, the Authors, and the times of the most part of the traditions of the Church of Rome.  
In the sixteenth of S. Luke, verse 19. the wicked rich man prayeth Abraham to sand one from the dead unto his brethren, to warn them of their duties, lest they should fall into the like torment: to whom Abraham answered and said, They haue Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. Which evidently sheweth, that they ought to content themselves with Moses and the Prophets, which the Church had in their hands, without other revelation.  
In Esay cap. 8.20. God reproveth his people, because they seek to familiar spirits& unto wisards, and sends them to the word contained in his Law: To the Law, and to the Testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  
In the Galat. cap. 1.8. it is said, But though we or an angel preach unto you otherwise, then that which we haue preached unto you, let him be accursed. Note that he saith otherwise, and not against that which we haue preached unto you. Although it is to be understood, that all doctrine in matter of salvation, that is without, is also contrary to the Scripture: seeing it is contrary to the prohibition to add to the word of God, and that God forbids us to teach mens precepts for doctrine, mat. 15.9. A little before that the Lord had condemned the pharisees, because they trangressed the commandement of God by their traditions.  
Whose traditions if they be considered, you shall find, that they were doctrines, that commanded not things to be done that were expressly prohibited in the law of God, but simplo additions,& voluntary deuotions out of the word of God; as to make clean the outside of the platter, to wash their hands before they did eat with scrupulous devotion; to tithe Mint and Cumin, to wear long garments, to fast three times a week, to make long prayers: to make conscience to heal a sick man vpon the sabbath day. Such also were the traditions, touching the distinctions of holy dayes,& abstinence from certain kinds of meats, which said, eat not, taste not, touch not, Colos 2.16, 21. not vpon an opinion, that those meats were unclean, but by voluntary devotion and humility of spirit, to tame the flesh, and not to care for the satisfying of the flesh; as the Apostle saith in the same place. Of all which traditions the Apostle in the same chapter, verse 8. saith, that it is a vain deceit, through the traditions of men.  

Greg. Naz in Epicedio Athanasij. {αβγδ}.  This only thing( the unwritten word,) which gregory Nazianzen calleth an innovation not written, and opposeth it against written piety, manifestly discovereth the abuse. For some of the people may say, Where shall I find this unwritten word? shall I find it in the mouth of my Vicar? What know I whether he err? What know I whether he speaks according to the holy Scriptures, the reading whereof is forbidden unto me? What know I whether he agree with others? seeing there are diuers contrary Churches, that haue contrary traditions? or whether this unwritten word, is the doctrine of the universal Church, how shall I get the universal Church together, to hear it speak? if I must haue recourse to the ancient Church, how shall I read so many Fathers, and latin and greek councils, which my Vicar understand not,& wherein the wisest men are many times much puzzled? And yet I hear diuers men say, that the Fathers and ancient councils are contrary to the Church of Rome: and that there is not any one in the primitive Churches, that speaketh of the worshipping of Images of forbidding the people the chalice, or the reading of the holy Scriptures: or of the adoration of the host with Latria; of roman Indulgences, of private Masses, of prayer that is not understood by him that prayeth; of reading of the Scripture to the people in a tongue which they understand not; of the power of the Pope to give and take away kingdoms at his pleasure, and to draw souls out of purgatory.  
In all these things the truth is so strong, that M. Arnoux in his answer passeth over comdemnation of this Article& agreeth with us that the holy Scripture is a sufficient rule to salvation, because( saith he) it sendeth us to the Church,& to that which the Pastors say. wherein he contradicteth himself: for to sand to an other place to seek for rules, is not a sign of a sufficient rule. If the Scripture sends to the Church to learn that which is not in the Scripture, by this sending she confesseth her imperfection. By the like reason, I may say, that a man which cannot read, gives sufficient rules to learn philosophy, when he sendeth or directeth one to a good Philosopher to be taught. I must add hereunto, that when M. Arnoux saith, that the Scripture sends us to the Pastors, it presupposeth that it sends us to those that are good, and faithful. Then we must know how to discern them: how should we discern them but by the rule set down and propounded in the word of God▪ This doctor therfore manifestly mocketh those that are his ●udience, when he sends them to hear the Church and the Pastors, without telling them how, or by what means they shall discern the good and orthodoxal Pastors, from wicked and heretics, and the pure Church from the impure and heretical.  
The truth will yet appear more evidently when we shall haue seen& examined vpon what passages of the Scripture, our aduersaries ground their traditions. Iesus Christ( say they) in the 16. of Saint John. verse 12. saith, I haue many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. And thereupon they would make us beleeue( without proof) that those things which the Lord had yet to say, are the Traditions of the Church of Rome, as the invocation of Saints, the distinction of meats, the observation of feasts, the single life of priests, the Popes succession in Saint Peters chair as head of the Church the private Masses the drawing of souls out of purgatory, &c. This is a bold divination, for his own profit. But there is no need to divine, when Iesus Christ expoundeth himself: for in the verse following he declareth what those things were that he had yet to say, and which the holy Ghost should declare unto them: which is, that the same Spirit should tell them things to come: which are those prophesies, which the Apostles afterward foreshowed, viz. that there should a son of perdition come, that should call himself God, and should work wonders and miracles: that there should false Doctors come, that should teach men to abstain from marriage and from meats: that there should one come that should be clothed in scarlet, that should seduce kings, and should haue his seat in the city that standeth vpon seven hills.  
They object also, that Saint Paul having in his first Epistle and the 11. chapter, to the Corinthians propounded and set down the form and institution of the holy Supper, as he had received it from the Lord, in the 34. verse addeth: Other things will I set in order when I come. I answer, that it can not without impiety be denied, that Iesus did institute the holy Supper as it ought to be, without omitting any thing of that which was necessary: whereupon it followeth necessary, that Saint Paul reserved unto himself at his coming, the exterior order, and that which concerneth the decency of the action. It is also by no means to be believed, that Saint Paul, after he had set down the institution of this holy Sacrament, had an intent to mend it, and to contradict that which he himself had ordained. Then the things which he reserved for himself to ordain, are not those things which the Church of Rome hath added to this Sacrament: whereby she overthroweth the Lords institution. For Iesus Christ did not lift up the host, he commanded not the people to adore the sacrament, he offered nothing to God in sacrifice, he speaketh not of sacrificing, he gave both kinds to all men, he spake in a tongue known to all: he asked not salvation of God for the merits of the Saints whose bones were hidden under the altar: he turned his face to the people, and not his back. To be short, he did all things clean contrary to that which the priest at this day doth. And such contrary inventions, to the institution of Iesus Christ, they call apostolical traditions; therein using the Gibeonites subtlety, who coming but a little way, feigned to come from a far country: for they cover their own inventions, with the faire cloak of antiquity, and under colour of adding, change and correct the institution of the Lord. M. Arnoux will presently bring us a passage for Traditions out of the second to the Thessalonians, cap. 2. which we will examine in his place. Now he proceedeth to scrape at the margin of our profession.  ARNOVX. 
Places or passages quoted in the margin of the Confession, joh. 15.11. These things haue I spoken unto you, that my ioy might remain in you, and that your ioy might be fulfilled. Doth he say more or less, that we must beleeue nothing but that which is set down in writing? doth he speak of any Scripture? To what purpose then is this text alleged, but for a show, and to hold a place for proof? Acts. 20.27. For I haue kept nothing back, but haue shewed you all the counsel of God. It is Saint Paul that speaketh. Is there one onely word herein, that bandieth at that which is controversed in the article? And if a Minister should say to his audience, I haue preached the will of God unto you, do you think that he would say that you shall beleeue nothing but that which I haue written unto you? so should we beleeue nothing but the Epistles of Saint Paul which speaketh in the place which is quoted.  moulin. 
If those two places were ill quoted, yet the article of our Confession would nevertheless be firm, seeing it is proved by so many other passages which M. Arnoux dares not meddle withall. One onely place of the Scripture is sufficient to establish a doctrine: which cannot be overthrown, but by confuting all the proofs whereupon it is grounded. So all that which M. Arnoux doth, serveth to establish this Article of our Confession, seeing, that saying nothing against the other places that are quoted, he approveth them by his silence.  
nevertheless these two passages taken in their true sense, and to the end for the which we allege them, will be found to be fitly applied. By them we beate at the traditions that add any doctrine which is not contained in the holy Scriptures: the authors whereof our aduersaries themselves do set down unto us, and tell us, that such and such a Pope added this piece to the mass, that such and such a Pope, that lived so many yeares since the Apostles times, made this order and decree, which was never practised before. Against that, we allege the words of Iesus Christ, These things haue I spoken unto you, that my ioy might remain in you,& that your ioy might be fulfilled. And that which Saint Paul saith to the Ephesians in the 20. of the Acts, for I haue kept nothing back, but haue shewed you all the counsel of Christ. For if these additions, and new traditions of Popes, long since added, are necessary to salvation, it is impossible that the ioy of the Apostles, and of their disciples was accomplished: neither did the Apostles declare all the counsel of Christ. For that Saint Paul, by the counsel of Christ manifestly understandeth the gospel. Now it were impiety to say, that the new Testament containeth but a part of the gospel: 
Verse 21.  for if that were so, the title should be false, and we must put a piece, or half of the gospel, in the title. And to conclude, the Apostle in the very same place sheweth wherein the counsel of Christ consisteth: to wit, in repentance towards God, and faith in Iesus Christ: which are two points fully and amply taught in the holy Scriptures. By the way, I pray you note M. Arnoux eloquence, which speaketh of bandying of passages, as if he were playing at tennice.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary passages. 2. Thessalonians Chap. 2.15. Therefore brethren, stand fast, and keep the instructions ( or traditions) which ye haue been taught, either by word or by our Epistle. Vpon which words in that place, Saint John Chrysostome saith very well: By that it appeareth, that the Apostle did not teach all by his Epistles, neither set it down in writing, but left diuers things by tradition, and will haue men to receive and esteem them all to be worthy of like credit: and therefore we hold by the traditions of the Church, and firmly beleeue them; and when wee are  told that it is a tradition, we make no further enquiry nor question thereof. I am content with this text onely, for my purpose, because it plainly sheweth us, that we must beleeue some thing, that is not written.  moulin. 
The ordinary manner both of old and new heretics, is, 
{αβγδ}.  that when the holy Scripture faileth them, they haue recourse to traditions. Iosephus in the thirteenth book of Antiquities& eighteen chapter saith, that the pharisees had many observations by successive tradition from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses. Tertullian became an heretic in his book of Monogamie, chap. 2. defendeth Montanus heresy, by these words of Iesus Christ: I haue yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Which is the place which Bellarmine produceth for traditions, in the fift chapter of the book of the unwritten word, cutting this passage according to his manner. For in the verse following, Iesus Christ declareth what those things were which they could not yet bear, that is, things to come, as the prophesies touching future events, which are found in the Epistles of the Apostles, 
Quia non posset ex his inveniri veritas, ab his qui nesciant traditionem. Non enim per litteras traditam illam, said per vivam vocem.  and in the revelation; and not any other doctrines of faith. Irenaeus in the second chapter of his third book saith, that when men confuted heretics by the Scripture, they began to accuse the Scriptures, saying, That the truth could not be found in the Scriptures, by them that knew not the tradition, because it had not been given by writing, but by word of mouth. About twenty yeares after the death of Saint John, one of his Disciples name Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, began to harken to unwritten traditions, as parables and strange doctrines, and other fabulous things; as Eusebius writeth in the last chapter of the third book of his history.  

{αβγδ}.  These heretics wanted no successors: the most fertile Church for traditions hath been the church of Rome: for that of a Bishop not worth six pence in substance, to make an earthly Monarch that exceedeth Emperours and Kings in worldly wealth, honour and riches, it was necessary to make great additions, and to patch long pieces to the ancient doctrine. And it is manifest in the Histories to be seen, that as the B. of Romes greatness increased, traditions were multiplied; which are much more recommended by our Aduersaries then the holy Scriptures, and more religiously observed. For in Rome adultery is permitted, but flesh is strictly forbidden to be eaten in Lent. The reading of the Bible prohibited, and Images erected in the Churches. Bishops dispense with the Apostles commandement, that will haue them not to be novices, but fit to teach and instruct the people; for the most part of them preach not, and many bishoprics are given to children. But touching Annates and revenues belonging to the papal seat, those are inviolably observed. Bellarmine dares presume, and proceeds so far, as to say; that some traditions are greater, touching the observations thereof, then some Scriptures, chap. 7. of the book of the unwritten word. We haue oftentimes desired to see a list of those traditions, and of that unwritten word reduced into one body, but our Aduersaries would never give us the catalogue thereof. Two things hinder them from it: The one is, that they know, that whatsoever they do, yet a wavering doctrine will hardly be firmly imprinted in the mindes and spirits of men, if it be not supported by Gods authority, speaking by the Prophets and Apostles: The other; that if they should deliver a list of those traditions to the common people, they would be abashed at their great number, and desire to compare them with the Scriptures, wherein they should find great contrariety with diuers traditions: in such manner, that those traditions would rather be found to be corrections, under pretence of tradition. And which is more, there they should find traditions to be forbidden, Matth. 15.3. Why do you also transgress the commandement of God, by your tradition? and Colossians 2.8. Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, through the traditions of men. This abuse being therein so palpable, nevertheless M. Arnoux goeth about to ground traditions vpon the holy Scripture; therein contradicting the Church of Rome, which on the contrary, will haue the authority of the Scripture to be grounded vpon tradition: whereby it followeth, that the authority of tradition cannot be grounded vpon the Scripture. To prove it, he allegeth the fifteenth verse of the second chapter of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians; Therefore brethren, stand fast, and keep the instructions( or traditions) which you haue been taught, either by word or by our epistle. From this place our Aduersaries infer, that besides the Epistle which Saint Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he had  told them many things by word of mouth; which we willingly grant: for, we take not vpon us to maintain, that the first Epistle to the Thessalonians containeth all the doctrine to salvation. Our difference is not, whether a short Epistle written by Saint Paul, but whether the old and the new Testaments doth contain all that which is necessary to salvation. And which is more, if Saint Paul had said, Stand fast and keep the instructions which you haue been taught, either by our word, or by the holy Scripture: yet it should not follow, that the things which he had said unto them by word of mouth, and those that are written, were contrary things. A man may teach one selfe same doctrine diuers ways.  
But our Iesuite perceiving that this place was too weak for his purpose; therefore he vnder-propt it with a place in Chrysostome, which he allegeth otherwise then Chrysostome himself doth, wherein these words, set down in writing, Tradition, or the Apostle, are not to be found. And all that which he s tt●th down to be in the singular number, in Chrysostome is in the plural number; yet I am content to receive and allow of this place to be truly alleged.  

Cyprianus epist. ad Pompeium, Vnde ista traditio? vtrumne de Dominica& evangelica authoritate. See Augustine in the 5 book of baptism against the Donatisti cap. 26.  Then I say, that when the Fathers speak reverently of traditions by the word Tradition, either they understand the holy scripture, which also is a t●adi●ion that is, a doctrine left unto us: or, by tradition, they understand observations touching ecclesiastical policy, and things which of their own nature are not necessary;& which for the greater part of them, are not now observed by the church of Rome. read chap. 2. and 3. of Tertullian of the Souldiers crown; and Saint Augustine in the hundred and eighteen Epistle, and the twenty seven chapter of the book of the holy Ghost, ascribed to Basil. Therein mention is made of diuers unwritten traditions; and among others of being plunged th ee times one after the other into the water at baptism. To taste milk and hony at baptism, in sign of conco●d. Not to wash ourselves that day, nor all the week after. In every action to make the sign of the cross vpon the forehead. To make conscience to fast on the sunday. To pray standing from Easter to Pentecost. On certain dayes in the year to cel●brate the passion, the resurrection, and the ascention of the Lord. To pray towards the East. The anointing with oil, and diuers such like traditions, whereof the most part are abolished; which wrongfully were termed apostolical, seeing that the Apostles never practised them, specially the custom to pray standing, from Easter to Pentecost: for in Acts 20.36. and 21.5. Saint Paul prayed kneeling, not many daies before Pentecost, Acts 20.16. M. Arnoux could not haue been ignorant therein, and had not alleged Chrysostome contrary to his meaning, if he had red the place itself in Chrysostome, in stead of copying the same out of another: 
{αβγδ}  for he might haue seen, that vpon the same second chapter of the second to the Thessalonians, that Father sets down these excellent words: All those things that are in the holy Scriptures are right and clear; all that which is necessary, is therein clear and manifest. Then it followeth, that the traditions that are not in the Scripture, whereof he speaketh, are unnecessary things. And vpon the psalm 95. 
{αβγδ}.  When we say any thing without the Scripture, the auditories thoughts are uncertain. Our aduersaries object, that we receive many unwritten traditions, as the observation of the sabbath day, baptism of little children, and the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin mary. I answer, that the observation of the sabbath day is found in the Acts, 20.7. and in the first of Corinthians, 16.2. and that the word, sunday or the Lords day, is found in Apoc. 1.10. And although it were not so, yet the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin mary, we beleeue, more for decency, then for necessity. As Saint Basil in his Sermon of the holy nativity of Christ, 
{αβγδ}, &c.  speaking of their opinion that hold the contrary, saith, that it is a thing, which by no means preiudiceth the word of piety. Touching the baptism of little children, the Index of the Bible made by the Doctors of louvain: and Bellarmine in the first book of baptism, cap. 8. and diuers other prove it, by many places of the Scripture.  

The iudgment of the ancient Fathers touching the perfection of the holy Scriptures.  ARNOVX. 
Saint Augustine in the second book of baptism against the Donatists, c. 7. saith, Many things are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in those that followed them, neither in the councils; and yet because such things haue been observed, and holden by the Church, we beleeue that they come from them, and are taught and commanded by them.  
And note, that in the same place he proveth by this rule of tradition, that we ought not to rebaptize those that haue been baptized by heretics, which is an article of the faith, and no ecclesiastical practise.  moulin. 

Quam consuetudinem credo ex Apostolica traditione venientem, sicut multa non inueniunturin literis eorum neque in concilijs posteriorum,& t●men quia per vniuersam custodiuntur Ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita& commendata creduntur.  This place is hardly handled: these words of S. Augustine, Neque in consilijs posteriorum, are translated by our Iesuite thus, Neither of those that followed them, nor in the councils. Wherein there is neither sense nor reason: and he turns commendata into commanded. All this proceeds not from want of understanding in the latin tongue, but from trusting to another mans report. To understand this place of Saint Augustine, you must know that he disputeth against the Donatists, and maintaineth that we must not rebaptize those that haue been baptized by heretics: which custom he saith is not written in the Epistles of the Apostles; and yet in the same work he defendeth it, 
Lib. 1 cap 7. Ne videar humanis arguments agere ex evangelio, profero certa documenta.  by many places in the Scriptures, which he saith are most certain. Then it appeareth, that in this place, by, the things that are not written, he understandeth those things that are not in exp●esse terms in the Scripture, but are gathered by good consequence. As also that Saint Augustine placeth not this matter among the necessary points of salvation: for there he saith, 
Nondum erat diligenter, illa baptismi quaestio pertractata.  that the same question was not yet well handled, or soundly cleared in Saint Cyprians time. And yet it is not credible that Saint Cyprian wanted the understanding of any thing necessary to salvation. To say that Saint Augustine did beleeue, that the holy Scriptures do not contain all that which is necessary to salvation, is a plain confession that he that saith it never studied that Doctors works. In his Epistle 142. cap. 9. 
Persolas Scripturas potes plenam Dei intelligere voluntatem.  he saith, By the Scriptures onely thou mayst fully and plainly know the will of God. In the second book of the merits of sins, and of pardon, cap. 36. he saith, 
ubi de re obscurissima disputatur, non adiuuantibus, divinarum Scripturarum certis clarisque documentis, cohibere se debet humana praesumptio.  When we dispute of a thing that is very obscure, without the aid of the clear and certain instructions of the divine Scriptures, mans presumption must be limited. And he himself against Petillians letters, lib. 3. cap. 6. saith, 
Legite haec nobis de lege, de Prophetis, &c.& credemus.  read this unto us from the Law, the Prophets, the psalms and the gospel,& the writings of the Apostles: and we will beleeue it. In the second book of Christian Doctrine, cap. 6. it is said, 
In his quae apertè posita sunt in Scriptura inueniuntur, illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi.  In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all things that contain faith and good manners are contained.  
The rest of the Fathers speak not otherwise, 
{αβγδ}.  S. Athanasius in the beginning of the prayer against the Gentiles saith, The holy Scriptures divinely inspired, are sufficient to make men understand the truth.  
S. jerome vpon the first chapter of the 
said& alia quae absque authoritate& testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius dei  Prophet Aggee, saith, Those things which men invent of themselves, for apostolical traditions, without authority and witness of the holy Scriptures, are confounded by God.  
S. Basil speaketh excellently vpon that place, about the end of his ethics or moral philosophy, which are among his Ascetiques. If( saith he) all that which is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle saith, and that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, 
{αβγδ}. Edit. Basil. pag. 437.  all that which is without the Scripture,( divinely inspired,) not being of faith is sin.  
If in things necessary to salvation, these Doctors rejected all traditions not contained in the holy Scripture, by greater reason, after so many ages and continuance of time, there is less appearance to make new additions. For when will they cease from adding? Bellarmine in the third chapter against 
Non rectè de Ecclesia Christi sentit qui nihil admittit nisi quod express in veteri Ecclesia scriptum, aut factum esse legit. Quasi Ecclesia posterioris temporis, aut desierit esse Ecclesia, aut facultatem non habeat explicandi,& declarandi, constituendi etiam& iubendie quae ad fidem& mores Christianos pertinent.  Barkley, seeing that the Popes power to depose kings is destitute of all ancient testimony saith, That the Church in these latter times, yet hath power to constitute and ordain things that concern faith and good manners. Whereupon it followeth, that the religion of the Romish Church is not yet perfected, seeing that yet men may add precepts touching faith and good manners thereunto. And the Bull Exurge, which is at the end of the last council of Latran, placeth this among Luthers heresies, that he said, That it is not in the Popes nor the Romish Churches power, to establish articles of the faith.  ARNOVX. 
The same article lower. All things ought to be examined, ruled, and reformed, by, and according to the word of God.  
True, according to the word of God, but how to be understood? Note that they pretend, that the sense by them given to the word of God, is the touchstone of all the truths of our belief. For otherwise, it is not to be doubted, that the word of God strengthened by the sense which the Church giveth thereunto, is the law, which neither can nor ought te be contested withall.  moulin. 
It is false that we pretend, that the sense which we give to the word of God, should be the touchstone of all truths. None of us nameth himself an infallible interpreter. We receive no other interpretation of the word of God, then that which is drawn out of the word of God. So they are not found by us, but by the word of God, which is infallible. And in such things as are clearly set down in the Scripture,& that haue no need of interpretation, all doctrines necessary to salvation, are contained. By this means there is no need of an interpreter, in that sense, whereby an interpreter at this day is understood, that is, of such a one as gives his interpretations for laws: such as the Pope& his prelates say they are. Of which impiety, and how thereby, guilty persons make themselves iudges of the law, and seruants interpreters of their Masters commandements, and how they always interpret the Scriptures for their profit, and to serve for gain, and what horrible and extravagant interpretations they make of the Scriptures, it hath been formerly handled at large in the ninth. Section.  ARNOVX. 
Passages quoted in the margin of the Confession. 1. Cor. 11.1.2. Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ. Now brethren, I commend you that you remember all my things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered thē to you. And in the 23. verse, For I haue received of the Lord, that which I also haue said unto you. Do these two passages conclude the article, for the which they are set down as a proof?  moulin. 
These two passages are wholly and altogether formal, to prove that all things ought to be ruled and reformed by the holy Scripture. For here the Apostle to reform the abuse which the Corinthians committed in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, draweth it to the institution of the holy Supper, as it is written in the gospel. It importeth not, whether all the four evangelists, or one part onely were then written: for always, this is certain, that he reformeth the Corinthians by the rule contained in the Scriptures, which we at this day haue.  
By the way you must note, 
M. Arnoux falsification.  that M. Arnoux falsifieth the words of Saint Paul, and putteth, I haue received of the Lord, that which I haue said unto you: in stead of that which I haue delivered unto you: because these words {αβγδ}, quod tradidi vobis, show that Saint Paul calleth a doctrine contained in the Scriptures, a tradition.   

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.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary passages. matthew 23.2. and 3. The Scribes and Pharesies are set in Moses seat, all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but after their works do not: and matthew 18.17. Tell it unto the Church, and if he refuse to hear the Church, let him be as an heathen man or a Publican. And in Denteronomie 17.8. 
It is the 11. verse.  Thou shalt do all that, that they shall tell thee, which preside in the place which the Lord hath chosen, and which they shall teach, according to the Law, and thou shalt follow their sentence, without declining to the right hand or to the left. But he that by presumption will not obey the commandement of the Priest, which shall, for that time, be the Minister of thy God, and hath the sentence of a judge, that man shall die.  
Now you must note by the second of Paralipomenon, chapter 14. verse 10. that iudgement and examination belongeth to the Priest, in all the four chief controversies, that is, when there was any question of the law of the ten commandements, of moral commandements not set down in the Law, of ceremonial precepts for divine worship, and of judicial precepts for peace and iustice. Behold then, both the one and the other law( the iudgement of truths,) put into the hands of the Church established by God, and not left to the mercy of their opinions which would abuse a dumb rule, casting off the yoke of the interpreters that are ordained by God.  moulin. 
By the passage of the three and twentieth of Saint matthew, M. Arnoux setteth the Pastors of the church of Rome in the pharisees place, and understandeth, that although they say, and do not,& that their lives are contrary to their doctrines, yet men must obey them in all things, and do all that they command, because they haue the chair and the ordinary succession. I answer, that in that wherein he condemneth the actions of the Pastors of the Romish church, and compareth them to the pharisees, I will not contradict him. But whereas he thinks it fit for us to beleeue the pharisees in all things, and to do all that which they say, without any exception, he contradicteth Iesus Christ, which reproached them, that they transgressed the commandement of God by their tradition: and that they taught doctrines that are the precepts of men, Matth. 15.3.9. Therefore Iesus Christ, Math. 16.11. having commanded his Disciple, to beware of the leaven of the pharisees, Saint matthew declareth that they understood, that Christ would haue them to beware of the doctrine of the pharisees. Therefore he would not haue them obeied in all things And, is not that iudgement a manifest impiety, and a devilish doctrine, which they pronounced with one accord in the ninth chapter of Saint John, that whosoever confessed Iesus Christ, should be cast out of the Synagogue, that is, excommunicated? Was that a good doctrine, whereby Caiphas the high Priest, and his adherents, pronounced Iesus Christ to be a blasphemer, and worthy of death? Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth, 
Lib. 5. de amiss. gratia& statu peccati cap. 10.  that the Lord in the fift of Saint matthew confuted the perverse opinions of the pharisees, that taught, that inward or secret cogitatious were no sin. When Iesus Christ saith, Do all that they shall say unto you; he meaneth things conformable to the Law. And as Chrysostome in his seuentie two Homily vpon Saint matthew( where he expoundeth this passage) saith, 
{αβγδ},  All those things that correct and amend manners. And so the Iesuite Maldonat understandeth, the 23. of Saint matthew. M. Arnoux addeth a place out of the seventeenth of deuteronomy, and the eleventh verse, which confirmeth that. For there God saith, Thou shalt do all that they shall teach, according to the Law. Iesus Christ meaneth not that they should be obeied when they teach any thing against the Law: for the rule of the fourth of the Acts is without exception, that we must not rather obey men, then God.  
The second passage alleged by M. Arnoux, is, the eighteen of Saint matthew, where Iesus Christ saith, Tell it unto the Church, and if he refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man or a Publican. From whence it is inferred, that in matters of doubt touching faith, we must go to the catholic Romish church, which is an infallible judge.  
I answer, that our Aduersaries alleging this place, corrupt it three ways; first, they say, that by this place, Iesus Christ establisheth the Church to be judge of the controversies in Religion, and of points of faith. But there our Lord speaketh not of points of faith nor of doubts in religion but of quarrels between two particular persons; whereof the one hath offended the other: Iesus Christ speaketh of the censure of manners, and not of doctrine. If( saith he) thy brother hath sinned against thee, &c. To say, that if the Church hath authority to judge of quarrels between two particular persons, by greater reason she hath authority to judge of points of faith with authority and infallible certainty; is to dispute with as good probability, as if I should say, that he that can carry a burden that weigheth an hundred weight, by greater reason may carry a burden of a thousand weight. Secondly they will, that by the word, Church we must understand the universal Church: which is impossible; for, for to end a quarrel between two neighbours, we assemble not the universal Church. We must go to a particular Church, which all men confess to be subject to error, and namely, in that which is spoken of in this place that is, in giuing admonitions, and using of censures, wherein faults are committed, either by passion or by ignorance. In the third place they will that by the Church we must only understand the Roman, which is a rash supposition, without any colour. For if two Christians haue a quarrel in Syria, or in Ethiopia: must they go to the roman church to end their difference? And in doubts of faith, why should not the Syrian or the greek Churches as well be Iudges, which are much ancienter then the roman, and haue Saint Peters chair, and from whom the church of Rome hath received Christian religion? And th● words of Church, of Priest, of Bishop, of dean, of baptism, of Eucharist, and of Christian, that are greek, prove that the religion came from them, from whom those terms are borrowed.  

Extra. de judicijs.  Pope Innocent the third speaketh better, who in the chapter, novit, attributeth unto himself the knowledge of the differences between Philip Augustus King of France, and John King of England, because it is said in the gospel, Dic Ecclesiae, as if by the Church, we must understand the Pope himself. 
Pontifex de bet dicere Ecclesiae, id est, sibi ipsi.  Which interpretation seems good to Bellarmine, in the 2. book of the authority of councils, cap. 19. The Pope( saith he) ought to tell it to the Church, that is, to himself.  
To these three eminent corruptions of this passage, our Aduersaries add two apparent kindes of injustice: The first, that this place, being one of those whereon they ground the authority of the Romish church: nevertheless, the church of Rome will be the onely judge of the sense of this place. In a case where she is party, and where her greatness and authority is to be decided, she will be absolute and infallible judge. By this means she will be sure to give sentence with herself, and be well assured to win her cause.  
The other injustice is much worse, for when a question is made, to know the true orthodoxal Church, that men may follow it; the Romish church taketh all means possible from the people, of knowing whether her Pastors teach the true doctrine, or not: for that, to examine the doctrine of her Pastors by the holy Scriptures, is a thing not permitted to the people. To learn the resolutions of doubts by reading of the greek and latin Fathers,( the length and multitude whereof is infinite) is a thing which the people understand not. If we must be saved by that means, all women, and plain country and unlearned people, are damned. In such manner, that to know whether the Church wherein we live be a Church well grounded in the faith, there resteth no other means for the poor people, but to beleeue their Pastors, who will be sure not to condemn themselves. Was there ever more horrible cruelty laid on m●ns consciences? Is not this a way to make the people, in a maner, desperately to play at hazard for their salvation, by following custom, and thrusting themselves in amongst a company of blind fellowes, that follow and go on, without knowing any thing.  
The third passage alleged by M. Arnoux, out of the seuente●nth chapter of Deuteronomy maketh for vs. For it commandeth to obey the Priests, that teach according to the Law. If they teach otherwise, God will not haue men to beleeue them. When Pope John the three and twentieth taught, that there was neither Paradise nor Hell, as he said in the council of Constance: or when Pope Honorius maintained the Monothelites heresy, for the which he was excommunicated by three universal councils, M. Arnoux would not haue men to beleeue him in that.  
Then he needed not to speak of the four principal points of controversy, whereof he saith the examination belongeth to the Priest: wherein nevertheless he wrongeth himself, to name moral commandements besides the Decalogue or ten commandements. The Doctors of the roman church,( as well as we,) draw all the moral instructions and documents of good life and conversation, from the Law of God. Let the Reader mark by the way, the impious words of the Iesuite, when he termeth the holy Scripture to be a dumb rule: under pretence that it hath neither mouth nor throat. Our aduersaries writings are farced with such injuries against the word of God. bail the Iesuite, whose mouth M. rivet hath perpetually stopped, in the first treaty of his catechism, saith, that Without the authority of the Church, he would beleeue Saint matthew no more then Titus livius a Pagan Author. 
Bellarm. li. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 4.  Bellar. compareth and equaliseth the testimony which the holy Scripture yields of itself, to be divine, to the testimony which the Alcoran of Mahomet gives of itself, to be descended from heaven. There also he saith, that the Scripture is but a piece of a rule. Doctor Charron in his third truth saith, that the Scripture is a two handed sword, and that by it men become Atheists. Thus one of them after another call the Scripture divinely inspired, a dumb rule, as if it were a wooden rule; which he durst not say of the Kings proclamations, published and set on the posts, although the paper hath no voice. And although the word of God contained in the Scriptures makes no sound in the paper, yet it hath a sound in the mouth of the son of God, and of the Apostles, and when God published the Law in the middle of fire: which ought to haue the like force as if God at this day spake from heaven.  
What? shall the commandement of God pronounced by his own mouth,( Not to haue any other god but himself, and not to fall down before or worship any image) be esteemed a dumb rule, under pretence that it is written? Yet herein it is clean contrary to the images whereof david speaketh, saying, that they haue mouths and speak not. 
psalm 115.  For it may be said of the Scriptures, that they haue no mouth, and yet they speak, seeing that they speak sufficiently, when they tell us, how God hath spoken, and when they teach us to speak; as Esay saith in the 28. chapter and 20. verse, If we speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in vs. The holy Scripture speaketh sufficiently, when it teacheth us, how we must speak. If it speaketh not, it is sufficient that it ruleth vs. Then it is great impiety to deny, that the word of God is our judge, under pretence that the paper hath no sound. For that is not to bereave the paper of the quality of a judge, but God himself the Author of that doctrine.  
They serve their turns also with another reason, to bereave the holy Scripture of the title or office of a judge, by saying, that the Church is ancienter then the Scriptures. If this reason be good, Magistrates could not be Iudges of the people; for the people are ancienter then Magistrates: and the people should not be subject to the laws, 
{αβγδ}.  for they are ancienter then the laws. Although diuers things contained in the holy Scriptures are found to be ancienter then the Church: as all that which therein is said of the nature of God, of his properties, of his eternal counsels, and of the work of the creation. For by the Scriptures, we understand not the paper and the print, but the doctrines therein contained.  
But notwithstanding all these considerations, the ancient Fathers made no difficulty to aclowledge the Scriptures for judge. Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh book of Tapistries faith, In the seeking out or examination of things, wee make the Scripture our judge. And 
Quaerendi sunt judices. Ergo in terris de hac re nullumpoterit reperiri judicium, de coelo quaerendus est judex. said vt quid pulsamus coelum cum habeamus hic in evangelio? testamentum inquam.  Optat. Mileuitan in the fift book against Parmenian saith, We must seek for Iudges. If they be Christians they cannot be allowed on neither side, for affections hinder the truth. We must seek a judge without. If he be a Pagan, he cannot understand the mysteries of Christians. If he be a jew, he is an enemy to Christian baptism. If then we cannot find any iudgement in this cause here on earth, wee must seek for a judge in heaven. But what need we knock at heaven gate, seeing we haue one here in the gospel, that is, the Testament? of which gospel Iesus Christ himself saith, John the 12. chapter and 48. verse: He that refuseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that iudgeth him, the word that I haue spoken, it shall judge him in the last day. The Pope and his Prelates must pass by this iudgement, and shall be judged by the same word whereof they say themselves are Iudges and infallible interpreters. Although Pope Innocent the third in the Bull, Ad liberandum, which is at the end of the council of Latran, speaks as though he should be judge at the latter day, and signifieth unto all those that would not go on the voyage into the East, nor contribute any thing towards the same, that they should answer for it unto him at the terrible day of Iudgement. read Saint Augustine vpon that, in the eighteen book of Grace and Free will, 
Sedeat inter nos index Apostolus johannes &c. judicet cum Christo Apostolus, quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus.  where he will haue the Apostle to be judge, and to that end allegeth a place out of the Apostle. And in the three& thirtieth chapter of the second book of Marriage, and of Concupiscence; before he would allege a place out of the Apostle, he used this preface: Let the Apostle be judge with Christ, for Christ himself also speaketh by the Apostle.   

Whether the Priests lips do infallibly keep knowledge.  ARNOVX. 
The lips of the Priest keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, malachi 2.7. The law given is not a law, but in the mouth of the Priest.  moulin. 
In the Hebrew it is, The Priests lips should keep knowledge; which is not a prophesy, but a commandement. By these words God doth not foreshow that the Priests should never turn from the true doctrine, but forbiddeth them to turn from it. As when God in the Law saith, Thou shalt not kill: he doth not foreshow that there shall be no more murder, but forbiddeth to do it. To make Gods commandements prophesies, is as absurd a thing, as if we should make prophesies commandements: as if when Iesus Christ said, One of you shall betray me, the Apostles should haue taken that for a commandement to betray him. There is the like absurdity in this changing or altering of the word of God, whereby this commandement given to the Priests to keep knowledge, is taken for a prophesy that they shall always keep it; vpon it to ground the infallible knowledge of the Popes, and the prelates of the Church of Rome. Here are already two faults, one, in the falsification of the words, the other in the corruption of the sense; and now you shall see a third, that is, a cutting away a piece of the passage, 
M. Arnoux falsification.  which M. Arnoux cuts clean in the middle: for the lines following show, that the same Priests to whom malachi speaketh, had not kept knowledge, had seduced the people, and had corrupted the covenant of God. For presently after malachi saith, But you are departed out of the way, you haue caused many to stumble at the Law, you haue corrupted the covenant of levi: but the Iesuite would not add that.  
It was not enough in one place of two lines to haue committed three faults, as falsification of the words corruption of the sense, and cutting off some part of the passage: but to fill up the measure of iniquity, he addeth blasphemy, saying, That the Law is not a rule, but onely in the mouth of the Priest. If that be so, to read the holy Scriptures, is not to read the rule of salvation: and the written commandements are not the Law of God, but begin to be a Law, when the Priest pronounceth the same, that men should take no regard unto that which they read, but to that which the Priest saith: who by this reckoning may say unto God: When we pronounce thy Law, we make it begin to be a Law, and thou art beholding unto us, that we give authority to thy word contained in the holy Scriptures: to the end that no man should be so simplo to beleeue that the words of the Priests and Bishops of Rome haue any force, unless they be conformable to the holy Scriptures: for on the contrary, if we will beleeue M. Arnoux, this Scripture and the doctrine therein contained, takes their authority from the Priests and Bishops of Rome: which being granted, it is to be presumed, that God in acknowledging the kindness that he hath received from them, he will easily grant them liberty to clip the Law of God, and to patch thereto some pieces of their own. As we see in our Ladies houres, the commandements of God set down in this manner: 
Printed at Paris by Heureux Blanuilain in Saint Victors street at the sign of the three Moores, an. 1611.  1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not haue, nor worship any other God but me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember that thou keepst holy the sabbath,& other holy daies. They haue taken away the second commandement, and in the fourth thrust in the observation of holy dayes. From thence also it followeth, that as the Law given by God, is not a rule but onely in the Priests mouth: so, that which is in the Priests mouth, ceaseth not to be a law although it be not found in the written word of God which is the dumb rule, and the piece of a rule. after that what more is to be done, but to take the Turban, or Turkish wreath?    

THE SIXTH ARTICLE: Of the Confession of Faith.  This holy Scripture teacheth us, that in this onely and simplo divine essence, which we haue confessed, there are three persons, the Father, the son, and the holy Ghost; the Father, the first cause, beginning, and original of all things; the son, his word and eternal wisdom; the holy Ghost, his virtue, power,& efficacy. The son eternally begotten of the Father; the holy Ghost eternally proceeding from them both. The three persons not confused, but distinguished; and yet not divided, but of one essence, eternity, power, and equality. And in that, we avouch the same that hath been determined by ancient councils; and detest all sects and heresies, which haue been rejected by holy Doctors, as Saint hilary, S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose, and S. Cyril.  

THE SEVENTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue that God in three persons working together, by his virtue, wisdom, and incomprehensible goodness, hath created all things, not onely heaven and earth, and all that which is contained therein, but also the invisible spirits, whereof some are fallen into utter perdition, the rest haue continued in obedience. That the first being corrupted and malicious, are enemies to all good, and by consequence of all the Church. The second having been preserved by the grace of God, are ministers to glorify the name of God, and to serve for the salvation of his elect.  

THE EIGHTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue, that he hath not onely created all things, but that he governeth and conducteth them, disposing and ordering all things that happen and are done in the world according to his will: not that he is the author of evil, or that the fault thereof can be imputed unto him, seeing that his will is the sovereign and infallible rule of all right and equity: but he hath admirable means to be served in such manner by the divels and the wicked, that he can turn the evil which they do,( and whereof they are culpable) into good. And so, confessing that nothing is done without the providence of God, in humility we adore the secrets that are hidden from us, without inquiring further thereof then becometh vs. But rather apply that unto our use which is shewed in the holy Scriptures for our repose and safety. For that God to whom all things are subjecteth, watcheth over us with a paternal care, so that not one hair shall fall from our heads without his will: and in the mean time holdeth the divels and all our enemies bridled, in such manner that they can do us no harm, without his leave. 
M. Arnoux passing over these three articles, by his silence declareth that he can say nothing to them. nevertheless, in another place he hath been fencing against the doctrine contained in the eight article: imposing vpon calvin and us, that we make God the author of sin, whereunto we haue made answer in a Treatise apart by itself. 
In the Treaty of the just providence of God.  But because this matter is the field wherein our enemies display their banners, and fall into odious exclamations; and for that this doctrine is thorny, and where the way is slippery, and the invectives plausible, it is necessary to clear this matter, to prevent the slanders, and to vntangle this spindle, which Sathans malice hath much twirled.  

Of the providence of God, and how God conducteth the actions of the wicked, without being author of sin, or participating with their vices.  
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 vpon God, and will teach God to be just, or bind him to yield an account of his actions.  
But the holy Scripture oftentimes useth diuers 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 vpon 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 Gods providence. And in the first of Sam. 2.25. it is said, That the children of Ely harkened 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 lye, to whom God said, thou shalt persuade them, and prevail also, go forth and do so. In the second of Samuel chapter 16. Semei nurseth 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 divell to afflict job, and the chaldeans to rob him of all his goods: and all that history is recited to haue been done by the providence of God; and therefore job said, God giveth it, God taketh it, blessed be the name of the Lord. ieremy in his Lamentations 3.37. speaketh thus of the desolation of the Iewes 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 Iewes, of Herod, and of Pontius Pilate, against Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Pharaos heart. Gods words to the Prophet Esay 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 iustice 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 any thing 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 commandement 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 onely to obey the will of God, which is his Law, without inquiring 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 commandements, although his prayer be conrrary to Gods 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 Gods secret decree, which the divels also execute. For we shall not be judged according to that whereby we haue served God in his secret decree, but according to the measure whereby we haue obeied Gods commandements.  
2 To speak properly, the decree of God onely, which is a determination of his providence, is the will of God. Touching his commandements, 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 therof, 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 iudgement 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 bridle 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 onely 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 haue 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 Gods iustice in punishing of sin, nor his mercy in pardoning of sin, nor his infinite love in the mystery of the incarnation of his son haue 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 haue attained to a perfect knowledge of the goodness and iustice of God. The final end for the which all things are made, is, that God might be glorified: and withall the Scripture teaching us, that God punisheth one sin by other sins. If God onely 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, vpon 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 commandements.  
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 mens wils in subiection, even those that resist his known will, which is his commandement.  
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 schollers 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 giuing 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 perversity. 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 Pharaos 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 haue abused the knowledge of God, there are some men wickeder then others, whom God delivered to Satan by a particular iudgement, and an extraordinary manner, as pharaoh, Saul, and Iudas.  
9 even as the sun is not the cause of darkness,( for of his own nature he produceth nothing but light) although darkness necessary succeedeth when it is gone down: So God is not the cause of sin; for of his nature he is righteousness itself, although irregularity, sin, and disorder of affections necessary ensue when he hath withdrawn his grace. Some say, that the sun withdrawing itself, 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 mans 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 wils to execute one thing rather then another, by his secrct iudgement 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 riuers 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 mans body, intend nothing but to fill themselves with blood; but the Phisitians end who applieth them, is to heal his patient: So the wicked, by whom God serveth his turn to chasten his children, haue 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 Esay 10.6.7. howsoever God useth the service of the wicked, in such manner that he constraineth not their wils, and taketh not from them their free choice, which in the wicked is most free to do evil.  
12 As God is necessary good, and yet most free and without constraint; so the divell and those whom he governeth absolutely, are necessary 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 haue life, moving, and all things, &c. Acts 17.25. And wee cannot stir nor move without his aid. 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 haue 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 onely by a general virtue, but also by his particular assistance: So we must say, that to move mens wils to good, and to direct the wils of the wicked to the end and intent that God hath purposed, God ruleth and assisteth, not onely by his general aid, but also by his particular providence: seeing it appeareth that the effects which follow, as the death of Iesus Christ happened by the wickedness of the Iewes, 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 divell solicit him, or present objects unto him to tempt him, or by some alteration of the humors of the body, move his fantasy, but he hath no power over the will of man, to constrain him to sin: otherwise, God should be unjust to punish man, and all the fault should be in the divell.  
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 free-will, speaking of Semei cursing david, vpon that which God had said to Semei, curse david: 
Non enim iubendo dixit uti obedientia laudaretur, said quod eius voluntatem proprio vitio malam, in hoc peccatum justo suo judicio& occulto inclinauit.  God( saith he) did not command him to do it, that his obedience might be praised, but because God, by his just iudgement, did incline his will to that sin, which was evil by his own fault. 
Operatur Deus in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocunque volverit, siue ad bona pro sua misericordia, siue ad mala pro meritis eorum.  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 perversity of the heart cometh not without the secret iudgement of God, which maketh men not to harken 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 villainous desires, to do things that are not convenient: but he giveth them justly over, and so those sins become punishments for sins past, and merites for future sins.  
Thomas Aquinas followed him, in his commentary vpon 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 free-will saith, that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wils which way it pleaseth him, whether it be to good, according to his mercy, or to evil, according to their merites.  
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 wee 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 iudgement of the most mighty God, by precedent sins, man is in such sort destitute of divine aid, 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 Gods calling him, that is, vouchsafeth him not congruent grace for him in this estate.    

THE NINTH ARTICLE. Of free-will, and of natural Corruption.  We beleeue that man having been created, pure, entire, and conformable unto the Image of God, by his own fault, fell from the grace that he had received, and so alienated himself from God, who is the fountain of all righteousness and of all goodness, in such manner that his nature is wholly corrupted; and being blinded in his spirit, and depraved in his heart, hath lost all integrity, without any remainder thereof. And although he hath some knowledge to discern good and evil, notwithstanding we say, that what light soever he hath, it is turned into darkness, if the question be of searching after God; insomuch, that by his understanding and reason, he can no way come near him. And although that he hath a will, whereby he is moved to do this or that, yet it is wholly captivated under sin, in such sort, that he hath no liberty to do good, but that which God giveth him. ARNOVX. 
It is one thing to say, that without the grace of God we can do no good, tending to life everlasting, and to the glory of Iesus Christ; which is true; and another thing to say, that doing that good by the aid and motion of grace, we do it as being constrained, pressed, and drawn unto it, without the use of our own free-will: which is the scope of this Article, overthrowing the Image of God in man,( that is, liberty) and supplanting the grounds and foundations of virtuous and commendable actions.  moulin. 
To speak in this manner, it is not to examine our Confession, but to forge another to strive against it, and so to make sport. For wee beleeue nothing of all that which he maketh us to say, but detest the doctrine which he attributeth unto vs. For in our ninth Article there is not one word of all that which he maketh us to say. We say not, that we do good by constraint; wee take not the liberty of mans will from him: we know that the good which the children of God do, they do it voluntarily, and without constraint. This is our belief.  
Man is considered two ways, either such as he is by nature, or such as he is after he is regenerated, and lead by the Spirit of God.  
Touching man not regenerated, and such as he is by nature, see what the Scripture teacheth us, Genesis 6.5. God saith, that every imagination of the thoughts of mans heart is onely evil continually: and, Gen. 8.21. The imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth. Saint Paul to the romans 5.12. saith, that By one man sin entred into the world, and death by sin, and so death went over all men, inasmuch as all haue sinned. And to the Ephesians, 2.1.5. saith, that We were dead in trespasses and sins, and that God hath quickened vs. From whence the Scripture calleth this changing into a better life, a second birth, John 3.3. and a regeneration by the incorruptible seed of the word of God, 1. Peter 1.23. and a resurrection Apocalyps 20.6. The Apostle Saint Paul, Corinthians 2. chap. 3. verse 5. saith, that We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Then, if we be incapable of ourselves to think any good thing, how much more to do any good thing? The same Apostle in the 1. Corinthians chap. 2. verse 14 saith, that The natural man perceiveth not the things that are of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. And, Romans 8.7. The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be.  
These places, and such like, prove unto us that which our Confession saith, that mans nature is altogether corrupt, and that man is blind in spirit, and corrupt in his heart.  
To the which proofs we add the places, which say, that faith and the love of God, and to be short, all virtues that are in us pleasing to God, and all the good that we do, cometh not from us, but are gifts of God, as it is said in the Ephesians 2.8.9. For by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, l●st any man should boast himself. And Philippians 2.13. It is God which worketh in you both the will and the dead even of his good pleasure. So the Lord, matthew 16.17. saith to Saint Peter: Blessed art thou Simon, the son of jonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Therefore also in the 11.25 he gave thanks to his Father, for that he had hidden those things from the wise and men of understanding, and had opened them unto babes. From the same spring proceedeth the love that we bear to God, joh. 1. cap. 4.20. We love God, because he loved us first.  
By all these proofs, we intend not to take from the corrupt and unregenerate man, all freedom of will: we know well, that in natural actions, which are ruled by the will, as to eat, and to go; and in civil actions, to sell, contract, build, and travell, man freely chooseth among many objects. Of this liberty in civil things, Saint Paul speaketh 1. Corinth. 7. where he saith, That the woman after the death of her husband is at liberty to marry again, and putteth it to the choice of the father to let his daughter marry or to keep her a virgin. We say more, that is, that man hath his free will in good and honest actions, belonging to civil honesty: as the actions of Pagans, which help up a man that is fallen down, and set him in the way again that hath lost his way. I say the same touching the observation of Ecclesiastical policy wherein the essence of piety consisteth not; and of all good works, touching the exterior action, as to give alms, sing to the praise of God, &c. And which is more, we say that the unregenerate man sinneth very freely, and without constraint, and between two evils chooseth very freely. And this is the same liberty which imposeth on him the necessity to sin, because he is naturally subject to his will, naturally evil. Therein consists his mischief that he is too free to do evil, so that his freedom is the cause of his servitude. Now this necessity to sin is not repugnant to the freedom of the will. witness the divels, which are necessary and naturally wicked, and yet sin most freely and without constraint: So God is necessary good, and yet most free. It is not necessity but constraint that overthroweth the freedom of the will.  
In all these things we say that unregenerate men haue their free will and free choice, onely the word of God bereaveth them of this liberty, 
Rom. 7.14. Eph. 2.1.  and calleth them bondslaves, sold to sin, yea dead in sin, in regard of Christian virtues, which lead men unto salvation; as the true knowledge of God, and of faith in Iesus Christ, and of the true fear and love of God, the end and purpose whereof is the glory of God, and the hope of salvation in Iesus Christ. To all these things man naturally hath no inclination, no moving, nor no free will at all, as we haue shewed by places of the Scripture. It should be hard in the good thief crucified with Iesus Christ, or in the Apostle Saint Paul before his conversion, to find any preparations or dispositions to convert or turn unto God: which preparations our aduersaries call merits of congruity: which surely is a great incongruity in faith.  
Touching the regenerate, and such as are conducted& sanctified by the Spirit of God, we are so far off from saying that they do good by constraint, that on the contrary we say that they do it willingly, and take pleasure therein. He that doth good by constraint, doth evil. And God sheweth mercy unto him, if he pardoneth such a disobedience. Although God hateth evil, yet he will not constrain men to goodness, because goodness is no goodness if it be not voluntary. But he boweth the wils of his children, and maketh them willing to work with him. In such manner nevertheless, that all whatsoever they cooperate and that will itself which they haue to do good, proceedeth from God: Which worketh in us both the will and the dead even of his good pleasure Phil. 2.13. even as the infant formed in the womb stirreth of itself, and is an help to his own conservation and birth:& yet all that vigour or strength in him proceedeth from God: so is it with regeneration and spiritual birth. To give God all the praise and glory of our good works, is not to hinder good works, no more then to give God all the praise of the framing and birth of the child, is to hinder the birth of the child, or to diminish his vigour. God preventeth those that will not, to make them will, and aideth those that will, that they may not will in vain He commandeth whatsoever he will, and doth that in us which he commandeth: he doth it by a sweet efficacy, and by an attraction without constraint, whereof Iesus Christ speaketh, joh. 6.44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. The Apostle Saint Paul, Eph. 4.24. saying, that the new man is created after God unto righteousness and true holinesse: calleth our regeneration a new creation. Now as in the creation, the imperative words of God were operative: so in our regeneration, his word is full of efficacy to transform mens hearts. So when the Lord spake to the dead body of Lazarus saying, Lazarus come forth; by those words he infused life into him again. And as our Lord commanded the jews to unbind Lazarus bands wherewith he was bound, that he might be loose, so in the spiritual resurrection, he vnbindeth us from the servitude of sin, that we may serve him freely, and with a good will. This is that which our Confession saith, that man hath no freedom or will to do good, but that which God giveth him. Then it acknowledgeth a freedom or will in the faithful, but that it is a gift of God: which freedom being opposed and crossed by the combat of concucupiscences, increaseth as God augmenteth his graces, and the work of regeneration proceedeth in vs.  
The sum of all that which is said before, is this, that the unregenerate man hath free will in natural things, in civil things, and in wicked things, but not in divine things, which lead to salvation. As for the regenerate man, the good that he doth, he doth it voluntarily and without constraint, and in this sense diuers ancient Fathers say, that the faithful haue free will, but if by having free will, we understand, that it should be in the free will of a man that is not regenerate to haue true faith, and to turn unto God with hearty repentance, or that the good which we do, and the faith in Iesus Christ, and the true knowledge of God, partly proceed from our natural forces, or that before regeneration there are preparations, dispositions, and merits of congruity in man:( as Sophisters prattle,) we reject that free will, as contrary to the word of God, and not onely say, that God vnbindeth our will which is restrained, but that he wholly giveth the will and the force of motion to do good. Our aduersaries themselves, saying that man can do no good without Gods assistance, deny free will: for he is not free to go, that cannot go except the bands that bind him be unbound, and without being holden up after he hath been bound. They say, that in an vnregenerated man free will is bound, and restrained. As much to the purpose, as if I should say, that a free man is a bond man. For how can the will be frank and free, if it be bound and restrained? Surely, he is not free, that being laid down cannot rise again, if another man doth not lend him his hand. For the grace whereby God releeueth us, is not in our disposition; God doth not onely solicit our wils, by showing objects, or by propounding reasons fit and proper to persuade, but also giveth the desire, and changeth the will. He doth with efficacy produce to will and to do according to his good pleasure. For if he changeth the hearts of his enemies, as the heart of Esau, Genes. 33.4. and of Saul 1. Sam. 19.23. and of the Egyptians, Psal. 105.25. And if he holdeth the hearts of kings, to incline them as he will, Prou. 21.1. How much more doth he touch the hearts of his elect, to turn them unto him with a voluntary conversion?  ARNOVX. 
Places quoted in the margin of the Confession. joh. 1.4.5. In it was life, and that life was the light of men, and that light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. Is not this a mocking of the world, and an abusing of mens souls, to set down this place, thereby to conclude, that a man can do no good but by constraint, nor obey God, by the freedom of a goodwill?  moulin. 
I grant it, for we set not down this place, to prove that a man can do no good but by constraint: but to prove, that man naturally abideth in darkness. This man forgeth errors, to strive and contend against them.  ARNOVX. 
And are not sinners( by good reason) called darkness, because they refuse the light, which is offered unto them?  moulin. 
add thereunto: and because that they are naturally plunged in darkness, having not any true knowledge of God, by their own nature.  ARNOVX. 
John 8.37. Then if the son make you free, you shall be free indeed. I conclude to the contrary, the son hath freed us, and therefore we are free. What do these men by this allegation, but provide arms to beate themselves?  moulin. 
I know not to whom this Doctor speaketh: he proveth by this place that we are free after that Iesus Christ hath made us free. Who doubts that? and who ever denied it? The question is, whether we be bondslaves, and without free-will in things which appertain to salvation, before we are freed by Iesus Christ. M. Arnoux toucheth not that, but spends time in unprofitable words.  

Whether man by his free-will, can choose goodness.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary passages. Deut. 30.19. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I haue set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life that thou and thy seed may live. Note this word choose: can a man choose without liberty, or by constraint?  moulin. 
By this place the Iesuite disputeth not against us, but against those that say, that we do good by constraint. Therefore those that beleeue that, must answer him: and not we, who therein agree with the Church of Rome.  
Our aduersaries haue used to produce this place, to prove that it is in our power to choose good, and to leave evil: seeing that God saith choose, for( say they) God commandeth no impossible things. But they contradict themselves: for M. Arnoux said before, that man can do no good thing, without the grace of God. Now this grace of God is not in our power: we bear not the keys of this treasure. God giveth not his graces to every one, but to whom he will. nevertheless, this commandement is given unto all men, to choose good,& to shun evil, and that to those that are not regenerated by the grace of the Spirit of God, even to Pagans and infidels. Behold then, by the confession of our aduersaries, men that cannot obey this commandement which is given unto them, because they haue not the grace of God, without the which we can do no good, that tendeth to salvation.  
That which maketh our aduersaries to combat one another, and not to understand themselves, is a false presupposition, which they make, that man by his free will can do all that which God commandeth: which is a maxim that we must banish out of divinity; for God in the gospel commandeth us to haue faith in Iesus Christ; and nevertheless Saint Paul, Ephes. 2.8. saith, This faith cometh not from ourselves, but it is a gift of God. God by his Prophet, Ezekiel 18.31. commandeth us to make us new hearts: but he himself by the same Prophet, 36. 2●. declareth, that it is he that giveth a new heart, and a new spirit, that taketh away the heart of ston, and giveth a heart of flesh.  
God in his Law speaketh to all men, for the Law is our natural debt: and yet it is a thing granted by all men, that without being instructed in the word of God, it is impossible to accomplish it;& there are an infinite number of people, to whom the word of God is not preached, who nevertheless are bound to accomplish the Law.  
This proof is demonstrative, that if by our free will we cannot dispose of the grace without the which we cannot obey God, nor do that good which serveth to salvation, that also by this free will we cannot obey God, nor do that good which serveth to salvation. Then let M. Arnoux learn, that the Law of God is not a proof of our ability, but of our duty; and that he which asketh a man that which he oweth him, is not unjust, although the debtor be become unable by his own fault. And if the debtor be become poor by his own prodigality, yet thereby he is not less bound to pay: and the creditor that will be paid, considers him not as rich or poor, but as a debtor. So it is in this case, for God had created man righteous, and by his free will able to choose good or evil: by his own fall he hath lost this righteousness, 
Aug. Euchir. ad Laurentium cap. 3. Libero arbitrio hom● male vtens, se perdidit,& ipsum, nam cum libero peccaretur arbitrio, victore peccato, amissum est liberum arbitrium.  and by bad using of his free will, lost both it and himself. So that if by his own fault, he is become unable to fulfil the Law of God, is God unjust to ask him that which he oweth? seeing that God commanding him to keep the Law, speaketh not to him as to a righteous man, nor as to a sinner, but simply as to a natural man, bound to this obedience.  
In which rigour the mercy of God is admirable: for in exacting from a corrupt man, a perfect righteousness, which he cannot accomplish, he maketh him afraid, and by this fear drives him to Iesus Christ: who hath paid this debt for all those that beleeue in him. God asking us that which we cannot do teacheth us what we should ask him and that which Christ Iesus hath done for vs. Quod Lex impetrat, 
Aug. Ep. 89.  fides impetrat. That which the Law commandeth, faith obtaineth of the goodness of God by prayer.  ARNOVX. 
To Philemon verse 14. I would do nothing without thy mind, that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but as willingly. Note this last as, to be added for the pleasure of the Ministers. In the original you haue simply and without restraint, willingly: but that importeth not much, seeing that this word restraineth not, but expresseth the manner that Saint Paul requireth to be observed in the good action of his disciple, which is freedom and liberty.  moulin. 
We hold with M. Arnoux, that the good which Saint Paul required of Philemon, ought simply to be voluntary, and without constraint. The word as, added in our translation, is not contrary to that, but we were forced to add the same, to shun an harshness of phrase, which the French tongue cannot bear: as for example, if the Apostle had said in Greek, that Iesus Christ suffered not as God, but man, he translateth truly that saith, Iesus suffered not as God, but as man. If I should say, that a French man ought to be appareled, not as the Spaniards, but the F●ench men, I should speak against our manner of speech, and must necessary add thereunto, as, and say, as the French men. And the efore whereas Paul, according to the greek saith, to the end that thy good should not be as by constraint, but voluntary, it was necessary in French to translate, but as voluntary. M. Arnoux himself justifieth us, saying, that it importeth not much.  ARNOVX. 
I could quote an hundred and an hundred places wherewith the Scripture floweth, to justify this truth; without which, hell, Paradise, the preaching of the word, the exhortations, threatenings, and all that which we beleeue of the efficacy of the grace, whereby God disposeth of us with awful observance, and maketh us work effectually, but yet mildly drawing us without violence, were in vain.  moulin. 
All that is good against those that hold that we do no good but by constraint, but not against us, which onely say, that God useth the preaching of the gospel, and exhortations and threatenings, with efficacy to touch our hearts, that voluntarily and without constraint they might be moved to serve him.    

THE TENTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue that all the generation of Adam, is infected with this contagion, which is original sin, and an hereditary 'vice, and not onely an imitation as the Pelagians say; whose error we detest, and think it not not necessary, to inquire how sin comes from one man to another, because it is certain, that, that which God gave him, was not for himself onely, but for all his generation: and so, that in him we haue been bereaved of all goodness, and are fallen into all poverty and malediction. 
M. Arnoux alloweth this Article, and findeth nothing therein to be reproved.   

THE ELEVENTH ARTICLE. Vpon which M. Arnoux moveth the question, touching original sin after baptism.  We beleeue that this 'vice is certainly sin, which is sufficient to condemn all mankind, even little children, as soon as they come out of their mothers womb; and that it is so reputed before God, namely, that after baptism it is always sin, as touching the fault, although the condemnation is abolished in the children of God, not imputing the same unto them by his free mercy, as also that it is a perversity always producing fruits of malice and rebellion, such as that the most holiest( although they strive against it) are not without spots of infirmities and faults, while they are here on earth. ARNOVX. 
Can there be any thing said, more contrary to the mystery of our redemption, and the greatness of the Sacraments of the new Law, for that both the one and the other are made of no effect? If the son of God by his death, which by baptism is applied unto us, was not of force to withdraw us from the death of sin, but hath left us butted in the filthiness of the old man, and hath not truly regenerated us, nor made us acceptable to his Father, before whom, we are still abominable, while the fault, for the which his son died, remaineth in us, and defileth vs.  moulin. 
All these words tend to show, that all those that are baptized, haue no more original sin, and by consequence haue no more actual sin, for all our wicked actions proceed from our corrupt nature.  
This matter is of great importance. For the knowledge of the corruption of our nature, maketh us know the necessity of the grace of God. If we did not know what evil it is to be born in Adam, we should not know what good it is to be born again in Iesus Christ. We must necessary know the misery of our natural generation, before we proceed to our spiritual regeneration.  
This natural corruption is called original sin, because we haue it from our birth. This sin is an hereditary evil, which consisteth in the deprivation of original righteousness, and in an inclination to evil. This corruption is fallen vpon man by propagation, and is come vpon us from our first father, whose transgression is imputed to all mankind, because Adam did not sin as a particular man, but as representing all human kind, both in his beginning and original. The benefits which he had received for himself and his posterity, he lost for himself and his posterity. The crime of treason committed by the father, disparageth also his posterity. And by all human laws, children are charged with their fathers debts. But herein there is a difference, that for debts children may renounce their patrimony but men can not renounce this hereditary corruption, because original sin is not onely a debt, but also an hereditary contagion& disease: as when a leprosy seizeth vpon a whole generation.  
Circumcision in the old Testament, and baptism in the new Testament, are silent confessions of original sin: for by these sacraments conferred to little children, the Church confesseth, that there is some superfluous thing in them to cut off, and that they are come into the world with spots and filthiness, the which they desire to haue washed away by the grace of God in Iesus Christ.  
Because of this original sin, children are subject to die, although they haue not actually sinned: even as we break the eggs of asps, although they never bit nor infected any man, because that out of them there would come venomous serpents; so a child death justly, although it hath not actually sinned: but it is sufficient that his nature is vicious, and will one day disclose and bring forth sin, which is there already in power, and in his original. For original sin is the ground of all actual sins: that is it which maketh man by nature incapable to obey the law of God. david confesseth that he was conceived in that sin, psalm 51. And our aduersaries confess, that Saint Paul the Apostle acknowledgeth, that that sin remained in him, Rom. 7.17. With this corruption not onely the children of pagans and infidels, but also the children of the faithful and true Christians are born: because they beget children not as they are faithful, but in that they are men. piety is not hereditary, it comes not by nature but by grace: it is not generation but regeneration that makes the faithful. So under the law, a circumcised man begot a child with the foreskin: in the same maner that a grain of corn which is clean, bringeth forth other corn with the husk and straw. If any man hath vicious children, he ought in them to aclowledge his own nature; if he hath wise and virtuous children, he ought in them to aclowledge the works of God. That is it which Saint John teacheth us, 1. cha. 13. where he saith, That those that beleeue in Iesus Christ, are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  
God furnisheth his elect with a double remedy or help against this original sin; The one, the remission of all our sins by Iesus Christ; the other the regeneration& interior renewing by the holy Ghost: which changing is another birth, and a comformation of a new man, made according to the image of the son of God. Of these two benefits baptism is a seal, by the which the benefit of Iesus Christ is applied unto us: as Saint mark in the beginning of his Gospel teacheth us, where he saith, Saint John preached the baptism of repentance, by remission of sins. joining these two benefits to baptism, that is, repentance, which is regeneration, with the remission of sins.  
Whereupon we are at difference with the church of Rome: In this, that she saith, that children that are baptized haue no more original sin, and that baptism wholly abolisheth that sin. We on the contrary say, that children that are baptized, are yet spotted with that sin, but that God imputeth it not, but pardoneth it for Iesus Christs sake; whereof the benefit is applied unto us by baptism.  
Our doctrine is grounded vpon the holy Scripture, vpon the nature of God, vpon experience, and vpon the confession of the aduersaries.  
1 In the fifty one psalm and fi●t verse, the Prophet david confessing his sins, acknowledgeth from whence this evil happened unto him, that is, from his original corruption, saying, Behold, I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Now david was circumcised, and then circumcision was in place of baptism.  
2 The Apostle Saint Paul was baptized and regenerated. Now our Aduersaries confess, that in the seventh chapter to the romans he speaketh of himself; and that in the seventeenth verse he acknowledgeth, that sin dwelleth in him. And in the fourteenth verse, I am carnal, sold under sin. The council of Trent in the fift Session, holdeth that Saint Paul speaketh of the regenerate man. Behold then a man baptized and regenerate, in whom( by the confession of our Aduersaries) sin dwelled, and that yet hath natural corruption in him; which did in such manner torm●nt the Fathers in the council of Trent, that they found no other means to save themselves, then by giuing the lye to Saint Paul, saying, that that which Saint Paul calleth sin, to speak truly and properly, is no sin, in men born again, that is to say, baptized. It is to no purpose to produce examples, whereby to prove that this word sin is taken figuratively, either for sacrifice, or for occasion of sin; for to this sin whereof the Apostle speaketh in the seventh chapter, things are attributed which properly belong unto sin, that is, to be condemned in the Law, to do evil, to dwell in man, and to fight and strive against the Lawe of God which is in the mind.  
3 In the third chapter of the same Epistle, verses 9. and 10. the same Apostle maintaineth, that all, both Iewes and Gentiles are under sin, as it is written, There is none righteous, no not one. Now the Iewes were circumcised, and many among the Gentiles were baptized.  
4 Therefore the same Apostle, Colossians chapter 2. verse 13. saith well, that God freely pardoneth all our offences: but saith not, that in this life God maketh us perfectly righteous, and without sin. And Saint John chapter 1. verses 7. 8. of his first Epistle, after he had said, that The blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin: lest that any man thereby should presume to be without sin, he addeth, If we say that we haue no sin, we deceive ourselves, and truth is not in vs.  
5 The Apostle Saint Paul to the Romans, cha. 6. verse 23. saith, that The wages of sin is death. Then the death of a man, is a certain proof that he is spotted and defiled with sin. Now diuers little children die after they are baptized, before they haue committed any actual sin: then necessary they are spotted with sin; which sin consequently, must be original sin, seeing they haue not yet done any actual sin.  
6 In the twelfth verse of the same chapter he saith, Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. These words are a silent confession that sin dwelleth in us, and an exhortation to hinder it from having the vpper hand, and that dwelling in us, as it is said in the chapter following, it should not reign in us,  
7 Experience also proveth it. For if fathers and mothers that are baptized, haue no original sin, how comes it then that children are born in original sin? How can fathers and mothers give that to their children which they haue not?  
8 Likewise, do we not ordinarily see little children, after they are baptized, to be perverse and vncorrigible? They are all naturally inclined to lye. We see a perverse humour in them. The love and the reverence which they bear to their babies, are evident seeds of idolatry. From whence should this peruersity enter into them, but onely by their corrupt nature, because they could not haue learned it by example?  
9 whosoever taketh away a cause which can onely produce an effect, taketh away the effect also. Now, natural corruption, which is original ūnne, is the cause of all evil actions. Then that being taken away, by consequence also all evil actions are taken away. But seeing that after baptism evil actions appear, it is certain, that original sin is not abolished.  
10 If a man that is baptized becometh profane and impious, hath he not original sin? hath he not that corruption and inclination to evil, that he brought into the world? If he hath it, how is it come again, after he lost it in baptism? If he hath it not, how is he so much inclined to evil?  
11 I leave a great number of places in the holy Scriptures, which condemn all men, even the most righteous, to be sinners, and summon the most perfect that are in the church of Rome, to the testimony of their own consciences. For who is he among them, that is not oftentimes moved with pride and choler, and infected with evil desires? What is he that loveth his God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself? What is he among them that doth not sometimes lye, seeing that the Scripture which lieth not, saith that all men are liars? Psal. 116. After they haue disputed against us, each of them are severally to dispute against themselves, and to gainsay the testimony of his own conscience.  
12 Do not they themselves, with the council of Trent, 
That concupiscence itself, without a stayed resolution to sin, is sin.  confess that concupiscence remaineth after baptism? This concupiscence is sin; for that Saint Paul, Romans chapter 7. and verse 7. calleth it sin, having learned that of the law which saith, Thou shalt not covet. For Saint John in his first epistle, third chapter, and fourth verse saith, sin is the transgression of the Law. To think to deceive or mock the commandement of God,& such express words of the Apostle by a distinction forged in schools, is to leave nothing certain in the word of God. Our Aduersaries say that concupiscence is sin, when it hath a resolute desire or will to offend God, but if it be but motions without resolution, and without determination, that it is no sin. remembering not, that when they say so, they contradict themselves, and injure Saint Paul the Apostle. For our aduersaries confess, that Saint Paul acknowledgeth, that this concupiscence which he calleth Sin, remained in him. Now would they say, that Saint Paul had a determinate will to sin, or that he took pleasure to offend God?  
13 moreover God commandeth us to love and serve him with all our hearts, and by consequence forbiddeth the instigations and motions of evil desires, which cannot be when the heart is wholly possessed with the Spirit of God. Neither Iesus Christ, nor the blessed Saints in heaven haue those concucupiscences.  
14 Reason also is therein most manifest, for he is put to death that hath never so little spoken and conspired with the enemy to betray a town, although he hath not proceeded to a resolute will to execute that treason. And a maid that giveth care unto vnchast temptations, maketh a breach in her credit, although she hath not proceeded to a full resolution to do evil. Yet these men affirm, that concupiscence which tempteth and soliciteth man to offend God, is no sin, so that the will consent not thereunto, and that men proceed not to a full resolution. If the will did holily to resist concupiscence, concupiscence did wickedly to tempt and solicit the will.  
15 Behold the Apostle, who( by our aduersaries confession) speaking of this concupiscence, saith, that by it he doth the evil that he would not. Rom. 7.19. and that it fighteth against the law of his mind, verse 23. that is, against the law of God printed in his mind. How then dare they say, that to do evil is no sin? and that to resist against the Law of God and to strive against it, is no offence to God?  
16 If concupiscence without resolute will is no sin after baptism, much less then is it sin in children before baptism, when man is wholly without actual use of his will.  
17 To this evil, the question is to find a remedy: which remedy ought not to be forged in our own brains, but to be found in the word of God, wherein we find these two remedies. 
Coloss. 2.13. Acts 10.43. 1. joh. 1.7.  The one, that all our sins are pardonned by Iesus Christ, and by consequence original sin. The other, that God regenerateth us by his holy Spirit, to cause sin to reign no more in us, touching our hearts with repentance. Of these two benefits baptism is a Sacrament. Thus, John baptized the baptism of repentance for remission of sins, mark. 1.4: but that original sin should be abolished by baptism, the word of God saith not so. It is an opinion contradicted by the word of God, and by experience.  
18 By that M. Arnoux allegation is refuted, which imposeth vpon us, that we say, that Iesus Christ by his death applied by baptism, could not draw us from the death of sin, and leaveth us butted in the corruption of the old man, and doth not truly regenerate us: which is to make us say the contrary unto that which we beleeue. By the full remission of sins applied in baptism, God draweth us from death; and by the Spirit of regeneration he beginneth life in us: which is not perfected all at once, but goeth forward by degrees; which doth not hinder us from being acceptable unto God, nor that he should not aclowledge us for his adopted and redeemed children in Iesus Christ.  
19 S. Augustine is very resolute in this matter, 
Dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo, non vt non sit, said vt in peccatum non imputetur  in the book of marriage and of Concupiscence, chap. 25. and 26. Concupiscence, saith he, is pardonned in baptism, not to the end that it should be no more, but because it should not be imputed for sin. A great part of the book against julian is written to prove that Concupiscentia remittitur in reatu,& manet in actu: that concupiscence touching the guiltiness in man is remitted, and yet remaineth touching the act or actually. He often repeateth that this original corruption is remitted in baptism, and that Lex peccati remissa est in regeneratione spirituali,& manet in carne mortali: The law of sin is pardonned in spiritual regeneration, but remaineth in mortal flesh. And in the fifth book against julian, cap. 3. 
Concupiscentia carnis, aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus& peccatum est, quia illi inest inobedientia contra dominatum mentis,& poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis inobedientis,& causa peccati, &c.  Concupiscence of the flesh,( against the which the good spirit fighteth) is sin, because it is a disobedience against the law of the mind: and a pain for sin, because it is returned back again for the merits of the disobedient; and a cause of sin, by the fault of the consenter, or by the contagion of original sin. And in the 41. treatise vpon Saint John: 
Non ait, non sit, said non regnet. quamdiu vivis, peccatum necesse est esse in membris tuis. Saltem illi regnum auferatur.  The Apostle saith not that there is no more sin. As long as thou livest, it is necessary that sin should be in thy members, but let us strive to keep it from reigning in vs. In all these places this holy man, acknowledgeth, that after baptism, still concupiscence is sin: seeing we haue need that God should pardon it, and that after baptism sin remaineth yet in vs.  
Thomas the 
Peccatum originale remitti dicitur quia transit reatus superueniente gratia, said remanet actu, remanente fomite siue concupiscentia.  father of schollers, vpon the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in his first lesson is resolute therein, saying, It is said that original sin is remitted, because the obligation of the pain is abolished, grace help ng, but it remaineth in effect.  ARNOVX. 
Places quoted in the margin of the Confession, Rom. 7.7. What shall we say then: is the Law sin? God forbid, nay I knew not sin but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except the Law had said thou shalt not lust.  
I am abashed, that they recite this place, wherein neither baptism, condemnation, imputation, nor any distinction between poena& culpa is once spoken of. And yet they quote but this one text onely: whereby the Apostle plainly sheweth the weakness of the Law, which sheweth sin and cannot heal it, and the point of our rebellion, which is augmented by the onely opposition of the Law: to the end that by these two points we might comprehend the necessity of grace, which bridling concupiscence, giveth the Law the vpper hand, and maketh us obedient unto it.  moulin. 

M. Arnoux falsification.  This place thus confounded, hath need of an interpreter. We haue already advertised M. Arnoux that there is a fault in the cipher of the place quoted. And that the seventh verse is set for the seventeenth verse, where S. Paul acknowledgeth, that sin dwelleth in him. Now Saint Paul was baptized. Then this is an express example of a man that was baptized; In whom nevertheless sin dwelled. Is there any thing clearer or more certain then this proof, against the which, in stead of touching it, M. Arnoux lifts up his spirit, and takes a wrong flight, in affencted words far from the question.  ARNOVX. 
contrary text; 1. Cor. 6.11. Such were some of you: he meaneth fornicators, Idolaters, adulterers, wantons, filthy, theeues, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and in a word, full of sin: but you haue been washed, but you haue been sanctified, but you haue been justified. Could he more formally declare the effect of baptism, and the annihilating of sin?  moulin. 
This place is lopped, which is a kind of falsification. 
M. Arnoux falsification.  M. Arnoux allegeth this place to prove, that those that are baptized, haue no more original sin, and that it is abolished by baptism. Therefore he clipped off and suppressed the last line of this verse, by the which it might be known, that in it Saint Paul spake not of baptism; You haue been( saith the Apostle washed, you haue been sanctified, you haue been justified in the name of Iesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God. He attributeth these effects of salvation, to the virtue of Iesus Christ, and to the efficacy of his Spirit, which we ought not to restrain to baptism, whereof in all that chapter there is no mention made.  ARNOVX. 
And Rom. 6.11. and in all places: Likewise think you also that you are dead to sin, but are alive to God in Iesus Christ our Lord. And a little before, verse 2: How shall we that are dead to sin live yet therein? for if we be planted with him to the similitude of his death,( by baptism, whereof he cometh to speak) even so shall we be to the similitude of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed( Note destroyed) that henceforth we should not serve sin, for he that is dead is freed from sin.  moulin. 
These places serve to fill up room, and would be as well elsewhere. Where haue you one word therein touching that which he would urge? that is, that those that are baptized haue no original sin? How absurd should I be, if I should argue in this manner: We are baptized to the end that we should attain to eternal life: then we obtain eternal life as soon as we are baptized? And yet this is M. Arnoux discourse, who produceth the graces which we receive of Iesus Christ, to persuade us that we receive the perfections of these graces at our baptism: although we be baptized to the end to destroy sin, it followeth not, that the entire destruction is perfected in baptism, which is one of the means to attain to perfection.   

●HE TWELFTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue that God withdraweth from this corruption and general condemnation whereinto all men are plunged, all those, whom in his eternal and vnmoueable counsel, he hath chosen of his onely goodness and mercy in Iesus Christ our Lord, without consideration of their works; leaving the rest in the same corruption and condemnation, in them to show his iustice, as in the first he maketh the riches of his mercy to shine: for one is not better then another, until it pleaseth God to discern them, according to his vnmoueable counsel, which he hath determined in Iesus Christ before the beginning of the world: and no man also can thrust himself into such a good by his own virtue, seeing that by nature we cannot haue one onely good motion, affection, nor thought, until God hath prevented us, and hath disposed us thereunto.  

THE THIRTEENTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue that in the same Iesus Christ, all that which was required to salvation, hath been offered and communicated unto us: who being given us for salvation, hath thereby been made unto us, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; in such manner, that declining from him, we renounce the mercy of God, whereunto we ought to haue our onely refuge.  

THE FOVRTEENTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue, that Iesus Christ, being the wisdom of God, and his eternal son, took our flesh vpon him, to be God and man in one person, yea man like unto us, suffering in body and soul, onely that he was pure and without sin: and that touching his humanity he was the true seed of Abraham and of david, although he was conceived by the secret virtue of the holy Spirit. Wherein we detest all the heresies which anciently haue troubled the Church, and specially the diabolical imaginations of servetus, who attributeth to Iesus Christ a fantastical divinity, saying, that he is the Idea and pattern of all things, and nameth him the personal, or figurative son of God; and finally forgeth him a body of three uncreated elements, and so mixeth and destroyeth both the two natures.  

THE FIFTEENTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue, that in one selfe same person, that is, Iesus Christ, the two natures are truly and unseparably joined and united, each of the natures nevertheless remaining in their distinct property: In such sort, that as in this coniunction, the divine nature retaining his property, continued uncreated, infinite, and filling all things, so the human nature continued finite, having his form, measure, and propriety. And also, although Iesus Christ when he rose again, gave immortality to his body, yet he took not from it the truth of his nature. And so we consider him in such sort in his divinity, that we bereave him not of his humanity.  

THE SIXTEENTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue that God sending his son, shewed his love and inestimable goodness towards us, by delivering him to death, and raising him again, to fulfil all righteousness, and to obtain eternal life for vs.  

THE SEVENTEENTH ARTICLE: Where M. Arnoux moveth the question touching the imputation of the righteousness of Iesus Christ.  We beleeue, that by the onely sacrifice which Iesus Christ offered vpon the cross, we are reconciled to God, to be holden and reputed just before him; because we could not be pleasing unto God, nor be participants of his adoption, unless he forgave our sins and butted them. So we profess that Iesus Christ is our entire and perfect washing: and that in his death we haue entire satisfaction, to acquit us of our sins and iniquities, whereof we are guilty, and cannot be delivered but by this means. ARNOVX. 
That is as much to say, that the son of God doth not truly make us just, nor worthy to be beloved of his Father, but leaving us in the filthiness of sin, he answereth for us, to the end that his Father should not execute his vengeance vpon us: and in a word, it maketh us to be accounted good and righteous, or rather used so, although in effect we are unjust, wicked, and full of sin. Whereby it followeth, that not onely God deceiveth himself, reputing them to be just that are not, but may be by his grace, which is not so feeble and weak, but that it can make them just: seeing that the Apostle, Rom. 5.20. saith, Where sin abounded, there grace abounded much more.  

That the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto vs.  moulin. 
To know the truth of our belief, we need but take the contrary to that which M. Arnoux attributeth unto us: for he is sworn never to report the truth of our belief.  
Then to set down the truth of our doctrine, and the point of the difference: we say, that by the obedience which Iesus Christ yielded to his Father, we are made righteous, and that the righteousness of Iesus Christ is ours, because it is imputed and allowed unto those that beleeue in Iesus Christ. On the contrary, the Church of Rome saith, that man is justified by his own works. Bellarmine in the first book of justification, cap. 2. saith, that the form of justification is charity. And in truth this word, justification, among our aduersaries, is taken for regeneration or sanctification, and for the study of good works. And therefore the council of Trent in the sixth Session, setteth down diuers increasings and degrees of justification.  
In this matter we agree with our aduersaries in two things: The first, that good works are necessary to salvation, and that God acknowledgeth not those men to be just, that continue and take a pleasure in doing evil. The second is, that the question is not, touching that iustice whereby we are justified before men, but of that whereby God acknowledgeth us to be just, and by the virtue whereof we may stand before him at the day of Iudgement.  
The word of God teacheth us, that this righteousness which justifieth us before God, is the righteousness of Iesus Christ, whereby he hath satisfied for us, yielding himself culpable, to the end that we might be absolved; lading himself with our sins, to the end that his righteousness and obedience might be imputed, allowed, and reckoned unto vs.  
The Apostle Saint Paul, 2. Cor. 5.21. saith, God hath made him to be sin for us, which knew no sin; that we should be made the righteousness of God through him. And, Romans 5.19. By the obedience of one man, many are made righteous: and in the 18. verse, he teacheth, that the righteousness of Iesus Christ justifieth us, saying, that The justifying of one doth justify vs. If by justifying, we must here understand sanctifying, or regenerating, the Apostle would haue attributed this justification to the Spirit of God, and not to the obedience of Iesus Christ, which justifieth us, because that by it we are absolved, and acknowledged to be righteous before God, as if we ourselves had accomplished this righteousness. For seeing that our Aduersaries confess, that our sins haue been imputed to Iesus Christ, why do they find it strange, that the righteousness of Iesus Christ should be imputed unto us, seeing our sins were imputed unto Iesus Christ, to no other end, but that his righteousness should be imput●d unto us? 
Bellarm. de amiss. gratiae& statu, peccati li. 5. ca. 17 peccatum Adami nobis communicatur per generationem, eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transi●nimirum per imputationem, omnibus enim imputatur qui in Adamo nascuntur.  So they aclowledge, that the sin of the first Adam is imputed to us, and yet find fault that the righteousness of the second Adam should be imputed unto us: seeing that the second Adam which is Iesus Christ, came to no other end, but to remedy the evil that entred by the first Adam, bringing thereunto a contrary remedy.  
Much more the Church of Rome, by the doctrine of superabundant satisfactions, gathered in the treasure of the Church whereof the Pope hath the keys, will haue the fastings, stripes and pains of the Saints, to be imputed and reckoned unto those that buy or get pardons; and in the mean time they chafe and vex themselves when we say, that the obedience and the passion of Iesus Christ are imputed unto vs.  
The same Apostle, Romans 4.6. saith, that God imputeth righteousness without works: speaking of Abraham already regenerated, to whom( he saith) that faith was imputed for righteousness. Then Abraham was justified, not by the works of regeneration, but by another righteousness which is imputed unto him Now, what this righteousness is, he himself declares afterward in the eighteen and nineteenth verses of the chapter following, where he speaketh of one only justifying, and saith, that By the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous. Where he speaketh of the obedience of Iesus Christ.  
The same Apostle in Rom. 4.5. saith, that Faith is counted for righteousness. Whereupon I ask, which of these two,( to speak properly) is imputed unto us for righteousness, whether faith in Iesus Christ, inasmuch as it is inherent in us, or the righteousness of Iesus Christ apprehended by faith. It is certain, that faith, forasmuch as it is a virtue inherent in us, cannot be imputed unto us: for our virtues and our actions are not imputed unto us, but another mans, when they are allowed and reckoned unto us, as if we had done them. As also, that to beleeue,( of its own nature) is not a righteousness: much less to beleeue according to the faith of the Romish church; which is, but to beleeue that all that which God hath said, is true; which is a belief that the divels haue, and more certainly then men. It resteth then, that faith is imputed unto us for righteousness, because it apprehendeth and layeth hold vpon the righteousness and the benefit of Iesus Christ, by the which we are justified, that is, absolved and quit before the iudgement seat of God. And so faith justifieth, in the same manner, that the mouth feedeth man, because it taketh and receiveth in the meate, but to speak properly, it is the meate which nourisheth.  
For these causes the Prophet jeremy, in the twenty three chapter and verse the sixth, calleth our saviour, The Lord our righteousness. And the Apostle to the Philippians, chapter 3. verse 9. will be found in him( that is Iesus Christ) not having( saith he) mine own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Iesus Christ.  
For also, when we shall appear before the iudgement seat of God, by the virtue of our righteousness to obtain eternal life, what shall we present unto God? Shall we present our own righteousness, 
Esay 64.6.  which is like a menstruous cloth? our imperfect perfections, and our merits, which are no merits? Certainly God receiveth no payment if it be not perfect. God forbid that he should weigh our good works in the exact balance of his iustice. Then we must present unto him a perfect righteousness, which is able to hold the examination of the iustice of God. Such is the most complete righteousness which Iesus Christ hath accomplished for us, and the payment which he hath made, that it might be allowed unto vs.  

{αβγδ}  So justin Martyr said, above fourteen hundred years past, in an Epistle to Diognetus, What other thing could cover our sins but the righteousness of Christ? In whom can we that are impious and wicked be justified, but in the onely son of God? O sweet exchange! O incomparable art! O benefits surmounting all expectation, that the iniquity of many should be hidden in one righteous man,& that the righteousness of one, should make many to be reputed righteous!  
In this the truth is so strong, that Bellarmine, after he had tried all ways, at the last yielded unto us; for behold his words in the 7. chapter and 2. book of justification: If the heretics would onely haue, that the merites of Iesus Christ should be imputed unto us, because they are given unto us, and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins, because Christ hath taken on him the burden to satisfy for us, and to reconcile us to God his father, their opinion should be true and right. We say no other thing, and this simply is our belief. And in the tenth chapter, after he hath said that Christ is our righteousness, because he hath satisfied for us, he addeth; In this manner it should not be an absurdity, if any man should say, that the righteousness and the merites of Christ are imputed unto us, because they are given and applied unto us, as if we ourselves had satisfied unto God. Then let us hold there; for we say nothing more. By this means God shall not be deceived, as M. Arnoux saith; and our righteousness shall be much more assured then if it were grounded vpon our own works: and yet God will not leave to regenerate and sanctify us inwardly, and frame us to good works. As God was not deceived when he imputed our sins to Iesus Christ, so he is not deceived when he imputeth the righteousness of Iesus Christ unto vs. There is neither injustice nor ignorance committed, to deliver a prisoner that lieth in prison for debt, when another man hath paid it for him. For, as the sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity, because he represented all human kind, as the beginning of them; so the righteousness of Iesus Christ is imputed to all the faithful, because that by accomplishing all righteousness, he represented all the Church, as the beginning thereof. And the righteousness of Iesus Christ is imputed unto the faithful by greater reason then the sin of Adam is imputed unto other men, because Adam did not undertake for others to obey God: 
Galat. 3.13. and cap. 4.4.5  but Iesus Christ voluntarily subjecteth himself to the Law, to deliver us from the curse of the Law.  ARNOVX. 
Places quoted in the margin of the Confession: 1. Pet. 2.24. Who his own self bare our sins in his body on the three, that wee being dead to sin, should live in righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed; and in the verses following. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the shepherd and Bishop of your souls.  
These places are so far from confirming that for the which they are alleged, that they rather overthrow it: Seeing the Apostle saith, That we are by Iesus Christs means, dead to sin, healed of sin, converted from sin. Could he clearlier say, that sin liveth no more in us, that the mortal disease thereof is no more in us, and that we no more go astray? And can a man from thence conclude the contrary, that we are holden and reputed to be righteous, although in effect we are not?  moulin. 
This place of Saint Peter is not employed in our Confession, to that sense, or to that end which this Doctor imagineth. Our Confession saith, that by the onely Sacrifice which Iesus Christ offered vpon the cross, we are reconciled to God. For proof thereof, the first Epistle and second chapter and twenty fourth verse of Saint Peter, is quoted in the margin; Christ bare our sins in his body, on the three: that we being dead to sin, should live in righteousness, by whose stripes ye were healed. Can there be a stronger, or a more express place alleged, to prove, that Iesus Christ by his death vpon the cross hath reconciled us unto God? for that is the bearing of our sins in his body, and to heal vs. But it pleaseth M. Arnoux to make this place to serve to another end, contrary to our meaning.  
And yet this place proves not, that we are already wholly dead to sin, nor that we are exempted from sin. S. Peter speaketh of the benefits which the death of Iesus Christ bringeth unto us; but of these benefits there are some, whereunto we cannot attain but by degrees,& whereof the perfect accomplishment shal not be performed but in the kingdom of heaven. But M. Arnoux will persuade us, that he is absolutely righteous, and that sin liveth no more in him. And yet nevertheless, he goes to the jubilee to get pardons; and when he is confessed, he receiveth absolution. When he saith his Pater noster, he saith, forgive us our trespasses; he believeth to go to purgatory, and makes profession to doubt of his salvation. And if with the rest of the Iesuites, he approveth and alloweth of equivocations in matter or trials of Iustice; of the rebellions of subiects against their King, and of the secret of Confession, by the which a Priest shall haue knowledge of an ent●rprise against the life of a King: I can not see how that agreeth with a perfect righteousness.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places. Rom. 5.5. The love of God is  shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost, which is given unto vs. Weigh these words(  shed abroad in our hearts.) Then it is not imputed without other effect.  moulin. 
To whom speaks he? The Apostle saith, and we also with him, that the love wherewith God loveth us, is  shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost. What is that to the purpose touching the righteousness of Iesus Christ, and of his imputation? And again, did we ever say, that this imputation is without any other effect?  ARNOVX. 
Eph. 4.23.24. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which after God is created unto righteousness and true holinesse.  
It is an error to beleeue, that by the new man he understandeth Iesus Christ, seeing that Iesus Christ was never the old man, and that Saint Paul always attributeth to one and the same subject, to be the old man, or the man of sin, and the new man, or renewed by the grace of Iesus Christ; as old, he is a member of the first Adam, as new, of the second: he descendeth from the first by natural generation, which transferreth sin unto him; and descendeth from the second, by the second birth, which maketh him a child of God by the fountain of grace.  moulin. 
This in no sort toucheth or concerneth the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. I think M. Arnoux thought vpon some other thing, or that some other body hath thrust this allegation into his book without his knowledge. What makes this to our question, whether Iesus Christ is called or not called the new man?  ARNOVX. 
add, Romans 5.19. For as by one mans disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One, many also shall be made righteous.  
And then as it is true, that we are sinners by Adam, and not onely reputed so; even so are we righteous by Iesus Christ, and not onely accounted so.  moulin. 
All that is true: for by Iesus Christ the children of God are truly made righteous in two sorts: first, because they are truly absolved and justified before the iudgement seat of God. Secondly, because the Spirit of Iesus Christ working in them, truly regenerateth them. But this regeneration is done by degrees, it beginneth here on earth, and is perfected in heaven.  ARNOVX. 
The same article lower. We profess that Iesus Christ is our entire and perfect cleansing or washing, and that in his death we haue entire satisfaction, to discharge us of our offences and iniquities whereof we are culpable.  
These faire words are set down to abolish all sit or proper satisfaction, to draw the spirit of penitency out of a mans heart, to quench the desire to endure or suffer any thing for the love of God whom we haue offended, to drown the soul in the bog of negligence and carelessness of good works: and to be short, to assure the wickedest man that is, of the righteousness of the son of God, and of escaping the rigour of his Father in his person, without binding the sinner to punish his sins in himself with a good will.   

Of human Satisfaction.  moulin. 
Our Confession saith that Iesus Christ is the only purgation of our sins, and that his death is a full and a perfect satisfaction for the same: which we ground vpon the word of God, which saith, apocalypse 1.5. That Iesus Christ hath washed us from our sins in his own blood. 1. joh. 1.7. The blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin: Colos. 2.13. By him God freely forgiveth all our trespasses. Acts 4.12. There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved. Colos. 1.19.20. For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fullness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of the cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself, both which are in earth, and which are in heaven. 1. John 2.2. He is the reconciliation for our sins, and not for ours onely, but also for the sins of the whole world. Heb. 10.14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb. 7.25. He is able also perfectly to save them that come unto God by him. Rom. 3.24. We are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ. And to conclude, it is the whole scope of the gospel.  
This so holy, so evident and so true a doctrine, full of consolation, displeaseth M. Arnoux: he saith it abolisheth our satisfactions, quencheth the spirit of penitence, and drowneth our souls in the gulf of presumption.  
Touching mens satisfactions, we say briefly, that if the word Satisfaction were taken in that sense which the ancient Fathers took it, that is, for humiliation and acknowledgement of our faults, there should be no disputation between vs. But at this day, satisfaction signifieth a payment of debts, and a recompense which man maketh to God to satisfy his iustice. The catechism of the council of Trent, saith, that satisfaction is an entire payment of that thing which is due, 
Cap. de Sacramento poenitentiae. Satisfactio est rei debitae integrasolutio: est compensatio cum homo pro peccatis commissis Deo aliquid persoluit.  and a recompense which man maketh unto God for his sins: as when a man punisheth himself( as M. Arnoux saith) by fasting, whipping, pilgrimages, and giuing something to the Church, and when God torments him in purgatory. cardinal Bellarmines words are remarkable vpon this point, in the first book of Indulgences, cap. 4. If a righteous man( saith he) by his works may by equiualence merit life everlasting, why can he not satisfy for temporal pain, which is a less thing? And in the second chapter of the same book he saith, The remission of the pain is due to the satisfying work, by commutative iustice: which is a iustice that payeth so much for so much, or a bartering iustice, in such manner that God ought to be content therewith. By this reckoning, God should do contrary to iustice, if he should not accept for good payment, the satisfying pains wherewith a sinner punisheth himself. And in the 10. chap. of the first book of purgatory; It seemeth( saith he) more probable, that in effect there is but one satisfaction, which is ours. Touching that of Iesus Christ, he will haue it to serve onely to make ours available. Nay the pride of the roman Church is so great, that in it they hold that a man can make more satisfaction unto God then he ought to do, so that there is something remaining to be allowed to the sinner over and above: that is it which they call superabundant satisfaction, which is the monastical life.  
1 As for us, seeing that in Iesus Christ we haue a full satisfaction for all our sins, we are content therewith, and take not vpon us by our own sufferings to pay a debt which Iesus Christ hath wholly satisfied.  
2 Also we do not beleeue that Iesus Christ died to make our sufferings of any worth before God, but to free and exempt us from suffering. For the benefit of Iesus Christs suffering consisteth not herein, to make us pay, but to pay and satisfy for us unto God. Saint Paul in the 1. to Tim. 2.6. saith, that Iesus Christ gave himself for a ransom for vs. But he saith not, that he gave us the virtue to pay our own ransom. And the Apostle, Hebr. 1.3. saith, that The son of God hath by himself purged our sins. Then not by our satisfactions.  
3 That if it be an honour which God doth unto us, by our sufferings to make our own satisfaction,( as the Papists allege)& that if our satisfying pains and punishments are reckoned among the graces of God, the divels and the damned shall haue more part in those graces then we; seeing God doth them that honour, to make them to pay by continual torments, and draweth full satisfaction from them.  
4 God forbid that we should beleeue, that God takes payment twice for one debt, when the first payment is sufficient. Will God that is soueraignly just,( after he hath pardonned all our offences,) punish those sins that he hath pardonned, with satisfying pains?  
5 And seeing that the Church of Rome believeth, that by the death of Iesus Christ all our guiltiness is taken away, will God punish men without fault in a burning fire? The cause( which onely produceth an effect) being taken away, by necessity the effect ceaseth. Now the fault is the cause which onely produceth the satisfying punishment. Therefore the fault being taken away, necessary satisfying punishment is taken away: 
Exempto reatu remittitur& poena.  as Tertullian saith in his book of baptism cap. 5. The fault being taken away, the pain also is taken away.  
6 Besides, God is no mocker: but he should manifestly mock us, if he should say, I will forgive thee, but yet I will punish thee. I forgive thee thy debt, but thou shalt pay me. For our sins are debts, the payment whereof is the punishment.  
7 It is not credible, that God would haue us to be more merciful then himself. But he will haue us wholly to forgive him that hath offended us: he permitteth not us to take any vengeance or reuenge, after we haue forgiven him. For what is forgiveness but not to punish? Then if God forgiveth the sin,& not the punishment of the sin, the way is made open to fraudulent reconciliations:& he that shall haue pardonned an injury will in his heart receive a punishment for the same. For he will say: Will you haue me to be more merciful then God? herein I haue followed his example. We are too much inclined to 'vice, without seeking to prove that God incites us thereunto by his example.  
8 I would haue them to show me, how and in what manner Iesus Christ bore our offences. 
Suscipiendo poenam,& non suscipiendo culpam,& culpam deleuit& poenam.  Was it not by suffering the punishment due to them? And if he endured the punishment, was it not to exempt us from it? This is it which S. Augustine saith in his 27. Sermon of the words of the Lord. Christ taking vpon him the punishment and not the fault, hath abolished both the fault and the punishment.  
9 It also appeareth, how foolish this doctrine is, that the fault should be remitted and not the punishment, by this, that there is no criminal person but would be very well content that the king should not pardon his offence, so that he would wholly remit the pain and punishment thereof, and not suffer him to endure any punishment at all.  
10 I● by our own suffering we must satisfy and appease the wrath of god, when shall we haue satisfied for the least part of our sins? seeing that by the iudgement of the son of God Mat. 5.12, to call our brother fool is a fault punishable with hell fire:& that S. Paul 1. Cor. 6, saith, that evil speakers shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And yet these are sins from which the most righteous men can hardly clear themselves.  
11 add hereunto, that by this doctrine the afflictions of the faithful are bitter, and their finger is dipped in gull. For the faithful which believeth that God punisheth him for his good, and that it is a great punishment not to be chastised, is easily comforted in his afflictions, which he receiveth as spiritual remedies. The maladies of the body, are unto him medicines of the soul. poverty to him is a diet, and a discipline of abstinence. Banishment an abandoning of the world,& an admonition that he is a stranger vpon earth. And if they be afflictions for the Gospel, he glorieth therein, as in honourable wounds and badges of our warfare, and conformity to the cross of Christ. But where shall the faithful find comfort and consolation in their evils, if they must beleeue that God punisheth them to satisfy his iustice? and that their sufferings are satisfactions unto him? Therein they haue no other consolation then Pagans haue, which is, to give place to necessity, and to arm ourselves with hardness against blows, with a kind of patience without comfort.  
12 Then when these satisfactions shall be well weighed, they will be found very light: and it will appear, that the Papists would pay the iustice of God with base money; whose satisfactions are, to abstain from flesh certain dayes, to go on pilgrimage, and so to lead an idle life; to gird their bodies with cords, to enter into the Order of any Friers, to whip themselves openly, as the penitents in Rome use to do in the week before Easter, some for their own sins, others being hired, whipping themselves for other mens sins: some also for love, and to satisfy God for the sins of their mistresses. Thus you see wherewith they would haue God satisfied and contented for their sins, for they esteem it to be an easy composition. To join these things with the infinite satisfactions of the son of God, is as if one should few beggars rags to a kings rob.  
13 Certainly these people with their penal works, whipping, and voluntary torments, seem to men to speak unto God, and say, I will satisfy thee. Thou wilt wholly remit my sin, but I will not be so much beholden unto thee. Then it is great reason that they should pay to the full: and if hereupon by a Capuchins penitence, or by a proud humility they cut and mingle-mangle their flesh, I trow they haue well deserved it. And seeing that to satisfy God they are obstinately bent to be burnt after this life in so long and burning a fire, it is reason that they should soak in fire, and that sentence which they allege of Christ should be practised vpon themselves, Mat. 5.26. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt not come out thence, till thou hast paid the utmost farthing.  
14 But at the day of iudgement, when they must yield an account of their actions, and that their sins shall be laid open before them what shall be their excuse? They will say, Lord it is true, I haue committed such and such sins, but I haue satisfied for them; for I whipped myself, I abstained from eating of flesh for so many dayes, I went on pilgrimage, I was one of the order of Gray friers. But here I am afraid, that things being put into the balance of Gods Iustice, they will be found too light by many grains,& that the same which they give for satisfaction, would rather be found to be a sin; seeing they are things which God never required at their hands. I am afraid, that these satisfiers will be found culpable, not onely for seeking to pay God with false money, but also finding out another satisfaction, then that of the son in whom the Father is well pleased, 
Math. 17.5. 1. joh. 1.7.  and whose blood cleanseth us from all our sins.  
15 But among the satisfying pains, there is one kind that to me seems to be full of impiety. The Church of Rome placeth prayers and alms among penal works and satisfying pains. What a religion is this, that placeth good works among sufferings for sins? which on the contrarie● if they should be prohibited to a man fearing God, it would be an unsufferable punishment unto him And by this means they will haue men to serve God by punishment. By this means good works are made odious, and the exercise of piety becomes a punishment. nevertheless they haue some reason to put prayers( such as they make) among penances; for, to be condemned to repeat one prayer fifty times one after the other, in an unknown language, and every day to say his seven psalms of mercy, without understanding them, biting their fingers because of the tediousness thereof, me thinks it is a great punishment.  
16 Superstitious ignorance having fowne the seeds of this abuse, the avarice& ambition of Priests hath nourished them: for there is nothing but they will do it for gain. Who being very sensible in the belly, are much moved when men touch theit profits, and seek to shorten their commons. For these satisfactions are very fruitful unto them, seeing that Purgatory is so beneficial unto them,& that by the satisfactions which Priests impose vpon men, they take authority to inflict corporal punishments vpon sinners, which by the order of the roman Church may be changed into pecuniary punishments. And that by the same means, the Popes haue been so bold to punish kings, and make them to endure blows with a whip; as Alexander the third did to Henry the second King of England, and as of late Clement the eight did to our great King henry the fourth in the person of the Bishop of Eureux his ambassador; to whom falling down at his feet the Pope caused certain blows with a staff to be given, for a satisfaction. Pope Innocent the third imposed vpon John King of England for satisfaction, that he should resign his kingdom unto him, and make his crown and realm tributary to the Pope.  
17 Iesus Christ did not so, for in the eight of Saint John, having pardonned the woman taken in adultery, he imposed no satisfying pain vpon her, but onely said unto her Go, and sin no more. The Apostle Saint Paul: 2. Cor. 2. saith, that he had pardonned the incestuous person to whom nevertheless enjoined no penance after the pardon.  
18 If these satisfactions be evil, why do they enjoin them? If they be good, why do they dispense with them by Indulgences? why do they hinder the sinner from making be satisfaction unto God?  
The abuse being thus discovered, they run for aid, and seek to support their ruinous cause with reeds.  
1 They allege the counsel that daniel, 4.27. gave to Nabucadnezzer, redeem thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquity by showing mercy to the poor. But they are deceived to think, that Daniel speaketh of sins before God: for he speaketh of redeeming and satisfying before men whom the king had wronged, whom he ought to recompense by liberality. add hereunto that alms are good works, and not punishments nor penances. And which is more our aduersaries will haue alms and other satisfactions, not to satisfy for sins, but for the punishments due to sins. The chief point is, that the church of Rome holdeth, that satisfactions serve onely to satisfy for the temporal punishment, and not for the eternal: and that they serve for nothing before baptism, no more then they did in time past before circumcision. Now this king was a pagan vncircumcized, and ought rather to think vpon saving himself from eternal pains. For satisfactions of purgatory are of no value nor worth unto them that go into hell. To go about to satisfy for temporal punishment, when a man is bound to eternal punishment, is all one, as for a man to set up a weathercocke before he hath laid tht foundation of the building.  
2 They say, that the benefit of Iesus Christ ought to be applied unto us, and that it is applied unto us, by satisfactory punishment, and by the torments of purgatory; whereunto I answer, that they say it without proof, and without testimony of the holy Scriptures. It belongs to the word of God to prescribe us the means to apply unto ourselves the benefit of our Redeemer, and not to us to guess at it. add hereunto, that none can apply any thing by his contrary, as these Doctors do, that will haue God to apply the remission of our debts, by making us pay them, and the pardon in Iesus Christ by the punishment, as if a man should apply a medicine by poison. certainly, to apply the grace of God to a man, by roasting him in a fire, is a strange kind of application. The benefits of our saviour, are applied unto us by faith, Ephes. 3.17. by baptism, Galat. 3.27. By the holy Supper of our Lord, 1. Cor. 10.18: but not by blows with a whip, wasting of the spirits by a haircloth, or by a Monks cowl.  
3 They add, that in all the works of God, his Iustice as well as his mercy must appear; but Saint james, 2.13. contradicteth that, saying, There shall be condemnation merciless to him that sheweth not mercy. Then let us say the like, that there shall be mercy without iudgement to him that shall show mercy. And as Saint Paul saith, Rom. 8.1: There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus. If none, then neither eternal nor temporal, and yet the iustice of God hath evidently been displayed against the sins of the children of God, by punishing them in Iesus Christ, who bare the punishment; and his mercy shewed by freely imputing that satisfaction unto vs.  
4 They also say, that after the King hath pardonned an offender, yet the party offended is to be agreed withall. I answer, that that falls out so, because the King and the party are two; but here God which is the King, is also the party: who having remitted al that belongs to him, there is no more parties to content.  
5 Their reason is no better, when they say, that the King having granted an offender his life, nevertheless condemns him to pay a great fine. For in that case( say they) the pardon which the King giveth, is not a full pardon, but a diminishing of the punishment. But Gods pardon is full and entire, Coloss. 2.13 God freely forgiveth all our offences. And 1. 
{αβγδ}  John 1.7. The blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.  
6 They also set down experience for a proof: for they say, that after God hath pardonned us, he ceaseth not to punish vs. So david was punished by God after he had declared unto him, by the Prophet Nathan, that he had forgiven his offence, 2. Sam. 12.13. And from thence cardinal Bellarmine in the tenth chapter of his first book of purgatory infereth, That Iesus Christ hath not fully satisfied for all the punishments of our sins. 
Si Christus satisfecit pro omni culpa& poena nostra, cur post remissam culpam adhuc tam multa mala patimur?  If( saith he) Christ hath satisfied for all our faults, and for all our punishments, why do we yet suffer so many evils after the fault is remitted? This Prelate wrongs the son of God, denying that his death is our full payment. But to answer to this objection, I say it is nothing to the purpose, for the question is of satisfactory punishments: but the punishments suffered by david were chastisements; the one, are punishments of a judge, the other, the corrections of a father. The one serveth to make satisfaction to him that is offended, and to the iustice of the judge; the other to correct our unrighteousness, and to amend a sinner. The chastisements wherewith God visiteth his children, are benefits, and are spiritual medicines: they are exercises and not payments. Medicines are not satisfactions. A good father correcteth his children to make them better, and not to content himself, and to satisfy his iustice. If our Aduersaries would, with us, beleeue that God punisheth not his children, but with punishments of amendment and fatherly chastisements, purgatory would soon fall, where amendment hath no place. For they will haue purgatory to be a vengeance which God taketh for faults past, and not a warning for the time to come. The death of Iesus Christ serveth to exempt us from satisfying the iustice of God by satisfactory punishments, but not to exempt us from chastisements. For it ought not to serve to hurt us, and to make us incorrigible; but those whom God hath adopted in Iesus Christ, are those whom he chastiseth most severely for their instructions. So he chastened david, who in supporting his fatherly corrections, never thought by that means to satisfy the iustice of God.  
7 master Arnoux, to make us odious, saith, that by abolishing our own satisfactions and merits, we pull the spirit of penitence out of our hearts, and drown the soul in the bog of slothfulness and negligence of good works. On the contrary, I maintain, that there is nothing which more stirreth up and wakeneth repentance, nor that inciteth a man more to fear God,& love him, then the memory of our free redemption by Iesus Christ, and of our full reconciliation. The true motive unto piety, is not the ambition of merites, or of paying God with our own, nor the fear of a fire after this life, but filial love, kindled by the acknowledging of his love. He that serveth God onely for fear of punishment, is moved thereunto by a servile fear, and not by a filial love. God sheweth great clemency unto such a man, if he punisheth him not for his service. Therefore, the Scripture that speaketh of free pardon, and of redemption in Iesus Christ, ordinarily from thence draweth exhortations to fear God, and to live holily. david, Psal. one hundred and thirty, and the fourth verse, saith, But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared. And Saint Paul Rom. 12 1. exhorteth us, by the mercies of God, to offer and consecrate our bodies unto the Lord. 
Tit. 2.11.12.  For( saith he) in another place: The grace of God that brings salvation unto all men hath appeared, and teacheth us, that we should deny ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and that we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. Iesus Christ hath redeemed us, to the end that we should serve him: his benefit is not a profane impunity: Christian liberty is not a licence. Peace of conscience is not a carnal sluggishness. The Apostle saith, Iesus Christ cannot be divided: 
1. Cor. 1.13.  but it is a dividing of him, if we will haue him for a Redeemer, and not for a master, and participate in his promises, rejecting his commandements 1. Peter 2.24. He bare our sins in his body on the three, that we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness.  
We see not in the Romish church, where human satisfactions are preached, that by that means 'vice is diminished; for the church of Rome is the onely church in the world, where 'vice is become a law, and where, by public ordinances, the stews are erected, whoredom permitted, and marriage forbidden. There is none but the Romish church, wherein by laws& decrees the people are taught to be rebels to their Prince, and not to keep faith with those that are excommunicated, and where a traffic of sacred things is publicly established.  
8 All this abuse is grounded vpon a most pernicious maxim, which is one of the cankered ulcers of the church of Rome. This maxim is, that the punishment for sin before baptism is remitted unto us by baptism; but that for the punishment of sins committed after baptism, we are to satisfy for them by penal works and satisfactory penance, as well in this life as in purgatory. A new gospel, whereof there is not one print nor footstep in all the word of God. The council of Trent in the fourteenth Session, eight chapter, to defend this doctrine, saith, That it seems that the Iustice of God requireth, that those that before baptism haue sinned by ignorance, should be more favourably used then those that haue sinned voluntarily after baptism. But these Fathers, by saying so, condemn themselves. For, may it not fall out, that some may sin maliciously before baptism: and on the contrary, that after baptism they may sin by ignorance or infirmity? In this case what appearance is there, that God will not exact any satisfactory punishment for sins committed of deliberate malice, and will exact them for sins committed by ignorance or infirmity? And which is more, may it not happen, that a man should cause himself feignedly or for gain to be baptized, and yet in his heart is an enemy to the Name of Christ? Is it a just thing, that hypocrisy should be available unto him, and that for mocking of God, all his sins committed before baptism should be pardonned, without any pennance or satisfaction?  
To conclude, the blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth all our sins, 1. John 1.7. Then as well sins before baptism, as sins after baptism. By Iesus Christ God pardoneth all our offences, Colos. 2.13. This word, all, alloweth no exception. Saint Paul to the Galat. cap. 3.27. saith, That all those that are baptized haue put on Christ. By this word put on, he sheweth us, that the fruit of baptism is specially for the time after baptism, for we put on clothes for the time to come.  ARNOVX. 
Places of the Scripture noted in the margin of the Confession. Hebrewes 9.14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, which through the eternal Spirit offered himself without fault to God, purge your consciences from dead works, to serve the living God? And 1. Peter 1.18.19. Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by the traditions of the Fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ.  
In these two places there is not one word spoken of satisfaction, and the words of entire and perfect washing under the which the venom is hidden, are not found therein: but here the Apostle ascribeth to the merits of Christ the virtue to purify our consciences, to deliver them from dead works, to make us serve the living God, and to redeem us from our vain conversation.  moulin. 
It is true that in these places the word Satisfaction is not found, but the word redeem, which is all one in effect; for our redemption by Iesus Christ, is a satisfaction for vs. He that redeemeth a prisoner, by that redemption satisfieth for him. The word wash also is not there, but the word cleanse, which is all one, 
To him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins, &c.  and is found in other places, as in Apoc. 1.6. Touching the perfection and integrity of this redemption and washing, we haue before produced a great number of places to prove it. That which M. Arnoux addeth, that the merits of the son of God purify our consciences, and deliver them from dead works, &c. is true, but to what end serves that to establish human satisfactions?   

Of superabundant Satisfactions, and whether the merit of Christ is applied unto us by our own Satisfactions.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. Coloss. 1.24. Now rejoice I in my sufferings for you, and fulfil the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his bodies sake which is the Church.  
It is not because the son of God hath not abundantly satisfied, as touching the sufficiency of his pains and dolours infinitely meritorious, and of the smallest drop of his blood that was  shed, which is much more worth then a thousand worlds: but the Apostle teacheth us, that if we be not like Iesus Christ, and do not suffer with him following his example, his rich treasures of merits will serve us for nothing, for want of being applied by our proper satisfactions, which are the true and first effects of his death, by the which he hath merited grace for us to do them, following his example.  moulin. 
Our aduersaries ordinarily allege this place out of the first chapter of the Colossians, to prove that the Saints and monks make more satisfactions, and endure more pains then they need, to satisfy for themselves; whereupon they infer, that the same is meritorious for others. Therefore Bellarmine in the fourth chapter and first book of Indulgences, saith, that the Saints in some manner are our redeemers. Therfore also, the Canon of the mass requireth aid of God, not only by the prayers of Saints, but also by their merits. 
Quorum praecibus meritisque rogamus, &c.  Which is a new gospel,& a mere profanation of the doctrine of salvation, whereby they will haue God to receive and accept the superabundant stripes and fastings of S. Francis, or of S. dominic, in recompense for our sins, as if a judge should discharge and set a prisoner free, because his brother was whipped for him. How can he haue any remnant or superfluity of merit, that hath need of pardon? How can he satisfy for another, that cannot satisfy for himself?  
But M. Arnoux dares not stir this filthy puddle, but contents himself to allege this place, to support human satisfactions presupposing that S. Paul by his sufferings made satisfaction unto God: which is false, for in this place there is neither trace nor footstep therof to be seen. It is true, that S. Paul suffered for the Church, but not to make satisfaction for the Church, but to edify and confirm the Church, as Lombardus, Anselmus, and Thomas expound it in their Commentaries vpon this place, conformable to that which the said Apostle saith to the Philippians, 1.12. Th● rest of the afflictions of Christ, which are not yet accomplished, are the afflictions of the Church, which Iesus Christ saith are his, Acts 9.4. Saul Saul( said he) why persecutest thou me? And Matth. 25.40. In as much as ye haue done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye haue done it to me. That which our Doctor saith( that we must suffer according to the example of Iesus Christ) is true, but not thereby to satisfy Gods judgements, or to content his iustice. That is to convert the afflictions for Iesus Christ into bitterness, and to make them intolerable, if we make them payments, satisfactions, and penances to appease and content the iustice of God: whereas they are the liveries of Christian souldiers, an honourable opprobrie and conformity to the son of God. It is no glory to be punished: but it is an honour to fight after Iesus Christ and for Iesus Christ.  
Touching that which M. Arnoux saith, that the merits of our saviour are not applied unto us, by our own satisfactions, it is an invention forged vpon the anvil of covetousness, and blown with the bellows of pride, without the word of God, to the which belongeth the authority to prescribe the manner how to apply Iesus Christ unto us, and not to us to invent the means. Behold the means which it giveth us to apply Iesus Christ unto vs. First by baptism, Galat. 3.27. For all ye that are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. Secondly, by the holy Supper, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we broke, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Thirdly by faith, Ephes. 3.12. By whom we haue boldness and entrance with confidence, by faith in him. And this faith is by hearing of the word of God. Rom. 10.17. But to apply Iesus Christ unto us by suffering pains and torments in this life, or in Purgatory, the word of God speaketh not at all. The reason is most manifest; for we do not apply a thing by the contrary thereof, as the Church of Rome doth, that will haue God to apply grace and pardon of sins freely unto us by punishing us: and that God applieth the remission of our debts unto us, by making us to pay them: that is, not to apply but to cut off and dry up this grace. Is not this a notable application, to burn a man two or three thousand yeares in a fire? And yet to intoxicate our brains, they place this fire among the graces of God: they will haue the blood of Iesus Christ to give virtue to this fire to be a satisfaction. In the end we shall find by their doctrine, that the divels are Gods minions: for God sheweth them that favour to satisfy to the full, and by that means they haue this advantage, not to be much bound unto him.  ARNOVX. 
And Romans 12.1. I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that you give up your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable serving of God.  moulin. 
I cannot conceive how this place serveth for human satisfactions. Saint Paul by this holy and pleasing sacrifice to God, understandeth our good works, but not corporal or pecuniary punishments which make amends or satisfy for our sins. Our good works are sacrifices of thanksgiving, and not expiatory punishments, to recompense or satisfy the iustice of God.    

THE eighteen ARTICLE.  We beleeue that all our righteousness is grounded vpon the remission of our sins, as also our whole felicity, as david saith. Therefore we reject all other means to justify us before God, and without presuming of any merits or virtues, we simply and wholly depend vpon the obedience of Iesus Christ, which is allowed unto us, as well to cover all our faults, as to make us find grace and favour before God. And to conclude, we beleeue, that declining( how little soever it be) from this foundation, we can find no rest nor comfort elsewhere, but rather are continually disquieted in mind, because we are never at peace with God, until such time as that we are fully resolved that we are beloved in Iesus Christ, for that otherwise of ourselves we are worthy to be hated.  

THE NINETEENTH ARTICLE.  We beleeue that by this means we haue free liberty and privilege to call vpon God, with full assurance that he will show himself to be our Father. For we shall haue no access unto the Father, if we be not directed by this mediator; and that to be heard in his name, it behoveth us to hold our lives of him, as of our head. 
The adversary saith nothing to these two points, as finding nothing therein worthy reprehension.   

THE TWENTIETH ARTICLE. Of justification by faith, and what true faith is.  We beleeue that we are made partakers of this righteousness onely by faith, as it is said, that he suffered to obtain salvation for us, to the end that whosoever shall beleeue in him, shall not perish: and that the same is done, for that the promises of life which are made unto us in him, are appropriated to our use, and that we feel the effect thereof when we accept them, not doubting, but being assured by the mouth of God, we shall not be frustrated thereof. So the iustice which we obtain by faith, dependeth vpon free promises, by the which God signifieth and declareth unto us, that he loveth vs. ARNOVX. 
Herein they still contend and strive against charity, and the exercise of virtues, under the manner of faith, to fill the soul with a vain presumption, which hath no ground in the Scripture, and consisteth( according to their advice) in firmly believing and trusting without any doubt, that they are as well assured of the kingdom of heaven, as Iesus Christ himself. So calvin teacheth in the fourth book of his Institutions, cap. 17. sect. 2. saying, In the catholic Church we truly hold, that without true faith we cannot please God, nor be righteous; and that faith is the roote of the three, and the foundation of the house. But if it be not working by charity, it is an house without roof, and a three without fruit: and neither the one nor the other are serviceable to the master.  

What Faith is, and whether it can be without hope, and without knowledge.  moulin. 
He speaketh of us as of enemies unto charity and all virtue, and as if we contented ourselves to beleeue, and to haue a faith without works, and by consequence dead and unprofitable. cardinal Bellarmine purgeth us of this slander in the third book and sixth chapter of justification. The aduersaries( saith he) do not deny, but that faith and repentance are requisite, that is, a lively faith, and an earnest repentance: and that without them no man can be justified. whosoever is an enemy to charity; whosoever saith that good works are not necessary to salvation: and whosoever thinketh to be saved by a faith without works, let him be accursed. In the mean time, this accusation made against us, is very unseemly in the mouth of the Church of Rome, wherein vices are in the last degree or rank, specially in Rome, from whence with the decisions of faith, comes examples of vices without example.  
The original of this abuse proceedeth from this, that our aduersaries know not what this word faith in the Scripture signifieth: and point and set forth unto us a false imagination, for the true faith; for if they could discern and perceive what faith is, they would behold it necessary accompanied with virtue, and fruitful in good works.  
The council of 
Si quis dixerit fidem iustificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae peccata remittentis propter Christum, Anathema sit.  Trent in the tenth Canon of the sixth Session, pronounceth a curse unto those that say, that justifying faith is no other thing, but hope in the mercy of God that pardoneth our sins in Iesus Christ. And Bellarmine in the first book and fift chapter of justification 
Probatur fidem iustificantem non esse fiduciam misericordiae Dei, said solum assensum firmum, ac certum, ad ea omnia quae Deus credenda proponit.  saith, that justifying faith is not a hope that God will be merciful unto us, but onely a firm consenting unto all that which God will haue to be believed. Touching the affiance whereby some men particularly persuade themselves that God will be merciful unto them, he saith at the end of the chapter 
Catholici certam promissionem specialis misericordiae, non tam ad fidem quam ad praesumptionem pertinere contendunt.  that it is rather a presumption. And to make an end of painting out of faith, he bereaveth it of knowledge: and in the seventh chapter maintaineth: 
Probatur fidem non esse notitiam said assensum.  that faith is not a knowledge, but a consenting; and that, Fides melius per ignorantiam quàm per notitiam definitur: That faith is better defined by ignorance then by knowledge. For the Church of Rome will haue the people to beleeue without knowledge, and to refer themselves therein to the Church, without knowing what the Church believeth, or what it ought to beleeue.  
This is the ground of the mischief. For seeing that our aduersaries by faith, understand a consenting to an unknown doctrine, which onely believeth that all that which God hath said is true, without knowing what it is, and without confidence in his promise; it is no marvell that they seek for their justification in another thing, and not in faith: and that M. Arnoux thinketh, that to extol faith, is to fight against charity and the exercise of virtues. For there is nothing found in faith( as the Church of Rome defineth it) which may not be found in diuers profane persons, yea even in the divels themselves, who beleeue that all that which God hath said is true, and consent thereunto: for faith without knowledge is a voluntary blindness under shadow of docility. To know the promise of God, and not to beleeue it, is an injury done unto God, and matter of torment, and disquietness of conscience.  
The word of God describeth faith unto us in a contrary manner. For Iesus Christ not onely saith, Beleeue me, but beleeue in me, John 14.1. Now to beleeue in Iesus Christ, is to put our trust in him. And in Rom. 4.10. Abrahams faith is described by this, that he made no doubt of the promise of God with distrust, but was strengthened in faith. And Abraham is called the father of the faithful: that his faith may be an example to conform us thereunto. Saint james 1.6. will haue the faithful pray in faith, and waver not: for that faith in prayer excludeth doubt and distrust to be heard. And in Matth. 8.26. When the disciples were afraid to be drowned, although Iesus Christ was with them in the ship, he rebuked them, saying, Why are ye fearful o ye of little faith? H●re there was no question made of consenting, but of trusting in the aid and succour of Iesus Christ: for fear fighteth directly against confidence.  
How often doth the holy Scripture attribute effects unto faith, which cannot agree to a simplo consent, without trust to the promise of God? Iesus Christ in the gospel an hundred times at the least urgeth, that He that believeth in him hath life everlasting, John 6.47. And S. Paul, Rom. 1.17. saith, that the just shall live by faith. And in the fifth chapter he saith, that being justified by faith, we haue peace towards God: making peace of conscience to spring from faith. All these things are false, if the Romish definition of faith be true: for all those which beleeue that all that which God hath said is true, haue not life eternal, for then the divels should be saved. To yield a consent to the doctrine of the gospel, and not to trust in the promise of God, procureth not peace of conscience, but rather trouble and perplexity.  
Therefore Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11.1. who will haue us to be followers of him, bindeth us by his example, to speak as he doth, and particularly to apply unto ourselves the promises of the gospel, by saying as he saith, 1. Tim. 1.15. This is a true saying, and by all means worthy to be received, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. By saying, This is a true saying, he cons●nteth to the doctrine of the gospel; but by adding, I was received to mercy, he applieth the promise of God( with a firm confidence) particularly to himself. And so galat. 2.20. he saith, The son of God loveth me, and hath given himself for me. Otherwise that which he saith, Ephes. 3.12. that we haue boldnesse● and entrance with confidence by faith in Iesus Christ, should be false. For can a man approach unto God with confidence, if he distrusteth his promise? Thereby it appeareth that the council of Trent aforesaid cursed and excommunicated the Apostle, by excommunicating those that haue a particular affiance in the mercy and promise of God. The like abuse it is to make a justifying faith without knowledge, and to haue a man to beleeue without knowing: seeing that on the contrary, we must first haue knowledge to beleeue, that we may know what we beleeue. To haue a man to beleeue before he knoweth, is as much as to put out a mans eyes before we lead him. To beleeue so, is to beleeue we know not what, and onely to haue a good opinion of him that leadeth vs. But the Scripture doth join faith with knowledge, John 17.8. They haue known surely, that I came out from thee, and haue believed that thou hast sent me. And John 10.38. That ye may know and beleeue, that the Father is in me, and I in him. And John 6.69. And we beleeue and know, that thou art that Christ. For faith cometh by hearing of the word of God, Rom. 10. And we hear the word of God to know it, and to be instructed therein. And knowledge is so necessary in faith, that sometimes the word Knowledge is set in the place of faith: as in Esay 53.11. whereas the Apostle ordinarily saith, that we are justified by saith in Iesus Christ, it is there said, that He shall justify many, by the knowledge which they shall haue of him.  
Then this faith which is moved by knowledge and which entirely trusteth in the promise of God, necessary abounds in good works: For, from the knowledge of the love which God beareth unto us, proceedeth our love towards God. And it is altogether impossible to trust in the promise of God without loving him. True faith is discerned from false, when it worketh by charity, when it is joined with earnest and hearty repentance: when it is humble, and trusteth not in her own merites, but in the promise of God in Iesus Christ, and when it kindleth zeal and the love of God.  
If M. Arnoux had understood what this word Faith importeth, and what the nature of true justifying faith is, he would never say, that we placing our justification in Faith onely, make men negligent and careless of good works. He should rather take heed, that under pretence of commending charity, he overthroweth not faith: and that under a shadow of fearing God, he doth not reject his grace, thinking to merit salvation by his own righteousness.  
As touching calvin, which M. Arnoux allegeth, he never said, that he himself, or any particular person, was as well assured of the kingdom of heaven, as Iesus Christ himself is. He speaketh there of the body of the Church, consisting of the Elect, which can no more perish then Christ himself, because it is one body with him: in such manner nevertheless, that all the firmness and beatitude of the Church dependeth on Iesus Christ. This is not to equalize or compare the Church to Iesus Christ, but to say that it is joined unto Iesus Christ by an inseparable band.   

Of justification onely by faith: and of the word justify.  ARNOVX. 
Places of the Scripture quoted in the margin of the Confession. Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the Law. And Galat. 3.24. Wherefore the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. And 2.16. Know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but onely by faith in Iesus Christ.  
In the first and second of these places, the word onely is not there; and in the third, the word onely doth not in any sort exclude the works of the moral and Christian Law, by the which Abraham and his children according to the Spirit, are justified, saith Saint james; but those of the ceremonial and figurative Law of Moses, which ceased when the son of God entred into the world. As the posts or props of wood serve no more for any use after the bridge of ston is perfectly built.  moulin. 
To say that a man is justified by faith onely, and to say that a man is justified by faith without works, are all one thing. For eu●n as in the question, whether the man or the woman ought to be master, he that saith the man ought to be master in the house, and not the wife, saith also that the man ought onely to be master. So in the question, whether man is justified by faith or by works, or by the one and the other: he that saith, that man is justified by faith without works, by consequent saith, that man is justified by faith onely. To stay vpon the words where the thing is clear, is as much as to fly the truth. So the ancient Fathers understood it. Origen upon the third chapter to the romans saith, 
Apostolus dicit sufficere solius fidei justificationem.  The Apostle saith, that justification by faith onely is sufficient. 
{αβγδ}.  Basil in his Sermon of humility, saith, The Apostle Saint Paul acknowledgeth himself to be poor concerning true righteousness, and that he was justified by faith onely in Iesus Christ. Saint hilary in the eight canon vpon matthew saith, Fides sola justificat, Faith onely justifieth. Chrysostome in the homily of Faith and of the law of Nature saith, Faith onely of itself saveth. Saint jerome vpon the third chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians saith, 
Quia nemo illam servat, ideo dictum est, quod sola fide iustificandi essent credentes. ●  Because no man observeth the Law, therefore it is said, that the faithful ought to be justified by faith onely. And a little after, 
Vt sola fidbenedicerentur gentes in Christo.  To the end that by faith onely all nations should be blessed in Christ. Bernard in the two and twentieth Sermon vpon the Canticles, saith, Being justified by faith onely, we shall haue peace towards God.  
Our Doctor wrongeth himself to think, that the works which Saint Paul excludeth, are the works of the ceremonial Law. In the third chapter to the Romans, verse twenty seven: The Apostle concludeth, that Man is justified by faith without the works of the Law: He there speaks of the moral law; by the which, in the chapter before, verse twelve, he said, that Those that shall haue sinned shall be judged. And from thence he saith also, that The Gentiles which haue not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, because they haue natural impressions; which Law in the same chapter he saith the Iewes had transgressed by stealing, and by committing adultery, which cannot haue reference but to the moral Law. And in the fourth chapter he insisteth to prove, that Abraham was not justified by works. It had been in vain for him to prove that Abraham was not justified by the works of the ceremonial Law, seeing that the ceremonial Law was not then made, nor was not given until four hundred yeares after.  
Touching the Epistle to the Galathians, it is manifest that Saint Paul in the second chapter, saying, that Man is justified by faith, and not by the works of the Law, excludeth from justification, not onely the works of the ceremonial, but also those of the moral Law. For in the fift chapter and fourteenth verse, he saith: For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, which is this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And in the third chapter and tenth verse he saith, that Iesus Christ hath delivered us from the curse of the Law, even from that Law which saith, Cursed is every man which continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law, to do them: which is a place taken out of the seven and twentieth chapter of deuteronomy, twenty sixth verse, where it is spoken onely of the moral Law.  
Notwithstanding we do not abolish good works, although we exclude them from our justification. No man can be justified without works, although he shall not be justified by works. even as the eyes are not without the ears, and yet the eyes onely see, and not the ears. For faith onely hath the virtue to justify us that is, to cause us to be absolved and accounted just before the iudgement seat of God, because faith onely hath this property, to apprehended the benefit of Iesus Christ, and to appropriate his righteousness unto vs.  
Now that which troubleth our Aduersaries in this question, is, that the word Faith, and also the word justify, by them is taken in another sense then it is meant in the Scripture, as often as it speaketh of our justification before God. For the council of Trent in the sixth Session, and all our Aduersaries, by justifying understand regenerating& sanctifying; whereas the holy Scripture, when it speaketh of our justification before God, always taketh the word justifying for absolving, in the same sense that a man accused of a crime, is dismissed, being absolved and justified. That appeareth by this, that justifying is opposed against condemning; and consequently, is as much as absolving. As in proverbs, chapter 17. verse 15. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. And job chapter 9. verse 20. If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me. And Deut. 25.1. Then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And Matth. 12.37. By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. And Romans chap. 8. verse 33. It is God that justifieth, who shall condemn?  
It is manifest by the first of the Corinthians, chapter 4. ver. 4. what the Apostle understandeth by justifying, and how he maketh account to be justified. Speaking of his administration in his Apostleship, he saith: For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified. He maketh not account to be justified by his innocency, which should be false, if by justification he understood holinesse of life, or regeneration, or if he pretended to be justified by his works. And in matthew, chapter 11. verse 19. it is said that wisdom is justified by her children. Will our Aduersaries say, that the wisdom of God was regenerated or sanctified? It is most manifest that Iesus Christ would onely say, That the wisdom of God was acknowledged to be just, and exempted from the slanders of men.  
If man be justified by the works of the Law, Saint Paul did wrong to magnify with david, The blessedness of those men to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Rom. 4.6. especially seeing that there he speaketh of the works of Abraham and of david, then when they were already in Gods favour. For these causes, you shall find that Saint Paul never exhorteth us to be iustifi●d, because justification is not a virtue in man, but a grace of God, whereby he absolveth sinners, in beholding his son. But his Epistles are full of exhortations, to be sanctified and renewed, romans chapter 12. vers. 1.2. And therefore, Romans chapter 5. ver. 9. he saith, that We are justified by the blood of Iesus Christ. And if by justifying he understood sanctifying or regenerating he would rather say, that we are justified by the Spirit of Christ.   

How according to Saint james, man is justified by works.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. james 2.24. You see then, how that of works a man is justified, and not by faith onely.  
I allege this Apostle, whose Epistle, and this place, by them is acknowledged to be canonical. Can he more clearly and more manifestly contradict their article? and dare they yet make mention of their onely faith, altogether void, altogether barren, and altogether dead?  moulin. 
It is true that we speak of faith onely, altogether barren or bare &c. but detesting it as a show of faith, a spiritual drowsiness, and a profane sluggishness.  
As for the place of Saint james, it is nothing to the purpose; for in this question we speak of our justification before God, but Saint james speaks of our justification before men: show me( saith he) thy faith by thy works. He speaks of making our faith appear unto men by our works. But as touching justification before God, the Apostle Saint Paul declareth, That Abraham was not justified by works: For if( saith he) Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherein to rejoice, but not with God. And if Saint james intent had been to prove that Abraham was justified before God by works, he would not haue contented himself to set down the onely sacrifice of Isaac, but would haue shewed the entire course of his obedience during his life. For if a man be justified before God by works, it should not be by one onely action, but by the continuance of an holy and innocent life. M. Arnoux seeketh to prove that Saint james speaketh here of faith and of works, as far as they serve to salvation, which we willingly confess. He saith also, that these words not onely, show that Saint james speaketh of the same sort of justification. Wherein he is abused; If I say, that a man is learned, not onely in philosophy, but also in divinity, doth it follow, that philosophy and divinity are all one kind of learning?  ARNOVX. 
And what doth the son of God mean. Luke 7.47. When he speaketh of mary Magdalen to Simon that erred in faith, Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much: to whom a little is forgiven, he doth love little?  
Then was Mary Magdalen justified onely by faith: or whether did not the son of God understand the mystery of salvation, so well as the Ministers?  moulin. 
This place is nothing to the purpose, and speaketh not of justification by works. Note also that our aduersaries by justification, understand sanctification or regeneration: and the end whereunto they tend, is to prove, that we are regenerated by works; a thing which we willingly grant. The question is, if by our works we can stand before the iudgement seat of God, and be justified before God: which is not spoken of in this place. david cutteth them off clearly touching that, Psal. 143. verse 2. where he saith, For no man living can be justified before God.  
Some allege the place in Luke 7.47. to ground their merits, that the word for, importeth a cause of justification; whereas it is onely a mark. Of that we will speak more hereafter.   

Of the Certainty of salvation, and of perseverance.  ARNOVX. 
In the same Article, somewhat lower, after they haue said, that we are justified by faith onely, they add, that it is done for that the promises of life which are given us in him are apropriated to our use, and we feel the effects when we accept them, not doubting that being assured by the mouth of God, we be frustrated thereof. That is always to assure every man of his salvation, and to ground the interior peace of conscience of the faithful vpon presumption: which makes men live without fear, and careless of the time to come, as if a man were already in possession. But what is he among them, who( if he haue his right wits) liveth and death in this assurance, freed of all fear? We may well persuade and assure ourselves, that God will hold his promise, but we cannot assure ourselves of the use of his particular will, whereof God in the Scriptures giveth not any infallible promise unto any man.  moulin. 
Now we enter into the question touching the assurance of man to be saved, which is a point wherein our aduersaries disfigure our Confession, and propound it otherwise then it is. They say that every one of us boast and brag, that we haue a particular revelation thereof, and that among us every one assureth himself of his salvation. All that is false. For, to be assured of our salvation, we need not enter into the secret counsel of God. whosoever seeketh by curiosity to enter into it, shall therein find his condemnation. whosoever will presume to climb so high, shall be thrown down by despair. The certainty of our salvation ought not to be sought for so far off: it is found in the examination of our own consciences, conferred with the doctrine of the Scriptures. For if being earnestly converted by true repentance we haue recourse to Iesus Christ, and feel in our consciences that we haue no other hope nor affiance but in his death and passion, we haue the doctrine of the gospel which declareth unto us, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but haue eternal life, joh. 3.15. This is the foundation of our assurance, and the support of our faith.  
It is also false, that every one of us boasteth that he is assured of his salvation. It is true, that God commandeth us to be assured thereof, but he wils us not to boast, nor make open profession of it: and we are not bound to beleeue those that brag thereof For profane persons may boast of it, who by a vain confidence imagine they shall ascend up into heaven while in the mean time their vices weigh them down into hell.  
And which is more, this full certainty of faith, is a gift which God giveth not to all the faithful at one time, nor in like measure; to some he giveth it sooner, to others later, to some onely at the hour of death, and there are some who by prayer and good works seeking to fortify their faith, are nevertheless assailed with doubts touching the same, and haue not as yet that full confidence: who if they perceive any proceeding thereof in themselves, and an earnest desire to increase this faith, we ●xhort them to take and esteem that conflict which they feel within themselves, for a mark of th●ir election.  
Then our Confession consisteth in these two points, the one, that God will haue us to be assured of the accomplishing of his promise; the other, that God giveth this assurance to whom, when and in what measure it pleaseth him; but specially at the hour of death: for then certainly it is most necessary.  
This doctrine is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures. The Apostle Saint Paul Rom. 8.16. saith, The Spirit of God witnesseth with our spirits, that we are the children of God. Can there be a more credible witness then the Spirit of God? Can we without horror read that which Bellarmine saith, chap. 9. in his third book of justification, that the testimony of the holy Spirit is not certain, but by a conjectural certainty? that is, an uncertain certainty. He that believeth in that son of God, hath the witness of God in himself. joh. 1.5.10. We can not without impiety accuse the testimony of God of uncertainty. If M. Arnoux doth not feel this testimony in himself, it is better for him to haue a bad opinion of himself, then to contradict the word of God, or to seek to measure other men by his own measure, and to limit the grace of God in others, by the evil estate of his own conscience.  
The Apostle to the Hebrewes, 3.6. will haue us to hold fast unto the end the confidence and the glory of the hope. And 4.16. Let us therefore go boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. And 10.22. Let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith. For saith he, Ephes. 3.12. that by Iesus Christ we haue boldness, and entrance with confidence by faith in him. And John, 1.13. will haue us to be assured of eternal life: These things haue I written unto you that beleeue in the name of the son of God, that ye may know that ye haue life eternal.  
Let us add hereunto the promise of God, which is, to give us all things that we shall ask of him in the name of Iesus Christ, joh. 16.23. Let us ask of him salvation and perseverance in faith, for God promiseth to hear us: and therefore Saint james 1.6. will haue us to ask in faith, and waver not. Therefore we must ask salvation of God without doubt or distrust.  
Of this rank are those places in the Scriptures, which compare the testimony of the Spirit in the hearts of the faithful, to a seal, or an earnest penny to assure vs. Ephes. 1.13. Wherein also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance: and 4.30. And grieve not the holy Spirit, by whom ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. And 2. Cor. 1.23. Who hath also sealed us, and hath given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.  
The Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 8.37. saith, For I am assured that neither death nor life, nor Angels, nor Principalities, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Iesus Christ our Lord. For which cause also, going to die, he speaketh as if he had the prise in his own hand, and as being ready to lay hold vpon the crown: 2. Tim. 4.7.8. I haue fought a good fight, and haue finished my course, I haue kept the faith: from henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness. And a little after: The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom. Is there any thing fuller of assurance, then that which jacob said lying on his death-bed, Genes. 49.18. I haue waited for thy salvation o Lord: or then that of Dauids words, Psal. 17.15. As for me I will behold thy face in righteousness, and shall be satisfied when I awake, with thy likeness: and in Psal. 49.15. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for he shall receive me: or the words of Simeon when he approached near unto death, Luke 2.29. Lord now lettest thou thy seruant depart in peace according to thy word?  
All these holy seruants of God are condemned by the council of Trent, which saith thus in the sixth Session: whosoever shall say, that the regenerated and the righteous man is bound to beleeue with certain confidence that he is of the number of those that are predestinated, let him be accursed.  
By pride or presumption to curse a man that obeys God commanding us to be assured, and which putteth his trust in the promise of God, is to contest and strive with God under the shadow of humility. This humility is profane, and this modesty is injurious unto God. It is as if a man should say to God, It is true that thou hast promised me, but I am not worthy to beleeue thy word: I am too base to trust in thy promise. To ground the assurance of our salvation vpon our merits, is presumption: but to ground our assurance vpon the promise of God, is faith and obedience.  
nevertheless, to prove that we may be incredulous with reason, M. Arnoux allegeth two things. First, that we cannot assure ourselves of the use of our will. Whereunto I say, that God hath promised to govern our wils, 
And I will make an everlasting covenant with thē that I will not turn away from them to do thē good: but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.  and to put his Law in our hearts, and to make us that we shall not withdraw ourselves from him, Iere. 32.40. And Iesus Christ saying, Mar. 13.22. that False Christs shall arise, and false Prophets, and shall show signs and wonders to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect, sheweth that the elect cannot be seduced with a final seduction or irrecoverable. And God also promiseth to hear us, when we ask perseverance of him. To conclude, so many places before alleged, which will haue us to be assured of our salvation, presuppose that God also will haue us to be assured that he will not forsake us: for without that there can be no assurance.  
The other reason alleged by M. Arnoux is, that God in the Scriptures makes no man any infallible promise. This reason is impious, and overthroweth all piety. For if Henry or Charles be not bound to be assured of his salvation, because it is not said in the Scripture, that Henry or Charles by name shall be saved, it followeth that those persons are not bound to be honest men, nor to fear God, because in the holy Scripture it is not said, that Henry or Charles ought to be honest men. As the general rules of piety bind all particular persons: so the general promise, that whosoever believeth in Iesus Christ hath life everlasting, assureth every particular person thereof that believes in Iesus Christ, although his name be not specified in the Scripture.   

Whether a man is saved and elected vpon condition that he shall beleeue, and do good works.  ARNOVX. 
Places of the Scripture noted in the margin of the Confession. Matth. 17.20. And Iesus said unto them, because of your unbelief, for verily I say unto you, if you haue faith as much as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be unpossible unto you, John 3.16. For God so loved the world, that he hath given his onely begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but haue everlasting life. These two places contain conditional propositions, and therefore insufficient to give the pretended assurance. The one saith, If you beleeue, the other saith, whosoever believeth; but neither the one nor the other make any assurance, that such or such a particular person is endowed with true faith, nor that if he were so endowed, that he should persevere. And the son of God speaketh of a working faith: then where are the terms that in them contain a safe conduct of assurance?  moulin. 
It is the same objection that we haue formerly cleared, in the end of the last section. The Scripture nameth not particular persons, but giveth general rules which bind them. We confess that this proposition; whosoever believeth in Iesus Christ hath life everlasting, is conditional, and that life eternal is given onely to those that beleeue. But this condition is not doubtful, because it dependeth vpon the counsel of God, and vpon his election, by the which he hath predestinated the elect to beleeue, and to do good works. The Scripture saith not, that God hath elected any one because he is faithful, but that God hath given him grace to be faithful, to the end that he should be saved. So Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 7.25. saith not, that God determined to show mercy unto him if he were faithful; but saith, I haue obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. And Ephes. 1.4. he saith not, that God hath elected us, because he foresaw that we should be holy, but, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love. And John 15.16. I haue chosen you, and ordained you, that you go and bring forth fruit. And Rom. 8.29. he saith, that God hath predestinated us, to be made like to the image of his son. Our faith and obedience is not a condition whereupon election dependeth, but an effect of election, and grace which God giveth to all those whom he hath elected to salvation. I join faith with obedience, because faith itself in some respect is a kind of obedience, and because it worketh by charity, Galat. 5.6. In the thirteenth of the Acts, the Apostle Saint Paul preached the gospel in Antiochia. Of all his audience, those onely which were ordained to life everlasting believed, as it is said, verse 48. He saith not that those believed that were disposed or inclined to life eternal, but those that were ordained thereunto. This greek word {αβγδ} can be no otherwise interpnted, seeing that all of us by nature are undisposed and unapt to apprehended salvation and faith.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. Eccles. 8.14. There is another vanity which is done vpon the earth, that is, that there are wicked men that are as bold as if they had done the actions of the just, but also I judge this to be vain.  moulin. 

M. Arnoux falsehood.  This place is all false. According to the Hebrew it is, There is a vanity which is done vpon the earth, that is, that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked: again there be wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous; I say that this also is vanity. This Doctor made his brags, to confounded our Confession by our own Bibles, and now he serveth his turn with his own Bible falsified, and contrary to the Hebrew.  
And say that this place were not fasified, yet it maketh nothing against us, that aclowledge that there is a false, a profane, and a barren trust or affiance in good works, which benumeth the conscience, in stead of kindling love, and nourishing piety therein.   

Of the fear of the faithful, and whether it derogateth any thing from the certainty of salvation.  ARNOVX. 
1. Cor. 9.27. I beate down, and bring my body into subiection, lest by any means when I haue preached to others, I myself should be reproved.  
And if he did apprehended( as they say) nothing but the iudgement of men, he had no need to carry his mortification so far, as to dompt and subject his most inward and secret motions, and to pull down the most lively and secret provocations of his flesh: but it had been sufficient for him to haue used dissimulation, and some outward show of pretended reformation. Now sith the Apostle trembled, where are those reedes of the desert, which say they are the pillars of the Temple?  moulin. 
This Doctor makes us to say that Saint Paul did apprehended nothing but the iudgement of men, and goes about to confute a thing forged by himself, and which we beleeue not. For on the contrary 1. Cor. 4.3, he declareth: I pass very little to be judged by you, or of mans iudgement. The Apostle feared to offend God, and to fail in his charge: which is a vigilant fear, and not a fear of the distrust of his salvation: whereof he speaketh as assured, 
I haue fought a good fight, I haue finished my course; I haue kept the faith, from henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness.  in the passages before alleged, Rom. 8.37. and 2. Tim. 4.7. and 8.18. We cease not to travell with care in things, whereof the event is sure. Iesus Christ avoyded dangers, although he knew that his hour was not yet come. Ezechias had a promise to live fifteen yeares more: and yet he ceased not to eat, to attain to that time. Saint Paul, Acts, 27.31, had a promise of God, that he should scape shipwreck,& yet ceased not to exhort the sailors to work. So the faithful man assured of his salvation, ceaseth not to travell by those means that are fit to attain thereunto; which assurance is not grounded vpon his own force, but vpon Gods promise. even as a child that learneth to go,( when his father holds him by the hand,) may be assured that he shall not fall; not because he is strong enough of himself, but because his father leads him: so it is with the faithful, of whom it is said, Psal. 37.24. Though the just man falleth, he shall not be utterly cast down, for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand.  
In the mean time, consider what these Doctors are that preach incredulity by modesty, and that fearing to be proud, will die in doubt whether they be the children of God or of the divell. These are they that boast of their merits, yea of merites of equiualence and of dignity, as they say to give God so much for so much, lest he should complain. But that is but a small matter, for they make superabundant& supererogatory merits, doing more then God would haue them to do, that they may give him more then enough. And yet wh●n all is done, they know not whether they shall go into heaven or into hell.  
Then here you see the difference between true and false religion, which is, that true religion fashioneth mens hearts to an humble confidence or assurance, but false religion formeth them to a proud distrust. Which pride as it is profane, so also their distrust is most just. For he that trusteth in his merits, careth not for assurance. For having laid his foundation in the air, his expectation must of force hang in suspense. These Doctors teach men to trust in themselves, and to distrust God: hanging their spirits between fear and ambition, trembling with fear to think vpon hell, and in the mean time presuming to haue a degree of glory in heaven above the common Saints, which degree by scholars is called Aureola.  
This error is nourished by coueteousnesse and ambition. For from a people that are in a fear, a man may exact all what soever he will: we may easily feel in a mans purse that is amazed or asleep. A man that believeth when he death that he shall go into paradise, will not pay for Masses to be said when he is dead.    

THE XXI. ARTICLE: Whereupon M. Arnoux disputeth of the certainty of perseverance.  We beleeue that we are illuminated in the faith by the secret grace of God, so that it is a free and particular gift which God giveth to those to whom he will, in such manner, that the faithful haue not whereof to boast; being much more bound to obedience for being preferred before others, for that faith is not given unto the faithful for a while, to lead them into the good way, but to make them continue therein to the end. For as it consists in God to make the beginning, of so it is in him to finish it. ARNOVX. 
By these words they pretend, that he that once hath true faith, never falleth, and that faith cannot be lost: that it is no more in mans liberty, after he hath received that grace of God to leave it: that by consequence he is confirmed in that grace, and in pursuit thereof in good works, which a little after, they say are necessary joined to faith. Is is not this after a sort to make every one of them without sin? Alas! and where are those holy and constant persons to be found among them? And if there be any such, why do they with Caluin teach, that all the works of the faithful deserve death?  moulin. 
He that will exactly examine the words of this 21 Article of our Confession, shall find nothing of all that which M. Arnoux maketh it to say. It doth not say that all those that haue faith, are assured to continue therein unto the end, but that faith is given to continue to the end, which no man can contradict, but he that will haue a man to leave and forsake the service of God after he hath once begun well. And to be short, in all this Article there is no mention made of the certainty of perseverance.  
nevertheless although he wander out of the way, we will follow him by his steps, and manifest and explain unto the Reader the certainty of perseverance.  
First, we do not deny, that there is a faith for a time, and which persevereth not to the end. The Scripture speaketh thereof in many places: as Math. 13.20. joh. 2.22.23. Hebr. 6.4.5.6 and in other places.  
Secondly, we confess and aclowledge that the faith of the elect groweth by degrees, and that as it waxeth stronger, so the certainty of perseverance increaseth. Yet while it increaseth, there is still some remnant of infirmity in man, and the flesh suggesteth doubts, so that this certainty is not given to all the elect in like measure.  
Onely we say, that whosoever turneth unto God by true repentance, and by an unfeigned faith, hath apprehended the benefit of Iesus Christ, and the promise of God: he ought to be assured and to beleeue that God will not forsake him and will give him grace to persever, and that God will haue us to haue this assurance, and promiseth us perseverance. And that he giveth this assurance to his elect, to some sooner to others later, and in diverse measure: but that specially he giveth it to his children at the hour of death.  
This certainty of perseverance is taught unto us in the word of God: Iere. 32.39.40. where God makes this promise, I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever: I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good.  
Iesus Christ, mark 13.22. saith, that False Christs shall rise, and false Prophets, and shall show signs and wonders, to deceive, if it were possible, the elect. showing that the elect cannot finally be seduced, and by consequence shall pers●uer unto the end. Therefore the Apostle in the beginning of his Epistle to Titus, calleth this faith whereof we speak, the faith of the elect: to show that it can no more fail then election itself. Whether it differ in kind, or in degree onely from temporal faith, yet the certainty thereof is not grounded vpon his own force, but vpon the continual aid and assistance of God: and this assistance depends vpon election.  
Iesus Christ joh. 6.39. saith This is the Fathers will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing. Now those whom the Father hath given to Iesus Christ are the elect, whom seeing Iesus Christ promiseth not to lose, but to keep them always, it is necessary that they should persever unto the end.  
Our Lord, joh. 4.14 speaking of the Spirit which he giveth to those that are his, promiseth To give them water, whereof whosoever drinketh shall never be more athirst, but that it shall be in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life: which cannot be without persevering to the end.  
Saint Paul, Rom. 8.35. assureth himself of this perseverance, saying, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? And a little after, 38. For I am assured, that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, &c. shall be able to separate us from the love of God. So Iesus Christ promiseth the gift of perseverance to Saint Peter, Luk. 22.32 when he saith unto him, I haue prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.  
In the first psalm, the faithful are compared to a three whose leaves never fall. Iesus Christ compareth them to a man that hath built his house vpon a rock, which standeth fast against all storms and tempests, Matth. 7.24. Saint Peter in his first Epistle 1.23. saith that The word of God dwelling in their hearts, is an uncorruptible seed, living, and enduring for ever. And before verse 5. he said, that We are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation.  
To the same end it is said, that the true faithful are oftentimes called members of Iesus Christ: for it is not to be believed, that satan can cut off or pull away the members of Iesus Christ, nor yet diminish his body. As also that the regeneration of the faithful is called a birth, John 3.3. and a resurrection, revel. 20.6. For this second birth cannot be made void by death. And the Spirit of God, revel. 20.6. saith, that The second death( which is damnation) hath no power on him that hath part in the first resurrection. Now if a man truly regenerated could entirely lose faith and godliness, and after return again and be re-established by repentance; besides this second birth, whereof the Scripture speaketh, there should be a third and fourth birth, whereof the Scripture maketh no mention. And if we had not so many places of the Scripture for the certainty of perseverance, yet so many places alleged in the 46. Section, whereby God will haue us to be assured of our salvation, necessary presuppose the assurance of perseverance: for without it saith wavereth, and floateth in uncertainty.  
All this is grounded vpon the constant and unvariable election; vpon the nature of God, whose gifts and callings are without repentance, Rom. 11.29: vpon the promises of God before set down. God dresseth that which he hath planted. He giveth, because he hath formerly given. His first graces invite and draw on those that follow, and are promises for the time to come.  
It may well fall out, that the faith of the faithful hardly assailed, may sometime languish, as those that faint and fall into a swoon. So it happened to david, Salomon, and Saint Peter, and to many faithful seruants of God, whom yet God recovered again out of their trance. For, that david in his fall did not wholly lose the Spirit of God, it appeareth by that which he himself saith, Psal. 51.11. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Then he had that Spirit still. As for Salomon, God himself, 2. Sam. 7.14.15. promised, that If he committed iniquity, he would chasten him with the rod of men, but that his mercy should not depart from him. Whereby it appeareth that by this doctrine we do not make ourselves without sin, as M. Arnoux chargeth vs.  
Howbeit this perseverance, although it be necessary, is nevertheless voluntary, and without constraint. In the 21. Section we haue shewed, that there are voluntary necessities, and that constraint and not necessity, is repugnant to liberty. All of us necessary desire to be happy, and yet with freedom of will. It is not to be asked, whether the Elect can resist the grace of God, for all of them for a time resist it, and of their own nature can do no other thing. But God in his secret counsel hath decreed, to bend theit wils, that they will not resist unto the end. That which M. Arnoux makes us and calvin say, that all the works of the saithfull are worthy of death, is slanderous, and nothing to the purpose.  ARNOVX. 
Places of the Scripture quoted in the margin of the Confession. 1. Corin. 1.8.9. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his son Iesus Christ our Lord. Iude 3. It was needful for me to writ unto you, to exhort you, that you should earnestly contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given unto the Saints. And Rom. 11.29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Note, he will strengthen you, because it is by him, and not by yourselves that you shall be constant, so you be constant, and there shall be no want in him, or on his part. 
Note, it shall not want on Gods part.  He hath called you to the communion, that is not to say that you shall continue therein; but if you continue therein, he will be faithful unto you, to give you that which he hath promised you. Faith hath once been given to the Saints, is it therefore to be said, that it is for a time onely, or for ever, or without losing, or recovering it again? To be short, the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, because God never recalleth that which he hath done. Thy destruction cometh of thyself o Israel.  moulin. 
This is a blow on the nail, by our adversary given to three places of Scripture set down in the margin of the 21. Article of our Confession to show that they are wrongly alleged to prove the certainty of perseverance; which is as much as to fight against his own shadow: for those places are not brought to prove the certainty of perseverance, whereof there is nothing spoken in that Article.  
add hereunto, that we haue already confuted that in the 47. Section, where we haue shewed that Gods decree to give perseverance to his Elect, is not a conditional but an absolute decree. And it were a contradiction to say, that God giveth perseverance to the faithful, if they pers uere: or to speak( as M. Arnoux saith) that by the grace of God they shall be constant, so they be constant. But specially he speaketh with a good grace, to say that there shall be no wanting on Gods behalf. This Doctor imagineth, that God saith unto us, Do your endeavour, and I will do mine: It is not my fault, but you hinder me from doing that which I would willingly do. This divinity is hypochondriacall: and the example which he setteth down in his answer is childish. If( saith he) I should say to a sick person, The physician will aid and not leave you to the end, should it thence follow, that the sick man cannot disobey the physicians order. Certes God is not like a physician, that cannot give the will to his patient to suffer himself to be ruled: but God giveth his Spirit to his Elect, which formeth them to obedience.  
The place of Scripture; Thy destruction cometh from thyself O Israel; is not to the purpose, touching the perseverance of the Elect: for that is spoken of reprobates.  ARNOVX. 
contrary places of Scripture. 1. Cor. 10.12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.  
It may then be that he may fall, and he cannot fall unless he stands; and if he stood, he had faith. Who then dares contradict Saint Paul, that he that hath faith cannot lose it?  moulin. 
Saint Paul in that place speaketh to those that are presumptuous and negligent, and that trust in their own strength, and saith unto them, Let him that thinketh himself to be very sure and firm, take heed that he falleth not into such faults, whereby his presumption and weakness may be known. For by falling he understandeth not to lose faith, as M. Arnoux imagineth, but to fall into faults, whereby his false trust may be convinced. But to gratify our adversary, put the case that Saint Paul speaks to those that haue true faith. In that sense, I say, that either the Apostle speaketh of final falling, whence men never recover again; or of faults, whence men recover again, and which sometimes befall the most holy men, as Saint Peter and david &c. If he speak of faults whence men recover again, this makes nothing against final perseverance, which we speak of here. If he speaks of final falling, and whence men never recover again, this instruction is not unprofitable to those that are assured of their salvation. For those that truly stand upright, should not be careless of falling. The assurance that they haue to go into the kingdom of God, hindereth them not from turning out of the way to hell, but bindeth them to be wary thereof. For mans will ought to obey Gods decree. Those whom God hath ordained to persever unto the end, ought to use the means to attain thereunto: he whom God hath preordained to live an hundred yeares, should be careful not to want food by his negligence. For the confidence which we haue that God will save us, is no cause of negligence. And to be short, to the end that no man should serve their turns with that place of Scriptu●e to weaken the certainty of perseverance, Saint Paul addeth, verse 13. There hath no temptation taken you, but such as appertains to man; and God is faithful, which will not suffer you to be tempted above that you be able, but will even give the issue with the temptation, that ye may be able to bear it. By these words he strengtheneth them, with assurance that God will give them grace to persever.  ARNOVX. 
Philip. 2.12. Make an end of your own salvation with fear and trembling.  
But why should he tremble that hath no fear, and knows himself to be assured?  moulin. 
This fear and trembling is not the fear of hell, but a fear to offend God; it is a childlike fear, and not a servile fear: a fear that quickeneth slowness, and is not contrary to faith.  
And although the Apostle should here speak of the fear of hell, what is that to the purpose? For who knoweth not, that the Apostle giveth instructions to all sorts of persons, and by consequence also, unto those that doubt of their salvation? To men that are not forward in godliness, the fear of hell serveth for a compulsarie fear, and a good restraint from evil. But this fear decreaseth, as faith increaseth and taketh deeper roote; as scaffolds made about buildings, are by degrees pulled down, as the building goeth forward and is perfected.   

THE XXII. ARTICLE. Whereupon M. Arnoux moveth the question, whether faith can be without good works.  We beleeue that by this faith we are regenerated to newness of life, being naturally slaves to sin. Now by faith we receive grace to live holily and in the fear of God, by receiving the promise which is given unto us by the gospel, that is, that God will give us his holy Spirit. So faith by no means doth not quench the affection to live well and holily: but begetteth and quickeneth it in us, necessary producing good works. And although God to accomplish our salvation doth regenerate us, reforming us to do good: nevertheless, we confess, that the good works which we do by direction of the holy Ghost, are not required to justify us, or to merit that God therefore should hold us for his children, for that we should always fleet in doubt and unquietness; if our consciences did not rest vpon the satisfaction whereby Iesus Christ hath freed us before God. ARNOVX. 
If it be true, that he which hath faith, necessary doth good works, it followeth, that he which doth not good works, cannot haue faith.  moulin. 
That is true, so that by faith we understand a lively faith, a true confidence in Iesus Christ, a confidence that is not grounded vpon our merits, but vpon the promise of God: a faith working by charity, Galat. 5.6. not the faith of the roman Church, which onely believeth that all that which God hath said is true; which the divels also beleeue: nor the faith of the people of the church of Rome, that make profession to beleeue all that which God hath said, without knowing what he hath said, and without being instructed in his word. Such a faith may be, and is ordinarily without good works.  ARNOVX. 
And which of the holiest and constantest Ministers dare firmly assure himself that he doth good works, without being condemned of pride, lying, and folly, by his own Sectaries? And then none of them also can assure themselves of faith, wanting good works, which are the effects thereof.  moulin. 
Not onely the Ministers, but the least or meanest of the people that love and fear God, know well when they do good works, and are well assured, and doubt not, but that such works are pleasing and acceptable unto God and that he beareth with the imperfection and want that is in them, for the love of Iesus Christ. But they do not brag and boast, nor yet presume by them to merit of God. And therefore are not afraid to be condemned by any man, of pride, lying, or folly; because they make no man acquainted therewith, but rather condemn then justify themselves. M. Arnoux neither knoweth what we say, nor what our belief is, nor yet what his own is.  ARNOVX. 
These are manifest contradictions, to say that faith cannot be lost, that it is never without good works, that a man is assured of his faith, and yet that he cannot assure himself of his works?  moulin. 
It is an easy thing with M. Arnoux to make us to contradict ourselves, by making us say things which he knoweth well that we say not, and which we beleeue not no more then he doth: It is certain that he argueth not against our Confession, but against his own fictions, and an imaginary confession. To know with what equity he dealeth with us, let the Reader remember, that before in the fiftieth Section he saith that we make ourselves without fault, that is without sin; and now he attributeth the contrary unto us, and maketh us say, that the holiest Ministers dare not assure themselves that they do good works. So before he reproved us, that we make a bare faith, void of good works; but here he himself produceth our Confession which saith that faith necessary produceth good works. By this means he justifieth us, and silently confesseth that he hath slandered vs. Otherwise these things agree well together, for a man to haue a certain confidence or faith accompanied with good works, and yet not to trust in his own good works: for the more that a man trusteth in God, the more he distrusteth himself; the more that a man resteth vpon the merits of Iesus Christ, the more he renounceth his own merits.  ARNOVX. 
Places of the Scripture quoted in the margin of the Confession. james 2.14. What availeth it my brethren, though a man saith he hath faith, when he hath no works? Can that faith save him? Galat. 5.6. For in Iesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, neither uncircumcision, nor any virtue, but faith which worketh by love. John 1.2.3. My little children, these things I writ unto you, that you sin not. And hereby we are sure that we know him, if we keep his commandements: And 5.18. We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God, keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And 3.3. And every man that hath this hope in him, purgeth himself even as he is pure.  
In all these places of Scripture, there is not one word more or less, that signifieth that faith necessary produceth good works, and the word necessary is neither in truth nor in appearance in any of them.  moulin. 
These places serve to prove that which our Confession saith, that is, that faith stirreth in us an affection to live well, and necessary produceth good works. The Scripture is full of proofs thereof. The Apostle to the Hebrewes, 11.32. and 33. maketh a great rehearsal of the seruants of God, who by faith did work righteousness. Saint Peter, Acts 15.9. saith, that God hath purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith. Saint Paul, Rom. 8.1. saith, that There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, which walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. add to that the places quoted in the margin of our Confession, which M. Arnoux produceth; Iam. 2.14. that Faith without works cannot save. Galat. 5.6. that Faith worketh by love: which five places M. Arnoux confesseth that they say, that faith produceth good works; onely he faith, that the word necessary( which is in our Confession) is not found in any of them. I am ashamed to trouble myself, with such childish things If in our Confession we had said, that God is necessary just, M. Arnoux would haue quarreled with us about it, and would haue said, that the Scripture saith that God is just, but saith not, that he is necessary just. What? Is not the word of God necessary true? And when the Apostle saith, that faith worketh by love, is it not necessary that it should work by love, to be that faith whereof the Apostle speaketh? Is it probably onely or contingent that faith moveth us to good works? that is, not to speak like a man, nor unto men.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. Titus 1.16. They profess that they know God, but by works deny him, and are abominable and disobedient and to every good work reprobate.  moulin. 
Giddeons bottles make as much to the purpose as this which he allegeth: what makes that to prove that the faith of the elect may be without good works? Who knows not that there is a false faith, and that many make a good profession, and are of an evil conversation?  ARNOVX. 
james 2.14. If any one saith that he hath faith, when he hath no works, can that faith save him?  
We see well that he denieth not that ●aith cannot be without good works, but onely that without works it is of no value.  moulin. 
So Saint james saith evidently, that faith can be without good works, because he speaketh of a dead faith, of an hypocritical faith, of a faith like unto that of the Church of Rome, by which a man believeth that the word of God is true, but believes not that the promises of God appertain unto him. Such a faith is without good works. But not the faith of the true faithful seruants of God, by the which they are justified before God.  ARNOVX. 
In Saint Matthew 13.22. Christ expounding the parable of the sour, saith, He that hath received the seed among thorns, is he that heareth the word, but the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choked the word, and he is made unfruitful.  moulin. 
It is an abusing of the Reader to allege places of the Scripture so little to the purpose. This place proveth not, that the true faith of the elect,( which is justifying faith, whereof our Confession speaketh) can be without good works.  

Of the first and second justification, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome.  ARNOVX. 
In the same Article somewhat lower. nevertheless we confess that the good works which we do by the guidance of his Spirit are not brought into an account to justify us, or to merit that God should esteem us for his children. If they understand that no man can merit his first justification, that is true, and in that sense we are freely justified.  moulin. 
The holy Scripture speaketh but of one justification, by the which a sinner is justified before God, which justification is the absolution of a sinner by virtue of the death of Iesus Christ,& by the imputation of his righteousness. The Church of Rome which by justification understandeth regeneration or sanctification, may not onely make two justifications, but an hundred also, if they will take the degrees of our proceedings in our regeneration for so many justifications.  
In the mean time it is good to know in what sense M. Arnoux confesseth that we are freely justified. The holy Scripture attributeth the remission of sins to the mercy of God, and to the redemption in Iesus Christ; but for sanctification, or regeneration, it is an effect of the holy Spirit, which for that cause is called the spirit of sanctification. Therfore when the Apostle, Rom. 5.9. saith, that we are justified by the blood of Iesus Christ, and 3.23. that we are freely justified, it is clearer then the day light, that by justifying he understandeth absolution, and not regenerating. These words of free regenerating sound not currently: but to say that God freely pardoneth us, is to speak according to reason and agreeable to the holy Scripture. Colos. 2.13. He hath freely pardonned us all our offences. But the Church of Rome, which perverteth all the Scripture, by justifying freely, understandeth freely to regenerate. And thereby maketh two regenerations, whereof the first is freely, and the other not freely, but merited, as if God gave us some graces not freely, nor of his mere liberality.   

Of Merits  ARNOVX. 
But they pretend, that works done by the grace of the holy Spirit, are not meritorious; as if the holy Spirit were not able to work in us, and by us, and with us, such things as are worthy of himself.  moulin. 
Our aduersaries will haue works done by grace and the aid of the holy Ghost to be meritorious. This is a bold assertion. For there is not any man in France( what service so ever he hath done for the king,) that dares presume to say to the king that he hath deserved to be made rich by the king: And which is more, if we merit eternal life, God should be unjust if he gives it not unto us; for it is injustice to withhold a seruants wages from him which he hath deserved. By this means we are in a good case, and need do no more but to ask payment of God, if he will not be unjust. Then seeing it is so, it shall not be amiss to examine these merits, and to know the value and possibility of them.  
In this point the mass and the council of Trent are at variance. For in the Canon of the mass which is said every day, the Priest maketh this prayer: receive us into the fellowship of thy Saints, 
Non est aestimator meriti said veniae largitor.  not weighing our merits, but granting us pardon, by Iesus Christ our Lord. But the council of Trent in the sixth Session hath ordained otherwise, 
Si quis dixerit hoins justificati bona opera ita esse dona Dei vt non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati merita, &c. Anathemasit.  defining, that the good works of a righteous man are in such manner gifts of God, as that they are also our merits; and that a man( by the grace of God) may not onely merit eternal life, but also an augmentation of glory, that is, a degree of blessedness in heaven more then ordinary. The opinion of Thomas is, 
Thomas 1. par. 2 Quaestione 14. art. 3.  that our good works for so much as they proceed from the holy Spirit, condignly or worthily merit, that is, by equality in value. But that the same merits for so much as they proceed from our own free will, onely merit by congruity, and by right of well beseeming or correspondence, but not in rigor of iustice.  
But now adays merits are higher advanced. cardinal Bellarmine which wrote in Rome with a general approbation, and is commonly followed; in his fifth book, chap. 7. of justification saith, 
Magis honorificum est habere aliquid ex merito quam ex sola donatione.  that it is more honourable to obtain a thing by a mans own desert, then to haue it by the onely gift of God. And in the fourteenth chapter he saith, 
Deus constituet absolutam aequalitatem inter opera& mercedes, vt unusquisque non minorem habeat mercedem quàm justo judicio mereatur, quod est justitiae commutatinae.  That God will wholly equalize the work and the reward, to the end that no man should haue less recompense then he deserveth, to judge rightly, which is commutative iustice; This iustice is that which gives one for another, or so much for so much. And after he hath gone about( in the seventeenth chapter) to prove, that good works etiam sine pacto, that is, without the promise of God, haue a proportion with life eternal, he concludeth his proposition by a doctrine which he saith to be the common doctrine of divines, which is, that the good works of the righteous merit eternal life by condignity or worthiness, not onely in consideration of the promise and the acceptation, but also in consideration of the work, in such sort that in good works proceeding from grace, there is a proportion and equality to the price of eternal life; from whence he infereth, in the eighteen chapter, 
17§ Iam vero opera bona servorum meritoria esse vitae aeternae, non solum ratione pacti& acceptationis, said etiam raetione operis, ita vt in opere bono ex gratia procedence, sit quaedam proportio& aequalitas ad praenium vitae aeternae.  
Non ex sola promissione said etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficitur debtor.  That God is become debtor unto us, not onely because of his promise, but also because of our works. So that we may say, that this Prelate is ready with Counters in his hand, to reckon with God, and to show him how much he oweth unto vs.  
The belief of our Church is contrary to that. We say, that good works are necessary to salvation; not as causes of salvation, but as the way to attain thereunto; via regni non causa regnandi. Good works serve to glorify God to edify our neighbour, by exercise thereof to strengthen faith, to lead us to salvation. But they are not the price of the obtaining of salvation, which is sufficiently gotten for us by the free redemption obtained by Iesus Christ.  
1 It is sufficient to possess or enjoy the kingdom of God, as children of God; and by the title of Heires, and receive it of free gift, without boasting, to possess it by the title of buyers or purchasers thereof by our own merites. Seeing that we haue in our hands a price of infinite value, whereby the kingdom of God is obtained for us, that is, the merit of our Lord Iesus Christ, what need haue we to buy that with our own merites, which Iesus Christ hath bought for us, and which God of his mere liberality giveth unto us?  
2 The holy Scripture pricketh this swelling pride, and wholly bereaveth man of this confidence, and trust in his merites. For it calleth salvation a gift of God, and not a purchase by our merits, Ephes. 2.23. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, Rom. 6.23. Vpon which place Saint Augustine saith thus: 
Cap. 9. de gratia& libero arbitrio. Cum posset dicere& recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna, maluit dicere Gratia autem Deivita aeterna, vt hinc intelligeremus, non pro meritis nostris, Deum nos ad aeternam vitam, said pro sua miseratione perducere.  Whereas the Apostle might truly haue said, That the wages of righteousness is life eternal; he choose rather to say, That the grace of God is life eternal; that thereby we should understand, that God leadeth us to life eternal by his mercy, and not by our merites.  
3 The same Apostle, 2, Tim. 1.9. saith, He hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given unto us through Iesus Christ before the world was. Note these words, He hath saved us, to confute M. Arnoux gloss, who onely confesseth, that the first justification, that is, the beginning of regeneration proceedeth not from our merites, but touching salvation he saith that we merit it. clean contrary to the Apostle, who denieth that we are saved by our works.  
4 Therefore, when question is made, to know by what means we obtain eternal salvation, the same Apostle opposeth the grace of God against works, as things disagreeing, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the wages is not counted by favour, but by debt. You may well say he speaks to our Aduersaries, saying: To you which put your trust in your works, the reward of life eternal must not be reputed for a free gift of God, but for a thing due unto you: as before we haue heard Bellarmine boast that God is debtor unto vs. And you must note, that the Apostle speaks of Abraham then when he believed in God, and that faith was imputed unto him for righteousness; to the end that no man should think or conceive that he spake of vnregenerated persons, or of works that are done by natural force.  
5 The same Apostle, Romans 11.6. saith, If it be of grace, it is no more works, or else grace were no more grace: But if it be of works, it is no more grace, or else work were no more works. Then to obtain eternal life by the grace of God, and to obtain it by our works, are things contrary. The merits of our aduersaries are they not works? And if they obtain salvation by their merits, salvation is no more a grace of God. Some of them excuse themselves and say, that we merit by the aid and help of the grace of God, and that our merits are not acceptable, unless they be died with the blood of Iesus Christ, and that Iesus Christ merites makes ours available.  
6 Whereby they get nothing, for seeing that the grace of God excludes mans merites, how shall we merit by his grace? Did Iesus Christ merit that I might merit, seeing it is the merit of Iesus Christ which makes my merites superfluous? for he merited expressly to the end that we should no more be bound to obtain salvation by our merits. The Apostle to exclude the merites of works, propoundeth the grace of God, saying: If it be by grace it is not by works. Then how will they haue us to merit by grace? To merit by grace, is a thing as much disagreeing as for a man to freeze with heat, or to be wet with dryness. For grace presupposeth a gift, and to merit is a kind of buying: so to merit by grace, is to buy by mere gift, which is a ridiculous conceit.  
7 To conclude, God giveth no man grace to derogate or disparaged his grace, nor virtue to obtain by merites a thing already fully gotten by the merit of Iesus Christ. As for this imaginary dying with the blood of Christ, I say that Iesus Christ doth not die our works with so high a colour. Let us rather learn to disburden our souls of pride, then to stuff this shapeless idol, invented by men, besides, yea contrary to the word of God.  
8 The example of young children that die shortly after they are baptized, is most clear and manifest for this pu pose. For our Aduersaries grant that those children possess life eternal without merites, by virtue of the free adoption in Iesus Christ. Now there is not diuers means of salvation according to the diversity of persons, in such manner that one should be saved without merites, and another by his merites.  
9 Free election is an invincible proof against merites. The Scripture speaketh of men elected, predestinated, and preordained to eternal life, Ephesians 1.4.5. Romans 8.9. Acts 13.48. And saith, that this election is free. Paul. calleth it, The election of grace, Romans 11.5.6. Now to show how it is by grace, he expoundeth it adding that it is not by works, saying: even so then at this present there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if it be of grace, it is no more of works. And 9.11.16. That the purpose of God might remain according to election, not by works, but by him that calleth. And then addeth: So then it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercy. To attain to this salvation whereunto they are predestinated, God freely giveth them his holy Spirit, which imprinteth faith in them, and frameth their mindes to good works. Ephes. 1.4. As he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy. Philip. 2.13. For it is God which worketh in you both the will and the deed, even of his good pleasure, John 15.5. For without me can ye do nothing. 2. Cor. 3.5. But our sufficiency is of God. Then if we haue not merited to be elected to salvation, we haue not merited to be saved. If neither the election to salvation, nor the means given us to attain to this salvation, are not merited, how shall this salvation be merited? To say, that God hath freely predestinated us to merit salvation, it is to contradict ourselves. For it is as much as to say, that God freely predestinateth us to be saved but not freely. If a man should freely give me an house or an inheritance, two hundred miles from hence, vpon condition to go thither to take possession thereof, and conducteth me on the way, nourisheth me, releeueth me when I fall, setteth me in the way when I go wrong, giveth me strength to go until such time as he putteth me in possession: can I say that I haue gotten this inheritance by my merits? shall my steps be the price of the acquisition or getting thereof? This giver is God, those to whom it is given are the Elect, the inheritance given is the kingdom of heaven; the way to attain thereunto, are the commandements of God: every good work is a step in this way. In which way if we stumble, or go wrong, God upholdeth us, and sets us in the way again, giveth us strength to go forward: and being at the end of our journey shall we be so brutish to presume to reckon our steps for merits? yea and for merits of condignity or equiualence, and to think that God is debtor unto us? But what can the creator owe to the creature? or what can he owe unto us, unto whom we owe ourselves?  
10 Those that are of opinion that God hath not elected this or that man because or in consideration of his good works, but because he foresaw that they should beleeue in Iesus Christ, fall into the like inconvenience; because they speak of faith as of a kind of work, and of a virtue in the faithful, which they make to precede the election of God. And I see no reason why they will not haue good works also a condition which preceds the election of God, seeing that God electeth none but those that shall do good works, and that good works are as necessary to salvation as faith is. Then we must say, that God hath freely elected those whom it pleased him, and that to them freely and without merit he giveth his holy Spirit, which in their hearts imprinteth a lively faith working by charity.  
11 If we will comprehend what this word merit importeth, the difficulty would soon be decided. There are six things required to merit.  
1 The work that is done must not be a work that is due to be done for it is no merit for a man to pay his debts.  
2 We must offer that which is our own. For to present any thing to the king that belongs unto him, that is no merit.  
3 The work that a man doth to merit of any man, must be fit for his use and purpose: for a man cannot merit of any man by a work that is not good nor profitable for him.  
4 The work that we do to merit withall, must not be defective, and wherein there is any thing to be pardonned.  
5 There must be some proportion between the work and the reward that a man will merit by the work.  
6 Lastly, the thing that we desire to obtain by meritorious works, must not be already obtained by another former means: for to seek of a proprietary or possessor, to be a purchaser, it is to remit our propriety. By these six reasons following the word of God teacheth us that we cannot merit of God.  
1 First, all the good that we do, is a thing due, as Iesus Christ saith, Luke 17.10. So likewise when you haue done all these things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable seruants, we haue done that which was our duty to do.  
2 All the good that we do comes from God, and by consequence cannot merit at Gods hands. 2. Cor. 3.5. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Phil. 2.13. For it us God which worketh in you both the will and the dead, even of his good pleasure. He crowneth his own gifts, and repayeth not our merits.  
3 Our works are no profit unto him. Psal. 16.2. My goodness extendeth not to thee. It is true that they are pleasing unto God, for God loveth that which he doth, but yet they are not meritorious. For if they merited, it should be God that should merit, and not man. The Mother Terese, translated by Monsieur de Berulle, which nameth himself the Confessor of the blessed, saith with a good grace, that the seruants of God haue taken so much pains to aid our Lord. cap. 3. fol. 11.  
4 moreover, our good works are imperfect, and there is always some defect in them, Rom. 7. The Spirit striveth against the flesh, Galat. 5.18. So that we always ought to grow in grace, and always haue need to ask pardon. The love of a thing is according to the knowledge that a man hath thereof: now, here we know but in part, and obscurely, as S. Paul 1. Cor 13.9.12. saith: Therefore now we love but in part and imperfectly.  
5 If we compare the work with the reward which we pretend to merit, what comparison is there between imperfect works, and which in a moment pass away, and an eternal and celestial kingdom? martyrdom is one of the most excellent works, notwithstanding the Apostle Rom. 8.18. saith, I count that the afflictions of this present time, are not worthy of the glory which shall be shewed unto vs. 2. Cor. 4.17. Our light affliction which is but for a moment, causeth unto us a far more excellent and an eternal weight of glory.  
6 Lastly, how can we by our merits obtain eternal life, which is already obtained for us by our redemption in Iesus Christ, and which appertained unto us, in as much as we are children of God, adopted in Iesus Christ? Galat. 4.7. If thou art a son, thou art also the heir of God through Christ. Rom. 8.17. If we be children, we are also heires, even the heires of God,& heires annexed with Christ. whereupon also the kingdom of God is not called a purchase by our works, but by an inheritance, Ephes. 1.14.18. whosoever pretendeth by his merits to purchase the inheritance that he hath from his father, casteth off childlike affections, and renounceth his succession, and of a son and heir, becomes mercenary and a purchaser, and in conclusion goeth about to pay God with coin ouerlight.  
12 For this also is a great imperfection in the Church of Rome, who not contenting themselves to gain Paradise by their merits, bring in diuers other works for merits, which are none, and which not onely do not merit a reward, but rather deserve punishment: as to pray without understanding what they say: to fast for another man: to kiss holy grains: to say their Pater-noster and Aue mary by tale vpon a pair of beads: to go to the jubilee: to worship relics: to run on pilgrimage into spain, leaving their houses, work and families: to make garments to put vpon images: to take from their poor children to give to rich Monks, &c. These are works for which God is indebted unto men, and is in arrearages unto them. Now if good works become evil when they are done in pride, as thereby to bind God to men, How much less are evil works meritorious to salvation, and all this trash and trifles of mens inventions which they present unto God for merits? For our aduersaries think that they haue reason to presume, that God is not unthankful unto those that do good unto him.  
The effects of this doctrine of pride are sufficient to overthrow it. For these men that are so laden with merits, say, that they know not whether they shall be saved or not, and die in fear and disquietness of conscience: It is( say they) a kind of rashness to assure ourselves of our salvation. This distrust is most just; this doubt of theirs is well grounded, seeing that the trust of our merits is without ground. For who knoweth the value or worth of every merit? Who knows for how much every piece of this money goes currant in Paradise? Who knows when he hath done merits enough? Therefore the devoutest men buy other mens merits,&( as the Priest doth in the mass) ask salvation of God for the merits of Saints.  
From this assurance& trust that any man hath of his merits, there springeth a most evident consequence, that is, that in stead( as in the Scripture) that faith produceth good works, here on the contrary, works produce faith, and are the foundation of the hope of salvation. That which M. Arnoux thrusteth in by the way touching works of supererogation, shall be hereafter examined apart.  ARNOVX. 
Places of Scripture quoted in the margin of the Confession, Psal. 16.2. O my soul thou hast said unto the Lord, My goodness extendeth not unto thee.  
It is very true, that our works serve for nothing unto God, and that he hath no need of them: but doth it therefore follow, that being conformable to his Law, and done by his holy Spirit, that they are not pleasi●g unto him, and worthy of his commendation, that is meritorious?  moulin. 
They are pleasing unto him, and worthy of commendation, but not meritorious.  ARNOVX. 
Luke 17.16. So likewise ye, when ye haue done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable seruants, we haue done that which was our duty to do.  
This place makes nothing for them, as I haue shewed in the Article.  moulin. 
But on the contrary it is evident and manifest against merits, because they are unprofitable to God; and you haue said nothing against it, but onely that you said, that they that do more then they are bound to do, are no unprofitable seruants: which is another abuse worse then the first, whereof I will speak hereafter.  ARNOVX. 
Rom. 4.1. What shall we say then, that Abraham our father hath found concerning the flesh? for if Abraham was justified by works, he hath wherein to rejoice, but not with God.  
Abraham by works void of faith,( whether they were moral or ceremonial) could not be justified, nor haue any glory but before men; and faith onely without works did not justify him, saith Saint james. But faith joined with works got him true glory, and justified him before God.  moulin. 
It is false that Saint Paul, Rom. 4.1. said, that Abraham was not justified by the works of the ceremonial Law, whereof Saint Paul had not yet spoken in the precedent chapters, and which was not a law in Abrahams time.  
It is false also that Saint Paul said, that Abraham was not justified by moral works without faith. For he speaks expressly of the works that Abraham did having faith, then when Moses saith of him, Abraham believed, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Gen. 15.6. He believed then, and yet it was from that time that Saint Paul faith, that his faith was imputed unto him for righteousness. Which is confirmed by the example of david, added to that of Abraham, who also established righteousness without works, when be wrote the 32 psalm, wherein he placeth all the blessedness of man in the remission of sins: at which time david was regenerated and justified. It was of moral works, and done by him in the time of his Apostleship, that Saint Paul spake 1. Cor. 4.4. saying, For I know nothing by myself, and he addeth thereunto, yet am I not thereby justified.  ARNOVX. 
He hath saved us, not by the works of righteousness which we had done, but according to the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Spirit. Tit. 3.5.  
That is true, that our works without the sacraments of baptism and of Penance which renew us, cannot save vs. Those Sacraments are necessary, either done in vow or in act, but what serves that for the Article?  moulin. 

M. Arnoux falsification.  You falsify this place of Scripture: this is the truth of it. He saved us, not by the works of righteousness, which we had done, but according to his mercy, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy Spirit. You haue left out these words, but according to his mercy: which excludes merits. If by the word regeneration Saint Paul understandeth baptism, or interior satisfaction, it is another question. But to the purpose, is not this place expressly against merits, seeing he saith, that God hath not saved us by our works? Touching that which M. Arnoux addeth, that baptism and the Sacrament of Penance are necessary either by vow or in act, it shall be examined hereafter. By the way let the Reader mark, that M. Arnoux esteemeth not baptism to be necessary to salvation, seeing that a vow is sufficient; and that he holdeth that a man may be saved without doing actual Penance, for he holdeth that it is sufficient that a man hath an intent to do it.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. james. 2.21. Was not Abraham our father justified through works, when he offered Isaac his son vpon the altar?  
Do you not see, that man is justified by works, and not by faith onely?  moulin. 
It is true, before men: but not before God, as the Apostle Rom. 4.2, saith. For Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherein to rejoice but not with God. But seeing that our aduersaries take the word justification for regeneration, it is in vain for them to object this place against us; for we know that man is not regenerated onely by faith. charity, and other Christian virtues, are also a part of regeneration.   

Whether God is debtor unto vs. And touching the reward.  ARNOVX. 
Heb. 6 10. For God is not unrighteous, that he should forget your works. And therefore if he should forget it, he should be unjust, and he cannot be unjust in this case, but in refusing that which he oweth.  moulin. 
These words are horrible. If God should deny life eternal to M. Arnoux, he should deny him that which he oweth him, and God should be an ill payer of his debts. It may be he is afraid that he will play bankrupt, for how should he pay so many debts? The mischief is, that the Iesuite hath no means to constrain him, nor to summon him. Let this Doctor learn that God is just in regarding our good works, not because our works deserve it, but because Gods promise is such. It is a just thing to accomplish his promise. A man may promise to one a thing that he hath not yet deserved. A man may reward one that hath not merited a reward. For there are full rewards which are given in consideration of the person,& not for the merit of the work. As a father giveth a new coat to his son as a reward for making of a line with a shaking hand. He would not reward another in that manner which should haue done an hundred times as much. That which in Matthew 5.36, is called a reward, in Luke 6.32, is called grace, {αβγδ}. And the penny given to the workmen that came at the last hour, is called a reward; although much above their desert, Mat. 20. Saint Ambrose writeth expressly vpon this place, in the first Epistle of his first book: 
Alia est merces liberalitatis& gratiae, alia virtutis stipendium laboris remuneratio.  There is( saith he) a kind of reward which is given of liberality and of grace, and another which is the wages of virtue, and the recompense of a mans labour.  ARNOVX. 
If they did not reject Ecclesiasticus, I would entreat them to consider of the sixteenth chapter, verse. 14. Make way for every work of mercy, for every man shall find according to the merits of his works, and according to the understanding of his pilgrimage. And the 3.15, of wisdom: He found them worthy for himself. dignity and merit are all one thing.  moulin. 

M. Arnoux falsification. {αβγδ}.  This place of Ecclesiasticus is horibly falsified. This word of merit is not found therein. In the greek which is the original, there is, every man shall find according to his works, and not according to the merit of his works. This falsification is very remarkable.  
Touching the place of the third of wisdom, He found thē worthy of himself. M. Arnoux sheweth how little he is acquainted with the Scriptures: 
revel. 3.4. luke. 20.35. luke. 10.7.  for in stead of producing places out of the canonical books where oftentimes the faithful are called worthy, he brings us a place out of the Apocrypha, and which is not in the Hebrew Bible. But to conclude, I say, that if any man be worthy of salvation, it is God that makes him worthy, and not his merits. dignity is no merit before God, seeing that dignity comes from God. And I say, that if mans dignity came from man himself, and from his own strength, yet there should be no merit before God, who can not be bound to his creature, and to whom our good works bring no fruit. Much less can there be any merit towards God, seeing that all the dignity in man proceedeth from his liberality, and what dignity soever is in him, it is mixed with much imperfection.  
Whereas the Scripture saith, that God will reward men according to their works, as Saint Paul 2. Corinthians 5. 
Aliud reddere secundum opera, aliud propter opera; aliud agere de causa salutis, aliud de qualitate eorum quibus datur.  10. saith That every man may receive the things done in his body, according to that which he hath done, whether it be good or evil. Pope gregory the first, vpon the seventh psalm of mercy, noteth very well, that it is one thing to render to every one according to his works; and another to render unto them for their works. It is one thing to speak of th● cause of salvation, and another to speak of the quality of those to whom it is given.   

Of works of Supererogation.  ARNOVX. 
We confess that we are unprofitable seruants in this, that whosoever observeth the commandement, without doing any more then he is bound to do, shall haue no other recompense then that which followeth the observation of the commandement, and shall be esteemed unprofitable, as touching the receiving of the fullness of recompense that followeth those that do something more then that whereunto they are bound.  moulin. 
It is not enough to seek to merit life eternal by works, as our Aduersaries say, for M. Arnoux will persuade us, that there are some which merit more then life eternal, and a degree of glory in heaven above the ordinary sort of men. M. Arnoux saith, that those that observe the commandements of God, and do no more then that whereunto they are bound, shall haue no other recompense then that which followeth the observation of the commandement, that is to say, that all their recompense shall be life eternal, which is promised to those that accomplish the commandements of God. Those that haue no other perfection, but onely that they haue perfectly obeied God, are unprofitable seruants; and incapable of a greater glory: therfore they must be content with eternal life without pretending to haue more. But there are some that do more then God will haue them to do: and( as M. Arnoux saith) that do something more then that which they are bound to do: those shall haue the full accomplishing of the recompense, and a glory above the common sort. This is a new Gospel, drawn out of the unwritten word, This is a doctrine full of courage, which esteemeth it a small thing to fulfil the Law of God, and studieth for another perfection, for fear to be an unprofitable seruant. This surplusage which is done over and above that whereunto a man is bound, is that which they call Counsels of perfection, and works of Supererogation, perfecter, and more excellent then all that which God commandeth in his Law, and more then to love God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself. Such is perpetual virginity, martyrdom, and distribution of all that a man hath unto the poor, monastical vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity. Of those that do these supererogatorie works, 
§ Quocirca si addam alterum gradum plus quàm teneor atque eo modo facio actum supererogationis& consilij  cardinal Bellarmine in the thirteenth chapter of the book of monks, saith, That they love God more then they are bound to do. Those( following Bellarmine) M. Arnoux saith, are not unprofitable seruants. But he tells us not to whom they are profitable: for it is necessary that they should be profitable, either to God, to themselves, or to their neighbours. To God they are not, for he hath no need of our service. Then they must either be profitable to themselves or to their neighbors. Then how are they who by their merites obtain nothing but life eternal, called unprofitable seruants, seeing that M. Arnoux will not deny but that they profit themselves, and do the like to their neighbours?  
We on the contrary, aclowledge ourselves to be so far off from being able to do more then that which God come mandeth, that we are far from being able to do that which he commandeth; and putting all our hope and confidence in the mercy of God, seek not after a degree of glory above the ordinary sort of the elect. In what degree of glory soever we be, it sufficeth us, so we may be with our saviour, and see the face of our God. In the mean time we reject not the counsels which are found in the Scripture. It is wise counsel to abstain from lawful things, that a man may the easier accustom himself to leave unlawful things. It is wise counsel to abstain from meats which God permitteth to eat, when a weak conscience may be troubled thereby. It is wise counsel to a Minister of the Church, not to take any reward, when he can make shift without it, or when the aduersaries take occasion thereby to make his preaching suspicious. It is wise counsel to a man that is continent not to marry, to the end that he may not be diverted by domestical cares, and so bear persecution the easier. But we call these counsels, counsels of Christian wisdom, and not of perfection; the observation whereof is not meritorious, nor supererogatorie, but a thing much less then the accomplishment of the Law.  
Our reasons against these counsels of perfection or works of supererogation are these:  
1 God in his Law commandeth us to love and to serve him with all our hearts, and with all our strength. And a man can do no more then his strength will permit him to do. Bellarmine will, in effect, haue us by this word all, 
Lib. de Monachis cap. 13.  to understand part. So that when the Scripture saith a thing is white, we must understand black. If such interpretations be permitted, what evident testimony would be found in the word of God?  
2 The Apostle Saint Paul to the Philippians, chapter 4.8. commandeth us to think on those things that are just, pure, commendable and honest. If works of supererogation be just and pure, they are commanded by the Apostle, and so are not sup●●erogatorie: If they be not just nor pure, wre must not observe them.  
3 If a man cannot accomplish the Law, much less then can we do more then the Law commands. james 3.2. For in many things we sin all. 1. Kings 8.46. For there is no man that sinneth not. psalm 116.11. All men are liars. All the Apostles daily said, forgive us our offences. Noah, Abraham, david, job, Saint Peter, and the most excellent seruants of God, sinned. job is called just& perfect, and yet cursed the day of his birth. It is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth, Luke 1.6. that they were just before God, and walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord, without reproof. But these words, without reproof, must be expounded, that they walked in such sort in the commandements of God, that no man could reprove them in any thing: notwithstanding it appears that Zacharias was a sinner; for that not long after he was punished, because he did not beleeue the word of God declared unto him by the angel. Then how can we present unto God more then he asketh, seeing we cannot give him that which is his due? How can we do diamond works, if we want necessary works?  
4 The perfection of the Angels, Psal. 103.20. is said to consist in executing the commandement of God. Iesus Christ himself saith, that he came to do the will of him that sent him, John 6.38, and Hebr. 10.7. These Doctors doing more then the will of God, surpass the Angels and Iesus Christ himself, who could haue attained to monastical perfectness, if he had thought vpon or remembered to haue done works of supererogation.  
5 I would also know of our Aduersaries, that do more then God will haue them to do and that by consequence exceed the commandement of God, if in doing those works of supererogation they do the will of God, or their own. If they do the will of God, then they do no work of supererogation, but a necessary work. If they do their own will, how dare they say that their will is perfecter then the will of God?  
6 If to do these superabundant works, God giveth them his Spirit and his assistance, then necessary they are bound to do them, lest they should make the grace of God of no effect. And so they should no more be works of supererogation, because they are bound to do them.  
7 But is not this to wrong the Law of God, which is the rule of righteousness, and to accuse it of imperfection, to go about to do perfecter works then those which the Law commandeth? The righteousness of the Law is poor and miserable, is sinners can exceed it. I● there be rules of perfection above the Law, what followeth, but that the Law is an imperfect rule?  
8 But is not this an intolerable pride to make monks profitable seruants of God, and Abraham, jacob, and david unprofitable seruants, because they did none of those works of supererogation?  
9 I am afraid that he which intrudes himself to do more service unto God then he will haue him do, in the end will find himself ill paid for his service. For, who required that at his hands? Where do we find in the word of God the institution of monks, and of their monastical vows?  
10 Compare these superabundant works with those which God commands, and you shall find much inequality in them. For the love of God commanded in the Law is always good and necessary: but the vow of single life is evil for those that haue not the gift of continency 1. corinth. 7 9. For it is better to mary then to burn. To give all our goods to the poor, is oftentimes a great sin, if by that means we bereave our children of them, deceive our creditors, and disinherit our right heires. piety doth not overthrow nature. 1. Tim. 5.8. He is worse then an infidel that hath not a care of his family. Is piety like a frenzy, which maketh a man forget Iustice? It may so happen that some men with hypocrisy or ambition will give all their goods to the poor, as S. Paul 1. Cor. 13.3. saith. add hereunto, that Mon●s that make vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, are by experience convinced of the contrary. For the vow of chastity makes them unchaste, and abstinence from marriage pusheth them forward to adultery. They make a particular vow of poverty, to be rich in common, and follow a fat and idle kind of begging, in stead of a sober and vigilant labour. They make a vow of obedience to the rules of Saint Francis, or Saint Ignatius, and dispense with themselves for not obeying the commandements of God.  
11 Touching martyrdom, there are two sorts, one which God calleth men unto, the other, whereinto men rashly thrust themselves. God calleth men to martyrdom, when a man cannot save his life, but by renouncing true Religion: Then martyrdom is a work commanded; and so necessary, that without it, in that case, a man cannot be saved. It is not then a superabundant work: it is not a counsel, but a commandement. For God in his Law commandeth us to love him above all things; therefore more then our lives. In this case then, whosoever would save his life shall lose his soul. He that shall deny Iesus Christ before men, Iesus Christ will deny him before his Father. But if martyrdom be undertaken rashly, and if a man run into it without being called thereunto, then it is a transgression of the commandement of Iesus Christ, which saith, mat. 10.23. When they persecute you in one city, fly into another. And it is against Saint Paules example, who to escape from his enemies, caused himself to be let down in a basket out at a window in Damascus. Faith walketh between rashness and cowardice. In time of need it maketh the faithful resolute to die, but it is not angry or unwilling to live. Withall, in martyrdom there are two things, the dolor and pain of the body, and the constancy and zeal of faith. The dolor of the body is not a virtue, but an exercise of virtue. firm faith is a virtue commanded by God,& not a perfection beyond the commandement of God.  
12 add unto that a demonstrative proof, that is, that a good thing of itself is always better then a thing that is not good but because of another thing. So life is better then meate, because meate is made to maintain life. So it is with the love of God commanded in the law, compared with these works of supererogation: For the love of God is always holy, good, and necessary. but to distribute our goods, or to suffer martyrdom, is not good unless it be done for the love of God. If we join these things together, the distribution of our goods to the poor is not good, but because men are moved thereunto for the love of God. If you separate them, the love of God alone is good and holy: but the distribution of our goods without the love of God is a fault, an injustice, and hypocrisy.  
13 The example which our Aduersaries take out of the nineteenth of Saint matthew, makes nothing for this abuse. A presumptuous young man said, that he had kept Gods commandements from his youth upward: to whom Iesus Christ said, verse 21. If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt haue treasure in heaven. Our Aduersaries say, that Iesus Christ did onely counsel, and not command the young man to sell all his goods, with a counsel of perfection; and that this treasure in heaven is a glory above the ordinary glory of the Saints, promised to those, who having accomplished the Law, do something more,& follow a greater perfection. To clear this, we must know, that this young man abused himself, and lied, in boasting that he had accomplished the Law. For Iesus Christ accuseth him of putting his trust in his riches, mark 10.14. And for forsaking Iesus Christ, and preferring his goods before Iesus Christ, he manifestly shewed his covetousness. He that loveth his riches more then Iesus Christ, doth not love him with all his heart, and with all his soul, and by consequence hath not accomplished the Law. Chrysostome in his 64. homily vpon Saint matthew saith, that he was covetous. Saint Augustine in his 89. Epistle saith, That young man answered more arrogantly then truly, 
Ad Hilarium libr. 4. de linquendis sacultatibus. {αβγδ}.  that he had observed the commandements of the Law. Basil in his Sermon against Riches speaketh thus to that young man: It is evident that thou art far estranged from the commandement, that thou givest false witness of thyself. Seeing therefore that this man had not fulfilled the Law, it had been in vain for Iesus Christ to counsel him to do more then the Law: it had been as much as if a man should set up the weathercocke before the foundation be laid.  
Iesus Christ, that knew his heart was set vpon his riches, gave him that commandement, thereby to discover his avarice, and to check him for the same. And it is not to be doubted, that refusing to do that which Iesus Christ said unto him, but he offended God. Whereas the gospel saith, that Iesus Christ loved him, it doth not argue that he was without sin: for Iesus loved jerusalem, when he wept over it, and yet he accused it that it had slain the Prophets. And dying for sinners, he shewed sufficiently that he loved them. It was then a compassionate love that he shewed to that man, in whom he acknowledged some commendable endeavour, and some seeds of the fear of God.    

THE XXIII. ARTICLE.  We beleeue that all the figures of the Law had an end at the coming of Iesus Christ: yet howsoever the ceremonies are no more in use, the substance and truth thereof remain unto us, in the person of him in whom all accomplishment consisteth: and that we must use the aid of the Law and the Prophets, as well to direct our lives, as to be conformable to the promises of the gospel.  

THE XXIIII. ARTICLE.  We beleeue, that seeing Iesus Christ is given unto us for our sole advocate, and that he commandeth us to come with confidence unto God the Father in his name, and that it is not lawful for us to pray but according to that form which God hath set down unto us in his word, that all that which men haue imagined, touching intercession of Saints that are dead, is nothing but an abuse and a deceit of satan, to make men err out of the form of praying well. We also reject all other means which men presume vpon thereby to redeem themselves before God, as derogating from the sacrifice of the death and passion of Iesus Christ. Lastly, we hold Purgatory to be an illusion proceeding out of the same shop, from whence also are proceeded monastical vows, pilgrimages, prohibition of marriage, and the use of meats, the ceremonial observation of dayes, auricular Confession, Indulgences, and all other such things whereby men think to deserve grace and salvation. Which things we reject, not onely because of the false opinion of merit which is joined unto them, but also, because they are human inventions, which impose a yoke vpon mens consciences. 

Of invocation of Saints.  ARNOVX. 
The son of God is the onely Mediator which maketh intercession for us, and he alone it is who speaking for us cannot be denied or refused; and he onely, without whose mediation all others can prevail nothing before God; and he onely that never ceaseth to intermediate for us, and that by his onely and proper merits. But whither do they run which think or imagine, that none others but onely the son of God can implore the bounty and mercy of God by the merits of Christ: seeing they agree with us, that we may obtain all whatsoever we ask for ourselves in his Name and that we shall not be denied for others?  moulin. 
He speaks according to his accustomend manner, which is, never to report the truth of our belief. We say nothing of all that which he maketh us to say; we know well that others besides Iesus Christ may implore the bounty and mercy of God by the merits of Iesus Christ.  ARNOVX. 
Why sooner, or rather in this life then in the other, shall we haue this credite?  moulin. 
This also makes us say things far differing from our belief. Our Confession defineth not what we shall do in the life to come, nor whether we shall pray for those that are living after us vpon the earth. That is not our difference. The question is, whether when we shall be in heaven, men that are on earth ought to pray unto and call vpon vs. It is one thing to inquire or to seek to know what the Saints do in heaven, and another thing to know what we should do here on earth. But M. Arnoux not understanding the question, mixeth those two things together, which are much differing one from the other.  ARNOVX. 
Haue the Saints in heaven less knowledge of our necessities, or less charity then we?   

Whether the Saints understand our prayers, and all whatsoever is done vpon earth.  moulin. 
The Saints that are in heaven haue more charity then we, and more knowledge of those things which belong or serve to their blessedness. But it is not necessary nor convenient for their blessedness●, that they should haue an exact knowledge of all particular things which are done here upon earth, nor that they should know every process that is handled in Courts of Law, the troubles and business in a Faire, or for how much every ox is sold in a market. I speak not of many filthy& dishonest things: as also of diuers other things which might trouble their blessedness: as if a father should see the vices and afflictions of his children, one sent to the gallows, another vpon a scaffold to be executed, another cast down into hell, and another kneeling before an Image to pray unto it.  
The holy Scripture makes it evident unto us Salomon in the 9. of Ecclesiastes, 5.6. saith, that the dead know not any thing, neither haue they any more a reward. And a little after, Neither haue they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. And job 14.21, speaking of a father that is dead, saith, His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not. And 2. Kings. 22.20. God promiseth king josias, to let him go peaceably down to his grave, that his eyes should not see the evil which God intended to bring vpon the Iewes.  
again. If the Saints understood our prayers, it is necessary that they should know the imaginations of our hearts, to know whether we pray with a good affection. But the holy Scripture, 2. Chron. 6.30. saith, that God onely knoweth the hearts of the children of men. It is to no purpose to say that God onely of himself knows the hearts of men,& that the Saints know them by revelation: for besides that this is to divine and affirm a thing which is unknown unto us, and whereof the Scripture speaketh not, in this distinction there is a contradiction. For they give us a reason why the Scripture saith, that the Saints know not our hearts, which is, because God hath given them understanding to know them: they say, that they know not our thoughts, because God hath made them know them. As if I should say, I haue no money because you gave me some: by the same reason I may say, that God onely knows that Iesus Christ died for us, because he knoweth it from, and by himself; but we know it not, but by revelation. He that hath taught a thing to another man, cannot say that he onely knoweth it. I confess that God sometimes revealed the thoughts and counsels of some men unto his Prophets: but that knowledge was seldom given unto the Prophets, and onely in as much as it was necessary for the execution of their charge. And 2. Kings 4.47, Elisaeus saith that God had hidden the death of his hostess the Sunamites son from him; how much more the hearts of all men? And by consequence, that cannot be alleged for the Saints that are dead, to whom God hath not given any charge in the Church. For to say that men give the Saints charges and offices in Paradise, making one the protector of women in childbed, another a physician to heal the toothache, another to cure horses, another Patron of a town or a whole country, is a thing no less absurd then if the flies should take vpon them to distribute and give the charges and offices of the Empire of Rome to whom they would.  
And this may serve also for answer to the argument drawn from the example of the Angels, amongst whom the gospel teacheth us, there is ioy for the conversion of a sinner, Luke 15.10. God hath appointed the Angels to be guardians of the faithful. Psal. 34.7. The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them: and Heb. 1.14. They are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for their sakes which shall be heires of salvation. It is no marvell then that God revealeth unto them the interior repentance of a sinner, and that they rejoice at the effects thereof which appear outwardly.  
To think that the Angels and the Saints in the presence of God, know all things, or to say with Pope gregory in the three and thirtieth chapter and fourth book of his Dialogues, 
Quid est quod ibi nesciant, qui scientem omnia sciunt?  What know not they there, where they know him which knoweth all things? is to give their rash conjectures for laws, and without the word of God, to speak of that which is done in heaven, as if they came newly from thence: and it is contrary to the word of God. For Iesus Christ, Mat. 18.10. saith, that The Angels always behold the face of the Father which is in heaven: and yet they know not when the day of iudgement shall be, mark 13.32. By the publication of the Gospel they haue learned things which before they knew not. For Saint Paul, Ephes. 3.10. speaking of the publication of the gospel among the Gentiles, saith, that it was done, to the intent that the manifold wisdom of God might be made known unto principalities and powers in heavenly places. Whereupon Saint Peter in his first Epistle, 1.12. saith, that The Angels desire to see those things; as desiring to learn them.  
Touching Pope Gregories words, they may well be born withall, if he speak of the knowledge that the Saints haue of things belonging to their blessed state. But if he speak of a general knowledge of all things, his words are as full of absurdity; as if one should say, that he which seeth Philip, necessary seeth all that which Philip sees. If standing on the ground I see a man vpon the top of a steeple, do I see all that which he seeth? If the sight of him that looketh, is to be measured according to the sight of him on whom he looketh, he that sees a blind man shall see nothing at all.  
To be short, to affirm that the knowledge of the Saints should be of the like extent that the sight of God is, it is to make the creature infinite. For first, it is necessary that the Saints( in that respect) should know the infinity of Gods essence, and in a finite spirit should contain an infinite knowledge: and also that in a moment they should know all things: and that Saint Nicolas in an instant should see all the thoughts of men, and understand all their prayers. Things which repugn the essence of creatures, whose essence as it consisteth in a currant for a time, so the actions thereof are successive, and are done one after another, and not all in a moment. The ancient Fathers speak of the state of the Saints, and of the memory of things which they haue seen and known in this life, and of the knowledge which they haue had of things here below, sometimes with certainly, and some times doubtfully and uncertainly. Saint jerome 
Licet posset dici, quod in coelo novo,& in terra noua, omnis conversationis pristinae memoria deleatur, ne hoc ipsum pars malorum sit, prioris angustiae recordari.  vpon the sixty five chapter of Esay saith, It may be said, that in the new heaven and in the new earth, all the memory of forepast conversation is defaced: lest that the same might be an affliction unto the Saints, to remember affliction past. And in the Epitaph for Nepotian he saith: We know that our friend Nepotian is with Christ, and in the company of the Saints. And yet he saith that Nepotian neither saw nor understood that which he said and did vpon the earth. 
Quicquid dixero quia ille non audit mutum videtur. Cum quo loqui non possumus de eoloqui non desinamus. Felix Nepotianus qui haec non videt, qui haec non audit. {αβγδ}.  All this that I say in a manner is vain, because he hears it not. And let us not cease to speak of Nepotian, with whom we can speak no more. And, blessed Nepotian which neither seeth nor heareth these things.  
Gregory Nazianzen in his Orations maketh many apostrophes, and sundry oratory compellations, not onely to the Saints that are dead but also to things without life. In his first Oration against julian, after he hath spoken to heaven and earth, he speaketh also to the soul of Constantine, dead long before, saying,* harken o thou soul of great Constantine, if thou hast any feeling: not knowing whether he understood him or not. He speaketh also with the same uncertainty of the soul of Basil.  
The book of the Spirit and the soul attributed to Saint Augustine in the 
Ibi quidem sunt spiritus defunctorum ubi non vident nequeaudiunt quae aguntur aut eueniunt in ista vita hominibus. Ita tamen est eis cura de vivis, quamquam quid agant omnino nesciant, quemadmodum est nobis cura de mortuis, quamuis quid agant utique nesciamus.  nine and twentieth chapter saith, that the spirits of the dead are in a place where they neither see not hear that which is done, nor what happeneth in this life unto men. nevertheless, they haue a care of the living, although they know not by any means what they do, in the same manner that we haue a care of the dead, although we know not what they do. Yet he saith, that it may be that the dead know something that is done here on earth, by the report of those which die here and go unto them: or that the Angels tell them somewhat, or that God revealeth something unto them, not all, but that onely which they must understand. Thus this Doctor diuineth, speaking by conjectures onely, as men do when they speak without the word of God. All this is taken out of S. Augustines book, of the care that we ought to haue or the dead where he holds for an assured opinion that if the dead knew what is done here, his good mother Monicha would not haue forgotten him.  
There are diuers places found in Chrysostome wherein he saith, that the Saints do not yet enjoy celestial glory; and others wherein he saith that they do enjoy it. And there are some places found in him, wherein he seemeth to approve the invocation of Saints, and others in much greater number, wherein he condemneth it. Which is a proof, that of malice some places haue been thrust into the writings of that holy man.   

Whether Iesus Christ is our onely Mediator and advocate.  ARNOVX. 
Places of the Scripture set down in the margin of the Confession. 1. Tim: 2.5. For there is one onely God, and one onely mediator between God and man, which is the man Iesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all men.  
In this place the word advocate is not there, and the word Mediator is an equivocation, for that it may be taken for a mediator of intercession, and for a mediator of redemption. Besides this, the text in the Ministers Bible is false: for in the greek,( which is the original,) the word onely is not there.  moulin. 
The word advocate is not in the place of the 1. to Tim. but it is found in joh. 2.1. his first Epistle. If any man sin, we haue an advocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the just. It is from thence that our Confession hath taken the word advocate. And if that word were not there, yet by the word advocate we understand nothing but a Mediator, which is the very word used by Saint Paul. Touching that which Master Arnoux saith, that the word mediator is an equivocation, he accuseth Saint Paul to haue equiuocated. He saith, that the word mediator may be taken for a mediator of intercession, or for a mediator of redemption. But the coupling of these together, God is one, and the Mediator is one, confuteth this distinction. For as the Apostle maketh not two sorts of Gods, so he alloweth not of two sorts of mediators towards God. If it be lawful to make distinctions vpon the word Mediator, why not vpon the word God, and so to induce diuers Gods? For although we do not deny that the Saints pray for us, yet they are not called mediators of intercession, because we call him the Mediator of intercession that receiveth our prayers to present them unto God: which the Saints cannot do, because they understand not our prayers, as we haue already proved.  
add hereunto, that this distinction maketh the Saints to be but mediators of intercession, contrary to the Church of Rome, which believeth that the Saints do not onely mediate for us, but also pay, merit, and satisfy for vs. witness the doctrine of Indulgences or pardons, by the which the Pope distributeth unto Christians the superabundance of the satisfactions of the Saints to serve thē to obtain remission of sins before God. witness also the mass, which asketh salvation of God by the merits of the Saints, 
Quorum meritis precibusque rogamus, &c.  as if they had merited for vs. Whereupon Bellarmine also in his first book and fourth chapter of Indulgences, makes no difficulty to say, that the Saints in some sort are our redeemers.  
Now for the imputation laid on us, to haue falsified this place, and to haue put in our text, one onely God, and one onely Mediator, otherwise then it is in the greek, where the word onely is not found, this accusation argues, that our adversary either hath no understanding in the greek, or else that he hath no conscience. According to the greek, it is thus, 
{αβγδ}.  There is one God, and one Mediator. Is not that as much to say, as There is one only God, and one only mediator? And when we translate, There is one onely God, our aduersaries dislike it not; but when in the words following we translate, There is one onely Mediator, they accuse us of falsehood; and yet the manner of speaking is all one in the greek, and in the same line. The French Bible translated by the Doctors of louvain justifieth us therein; for in the third chapter of the same Epistle, verse. 2. Where there is unius uxoris virum, they haue translated the husband of one onely wife, because that {αβγδ} in Greek, as also vnus in Latin is as much as alone, and by consequence onely.  
The ancient doctors did not reject this word alone in this matter. 
Ipse qui solus praestat& ego sum cvi impetrare debetur, famulus eius qui eum solum obsecro.  Tertullian in the thirtieth chapter of his apology saith, We cannot ask these things of any other but of him of whom I know I shall obtain them. For also it is he onely which granteth it, and I am he who am to be heard, that am his seruant, which call vpon him onely.  
Origen in his eight tome against Celsus, saith, 
{αβγδ}  We must pray to none but to God onely for all things, and to his onely son.  
Saint Ambrose in his oration vpon the death of Theodosius, correcting that which he had said in the book of widows, made when he first began to be a Christian: 
said tamen tu solus Domine inuocandus es.  Thou nevertheless, O Lord, oughtest onely to be called vpon, and prayed unto.  
As touching making Saints our mediators, Saint Augustine in many places is expressly against it: in his two and twentieth Treatise vpon Saint John, That is it which thy saviour saith, 
Non est quo eas nisi ad me, non est quo eas nisi per me. Lib. 2. cap 8. Nam si esset mediator Paulus essent utique& caeteri Apostoli, ac sic multi mediatores essent nec ipsi Paulo constaret ratio qua dixerat vnus Deus vnus mediator.  Thou hast no where to go but unto me, thou canst not go but by me.  
And in his epistle against Parmenian he saith, If Saint Paul was a mediator, so should al the other Apostles be mediators; and so there should be diuers mediators: and Saint Paul also should haue mistaken himself in saying, that there is but one God and one Mediator. You must note, 
Non dixit habetis, nec me habetis dixit, nec ipsum Christum habetis dixit, said Christum posuit non se:& habemus dixit, non habetis. Maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum vt haberet aduocatum Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo aduocatum.  that in that chapter he speaks but of a mediator of intercession, for he disputed against Parmenian, that had called the Bishop mediator between God and men.  
And in the first treaty of the first Epistle of Saint John, the second chapter, vpon these words of Saint John, We haue an advocate with the Father; he saith thus: This great person said not, You haue an advocate with the Father, but, if any man hath sinned, we haue an advocate with the Father; he saith not, You haue, nor also, you haue me, nor, you haue Christ: but he hath put Christ, and not himself, and said, we haue, and not, you haue: he choose rather to put himself into the number of sinners, that he might haue Christ for an advocate, then to put himself for an advocate in stead of Christ, and so to be found among the proud damned crew.  
Among ancient writers there are some places found which speak of the intercession of the Saints. There are also wishes found that were made by living men, that the Saints would pray for them: but we haue already said, that our difference is not, whether the Saints pray for us, but whether we must pray unto, and call vpon them. And although that in ancient Writers there are particular examples to be found, 
council. Carthag. 3. Can. 23. Cum ad altar assistetur semper ad patrem dirigatur oratio.  who by disordered rules called vpon Saints, yet it is not long time since the invocation of Saints hath been put into the common service, and is established by laws and rules of councils.  
But always they are such men that speak, in whom our Aduersaries themselves note diuers errors: and therefore their allegation makes rather against then for the invocation of Saints. having the holy Scripture for us, it sufficeth us; wherein our Aduersaries themselves confess, that the invocation of Saints is not commanded: and now they begin to say, that it is not necessary: contradicting Pope Innocent the third, 
Necessarium nobis est in via sanctorum suffragium.  who in the third book of the mysteries of the mass, chapter 9. saith, That the Suffrages of Saints are necessary for us, as long as we are in the way.  ARNOVX. 
John 1. Epistle 2.1. If any man sin, we haue an advocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the just, and he is the reconciliation for our sins.  
He saith not, that we haue but one advocate, he is far from that. But speaking of the excellency of the advocate, without whom all the others are not to be received; he saith, We haue an advocate, without excluding others.   

That the Saints are not our advocates, and that the Church of Rome inuocateth diuers Saints that never were, and whose holinesse is very questionable.  moulin. 
whosoever knoweth what it is to be an advocate with God, knoweth also that the same tide belongeth not unto the Saints. He is an advocate with God for us, who receiveth our prayers,& presenteth our requests to God, and accompanieth them with his intercession. The Saints understand not our prayers, as we haue already proved, and by consequence cannot present them to God. And if they understood our prayers, God hath received them before the Saints haue any leisure to join their recommendations with them. And in the same place, Saint John having said that we haue an advocate with God, addeth, For it is he which is the reconciliation for our sins: showing how he is our advocate, that is, because he maketh reconciliation for our sins. Then to be an advocate for sinners, is to be their reconciliator; and if Iesus Christ be our onely reconciliator, then also he is our onely advocate.  
Our saviour Iesus Christ decideth the question in manifest words, John 14.6. saying, I am that way, and that truth, and that life, no man cometh to the Father but by me. Then not by the Saints, nor by the intercession of creatures.  
If the Saints be advocates in heaven, who hath made them such? who hath received them for such? who commanded us to pray unto them? Haue children any need to use intercessors for them to speak unto their fathers? And seeing that God frames and inspires our prayers, must we haue intercessors to recommend that prayer unto God which he himself hath put into our hearts and mouths? If I present my prayer unto God by the intercession of Iesus Christ onely, shall my prayer be less acceptable unto God, then if I had employed the Saints to make intercession for me?  
If we thoroughly consider of this matter, it will be found that our aduersaries seeking to go to God by the intercession of the Saints, draw mens spirits into an endless labyrinth. For they say they go to God by means of the Saints, but in effect they go to the Saints by Gods means: for they confess that God revealeth our prayers to the Saints. Then they bring in God advising the Saints, as if he should say to Saint Francis, Blessed Saint, know that such an one that lives below in the earth in such a place, asketh such and such things of thee, whereof I tell thee, to the end that thou shouldst pray unto me for him, and then I will take advice whether I will hear thee or not. Which is an hatching of goodly conceptions, which make God mediator to the Saints, rather then the Saints mediators to God.  
Now if by the Saints we go to Iesus Christ, and if they be mediators to the Mediator, the prayers that we shall make to the Saints shall first go to God, and from God to the Saints, and from the Saints to Iesus Christ, and from Iesus Christ to God. A man that is in danger of drowning, may sink four times at the least before his prayer shall haue passed through so many hands.  
And yet there is some difficulty, for before we make the Saints our mediators, we must be well assured that they are Saints. Now the church of Rome calleth vpon many Saints that never lived in the world; and many whose blessedness may justly be called in question.  
The three Kings, Saint Longinus that pierced Christs side: Saint Martiall cousin to Saint Peter, that waited on the table when Iesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist, that drove Pagan religion out of France, in the time of the goths, when there were no goths in France: Saint Vrsula daughter to the King of England( when there was no King in England) captain of an army of eleven thousand Virgins: Saint Katherine daughter to Costus King of Alexandria, when there was no King in Alexandria, who in the Emperor Maxentius time, converted queen Faustina and fifty Philosophers: are persons that never lived in the world, as we may easily prove, and whose lives( by Baronius confession, in his book of Martyrs) are stuffed with a number of fables. The witnesses which they produce for their lives, are Usuard, Simeon Metaphrastus, Molanus, Euthymius, the Calendar of the Grecians, and such new fabulous authors, which Baronius wholly contradicts. But no good ancient author that lived five hundred yeares after the time which is name, wherein they say these imagined Saints should live, doth speak of them. Baronius maketh account that Saint George and Saint Christopher are symbolical pictures, in the same sort that we paint the virtues: and yet men call vpon these Saints; and it is found that Saint George was an Arian Bishop, enemy to Athanasius. The like of Saint Margaret, whom the divell swallowed down into his belly, and burst therewith, which is a kind of lying in childbed, and therefore they read her Legend to women lying in childbed. They make these Saints to live under kings that never were; and in a time and in a country wherein there were no Martyrs, nor the name of Christianity known. They begin to be born six or seven hundred yeares after they died. There are a thousand absurd and ridiculous actions attributed unto them. A man should sooner make clean Augias stable, then clear the lives of these Saints of fabulous tales.  
add to these imagined Saints, the Saints which the Popes canonize, and place in the roll of Saints, commanding the Church of Rome to call vpon them, 
Lib. 1. Sacr. Cerem. Sect. 6. cap. 1. Papa tunc quodammodo cogebatur ad canonisandam quendam contra suam opinionem,& propterea protestabatur.  and attribute an holy day unto them. An innovation whereof there is not one footstep to be found in all antiquity. The cause is pleaded in the Popes Consistory, and sometimes it happeneth that the Saint for whom they plead, loseth his cause, and hath not men that plead well for him: sometimes he partly wins his cause, and is declared to be blessed, which is a degree to sanctification, insomuch that many Saints are much bound and beholding to the Popes. And the book of Sacred Ceremonies saith, that sometimes it happeneth that the Pope is constrained to canonize some Saints against his will: and that, for that cause at this day he yet maketh protestation to discharge his conscience. 
Cap. 1.& 2. de reliquijs& sanctorum inuocatione.  The Popes, Innocent the third, and Alexander the third forbid calling vpon any Saints without the Popes approbation. But how many Saints are called vpon, of whose holinesse the Pope never made declaration, and of whom he never heard speaking?  
To aclowledge those for Saints with certainty of faith, a man must be of a very light belief: seeing that all those which say that the Pope cannot err in faith, confess that he may err in matter of fact, and that he may be deceived, Now the canonization is made at the solicitation of Princes, or of Prelates, or of Commonwealths, with manifest dealing underhand, and dependeth vpon the honesty and virtue of him that is canonised; which is a question which consisteth vpon information, wherein men may use deceit and false witness, because thereon depends a profit and advantage to some town or village, by the assembling and repairing of people to visit a new Saint, who presently doth miracles.  

Chap. 26. of the first book of the Institution.  Touching this matter, Cotton the Iesuite saith, that to doubt that those( whom the vicar of Iesus Christ hath declared to be blessed) are not Saints, it is to make a challenge against the book of life, to oppose against the manifestation of the book of Predestination, and to bely the book with seven seals which was opened by the angel. Words which he placeth rather to make ostentation of his high conceits, then for any belief that he hath of that which he saith. For a man must be a flatterer in the highest degree, 
〈◇〉. .1 〈…〉  to make the Pope beleeue that the role of his canonisations is the book of life, or the book sealed with seven seals, whereof there is mention apocalypse 5.1. And it is hardly to be thought, that the Pope should be assured of another mans predestination, seeing he is not assured of his own: there being so many Popes which our aduersaries themselves say are damned. By this means a man registered among the damned, puts whom he will among the Saints.  
Experience manifestly sheweth it: for the Popes oftentimes put not those into the role of Saints that haue most conformed their lives according to the word of God, but those that supported and advanced the papal Empire, as Thomas of Canterbury, and Anselmus, who suffered not for the defence of any of the Articles of the Christian faith, but for the investitures and other rights and temporal profits which the Pope attributed to himself in England. From this spring it floweth, that those that haue sought to kill and to murder kings, are at this day put into the role of Martyrs. By this means Saint dominic became a Saint, who for the maintenance of the Papacy caused diverse thousands of good Christians to be massacred, 
Antoninus Archiep. Flor. Parte 3. Tit. 23. in vita Catharinae Senensis. Pater Dominicus in adiutorium sumpsit quasdam deuotas personas zelantes pro fide, quae corporaliter illos haereticos gladio materiali expugnarent.  preaching the croysado, to roote out the true faithful people, which then were injuriously termed Albigenses, in the same manner as we are called Huguenots, because we receive not, nor allow of any other doctrine then that of Iesus Christ and the Apostles. This is that Saint which Saint Antoninus Archbishop of Florence compared with Iesus Christ, and found but very little inequality between him and Iesus Christ.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. james 5.14. Is any sick among you, let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them pray for him. And 16. Pray one for another, that you may be healed. Colos. 1.3. We give all thanks for you unto God, which is the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, always praying for you.  
Here are diuers advocates: Then Iesus Christ is not given unto us for our onely advocate: and if praying here on earth one for another, do no way prejudice his office of advocate, how and wherefore should the Saints praying in heaven diminish the glory of his intercession? But rather is it not greater, seeing that all their prayers are grounded vpon his merits?   

That the mutual prayers of the living, praying one for another makes nothing for invocation of Saints that are dead.  moulin. 
M. Arnoux will prove, that the Saints pray for us in heaven, which is not in controversy between vs. The Saints may pray generally for the Church, without knowing the thoughts and the necessities of particular persons.  
But let us see how he proves it. He produceth three places out of the Scripture, which speak of the prayers which the living make one for another. Which is nothing to the purpose. For here the question is not touching the prayers of the living, which God hath commanded to be made,& which are made by those which particularly and mutually know our necessities. But the question is here touching the prayers which the Saints that are dead make for the living, whose particular necessities they know not, and we know not what commandement God hath given them touching the same. moreover when we recommend ourselves to the mutual prayers of the faithful one for another, it is a reciprocal duty among us, which is not so between us and the Saints.  
And withall, when we pray our neighbours to pray for us, we do no religious service unto them. We kneel not down before them in the Church. We do not aclowledge them to be the searchers of our hearts. We esteem them not to be our Patrons or guardians. We light not up candles before them. We are well assured that they understand us when we speak unto them. To be short, the prayer of the living one for another hath no affinity with the intercession and calling vpon dead Saints.  
If a man should ask whether the living praying one for another may be called advocates with God, I say, that the word of God gives them not that title, to the language or speech whereof it is requisite for us to be conformable. It giveth that title to Iesus Christ onely, because that to be a mans advocate, he must exactly know the cause, and the depth of a mans grief:& must not only entreat the judge for the party, but also debate and defend his parties cause to be just and well grounded. Now there is none but Iesus Christ to whom this appertaineth. For men praying one for another, do not well know the ground of their neighbours grief, because they know not their hearts; nor the nature and greatness of their sins, nor of their repentance. And they cannot argue with God touching our cause, because they haue nothing to satisfy and pay for vs. Their prayer for us is a simplo supplication, and not an action of an advocate. There is no body but Iesus Christ who pleading our cause, can confute the divels accusations, which is that accuser spoken of in the twelfth of the revelation, which accuseth us day and night before God.   

Of the credit and reputation of the Saints in heaven.  ARNOVX. 
In the same Article somewhat lower. All that which men haue imagined of the Saints that are dead, is but an abuse and a deceit of satan.  
They think to make a sacrifice of praise to Iesus Christ, by giuing him credit( as they suppose) by the excluding of all his seruants, which should be hardly welcome into heaven, and but meanly entertained, if they had lost the credit they had vpon earth.  moulin. 
The question between us and our aduersaries is twofold; one, whether the Saints know our hearts; the other, whether we must call vpon, and pray unto them. These two questions M. Arnoux toucheth not, but moveth a third, which is not in controversy, to know whether the Saints pray for us in heaven.  
This discourse, although from the purpose, is nevertheless stuffed with pretty conceits: he saith, that the Saints should be hardly welcome into heaven, and but meanly entertained, if they had lost the credit that they had vpon earth. This divinity is delicate, and serves but for those that are of generous spirits, whereby he placeth Saints in Paradise, that are not welcome thither. For it is certain, that there are many Saints in Paradise that are unknown to us; and many, that having lived holily, haue been forgotten, or defamed after their deaths: in such manner, that it resteth in the power of the living to make a Saint, whether he be welcome or not into heaven. If men care not whether they serve them, and presently forget them, then it is marvell that such a Saint is suffered to enter into Paradise, and that the gate is not shut against him, seeing he cannot stand God in stead with his credit on earth. For Saint Peter at the gate might ask him, What account art thou of on earth? hast thou any of credit in thy country? For God hath need of Saints that are of credit among men. What should Saints do in Paradise, to whom men burn no tapers on earth? Yet M. Arnoux will haue those Saints to enter therein, but to be hardly welcome thither, and to receive a disgrace at their entering into heaven. Therefore we haue reason to pity Abraham, Moses, and david, whose credits are much diminished, so far as that at this day he should be laughed at that should say, Saint Moses, or Saint Abraham. They pass onely in the press among the Patriarkes. No man makes any particular prayer unto them. No man lights the least wax candle that is before Abraham the father of the faithful. They speak of Saint Geneuesses and Saint Anthonies Masses, but not of Saint Moses nor of Saint Abrahams Masses. And every Saint hath his charge, one of a sickness, another of a town: but Moses and Abraham never received any charge or commission from men. This also is injurious against the Popes: for I see not that Innocent the fourth, Boniface the eight, nor Alexander the sixth, which were great men on earth, keep their credits after their deaths. Therefore they are hardly welcome into heaven, and were but meanly entertained there.  
Yet M. Arnoux should be born withall, for that by a recreatiue dexterity he likeneth or compareth the kingdom of heaven to the forms and compliments of the Courts of Popes and Kings. From thence it proceedeth that the Papists dress God the Father like the Pope. From hence it cometh that father Gonteri called Iesus Christ the Dolphin of heaven. 
Barradius in Concordiam Euangelicam. Tom 1. lib. 6. ●. 11 Fortassis Domine, ne tuae coelesti curiae veniret in dubium cvi potius occurreret, tibi Domino suo, an ipsi Dominae suae.  And that the Iesuite Barradius made that goodly observation, after Anselmus, who asketh of Iesus Christ, Why he took not his mother with him when he ascended up into heaven. But the answer is of his own devising, saying: It may be, Lord, for fear lest thy heavenly Court should be in doubt which of the two they should go to meet first, whether thee Lord, or her which is their Lady. Then it was well advised of him to leave her behind him on earth. But lest any man of a hard belief might doubt that which is said before, the Iesuite brings forth Aristotle to help him.   

proof of invocation of Saints by Aristotle.  ARNOVX. 
These seruants of God should be deprived of one part of human felicity, which consisteth,( as Aristotle noteth in his Morals,) in the care and remembrance which the souls of the dead should haue of their friends which they leave vpon the earth.  moulin. 
The place in Aristotle which he allegeth is in the first of his ethics, 11. chap: where there is nothing of all that which M. Arnoux makes him say. For in all that chapter, 
{αβγδ},  Aristotle disputeth, whether the affairs of the living touch or concern their parents and friends dead, whereof he speaketh so vncertainely, that he saith, that it is to be doubted whether the dead haue any feeling or participation either of good or evil; and in the end concludeth like a man that had no sight therein at all, That if the affairs of the living concern the dead, it is very little, and not of force to alter their beatitude. This place therefore is falsely alleged. 
M. Arnoux falsification.  It was ill advised of him to take on him to teach us what the blessedness and knowledge of the Saints in heaven is, by the conjectures of a heathen Philosopher; and much more, to imagine that a part of the felicity of the Saints consisteth in having a remembrance of their friends that they left behind them vpon the earth. For if the remembrance of their prosperity and virtue augmenteth the blessedness of the Saints that are in heaven, the remembrance of their adversities, and of their vices will also diminish their felicity. Yet this doth not stretch the care and the knowledge of the Saints but unto those whom they knew here vpon earth, and left them behind them living in the world, which is a restraining of their knowledge into very streight limits.  ARNOVX. 
Places of Scripture quoted in the margin of the Confession, Acts. 10.25. and 26, where it is said, that Cornelius met Peter, Peter lifted him up, saying, Stand up, for I am a man.  moulin. 

Places of Scripture cut off in the middle by M. Arnoux.  This place is set down in the margin of our Confession, to confute all the religious service and adoration that men give to creatures: which if M. Arnoux had not cited by halves, and had not taken away the words wherein the force of that place consisteth, every man might haue perceived how fitly it was alleged. Thus the text hath: As Peter came in, Cornelius met him, and falling down at his feet, worshipped him, but Peter took him up saying, For even I myself am a man. M. Arnoux hath cut off these words, he fell down at his feet and worshipped him. And see here the like falsification.  ARNOVX. 
And Acts. 14.15. Paul and Barnabas said, Men why do ye these things? we also are men subject to the same condition.  moulin. 

Places of Scripture cut in the middle by M. Arnoux  You omit that which is said a little before, that they of Lystria would haue offered sacrifice to Barnabas and Paul, as if they had been gods: which the said Apostles would not suffer them to do.  ARNOVX. 
And apocalypse 19 10. And I fell before his feet to worship him, but he said to me, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow seruant, worship God.  
All these three places teach, that we must not give unto men that worship which belongs unto God, nor to living men, the honour which we owe unto the Saints that already enjoy part of his glory. Where then is Sathans deceit, in the adoration of Saints?   

Confutation of the invocation of Saints by the holy Scriptures.  moulin. 
Our Confession condemneth the intercession of Saints, that is, it condemneth those which employ them for intercessors, and pray them to be intercessors for them: which prayer is a religious worship. Now the Church of Rome commandeth the adoration of Saints and their relics, but setteth down distinctions of adoration, one proper to God, which they call Latria, the other( which is referred to Saints) they call Dulia; which are both religious worships, and an act of religion. For the invocation of Saints which is used in the Church of Rome, is a part of the public service; and when men pray kneeling before their Images, they haue their recourse unto them, as to those to whom men owe a religious service, that know their hearts, and that haue power to hear them.  
Against this abuse our Confession quoteth these three places of Scripture, wherein are condemned, the worship which Cornelius would haue given to Peter, that which the Lystrians would haue given to Paul, and that which John would haue given to the angel. In which places there is no mention made of two sorts of worshipping, but generally all religious worshipping of creatures is forbidden. And withall there is no appearance, that Cornelius a man which feared God, was so dull to think Saint Peter to be the sovereign God, or that an equal honour( due to the sovereign God,) belonged unto him. Touching Saint John, that would haue adored the angel, that spake unto him, for the which the angel rebuked him, saying, Take heed thou do it not, I am thy fellow seruant, worship God: you must know, that twice Saint John would haue worshipped the angel, one revel. 19.10. the other 22.9. And that after the first time that the angel rebuked him, saying Worship God, I am thy fellow seruant, it is an evident proof, that the second time when Saint John would haue worshipped him, he knew well that it was not God, seeing the angel  told him so before: but being afraid, he would haue given him some inferior worship, which nevertheless the angel refused. If that angel had been a Romish catholic, he would haue spoken to Saint John in this manner: The worship which thou givest me, is too high for me, I will be content with a meaner worship, and an adoration of Dulia: for that of Latria belongeth onely unto God. But the angel had not learned so far. So when the orthodox divines called the Arians Idolaters because they worshipped Iesus Christ, 
read Athanasius in the life of S. Anthony.  whom they held to be but a creature; the Arians might well haue excused themselves by saying, that they worshipped Iesus Christ with an inferior worship. But then they acknowledged but one religious worship, and that due to God onely.  
2 Saint james the Apostle, 1.6. will haue us to pray in faith and waver not. But the prayer made to Saints cannot be made in faith, seeing that God hath not commanded it in his word. For faith is by hearing of the word of God, Rom. 10.17. Now that prayer unto Saints is not commanded in the word of God, M. Cotton the Iesuite in the first book of his Institution, in the chapter of invocation of Saints, confesseth it saying: Touching a commandement to pray unto, and to call vpon the Saints, the Church never taught that there was ever any such commandement. Then if it be not a commandement of God, it is a commandement of men: seeing that in the public service of the Romish Church, and in the litanies, the Saints are called vpon, the people are bound thereunto, and it is not in any particular mans power to dispense with himself therein.  
3 The Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 10.14. maintaineth, that we cannot call vpon any other then on him in whom we beleeue, saying; How shall they call on him, in whom they haue not believed? Our Creed teacheth us to beleeue in God, Father, son, and holy Ghost. And John 14.1. You beleeue in God, beleeue also in me. Then it is manifest, that Saint Paul without exception reproveth all invocation of creatures. And if any man will induce a second religious invocation, he ought to prove it by the word of God.  
4 The same Apostle, Galat. 4.8. saith, Then when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are not gods. The Church of Rome serving Saints and Angels, serveth those who by their nature are no gods. Now it is to be noted, that in the greek there is {αβγδ}, that is to say, you give Dulia, which is the service which the Church of Rome giveth unto Saints. The Apostle reproveth the Galathians for giuing Dulia to any other but to God.  
5 The Scripture is full of places which command us to address all our prayers unto God. The Apostles desired Iesus Christ saying, Teach us to pray, and he said unto them, 
Luke 11.1.2.  When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven. We must teach this lesson to those that pray unto Saints, and say unto them, When you pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven. God in the psalm 50.15. saith, Call vpon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee: and in the same psalm, verse 14. Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the most High. How many are there in the Church of Rome, that make vows to Saints, or that vow to go on pilgrimage to them, or to offer unto them? Deut. 6.13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his Name. The catechism of the council of Trent teacheth the contrary, saying, We swear by the cross, by relics, and by the names of Saints. 
In the exposition of the third commandement.  To swear by any one, is to aclowledge him to be a witness of the integrity of our consciences, and a revenger of perjury; which agreeth not with relics. To say, that swearing by the relics of Saints, we swear by God that loveth the Saints, is to accuse the Prophets& the Apostles herein, that knowing well, that God loved Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, they did not swear by their relics. By the same reason I might worship the sun, and swear by heaven, and say, that I do it to honour God that made it.  
6 Iesus Christ, Matthew 4.10. said to satan, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serve: Thereby confuting satan, that offered him all the kingdoms of the world, if he would worship him. Who doubts not but that satan would haue been content with an inferior worship? Our saviour might haue confuted satan by telling him of the dignity of his person, as being the son of God; or by showing satan of his own indignity, as being the principal slave or divell in hell. But he choose rather to sand him to that rule whereby all adoration of creatures is forbidden.  
7 But seeing that our aduersaries make two sorts of good works, one commanded by God, the other onely counseled, and perfecter then those that are commanded, I would gladly know in what place they put the invocation of Saints. For seeing that our aduersaries do aclowledge that God hath not commanded it, to be a good work it must be counseled, and by consequence, the invocation of Saints is a perfecter work then calling vpon God. In the mean time there is no man so brutishly superstitious, that seeing two men kneeling on their knees, whereof the one prayeth unto God, the other to Saint Francis, but will confess, that he which prayeth unto God, doth a better work then the other.  
8 Particularly for the invocation and service of Angels, we haue an express passage of the Apostle, Colossians 2.18. Let no man at his pleasure bear rule over you by humbleness of mind, and worshipping of Angels, advancing himself in those things which he never saw. Let men as much as they will divine the meaning of Saint Paul in this place, yet it is certain that he generally prohibiteth the service of Angels, and by consequence that which is practised in the Church of Rome. And in the Church of the old Testament, when Angels appeared unto men, and visibly did those messages and commissions wherein God employed them, yet the faithful never did ordain any religious service to be done unto them. In all the public service prescribed in the books of Moses, there is nothing spoken of any service done to Angels in the Tabernacle. And I would gladly know why now, when their aid is less sensible, they ought rather to be served and called vpon. Theodoret in his commentary vpon this place, saith, Those that forbade the Law, induced them so to serve Angels, saying, that the Law was given by their interposition. This 'vice continued a long time among them of Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore the synod assembled in Laodicea, the capital city of Phrygia, by express ordinance forbade them to pray unto Angels; and yet at this day we see among them and their neighbours Oratories or chapels to pray in to S. Michael: which those that maintained them, said they did in humility, saying that the God of the whole world is invisible, incomprehensible, and unaccessible; and therefore that they had need to make God favourable unto them by Angels. And that is it which Saint Paul said, in humbleness and service of Angels. There are three things to be noted in this excellent place. The first, that Theodoret believed that the council of Laodicea forbade prayer to Angels. The second that he condemned the chapels made to pray to S. Michael, which nevertheless are used in the Romish Church. The third, that those heretics whereof he speaketh, used the same words that the Church of Rome doth, which is, that to make God favourable unto them, they haue their recourse to Angels and Saints, with devotion and humility of spirit. Baronius is angry, and chideth Theodoret for writing in this manner, in the first Tome of his Annals in the sixetieth year. 
§ 20. Ex his videas Theodoretum haud feliciter( eius place dictum sit) assecutum esse Pauli verhorum sensum  By this( saith he) we may see that Theodoret did not well understand the sense of Saint Pauls words. In such manner our aduersaries respect the Fathers.  
The Canon of the council of Laodicea whereof Theodoret makes mention, is the five and thirtieth Canon, the words whereof are these: Christians must not leave the Church of God to go to worship Angels, and to meet together in congregations apart, which are things prohibited. If any one shall be found to use this secret idolatry, let him be accursed, because he hath forsaken our Lord Iesus Christ. Those Fathers esteemed and thought, that men could not call vpon Angels without leaving the Church and renouncing Iesus Christ. 
{αβγδ}, Ecclesia non inuocationibus Angelicis faciens aliquid, said mundè, purè& manifestè orationes dirigens ad Dominum, &c.  For that cause also Saint Augustine in his book of Heresies, putteth the Angelicans among the heretics, which were Angelorum cultui inclinati inclined or bent to the service of Angels.  
Irenaeus in the second book, 58. Chapter, joineth with the Apostle Saint Paul, saying. The Church doth nothing by angelical invocations, but purely, simply, and manifestly addresseth her prayers to God which hath made all things, in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ.  
The ordinary excuse is, that men haue access to God by the Saints and Angels, as they haue access to kings by their officers and attendants. But the case is not all one. For kings are not in all places, neither understand all things, and it is not fit that every man should speak unto them, and they haue need to be informed of the truth of things by others. In God it is clean contrary. And which is more, it is God which frameth prayers in our hearts, Rom. 8.25.26, Whereupon it followeth, that the prayer which God himself inspireth into our hearts, is pleasing or acceptable unto him without the recommendation of the Saints. Should not the voice of the Spirit of God speaking in our hearts be pleasing unto God? Besides that we haue already shewed our aduersaries do clean contrary ro that which they say, and haue recourse by God to the Saints. And albeit God were in all things like unto kings, yet when the king calls, we must go directly to him. But he saith, Come to me, Matth. 11.28, and call vpon me, Psal. 50.15.   

Places of the Scripture for the invocation of Saints.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. 2. Peter 1.15. I will endeavour to haue you often after my departing, to the end that you may haue remembrance of these things.  
Here is Saint Peter which promiseth to pray for them after his death. And Geneua seeing the force of this place, set down in these terms, according to the original and the common translation, hath changed the order of these words by a manifest depravation: putting this particle that before these words, before my departing, which is not found in the greek original.  moulin. 
The onely reading of this place of Saint Peter as M. Arnoux allegeth it, proveth the falsehood: 
{αβγδ},  for there is neither sense nor reason in these words. I will endeavour to haue you often after my departing, to the end that you may haue remembrance of these things.  
This is the place according to the greek: I will endeavour therefore always, that ye also may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my departing. This word may in greek is {αβγδ}, which signifieth to haue means. young scholars that haue but a little understanding in greek, may easily comprehend, that this is the sense of the greek in the Apostle. And if it were so that we had no understanding of the Greek at all, the whole sense of the place itself forceth us to understand it so. For Saint Peter in the verses before, and also in this, yeeldeth a reason unto the faithful why he wrote unto them, which was, that perceiving himself to be near his death, he would leave a remembrance of his instructions, that they might haue a means after his death often to remember that which he had said unto them in his life time. This is the whole place: For I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up, by putting you in remembrance, seeing I know that the time is at hand that I must lay down this abernacle, even as our Lord Iesus hath shewed me. I will endeavour therefore always, that ye also may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my departing. And so the greatest part of our aduersaries which haue translated or written Commentaries vpon this Epistle understand it, as Arias Montanus, cardinal Caietan, the ordinary gloss. And above all, Thomas the Prince of schools, 
Quia cito transiturus, ideo dum vivo dabo operam vos commonendo, non solum semel, said& frequenter, id est, instanter& diligenter, habere vos, id est, vt habeatis memoriam praedictorum post obitum meum.  is very formal in his Commentary vpon this Epistle: Because( saith he) that I must soon depart, therefore while I live I will endeavour myself by advertising you not onely once, but often times also, that is to say, instantly and diligently, that you may haue a remembrance of the things aforesaid after my death. Oecumenius saith, that this exposition is the plainest, and that the other is hyperbaticall that is to say, overthrowing and troubling the construction.  
nevertheless, if it were as true, as it is false and absurd, that Saint Peter promised the faithful to pray for them after his death, what is that to the purpose? If Saint Peter being in heaven prayeth for the Church, doth it follow that we ought to call vpon him? doth it follow that he knows our hearts?  ARNOVX. 
And in revelation 5.8. The four and twenty Elders fell down before the lamb, 
M. Arnoux hath put two haps.  having every one haps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints. read, and it is sufficient.  moulin. 
The reading of this passage sufficeth to show that the same toucheth not the question. The question is, whether we must pray unto and call vpon the Saints. Whereupon M. Arnoux allegeth a place which saith, that the Saints presented their prayers. This place saith, that the Saints prayed in heaven, but saith not, that we must pray unto them here on earth.    

In the same XXIIII. Article of the Confession of our faith.  We hold purgatory to be an illusion coming out of Sathans shop, from whence also proceedeth monastical vows, pilgrimages, abstinence from meats, auricular confession, indulgences, &c. 

Of purgatory.  ARNOVX. 
Touching places of Scripture noted in the margin of the Confession, there are none at all but against abstinence from meats, and observation of holy dayes; vpon which the Reader may see my reply to the Ministers.  
They haue with one selfe same faithfulness cut off the canonical books, before in the third Article, and denied all these things, whereof one part may be proved by the books which for that purpose they haue cut off. In such manner, that after they haue cut the throats of the witnesses that might accuse them, they haue boldly committed a kind of parricide or unnatural murder.  moulin. 
It was not needful to note places in the margin against purgatory, nor against monastical vows, pilgrimages, prohibition of marriage and of meats, auricular confession, and Indulgences or pardons, because the places noted in the margin of the fifth Article of our Confession, where human traditions are condemned, and the perfection of the Scriptures proved, are sufficient to overthrow and confute these points, which are human traditions invented for gain and for ambition. Besides, the margin had not been great enough to confute so many points briefly touched in one Article. This Doctor being not able to disgrace the body of our Confession, seeketh to scratch at the margins thereof.  
Touching the cutting off of the canonical books whereof we are accused, I haue heretofore sufficiently satisfied the Reader therein, and cleared our Churches of that slander. And I say, that if we should allow of judith, wisdom, and the maccabees to be canonical books, our Aduersaries should not therein find their religion, no more then in the books of the Prophets and the Apostles. And M. Arnoux before in the 69. Section sought to serve his turn about merites, with a place out of an apocryphal book, but yet falsifying it most horribly.  
Then although I might leave those points as they are, against the which M. Arnoux produceth nothing but injurious words; yet for the better satisfaction of the Reader, I will say something of every one of them.   

Of the description of purgatory,  
To confute purgatory, we need but paint it out, and show it in the true colours thereof. 
Lib. 4. cap. 1.  Baille the Iesuite, in his catechism of controversies, and Cotton the Iesuite, in his Institutions, say, That purgatory is a prison or gaole, 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 haue not here on earth satisfied the divine Iustice, are purged by that temporal fire. Yet they make that fire to be as hote as that in hell, and very long; witness the pardons of diuers thousands of yeares.  
This doctrine is cruel, and beareth her condemnation in her forehead. For our aduersaries will haue:  
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 pardonned, and for the which Iesus 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 iustice. No father ever punished his children in such manner.  
3 That God, to satisfy his iustice, exerciseth injustice, taking two payments for one selfsame debt, and two satisfactions for one sin, that is, the passion of Iesus Christ, and the pains of Purgatory; although the first satisfaction, which is the passion of Iesus Christ, is most sufficient, as well for purgatory as for hell.  
4 That the passion of Iesus 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 Iesus Christs death, that his children may not be exempted from torment.  
5 That the passion of Iesus Christ is applied unto us by burning and tormenting us for many yeares; which is to apply the mercy of God by the execution of his iustice, to apply pardon by punishment, to apply the remission of our debts, by making us pay them: and briefly, to apply the benefit and grace of Iesus Christ, by a means derogating from this grace, and contrary to that benefit.  
6 That Iesus 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 yeares.  
8 That the souls entering into purgatory, are already pure and without sin, and yet haue 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 pardonned are purged by torment, as if a man should call a whip, a wheel, or a gibbet a purgation.  
10 That sins fully pardonned, are punished in this fire, and that God having fully defaced and taken away the fault, makes them endure pain that haue 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. Iesus Christ took our sins vpon him, to the end that we should be discharged of the punishment. It were in vain for him to haue made full satisfaction for us, if he had not discharged vs.  
11 That God will haue us fully and freely to pardon our neighbours, and holdeth him for a wicked man, that having been injured by his neighbour would pardon his offence, but nevertheless would determine to make him endure punishment for it. Whereby it followeth, that God will haue us to be more merciful then himself: seeing that our aduersaries say, that after God hath pardonned all our offences, he maketh us suffer and endure satisfactory punishments in a burnning fire many yeares.  
12 All these abuses spring from a perverse maxim which subverteth all the gospel, which is, that Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ said to Peter, whatsoever thou shalt loose or unbind vpon 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 yeares of pardon, and erecteth privileged Altars, whereon whosoever saith a mass vpon 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 haue 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 Aue Maries on saturday before palm Sunday, and on the feast day of Saint John Baptist, and of S. John Port-latine. In the Treasure of Indulgences of the Franciscan or gray Friers, printed in rouen, these words are found; For every day, 
By Thomas Dare in the Iewes street near the palace, 1614. pag. 119.  until the nativity of our Lady, there are 862000 yeares and 100 dayes 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 vpon the ignorant fear of poor people, who dying, think themselves to be easily quit of the punishment in hell, if they may onely remain in a burning fire for the space of some hundreds of yeares: and for that cause bereave their children and their heires, of their goods, to give it unto those that weep not, but to such as laugh and sing; not to those that want and haue need thereof, but to rich and idle monks. For rich men they say diuers 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 haue a part. Towards the poor they will haue 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.  
The ancient Fathers were so far off from believing that the souls of the faithful are tormented in a fire before the day of Iudgement, 
Neque pati quicquam potest anima sola fine stabili materia; id est, carne. Animam per se separatim ignis nunquam attigerit, nec tenebrae quidem ei molesta fuerint, utpote quae oculis caret, &c.  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 troublesone unto it, because it hath no eyes. For these convenient reasons, we are moved and persuaded to allow of the resurrection of the dead.  
Chrysostome 
{αβγδ}.  in his thirty nine homily vpon 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: 
Constituimus omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem Domini.  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, 
ainae abierunt in inuisibilem locum definitum ipsis à Deo,& ibi usque ad reformationem commorabuntur.  grounding vpon this, that Iesus 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, 
Puto quod sancti quiqu● discedentes de hac vita permanent in loc● aliquo in terra posito, quem Paradisum dicit Scriptura diuina, velut in quodam eruditionis loco,& vt ●st dicam auditorio.  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, 
Omnes in vna communique custodia detinentur donec tempus adveniat, quo maximus judex meritorum ●ciat examen.  All mens souls are kept in a common prison, until such time that the great judge calleth them to account for all which they haue done.  
Saint hilary vpon the 38. psalm saith, 
Humanae ista lex necessitas tis vt sepultis corporibus ainae ad inferos descendant. Quamdescensionem Dominus ad consummationem veri homini non recusauit.  It is a law of necessity, whereunto all men are subject, that their souls descend down into hell, after their bodies are butted, which descending Iesus Christ himself refused not, to accomplish that which belonged unto his manhood.  
Victorinus 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, 
Quae infra terram iacent neque ipsa sunt digestis& ordinatis potestatibus vacua. Locus enim est quò piorum ainae& impiorum ducuntur.  The things that are under the earth, are not without power 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 Iudgement.  
Saint Augustine is very uncertain in this matter, yet these are his words vpon the 36. psalm: 
Post vitam istam nondum eris ubi erunt sancti, quibus dicitur, Venite benedicti, &c. Nondum ibi eris, quis nescit? Nunc vel mortaliter peregrinantur in terris, vel in eis qui mortem obierunt secretis animarum receptaculis, said illic usque requiescent.  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 maiest be there where the proud rich man being in torment, saw the miserable poor man in rest; in which rest thou shalt remain quietly till the day of iudgement. 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 manuel to Laurentius, chapter one hundred and ninth he saith, 
Tempus quod inter hoins mortem& vltimam resurrectionem interpositum est; animas abditis receptaculis continet, sicut vnaquaeque digna est vel requie vel aerumna.  The time that is between death and the last resurrection, holdeth the souls in secret receptacles, according as every one is worthy of rest or torment.  
Chrysostome, in his eight and twentieth homily, vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith, 
{αβγδ};  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 Abrahams bosom. And yet nevertheless, as well in Chrysostome as in Augustine, there are places found, which say, That the souls of the faithful leaving their bodies, go strait to Iesus 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 library, in his sixth book three hundred forty and fifth Annotation, saith, that the Church had not as yet resolved vpon any certainty touching that Article.  
Almost all the greek Fathers defer the blessedness of mens 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 witnesseth, Villanus in the tenth book of his history, and Erasmus in his Preface vpon the fifth of Irenaeus. And Okam in his work of 93 dayes: 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 o Lord thy seruants which sleep in the slumber of peace. For when that prayer was hatched, they did not beleeue that the souls of the children of God were tormented in a fire.  
Many did not beleeue 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 haue a woman to pray for her husband that is dead, that 
Refrigerium ei adpostulet& in prima resurrectione consortium.  she shal 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 
Orat. funebr. de obitu Valentiniani, Te quaeso sum Deus vt charissimos iuuenes matura resurrectione suscites& resuscites.  Ambrose made for Gratian and Valentinian 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 iudgement, 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 virgin mary.  
Ambrose in his twentieth Sermon vpon the 118. psalm, saith, 
Omnes oportet transire per flammas, siue ille johannes Euangelista, siue ille Petrus.  every man must pass through the flamme, yea Saint John the evangelist whom God loved, and also Saint Peter. And in his third Sermon vpon the 36. psalm: 
Igne purgabuntur filii levi, igne Ezechiel, igne Daniel, &c.  The sons of levi shall be purged by fire. Ezechiel, Daniel, and they although they shall be examined by fire, shall nevertheless say, we haue past through fire and water.  
Lactantius in his seventh book chap. 21. saith, 
justos cum iudicauerit Deus, igni eos examinabit. Tum quorum peccata vel pondere vel numero praeualuerint perstringenturatque amburentur.  When God shall haue 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 vpon the 119. psalm 
Gimel.  in the third part, maketh the virgin Mary to pass through this fire of the last iudgement, saying, Shall we desire the day of iudgement, 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, 
Si in judicij seueritatem capax illa Dei virgo ventura est, desiderare quis audebit à Deo judicari?  If the virgin which conceived God, must undergo the severity of that iudgement, what is he that dares desire to be judged of God? And in the second Canon vpon Saint matthew. 
Baptizatis in spiritu S. reliquum sit consummari igne judicij.  Those that are baptized by the holy Ghost, must also pass through the fire of iudgement.  
S. Augustine in the sixteenth book, chap. 34. of the city of God: saith, 
Significatur isto igne dies judicij dirimens carnales per ignem saluandos,& igne damnandos.  By that fire( which appeared unto Abraham) is signified the day of iudgement, 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: 
Ex his quae dicta sunt videtur evidenter apparere in illo judicio quasdam quorundam poenas purgatorias futuras.  By the things aforesaid, it appeareth evidently, that in that iudgement there shall be some purging pains given to some men. The title of the Chapter sheweth that he expressly speaketh of the last iudgement.  
Origen in his third homily vpon 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. 
{αβγδ}.  But( saith he) who will warrant me that this cure will come to any end, and that the iudgement 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: 
{αβγδ}.  That by the baptism of fire whereof Iesus Christ speaketh, is understood the trial that shall be made at the day of iudgement. 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, 
{αβγδ}  That at the day of iudgement, 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 iudgement for sins that are pardonned, 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 Aerius, 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 haue 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 iudgement, 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 haue 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 baths, and in riuers. 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 selfe same place, and are tormented all alike. And yet when the souls come out of that fire, they will not haue them presently to enter into Paradise. For Beda, and after him Bellarmine in the seventh chapter of his first book of Purgatory, will haue 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 mows 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.  
1 This doctrine agreeth not with the holy Scripture, wherein there is no mention made of service nor sacrifice made to draw mens 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 haue 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 Iuda 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 iudgement 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 mens souls out of a burning fire.  
3 The holy Scriptures give us many examples of men, that when they died entred into blessedness, Luk. 2.29. Simeon made his account to enter into rest by his death saying, Lord now lettest thou thy seruant depart in peace, according to thy word. Luke 16.22. Lazarus soul is by Angels carried into Abrahams bosom, where it is comforted, while the wicked rich man was tormented. Iesus 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 haue, that in the Scripture there should be nothing but exceptions without rules. At the least, if they want rules, let them find one onely 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 iudgement 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 iustice?  
5 The Prophet Esay 57.1. speaketh thus of the death of the faithful: The righteous is taken away from the evil to come: he shal enter into peace, they shal 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 haue 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 labours, and their works follow them. Paul, Hebrewes 9.27. saith, It is appointed unto men that they shall die once, and after that cometh the iudgement. 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 Iesus. If no condemnation, then in no eternal fire, nor in a temporal fire. And Iesus Christ, joh. 5.24. saith, He that beareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into iudgement, 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 aduersaries 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 haue shewed how castigatorie punishments are compatible with full pardon, and are benefits and spiritual cures, but not satisfactory punishments. Where also we haue shewed how S. John in his first Epistle, 1.7, saith, That the blood of Iesus 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 Iustice of God. For if we must satisfy the Iustice 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 offences 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 reuenge. Now God forgiveth us all our offences, and doth it freely; therefore he expecteth no punishment, nor satisactory pains from vs.  
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 haue them onely to serve to satisfy the iustice 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 pardonned, what is there to be purged?  
13 To say that after the king hath pardonned a man he will haue 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 iustice.  
14 To say that the benefit of Iesus Christs passion is applied unto us by burning and tormenting us in a fire, it is not onely to speak without authority of the Scripture, but also to contrary the Scripture, which saith, Heb. 1.3. That Iesus 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 haue not any more reward, neither haue they any more portion for ever in any thing 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 leper, and for touching or handling of the dead, ordained not any sacrifice nor propitiation for the dead.  
16 nevertheless, to maintain this fire, our aduersaries 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 mayst 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 stead of these words, give diligence in the way that thou mayst be delivered from him. Our aduersaries will haue the way to signify life, the Magistrate God,& the prison the fire of Purgatory, the adversary the divell: and by consequence they would haue us to agree with the divell. And if in this place it is meant that the divell is the adversary, who shall be the executioner? And are we in the way with the divell? for Saint Matthew saith, Agree with thine adversary quickly whilst thou art in the way with him. For these causes some of them will haue the devil to be the sergeant,& the Law the adversary; which is yet worse. For doth the divell 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 ourselves 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 haue 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. Iesus Christ exhorteth us to peace and concord with our neighbours that trouble us, and counseleth 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 Iudges that are infidels. So Saint Ambrose expoundeth the twelfth of Saint Luke, where he saith, that Iesus Christ speaketh, 
De reconcilianda place dissidentium fratrum.  To make peace between brethren that are at variance. hilary of the same place, in his fourth Canon vpon Saint matthew. And 
Manifestus est sensus, quod nos Dominus& Seruator nosterdum in saeculi via currimus, ad pacem& concordiam hortetur.  jerome in his Annotations vpon the fifth of Saint matthew. Among the Greekes, Chrysostome, Euthymius, and Theophylactus vpon the fift of Saint matthew. Maldonat the Iesuite vpon the same place, by the prison, understandeth hell, by the Sergeant, the divell. But Berradius the Iesuite, and cardinal Tolet vpon 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 ourselves, to fast, to whip ourselves, 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 necessary suppose that he is in a fire. Can he not afflict himself, shed tears, and pray, to the end he may obtain Gods favour, 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 beleeue 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. 
{αβγδ}, &c.  From Cerinthus came the heresy of the Cerinthians, which denied that Iesus Christ rose again, and thereby weakened the belief of the resurrection of the dead. This Cerinthus lived in the Apostles time, if we beleeue 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 dyed 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 Iesus 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? 
Si autem et baptizantur quidam pro mortuis, videbimus an ratione; certè illa praesumptione hoc eos instituisse contendit, qua alij etiam vicarium baptismae profuturum existimarent ad spem resurrectionis.  So the Apostle sheweth 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 vpon this opinion, whereby they thought that baptism received for another, should be profitable to an other 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 Chrysostome in his fortieth homily vpon 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 Iesus Christ speaking against the sin of the holy Ghost, saith, It shall not be forgiue● him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. The world to come,( our Aduersaries say) is the fire of purgatory. But how is that possible? seeing that( if we may beleeue it) purgatory was before Christ was born? 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 haue that world to come wherein sins are pardonned, to be purgatory, seeing that purgatory is a torment and a punishment? and that( according to their doctrine) sin is pardonned before the souls enter into purgatory?  
The sense of this place is clear, not to pardon sin is to punish it. Then Iesus Christ declareth that God will punish the sin against the holy Ghost in this life, and at the day of Iudgement, 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 Iesus Christ. And if any man build on this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay or stubble, every mans work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is: If any mans work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive wages: If any mans work burn; he shall lose, but he shall be saved himself, yet so as it were by fire. Our Aduersaries will haue this fire to be purgatory.  
I answer, first, That we can ground no doctrine vpon allegorical places: Secondly, That seeing our Aduersaries understand the words, wood hay, stubble, or silver, allegorically, there is no reason to take the onely word Fire properly; specially seeing that that is the onely 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 shalbe made manifest: but what is done in purgatory is not manifest. Fiftly, Of every mans 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 Iesus 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 Iesus 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 honour, and glory and power, be unto him that sitteth vpon 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 appearance and likelihood, that by those which are under the earth, is understood those whose bodies are in the graues, or those that are in hell: for all men both good and bad shall bow their knees before Iesus Christ at the day of iudgement, and shall humble themselves in his presence. For Saint Paul in that place to the Philippians speaketh of the kingdom given to Iesus Christ over all creatures without exception. As also in Rom. 14.10.11, where God saith thus, For we shall all appear before the iudgement 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, appear before the iudgement seat of Christ, and to bow the knee before God; for one selfe 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 abominable. 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 lambs book of life. Then those unclean are the abominable and liars, and such as are not written in the book of life. Not therefore the souls of the faithful, which haue no need to be put in the crurible or into the fire to be purified. For the blood of Iesus Christ purgeth them from all sin. 1. joh. 1.7.  
The rest of the places which they allege, haue so little show, that we think our aduersaries 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 Sion, 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. Coueteousnesse 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.  
We haue al●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 haue also seen how prayer for the dead practised 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 justine Martyrs works, saith thus in the 75. question: 
{αβγδ}.  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: 
Aeui temporalis fine completo ad aeterna vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitiae diuidimur.  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: 

Quando istine excessum fuerit, nullus iam locus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis effectus.  
Ad immortalitatem sub ipsa morte transitur.   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 vpon 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, 
Deus tibi de hoc mundo recedenti aeternitatem pollicetur atque aeternitatem,& tu dubitas? hoc est Deum omnino non nosse.  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 shouldst. 
Non exitus said transitus& temporali itinere decurso ad aeterna transgressus.  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, sith our friends haue put on white robes. And there speaking of the day of death, he saith, 
Amplectamur diem qui singulos assignet domicilio suo, qui nos istinc ereptos,& laqueis secularibus exutos, Paradiso restituit& regno coelesti.  Let us embrace that day which putteth every man in his house, which having drawn us from hence, and vnburthened us of the snares of this world putteth us into Paradise, and into the heavenly kingdom.  
Saint jerome vpon the ninth of Amos saith, 
Quando anima vinculis laxata corporis, volandi quò velit siue quò ire compellitur propter tenuitatem substantiae habuerit libertatem, aut ad inferna ducetur, aut certè ad coelestia subleuabitur.  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 
Can. In praesenti.  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 iudgement seat of Iesus Christ, neither job, nor Daniel, nor Noe can pray for any man, but every man shall bear his own burden.  
gregory Nazianzen in the Epitaph vpon his brother Caesarius saith, 
{αβγδ}.  I beleeue 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, 
Insipientes mortem quasi summum malum reformidant, sapientes quasi requiem post labores& finem malorum expetunt.  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, 
cum dies aduenerit, intrepidè ad Abraham patrem nostrum proficiscamur, intrepide pergamus ad illum coetum iustorumque conuentum. Ibimus enim ad patres nostros, ibimus ad illos nostrae fidei praeceptores, vt etiansi opera desint, fides opituletur, defendatur haereditas,  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 vs. 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 Nouatians, saith, In the world to come after man is dead, there is no more help by fasting, no more calling for penance, no more giuing of alms. And then he addeth, 
{αβγδ}.  The barns are shut up, the time is accomplished, the combat is ended, the place of the lists is empty, and the crownes 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.  
Chrysostome in the second homily of Lazarus, saith, 
{αβγδ}.  While we are here on earth we haue faire hopes, but as soon as we haue left this world, it is no more in our power to do penance, nor to undo or amend that which we haue committed and done vpon earth. And in his 75. homily vpon Saint matthew he saith, That penance after death is unprofitable.  
And in his fourth homily vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes, speaking of hymns and Prayers which in his time were said at burials of the dead, he saith. 
{αβγδ}.  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 thankes, because he hath crwoned the dead, and delivered him from all pain and grief?  
And in his 22. homily vpon Saint matthew, he chideth those which weep for the dead, 
{αβγδ}.  Because( saith he) death is an haven of safety. And in the same homily he saith, Why dost thou call the poor after the death of thy friend, why dost 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 dost him wrong, raisin storms against him, when he is safely arrived at the haven?  
Gregory Nissen in his book of those that sleep, saith, 
Per mortem soluto bello, quod in nobis est pacemmens agitat. Postea quam dolor mortis ad alteram vitam hominibus quasi obstetricata fuerit.  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 iudgement, which( according to the opinion of the ancient Fathers) must purge all men, yea, and the virgin mary, as we haue proved before. Sometimes also the Fathers call 
Aug lib. 21. de civitate Dei cap. 13. Nos in hac mortali vita esse quasdam purgatorias poenas confitemur.  the afflictions of this life a purging fire: Saint Cyprian in the second Epistle of his fourth book, calleth ecclesiastical penance imposed vpon 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, 
Scitote quod cum anima à corpore euellitur, aut in Paradiso pro meritis bonis collocatur, aut certè pro peccatis in inferni tartara praecipitatur.  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 margin these words are set, ubi nunc purgatorium? And in the second Sermon of the Consolation of the dead, which is in the ninth tome of Saint Augustines works, cap. 1, he saith: 
Recedens anima ab angels suscipitur,& collocatur aut in sinu Abrahae si fidelis est, aut in carceris inferni custodia si peccatrix est.  The soul going out of the body is received by the Angels, and placed in Abrahams bosom if it be faithful, or in the infernal prison of hell if it be sinful.  
In the eighteen Sermon of the words of the Apostle he saith, 
Duae sunt habitationes, vna in igne aeterno, altera in regno aeterno.  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, 
Nemo se decipiat, fratres, dvo enim loca sunt& tertius non est vllus. Qui cum Christo regnare non meruerit, cum diabolo absque dubitatione vlla perihit.  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 divell in hell.  
In the book of the Desert of sins, and of pardon thereof, cap. 28. He saith, 
Nec est vllus ulli medius locus vt posset esse nisi cum diabolo qui non est cum Christo.  There is no middle way, in such manner that he which dwelleth not with Iesus Christ, must dwell elsewhere with the divell. 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 haue 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 manuel to Larentius, cap. 68. he saith, That that fire which proveth every mans 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, 
Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est,& vtrum ita sit quaeri potest,& aut inveniri aut later non nullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium. Quanto magis minusue bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusque salvari.  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 affencted the things of this world. He doubteth whether he should beleeue this purgation by fire, which many ancient Fathers referred to the day of iudgement.  
And in the book of the eight questions propounded by Dulitius, in the first question, he saith, Whether men suffer afflictions onely in this life, or whether after this life some such punishments ensue, it is not a thing( as I think) far from the appearance 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 haue 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 iudgement: but in the 21 book and 16 chapter he is of a contrary mind, and saith, 
Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque judicium.  That we must beleeue that there are no purging pains, but those that are before the latter iudgement. Which makes me beleeue 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 selfe 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 vpon job, cap. 20, where he saith, 
Quia authoris nostri gratia redempti sumus hoc iam coelestis muneris habemus, vt cum de carnis nostrae habitatione subtrahimur, mox ad coelestia praemia ducamur.  Because we are redeemed by the grace of our creator, we haue 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.  
The fire of Purgatory being in this manner quenched, Indulgences or pardons whereby the Pope draweth souls out of this fire, grow could. 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 labour. 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 Iesus 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 Iesus 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 beleeue he would be hardly bestead: for that the high Priests in the old Testament did not gather together the superabundant satisfactions of Noe 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 Iesus Christ, nor the Apostles, nor yet the ancient Church for many yeares 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 vpon the Canon of the mass, and cardinal Caietan in the beginning of the book of Indulgences, aclowledge, 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 deuotions should not haue the same pardon. And in this, that when the day of jubilee is at Rome, those that are near thereunto haue 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 jubilee 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) giuing eighteen thousand yeares of pardon, and as many times forty dayes, and some dayes more: there wanted nothing but houres and minutes. And in this, that he throws pardons abroad like a handful of crownes among the press, as when he throws a thousand yeares of pardon among the press of the people vpon the day of his Coronation.  
But specially and above all, it is an admirable thing, that Iesus 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 Iesus Christ doth not exempt the faithful from sickness and other afflictions in this present life. For the intercession of Iesus 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. Christs 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 haue them to beleeue that he draws souls out of Purgatory. Wherein he manifestly exalts himself above God: for if it be Gods 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 unbind and loose vpon earth. Put the case that this were likewise said of the Pope, yet that place speaketh not of losing under the earth; the power of the keys extendeth not to the dead.   

Of Single life, or perpetual abstinence from marriage.  
To begin this question we declare and avouch, that we honour and much esteem constant virginity, and aclowledge, that it hath many advantages above marriage. And that a man which is not married, if he be chast 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 cumbered 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 onely to continent and constant virginity, 
Hieron. lib. 1. cont. jovinian. Illa virginitas hostia est Christo, cuius nec mentem cogitatio, nec carnem libido maculauit. Ambr. li. 3. de virginib. Non sola carnis virginem facit, said etiam mentis integritas.  which is not onely 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 virginity ought not in any sort to prejudice Marriage, ordained by God in Paradise, and which Iesus Christ would honour with his presence: who also would be born of a virgin, but yet contracted, and under shadow of marriage, to honour virginity without dishonouring 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 haue banded themselves, and haue invented a thousand means to make it odious. Pope 
Can. Proposuisti. nec eos ad sacra officia fas sit admittere, qui exercent cum vxoribus carnal consortium quia scriptum est, Sancti estote quoniam ego sum sanctus.  Innocent in Distinction 82. forbids 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 holinesse were disagreeing with marriage; or as if the commandement to be holy, belonged onely to ecclesiastical persons. There also he groundeth single life vpon the place of Scripture, Titus 1.15. which saith, Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and vnbeleeuing nothing is pure. And vpon 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, 
Can. Plurimos.  We understand that diuers Priests and Deacons long time since their consecrations haue begotten children, not onely in marriage, but in adultery. And a little while after, he calleth both the one and the other 
Quisquis ille est sectaetor libidinum, praeceptor vitiorum. Epiphan. Anchorato. {αβγδ}.  Sectaries of adultery, and teachers of vices. Which the Apostle to the Hebrews did not beleeue, 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 mary. 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 Iesuite Emmanuel Sà in his aphorisms, at the word 
Episcopus potest procedere contra quencunque ob peccatum mor cale, nisi esset jure permissum, vt meretricum.  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 haue been twice married are not admitted to the Priesthood; yet he is not irregular that hath had diuers concubines, 
Extra. De Bigamis, cap. Quia circa. postulasti per sedem apostolicam edoceri, se presbyteri plures concubinas habentes bigami censeantur. Ad quod duximus respondendum, quod cum irregularitatem non incurrerint bigamiae, cum eis tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis, quod ad executionem sacerdotalis officij poteris dispensare.  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 
Can. de Syracusanae Superstes uxor aut filii per quos Ecclesiastica solet periclitari substantia.  gregory the first saith in the 28. Distinction. By the like policy where any profit may be procured to the Popes and Prelates, they haue 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 haue 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 haue no commandement from God touching the same. 
Thomas 2. 2. Quaest. 88. Art. 11.  Thomas, and after him Bellarmine, in the first book of Clerkes, 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 haue heard before, and experience witnesseth the same, that this human commandement is inviolably observed, but that adultery is permitted, and the stews established in Rome, by the Popes permission, contrary to the commandement of God.  
2 The Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.2. saith, To avoid fornication, let every man haue his wife, and every woman haue her own huslband. Note, every one: to the end that spiritual persons should not be exempted. And to avoid fornication. Then this commandement is made to spiritual persons subject to fornication.  
3 In the same chapter verse ninth, it is said; But if they can not abstain, let them marry, for it is better to mary then to burn. Then an vnchast 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 commandements, or that which he maketh to the Church, without the commandement 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 ourselves, 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 commandement of God, the fault is esteemed a thousand times less? I say, that adultery committed by a priest, not onely 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 commandement 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 mary, 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 haue persons that haue 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 Gods 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 Nunnes at twelve yeares, and their sons monks at fourteen yeares 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 flamme. 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 vpon many men. The unchaste life of the most part of those that make this vow, sufficiently sheweth it. To quench natural affections, we must haue 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 haue that gift, he addeth. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that.  
8 Whereupon Bellarmine confesseth, 
Lib. 2 de Monac. cap. 31.  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 Iesus 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 Esay, &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 haue examples of the Prophets extraordinarily and miraculously inspired, and endued with the Spirit of God; as Moses, Samuel, Esay, &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 haue 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 vpon 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 dayes 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 dayes before the publication of the Law. And that which the Apostle 1. corinth. 7.5. saith, Defraud not one another, except it be with consent for 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, 
{αβγδ}.  that Peter and Paul, and the rest of the A●●stles were married. Saint Ambrose vpon the 11 chapter of the 
Omnes Apostoli excepto when et Paulo uxores habuerunt.  2. Corinthians saith, All the Apostles, except John and Paul, had wives. Clemens Alexandrinus in his third of storm. saith, 
{αβγδ}. &c.  Do they reject the Apostles? For Peter and Philip begot 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 beleeue 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 the 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 Aduersaries answer, and say, that it is true, that those holy seruants 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 haue thought, when Iesus Christ call●d them, if he had laid that necessity vpon them to abstain from their wives? Who doubts that the high Priests and the pharisees that sifted him so narrowly, would not haue persecuted him therefore, as having imposed a yoke vpon 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 Iesus Christ, Matth. 19.27. We haue forsaken all, and followed thee: To whom Iesus 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 onely 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 Iesus Christ, or forsaking that vocation whereunto God hath called them. In that case God will haue 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 Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ had said that to his Apostles, they did not leave the propriety and use of their fisher boats, nor Saint John of his house, whereinto he received the virgin Mary after the death of Christ our Lord.  
15 To be short, touching this matter we haue the express prohibition of our Lord Iesus 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 onely from the obedience of that commandement? And if they must haue abstained from their wives, would they haue kept them with them? this could not h●ue been without offence. Whither would they haue driven them away, and separated them from their children, but there would haue 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 divels: which speak lies through hypocrisy,& haue 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 itself.  
whereunto I answer, that there is no prohibition in the word of God which a man may not shift off by the same means. So theeues 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 haue to do with many men, but not to haue 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 vpon 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 commandement 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 selfe same danger by diverse means: one selfe same error may enter and be grounded in mens 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 holinesse.  
17 The same Apostle in the 1. Tim. 3.2. saith, A Bishop must be vnreproueable, 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 lye, under a colour 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 haue a Bishop to haue 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 haue wives, and not of those that haue none as being dead. For the Apostle instructeth not dead women, but instructeth Bishops wives, lest that by their vices they should dishonour their busbands vocation. Pope lo the first, in his 85. Epistle understood it so: saying. The Apostle saith, 
Dicente Apostolo vt Episcopus ordinetur quem unius uxoris virum fuisse aut esse constiterit.  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 onely forbiddeth a Bishop to haue two wives, for that as then polygamy, or the having of many wives together, was used among the Iewes, as Iosephus in the 17 book of his Antiquities, cap. 1. witnesseth saying: 
{αβγδ}.  It is the manner of our country to haue many wives together; and then Herod had nine wives. Saint jerome to Oceanus saith the same. Theodoret vpon this place saith the same both of the Greekes and the Iewes. look also in Chrysostome in his 10. homily vpon the 1. to timothy.  
A man may haue 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 Iesus Christ in matthew 19.9. declareth, that marriage cannot lawfully be dissolved, unless it be for adultery. In this latter manner a woman may haue two husbands, if she haue 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, 
Illustres quaedam ac nobiles foeminae non consulum numero said maritorum annos suos computant& exeunt matrimonij causa, nubunt repudij.  That they reckoned their yeares, not by the Consuls, but by the number of their husbands. Cicero 
Soror Triarij diuertium sine causa fecit, nuptura est Decio Bruto.  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 marshal: 
— Veterem Proculeia maritum  
Deseris atque jubes res sibi habere suas 
Vide Sixtum Senensem lib. 6. in expositione 1. Capitis ad Titum Annot. 318& 325.    
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. yeares 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 beleeue 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 ratione. The words are these: 
Hac ratione Apostoli praeceperunt secundas adire nuptias, propter incontinentiam hominum. Non secundam quidem accipere secundúm praeceptum Apostoli licitum est: secundùm autem veritatis rationem verè fornicatio est. said cum permittente Deo publicè& licenter committitur, fit honestè fornicatio.  By this means also the Apostle commanded to marry again, because of the incontinency of men. For according to the Apostles commandement, 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 licence, he committeth an honest adultery. Some 
The Iesuite bail Quest. 23. of his catechism.  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 Iesus Christ. For it is certain, that it was not by constraint, nor for want of other means, that he choose his Apostles which were married men, namely Saint Peter, seeing he had the hearts of all men in his power, and could invest the most incapable persons with sufficient graces to that end. And if at this day those onely which are endowed 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, Haue 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 necessary in the way, and to supply their wants. Such as the women were that followed Iesus Christ, who having been healed by him, did minister to him of their substance, Luke 8.2.3.  
But Pope lo 9( who by the prerogative of his seat hath the gift not to err) in the 31 Distinction of the Canon Omnino, 
Omnino confitemur non licere Episcopo vxorem abijcere à cura sua. said vt ei victum& vestitum largiatur, said non vt cum ea carnaliter ex more iaceat. Sicut sanctos Apostolos legimus egisse, beato Apostolo dicente: Nunquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi?  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 uxores 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& apostles nubere,& uxores circumducere: licebat& de evangelio vivere. It was permitted to the Apostles to marry, and lead their wives about with them, and to live of the gospel.  
Reason itself without any other proof overthroweth Bellarmines exposition. For such women could not haue followed the Apostles honestly and without suspicion. Those women that followed Iesus 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 galilee to jerusalem, whereunto Iesus 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 haue permitted. They would rather haue paid the charges of some seruants to haue followed the Apostles in their journeys.  
The Apostles words take away all difficulty: for such women would haue followed the Apostles by charity, and not by any power which the Apostles had over them: for the Apostle saith: Haue I not power to lead about a wife being a sister? He would rather haue said in the plural number: Haue I not power to lead about women being sisters? For such duties of charity and domestical services, are more easily and honestly performed by diuers women.  
19 Among many mean objections of our aduersaries, I see but one that hath any show or colour. The Apostle, 1. Tim. 5.11.12. saith, But refuse the younger widows, for when they haue begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they haue broken their first faith. In this place the Apostle speaks of certain widows which then took the charge vpon them of ministration, or being seruants to the Church, to relieve the sick, and to succour the poor, Those women entering into that charge voluntarily, promised to end their dayes 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 vpon 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 persever 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 haue ●●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 yeares 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 haue none but old women of 60 yeares 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 haue 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 pus 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 sheweth.   

Of the Difference of meats.  ARNOVX. 
I thought not to haue proceeded any further, but that these Ministers producing no place of Scripture for their Article, I determined to set down a number of places whereof their books are full, for a proof of every one of these points. But for that the places noted in the margin of this Article are distinctly set down against abstinence from meats, I am content onely to produce this place, Act. 15.28. For it seemed good unto the Spirit, and to us that you should abstain from blood and from things strangled. Did this counsel proceed from Sathans forge? And may not the same Spirit by the Church prescribe fasting and abstinence from meats for some good end?  moulin. 
The holy Scripture commendeth fasting, and recommendeth it unto the faithful, but yet ordaineth no certain dayes to fast, as Saint 
Quibus diebus non oporteat jeiunare,& quibus oporteat, praecepto Domini aut Apostolorum non invenio definitum.  Augustine in his 86 Epistle saith.  
1 Touching the distinction of meats, and the forbidding to use certain kinds of meats, the Apostle Saint Paul expressly condemneth it, 1. Tim. 4.1. where he calleth forbidding of meats a doctrine of divels.  
They think to avoid this, by saying that the Apostle speaketh not of those who abstain from certain meats with humility and to tame their flesh: but of those that esteemed meats to be polluted& abominable. That was long ago the pretence of those to whom the Apostle spake, and which in his time erred in that point, saying, eat not, touch not, taste not, as the Apostle, Coloss. 2.20. saith, Why, as though you lived in the world, are ye burdened with traditions? as, touch not, taste not, handle not. which all perish with the using, and are after the commandements and doctrines of men? Then he addeth that which made the prohibition of meats, to those that forbade it to seem plausible, saying, Which things haue indeed a show of wisdom in voluntary religion and humbleness of mind, and in not sparing the body, not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. This is justly the words and allegations of our Aduersaries, and the ends for the which they ordain and establish the distinction of meats, which nevertheless the Apostle rejecteth, calling them Commandements and Doctrines of men. It makes no difference whether he speaketh to the Iewes or to the Gentiles, seeing that generally he condemneth those that abstain from meats with humility and by exercise.  
Such also was the 
Aduersus Psychicos.  excuse of Tertullian a Montanist, in his book contra Psychicos: for so he calleth true and faithful Christians, because they fasted not enough, and as often as he would haue them, and abstained not from flesh and liquid things, and would haue fastings to be free at mens choice; and against him objected this place of the Apostle, which putteth the prohibition of meats among the doctrines of divels. To whom this Montanist answereth thus, and saith in his 15. chap. The Apostle condemneth those which commanded to abstain from meats. 
Reprobat etiam illos qui iubebant cibis abstinere, said de prouidentia Spiritus sanctus praedamnans iam haereticos perpetuam abstinentiam praecepturos ad destruenda& despicienda opera creatoris.  But it is, because the holy Spirit, by his wisdom and fore-sight condemned those heretics before they came, that would command a perpetual abstinence, to destroy and despise the works of the Creator. And again: We abstain from meats, which we reject not, but surcease from the use of them for a time. And a little after he saith, 
Ita scie bat quosdam castigatores& interdictores victus incusare qui ex fastidio, non qui ex officio abstinentur.  The Apostle accused certain correctors and forbidders of meats, which abstained from them with disdain and not of duty  
Such was the excuse of Eustachius Bishop of Sebastia in armoniac, as Sozomenus saith in the 13. chapter of his third book in the Preface of the council of Gangres, which is found in the greek Canons published by Du Tillet. In which council this Eustachius being reproved, because he had introduced certain distinctions of meats and apparel, he excused himself, and said, 
{αβγδ}.  That he had not introduced those things vpon a presumptuous opinion but as an holy discipline, according to godliness.  
And if we would be over rigorous herein, we could not want proofs good store, to let you see how the Church of Rome hath traveled and laboured, to make certain meats abominable among Christians. For Pope gregory the second, in an Epistle to Boniface Archbishop of Mentz, 
Agrestem Caballum aliquantos adiunxisti comedere, plerosque& domesticum. Hoc nequaquam fieri deinceps sanctissime frater sinas, said quibus poteris modis per omnia compesce& dignam eis indicito poenitentiam, immundum enim est& execrabile.  commandeth to suppress those, and to force them to do penance, which had eaten wild or domestical horses, for that( saith he) is unclean and execrable. And Zacharias his successor writing to the same Boniface, forbiddeth Christians to eat Iayes, crows, storks, Beauers, Hares, and wild Horses. And I cannot imagine to what end that custom is used, to carry meate into the Church before Easter to conjure it, if it be not thereby to take away the pollution, or to drive away the divell from it.  
2 The said Apostle in the same chapter, 16. verse, saith, Let no man therefore condemn you in meate and drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath dayes. Then why doth the Church of Rome condemn us for not observing their prohibitions of meats, and for not keeping those holy dayes which they ordain?  
3 The said Apostle in 1. Cor. 10.25. saith, whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat ye, and ask no question for conscience sake; for the earth is the Lords, and all that therein is. If any of them which beleeue not, call you to a feast, and if you will go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. What can be more expressly said? The Church of Rome esteemeth us to be heretics and placeth us among the rank of infidels. Now if we should bid one of the Church of Rome to a dinner or supper, would he eat of all things that should be set before him vpon a fish or fasting day? would he without scrupulosity eat of every thing there?  
4 But is it credible that Iesus Christ hath by the gospel abolished the distinctions of meats in the Law of Moses, to establish other distinctions, and to make prohibitions that are a thousand times more troublesone? and for one fasting day that was under the Law, to establish fifty under the gospel?  
5 The Apostle Saint Paul 1. Cor. 8.8. saith, Meate maketh us not acceptable to God, for neither if we eat haue we the more, neither if we eat not, haue we the less. And Rom. 14.17. The kingdom of God is not meate nor drink, but righteousness, and peace, and ioy in the holy Ghost.  
And generally of all such observations, Saint Paul 1. Tim. 4.8. saith, For bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness is profitable unto all things, which hath the promise of the life present, and of that that is to come.  
All this which we said before, is not spoken to condemn fasting, nor the observation of ecclesiastical fasts, ordinary or extraordinary; onely we seek to take away and abolish the opinion of merites and satisfactions thereby. And make fasting to consist in abstinence and sobriety, and not in distinction of meats, commanded by a man to whom God hath not given that power, and that under pretence of abstinence establisheth his Empire, and layeth a yoke vpon mens consciences contrary to the word of God. We also condemn not that man, who to ease and tame the motions and prouocatiots of his desires or concucupiscences, abstaineth from wine or from certain meats; so his fasting be voluntary, and not scrupulous, nor with opinion of merit or satisfaction, nor by command usurped over him by any man. Such was Daniels fast, abstaining from wine, flesh, and pleasant bread, Daniel 10.3. for there was no law in Israel touching such abstinence.  
Therefore it is in vain here to make discourses in the praise of fasting and of sobriety, which we know to be the nurses of virtues, guardians of chastity, and provocations to watchfulness. In the composing of mans body, God placed the brains far from the belly, to the end that the kitchen of the body should be far from the Study, and that the savour of meats should not interrupt meditation. For nothing more troubleth holy cogitations then the tumult of concucupiscences, stirred up and kindled by drunkenness or gluttony. Nothing is harder to be brought to the fear of God, then a man who better relisheth sweet sauces then wholesome instructions, and hath a better palate then brain. Therefore the Scripture oftentimes joineth fasting with prayer, that prayer might sanctify fasting: and that fasting might kindle prayer. So Anna, Luke 2.37. and Cornelius Acts 10.4. served God in fastings and prayers. And Iesus Christ telleth us of a certain kind of spirits, which are not driven out but by fasting and prayer, mat. 17.21.  
The ancient Christians were much given to this exercise, abstaining from lawful things, that they might the easier avoid unlawful things. They sought to make diuers necessary things to become superfluous unto them, whereas to those that are voluptuous, superfluous things become necessary.  
But the Church of Rome hath changed this exercise into a scrupulosity, and this abstinence into a distinction of meats, which are more carefully observed then the Law of God. For adultery, fornication, murder, and perjury, ordinary priests give absolutions: but he that confesseth that he hath eaten flesh in an Ember week, is sent to a penitentiary, because the absolution of so great a sin is not in the power of ordinary priests.  
He that hath never so little tasted of flesh in Lent, hath broken the fast, but not he that hath filled his gorge with fish and banqueting stuff, &c. And the number of these obseruatiue fasts are so great, that they almost take up six moneths in the year. Fasting that should be an exercise of humility, is become an occasion of pride, and an opinion of merit and of satisfaction: not onely for him that fasteth, but also for others. Bellarmine in his second book of Good works, chap. 11. goeth about to prove that fasting is satisfaction for sins, and meritorious for life eternal. And cardinal Tolet, in his sixth book of the Instruction of Priests, saith, that fasting is satisfactio pro poenis peccatorum, that is, a satisfaction for pains due for sins: which satisfaction he saith to be meritorious for grace, and an augmentation of glory. Fasting should serve for a confession of sins, but at this day it serveth to establish merits, according to the example of the pharisee, which boasted of his fasting before God, and therefore was rejected, Luke 18.12. How pleasing a prayer do you think it would be unto God, if a man should say, Lord I haue deserved life eternal, for I haue not dined? Or why shouldst thou punish me for my sins, seeing I haue satisfied for them, by abstaining from eating of eggs and cheese? Yet this is but a small matter, for it is said that some fast oftener then they should do to satisfy for their sins, and so there is a superabundance in their satisfaction. Then God owes them something which he is to return back again, that that surplusage might serve for others. And eating nothing but fish, a man may satisfy for others. Thereupon Tolet saith, 
De instructione sacerdotali, lib. 2. cap. 8. Si ieiuno pro quatuor, non minus prodest ad satisfactionem singulis quàm vm prodesset si pro uno tantum ieiuuassem.  If I fast for four persons, I satisfy as much for every one of them, as if I fasted but for one. See the Canon ainae, in the 13. Cause, second Question. And to fill up the measure of this abuse, fastings are redeemed by money, as it is said in the Distinction 82. in the Canon Presbyteri. And in the gloss vpon the same Canon, he may give a penny to redeem or buy out the fast. For certainly he must of force be light of belief, that believeth that God delivereth a man out of Purgatory, because his neighbour did not dine. If the fastings of living men refresh the dead, then feasts made by those that are alive must also burn the dead.  
I confess that God oftentimes granteth his aid and deliverance to those that fast: but it is a great abuse, to attribute that to the merit of fasting which is granted to faith and to prayer which sanctifieth the fast, without which fasting is either a diet for sick persons, or a want to those that are hungry, or an hypocritical abstinence. Fasting serveth to obtain, and not to satisfy.  
To cover this abuse M. Arnoux onely addeth a place out of the 15. of the Acts, where the Apostles assembled together in council in jerusalem, commanded the Gentiles that were converted to the faith, to abstain from blood and from things that are strangled. But the Apostle Saint Paul which was at that council, and knew the Apostles meaning, taketh away that defence, 1. Cor. 10.27. where he saith, If any of them which beleeue not, call you to a feast, and if you will go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. Now it might be that in infidels houses they se●ued strangled fowles vpon the table, or something wherein there was blood. showing thereby that such prohibitions were made, to the end that the Gentiles should not give offence to the Iewes then newly converted to the profession of Christ, and by little and little to bring them thereunto, and to bury the legal ceremonies with honour. Now the Apostle having planted the gospel in Corinth, Acts 18. and after going to Philippi, from thence wrote to the Corinthians: whereby it appeareth, that Saint Paul wrote that Epistle long time after that council was holden in jerusalem, spoken of in Acts 15.  
diverse ancient Churches having not well considered thereon, most exactly observed abstinence from blood and things that were strangled, as 
Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulus esculentis habemus.  Tertullian in the ninth Chapter of his apology witnesseth. The council of Gangres in the second Canon speaketh of blood, and things that are strangled, as of things esteemed to be unlawful. The same prohibition is found in the 67. Canon, of the sixteenth council assembled in the palace of Constantinople. The like also is found in the councils of worms and of Orleans But Saint Augustine, better instructed in the holy Scriptures, explaineth this point in the 32 book against Faustus, cap. 13. saying: The 
Flegisse mihi videntur Apostoli pro tempore rem facilem, in qua cum Israelitis gentes aliquid communiter obseruarent. Quis iam hoc Christianus observat vt turdos vel minutiores auiculas non attingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est? Et qui fortè pauci ista tangere formidant â caeteris irridentur.  Apostles to accommodate themselves to the time, choose an easy thing, wherein the Gentiles should conioyntly observe something with the Israelites. And after addeth, What Christian is there, who at this time will observe the not touching of Thrushes, or other little birds, whose blood hath not been  shed? and a few persons that make scruple of these things are mocked by others, The Church of Rome is of the same iudgement, knowing well that the Apostles established those prohibitions for a time, and not for a perpetual rule. But she is much to be condemned herein, for having in stead of those two prohibitions, established many other more grievous. Certainly, if the Christian Church had need of any observations touching the distinction of meats, it were much better to haue revived the abstinences observed in the Apostles time, rather then to forge a multitude of others, a thousand times more painful, and contrary to the practise of the Apostles and of Iesus Christ himself, who in the week before Easter usually did eat the paschal lamb.    

THE XXV. ARTICLE.  Because we do not enjoy Iesus Christ but by the gospel, we beleeue that the order of the Church which hath been established by his authority, ought to be sacred and inviolable, and that therefore the Church cannot consist, unless there be Pastors which haue the charge to teach, who ought to be honoured and reverenced when they are duly called thereunto, and faith fully execute their offices. Not that God is tied to such inferior aids or means, but because it pleaseth him to hold us under such a charge and bridle. Wherein we detest all fantastical persons, who as much as in them lieth, would annihilate the ministry, and the preaching of the word of God and Sacraments.  

THE XXVI. ARTICLE.  We beleeue, that no man ought to withdraw himself from it, nor to content himself with himself, but that all men together ought to keep& entertain the unity of the Church, submitting themselves to the common instruction, and to the yoke of Iesus Christ; and that wheresoever God shall haue established a true order of the Church, although Magistrates and their ordinances be contrary thereunto, and that all those that join not therewith, or separate themselves therefrom, do impugn the ordinance of God. 
M. Arnoux finds nothing in these two Articles to carp at.   

THE XXVII. ARTICLE. Of the Church.  nevertheless we beleeue, that it is necessary for us carefully and with great prudence to discern which is the true Church, because the title thereof is by many falsely usurped. We say therefore( according to the word of God,) that it is the assembly of the faithful, which agree and consent to follow the same word, and the pure religion which dependeth thereon; and which profit therein all the time of their lives, increasing and strengthening themselves in the fear of God, and proceeding forward in godliness; who though they strive never so much forward, yet they haue need to pray for the remission of their sins. Howbeit we deny not but that among the faithful there are hypocrites and reprobates, whose wickedness cannot take away the name of the true Church. ARNOVX. 
It is to put the Church clean out of sight, when they give it those marks that are as much or more obscure, and less easy to be known then the Church itself: describing it by those signs which between us and them are specially in controversy: that is, to whom belongeth pure religion, and who is the Possessor of the word. Wherein they fall into the 'vice or fault of the circled so much blamed in logic, as if they should say, Which is the true Church? That which hath pure religion. Which is pure religion? That which is in the Church. By this I know no more then I did before. Which is Peter? It is Blittry. Which is Blittry? It is Peter. This is the circled wherein they covertly hold themselves, against those that with reason blame them for being gone out of the Church, by the gate of apparences and shows of the word of God.  

Of the word Church, and the significations thereof.  moulin. 
Our adversary fats himself with the question of the visibility of the marks of the Church, with most pleasing eloquence, and that which serveth onely for quick spirits. To look better into this matter, it is necessary for us to unfold the ambiguity of the word Church.  
The word Church, is a greek word, which signifieth an assembly, and which belongeth as well to the assemblies of infidels as of the faithful. In the 26. psalm, verse 5. according to the vulgar translation it is said, 
Odiui Ecclesiam malignantium.  I haue hated the Church of evil doers. And Acts 19.32. the assembly of the Pagans crying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, is called the Church. use hath brought in a custom, that the assemblies of Christians are called Churches, and thereby were distinguished from the Synagogues of the jews, although these two words haue all one signification.  
Then to restrain ourselves to the sense wherein this word Church is taken among Christians, I say, that this word Church in the Scriptures is taken diuers ways. Sometimes the Church is taken for the whole body and assembly of the elect, and those that are predestinated to salvation, whereof some are already triumphant in heaven, others militant here on earth; the rest not yet born, but in the counsel of God are enrolled and registered to fight in Gods war in future time, and ordained to obtain the victory. Saint Peter in his 1. Epistle 2.9. calleth it a chosen generation. And because the Scripture saith, that the elect are written in the book of life, and that their names are written in heaven, the Apostle, Hebr. 12.32, calleth it, The assembly and congregation of the first born, which are written in heaven. 
Iam in corpore Christs non sunt quod est Ecclesia, quoniam non potest habere Christus membra damnata.  This Church by the Apostle is often called the body of Christ, and by consequence, false, hypocritical, and profane Christians are no part thereof: for the body of Iesus Christ hath no dead members, nor men cast off by God, as Saint Augustine in his 21 chap. 2 book against Cresconius teacheth. And in his 5 book, chap. 27 of baptism, he saith, 
Numerus ergo ille servorum, qui secundùm propositum vocati sunt de quibus dictum est, novit Dominus qui sui sunt, ipse est hortus conclusus, &c.  That the same Church which is spoken of in the Canticles, the garden enclosed, that sister and spouse &c. is the number of the righteous, which are called according to Gods decree, of whom it is said, The Lord knoweth who are his. For he that is a member of the body of Christ, cannot be a member of the divell. This Church is the spouse of Iesus Christ, to the which he hath joined himself, that he might make it a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle, to the end, that it should be holy and vnreprou●able, Ephes. 5.27. Those that are of this Church, as long as they are here on earth, are visible as they are men, but not as they are elected, for election is not discerned by the eye, but is charitably presumed vpon by profession of faith, and by good works. Out of this Church there can be no salvation.  
Sometimes by the word Church the Scripture understandeth all the assembly of those that make profession to be Christians. That is the universal visible Church, which is composed of diuers particular Churches; as in the Apostles time, the Churches of Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica, and the seven Churches spoken of in the 2 and 3 of the Apocalyps. Of these particular Churches some are purer then others, and some so impure that in them a man cannot be saved, specially when idolatry is maintained, and the doctrine of the benefit of Christ wholly corrupted therein.  
This universal visible Church is that which the Apostle 1. Tim. 3.14 calleth, the pillar and ground of truth, because the duty thereof is, to uphold and maintain the divine truth against all those that seek to corrupt and suppress the same. Which also is the duty of every particular Church. And there is no particular Church which is sound in faith, but it is a pillar, and ground of the truth.  
When we say, that out of this universal visible Church there is no salvation, we understand that no man can be saved which separateth himself from the communion of the universal Church, and liveth apart, without joining himself to any flock. nevertheless, if any man should be excluded out of the communion of the Church, by an unjust excommunication; or if any man seeking to become a Christian, and believing in Iesus Christ, is prevented by death before he can be baptized, we do not beleeue that such a man is excluded from salvation. So that as well by our Confession, as also by that of our aduersaries, in this maxim( that out of the visible Church there is no salvation) there are some exceptions to be made.  
Touching particular Churches, there is not one of them, whereof( to be saved) we must necessary be a member. If the Church of Rome were without error, yet a man might nevertheless be saved out of her. Those that shall live in other particular Churches where the gospel is purely preached, shall not be without salvation, although they had never heard of the Romish Church, because it is but a particular Church.  
Besides these three significations of the word Church, the Scripture sometimes understandeth the people to be the Church, without comprehending the Pastors of the Church therein; as when Pastors are commanded to feed the Church, Acts. 20.28.  
Sometimes also by the word Church, the Pastors onely are understood, as in these words, Tell the Church, Matth. 18.17. For Iesus Christ will haue the party offended, to go to the Pastors of the Church, to take up the matter.  
The conclusion of all this is, that the word Church in the Scripture is taken:  
1 Sometime for all the assembly of the elect.  
2 Sometime for the universal visible Church.  
3 Sometime for a particular Church.  
4 Sometime for the people onely.  
5 Sometime for the Pastors onely.  
These diuers significations of the word Church, are necessary to be remembered, for that in the ambiguity of the word the error lieth hidden, and slippeth into it like a snake into brambles& briars. And our aduersaries expressly studying to confounded this matter, take all those five significations for one,& as often as the Scripture speaketh of the Church, they will always haue it to be understood of the Church of Rome. Sometimes also by the Church they understand the Pope only as Pope Innocent the third did, who attributed the controversy between Philip Augustus king of France, and John king of England, to belong unto himself, because in the Gospel it is said, Dic Ecclesiae. In the chapter, novit. Extra. de judicijs. And cardinal Bellarmine in the second book of councils, 19 chap. saith, The Pope should tell it to the Church, that is, to himself.  
But specially in the question which M. Arnoux propoundeth touching the visibility of the Church, these distinctions are necessary, to the end that when men speak of the visible Church, they should not produce those places of Scripture that speak of the Church of the elect, which is not discerned by the eye. To the end that when we speak of the judgements and decisions of the Church, we should not speak of the Church of the elect, which is never assembled to decide any causes. And to the end that no particular Church should call itself universal, as if all the rest were nothing, or were no Churches but by her permission.  
So when men ask which are the marks of the true Church, our intent is not to speak of the Church of the elect, which hath no marks discernible by the eye. God knoweth who are his 2. Tim. 2.19. He sealeth them hy his Spirit unto the day of redemption, Ephes. 4.30. and giveth them the white ston spoken of in revelation, 2.17, which is the testimony of the Spirit of adoption which witnesseth with our spirits, that we are the children of God, Rom. 8.16. But this witness is secret, and not exposed to the sight of man.  
I say more, which is, that when we dispute of the marks of the true Church, we speak not of the universal visible Church, the marks whereof are without question. For the mark which discerneth the universal visible Church from the Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans, is the profession of christianity, and the sacrament of baptism. Then the disputation is touching the particular Churches: for that, there being diuers particular Churches disagreeing among themselves, we seek those marks whereby the true Church, that is, the pure, and orthodoxal Church( wherein a man may be saved,) is discerned from the impure, wherein there is no salvation. For by this word, true Church, we must necessary understand the pure and the sound Church. For otherwise an heretical Church may be called a true Church, even as a man that hath a canker, or a plague sore, is yet a true man.   

Whether the Church is visible, and to whom it is visible.  
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 Turkes and Iewes 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 ourselves thereunto. Infidels see the Church, as the incredulous Iewes saw our saviour, without knowing that he was the saviour: and as a young child sees a Mathematician without knowing what the Mathematicians are. 
Videmus coetum hominum qui est Ecclesia, said quod ille coetus sit ipsa vera Christi Ecclesia non videmus.  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 aclowledge 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 haue determined to enter into the same. If the universal Church were reduced but to twelve men onely, 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 judaea, 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 haue not once heard speaking of the Christian Church.  
And to rise higher, was the Church visible then when Abraham was yet in ur in Chaldea, lying in his fathers house, which was an idolater? as it is said in the 24 chapter of Iosua. 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 Achas and Manasses, when those kings made the Temple to be shut up, 
2. Chron. 29.6.7.  and when no continual sacrifice was made, and that Idols were in every town, when Vrias 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? Apocalyps. 13.3. and when the time shall come whereof our Lord Iesus 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 aduersaries say that Antichrist shall abolish the continual sacrifice, that is, the mass, if you will beleeue 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 marks of the true Church.  
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 Iesus 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 onely to hear his voice, and to persever 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 strait, we apply it to a strait Rule.  
But that displeaseth M. Arnoux, because( in his iudgement) 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 haue us to know the true sheep and disciples of Iesus Christ, that is, if they harken to his voice, and keep his word; reason giveth us a demonstrative proof, grounded vpon 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 necessary 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 Iesus Christ, that is, his nature and office, before we can know the true Church; for that faith in Iesus Christ, is of the very definition of the Church. But see here a jesuitical Doctor, that will haue us to know the true Church before we know the true doctrine: and by consequence, before we know Iesus Christ. Which is a strange conceit, to imagine that a man may know which is the true Church, without knowing Iesus 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 onely 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 haue it to be, and giveth us marks to know it by.  
Our Aduersaries themselves unwittingly say the same, as often as they allege the Scripture for themselves,& ground the authority of their Church vpon 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 haue the true Church, seeing they ground their Church vpon the Scripture.  
add hereunto, that there being diuers 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 born in an other country, or if the State should alter and be changed, he would haue 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 aclowledge the true Church, before he was instructed in the doctrine of the gospel. But on the contrary, we see that the Apostles preached Iesus Christ, and the doctrine of salvation, and that the people by belief in that doctrine joined themselves to the Church, without making any other enquiry touching the marks of the Church.  
If men haue 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 avoyde, and whereupon we must crave the aid and assistance of God, which he hath promised. But to know the true Church before we know the true doctrine, it is not onely 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 Aduersaries propound, whereby to know the true Church.   

Of false marks to know the Church: and first of the title of catholic.  
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 onely 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 haue 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 itself catholic, and the Patriarch thereof for above 900. yeares 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, Affrica, and Europe, which are parts of the universal world, should dispute among themselves to know to which of them the title of universality 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, orthodoxal, 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.  
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 aduancement of the papal Empire. For it was requisite to haue 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 red the Scripture to the people in a language which they understood not? or that hath forbidden Christians to read the holy Scriptures without special licence? or that made pictures and representations of the Trinity? or that worshipped Images? or that called the virgin Mary queen of heaven, and Lady of the world? or that believed that the Pope can dispose of Emperours 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 yeares, 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, vpon their admissions? Herein our aduersaries 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 lye, will still be a lye 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 roote. We dispute not by yeares, but by reasons; and that which at this day is called ancient, was once new. Let them tell me how many yeares are required to authorize 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.  
above and before all others, they make account of a lineal Succession, continued from the Apostles times. This mark might haue 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 vpon 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 onely 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 haue defiled that chair,& by schisms which haue oftentimes cut off the line of that pretended succession and never was knit again, as we haue 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. chairs speak not, but men speak, who not onely speak lies in chairs, but also makes use of chairs to tell lies, and seek to authorize lying by the dignity of chairs and by succession. They make a chain of sand which cannot bind mens 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 haue not the succession of Saint Peter, 
Non habent haereditatem Petri, qui fidem Petri non habent.  which haue not Saint Peters faith. So saith Saint Ambrose in his first book and sixth Chapter of Penitence.   

Of perpetual Continuance. The fourth pretended mark.  
They also bring perpetual continuance for a mark. If this mark be good, diverse Churches planted by the Apostles were false Churches, seeing they haue ceased to be Churches. And there are diuers Churches which the Church of Rome calleth heretics and schismatics, which haue 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 aduise 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 haue an ●nd.   

Of Multitude. The fifth mark.  
Our aduersaries place Multitude and greatness of number among the marks to discern the true Church. This mark makes us evidently see and perceive, that our aduersaries 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 haue the greatest to be the best. Now there is no colour to make that a mark of the true Church, wherein the true Church is surmounted by mahometans and Pagans: and much less appearance that to know the true Church we must haue a rope to measure the length and breadth of it: or to number the persons, in stead 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 Iesus Christ misreckoned himself when he called his Church a little flock, Luk. 12.32. and when he will haue 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 Iewes should haue rather followed the pharisees then Iesus 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 haue the people, so we haue the faith; they haue gold& silver, we haue faith and doctrine: this is our condition.   

Of Miracles. The sixth pretended mark.  
Of the same nature are Miracles, which they also make to be a mark of the true Church, which Iesus Christ in the later times makes to be marks of the false Church, saying, that There shall arise false Christs, 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 Iesus Christ at the latter day, Haue we not by thy name prophesied? and by thy name cast out divels? 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 Tertullians time heretics boasted and bragged that they wrought most miracles. 
Lib. de praescrip. cap. 44.  As the miracles done at the publication of the law, did still serve to authorize the law after miracles ceased in Israel; so miracles done in the publication of the gospel by Iesus Christ and the Apostles, do yet serve to authorize the gospel, although miracles haue ceased. When king josias openly shewed the book of the Law which had been suppressed, 2. Chron. 34. he had no need to do any miracle, because he shewed 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 iustice. Miracles onely wrought to drive out divels, wherein the fiction is very easy, and wherein satan taketh pleasure, makes himself sport,& coming forth of set purpose to authorize a lye. And yet that is never done before us, for in the presence of a man which feareth God, and bele●ueth in Iesus Christ, satan loseth his credit.   

Of unity, the seventh pretended mark.  
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 three 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 neighbours. 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 itself, 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 vpon 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 vpon 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 Turkes, enemies to Christians, who haue 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 Turkes& Iewes 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 Holinesse. The eighth pretended mark.  
Lastly, they put holinesse for a mark of the true Church. If they understand holinesse of manners, the Church of Rome doth not attribute this praise and commendation unto herself, but willingly confesseth the enormity of her vices. If they understand her holinesse to be in doctrine, we willingly allow of this mark. For that holinesse 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, haue lost the doctrine.   

Of the circled in disputation.  ARNOVX. 
Whereby they fall into the fault of the circled blamed in logic. Which is the true Church? That which hath true religion. Which is pure religion? That which is in the Church. I know as much now as I did before. Which is Peter? It is Blittry. Which is Blittry? It is Peter. Behold the circled wherein they covertly keep themselves, against those which with reason blame them to haue gone out of the Church by the gate of apparences of the pure word of God.  moulin. 
Aristotle in the second book Priorum Analyticorum, 5. chapter, speaketh of a circulary syllogism, which is made when after a man hath made one syllogism he makes another, wherein the conclusion of the first syllogism becomes one of the propositions, which joined with the other proposition converted, the conclusion which followeth is no other thing but the proposition of the first syllogism in place whereof the conclusion was set. Whereby it appeareth that M. Arnoux understands not what a circled in logic is: for every circled is composed of syllogisms, but this circled which M. Arnoux giveth us, is not a syllogism. Who is Peter? It is Blittry? Who is Blittry? It is Peter. Which are words of some show, and a conception fit for the Court, where mens spirits are polished. This Doctor discerneth not what difference there is between a circular syllogism and a convertible proposition: and yet in giuing us a convertible proposition, he converteth it very unfitly. The convertible proposition which he propoundeth, is, The true Church is that which hath true religion. Let us see how he converts it: which is thus: Pure religion is that which is in the Church. This is not to convert but to pervert. To convert it truly, he should say, Pure religion is that which hath the true Church, which should be an absurd proposition: whereby it appeareth, that falsely for a convertible proposition, he putteth one which cannot be converted without spoiling. Therefore he hath in such sort wrapped and entangled himself in this circled, that he himself is taken therein, as one that hath failed in his conjuration. And his conception of Peter, Blittry, and of Blittry Peter, hath no more conceit, then his imaginary circled. He also teatheth that the sensible properties of a subject, and convertible with that subject, do not cease to be marks whereby to know the subject. As in these propositions, every horse neigheth, every fire burneth, every Adamant ston draweth iron to it. Then let him not think it strange, if the pure preaching of the word be a mark of the true Church, and yet converteth with the Church. Of two convertible terms the one is ordinarily more known then the other, and a man may make use of the one, to make the other known.   

Of the Church, and of the marks.  ARNOVX. 
Places of Scripture noted in the margin of the Confession, Ephe. 2.20. Being built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. And 4.11.12. He therefore gave some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers: for the repairing of the Saints, for the work of the ministery, and for the edification of the body of Christ, and 2. Timothy 3.15. That thou hast known the holy Scriptures of a child, which are able to make thee wise to salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Iesus.  
By all these places we see that the Apostle goeth on distinguishing all the body, and the buildings of the Church, in her members and pieces, the better to instruct us touching the diversities of graces, the ordaining of charges, and the intent which God had in the establishing of so faire a monarchy. But he saith nothing of giuing purity of the word, nor the purity of religion for marks of the Church, for that such things ought rather to be known by the Church, which makes us know them.  moulin. 
Of these three places, the first is very fit to prove that which our Confession saith, which is, that the true Church is that which comformeth herself to the word of God. For, whosoever groundeth himself vpon the Prophets and the Apostles, of necessity will conform himself to their words, and will follow their instructions. And note, that there Saint Paul speaks of the body of the Church, which he likeneth to a building, saying, In whom all the building coupled together, groweth unto an holy temple of the Lord. Thē if the Church be grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles, the doctrine of the Apostles must go first; and that as the true Church is grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles, so the knowledge of the true Church, should be grounded vpon the knowledge of the Apostles doctrine.  
The second place also is very fit for the same purpose: for God hath not ordained Prophets, Apostles, and evangelists, to any other end, but that we should follow their word; and this subiection of the faithful consenting to obey their word, is that which ma●eth the assembly of the Saints, and the building of the body of Christ which is the Church.  
The third place is very pertinent and effectual to prove, that the knowledge of the Scriptures makes the faithful, and by consequence, the true Church wise to salvation. Now the Church cannot be made wise to salvation by the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, without following that word, and comforming itself thereunto.  
Touching M. Arnoux, who in stead of acknowledging the pure word of God to be a mark which maketh the Church known, will haue that the Church maketh known to us which is the pure doctrine: He sheweth thereby, that he conceiveth not what the state of the question is, nor the point of our difference. For the difficulty is, how among diuers Churches contrary in belief, a man may know the best, and that which propoundeth true doctrine. Therein, none of those Churches ought to be iudges, because they are parties: and therefore it is requisite and necessary, that among those parties contending together, there should be a common rule, which serveth to discern the pure Church from the impure: Now there is nothing but the word of God which is the rule of purity. I grant that the true and orthodoxal Church teacheth pure doctrine, but we are at variance which is the true orthodoxal Church, whereof we will haue God, by his word, to be judge. But the church of Rome will be judge in this cause, and will be both judge and party: and to the end that she may not be contradicted by the word of God, hideth this word from the people, and forbiddeth them to read the holy Scripture: and also saith, that she is the infallible judge of the Scripture, and of the s●nce and the authority of the Scripture. It is true that the orthodoxal Church teacheth the word of God, not as a judge, but as a witness and a guardian of the truth. But the word of God maketh the true Church to be known, with infallible authority of a judge, and ordaineth what the true Church ought to be.  
Which is so certain and true, that we should not know that God will haue a Church to be in the world, if the holy Scripture taught it not: which declaring that there must be Church, declareth also by what marks it shall be known, which is, if she hearkeneth to the voice of the good Pastor, and followeth not a stranger: John 10.4.5. And if she persevereth in the word of God, John 8.31.  
Seeing there is but one holy Scripture, it will easily make us know the pure Church: but there being many contrary Churches, unto which of them must we refer ourselves touching pure doctrine? And how will she persuade a man( who to obey the Church of Rome, dares not look into the holy Scriptures) that her doctrine is conformable to the word of God?  
If the true Church doth bear witness that this is the holy Scripture, she doth it because she is bound to say so: but God is not bound to speak to us in his holy word, which the Church must obey Now how can I know whether she obeyeth this word, if before I beleeue the Church, I do not know what the word is, nor what it commandeth to be done?  
He that hath no other proof to know the word of God, but onely because the Church telleth him so, hath but a very slight and an easy impression thereof, and a conjecture without knowledge, until such time as he himself hath tasted and comprehended the doctrine of salvation, and that God thereby hath imprinted faith and repentance in his heart.  
But now let us see, by what marks M. Arnoux will haue the universal Church to be known.   

marks whereby M. Arnoux will haue the true Church to be known.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of the Scripture. They must yield themselves to the Creed or Simboles by them received in their Confession of the faith, in the fifth Article, wherein are shewed the marks of the Church, as unity, holinesse, universality, and succession from the Apostles, &c. All drawn and taken out of the holy Scripture. One Ephes. 4.5. Holy, 1. Cor. 6.11. catholic, mark 16.15. apostolic, Psal. 10.18. Spouse of Iesus Christ, Osee 2.19. The house of God, matthew 16.18. Visible, Psal. 18.6. Pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. All these together, Cant. 4.6.8.9. He is blind and very blind which seeth not this.  moulin. 
It is a great error to think that all that which the Creed or symbols say of the Church, should be a mark whereby to know the visible Church. Saint Paul, Ephes. 5.25. saith, That Christ loved the Church. And in Canticles it is often called well-beloved. And Hebrewes 12.23. the Church is called The assembly and congregation of the first born, which is written in heaven. Would M. Arnoux haue the love which Iesus Christ beareth to his Church, or to be written in heaven, to be marks whereby to discern the visible Church? It is very true, that there is but one universal Church; but doth it therefore follow that this word one is a proper mark to know the true Church from the false? seeing also that every false Church is one? add hereunto, that M. Arnoux searcheth for the marks of the universal visible Church, but this universal Church likewise containeth the false. We haue also shewed, that unity, universality, holinesse, and the succession of the Apostles, agree not with the Church of Rome. The greek and Syrian Churches boast that they haue these marks, in such manner, that the discord still continueth, until we come to the word of God, which endeth the contention and makes the truth known. Therefore the Church of Rome hindereth the reading of it, and diminisheth the authority thereof.  
Let us see what places M. Arnoux setteth down unto vs. He saith, 
One.  that the Church is called one, in Eph. 4.5. This is the verse, There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Of the Church here is nothing spoken. 
M. Arnoux falsehood.  Thus you see already one falsehood.  
He saith that the Church is called holy, 
Holy.  1. Cor. 6.11. That also is falsely alleged. 
falsehood.  The place is thus, And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Iesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Wherein there is nothing spoken of the universal Church. For in the universal visible Church, all are not sanctified, ordinarily there are more wicked then good in it. This is a second falsehood.  
He saith that the Church is called catholic, 
catholic.  mark 16.15. This also is falsely alleged. 
falsehood.  The place is thus. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Of the Church nor of universality there is nothing spoken. It may be that he thought these words all the world,& all creatures signified the catholic Church. That is false, for by these words, Pagans and Infidels are also understood, to whom the Apostles preached, and whereof the greatest part believed not their preaching. This is the third falsehood.  
He addeth, that the Church is called apostolical, 
apostolical.  Psal. 10.18. That likewise is false, 
falsehood.  the place is thus, To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress. The lantern of Iudas which is kept in S. Denis Church might with as good reason haue been alleged to this purpose. And it is not to be imagined that there is any fault in the cipher, for in all the psalms there is nothing spoken of the apostolical Church. Then this is the fourth falsehood.  
He saith, that the Church is called the Spouse of Iesus Christ, 
Spouse of Iesus Christ.  Osee 2.19. To what purpose serves that, when here we speak of the marks of the visible Church? Is the coniunction and pensiveness of the Church with Iesus Christ a mark of the visible Church? Is that a mark which is discerned by the eye? add hereunto that this honourable title belongeth principally to the Church of the elect, to the which Iesus Christ hath joined himself, to make it a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle, Ephes. 5.27.  
He addeth further, that in Math. 16.18. the Church is called the house of God: 
House of God.  although no mention of the house of God is found in that place, yet, let us put the case that it were truly alleged. For to be the house of God is that a mark of the visible Church? Do those that are out of the Church see God dwelling therein? add hereunto, that there is no false Church which prerendeth not to be the house of God.  
He goeth on and saith, that the Church is called visible, 
In the Hebrew it is the 19. psalm& 4. verse. falsehood. Visible.  Psal. 18.5. This is most false. The true place according to the Hebrew is thus, Their line is gone out through all the the earth, and their words to the end of the world: in them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun. Of the which sun, he after describeth the beauty, swiftness, and heat, but speaketh not of the visible Church. The vulgar translation saith, In sole posuit tabernaculum suum. He hath set his tabernacle in the sun. Which corruption being received, yet therein nothing is spoken of the visible Church. saints Pagninus a Lucquois, and a jacob in Friar translateth this place as we do,& Arias Montanus a Spanish Doctor doth the like. But Sixtus Senensis keeper of the Popes library rejecteth that exposition, and saith that the true and proper sense of those words is, that God hath set a tabernacle for the sun in heaven. So here you haue a fift falsehood, and that joined with fopperie. For what appearance is there to place visiblenesse among those marks which discern the true Church from the false, seeing that the false Church also is seen, and that to be visible is also proper to a three, or to an horse? The marks whereby men discern one thing from another, ought to be proper unto them. And what makes that against us, which aclowledge the Church to be visible?  
He also saith, that the Church is called the ●round and pillar of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. which is true, for it belongeth to the Church to defend and support the truth against errors. But what is that to the purpose, when we speak of the marks of the visible Church? Is the duty of the Church without the performance a mark of the Church? How absurdly should I speak, if I should say, that one of the marks to know a virtuous man from a vicious man, is, that the virtuous man ought to be wise?  
Lastly, he saith that in Canticles 4.6.8.9. all these marks are there found together. Let the Reader peruse the places, and he shall not there find one trace or footstep of any of these marks. 
Falshoods heaped one vpon another.  Then this is the sixth falsehood. Where is conscience? Is not this an abusing of the people? Doth the Doctor in this manner contend against the places noted in the margin of our Confession, by heaping up so many falshoods in so few lines? But it is true, that lying cannot be defended but by lies, and by corrupting of the holy Scripture.    

THE XXVIII. ARTICLE. Of the Confession of faith. Whereupon M. Arnoux disputeth again of the perpetuity of the Church, and of her marks, and of Saint Peters supremacy.  In this Article we profess, that there where the word of God is not received, where they make no profession to subject themselves thereunto; and where there is no use of the Sacraments, to speak properly, we cannot affirm that there is any Church. Therefore we condemn the assemblies of the Papists, because the pure truth of God is banished from thence, wherein the Sacraments are corrupted, adulterated, falsified, or wholly amnihilated: and wherein all superstitions and idolatries haue their full swinge. We hold therefore that all those which deal in such actions& communicate therein, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Iesus Christ. nevertheless, because that as yet there resteth some small traces of a Church in the papacy, and that the substance of baptism still remaineth there: as also that the efficacy of baptism dependeth not vpon him which administereth the same: we confess, that those which are baptized therein, haue no need of a second baptism. Yet in the mean time, by reason of the corruptions that are therein, children cannot be presented thereunto without pollution. ARNOVX. 
If all that be true, the son of God is not yet come into the world, seeing that one of the principalest marks of his coming, is the destroying of Idols. Now if by their reckoning the Romish Church be idolatrous, idolatry was never in such credit, nor was so far spread abroad as it is now, nor never had larger limits then it hath, and hath had since five or six ages, from whence they derive the beginning of the corruptions of the Church.  moulin. 
By the same reason I could prove, that there are no more vices nor errors in the world, because Iesus Christ is come into the world to take them away. M. Arnoux is but ill seen in histories, if he believeth that Iesus Christ by his coming hath wholly expelled and removed idols. Seeing that since Iesus Christs time until now there hath always been an infinite number of Idolaters, as in China, India, &c. And the Senate of Rome were Pagans and Idolaters 400 yeares after Iesus Christ, as we may see by Symmachus Epistles. read revelation, 9.20. and you shall see that the Spirit of God foreshoweth, that men did not repent of the service which they did to Idols. This prophesy is not against us, which neither adore, Idols, Images, relics, nor Sacraments; but adore God onely, Father, son, and holy Ghost, and elevate our hearts and adorations up to heaven where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God: neither do we cut off the second commandement from the Law of God, wherein the service of Images in prohibited.  
The adversary is likewise misaduised to presume that the Church of Rome is not Idolatrous, because it hath a precinct largely extended. Pagans and Infidels, which are manifest idolaters, haue much greater territories. The Church is a little flock, Luke. 12.32. The gate is narrow which goeth in to life eternal, and few there are which find it, Math. 7.14. All the earth followeth the beast, revel. 13.4.  ARNOVX. 
They note no places at all. This period of wrongs offered to the spouse of the lamb, hath no proof in the Scripture.  moulin. 
Our Confession saith, that the pure word of God is banished out of the Papists assemblies. To prove it, it is not possible to allege any places out of the Scripture: for the Scripture speaketh neither of Pope nor papacy( unless by way of prophesy.) It containeth not an history of corruptions happened since the Apostles time, but onely speaketh of rules how to shun those corruptions. add hereunto, that every error of the papacy whereby the pure word of God is corrupted, is confuted by the places noted vpon the margins of our Confession; and it was not necessary nor possible to put all the places which are nored vpon the other Article, in the margin of this 28 Article.  
Touching the title of the spouse of the lamb, which M. Arnoux giveth to the Church of Rome, it agreeth ill wlth that which Bellarmine saith lib. 1. cap. 9. De Pontifice Rom. 
Ac ne fortè. Profectò si Ecclesia quae est in terris Christo secluso, non ineptè comparatur sponsae, secluso etiam Christo vnu● caput habere debet.  where he saith, That the Pope is the spouse and head of the Church, Christo secluso, Iesus Christ being excluded or set aside. This excellent title, properly belongeth to the Church of the elect, and so is this word taken, revel. 21.9. And if by analogy this title be communicated to the visible Church, it belongs not to a particular Church to attribute the same unto herself above all others,& much less to the Church of Rome, whereof the head, Reu. 17.15, is described by a woman clothed in scarlet, which sitteth in that town which hath seven hills, which maketh the kings of the earth drunk: whereof it is foreshowed, that he shall call himself God, and that he shall work signs and wonders, 2. Thess. 2. And his doctrine is noted, to wit, the forbidding of meats and marriage, 1. Tim. 4.3. read over all the histories, and run over all the earth, and see if you can find any other then the Pope of Rome, to whom these marks belong.  ARNOVX. 
On the contrary, the Prophets in all places promise the Church which was pure from errors in the beginning, perseverance in her integrity.  moulin. 
That is not so. The Prophets say no such thing: you should allege those places: for the Prophets knew well that the Church of Israel which was pure in the beginning, became idolatrous in egypt, Ezech. 20.7.8. They knew well that the children of Israel had worshipped the golden calf, Aaron himself the high Priest participating with them in the same sin. They knew well that in the time of the Iudges, the people of Israel many times left the service of God to follow idolatry. They knew that in the times of Achas and Manasses, idolarrie was erected in every town, and that Vrias the high Priest erected an idolatrous alter in the Temple, 2. Kings. 16. The Churches of jerusalem and of Antiochia were pure in their beginning, and established, the one by Iesus Christ, the other by Saint Peter; and yet the Church of Rome holdeth that they were corrupted. Why may not the like happen to the Church of Rome, which is but a particular Church, which swalloweth up the rest, and hath no particular promise that it shall never err, but rather threatenings to be cut off, if she persever not in the bountifulness of God? Rom. 11.22.  ARNOVX. 
It is therefore with the eyes of affection that the Ministers look vpon the catholic Church, and not with the eyes of ancient faith, which makes us know the same by infallible signs, as by antiquity contrary to novelty, by succession contrary to interruption: by universality, contrary to smallness of number: by uniformity, contrary to division: and by eminence of doctrine, contrary to licentiousness and impiety.  moulin. 
All this hath been examined before in the 95. Section and the rest of the Sections following, where we haue shewed, that not one of these marks belong to the Church of Rome.  

Of licentiousness and profane life.  
Touching licentiousness 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 onely 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 
This is to be seen in the 19. Session of the council of Constance.  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, vpon condition to do evil, and which maketh the grace of God to be a reward of disloyalty and wickedness. So whilst the last warres of the League in france continued, the Pope gave nine yeares of pardon to all those French-men that should revolt from the obedience of the King. Those pardons were set up vpon church doors, and on the corners of the streets.  
None but the Church of Rome, maketh God an example of injustice, and of deceitful reuenge, in this, that they teach, that God pardoneth mens faults, but not the punishment for them, quitting our debt, but not the payment of the debt. For so he that shall haue received any injury, and hath pardonned the party that did it, may, after pardon given, be revenged on him, and say, that he did pardon his offence, but not the punishment of the offence. For, why will they haue 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 subiects 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 practised the same against Fredericke Duke of Austria in the twentieth Session.  
None but the Church of Rome dispenseth with children to be disobedient and to leave the subiection to their fathers and mothers, commanded by the Law of God, when against their fathers and mothers wils, 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 iustice, and that confessions of enterprises against the lives of Kings and Princes, ought not to be revealed, 
Toletus libr. 5. de Instruct. sacerd. Cap. 1. In duobus casibus filius debet accusare patrem; in crimine laesae maiestatis,& in crimine haeresis. Suares in his book against the K. of great britain, li. 6. c. 4 saith, that the lawful successor of a King which is deposed by the Pope, ought to kill that King.  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 benefice 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 vpon his show, and to lay the holy Scripture at his seete when he cometh into councils. The practise whereof was seen in the first 
Officiales, ad pedes sanctiffimi Domini nostri iactis sacrosanctis scriptures praestiterunt corp●rale soldan.  Session of the last council of Latran.  
None but the Church of Rome permitteth fables to be red, 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 beleeue that there is no other Head of the universal Church but Iesus Christ, no other purgatory then his blood, nor other propitiatory Sacrifice then his death; and where nevertheless they let the Iewes live in peace, which affirm Iesus Christ to be a deceiver, and which for money buy liberty to blaspheme. It is an easy matter to make long and true discourses vpon 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 easilier beareth with sins for which men repent, then with righteousness proudly presumed on.  
Seeing also, that in stead 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, in stead of a filial love; and to be short, a repentance, whereof they must repent.   

Of Saint Peters supremacy.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this ston I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  
By this place, first the son of God assigneth some recompense to the notable and excellent confession of the Apostle, who first afore all others, acknowledged the natural son of God.  moulin. 
Others before Saint Peter made that confession, as Nathanael, John 1.49. Thou art that son of God, thou art that King of Israel. And all the Apostles knew that Iesus Christ was the son of God, having heard the voice of God speaking from heaven, saying, This is my well-beloved son, hear him. It was not by his own natural sense but by divine revelation, that Peter acknowledged Iesus to be the son of God; as Iesus Christ himself said unto him in the same place, Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  
This promise therefore which the Lord made unto him in this place, is an augmentation of graces, and not a recompense for merites.  ARNOVX. 
Secondly, this recompense is given to none other but to him to whom onely he addressed himself with all the circumstances which in any sort may make a discourse individual.  moulin. 
I answer with Saint Augustine, in the 118. Tractate vpon Saint John, That Saint Peter spake, that for all the Apostles, and received that for them all, as representing unity in his person: and with Saint Ambrose, vpon the 38. psalm: Quod Petro dicitur, apostles dicitur: That which was said to Saint Peter was said to the Apostles. And our Aduersaries confess that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to all the Apostles. Whereby it followeth, that Iesus Christ( in this place) promising to give the keys to Saint Peter, promised them also to the rest of the Apostles. For he spake not unto them of the keys, but in that place onely.  ARNOVX. 
Thirdly, the recompense which he assigned unto him, is a dignity of pre-eminence, seeing he saith, that he is the corner ston of the foundation whereon all the house dependeth.  moulin. 
In this place Iesus Christ giveth not any power to Peter, but onely maketh a promise thereof. And that which he here promised, he giveth and conferreth it actually vpon him, joh. 20.22.23. where Iesus Christ speaketh thus to all the Apostles, saying, As my Father sent me, so sand I you. Whosoeuers sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoeuers sins you retain, they are retained. So in the actual conferring of the power which he had promised, he made the Apostles equal. As also Matth. 18.18. he speaketh thus to all his Apostles, Verily I say unto you: whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  
And it is to be noted, that after that promise made to Saint Peter, the Apostles strove among themselves for the superiority, which they would not haue done, if they had understood, that by those words the Lord had promised the superiority to Peter, and would not haue understood the commandement of the Lord. But M. Arnoux hath a conceit, that he understandeth Iesus Christs words better then the Apostles did. Also it is false, that Iesus Christ did declare Saint Peter to be the corner ston of the Church. He saith not, supper te Petrum, but, supper hanc Petram, he saith not, Upon thee Peter, but, vpon this ston, which is clear in the greek, where it is said: {αβγδ}, and not {αβγδ}. For {αβγδ} in greek also signifieth a ston: and so the allusion had had a good grace. But the holy Ghost guiding Saint Matthewes pen, thought it better to lose the grace of that allusion, then to let us stumble at ambiguity.  
And certainly the Church of God is not grounded vpon a mortal man; it was a Church before S. Peter was, and at Saint Peters coming, it altered not the foundation. And Saint Peter being dead, the Church must of force haue changed her foundation, and thereby haue been much impaited. We are grounded vpon the same foundation whereon Saint Peter was grounded, but he was not grounded vpon himself. And if it be so, that the Church spoken of in this place, should be the Church of the elect, if Saint Peter was the foundation of the elect, he was also the foundation of the election. Now it appeareth that here the Scripture speaketh of the Church of the elect, because Iesus Christ saith, that the gates of hell, that is, the power of the divell, should not prevail against it, and by consequence that neither the divell, nor hell can cast any one of those which are of the Church, into hell. Which cannot agree with the universal visible Church, whereof satan seduceth many: 
Apocal. 13.7.  against the which the beast shall make war, and overcome it. Our aduersaries themselves say, that Antichrist shall abolish the mass, and therefore he shall prevail against the Church of Rome.  
Not that I deny, that Saint Peter may be called the foundation of the visible Church, so that by Saint Peter we understand his doctrine, in which sense the Fathers understand it. But also in this sense all the Apostles equally are foundations of the Church: as it is said, Ephes. 2.20. And are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner ston. Note these words himself expressly set down to discern Iesus Christ from the Apostles, which are not foundations themselves, but in their doctrine.  
Then this fundamental ston is Iesus Christ, confessed by S. Peter: for Iesus Christ is commonly called the ston. As 1. Cor. 10.4. The rock was Christ. And Psal. 118.22. Esay, 28.19. Rom. 9.33, and in many other places. So S. Augustine understands it in his tenth Treatise vpon the first of S. John, saying. What meaneth this, Vpon this ston I will build my Church? Vpon this faith, vpon that which hath been said, Thou art the Christ, 
supper hanc confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est. {αβγδ},  the Son of the living God. read also his 50 and 24 Treatise vpon S. John. And the 13 Sermon vpon the Words of our Lord, where he earnestly insisteth thereupon. And Saint hilary in his sixth book of the trinity: Vpon this ston of the Confession the Church is built. Chrysostome in the 55 homily vpon the 16 of Saint Matth. saith: Vpon this ston, that is, vpon the faith of the Confession. And in the Sermon of Pentecost, he said: Vpon this ston,& not upon Peter. For he built not the Church vpon men, but vpon the faith. See S. Ambrose also vpon the second to the Ephesians.   

Of Saint Peters Successors.  ARNOVX. 
This dignity which cannot die with Saint Peter, is necessary transferred to his successors, for that God never changed the form of the government, once established by divine right.  moulin. 
If Saint Peter had not the dignity to be the chief corner ston of the Church, as we haue already shewed, he had no successors in a dignity which he had not.  
But put the case that Saint Peter had been the head, and the foundation of the universal Church: doth it from thence follow, that he had a successor in that dignity? Moses was by God established to be the Prince, lawgiver, and Priest in Israel, but left no successors, because God had not so ordained it. Saint John Baptist had no successor. The rest of the Apostles had no successors in their Apostleship, why then should Saint Peter haue a successor in his? seeing that God in his Law did not ordain it to be so? and that Saint Peter in his second Epistle which he wrote unto the universal Church, doth not will Christians to aclowledge the Bishop of Rome for his successor? Was there ever any kingdom or temporal or spiritual sovereignty established in the world, without laws made touching the succession thereof, and touching the form of choosing or succeeding? Here we haue no such thing, nor no declaration of the will of God vpon this matter.  
add hereunto, that if Saint Peter was established head of the universal Church, it was then when it was little, and compounded of a small number of men, which order could not be observed when the Church began to spread abroad itself through out all the world. There are no one mans shoulders strong enough for so great a burden. It would make a mans head giddy to be lifted up so high.  
And if after Saint Peters death, there had been necessity to haue a successor in the office of the head of the universal Church, I make all men Iudges, that haue any spark of free iudgement, whether that office ought not of right to appertain to Saint John or Saint james, whom Saint Paul, Gala. 2. calleth pillars, and which outlived Saint Peter long time, rather then to defer it to Linus Saint Pauls disciple, of whom we know nothing but the name? or to Clement, who saith in his 
Can. Dilectissimis causa. 12. Quaest. 1  Epistles, That mens goods and women ought to be common, and 
Ib. 3. Constit. Apost. cap. 2. Id quod supra trigamiam sit manifesta fornicatio judicatur.  that fourth marriages are manifest fornication?  
At the least, it had been reason, and very requisite to haue done those excellent Apostles that honour to haue called them, and to haue asked their advice touching the choice of a head of the universal Church. Who will beleeue that the people of the city of Rome had the credit, of their own authority to give a head to the Church of all the world, and that during the lives of the Apostles, and without making them acquainted therewith?  
Especially after the death of all the Apostles, when by the witness of all Antiquity, Bishops, and among other the Bishop of Rome, were chosen by the voices of the people of the city: could the people of Rome give a head to the Churches of Asia, Egypt, Persia, and the Indies, without acquainting them with it? No man will beleeue it, but he that hath a mind to be deceived.  
If Saint Peter was at Rome, and there erected the Church and the bishopric, as they say, the Bishop of Rome may be called Saint Peters successor, but not in the quality of an Apostle or head of the universal Church, but in quality of the Bishop of the city of Rome, which is the highest quality which the ancient Bishops of Rome took on them in their Epistles. And yet this succession ceaseth when the doctrine begins to be corrupt.  

Pag. 120.  M. Arnoux about the end of his book, to support the Popes supremacy, allegeth a place out of the third book of Irenaeus, cap. 3. but falsified and corrupted according to his manner. He maketh Irenaeus say, that it is absolutely necessary, that all the Church should agree, and adhere to the Church of Rome, wherein the pre-eminence of principality resideth. This place is falsely alleged, M. Arnoux hath added the word adhere, which is not in Irenaeus. Also he translateth the word convenire, to agree, whereas it signifieth to arrive, or come from diuers parts to one place. To this falsehood of words he addeth a corruption of the sense. For Irenaeus by this principal pre-eminence understandeth the power of the city of Rome, because it was the imperial feat, and not the supremacy of the Bishop or of his Church. He would say, 
Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnium convenire Ecclesiam.  that because of the imperial seat, and of the Senate, Christians from all places of necessity came thither. This is the place as it is in Irenaeus, It is necessary that all Churches should come hither to this Church, because of the sovereign power, that is, the power of the Empire. Which is the reason why the 9. Canon of the council of Antiochia ordained that the Bishops of great Cities should haue pre-eminence. 
{αβγδ}.  Because( saith the council) that all those that haue any business come to the metropolitan city, therefore it hath been ordained, that the Bishop thereof should haue a pre-eminence of honour. For that cause therefore the Church of Alexandria went before that of Antiochia, although the Church of Antiochia was the ancienter, and founded by Saint Peter, because that among the cities of the roman Empire, Alexandria according to civil order was the second n●xt to Rome. The 17. Canon of the council of Chalcedon speaketh expressly thereof, where it is ordained, 
{αβγδ}.  that the order of ecclesiastical Dioces should be accommodated according to civil and public form. Following that order, the 630. Bishops assembled at that council, ordained that the bishopric of Constantinople should haue the same prerogatives that the ancient imperial bishopric of Rome had, and that it should be as much honoured as Rome in ecclesiastical affairs, as being the second city in rank after Rome.   

Of the Perpetuity of the Church.  ARNOVX. 
Such an house of God founded vpon this ston, hath for an infallible mark, that it shall never be shaken, and that the gates of hell, that is to say, heresies and persecutions shall haue no power against it. Then if there be any other Church which enjoyeth this privilege of a perpetual interruption and a succession never broken, let them show it vs. If there be not, let them pull this place out of their Bibles, or deface their Article, which striving against the Church of Rome, disannulleth the promise of the son of God.  moulin. 
If by Succession our adversary understandeth a succession of persons without succession of doctrine, this succession is nothing, but rather a corruption then a succession. Such( by the iudgement of the Church of Rome) is the succession of the greek Church, which hath continued from the Apostles time, and yet continueth, and is ancienter then the Church of Rome. But if by perpetual Succession he understandeth a line of succession of men persevering in the same doctrine, this succession doth not in any manner belong to the Church of Rome. The latter Bishops of Rome, are nothing like the first, and it seemeth that the last are expressly risen up to condemn the first. In the first age of the Church, were the Bishops of Rome temporal Princes? Did they wear a regal crown? Did they take vpon them to depose Emperors and Kings? Did they draw souls out of purgatory? Did they give pardons for seven or eight hundred thousand years? Did they allow adoration of Images? Did they prohibit to give the cup to the people,& to read the Scripture? Did they say service in an unknown tongue? Did they worship the host with divine worship called Latria? Did they call vpon Saints? Did they paint the Trinity? Did they call the virgin Mary queen of heaven? These are smarting sores, which none of the aduersaries dare once touch, nor undertake to produce a place of antiquity for any of these points. Therefore our aduersaries haue but little cause to boast of perpetuity, after they haue made a new religion, and by consequence a new Church.  
nevertheless, say that the Church of Rome had continued ever since the Apostles time, doth it follow that perpetual continuance of the Romish Church, is a mark of her purity? Is the latter day yet come? Will M. Arnoux warrant it from this time until then from subversion? A thing cannot be called perpetual which hath not continued unto the end. This Doctor gives us his future hopes, for present marks of the church. Besides there are diuers false churches which haue continued from Christs time, and still continue to this day.   

Of idolatry in the Romish Church, and in how many sorts the Church of Rome is Idolatrous, and what idolatry is.  
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 aduersaries, we would haue them to consider, that we cannot call things otherwise then the word of God calleth them; and also to beleeue, 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 honour to Saints which onely appertaineth to God; by calling vpon 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 virgin Mary the inuentrix of grace. queen of heaven, and Lady of the world: for the royalty and empire over all creatures belongeth to God onely. 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. Vpon 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 honour 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 Iesus 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 honour Saints with such honours whereby God is dishonoured, do wrong to Saints by honouring 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.  
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 
Idos Graecè formulam sonat, ab eo diminutinum Idolum doductum, aeque apud nos formulam facit: Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum dici exposcit.  in greek signifieth a form or representation, from whence the diminutive 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, 
Imagines quae idola nominant, quorum incursi●ne non solum videamus said etiam cogitemus.  Images which they call idols, by which we both see and think: Taking Image and idol for one thing. Chrysostome vpon the third chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, homily 10. saith, 
{αβγδ}.  We beautify and set out our houses, placing Idols and Images in them. And Xiphilinus the Abridger of Dion, in the life of severus, in stead of saying that there was an image or figure of wax at the funeral pomp of the Emperour Pertinax, representing the dead Emperour, saith, 
{αβγδ}.  That there was an idol of wax triumphantly adorned. In all these places and infinite others, Image and idol signify one selfe 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 Iunius, vpon the chapter of the tools, Instruments, or movables of the Church, giveth this censure, saying, 
Non male Nomenclator, statuam, sculptile, imaginem, simulacrum, idolum pro ijsdem habet.  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 Iesus Christ is the idol of the invisible God, in stead 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 {αβγδ}, which signifieth a carved or graven Image, as in the first verse in the 26. of Leuiticus, and Deuter. 4.16.25: and 5.8. and in many other places, and sometime {αβγδ}, Idolum, as Exod. 20.4. sometime {αβγδ}, which signifieth Image and resemblance, as Esay 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, Leuiticus, deuteronomy, and Esay.  
Our Aduersaries, which make a controversy about these words, thereby to hinder the examination of things, will haue men to translate the second commandement 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 commandement is set down, Deut. 5.8. in the French Bible translated in louvain, and approved by the faculty 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 Esay 40.18. To whom then haue you likened God, and what Image do you set for him? In which places the word Pesel, which our Aduersaries would haue translated, a graven idol, is translated in our Aduersaries 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 commandement they will haue 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 onely wood or ston; but that may also be said of the Images of things which are, and that become idols, 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.  
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 rob, 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 Gods 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 vs. For seeing that God hath made man according to his Image; man, in recompense, makes God according to mans image.  
This error is of late times crept into the Church of Rome, by the connivence 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, excempteth the Images of God, as a thing whereof as then they spake not. Baronius 
Cur tandem Patrem Domini Iesu Christi non oculu subijcimus ac pingimu●? Quoniam quis sit non novimus, Deique natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi.  in the 726. year of his Annales 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 mens eyes and paint the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ? Because we know not what he is, and the nature of God cannot be painted nor set forth to mens sight. Whereupon Baronius noteth in the margin, that since that time they haue used to paint God in Churches, and found it requisite to do so, against that Popes determination. Nicephorus, a new Author, 
Imagines Patris et Spiritus Sancti essigiant quod perquam absurdum est.  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. aventine, libr. 7. of the bavarian history saith, that Pope John the 22, which lived in anno 1318. calleth certain men( that dwelled in 
Quosdam qui in finibus Bohemiae atque Austriae supremam, illam maiestatem senis, adolescentis, columbae imagine pingebant, laesae religionis accersinit, Anthropomorphitas esse renunciauit, quosdam ad ignem condemnauit  Bohemia and Austria) Anthropomorphites,( that is, men which thought God to haue 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 haue the Image of the trinity to be painted in any manner.  
1 Against this abomination we haue a formal commandement in the first Table of the Law of God, according to our Aduersaries 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 Esay 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 Salomons 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 itself 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 haue 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 haue 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 Aduersaries 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 commandement 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 that 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 no body, 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 bide; 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 itself, 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 Patriarkes 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 themselves. 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 commandement 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 commandement of God. For here we argue not what God hath done, but what God will haue us to do. The commandements and not the actions of God, are the rules of our lives. It is by his commandements& not by his apparitions that we shall be judged at the latter day. It is mad religion to violate the commandement 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 mitre with three Crownes, in a Popes rob, nor set in a pontifical chair.  
8 Bellarmine was not ashamed to reason in this manner, God made man according to his image: 
Lib. 2. de reliquijs& imaginibus Sanctorum, cap. 8.§ Quinto.  then we may make images of God. But this cardinal, which plays with God, and maketh a iest 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 holinesse: 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 holinesse, to infer, that man may paint God after the image of man, is to haue 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 aids and helps of piety and devotion.  
The Romish Churches are full of images and pictures, diversly 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 haue 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 Anthonies Abbey, not far from Paris, he is made with a book in his hand. There are diuers images of Saints which are poorly clad: and there are diuers images of one Saint, some appareled in silk, laid on with lace of gold, and which oftentimes change their apparel; others dusty, and before whom they light not many candles. Hard by an image clothed in white damask; you shall see one stark naked, which is the image of God. At the death of a Prince you shall see both he and shee Saints clad in black, and our Lady enduring part of the affliction. They say, they are helps in devotion, yet they hid 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 Martiall, 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 humour hath crept into religion, and as babies are childrens idols, so images and pictures are mens babies. For in regard that all our knowledge cometh by sense, man desireth to see an object of sensible devotion: and will haue 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 haue 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 haue images in stead of sacred books, pictures for doctrines, and candles lighted at noon day, in stead 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 haue the commandement 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 any thing 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 onely 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, Leuit. 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 ston 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 gnostics 
Etiam imagines quasdam depictas, quasdam de reliqua materia fabricatas, dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato.  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, 
Colebant imagines Iesus eas adorando& incensum ponendo.  They served the images of Iesus, 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. Hieromes Epistles.  

Placuit in Ecclesiis picturas esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus pingatur  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 vpon the walls.  
Our aduersaries 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 haue chosen stones to be their teachers, to attain to any instruction: as S. Augustine saith, 
Aug. de Consensu evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Sic omnino errare merentur, qui Christum& Apostolos eius non in sanctis codicibus, said in pictis parietibus quaesierunt.  So they deserve to be seduced, which haue sought Iesus 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 hid 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 hid the images, to show that images ought to hid& draw themselves out of the way, before the preaching of the gospel. And certainly they would hid themselves for ever, 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 Iewes that were idolaters which made the like excuse. 
{αβγδ}.  And Athanasius in his Oration against the Gentiles saith, that Pagan idolaters made this excuse, saying, That images served men in stead of books, wherein reading, they might comprehend the knowledge of God: and a little after, 
{αβγδ}.  If these things serve you for books, as you falsely allege, to behold and contemplate God.  
They also say, that Moses by Gods commandement made a serpent of brass, which was a figure of Iesus Christ, in that it healed the bitings of the old serpent, which is the divell. 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 commandement of God, but they set up images in the Church without Gods commandement, and against his commandement. And yet it is false that the serpent was properly an image of Iesus Christ,( howsoever it were a type of Christs grace:) for what resemblance had the form of a serpent with the humanity of the son of God? Considering also that our aduersaries 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 Iesus Christ: howbeit the saving virtue which God displayed in the serpent, was an example and a figure of the saving efficacy of Iesus 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 Cherubins or Angels, placed vpon the ark by Gods commandement. But what makes that for the images of Saints, which God hath not commanded? And yet it is false that those Cherubins were the images of some Angels: for let them tell me of which of the Angels those Cherubins 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 Cherubins 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, Iustice with a sword and a pair of balance. Which symbolical pictures produced diuers 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 haue 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 haue shewed before, that our aduersaries 
The latin hath sculptile, in the 20 of Exod. The French hath representation in the 5. of Deut.  Bibles, both latin and French, translate the words as we do, graven image, and representation.  
Our aduersaries themselves sufficiently show, that this commandement displeaseth them, seeing they haue 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 
Printed at Paris by Heureux Blanuilain in S. Victors street at the sign of the three Moores, anno 1611.  the Law is set down in our Ladies Houres after the manner of Rome, and which at this day are most used.  
1. Commandement.  
I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not haue, nor worship any other God but me.  
2. Commandement.  
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.  
3. Commandement.  
Remember to keep holy the sabbath day, and feasts.  
With the like corruption they haue put the commandements 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, 
One onely God thou shalt adore,& love him perfectly. Thou shalt not swear by Gods Name in vain.  holden anno 1548. puts the commandements 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 aduersaries 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 that his theft may not be perceived. For having taken one out of the ten commandements of the Law, they cut the last in two, making the not coveting of a mans wife, the ninth commandement, and the not coveting of the house, the man seruant, and the maid seruant, &c. the tenth. By this means they might make 14. commandements, if on every thing whereof God forbiddeth the coveting they would make a commandement apart. But God, by his providence hath taken all excuse from our Aduersaries: for in the 20 of Exodus, the not coveting of our neighbours wife, which they make the ninth commandement, is thrust into the middle of the tenth, and put after the not coveting of thy neighbours house, whereby it followeth, that according to the Church of Rome, in the 20. of Exodus there is no ninth commandement.  
Whereupon we should give them good matter to make fowle 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 ston? 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 any thing 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 haue not onely transgressed the Law by disobedience, but also to haue pared it through contempt, yea and to haue made it shorter by a commandement, 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.  
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 hittites; 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 vpon 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 virgin 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 wavereth 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 Holinesse persever to serve and 
Imagines omnium Sanctorum beatitas vestra colere& adorare pergat.  adore the Images of all the Saints. There also Images are advanced to such degree of excellency and holinesse, that in the fourth action it is said, That 
Vt etiam meo judicio cum sanctis Euangelijs& veneranda cruce aequiualeant.  Images are of like and equal value with the holy gospel. Also, Maior est Imago quàm oratio. And, to the end that men might paint Angels, it is said in the fift Action, that The Church 
Ecclesia sentit non omnino esse corporis expertes& inuisibiles, verùm tenui corpore praeditos aerio siue igneo.  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 onely understand to reverence, honour 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 honour, it is manifest that they do the contrary, that is, that they speak injuriously of the Saints.  
Following this doctrine, our Aduersaries haue written diuers books De cultu Imaginum: Of the worship of Images. cardinal Bellarmine, in the 22. chapter of his book of Images, will haue them to be adored, not onely 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 
Imagines Christi,& Sanctorum venerandae sunt, non solum per accidence, vel impropriè, ita vt ipsae terminent venerationem vt in se considerantur,& non solùm vt vicem gerunt exemplaris.  the Images of Christ,& of Saints ought to be worshipped, not onely by accident, and improperly, but in themselves, and properly: in such manner, that the worshipping is limited to the Image considered in itself, and not onely in this, that it representeth the person for whom it is made.  
gregory de Valentia 
Editionis Paris. p. 1610 Nec absurdè putaueris B. Petrum insinuasse cultum aliquem simulacrorum( nempe sacrarum Imaginum) esse, cum fideles nominatim ab illicitis idolorum cultibus deterrere volvit.  the Iesuite, 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 mans hair to stand upright vpon his head to hear it. Vasques the Iesuite, De adoratione, lib. 3. disp. 1. cap. 2. p. 458. printed in Moguntia, anno 1601, in 8. 
Non solùm Imago depicta,& res sacra authoritate publica in cultum Dei exposita; said quaeuis etiam alia res mundi siue inanima& irrationalis, siue rationalis ex natura rei, et secluso periculo, ritè, cum Deo sicut Imago eius adorari potest. Ibi. §. 8. p. 455 Quid quaso obstare potest quo minu● quamcunque rem mundi cum Deo qui in ea est secundùm essentiam& quam contin●a sua virtute conseruat, secluso periculo, adorare& colere possimus?  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 haue confessed the same touching a straw, which he confessed of al 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 marvell that the common people are so furiously superstitious, about the service and worship of Images. For 
Cap. De Oratione: Cum ad Imaginem sancti alicuiu● orationem Dominicam prenuntiat, itatum sentiat, se tum ab illo petere vt secum eret.  they fall down before them, they light Candles unto them, they put costly apparel vpon them, and bring them offerings. In the beginning of Lent, the people go on procession to the Image of our Lady, to haue leave to eat butter. poor old women rub their kerchers vpon 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 Iesus Christ, 
salve sancta faci●s nostri redemptoris. In qua nitet species divini splendoris: Impressa panniculo niuei candoris. salve vultu● Domini imago beata. Nos deduc ad propria o foelix figuram ad videndam faciem quae est Christi pura.  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 Iesus Christ. The prayer saith: I salute thee, oh holy face of the Redeemer, printed in a white cloth, given to Veronique 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 Iesus Christ. With the like abuse, when they lift up the Image of the cross, they say, Aue lignum triumphal, All hail triumphant wood. And, Aue crux spes unica, All hail o cross our onely hope, increase righteousness in the faithful, and pardon sinners. This superstition began already to enter into the mindes of some particular persons in Saint Augustines time, of whom he speaketh thus, Libr. 1. cap. 34. of the customs of the catholic Church: saying, 
novi multos esse sepulcrorum& picturarum adoratores. novi multos qui supper mortuos luxurio sissimè bibant.  I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchres and Pictures: I know many which drink excessively over the dead.  
Against this so prodigious an abuse, and so lamentable blindness, we haue the commandement of the Law of God, which our Aduersaries haue put out of their Ladies houres and services; Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing 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 lightning, as yet thundereth against idolatry, and lighteneth darkness. So Iesus Christ said to the divell, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serve. read Leuit. 26.1.  
Against this so clear and manifest word of God, accompanied with terrible threatenings, our aduersaries shrowded themselves with weak reasons, as if a man should hid 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 that 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 onely. 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 subiects, to make exceptions vpon the law. Now our aduersaries neither bring places out of the Scripture, commandement 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 aduersaries call Dulia, is expressly reserved to God onely, with an express prohibition to attribute it to any other but to God. So in Sam. 1.7. The greek hath, {αβγδ}: Direct or prepare your hearts to the Lord, and give Dulia to him onely. And Paul, Gal. 4.8. {αβγδ}, Then when you knew not God you gave Dulia, that is, you served those who by nature were no Gods. And whosoever understandeth greek, knoweth that Latria is less then Dulia; for Latria simply signifieth service of honour, reverence, and subiection; but Dulia,( besides that,) importeth a slavish servitude. Saint Augustine in his 20 book, cap. 21. against Faustus a Manichee,& in his Questions vpon Genesis, lib. 1. cap. 61. useth this distinction, but in contrary sense to our aduersaries. 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 haue suppressed the second commandement 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 Christs 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 honour which men do to Images, turneth to the honour of that which they represent; which is the speech of all idolaters. So Michaes mother, Iudges 17.3. determining to make a melted 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 Micha 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 vpon 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 honours men yield and give unto Images of Saints, we shall find that the honour is properly done to the Image, and that the Saint is never the more honoured; and that Bellarmine hath reason to say, that the Image is worshipped for itself. For when they cloth 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 honoured then if a King should think himself to be honoured, when a man speaketh to his picture before his face.  
6 The abuse is evident, in that our aduersaries to vntwine themselves, twist intricate cords of dark words, giuing 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 practise, 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 onely deceit and intricatenesse, but also manifest foolishness: for the last refuge of our aduersaries 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 relatively, 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 onely serve to show what the intent of the Church of Rome is, but not to ground this intention vpon 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 honoured in that sort. Seeing it is not likely that a king would think himself to be honoured by him that should do reverence to his picture, or that should speak to his cloak, although he should say, that the honour 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 contraries, that the honour which is done to an Image, is an honour 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 vpon false money shall be cut in pieces, and melted. The Israelites worshipped the brazen serpent in honour of God▪ and yet Ezechias did well to break down that serpent; for it is not credible that those which worshipped that brazen serpent did beleeue 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 shewed 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 seruants of God. For we must not transport that religious service which is due to God onely, to his friends nor to his enemies. If it be evil to honour evil things, it is evil to abuse good things, and to use Gods friends to provoke him to iealousy. 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 haue proved that God will haue the Images of his seruants to be adored.  
10 They also allege a number of false miracles, done by Images. But if they were true, doth it follow that we must adore all that whereby God hath done miracles? Then we must adore the asses jaw which Samson used, Moses rod, and the water of jordan which healed Naaman, and many such like things.  
11 Wanting reasons, they haue 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 for the defence 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, show me thy face, 
Act. 6.  & 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, 
Act 4. Act. 6.  That all things which are written, are written for our instruction. And psalm 47, As we haue heard, so we haue seen. And Luke. 18, No man after he hath lighted a candle, setteth it under a bushel. Vpon 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 purpose for the adoration of Images. whosoever doth not aclowledge 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, 
Imagines Cherubin supper arca existentes necessariò adorabantur ab iis qui arcam adorabant.  saith, that the Iewes worshipped the Cherubins placed vpon the ark. First I say, if that be true, it must needs be that God commanded it, but that is no where to be found. Secondly, if the Israelites adored the Cherubins, they would much more haue adored the Angels figured, as they say, by those Cherubins; which before we haue shewed to be false. Thirdly, if the Israelites adored the two Cherubins placed vpon the ark, then the Cherubins must needs haue been the Images of some certain Angels, otherwise they should haue adored they knew not what. In the Church of Rome itself, they worship not any Image whose name they know not, and what Saint it representeth: but those Cherubins 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 Cherubins 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 yeares and more after Salomons time, the people saw them not. God by taking them away from the peoples sight, prevented idolatry. Fiftly 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 Cherubins placed vpon the ark. He that saluteth the king, doth he salute his hat, or his clothes? There is neither reason nor appearance 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 holinesse. 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 onely, and which is enjoined by his commandement.  
14 With the like falseness and to the same end, they allege Hebrewes, 11.21. where it is said according to the roman translation, that jacob dying, 
Adorauit fastigium virgae eius.  blessed both the sons of joseph, and worshipped the end of his staff. But in greek it is {αβγδ}, he worshipped vpon 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 Iesuites Ribera and Emanuell 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.  
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 divels 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 Iesus Christ and him crucified. This cross is more worth then kings Crowns; the sufferings of the son of God surpass the triumphs of mighty work, 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 saviour, 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 butted our sins in his death. There is nothing sweeter to our consciences then the remembrance of this bitterness, nothing more honourable then this reproach.  
Ancient Christians in Tertullians time, that is 200 yeares 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 standard born 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 standard. Kings made that sign to be stamped vpon 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, in stead 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 conjuration to drive away divels: and to make a precise multitude of Crosses vpon the host, and vpon the chalice by order; and if a Priest failed in that number, the mystery was spoyled. Pope Innocent the third in his book of the Mysteries of the mass, cap. 58. saith, 
Efficit supper ea crucis signaculum, vt per crucis virtutem omnis conatus diabolicae malignitatis effugiat, ne contra sacerdotem vel sacrificium aliquo modo praeualeant.  That the Priests make signs of the cross vpon the host to withstand the force of divels, lest they should prevail against the Priest, or against the host, which is Iesus Christ,( if we will beleeue it.) This did come in good time to Iesus 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 divell.  
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 onely; 
Thomas 3 parte. Quaest. 5. Artic. 3& 4.& Caietanus in Thomam. Ibid. Alexander 3. parte. Quaest. 30. art. ultimo. Bonauentura, Marcellus, Almano Carthusianus, Capreolus in 3. dist. 9. Henricus quodlibetico, 10. 4. 6. Nanclantus in epist. ad Rom. c. 1.  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, 
Omnes cruces adoramus quia omnes sunt imagines verae crucis.  We worship all Crosses because all of them are Images of the true cross, yea and simplo Crosses without the crucifix. We adore( saith he) the cross itself 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, Aue lignum triumphal, All hail triumphant wood, and Aue crux spei unica, auge pijs justitiam, reisque dona veniam: I salute thee oh cross, our onely 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: 
Hoc signum crucis tuae sit remedium salutare generi humano, sit soliditas fidei, profectus bonorum operum, redemptio animarum, solatium& protectio ac tutela contrà saua iacula inimicorum.  and that when the cross is blessed, they be se● oh God, that that sign of the cross may be a saving remed●e, the redemption of souls, and a defence against the cruel arrows of aduersaries.  
But we, who by so many afflictions and persecutions haue 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 Iesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world; because of the abuse haue 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 onely.  
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 haue 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 haue 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 onely 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 haue proved in the precedent Section, and that the Prophets in all their Prophecies condemn those that worship wood and ston.  
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 haue been adored when it stood upright, and was yet bloody and hote with the blood of Iesus Christ: and yet the Apostles did not then adore it, nor commanded the faithful to adore it. It had been an easy matter for every one of them to haue cut a piece thereof to bear about them, to serve them for a preservative against evil air, against thunder, and against the divels; but they never thought vpon it. And not onely they, but also the Christians after them for the space of three hundred yeares, left that cross, without once troubling themselves to seek for it. Certainly our aduersaries 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 haue the cross to be worshipped with divine worship called Latria, which is due to God and will haue the cross to be worshipped 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 haue sovereign worship. And hereby he troubled the imagination of the people, who worshipping the cross, think they do but one worship but Bellarmine will haue 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 yeeldeth religious service to the creature, and so incurreth that punishment set down in the Law of God, against those that serve the creature in stead of serving God onely.  
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 Iesus 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 strooke him, and Iudas mouth that kissed him. And we must thereupon haue some commandement 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 haue sanctified those, who bearing great love unto him, had touched him. Then why would he haue deprived mary Magdalen of that grace, 
joh. 20.17.  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 beleeue that the blood of Christ hath been in them. It doth not worship the Priest when it believeth that he hath Iesus 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 Iesus Christ, is not laid up among relics, and consecrated for that touching.  
Touching the adoration of the Image of the cross, we haue 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 Iesus Christ? Iesus Christ is not wood. Do they speak to the wood? That wood understands them not. Do they speak to that wood in honour of Iesus Christ? That whereunto men speak in honour of Iesus 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 hippocrates bands, that speaketh to a painted chair, and doth reverence thereunto. That is it which is done in the Romish Church: where they not onely speak to the cross, but also to the Image of the cross, adoring it.  
To be short, we must always haue recourse to the commandement 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 commandement of our saviour, that will haue 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 vpon their bellies, but that belly is an enemy to Iesus Christ. But touching the true cross whereof Iesus 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 onely satisfaction, our onely merit, and our onely propitiatory sacrifice.   

Of relics, and of their worship.  
Our difference is not, whether we must with honour keep the relics of Saints, or whether their sepulchres ought to be set in decent places, and their memories honourable. That is not questionable: for if with a commendable curiosity we visit the sepulchres of ancient Pagan Emperors, and persons of great famed, 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 sepulchres were in an undecent 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 vpon 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 aduersaries object against us, that during the troubles and civil warres, 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 religion which was done by the insolency of certain souldiers, whereof a great part were of the Romish Church;& serving those that first hired them, had authority among ours to haue part of the booty. They ought also to remember, that those things were done by the souldiers without warrant from the Church, to reuenge those massacres and burnings which were done vpon and against us many yeares before we thought vpon our own defence. 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 entred 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 butted 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 haue 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 every one throws a piece of money. The second council of Nice holden anno 787. in the 6 Action, will haue their bones, 
Edit. Colon. p. 104. Ossa, cineres, pannos, sanguinem, sepulcra denique martyrum adoramus. §. 14. Me tanto licet munere indignissimum praemisit explorare& adorare venerandum Caeciliae corpus.  ashes, and old clothes worshipped. Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of the book of relics grounded the worshipping of them vpon these words of Chrysostome, in his Sermon vpon 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 choir of Saint Pauls Church in Paris on the left side, the miracles of Saint Roc are painted, with this inscription, That men are healed of a boil or a plague-sore by adoring his precious body. The catechism of the council of Trent, in the exposition of the third commandement, approveth the custom to swear by the relics of Saints. Now to swear by any thing, is to take it for a witness of the purity of our conscience,& for a reuenge in case of perjury: which belongs onely unto God, whose commandement 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 swore 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 ourselves 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 honour of God, that thing whereunto one speaketh in honour 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 aduersaries say. Then to adore relics, is not to adore God, for we must adore God with absolute adoration, and for the love of God onely. So the prayer which they make to the Iron point of the spear, is spoken in terms which are not agreeable with Iesus Christ; for after they haue said unto it, 
In hymno, Aue ferrum triumphal. Felix hasta nos amore, per te fixo saucia.  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 haue not the fourth part of the honour 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 haue eaten the body of our Lord, those beasts shall be taken and burnt,& their ashes put into coffins or shrines for relics. The same commandement is made touching the casting up of the sacrament by a priest, or a sick person that shal haue 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 Iesus Christ. In the Church which is in the park of wood at Vincennes, they haue some of the powder of Saint Martins cloak, and one of Iesus Christs sucking teeth. At Courchiuerney near to Bloys, they keep Iosephs hem at the sound of his breathing when he hewed timber. Our pilgrims from Galicia bring feathers of hens that are of the race of that cock which crowed when Saint Peter denied Iesus Christ. cardinal Baronius, in the nine hundred and two and twentieth year of his Annales, maketh mention of a lock of the hair of Saint Peters beard which did miracles: 
Quantumlibet ipsi qui fu praeius sedem sedent eam impugnent moribus praeuis.  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 yeares, and never corrupt. They say, that the virgin Maries milk hath continued sixteen hundred yeares, and never was sour.  
In the mean time, we see the hosts which are called Iesus Christ, become mouldy in a few dayes, and the presence of Iesus Christ which is life itself, cannot keep the accidents of this ridiculous corruption from moulding; by the which they will haue 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 onely by the absurdity, but in this, that they are contradicted by the truth of ancient Histories, as also by our aduersaries themselves.  
At charters they haue the virgin Maries smock, 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 virgin Maries time they wore no smocks, 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, 
Edit. Colon. pag. 813.  that Saint Iohns head is in Saint Siluesters monastery of Nunnes in Rome. But Amiens and Arras brag that they haue it: and Saint John d' Angeri hath long time been famous for that relic.  
Who shall decide the controversy between Treues in germany, and Argentueil near Paris; for both of them boast to haue the coat without seams which our saviour Christ wore? Baron. in his Annals, anno 1052 produceth a Bull of Pope lo the ninth; whereby he declareth that those of Saint Denis by Paris mistake themselves, pretending that they haue 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 Baptist said service in the wilderness.  

§ 1. Christi natalis nobilissimum monimentum in ligno confictum. Nullá queen argenti vel auri: Caelatura contectum post multa tempora ind translatum, Roma possidet.  Baronius, in his Preface vpon his Annales, 1. Tome, allegeth a place of Chrysostome which saith, That the manger wherein Iesus Christ was born, 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 Iesus Christ celebrated the holy Supper. But Baronius, in anno 34. of his Annales,§. 63.( following Beda) saith, That it was a silver cup with two handles or ears, and that the Sponge is in the Chalice.  
At colen men go to worship the three Kings, which never were. They call them Gasper, Melchior, and balthasar: 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, 
Hist. 12, Can. Quis nesciat. Legant si in his prouincijs vllus Apostolus invenitur aut legitur docuisse &c.  as also by all antiquity.  
spain boasteth, that at Compostella in Galicia they haue 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 claud they bring whistels; and from Rome holy grains. It is good, vpon this subject, to hear what 
Disp. 3. ca. 8 §. 114. Quod vero apud aliquos incertè aliquando reliquiae sint, non obest quo minus eas quas humanis coniecturis& rationibus certas habemus reverenter colere debeamus. Denique sicut in prima disputatione, ca. 3, diximus, non esse peccatum Idolatriae adorare radium luminis sub quo daemon delitescat. quam do quis putat esse Christum. Eodem modo si quis putans aliquam esse particulam Sancti, quae reuera non est, merito suae deuotionis non caret.  Vasques the Iesuite 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 haue said, that it is no sin of idolatry, to worship a beam of the light under the which the divell 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 sepulchres, 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 haue supposed false relics, and false miracles, and that oftentimes, by diabolical illusions, superstitious persons haue been abused: That travelers, for profit and gain haue 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 vpon the altar. At last he addeth these words, saying, 
hody vero cum passim omnia reliquijs sanctorum plena videntur, verendum est, ne si Episcopi& Principes in veris reliquijs inquirendis& diiudicandis eam quam debent operam adhiberent, ingentes& detestandae imposturae patefierent, quemadmodum innonnullis locis factum est, vt olim B. Martino accidit, &c.  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 sepulchre of one whom they reported to be a martyr, found that the people reverenced, and came, not to the sepulchre 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 aduersaries is much to be considered.   

Confutation of this worship of relics by the word of God.  
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 onely unto God, there are particular places against the worshipping of relics.  
1 In the old Testament we see that the bodies of holy patriarches and Prophets were butted, and put in the sepulchres 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 butted, lest they should haue abused it to idolatry.  
3 In the 2. and 23. of Kings, King josias forbade the people to take up the body of a dead Prophet out of the earth, and willed them to let it lye where it was butted. 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 haue not been removed, worshipped, nor separated one from the other, that diuers towns might haue their parts thereof. S. Peter in the 2.29. of Acts, witnesseth that then in his time Dauids sepulchre 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 authorizing 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 vpon 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 sepulchre of a Saint may be said to haue been sanctified by God, it was that of Elisaeus, at the which God shewed forth so admirable virtue. Then the death of the just was precious before God, as it is said, psalm 116. And our aduersaries show that they esteemed not the bon●s of the Saints under the old Testament to be less holy then others, seeing that they haue 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 movables, 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, Esay 14. and ieremy 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 honour? 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 diuers places?  
7 And to come to the new Testament, Acts 8. certain men fearing God, laid the body of Saint steven which was stoned into the ground, but worshipped not his body, nor did not dismember it, to separate his bones into diuers places.  
8 In the 19 of Acts many were healed by touching the kercher and linen clothes that came from Saint Pauls 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 authorize the preaching of the Apostle.  
9 The Prophet Esay 8.19.20. after he had reproved diviners 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 relics, when our aduersaries are pressed to produce one onely place of the word of God for it, they are at a stay, and say nothing. And if they produce any thing, it is rather to mock God, then to instruct men. Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of the book of relics, 
§ Ad tertium Scriptura approbat cultum sepulcri& fimbriae Christi: Item umbrae Petri, sudariorum& semicintiorum Pauli.  falsely and against all truth, saith, that the holy Scripture approveth the worshipping or religious service done and used to the sepulchre of our Lord, to the skirts of his gown, to the shadow of Saint Peter, and to S. Pauls 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 Esay 11.10, in these words, His sepulchre shall be glorious: but according to the Hebrew, it is, And his rest shall be glorious. A sepulchre may be honoured 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 hid away his Testament The best relics of Saint Peters and Saint Paul are their writings divinely inspired. That which onely should be cherished, and sought for, is the onely thing which is neglected: as the Iewes did, who beutified the sepulchres 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, in stead 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 in stead of those bones they can haue 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 onely sell the sight, and make a traffic of merchandise, and never deliver it.    

THE XXIX. ARTICLE.  As touching the true Church, we beleeue that it ought to be governed according to the politic order which our saviour Christ established. That is, that there should be Pastors and Deacons, to the end that the purity of doctrine may haue his course, that vices may be corrected and repressed, and that the poor and all others which are afflicted may be succoured in their necessities, and that their assemblies may be made in the name of God, wherein great and small may be edified. 
The adversary passeth over this Article, and saith nothing to it.   

THE XXX. ARTICLE. Of the Rule and dominion of the Prelates of the Church of Rome.  We beleeue, that all true Pastors( in what place soever they be,) haue one selfe same authority and equal power, under one Iesus Christ; and for that cause, that no Church ought to pretend any dominion or signeurie over other. ARNOVX. 
This Article introduceth anarchy, division, disobedience, and disorder into the house of God, and overthroweth the manner to govern, established by divine Law in S. matthew 16. and S. John 20: by contempt of union, and subordination, which cannot be without some visible head, such an one as by these words is promised, There shall be one sheepfold, and one shepherd.  moulin. 
Experience confuteth this accusation. The Churches of France which presented this Confession to King Francis the second, haue lived and do live peaceably and without confusion under this government. This order because it is not a monarchy is not therefore an anarchy, seeing that each Pastor conducteth his flock, and that the Pastors are subject to a Synod, and the Synod is conducted by one Moderator.  
It is false that equality overthroweth the form of government established in Matth. 16. and joh 20. for in those places, there is nothing spoken of superiority or of subordination. These are the ordinary falshoods of this Doctor.  
Whereas he saith, that a visible head of the Church is promised by these words, There shal be one shepherd and one sheepfold, he doth it rather to mock the Scripture, then to serve his turn therewith. This onely Pastor is not the Pope, but Iesus Christ. This sheepfold gathered together under one Pastor, is not the Church of Rome, but the Christian Church composed of Iewes and Gentiles.  
And we must know that the equality of Pastors, touching the preaching of the word of God,& the administration of the Sacraments,& as concerning the use of the keys, is esteemed to be necessary among vs. For baptism,& the holy Supper,& the pronouncing of the remission of sins, are of equal dignity in the mouth of all Pastors, whether they be of great or small authority. But as touching ecclesiastical policy, we do not refuse to aclowledge those for pure and true Churches, where this equality is not observed: because we esteem not this order to be a point of faith, nor doctrine tending to salvation. We live( God be thanked) in brotherly concord with the neighbour Churches, which observe another form, and where Bishops haue some superiority.  
I know that under pretence, that the Church of England hath an other form of discipline then ours is, our aduersaries charge us that our religion is diuers. But experience confuteth this accusation; for we assemble with the English men in their Churches, we participate together in the holy Supper of our Lord: the doctrine of their Confession is wholly agreeable unto ours. England hath been a refuge for our persecuted Churches, who, notwithstanding the difference of ecclesiastical policy, haue not received less entertainment. The excellentests seruants of God, in our Churches, as Peter Martyr, Caluin, Zanchias, and Beza, haue often written letters full of respect and amity to the Prelates of England.  
He abuseth himself which believeth that the word Bishop used in the holy Scripture, is odious in our Churches. And our aduersaries unjustly accuse us to be enemies of the episcopal order. For we must be altogether ignorant in Histories, if we do not know that all antiquity speaks honoably of that degree. Eusebius in his Chronicle witnesseth that a year after our saviours death, james our Lords brother was established Bishop of jerusalem, and that 10 yeares after, Euodius was created bishop of Antiochia; and that after james, succeeded Simon in the bishopric of jerusalem, from whence descended the succession of the Bishops of jerusalem. Saint jerome in his book of ecclesiastical Writers, saith that Polycarpus( Saint John the Apostles disciple) was by the same Apostle made Bishop of Smyrna. In the same book he saith, that the Apostle Saint Paul established Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus Bishop of candy. And Tertullian in the 32. chapter of the book of Praescriptions, calleth those Churches apostolical Churches, and buds or sprigs of the Apostles, whose Bishops were established by the Apostles. Of this function and degree in the Church, were the Fathers, whose writings we haue, as gregory Nazianzen, gregory Nissen, Basil, Chrysostome, Cyprian, Augustine, hilary. &c. Of whom whosoever doubteth that they had not some superiority, and that to them particularly government of ecclesiastical causes did not appertain, hath no knowledge of antiquity.  
It is hard in all antiquity to find three or four examples of two Bishops in one town; for general custom was against it, 
These examples are found in my book of the Vocation of Pastors, l. 1. c. 4.  which permitted not two Bishops to be together in one town: as Theodoret, Chrysostome, and jerome vpon the first chapter to the Philippians witness, and Augustine in his 110. Epistle.  
But because we haue no express commandement for this superiority in the new Testament, and for that, as experience hath shewed, it hath been as a match to kindle pride, and hath degenerated into papal tyranny; as also because the Church of Rome hath changed her bishopric into a temporal principality:& hath made episcopal dignity subject to the power of the Pope, to whom, for many yeares past, every Bishop at his admission took an oath of obedience and fidelity; for these causes, the faithful seruants of God, which haue traveled and taken pains to abolish and to purge Papistry in France, in the Netherlands, and in Switzerland, haue sought to reduce the sacred ministry into the Church, and to abolish the papal hierarchy. But in England, where God hath used Bishops to strive against and to resist Papistry,& where God hath given them sovereign Princes, which maintained and upheld them by their powers, episcopal order continueth, flourisheth at this day. And God hath there raised up and and still doth, excellent Bishops, both for learning and piety, which courageously maintain Gods cause, both by word of mouth and writing: and some of them also haue received the crown of martyrdom for the confession of the gospel.  
And even as equality is received among us, to shun ambition and tyranny, so England hath rejected this equality, to avoid confusion and contempt of the ministery. They say, and that with good reason, that no society, no family, nor common-wealth, can prosper without some degrees of superiority: and that it is so among the Angels, and in the government of the universal world. That God established degrees of superiority in his Church under the old Testament. They say, that to place a man of little capacity, and newly received into the ministery, in like degree with an ancient Minister of the Church, whom God hath endowed with more gifts, and which hath served long time in the ministery with commendation, is a means to nourish pride in the younger, and to dishonour those whom God hath honoured, and to induce confusion: as also that thereby, the ministery among us is become contemptible. And that the superiority of the Bishops of England hath been approved by the most worthy pastors of our Churches, namely Peter Martyr and Bucer, expressly called into England to help them in their reformation.  
All these allegations tend to three ends: one is to show, that notwithstanding the diversity of ecclesiastical policy, two particular Churches may live in peace and concord, and under the band of one selfe same faith& religion. The second is to show, that if sometimes we speak against the authority of Bishops, we condemn not episcopal order in itself, but speak onely of the corruption which the Church of Rome hath induced into the bishopric, making it a temporal principality, depending vpon the papal Throne. The third is to show, that there shall never be any form of discipline which hath not some dangers evitable in it, and which hath not some discommodities. That therefore is the best which approacheth nearest to the simplicity of the Apostles and the discipline of their times; and which in such sort shuneth ambition, that thereby order may be maintained, and the dignity of the ministery no way contemned.  ARNOVX. 
Places of Scripture noted in the margin of the Confession. 2. Cor. 1.14. Not that we haue dominion over your faith, but we are helpers of your ioy. Matth. 18.2.3 4. Iesus having called unto him a little child, and set him in the midst of them said, Verily I say unto you, Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And 20.26. But it shall not be so among you, but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your seruant. And 1. Peter 5.3. Not as though ye were Lords over Gods heritage, but that you may be examples to the flock. All these places recommend humility in those which are called to ecclesiastical functions.  moulin. 
That is true; but by recommending humility, he bindeth us to shun all occasions of pride, and by consequence, Lordly dominion and rule over our brethren.  
To these places we must add, Matth. 23.8. But be you not called Rabbi, for one is your Doctor, to wit, Christ, and ye are brethren. And Luke 22.24.25.26. And there arose also a strife among them, which of them should seem to be the greatest. But he said unto thē, The kings of the Gentiles reign over them; and they that rule over them are called bountiful. But ye shall not be so, but let the greatest among you be as the least, and the chiefest as he that serveth.  ARNOVX. 
These places( as it appeareth by the onely reading of them,) presuppose a superiority, which wanting, such advices should be given in vain.  moulin. 
Those advices which forbid the affectation of superiority do not necessary presuppose that there is a superiority. By the same reason, prohibitions to commit adultery, should presuppose, that necessary there must be adulterers.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. Matth. 13.11. Our Lord speaking to his Apostles the true Pastors, said, He that is greatest among you, let him be your seruant.  moulin. 
This place is falsely quoted, there is no such thing in the 11. verse and 13. chapter of Matthew. It is a place taken out of the 20. of Matthew, but set down in other terms, This is the place cited truly: Ye know that the Lords of the Gentiles haue dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority over them: but it shall not be so among you. But whosoever will be great among you, let him be your seruant: and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your seruant.  
He that allegeth things vpon other mens reports, is subject to fall into such faults. But let us see what he will infer vpon this place.  ARNOVX. 
Do you not see, that these two things are not unlike to be the greatest of all, by reason of the charge which authorizeth commandement? and yet seruant unto all, in regard of humility and charity, whereby he that hath that charge, not preferring himself in his heart before any man, doth sacrifice himself for the good and welfare of those which are committed to his charge.  moulin. 
Saint Matthew saith not, He that is the greatest, as M. Arnoux makes him say, but, whosoever will be the greatest; and say it were, He that is the greatest, that may be understood of him which is the greatest in knowledge, or in age, or in order of sitting, without superiority of jurisdiction.  
I confess, that greatness and humility agree very well; he that hath attained to sovereign greatness, hath no other means to increase the same but by humility: for that his humility is so much the more commendable, because he hath more temptations to pride. But his humility must not be ambitious, seeking by contempt of honour, to make himself more honourable. Such is the Popes humility, which washeth poor mens feet, and makes Emperours kiss his feet; which calleth himself seruant of se●uants, and makes himself king of kings, giuing and taking away kingdoms. Which calls himself Christs Vicar, and sets Christs cross vpon his pantofle. Which falleth down before the host, and makes it to be carried about in procession vpon a little nag or curtal horse, whereas himself is carried vpon Princes shoulders. If that be called humility, a man can hardly tell what pride is. But to imitate M. Arnoux eloquence, I ask if the Pope behaving himself in that manner, doth sacrifice himself for the welfare of those which are committed to his charge; doth not our Doctor with his childish eloquence, rather sacrifice himself to the public laughter of all men?  

Of Saint Peters supremacy.  ARNOVX. 
And matthew 10.2. Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon called Peter. Could he more formally speak against the Article which establisheth equality?  moulin. 
Saint Peter might be the first in age, or in zeal, or in knowledge, or in eloquence, or in virtue, or in priority of order,& precedence: without power of jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles. We reject not this inequality, and our Article saith nothing against it.  
Now, that Saint Peter had no superiority nor power of jurisdiction over the other Apostles, neither was head of the universal Church, the Scripture sheweth it so clearly, that he that denies it must strive against his own eyes, and bely his own sense and reason.  
1 We haue two Epistles written by Saint Peter, wherein there is not one word which soundeth or savoureth of his sovereignty. His manner of phrase therein is not the phrase of a master or of a superior. He giveth himself no other title, but an Apostle of Iesus Christ, and an Elder. Doth a sovereign writ long Letters to his Subiects, without once showing himself to be a sovereign, without taking any quality of a Prince vpon him, or without any command?  
2 And when the Apostles strove among themselves, about the supremacy the day before Christs passion, the Lord said not unto them, Why do you dispute about superiority, seeing you may remember that I haue already given the supremacy to Saint Peter? But he onely said unto them; The Kings of the Gentiles reign over them, but it shall not be so among you, Luke 22. Then was the time, or never, to command the Apostles, every one to keep in his order, and not to disturb Saint Peter in his supremacy. But in the 23. of Saint matthew he saith, But be you not called Rabbi, for one is your Doctor, to wit, Christ, and ye are brethren.  
3 In Acts 8. the Apostles sent Peter and John to preach in Samaria. Would the Pope at this day take such a commission? would he subject himself to other Bishops that should sand him to preach in Swizzerland or in Poland?  
4 How many times in the Scripture are the other Apostles set before Peter? as 2. Galathians, james, Cephas, and John which are esteemed pillars. As also Saint John 1.44. putteth Andrew before Peter, saying, Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. And 1. Cor. 9.5. The Lords brethren and Cephas: a manner of speaking which at this day would be hardly taken, if we should put the Bishop of Paris before the Pope of Rome.  
5 And 1. Cor. 3.4. it is said, that among the Corinthians some said, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos; others, I am of Peter. An evident proof, that neither Paul nor Apollos had taught the Corinthians to aclowledge Peter to be the head of the universal Church. For those that say, I am Pauls, without doubt would haue believed Paul, and by consequence would haue acknowledged Peter for head and superior by Paul. For Paul would haue taught them to honor Peter more then himself.  
6 Which appeareth by the reproof which Paul gave them thereupon; for he said not, why do you say that I am of Paul rather then of Peter, seeing that Paul  told you that he was subject to Peter? But he sends them to Iesus Christ, the only head of the Church, saying, Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?  
7 The same Apostle, 2. Cor. 11.5. saith, verily I suppose that I was in nothing inferior to the very chief Apostles. Saying in nothing he excepteth nothing, to the end that men should not say▪ that Saint Paul understood that he was not less then Saint Peter in doctrine, or in the charge of preaching the word, or administing of the Sacraments. Therefore Saint jerome in his Commentary vpon the second to the Galathians, 
In nullo sum illo inferior, quia ab uno Deo sumus in ministerio ordinati.  bringeth in Saint Paul comparing himself in this sort with Saint Peter: I am nothing inferior unto him, for we are established in the ministery by one and the same God.  
8 Saint Paul in Gal. 2.6. saith, For they that are the chief, did add nothing to me. Saint Peter therefore gave not power to Saint Paul, nor conferred any authority vpon him.  
9 The same Saint Paul saith, That the preaching of the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him, as the gospel of circumcision was committed to Peter. Therefore those two Apostles parting that labour between them, the one preached to the Iewes, the other to the Gentiles. It would be a notable example, and worthy of apostolical humility, if a Bishop would divide half the charge with the Pope. And yet the charge that fell to Saint Paul, was of more importance. For what comparison was there between a handful of Iewes committed to Saint Peters charge, with all the rest of the world? Which by the way sheweth, that Saint Peter did not reside in Rome, for then the Iewes were banished from thence, as Saint Luke witnesseth, Acts 18.2. And Saint Peter would not haue chosen a town to reside in, and to preach to the Iewes, where there were no Iewes.  
10 And a little after in the ninth verse the Apostle saith, That james, and Peter, and John, which are accounted to be pillars, gave him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that is, they received them for companions. Is there any Prelate at this day that dares call the Pope his companion? Note also, that Peter is not onely name after james, but also that james and John are esteemed pillars of the Church as well as Saint Peter. As also in the council of Ephesus there is an Epistle of the council of Alexandria inserted, which saith, that Peter and John are of equal dignity one as the other.    

THE XXXI. ARTICLE. Of the vocation of Pastors.  We beleeue that no man of his own authority ought to thrust himself into the government of the Church: but that it ought to be done by election, if it be possible, and that God will permit it. Which exception we add specially, because it hath sometimes fallen out, and that in our time( wherein the state of the Church was corrupted) that God raised up men by extraordinary means, to erect the Church again which was fallen into ruin and desolation. But howsoever it be, we beleeue, that we must always be conformable to this rule; that all Pastors, overseers, and Deacons, ought to haue testimony that they are called to their offices. ARNOVX. 
This is the Article, whereby they take vpon them the reformation of the Church which was lost and desolate, without producing any promises, or Prophecies of so notable and general reformation in all capital matters of belief, nor any witness of their extraordinary authority, nor any miracles which make them acceptable, as in times past Iesus Christ and Moses in the like occasions shewed, nor any succession or dependence whereby they haue ordinary commission.  moulin. 
For the understanding of this Article, you must consider, that it is the Churches of France which speak, and that by consequence, by restoring of the Church, we only understand the re-establishment and reformation which God in our time hath brought to pass in France, and not what hath been done in the universal Church: therefore the adversary hath no reason to require prophecies of us which promise so notable reformation. For the holy Scripture speaketh not of France, nor of any accidents that should happen therein. To be assured of a thing it is sufficient to see it, although we cannot show that God foreshowed it. If we must beleeue nothing that hath happened in our age, unless we can show that God foreshowed it by prophecy, we must not beleeue that the Pope in our time hath deposed our kings, and moved the French men to rebellion. We must not beleeue the inspirations of the mother Terese, nor the miracles of Saint John de la croix, nor the coming of the Iesuites. It is true that the revelation foreshoweth the massacres and persecutions of the faithful: and that the whore clothed in scarlet, sitting in the town which hath seven hills, shall make kings drunk: the Apostle also foreshoweth, that the son of perdition shall call himself God, and shall boast of miracles: and that false Doctors shall come, which should teach abstinence from marriage and from meats. And the holy Spirit foreshoweth unto us, that God will raise up a few faithful witnesses, which shall preach with great affliction, in spiritual sodom, until such time as the beast shall kill them. But these predictions are not for the Churches of France onely, which in this Article speak of that which is particular unto them.  
Touching the vocation of faithful Pastors, which God hath extraordinarily raised in our times to fight against papistry, the clearing of this matter dependeth vpon knowing what the vocation of the Pastors of the Church of Rome is. Wherein there are two sorts of vocations of Pastors, whereof the one is none, the other corrupted. The vocation of Popes, terming themselves heads of the universal Church, and the vocation of Cardinals, are no vocations, as being human constitutions contrary to the word of God. And the vocation of Bishops and Priests therein is corrupted. According to the word of God, their charge is to preach the word, to administer the sacraments, and to govern their flocks. But the Priests charge is changed into the office of a sacrificer of the body of Christ, and the charge of a Bishop, is the charge of a Prince of the Popes temporal monarchy, as appeareth by the oath which Bishops make at their admission, which is inserted into the 
The Reader may see this oath at the end of my book of the Vocation of Pastors.  roman pontifical, wherein there is no mention made either of God or of his word, but it is an oath which a subject maketh to his sovereign, or a vassal to his feodarie Lord. Among this corruption, this good onely remaineth, that when the Bishop admitteth a Priest, he sheweth him his duty, and the nature of his charge, saying, 
Sacerdotem oportet benedicere, praesse, praedicare,& baptizare.  The Priest must bless, he must govern, he must preach, and he must baptize. And a little after, 
Sit doctrina vestra spiritualis medicina populo Dei. Sit odour vitae vestrae delectamentum Ecclesiae Christi vt praedicatione atque exemplo aedificetis domum Dei.  Let your doctrine be a spiritual medicine to the people of God, let the savour of your life be a rejoicing to Christs Church, that by preaching and good examples you may build up the house of God.  
The same obligatory words to teach the pure doctrine of the gospel, are spoken to the Bishop. Where the consecrator asketh the future Bishop, saying, We ask the, whether thou wilt employ thy wisdom. as much as thy capacity serveth thee, to the sense of the holy Scripture. And after that, 
Vis ea quae ex divinis scriptures intelligis plebem euiordinandus es,& verbis docere& exemplis? Volo.  Wilt thou both by words and examples teach the people over w●om thou art established, that which thou understandest out of the divine Scriptures? Whereunto the future Bishop maketh answer, and saith, Volo, I will. Then laying down the Bible before him, he saith unto him, 
Accipe Euangelia,& vade& praedica populo tibi commisso.  receive the gospel, and preach unto the people committed to thy charge.  
These are ancient things, remaining entire among horrible corruptions, to the end that they may serve to touch the consciences of those that should take that charge vpon them, and that that good which remaineth, may serve to correct or to condeme that which is evil. Now it so fell out in our fathers times, that certain persons called to the charge and offices of Priests, Doctors, and Bishops, having by the word of God known and found out the abuse of the papacy, sought to accomplish their oaths, and called to remembrance the nature of the charge wherein they were established, and in the famed seats began to change their speech, and to preach the truth. They made use of that good which was left in that corrupted function; God intending in that reformation to employ those which had the usual charges received in the Churches of their countries, to the end that they might be the better received and esteemed of by the people, and that their vocation might not be denied or controverted. For if the Church of Rome hath no lawful vocation, why doth she require that in another which she herself hath not? If she hath lawful vocation, then those without question had the same vocation. And it is in this, all one as if in the Arian or Nestorian Churches, a Pastor having acknowledged his error, should take vpon him to confute arianism, and to preach the true faith; and that therefore the said heretics should molest him and ask him saying, Where is thy vocation, and where are thy miracles to authorize thee? That is in effect as if they should say unto him, Who gave thee charge to keep thy oath which thou madest at thy admission? And where is the vocation which authorizeth thee to be faithful unto God?  
Hereupon they ask us, whether those faithful Pastors who in our fathers times put their helping hands to reformation, had ordinary or extraordinary vocation. The answer is, that they had that vocation which was ordinary, and usual in the Church in their countries. But because the doctrine and the vocation of their Church was corrupted, besides that ordinary vocation, they had an extraordinary commission. For touching the ordinary and usual charge in the Church in their countries, they retained that which therein was good that is, their duties to preach, and purely to administer the Sacraments. But they had this extraordinary, that God employed them to preach contrary to their intentions which ordained them, as being contrary to the intention of Iesus Christ the first author of that vocation. And this extraordinary commission being well considered, is no other thing but the ancient ordinary charge. It is inuerate corruption which causeth their enterprise to seem extraordinary, as health seemeth to be new, after along disease or sickness of body.  
We must not think it strange, that a man having an ordinary vocation, should by God be employed in an extraordinary work. The holy Scripture furnisheth us with many examples thereof. ieremy, Ezechiel, and John Baptist were levites and Priests, having ordinary charge in the Church; and nevertheless were by God employed in extraordinary commissions, and to that end were extraordinarily assisted by the Spirit of God. I say not, that their vocations were half ordinary and half extraordinary, but that they had their ordinary vocation fully and wholly, and that besides the same, they were inspired with the holy Spirit for an extraordinary work. Such were the faithful seruants which God raised in our fathers times. But it is to be understood, that the ordinary vocation of ieremy, Ezechiel, and John Baptist, was pure and entire, but their vocations were corrupted, which corruption by custom had gotten the force of a Law: but they leaving the abuse, and shaking off the yoke of the Popes tyranny, which endeavoured to subject all ordinary vocation to itself, converted that corrupted vocation to the right use thereof.  
We must not think it more strange, that an idolatrous and corrupted Church should confer a vocation, which should be sufficient to bind a man duly to perform the office of a Pastor: for all oaths made concerning things that are just and holy, whereinto a man hath not intruded himself, ought inviolably to be observed. Now in heretical and idolatrous Churches, Pastors are received and admitted vpon promise to teach the truth. Besides, every heretical Church hath the chair of the first institution, and by the intention of the people, ordained to preach the purity of the gospel. Therefore the council of Nice in the 8. Canon ordained that heretical Clerkes that had any charge among the Catharists or Nouatians, vpon their conversions to the catholic Church, should remain in the same degree that they were in. Onely it ordained that they should be received again by imposition of hands, which was not an ordinary imposition of hands, but a simplo blessing; 
Acts 13. v. ●. Mat. 19. v. 15. {αβγδ},  whereof there are many examples in the new Testament. The 69 Canon of the Code of the african councils, ordaineth that the Donatists Clerkes should be received into the clergy of the catholic Church, and remain in their first dignity. Which is the subject of Saint Hieromes Dialogue against the Luciferians, where he proveth, that as the Church receiveth those which had been baptized by the Arians, so she ought to receive those Bishops which converted from arianism, without taking their dignity from them.  
But hereby the Church of Rome hath no advantage of us, as if we drew our vocation from her. For therein we give no more authority to the Church of Rome then to the Arian and Nestorian Churches, seeing that we say that the most corrupt Church of all others, and wherein there is no salvation, loseth not her power to confer a vocation, which although it be corrupt, nevertheless it bindeth a man to do his duty, specially when he is admitted vpon oath to teach the truth. The principal point is, that those reformers of Papacy observed that which was good in their bad ordinary vocation, not from the Prelates which had consecrated them after the Romish manner, but from Iesus Christ and the Apostles, from whom these callings were first derived. even as when the water of a clear spring comes to us through an unclean channel, then infection cometh onely from that channel, but the water comes from the spring& first original therof: which coming thick and troubled unto us, our labour is commendable, if we seek to make it run clear. It is one thing to haue a vocation by the means and ministry of the Church of Rome, and another thing to haue it from the Church of Rome, and from her authority. The authority of the calling comes from Iesus Christ and the Apostles, and not from polluted hands through the which it hath past. The obligation to keep a mans oath, comes not from him to whom the oath is made, but from God to whom we swear, who onely hath the power in his hands to punish perjury. Therefore, if I promise a man to do two things, the one holy and just, the other wicked and contrary to the word of God; that mans authority cannot bind me to offend God, by keeping that which I haue evilly and rashly promised. Promises made against God do not bind. A wicked oath is worse to be observed. Therefore all the oaths made by Priests and Bishops unto the Pope, are void and of no force; but the promise which they make to preach the truth of the word of God, bindeth them, and is inviolable.  
That which is said before being well-considered, is a sufficient answer to that which they ask us, which is, What miracles the first reformers did, to authorize their extraordinary vocation. For this question ought not to be put to those which haue had the ordinary vocation used in the Church in their countries. Besides there were diuers Prophets extraordinarily raised, whom we find not to haue done any miracles, as Osea, Michea, Malachy, &c. An evil and an adulterous generation seeketh a sign, Matth. 12.39. And if those reformers of papistry had done miracles, their enemies being resolute to contradict them, would presently haue said, that it was of them which Iesus Christ said, There shall arise false Prophets, showing signs and wonders, Math. 24.24. Mark. 13.22.  
To conclude, all the means that our aduersaries help themselves withall in this question is, a shift or a slight to hinder us from examining their doctrine. They busy us with disputing vpon formalities, to keep us from entering into the ground of the cause, with the same policy by the which the high Priests and Scribes asked Iesus Christ and his Apostles the reason of their vocation. They busy us about callings, thereby to divert us from the examination of doctrine. It is necessary indeed that a Pastor intrude not himself, and that he be duly called: but it is not absolutely necessary for the good of the people, that they should exactly know the vocation of their Pastors: they shall not be answerable for that at the day of iudgement, but they are to give an account of the obedience which they haue yielded to the pure word of God, though it were preached by an usurper, whose usurpation may be vnknone to the people. For there is no man so foolishly scrupulous, which had not rather be lead into Paradise by a man without a calling, then to be drawn into hell by a man laden with titles, having an ordinary vocation.  
But the injustice of our aduersaries specially appeareth herein, that they will haue all vocation in the Church to depend vpon the Pope, which is one of the greatest abuses in the Church of Rome, and hath most need of reformation. By this reckoning we must haue our vocation from the Pope, to preach against the Pope. And we must be silent until such time as some good Pope sends some men expressly to preach against himself.  
But that which was most necessary for them to do, that is, to let the people see the original of ecclesiastical functions,& to show them that Iesus Christ instituted sacrificers of his body, this is the thing which they never do, and which they will not once touch; and for fear lest the people should look clearly into it, they hid the holy Scripture from them, which onely governeth and directeth ecclesiastical vocations, and propoundeth the first institution thereof unto vs.  ARNOVX. 
They note no places of Scripture in the margin for proof of this exception, nor of this necessity, nor of this circumstance of times, nor of pretended interruption, nor of men raised up, nor of the extraordinary manner, nor of restoring the Church, nor of one onely word of the Article.  moulin. 
To prove that in our time God raised certain persons by an extraordinary manner, and that reformation was necessary, our Confession produceth not any place of Scripture in the margin of this Article, because that by places of the Scripture, we prove the points of our belief, but not what happened in our time in France; which are points contained in modern histories, and no Articles of faith. It ought not to seem strange, if in the Confession of our Churches there are some points inserted which are no Articles of faith. For as the title of the Decalogue is, The ten commandements of God: And yet these words, I am a mighty God, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers, &c. and these words, In six dayes God made heaven and earth, are not commandements, but reasons whereupon God groundeth his commandements. So in the Confession of faith, it was necessary to insert some things which are not Articles of faith, but which serve to show a reason why it was necessary for us to oppose ourselves against the Romish faith, by a contrary confession of faith.  
Touching the rest, all the places of Scripture quoted in the margin of our Confession from the beginning to the ending touching those Articles which are in controversy, are as many proofs and reasons, to show why in our time the reformation of the Church of Rome hath been necessary.  

Of the perpetual stability of the Church of Rome.  ARNOVX. 
Because motion is made to put the Church of Rome from her possession, and to show that Iesus Christ having once given himself unto her as an inheritance, which she hath held so many ages, as they confess, hath withdrawn himself from her: Or that she being inheritrix of life, can die: and of the truth, can lye; and likewise of the way, can err and be lost.  moulin. 
In all this discourse there is not one true word, not yet common sense. It is false, that we go about to put the Church of Rome from any possession. We come to help the Church of Rome, and she complains that we would take her goods from her; she understands aid to be injury. For those that govern her, fear that the gospel will diminish their riches and great wealth: and that is the possession for the which they dispute.  
It is false also, that we ever confessed that Iesus Christ gave himself for an inheritance to the Church of Rome, in that sense which our adversary meaneth. By the Church of Rome, we understand the Church of the city of Rome, to the which Iesus Christ never gave himself for an inheritance, in other sort, then to the Church of Corinth, Ephesus, or Constantinople. He made his covenant with those Churches, with threatenings to take it away, and to remove their candlestick, in case of contempt or rebellion: a mischief which hath happened to the Church of Rome. Life and truth are riches whereof the Church of Rome never was proprietary, although in the first age of the Church it was one of those Churches which professed the word of God. The riches thereof which from age to age haue increased therein, by perverting of manners, haue perverted doctrine. For it hath been forced to wrest the doctrine to make it appliable to vices, to build an Empire, and to give a particular Church the title and properties of the universal Church. And if M. Arnoux will haue the Church of Rome to be seized in perpetuity of truth and life, without erring or falling away, he ought to produce places out of the Scripture, which confirm this prerogative unto her. For there is no Church in the world how wicked soever it be, which may not also brag and say of itself, that it cannot err nor be overthrown. So the Iewes, conspiring against ieremy, said, The law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet, Iere. 18.18. But God maketh them liars therein, saying, The law shall perish from the Priest, and counsel from the ancient Ezechiel, 7.26. So Babylon speaketh, sitting vpon seven hills, and exerciseth a traffic or merchandise of souls, Apoc. 18.7. I sit being a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no mourning. Note this word sit, for that is the word which the Popes use to denote their dominion. To conclude, to say I cannot err, is the worst of all errors. That Church which saith I cannot fall by error, is already fallen by pride, and lieth, in saying she cannot lye. In saying, that she is the rule, she exempteth herself from all rule, and her fall is the less recoverable, because that being fallen, she still thinketh that she stands upright. nevertheless, to prove that the Church of Rome cannot err, behold what places of Scripture our adversary setteth down.  ARNOVX. 
Daniel, 2.44. the Prophet speaking of the Christian Church, under the word queen, saith thus, And in the dayes of those kings, shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.  moulin. 
In this place there is no speech of a queen, nor yet of the Church of Rome. The Prophet speaketh of a kingdom which shall endure for ever. Which is understood of the kingdom of the Saints, and the elect, who shall reign with Iesus Christ eternally in heaven, as Daniel himself declareth, 7.18. saying, But the Saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. If the Church of Rome be eternal, then after the day of iudgement, there must be Popes eternally on earth.  ARNOVX. 
And Exodus 4.1. Moses making difficulty to go unto Pharaoh to reform him, and saying, They will not beleeue me, nor harken to my voice, for they will say, God hath not sent him: God gave him power to work miracles, adding the reason, To the end that they may beleeue that the true God appeared unto thee.  moulin. 
If by these two places M. Arnoux pretends to prove that the Church cannot err, he doth according to his accustomend manner, which is just quidlibet ex quolibet. As when before, he proved that the Church is visible, because it is written, That God hath placed a pavilion in heaven for the sun, psalm 19. and that she is apostolical, because it is written, God doth iustice to the orphan and to him that is oppressed. But if by this place he will prove the necessity of miracles, he digresseth from the question, for this hath no coniunction with that which goeth before. Touching miracles we haue before spoken at large, and in the Section following we will speak more. But where did he learn, that Moses was sent to pharaoh to reform him? To bring the Israelites out of Aeygpt, is that to reform pharaoh or the religion of Aeygpt?  ARNOVX. 
And John, 10.37. If I do not the works of my Father, 
135. Sect.  beleeue me not. To conclude, neither the son of God, nor the Apostles, nor Moses, nor Elias, ever took on them to appear, as being sent in an extraordinary manner, without having marks of their authority from God.  moulin. 
Our saviour said, If I do not the works of my Father, beleeue me not. Touching that, we haue already said, that as the miracles done by Moses still served to authorize the Law, even after miracles ceased in Israel: so miracles done by Christ, and by the Apostles still serve at this day to authorize the gospel, although miracles haue ceased. When king josias openly shewed the book of the Law which had been lost, 2. Kings 21. he did no miracle, because he propounded no new thing, but re-established the ancient doctrine of the Law, sufficiently authorized by miracles at the publication thereof in Horeb. It belongs to them that teach new doctrine to do miracles. False Prophets shall rise up, and do great signs and miracles, Matth. 24.24. The son of perdition shall show signs and lying wonders. 2. Thess. 2.9. An evil and an adulterous generation seeketh a sign. Matth. 12.39. To those that shall say unto Iesus Christ, Haue not we in thy name cast out divels, it shall be said, Depart from me, I never knew you, Matth. 7.23. These are places which seem to haue been written expressly of our aduersaries, whose miracles at this day are all reduced to the casting out of divels. For to restore sight to a man that was born blind, or to raise a dead man to life again, there is no speech of such matters, their art extendeth not so far. To conclude, all this is grounded vpon a false supposition, that we haue no ordinary vocation. Those which besides their extraordinary commission, haue ordinary vocation, need no miracles to authorize it. Now this extraordinary commission is grounded vpon the necessity of reforming the Church of Rome, and vpon the evident corruption of ordinary vocation.    

THE XXXII. ARTICLE. Of the Confession of faith.  We also beleeue, that it is good and profitable, that such as are chosen to be Superintendents, should take order among themselves what means they should use for the government of the whole body, and yet in no sort to decline from that which is set down unto us by our Lord Iesus Christ. Which hindereth not but that there may be particular orders and ordinances in every place, as necessity requireth. 
Our adversary by his silence approveth this Article.   

THE XXXIII. ARTICLE. Of ecclesiastical policy.  Notwithstanding we exclude all human inventions,& all laws which men introduce under shadow of the service of God, whereby they would directly bind mens consciences. But onely we receive such as serve to nourish concord, and to keep all both high and low in obedience. Wherein we are to follow that which our Lord Iesus Christ declareth touching excommunication, which we approve and confess to be necessary, with all the appurtenances. ARNOVX. 
That is to shake off the yoke of laws and Ordinances, as well of the Church( the Spouse of Christ) as of Magistrates, to the which they beleeue, that they must not obey, but by policy, and for order, not for conscience sake.  moulin. 
This Article tendeth not to shake off the ordinances of the Churches of God, but the ordinances of the papal Church, whereby a tyrannicall yoke is laid vpon mens consciences, and Christian liberty oppressed.  
Touching obedience due to Magistrates, there is nothing spoken thereof in this Article, that is referred to the last Article of our Confession, where we shall see the contrary to that which M. Arnoux imposeth vpon vs. For the●e we say, that God hath established kingdoms and Principalities, that he will be known to be the author thereof, that we must obey them for Gods sake, and that he will haue us to pay them tributes, imposts and other duties, &c. It is therefore a foul slander which our adversary imposeth vpon us, to say, that we beleeue that we must not obey kings but by policy, and for order, and not for conscience sake. The Apostle Paul, Rom. 13.5. takes away all doubt thereof, when he saith, that We must be subject unto higher powers, not because of wrath onely, but also for conscience sake.  
But what is the cause, that when in this Article we speak of human inventions, M. Arnoux thinketh, that under those human inventions we understand the obedience which we owe to Magistrates laws: but onely because he esteemeth the power of Magistrates to be a human invention, and not a divine ordinance? And hereafter in another place he calleth it a human law. That is the opinion of the Doctors of the Church of Rome. Bellarmine maintaineth against Barkley, that the power of kings is not de jure divino. That is the apophthegme of Binet the Iesuite, speaking to M. Casaubon, saying, That it was better that all kings were slain, then a Confession should be revealed: because Confession is by divine law, but the power of Princes is by human law, as the said M. Casaubon witnesseth in his Epistle written to Fronton le duke the Iesuite.  ARNOVX. 
For if they spake of unjust laws made by unlawful Magistrates, they need not frame an Article for that matter in a Confession of faith, where all things are succinctly and compendiously set down.  moulin. 
In this Article of our Confession, we neither speak of just nor unjust laws of Magistrates; for in it we speak not any thing of the Magistrate. Howbeit under these words of unlawful Magistrates, the Iesuire comprehends lawful Magistrates: for they think, that to kill a King which is deposed by the Pope, is not to kill a King, because they esteem him no more a King, howsoever he reigns actually, whereof we will speak hereafter.  ARNOVX. 
The catholic Church teacheth French men, that the most Christian state of France is composed of two houses, that is, spiritual and temporal: the last is to build vpon their King which is the ground, and the first to build vpon the holy Sea which is the chief corner ston: and in either of those two houses they are bound as Christians and catholic Frenchmen, as well to the laws of the Church, as to the Kings laws and to his Ministers and Officers.  moulin. 
All this discourse concerneth not our Article, wherein there is nothing said of Magistrates: howbeit al this discourse sounds ill in the mouth of Iesuites, who place murtherers of Kings in the roll of Martyrs: witness the Table which with mine own eyes I haue seen in the college de la Flesche in the Fathers hall, where among jesuitical martyrs, there are diuers which haue been executed for such parricides. Therefore M. Arnoux ought to abstain from this matter, for the honour of his Order, and call to mind the iudgement against John Chastel, and the punishment of Guignard, and the refusal which the Iesuites make at this day, by writing to condemn this proposition, that the Pope cannot depose a King: and rather to stay vpon the substance of our Article, wherein we speak not of obedience due to Magistrates but of ecclesiastical discipline and policy, and specially of Excommunication.  
But he would be sure not to meddle therewith, lest he should give us occasion to lay open the abuse,& the profanation of the use of the keys which the son of God hath given to all the Apostles, and to their successors, which are the faithful pastors of the Church.  

Of Excommunications in the Church of Rome.  
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, 
Toletus libr. 1. De instructione sacerdotali ca. 8. Fertur excommunicatio in eum qui aliquid alteri surripuit.  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 divell. The council of Trent in the 25. Session approveth these Excommunications made to find things lost: but will haue none but Bishops to publish them.  
They do worse then that: 
Tolet. lib. Instruct. sacerdotal. ca. 8. Fulminatur in futurum. Toletus Ibid.  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 vpon 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 onely excommunicateth Kings, and censureth them: as Emmanuel Sà the Iesuite saith 
Eman. Sa Aphorismi in voice excommunicatio. Reges àsolo Papa excommunicantur& censuris ligantur.  in his aphorisms. The example of Ambrose disliketh him, who being but Bishop of milan, durst take vpon him publicly to suspend Theodosius the Emperour, 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. Instruct. sacerd. li. 1, ca. 6. Foemina excommunicare potest ex commissione Papae, vt notant Panor.& Antoninus  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 diuers persons use them, which cannot preach the gospel.  

Papa mandat vt aliquem excommunicet sine aliqua cognitione causae.  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 
Causa 11. Quaest. 3. Can. Sententia pastorum, siue iusta siue iniusta, timenda est.  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 
Tolet. lib. 1. Instr. sacerd. c. 3. Excommunicatus non potest exercere actum jurisdictionis absque peccato, imò si publica est excommunicatio facta, sententiae nullae sunt.  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 Iudges, as well sovereign as inferior, whom when it pleaseth the Pope, or the Prelates to excommunicate them, their acts, ordinances, and judgements are of no effect,( if we beleeue the maxims of the roman Church:) and by consequence their places must be supplied by other persons the Popes friends, that their judgements may be available.  
Our Kings and their Officers, and Courts of Parliament, are dealt withall 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. Vpon which day the Pope appeareth standing in a Porch of a gate, with two bullocks 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 Counsellors of the Courts of Parliament, ordinary Iudges, 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 vpon their subiects 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 Iesus Christs commandement, 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 iudgement shall be ratified in heaven. Which power the Apostle Saint Paul will haue the Corinthians to use against the incestuous persons, 1. Cor. 5.3. saying, Put away that wicked person from among you.  ARNOVX. 
Places of Scripture alleged. And those that are alleged, in my iudgment are rather referred to certain words which are lower in the Article, as that of Rom. 16.17. and 1. Cor. 3.3. where the Apostle exhorteth Christians to shun partiality, and nothing else.  moulin. 
The 33. Article of our Confession saith, that we receive that which serves to nourish concord, and thereupon noteth, Rom. 16.17. where the Apostle saith, I beseech you brethren, mark them diligently which cause division and offences. And 1. Cor. 3.3. For whereas there is among you envy, and strife, and division, are ye not carnal? Nothing can be quoted that is fitter to the purpose.  ARNOVX. 
These places are nothing to the purpose to weaken the force and vigour of human laws, which are good, and made by those whom God hath established, but serve onely to appease seditions, and to break civil factions.  moulin. 
I grant that those places may be fitly urged against seditious and quarrelsome persons, and we allege them to no other end; not to dispense with human laws, I mean such as M. Arnoux understands by human laws, to wit, the ordinance of God to obey kings, calling that a human law, thereby to embase the authority of our Soueraignes, by persuading us that their authority is not derived from the divine Law of God.  ARNOVX. 
Contrary places of Scripture. Luke. 10.16. He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.  moulin. 
Our 33. Article rejecteth human inventions. But in this place of Luke 10.16. which M. Arnoux opposeth against us, our Lord Iesus Christ commandeth to obey the Apostles, and all faithful Pastors which speak in his name. Which if M. Arnoux placeth among human inventions, I know not what else is divine. Therefore this place is so far from making any thing against our Article, that it is little less then blasphemy to wrest it to establish human inventions.  ARNOVX. 
And Rom. 13.2. whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation. And verse 5. Wherefore ye must be subject, not because of wrath onely, but also for conscience sake. Therefore we cannot say that the observation of human laws, belongeth not to the service of God, nor bind the conscience.  moulin. 
human laws, that is, human inventions, and mens traditions, which corrupt piety, burden mens consciences, and draw money from the people under prerence of devotion, are condemned by our 33. Article. But touching obedience due to Magistrates, whereof the Apostle speaketh, we call it not a human law, but a divine constitution. M. Arnoux which calleth it a human law, offendeth the majesty of our Kings, and under a show to exhort men to obey them, vndermineth their authority.    
FINIS.   

THE SECOND PART OF THE DEFENCE OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH MADE BY THE reformed Churches of France: WHEREIN THE DOCTRINE OF THE said Churches touching the Sacraments of the Christian Church, and the power and authority of Magistrates, is maintained, against the objections of M. Arnoux the Iesuite.  

THE XXXIIII. ARTICLE. Of the Confession of the faith of the reformed Churches.  WE beleeue that the Sacraments are added to the word for ampler confirmation, to be pledges and tokens of the grace of God, and by that means to help and strengthen our faith, because of the infirmity and hardness of belief which is in us: and that they are in such sort exterior signs, that by them God worketh through the power of his Spirit, that nothing by them should be signified to us in vain. And yet we beleeue that all the substance and truth of them is in Iesus Christ: and that if they be separated from him, they are nothing but shadows and smoke. 
The adversary passeth over this Article, and approveth it by his silence.   

THE XXXV. ARTICLE. Of the number of Sacraments.  We confess onely two Sacraments, and those common to all the Church, whereof the first, which is baptism, is given unto us for a testimony of our adoption, because that thereby we are engrafted into the body of Christ, that we might be washed and cleansed by his blood, and after renewed in holinesse of life by his Spirit. We also beleeue, that although we are but once baptized, that the benefit which thereby is signified unto us, extendeth both to life and death, that we might haue a permanent sign or seal that Iesus Christ will always be righteousness and sanctification unto vs. Now although it be a Sacrament of faith and repentance, nevertheless because God receiveth little children together with their parents into his Church, we say, that by the authority from Iesus Christ, young children begotten by faithful parents, ought to be baptized. ARNOVX. 
After they haue cut off part of the Scriptures by the 5. Article, the merits of works by the 22. Article, and works of perfection by the 24. Article, they proceed further to the cutting off of the Sacraments, practised in all times in the Church of God, according to the institution of Iesus Christ.  moulin. 
We haue cut nothing off from the holy Scriptures: for we cannot cut that off which was never of them. The books of judith, Tobias, maccabees, &c. are not found in the Hebrew Bibles, which are the original of the old Testament, moreover, they are full of fables, as we haue proved. The Church of Rome is the onely Church that dares be so bold to cut off the Scripture, taking the second commandement of the Law of God out of it, in their Ladies Houres and service books.  
Touching merits by which God is made debtor to men, and touching works of perfection which are called supererogatorie, whereby a man exceeds the Law of God, and doth more good then God will haue him to do, we reject them, because God rejecteth them, as we haue proved before in the 70. Section of the first book.  
Touching the Sacraments, we receive all those which Iesus Christ hath ordained: and reject the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Sacrament of Penance, the Sacrament of marriage, the Sacrament of extreme unction,& the Sacrament of Orders: because they are no Sacraments of the orthodoxal catholic Church, but of the Church of Rome. Of each of which it is necessary that we say something.  

Of the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation.  
Confirmation is a Sacrament of the Church of Rome not to be reiterated, 
council. tried. Sess. 7. cap. 9.  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, 
Pontificale c. De confir. Hoc Sacramento contrahitur spiritualis cognatio impediens matrimonium, contrahendum,& dirimens contractum. Idque contra Decretum Concilij Cabilonensis. 2. c. 31.  there is a spiritual parentage begotten, which hindereth marriage, and which also causeth the dissolution of marriage, notwithstanding the prohibition made by Iesus 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 mary 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, 
Dispensatio de contrahendo incognatione spirituali. gr. 60. Expodiui tamen unam pro gr. 50. said de gratia.  A dispensation to contract marriage between spiritual kindred costs 60 groats, nevertheless I granted one for 50 groats; but that was done by favour.  
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 vpon his breast, and says certain prayers, by the which he asketh or requireth the sevenfold spirit. Then he asketh the godfather the childs name, and dipping his right thumb 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, Aue Chrisma, I salute thee chrism.  
That done, the Bishop annonits the childs forehead therewith in manner of a cross, saying, Signo te signo crucis,& confirmo te chrismate salutis, in nomine patris,& filii& 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 thumb 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 Aue Maria.  
While this is doing, the child if it can stand upright, setteth his right foot vpon the right foot of his godfather or godmother, if it be a daughter. The action ended, they bind the childs forehead with a cloath, and vpon the band put certain golden spangles in manner of a cross, and so the whole action is ended.  

Nunquam erit Christianus, nisi in Confirmatione Episcopali fuerit Chrismatus.  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. 
Hoc Sacramentum est perfectiuum Baptismi.  saith, This Sacrament is administered to give perfection to baptism, as if without Confirmation baptism were imperfect. Therfore also the rules of the Romish Church import, that this Sacrament ought to be more honourable then baptism: as it is expressly said in the Canon De his, in the fift Distinction of Consecration, which saith, 
Maiorī veneratione venerandum est& tenendum.  This Sacrament ought to be reverenced& observed with greater reverence then baptism. nevertheless, to mitigate the matter, there is added, 
said ita coniuncta sunt haec dvo sacramenta, vt ab invicem nisi morte praeueniente nullatenus possint separari,& vnum sine altero perfici non posset.§ Denique. Idcirco tam ratione Ministri quàm ratione subiecti, praestat Confirmatio Baptismo, vt rectè dicit Magister. Vide Costerum Augment. enchiridij de Sacram. Confirm.  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, Ratione 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, Ratione 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 crownes, I should say, that that penny is of more worth then the ten crownes, because of the quality of the giver, and because the one laid the penny vpon the poor mans head, and the other put the ten crownes into his hand. Thirdly and lastly, he will haue Confirmation to surpass baptism, Ratione 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 divell. To that end the blow on the ear serveth. Which being so, I marvell▪ why Iesus Christ would be baptized, and did not think vpon 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 haue a show of conjuration. Our aduersaries, to prove this Confirmation by the Scripture, say, that Iesus 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 
Ep. ad Orientales.  Pope Fabian, which as well as others of the three first 
Baron. tom. 9. ad annum 861. Sect. 5. 6. 7. quas dubias esse, non dubium est. Item illis aduentitijs& recens inuentis non eget Ecclesia.  Ages, is acknowledged to be false by the wisest among our Aduersaries. This is rather to mock then to defend the cause, that they ground their Confirmation vpon this, that the holy Spirit descended vpon 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 Aduersaries mistake themselves. They haue no less reason to ground their Confirmation vpon Acts 8.16 and 19.6. of the same, where the Apostles laid hands vpon certain persons that were already baptized, who by that laying on of hands received the holy Ghost. For is there any thing 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 vpon 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 haue seen, if some visible and extraordinary miracle had not been shewed. Certainly he would haue given nothing for the confirmation of the Romish Church. Those extraordinary graces were sometimes conferred before baptism, as to Cornelius and his family. 
Acts 10.44.47.  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 Iesus Christ, and of his graces, common to all believers, and perpetual in the Christian Church. Of such Sacraments we aclowledge but two, that is, baptism and the Lords Supper, because Iesus Christ ordained but these two. Saint Augustine, in his 118. Epistle 9. chapter, 3. book of Christian Doctrine, restraineth himself to these 
Sacramenti● numero paucissimis, obseruatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligauit, sicuti est baptismus, Trinitatis nomine consecratus, et communicatio corporis& sanguinis ipsius,& si quid aliud in scriptures Canonicis commendatur. Graeci haeretici, qui Pontificem& Latinos omnes habent pro excommunicatis sacramentum confirmationis paruulis suis mox post baptismum conferunt per simplices sacerdotes.  two Sacraments; and it is usual with him to say, That the Sacraments of the Christian Church, issued out of our Lords 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 Catechumeni were baptized by troops. 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 practised in the Church of Rome. The Supplement of Philastrius puts this among the errors of the Greekes, 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 in stead 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.  
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, 
Tesh uba {αβγδ}.  a Returning unto God, and the Greekes, 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 pecuniary punishments. Of a virtue they haue 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. 
Optima poenitentia noua vita.  For which heresy, among many the like, he is blasted with thunderings& excommunications, in the Bull Exurge, of Pope lo 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 Iesus 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 Iesus 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, vpon condition to make satisfaction unto God by corporal or pecuniary Penance, which whosoever doth not accomplish in this life, shall accomplish it in purgatory, from whence nevertheless the Pope draws out mens 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 aduersaries with us aclowledge, that every Sacrament is a sacred and a visible sign of an invisible grace of God. 
Can. Sacrificium. Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma.  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 appearance of an invisible grace. And this sentence of S. Augustine is received among our aduersaries, 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 haue 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 Iesus 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 aduersaries we are constrained to speak as it were to children, to beate into them the first principles of reason and common sense.  
2 The proofs which follow are no less plain and evident. Our aduersaries 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 vpon 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 diuers yeares: in the ancient penitential Canons, there are penances found of 10, and of 20 yeares. Then seeing that this satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament of Penance, we may say that a man is 20 yeares administering a Sacrament, as if a man should employ 7 or 8 yeares to baptize a child, or to confer extreme unction. But this is worse: for there are satisfactions which are made by respites, or spaces of times, as when a sinner is condemned to fast three yeares together, three dayes 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 aduersaries so ingenious to disguise religion.  
5 But to show the roote of this evil, if Penance be a Sacrament of the Christian Church, then Iesus 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 Iesus Christ blowing vpon 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 Iesus Christ, our aduersaries( 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, 
Matth. 3.  when S. John Baptist preached saying: Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand, that repentance was no Sacrament, for then Iesus Christ was not risen again. And which is more, 
Vulgata poenitemini.  when in mark 1.15. Iesus Christ said, Repent, and beleeue the gospel, that repentance was no Sacrament, for then the Lord was not yet risen again. And after the resurrection of Iesus Christ, Acts 2.38, when Saint Peter exhorted the Iewes( not then baptized) to repent, saying, Agite poenitentiam, Repent, or amend your lives, that repentance was no Sacrament: 
Nec ante aduentum Christi poenitentia erat Sacramentum, nec est post aduentum illius cuiquam ante Baptismum.  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 ourselves, we cannot be blamed for not receiving other Penance then that which the Prophets, John Baptist, Iesus Christ, and the Apostles preached.  
6 And if we must haue a Sacrament of Penance, we haue 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.  
Confession of sins is necessary to salvation. He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, 
Prou. 28. v. 13  but who so confesseth and forsaketh them, shall haue mercy, saith Salomon. So sinners came to John Baptist confessing their sins. This Confession is made, either to God onely, or publicly to the Church, or privately to the Minister of the Church, or to our neighbours whom we haue offended. All these Confessions are good, and are practised in our Churches: wherein, besides the Confession which every one 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, 
Sess. 24. cap. 8. in Decreto de reformatione. Apostolus monet publicè peccantes palàm esse corripiendos. Socrat. l. 5 cap. 19. Sozo. l. 7. c. 16.  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 haue 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 consistory, 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 haue offended one the other, of which mutual confessions Saint james 5.16 speaketh saying: aclowledge your sins one to another, 
{αβγδ}.  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 sheweth, that as Saint james commandeth us not to pray onely for Priests: so he doth not command us to confess our faults onely to Priests. He speaketh therefore of a reciprocal prayer, 
Intercessores sunt apud Deum pro peccatoribus justi, hoc pro se ipsi peccantesinuicem vt faciant admonentur.  and of a mutual succour, 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 Caietan doth the like in his commentary vpon this Epistle, saying, 
Nec est hic sermo de confessione Sacramenti, vt patet ex eo quod dicit, confitemini invicem, &c.  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 onely to the Priest. The Apostle speaketh of that Confession whereby we mutually aclowledge ourselves 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●iest, yet that makes nothing against us which admit this Confession; we onely ●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 onely to discover all his sins unto him, but also all the particular circumstances, which change( as the council of Trent saith, 
Sess. 14. can. 7. ) the nature of sin. Whereof if a man willingly omitteth any thing, 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 haue 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, 
Sess. 14. can. 5.  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 subiects against an excommunicated Prince, they persuade bloodshedding and rebellion secretiy in the peoples 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. Fiftly, that thereby they take pleasure it asking immodest questions, and teach vices under pretence of sounding mens consciences, and make enquiry of married mens secrets, whereof also they haue made rules. read the 19 book of Burcharts Decree, the Roman penitential, navarrus, Sanches, Emanuel Saes aphorisms, and other Casuists, cardinal Tolets Instruction to Priests, and the immodest book of the Benedictins touching Confessions. There you shall see a thousand secrets of enormous unchastity: the shameful tricks of covents, and profane curiosity whereby they teach and reduce vices into an Art, as well natural as against nature, under colour to reprove them.   

Of Absolution and sacramental Satisfaction.  
Our Lord Iesus Christ hath given power to his Apostles and to theit successors to pardon sins, and to bind and lose sinners, Matth. 16.19. and 18.18. and joh. 20. A sinner is bound as long as he is obliged to the punishment due for sin, and is unbound 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 iudgement 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 seruants hands, who pronounce this pardon not as Iudges, but as Ministers, and Heralds of peace and of reconciliation: declaring to the penitent 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 offence 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 pardonned others, he himself may not obtain pardon. It is a thing certain, that if a sinner seriously converting and believing in Iesus 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 appearance 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 iustice by their ignorance.  
As God in the Scripture saith, 
1. Cor. 9.22. 1. Tim. 4.16.  That Pastors save mens souls, because God useth their ministery to save them: so Pastors pardon sinners, because God useth their ministery to pardon them, giuing efficacy to their words pronounced, either to al 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 sand 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, 
Littera F. Dominus Sacerdotib. tribuit potestatem soluendi& ligandi, id est, ostendendi homines esse ligatos vel solutos,  The Lord hath given power to Priests to bind and unbind, that is, to show that men are bound or unbound.  
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 mens souls. And the Pope gives absolutions sealed with led, 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 unbind on earth, he pretends to unbind vpon 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 vpon him to discharge men of their oaths, and of the subiection 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 haue 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 Aduersaries to uphold this power, more in mockery then for any hope that they haue to be believed.  

Emman. Sa Aphorism. in verbo Excommunicatio, Absolutio ex causa falsa valet. Tolet. De Instruct. Sacerdot. li. 1 ca. 14 Absolutio in. justae valet Idid. Potest absolutio fieri per procuratorem Homo invitus potest absolui ignarus& inscius, vide azure. li. 1. cap. 9. q. 2 Eman. Sa in verbo Excommunicatio.  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 haue seen those that haue 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 distributor.  
Emanuel Sa the Iesuite, in the beginning of his aphorisms sheweth us what words the priest useth in giuing absolution. Among other things the Priest saith to the sinner: The passion of our Lord Iesus Christ, and the merites of the most blessed virgin mary, 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ, Rom. 3.24. And, That by him God freely pardoneth all our offences, 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 labours 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 yeares 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 merites, or by the merites 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 ranted at an higher price, then those sins that are directly committed against God. This traffic extendeth itself even unto the dead. 
Pro mortuo excommunicato pro quo parentes supplicant litera absolutionis vaenit. Dus. 1. can. 9.  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 ducat and nine Carolus.  
And when there is an absolution to be given to an excommunicated King, that is done vpon 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 whipped by a number of monks: or in the persons of their Ambassadors, as henry the fourth of famous memory, our late king deceased, was beaten by Pope Clement 8. with diuers blows with a staff, in the person of Monsieur de Perron Bishop of Eureux his ambassador: Or else the Pope condemns them to sand certain troops of souldiers to aid his Holinesse, 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 Emperours of Germany, and brought a puissant Empire into a poor estate, as we see at this day.  

Session 14. c. 6  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 pardonned, 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●iest is unknown, and onely to be presumed. They also make their absolution vain by the satisfactory penances which they impose on men. For, unloosing the sinner by Absolution, at the same instant again they bind him by corporal punishment, which they impose vpon him. They pardon him, and in the mean time make him subject to a punishment. They pardon the fault, and yet constrain him to suffer the punishment. Iesus Christ did not so: For in the 8. of Saint John, pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he onely said unto her, Go, and sin no more: without imposing any satisfactory penance, either corporal or pecuniary 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 Gods Iustice, which Iesus Christ hath fully satisfied.  
Yet this is not all, for our Aduersaries having imposed satisfactory punishments vpon a sinner, presently after they dispense with him for money, and change corporal into pecuniary punishments, as we haue shewed 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 commandement of God, which saith, Do works worthy of repentance. That is to prefer the Pope before God.  

Indulgentiae faciunt vt pro poenis quae per indulgentias condonantur, non teneamur praecepto illo de faciendis dignis poenitentia fructibus.  You must also note, that the council of Trent, will not onely haue those satisfactions to serve to amend the sinner, but also to take vengeance of sins pardonned. A doctrine which contradicteth itself: for God taketh no vengeance after he hath pardonned.  
Touching cases which a Priest cannot absolve, but are reserved to the Bishop, whose power also is limited, many cases being reserved onely to the Pope himself, the council of Trent in the 14. Session, groundeth those reservations vpon Romans, 13.1. noted in the margin 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 infereth, 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, 
{αβγδ}.  are established or ordained of God. And so the French Bible translated by the Doctors of louvain hath it. With such quotations the margin of that council is filled.  
Those Prelates quoted not matthew 18.18. nor John 20.23. where Iesus 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.  
Our aduersaries 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 haue drawn the knowledge of matrimonial 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 forbade 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 hid itself. For our aduersaries say, that a Sacracrament is a sacred sign instituted by Iesus 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 Iesus Christ. But Marriage was not instituted by Iesus Christ: for Marriage was used in the world before Iesus Christ was born. If they answer, and say, that Iesus 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 Iesus Christ. Which they could never yet do: it is a thing drawn from the unwritten word.  
2 Sacraments are remedies against sin,& aids to our infirmities: Marriage therefore is no Sacrament, because it was ordained before sin entred 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. 
Dist. 26. Can. Vna. Tantum ex Ambrosio. joannes Baptista dum Herodem ab incestu prohiberet, dicens, Non licet tibi habere vxorem fratris tui, evidenter ostendit inter infidels coniugia esse.  Whereupon Ambrose noteth, that John Baptist would not haue said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to haue 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 christians 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 vpon 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 haue 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 Lords Supper disannulled, 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 holinesse 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 solemnization 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 Iesus 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 aduersaries to a non-plus, and they are fain to sand 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 Patriarkes 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 Iesus 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 Salomon, the 16. of Ezechiel, 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 onely 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 Eua, or of Abraham and Sara. And when Iesus Christ, Matth. 19.8. abolished the liberty of divorces used among the Iewes, 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 onely to signify some graces of God, but also to ratify the same unto us, and to confirm the promises of God in vs. If then they will haue Marriage to be a Sacrament, it must not onely be a figure of the union of Iesus 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 any thing 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 diuers things at once. But it shall never be found, that a thing which is holy and sacred to some men, is profane and abominable 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 itself 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. 
Sess. 7. ca. 11.  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 divined or presumed vpon. Wherein nevertheless there is matter and subject enough to doubt of: for the Church of Rome is full of Priests, which aclowledge 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.  

Dur. in Sent. l. 4. Dist. 26. q. 3.  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 lo 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 coniunction 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 onely since the coming of Iesus Christ.  
To be short, if we should say nothing, the thing itself would speak: for Marriage hath been made infamous and abominable to Priests, for the preservation of ecclesiastical goods, lest they should take vpon them to withdraw some part thereof from the Church for the benefit of their children, 
uxor superstes& filii per quos Ecclesiastica solet perire substantia.  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 haue found means to advance it so far as to make it a Sacrament, conferring justifying grace, 
Can. 3. Si quid dixerit eos tantùm consanguinitatis& affinitatis gradus qui Leuitico exprimuntur, posse impedire matrimonium contrahendum& dirimere contractum, nec posse Ecclesiam in nonnullis illorum dispensare, aut constituere vt plures impediant& dirimant, Anathema sit.  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 can not dispense with degrees of consanguinity prohibited by the word of God in Leuiticus. 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. 
In secundo gradu nunquam dispensetur nisi inter magnos Principes& ob publicam causam. An. 1520. By Tonssains Denis rue S. Iaques press S. Iues. Item etiam dispensare potest poenitentiaria in primo gradu, affinitatis in sorrow conscientiae;& litera vaenit duke. 9. gr. 9.  prohibition is made, not to dispense with the second degree, but onely 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 dispense with Princes for the same? Haue 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, alway 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 dispense with the first degree of affinity at the bar of conscience, and the bill is sold for 9 ducats and six gross. That is, that the Pope may give permission to a man to marry the sister of the wife deceased, against the express prohibtion thereof made Leuit. 18.16. and 20.21. Innocent the third did it, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, in the 28 chapter of the book of Marriage. The almain Doctor in the 12 chapter of the book of spiritual and temporal power hath these words, saying, 
Martinus quintus consilio maturo habito, dispensauit inter aliquos in secundo gradu consanguinitatis qui est lege diuina prohibitus. Similiter temporibus nostris Papa dispensauit cum aliquo quòd haberet duas sorores unam post alteram contra legem Dei.  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 dispense against the Law of God.  
To make Marriage a Sacrament, our aduersaries produce Ephesians, 5.32. which in the vulgar translation is thus set down, This Sacrament is great, but I say in Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ. This mystery then whereof he speaketh, is the mystical union between Iesus 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, 
{αβγδ}, having regard to Iesus Christ and to his Church.  he addeth, But I speak touching Iesus 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 aduersaries haue 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 Apocalyps 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 Apocalyps. 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 stead 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 {αβγδ}, the mystery, or secret of the gospel. In this the vulgar translation, aith, Mysterium Junii, and not Sacramentum Junii. 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. 
Non habes ex hoc loco prudens lector à Paulo coniugium esse Sacramentum. Non enim aicet Sacramentum, said mysterium hoc magnum est. Et verè mysterium ve●borum horum magnum est.  cardinal Caietan acknowledged the same in his Commentary vpon 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 Iesus 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 beleeue our aduersaries. This might serve for an answer to the words which M. Arnoux addeth.  ARNOVX. 
Ephesians 5.32. speaking of Marriage, This Sacrament is great, I say in Christ and his Church. Then why do they receive but two Sacraments onely, seeing the Apostle calls Marriage a Sacrament, and a great Sacrament? But they perceiving that this place overthroweth their doctrine, they haue corrupted the pl●ce, putting the word secret in stead of Sacrament, leaving the greek origina●l, and the latin translation.  moulin. 
This hath already been confuted. This man sheweth that he understandeth not the greek, and that he hath badly red over the Bible. In the greek it is mystery and in the latin Bible it is translated so, in the chapter following, verse nineteen.   

Of extreme unction.  
extreme unction is a Sacrament of the Church of Rome, wherein the Priest anointeth the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands and feet of the sick person, with consecrated oil, making the sign of the cross with his thumb dipped 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 anointeth his reins, because in them is the seat of the sin of lechery. 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 vpon, with diuers 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.  

Catechesis Tridentina cap. de Extrema vnctione.  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 mens 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 divels, 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 Aduersaries are divided into contrary opinions, and their contention is great. Some of them, as Thomas Waldensis, Alphonsus de Castro, 
Alphons. de Castro libr. de Haeresib. verbo Extrema unctio.  and Maldonat in his commentary vpon 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, 
Lib de extrema vnctione cap. 2.  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 Caietan is of another opinion: 
Nec ex verbis, nec ex effects verba haec loquuntur de sacramentali vnctione extremae unctionis, said magis de vnctione quam instituit Dominus Iesus in evangelio à discipulis exercendam in aegrotos. Vide Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. libr. 6. Annot. 339.  for he formally denieth that Saint james speaketh of sacramental unction, and believeth not, that vpon 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ insinuateth the Sacrament of extreme unction. And the catechism of the council of Trent saith, that our saviour giveth a scantling, and a beginning or an entrance. It is the manner of this council when it findeth any thing 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 anointing the sick ought to be perpetually in the Church.  
2 The second, whether this unction practised in the time of the Apostles, is one of the Sacraments of the Christian Church  
1 The first question is voided, because these two places, one the sixth of Saint mark, the other, the fift of Saint james, say, 
First point.  that this unction served for the healing of the sick. They anointed diuers sick persons with oil, and healed them, Mar. 6. Let them anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord, 
{αβγδ}.  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 three of life from Adam, when by sin he fell into death. Not that life depended vpon that three, but because God will not haue 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 vfe 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 church 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 haue received the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, and which are not by iustice condemned to die.  
4 The commandement therefore of saint james ought yet at this day to be practised, touching the prayer of faith made by Priests or Ministers, to the which remission of sins is promised, but not touching corporal anointing, which was used for healing. So Christians in the first ages used it. Tertullian against Scapula, chap. 4. saith, that the Emperour severus 
severus Proculum Christianum, qui Toparchion cognominabatur Euhodiae procuratorem, qui eum per oleum curauerat requisiuit.  until he died, kept Proculus a Christian in his house, which had healed him of a disease by anointing him with oil. And Sulpitius 
Aegram intuens dari sibi oleum postulat, quod cum benedixisset, in as pvellae vim sancti liquoris infudit.  in the life of Martin, saith, that Martin healed a maid of the palsy, by powring oil into her mouth. We haue the like example in 
Hic à sancto Nepotiano visitatus& sancto oleo perunctus redditur sanitati.  Gregory of Tours, in his 1. book 46. chapter. Cassander, in the 22. Article of his Consultation, reciteth the form of the ancient anointing 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 onely Lord and God, that all the pains and griefs of thy body being driven away, thou mayst 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 maiest 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. 
Deus qui famulo tuo Ezechiae ter quinos annos ad vitam donasti, ita& hunc famulum tuum à lecto aegritudinis erigat ad salutem. Respice domine famulum tuum ininfirmitate corporis laborantem, vt castigationibus tuis emundatus continuo se sentiat tua medicina sanatum.  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 pardonned. Iesus 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 aduersaries 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 anointing to heal the sick. For then God more commonly conferred those gifts vpon Pastors, and in a greater measure then vpon 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 haue 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 divell. 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, 
The second point, whether extreme unction be a Sacrament.  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 Lords Supper are called Sacraments, that is, sacred signs and seals of the covenant made by God in Iesus Christ, instituted by Iesus 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 onely the practise of Sacraments( as of baptism and of the Lords Supper) but also the institution of them by Iesus Christ are found in the gospel. But none of the evangelists do recite the institution of this Sacrament, neither where, when, nor how Iesus Christ did institute it. Onely we see a practise 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 Iesus Christ: for it is not credible that the Apostles did any thing without his commandement. But every thing which Iesus 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 haue recited the Institution and the commandement 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 mens 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 chrism 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 onely, which doth not confer grace, but onely maketh a request: which saith not, I heal thee, or I absolve thee, but onely asketh health and remission of sins. Then if it be a Sacrament, it must be an optative 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 aduersaries 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 onely 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 vpon the Sacrament of Penance.  
5 In the mean time by this manner of optative speaking, they imprint a scruple in mens 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 vpon a wound that is whole, and which seru●th to ask remission of sins, which are said to be pardonned 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 Iesuite: 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 Chrysostome 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 vpon Soame▪ holden 800 yeares after the birth of Iesus Christ; 
Tit. 21. De secundis nuptijs. cap. Vir autem. In Glossa. Quid enim impediret hanc iterari cum non sit Sacramentum?  and yet was but a particular synod. But notwithstanding that council, the Canonist Doctors which haue written Glosses vpon 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.  
The conferring of sacred Orders in the Romish Church is called a Sacrament. Those orders are 7. viz. Porters, Readers, Exorcists or conjurers, 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 aduersaries do not say that Iesus Christ did institute these seven Orders aforesaid: and no Sacrament is of force which was not instituted by Iesus Christ. But they say, that Iesus 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, joh. 10.7. That he did the office of a Reader, when he took the book of the prophesy of Esay, and red it in the Synagogue, Luk. 4.16.17. That he did the office of an Exorcist, when he drove out wicked spirits. Pope Inocennt 3. in the first book of the mysteries of the mass, cap. 3. saith, that Iesus Christ did the office of an Acolyth( or a server 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 Iesus Christ did the office of a Subdeacon, when he washed his disciples feet, and in the fift chapter he saith, that Iesus 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 Iesus 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 restend nothing but to make Iesus Christ an Abbot, or a Cardinal, or a Pope; for the Scripture would haue furnished these Doctors with places which they might wrest to their purpose with the like dexterity.  
every one 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 straws, and to show diligence where there is no need. The Order of Priests only deserveth and requireth some discourse, for that vpon 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 Gods commandement Moses laid his hand vpon Iosua to establish him in his office. This custom was practised by the Apostles wh●n they established Pastors. The Apostle Saint Paul saith to his disciple Timothee, 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 Iesus Christ, and is not common to all the faithful: neither is the express Institution thereof, found in the histo●ie of the gospel. For Iesus 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 Iesus 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.  
In the Scripture the office of Priests is to labour 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 haue another dignity besides Priesthood. By the manner of their ordination they are made sacrificers of the body of Iesus Christ.  
The Bishop putteth the cover& the chalice into their hands, 
Accipe potestatem offer sacrificium Deo, Missasque celebrare, tam pro vivis quam pro mortuis.  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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ, and of offering him to God for a sacrifice: which deserved a formal commandement and an express institution of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 haue them to exercise, are particularly declared: Which are, for the repairing of the Saints, for the work of the ministery, 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 foreseing that there would some Pastors arise that would take that title vpon 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 Iesus Christ, the Priest exalteth himself above Iesus 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 Iesus Christ sacrificing, as the thing offered represented Iesus Christ which was to be offered. The dignity of the sacrificing priest makes the offering acceptable. The Priest therefore sacrificing Iesus Christ, exalteth himself above Iesus Christ, because the Priest is the Sacrificer, and Iesus Christ is the Sacrifice. For although that in the mass they pretend that Iesus Christ is also the sacrificer, yet this is certain, that the Priest sacrificing Iesus Christ in the mass, is more excellent then Iesus Christ, in as much as he is there sacrificed. For when we shall haue 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 Iesus Christ. From whence it followeth, that in the sacrifice of the mass, Iesus Christ is not sacrificed.  
5 It also appeareth that in the mass the Priest exalteth himself above Iesus 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 Iesus Christ which he pretendeth to sacrifice, is without sense and motion, and cannot defend himself. He cannot breath, 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 Iesus Christ in his power.  
6 If we ask our Aduersaries, wherein the sacrifice of the new Testament, and that perpetual office of sacrificing according to the order of Melchizedech 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 Melchizedech, 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 Iesus 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 onely 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 subiects: or, as if one should writ 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 haue this office of Sacrifice onely to consist.  
7 Further, if we ask our aduersaries, when this Sacrament of the order of Priesthood was instituted, they answer, that Iesus 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 beleeue, that Iesus Christ celebrating the holy Supper, did institute two Sacraments by one action? Two different or several Sacraments should necessary 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 Iesus Christ said unto them; Do this in remembrance of me: it followeth, that they might sing mass( as at this day they say) while Iesus Christ was vpon the cross, or in the sepulchre; which necessa●ily at one time maketh one Iesus Christ suffering vpon the Cr●sse, and another Iesus Christ( not suffering) in the Host: one dead and laid in the sepulchre, 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 giuing 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 dayes 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 Iesus Christ instituted& celebrated the Eucharist among his Disciples, haue 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 Iesus 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, haue made a rehearsal unto us of this institution, which is defective in the principal point, and haue 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 haue them show me, who conferred the office of Sacrificer to Saint Paul the Apostle, and who gave him authority to sacrifice the body of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ. And the office whereunto Iesus 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 Iesus Christ never said, Sacrifice me in remembrance of me.  
13 And seeing that our Aduersaries are of opinion that Iesus Christ celebrated mass in Emaus 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 Iesus 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 haue examined themselves: which is a commandement 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 Iesus Christ which Iesus Christ did, we should establish as many sacrificers as there are communicants.  
16 The Apostle Saint Paul to the Hebrewes 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 honour 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 peoples 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) haue 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 Iesus Christ to establish sacrificers of his body in the Church.   

Of the sacrifice of the mass.  
The council of Trent in 22. Session and 2. Canon, thundereth out excommunications and curses against all those that say that our Lord Iesus 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 appearance of truth, will haue that to be Iesus Christs meaning, which the words of our Lord can by no means bear.  
1 For we cannot sacrifice Iesus Christ, in remembrance of Iesus Christ. The memories of things are of other nature then the things themselves: as mens pictures are not the persons themselves. 
Bellar. l. 2. de Euchar. c. 24. Idem Christus fuit figura sui ipsius. Et §. Tertia. Est verè corpus Domini,& signum eiusdem corporis.  And there is nothing more absurd nor extravagant then the affirmation of these Doctors which hold, that in the mass Iesus 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 necessary 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 sepulchres 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 Lords death till he comes. To do this therefore in remembrance of Iesus 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 appearance of a sacrifice. First, Iesus Christ speaketh not of a sacrifice nor of an offering. Secondly, Iesus 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, Iesus 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 sate still at the table without using any adoration. For although they had Iesus 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 Iesus 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 aduersaries. Which being granted, I reason thus: whosoever offereth an oblation unto God, necessary speaketh unto God. But in this action, after the words which they say are consecrating words, Iesus Christ speaketh not to God, Ergo, in this action after the consecrating words, Iesus Christ offereth no oblation to God. The action of thanksgiving 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 thankes to God, is not to sacrifice it to God. This blessing is used at all meal times, and Iesus Christ did it at the distribution by him made of the loues of bread in the desert. 
Matth. 14.19. luke 9.16.   
6 It is to be noted that the council of Trent saith, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, 
Hoc sacrificium laudu pro redemptione animarum.  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, necessary it must be called so, either because the death of Iesus Christ is applied unto us thereby, or because Iesus Christ death in the mass, and suffereth there for our redemption. But it is not because Iesus Christ death in the mass; for Rom. 6.9. Iesus Christ being raised from the dead, death no more. Then the mass must be propitiatory, and a sacrifice of redemption, because in it the death of Iesus Christ is applied unto us, which onely is the price of our redemption. But if that be so, baptism and the preaching of the gospel, and faith in Iesus 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 Iesus Christ unto us, we must make Christ die again. And in so important a thing, we must ground vpon the word of God, and show that God will haue 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 haue the faithful to apply unto themselves the redemption of their souls made for them on the cross, by offering the same redemption again, and by sacrificing Iesus Christ again in a sacrifice of redemption.  
8 moreover, that which our aduersaries do is clean contrary to that which they pretend to do: for to offer Iesus Christ to God▪ is not an application and an appropriating of him unto ourselves. There is as much difference between these two things, as there is between giuing a thing to another, and keeping it for ourselves. In the holy Supper we apply the sacrifice of Iesus Christ unto ourselves, by receiving and accepting it by faith, as giuing himself unto us; and not by offering him as a sacrifice to God.  
9 I would haue our aduersaries 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 Iesus Christ offered and made on the cross, or another. If it be the same, necessary the Priest must offer a real sacrifice of the death of Iesus Christ, which is impossible; for Iesus Christ death 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 Iesus 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 Hebrewes witnesseth excellently of this matter, he speaketh much of the office of a sacrifice according to Melchisedech, without speaking of the Eucharist: whereby it followeth, that the Eucha●ist is not the sacrifice of Melchisedech.  
11 Besides in Hebrewes 10.14. it is said, That Iesus Christ with one offering hath reconciled for ever them that are sanctified. Here is one onely oblation or offering, and the virtue thereof for ever. And to exclude the reiteration thereof, in the tenth verse he saith, That we are sanctified even by the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once made.  
12 They answer and say, that he offered himself but once in a bloody sacrifice, but that he is offered diuers times in a sacrifice that is not bloody. Which is a manifest error; for, to offer himself diuers times in a sacrifice without blood, is always to offer himself diuers 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 Iesus Christ without blood. To mock the Scripture by distinctions unwritten, is under pretence of interpreting, to correct the Scripture. And our aduersaries having racked the words of the institution of the holy Supper, find nothing therein but their own condemnation. For, to allege the words of Iesus 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 comdemne 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 therefore the Apostle preventeth this excuse; for Hebr. 9.25.26. after he had said that Iesus Christ did not offer himself oftentimes, he addeth, That then he must haue suffered oftentimes. Manifestly showing, that he acknowledged no other sacrifice of Iesus 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 iudgement: 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 sheweth, 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 diuers 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 onely of judaical sacrifices that were abolished. The Apostle will haue 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 bloodshedding: 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-goate, which was sent away alive into the desert laden with the sins of the people, Leuit. 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 goates, 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, 
Leuit. 14.  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 aduersaries find reasons to prove that propitiatory sacrifices without shedding of blood, ought to be practised 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 Iesus Christ is really sacrificed. Two sacrifices of Iesus Christ differing in specie and in definition, in propriety, in accidents, and in efficacy. For the sacrifice of the cross is the death of Iesus Christ, but the sacrifice of the mass is not the death of Iesus Christ. The one is a painful sacrifice, the other without pain. The one bloody, the other without blood. The one wherein the body of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 mens 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 aduersaries 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, Iesus 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 hid him,& make him invisible, if we beleeue our aduersaries. And that which is destroyed in the mass, is not the thing which is offered unto God. The body of Iesus 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 onely are destroyed, which are not offered unto God. And if( as our aduersaries say) the sacramental being of Iesus 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 Iesus Christ in his natural being is our redemption, which was destroyed vpon 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 onely in the Priests stomach, when the same species dissolve by digestion, we ought to say, that the sacrifice is not done till certain houres after the mass is finished, and that the Priests stomach is the altar, and that the sacrifice is made two or three houres 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 Iesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he used no such elevation: if in the breaking of the consecrated bread, then Iesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he broke 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 Iesus Christ sacrificed nothing but bread. And Iesus 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, 
Snaè dici potest, quòd Christus virtute diuina confecit:& postea formam expressit sub qua posteri benedicerent. Ipse nanque per se virtute propria benedicit, nos autem ex illa virtute quam indidit verb●s. Catharinus et Capitefontium, haue made two books expressly of this matter.  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 Iesus 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 daies, of the Temple, and of the vessels belonging thereunto, are so many Sacrifices.  
18 Touching this point we haue invincible reasons, which hold our Aduersaries 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 colour, the roundness, and the breadth of the bread, without bread, is not a fit and proper offering for our redemption. Nor the body of Iesus 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 for ever them that are sanctified. So there is nothing that is consecrated in the mass which the Priest can offer unto God. Here our Aduersaries 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 Aduersaries allege for the Sacrifice of the mass.  
The proofs which our Aduersaries bring for this matter, are very weak and miserable.  
1 They say Melchizedech 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 Melchizedech did.  
I could show by 
Philo lib, de Abraham. Iosophus lib. 1. Antiquitatum.  Philo the jew, by Iosephus, by the Chaldean Paraphrase, and by diuers of our Aduersaries themselves, as by Hugo de S. Victore, and by cardinal Caietan, and also by the Romish Bible, that in Genesis 14.18. from whence this place is taken, it is not said, That Melchizedech sacrificed, but that he brought forth, or presented bread and wine, to refresh Abraham and his souldiers, not to make an offering unto God. I could likewise show, that the Apostle in Hebrews 7.1. compareth Melchizedech to Iesus 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 
Pererius Iesuita in Gen. ca. 14.18.& 20 Hebraea lectio latin ad verbum conuersa, sic expressit hunc locum. Et Melchisedech rex Salē protulit panem& vinum,& ipse erat Sacerdos Deo altissimo:& paulo post Caietanus quasi vulgatam translationem non approbans. Quod( inquit) in vulgata editione subditur, vt causa oblationis, erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi, in Hebraeo non habeatur vt causa, said vt separata clausula.  that the Romish Bible hath falsified this place, and haue put an enim for an&, and translate, For he was a Priest of the most high God, in stead of, And he was a Priest of the most high God, according to the Hebrew, and the Chaldean Paraphrase: 
The version of the 70: {αβγδ}.  or as the seuentie 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 Aduersaries 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 Melchizedech: one of less excellence, the other of more excellency; and say that the mass is that excellent Sacrifice, according to the order of Melchizedech. By this means they make the mass to be more excellent then the death of Iesus Christ: which is a bloody Sacrifice, and which by consequence is not a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedech. But the Apostle in Hebr. 5.6.7. maketh Melchizedechs Sacrifice to be bloody: for there he sheweth, that Iesus Christ at his death did execute the office of a Priest, after the order of Melchizedech.  
howsoever, seeing that the Priesthood of Melchizedech continueth for ever, Psal. 110.4. Hebr. 5.6. I cannot see how our Aduersaries can affirm that the mass is the Sacrifice of Melchizedech; for they say that it shall no more be done after the day of iudgement, and that before the day of iudgement 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 in stead 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 innocency of life, and the work of the ministery 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 thanksgiving. And the word Oblation in malachi is {αβγδ} minha, which signifieth a Cake, with aspersion of oil, which was not offered in a propitiatory sacrifice, but in a sacrifice of thanksgiving.  
This exposition disliketh our Aduersaries: for they will haue this pure oblation to be the sacrifice of the mass, wherein Iesus Christ is sacrificed. An interpretation drawn out of the unwritten word. For the Scripture speaketh not of sacrificing the body of Iesus Christ in the mass; neither is there any show thereof in that place.  
The reasons why they reject our exposition, although it be grounded vpon 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 ministery 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 thanksgiving. And also, that touching the manner and form of praying in the name of Iesus 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 ministery 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 vpon 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 jest, 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 Iesus 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 transsubstantiated into the body of Christ; what makes that for the sacrifice? Is the body of our Lord Iesus Christ sacrificed in every place where it is? And say that the body of Iesus 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 vpon 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 Iesus Christ at that present time broke 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 Iesus Christ by those words speaketh of giuing his body to die for us, and of the breaking of his body vpon 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, in stead of Which is  shed, both the Romish Bible and the mass, haue 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 saviours manner and use to speak in that sort. Matth. 26.45. Before any of the Iewes were come to lay hands on him, he said, Behold the son of man is given into the hands of sinners. And joh. 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: 
{αβγδ},  speaking of his death which was near. And Iesus Christ administering that Sacrament had reason to speak of his death as present, because it was the evening before he died. So Saint Chrysostome understood it, in his 83. Sermon vpon Saint matthew; his words are these. 
{αβγδ}.  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 Iesuite Sa vpon the words of Saint Matthew, saith, In greek it is said which is  shed: the present for the future tense. And cardinal Caietan vpon the 22. of Luke 
Eadem ratione qua Euangelistae futuram in cruce effusionem sanguinis significauerunt in praesenti effunditur, eadem ratione Paulus futuram in cruce fractionem carnis Christi significat in praesenti, dicendo Frangitur.  saith, even as the evangelists by the present tense haue 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 vpon the cross. Barradius the Iesuite 
utitur Dominus praesenti tempore pro paulò post futuro: de futura enim& propinqua passione sunt verba intelligenda. Hoc sensu. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis passioni& morti paulo post dabitur.  in the 4. Tome of his harmony of the evangelists, lib. 3. cap. 4. saith, The Lord useth the time present, in stead 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 selfe 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 haue left the word effundetur in the present tense to ground his own opinion, and would not haue restend himself vpon so weak a ground as otherwise the Gospel affords him; I say a weak ground, because those words red in the present tense, and translated according to the greek copy, make nothing for the real sacrifice of Christs body in the Eucharist. For the action itself which is a Sacrament, bindeth us to beleeue 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 vpon 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 cumbered 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 beleeue not that which themselves say.  
And this is yet more absurd which the Romish Churches beleeue, 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 Iesus 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 Christs blood vpon 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 Iesus Christ, there was real shedding of the Lords 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 Iesus 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 ministery, conformable to the greek, {αβγδ}. They would needs haue( but I know not why) this service to be the mass. For these our Maisters command it shall be so. Say it were so,( although there is neither reason nor colour for it to be so) and let us beleeue 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 Iesus Christ. I know not what moveth them to interpret {αβγδ} to sacrifice. By the same reason we must say that the Angels sing mass, and sacrifice Iesus Christ, seeing that in Heb. 1.14. the Angels are called ministering spirits, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. We must also say that Epaphroditus sacrificed and sung mass, seeing Saint Paul, Philip. 2.25. calleth him {αβγδ}, administrator. But Saint Paul confuteth that, and expoundeth himself, saying, 
{αβγδ}.  He that ministered unto me such things as I wanted.  
9 Some also allege this place for the mass, Hebr. 13.10. We haue an altar, whereof they haue no authority to eat which serve in the tabernacle. By this altar they will haue the Apostle to understand the sacrifice of the mass, and that in this mass Iesus Christ is sacrificed: which are great suppositions without proofs. But cardinal 
§. Respondeo:& §. Accidit. Apostolus non meminit sacrificij panis& vini. Et paulo post. Apostolus dedita opera omisit oblationem panis& vini, ne cogeretur explicare mysterium Eucharistiae, quod altius erat quàm vt ab illis capi tunc posset.  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 Hebrewes 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 Iesus 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 haue no participation.   

How and in what sense the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice.  
The holy Scriptures call alms, prayers, an humble and contrite heart, martyrdom, the ministery of the gospel, 
Phil. 4.18. Heb. 13.16. Psal. 51.19. 2. Tim. 4.6. Rom. 15.16.  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 haue the names of that which they signify.  
2 It may be said, that in the holy Supper we offer Iesus 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 vpon us; specially for the benefit of our redemption by Iesus 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 vpon 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 haue 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 brought 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 Foelix, the Pagan Caecilius saith, Cur nullas arras habenti Christiani, nulla templa, nulla nota simulacra? How cometh it that the Christians haue no altars, temples, nor images that are seen? And in the beginning of the 7. book of Arnobius, 
Quid ergo? Sacrificia censetis nulla omnino esse facienda? Resp. Nulla.  the Pagans faid, 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 eucharistical 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 selfe same action should be called a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Albeit there is as much difference between a Sacrament and a sacrifice, as between giuing, and taking or receiving; for you may observe both these in the Lords 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.  
This is a point which every man takes vpon him to know. For there is nothing easier then to collect diverse places out of the ancient Fathers, taken vpon 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 haue disclosed, is a thing whereunto few men attain, and for which 20. yeares 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 aduersaries opinions. To prove it I will produce a few places out of them.  
The book of Faith written to Peter the Deacon, were it Augustines or Fulgentius his disciples, in the 19. chapter saith, 
Sacrificium panis& v●ni in fide& charitate, sancta Ecclesia Catholica per vniuersum orbē terrae offer non cessat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis, figuratio fuit carnis Christi quam pro peccatis nostris ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus,& sanguinis quem erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum. In isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, &c.  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 vs. Note here specially that they offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, in commemoration of the flesh and blood of Iesus Christ that was broken and  shed for vs.  
And in the 17. Chapter and 17. book of the city of God, he saith, 
Manducare panem est in novo Testamento sacrificium Christianorum.  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, 
Huius caro& sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimarum similitudinem promittebatur, in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: Post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae ●elebratur.  This flesh& blood of Christ was promised before his coming, by the resemblance of sacrifices: in his passion it was truly exhibited. After the ascention 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 yeares past since he suffered, and that the same passion was done but once. And vpon the sabbath day we say, This day the Lord rose again, though there are so many yeares past since his resurrection. Why doth not some vain fellow tel us that we lye, in saying so, but because that day is called the sons day, which is not the same day, but like unto it, by revolution of Time? 
Non semel immolatus est Christus in ipso,& tamen in Sacramento non solùm per omnes paschae solemnitates, said omne die populis immolatur? Nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum nomina accipiunt.  Was not Christ once sacrificed in his body? and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred sign, not onely 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 haue 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, 
Sacrificium visibile est invisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est, sacrum signum.  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, 
Illud quod ab hominibus vocatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij.  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: 
Vocatur ipsa imolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio●mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, said significante mysterio.  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; 
Can. Semel. Dist. 2. de Consecrat.  Iesus 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 margin: 
Christus immolatur, id est, immolatio eius repraesentatur:& fit memoria passionnis.  Christ is sacrificed, that is, his Sacrifice is represented, and a commemoration is made of his passion.  
Therefore the Fathers not onely 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: 
Passio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus.  In all the Sacrifices which we offer, we make mention of his passion, for the Sacrifice which we offer, is his passion. And Chrysostome in his 21. homily vpon the Acts, speaking of the holy Scripture, saith, 
{αβγδ}.  While this death is finished, and this dreadful sacrifice, and these unutterable mysteries. The body therefore of Iesus Christ is taken and sacrificed in the Eucharist, in the same manner as he death there, that is, as it is said before in the Romish decretal, not in truth, but in a significant mystery.  
Chrysostome in his seventeenth homily vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith. 
{αβγδ}.  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▪ 
{αβγδ}.  Seeing that we haue received the memory of this Sacrifice to celebrate the same vpon 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 onely of celebrating the memory thereof.  
justin Martyr against Triphon saith, 
Pag. 201. Edit. Con●el. {αβγδ},  The oblation of the Cake of fine floure was a figure of the bread in the Eucharist, which Iesus 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 Suidas the Grammarian, in the word Ecclesia. 
{αβγδ}.  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 Iesus Christ, seeing he offereth that Sacrifice by Iesus Christ; and desireth that the Angels would present that Oblation unto God and carry it to his heavenly altar; for Iesus Christ hath no need of the aid of Angels to present him to his Father. And it also appeareth in this, that he calleth his oblation, 
Per Christum Dominum nostrum per quem haec omnia Domine semper bona creas, sanctificas, viuificas, benedicis et praestas nobis.  gifts, and presents, in the plural number, which God blesseth, createth, quickeneth, and always sanctifieth: of all which words, none can be applied to Iesus Christ. For it is hard to be conceived how the consecrated Sacrifice or Host may be called, All these good things, if Iesus Christ be the Host. And it is likewise more hardly to be comprehended how God continually createth Iesus Christ: and how he blesseth and quickeneth Iesus Christ by Iesus Christ. These words haue a good meaning, being spoken of the bread and wine, but not of Iesus Christ. If by these words the Priest understandeth that he speaketh of the bread and the wine, and giveth thankes to God, because he always createth and quickeneth those things, he falleth into three inevitable absurdities. The first is, that he giveth thankes 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 sheweth the bread and the wine as being present, saying All these good things, when those things are no more those things, being( as they say) transsubstantiated 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 appearance, that then when men adore the Host, and when they sacrifice the eternal son of God to God for the redemption of souls, in stead of praising God for so great a benefit, they give him thankes▪ 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 thankes unto God, because he created the water, and maketh fountains and riuers continually to run.  
To be short, the Truth is so strong, that our Aduersaries 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 Iesus Christ, young children that are begotten by Christian parents ought to be baptized.  
Against this M. Arnoux reasoneth in this manner.  ARNOVX. 
By this Article they pretend to infer, that children begotten by Christian parents are received into the Church by the faith of their fathers.  moulin. 
This is untrue: we pretend not to avouch that, neither is it our belief. baptism is conferred to diuers children whose fathers and mothers are both without faith and piety. That was Bernards opinion, in his 77. Epistle, saying, Who knoweth not, that touching little children the faith of their fathers onely availeth for them, yea and is sufficient? But we say not so.  ARNOVX. 
By this Article also they pretend to justify, that although little children ought to be baptized, if they be not baptized, yet that they are saved without it, which is a point of their belief.  
Places alleged to the contrary. John 3.3. Verily verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Note this word again, which manifestly proveth that he which is not regenerated by baptism, is not received into the Church. And verse 5, Verily verily I say unto thee, Except that a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And verse 7. You must be born again. To what end then serveth it to be begotten by Christian parents?  
Places noted in the margin of the Confession, Matth. 19.14. But Iesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Doth it therefore follow that they are received into it with their fathers, and that we must not baptize them as we say onely by Tradition, or that they are saved without baptism? 1. Cor. 7.14. For the vnbeleeuing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the vnbeleeuing wife is sanctified by her husband, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. If this word holy were not an equivocation, this place would haue some show for them; but it is too manifest& plain, that the word holy when it is spoken of children, ought to be taken in the same sense as a little before in the same place it beareth, where and when it is spoken of a man and his wife. For neither the one nor the other being infidels, are properly sanctified by him that is faithful. Then this sanctification as well of the married couple, as of their children, consisteth herein, that as marriage is holy because it is lawful, and in this sense those that are married are sanctified one by the other: so the children that are born of that marriage are holy, because they are lawfully begotten, and issued from an holy marriage. Therefore the Apostle understands, that if the faithful should by divorce separate himself from the infidel, onely because of infidelity, two mischiefs would thereby ensue; the one, that the infidel thereby should not haue the means to be converted, nor to be sanctified by conversation with the faithful: the other, that the children left with the infidel, which would convert then to his own religion, could not be taught the faith and worshipping of God, as they are when their fathers and mothers live together.   

Of the signification of the word baptism.  moulin. 
This discourse is entangled and badly contrived. Whereunto whosoever should exactly answer, he must not respect the soundness of his reasons but the importance of the matter: but to proceed orderly herein, first I will speak of the word baptism, and of baptizing, and then of the thing itself.  
To baptize is a greek word, which signifieth to dip into the water or to wash. In this general sense washings in the old Testament are called baptisms, 
{αβγδ},  mark 7.4. 
{αβγδ}.  Hebr. 9.10.  
The word baptism is sometimes taken figurately, for affliction and persecution for the gospel: as mark. 10.38. where it is said, Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I shall be baptized with? Speaking of the participation of his afflictions. See Luke 12.59. Oftentimes also it is taken for purging and sanctifying of the heart, and for effusion of the graces of the holy Ghost. So Acts 1.5. Christ promiseth his disciples, That they should be baptized with the holy Ghost, within few day. And John Baptist saith, That Iesus Christ baptizeth us with the holy Ghost, and with fire, Math. 3.11.  
But ordinarily baptism is taken for the Sacrament of our entrance into the Christian Church, and of the cleansing of our sins by the blood of Iesus Christ, and by the power and efficacy of his Spirit. A Sacrament which Iesus Christ hath sanctified in his own person, and established by his own ordinance. Which succeeded circumcision, by Saint Paul called the seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11.  
This baptism is conserved by dipping him into, or sprinkling of water vpon him that is baptized, saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost, Matth. 28.19.  
If we take this word baptism generally for a washing or a sprinkling, or in a figurative sense for affliction, or for the effusion of the graces of the holy Ghost, we confess that there are diuers baptisms: As the Apostle Hebr. 6.2. speaketh of the doctrine of baptisms in the plural number. But if we take it for that sprinkling of water which is a mark of christianity, and a Sacrament of our entering into the Church, there is but one baptism: as the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.5.6. There is one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God, one Father of all. The greek saith baptism is one.  
Touching this baptism, men dispute whether it be necessary to salvation. First, we will speak of the necessity thereof in those persons which are capable of instruction, and after of the same in little children.   

Of the necessity of baptism in persons that are of yeares of discretion.  
Touching those that haue 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 yeares of discretion death 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, 
Quae quidem translatio, post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest.  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, 
Presbyterum quem sine unda baptismatis extremum diem clausisse significasti quia in sanctae matris Ecclesiae fide& Christi nominis confessione perseuerauerit ab originali pecca●o solutum& coelestis patriae gaudium esse adeptum asserimut incunctanter.  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 invisibiliter ministratur, quem non contemptus religionis, said 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 Emperour Valentinian died without baptism, and that nevertheless Ambrose in his Oration made vpon the death of that Emperour, saith that he was blessed in heaven. That which is specially to be noted in this history, is, that the Emperour Valentinian was a Christian born, and had a thousand means to haue 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 mans mind from sins, are not conferred by the ministery 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 haue 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 ourselves in this word Martyr. For 1. Cor. 13.3. the Apostle sheweth, that a man may give his body to be burned, and yet haue 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 haue recanted for fear, if they had had any respite given them to think thereon. So that in calling him a Martyr which in Gods iudgement 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 Iesus Christ, shall haue 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 Gods promise.   

Of the necessity of baptism in little children.  
Touching baptism of little children, the discord is greater. 
Lombard. 4. Sententiarum Dist 4. lit. E. Si absque baptismo fuerint defuncti, etiam cum deferentur ad baptismum, damnabuntur.  Our aduersaries 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, death 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 Bethleem and there abouts as soon as they were born,& all those that were two yeares 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 divell for him, saying, Credo& abrenuntio, I marvell 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 aduersaries are of opinion, that the baptism which Iesus Christ conferred by the hands of his disciples, joh. 4.2. was not necessary to salvation. Bellarmine in the 5. chapter of his first book of baptism, saith, 
Baptismus Christi non fuit neeessarius, necessitate medij aut praecepti, ante Christi mortem.  That the baptism of Iesus Christ, was neither a necessary means, nor a necessary commandement before the death of Iesus Christ. And Pope lo 1. in the 4. Epistle to the Bishops of sicily 3. chapter, saith, 
Christum regenerationis gratiam ex sua resurrectione coepisse.  That Iesus Christ from his resurrection began the gift of regeneration. For so he calleth the grace of God given in baptism. But there is no appearance 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 Iesus Christ and by his Apostles. It is to no purpose to say, that circumcision did then supply that which wanted in the baptism which Iesus Christ conferred. For the Church of Rome is of opinion, that circumcision 
Ex opere operato.  by virtue of the action did not confer justifying grace. And Pope Innocent the 3. saith, 

Extra. de Baptismo& eius effects, Tit. 42. cap. Maiores. Per circumcisionis mysterium& damnationis periculum vitabatur, non tamen peruenichatur ad regnum coelorum.  
Gerson tom. 3. Serm. de nativitate virginis. Consider. 2. Constat Deum misericordiam saluationis suae non ita legibus communibus traditionis Christianae, non ita sacramentis ipsis alligasse, quin absque praeiudicio legis eiusdem posset pueros nondum natos extra vterum, intus sanctificare gratiae suae baptismo.   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 chancellor of the university of Paris, in his Sermon of the nativity of the virgin mary; and of Gabriel Biel vpon 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. 
Deus suam potentiam sacramentis non alligauit. Quod vero invisibilis sanctificatio sine visibili sacramento quibusdam insit, apertè Augustinus tradit supper Leuiticum, dicens, Inuisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam profuisse sine visibilibus sacramentis.  That it is certain that God hath not tied his power to the Sacraments, and that S. Augustine vpon Leuiticus plainly saith, that some haue invisible sanctification without the visible Sacrament.  
Howbeit, our aduersaries 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 mens brains without the word of God: where they say those poor children lye in eternal darkness, in a hole or cave under the earth, deprived of Gods 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 haue no communication with God, nor with the Saints in Paradise, nor any remembrance of those things which they saw and heard vpon earth, because there they neither saw nor heard any thing. As also whether those children shall rise again at the latter day, whether they shall appear before the iudgement 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 Emperour Traians( a Pagans) soul out of hell, if we beleeue our aduersaries. 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 shewed us of any such thing.   

A deciding of this difference by the holy Scriptures.  
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 Abrahams 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 Iesus Christ, Matth. 22.32. And Acts 2.39. Saint Peter saith to the Iewes 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 born, 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 iudgment, 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 born in that marriage, saith that their children are holy, Otherwise( saith he) your children were unclean, but now they are holy. If children born in marriage where but one of the parties is a Christian, are holy by the Apostles iudgement, what appearance is there for men to think that those children which are born 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 aduersaries to save their honesties, say that by the word holy is understood children lawfully born; 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, 
Dist. 26. Can. Vna tantum. johannes Baptista dum Herodem ab incestu prohiberet, dicens: Non licet tibi habere vxorem fratris tui: evidenter ostendit inter infidels coniugia esse.  and their children legitimate. Saint John Baptist said to Herod, That it was not lawful for him to haue his brother Philips 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 obeied 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 aduersaries say) the children of Turkes 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 born 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 born 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 born 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 therfore cannot cause his grace to be felt, and manifest his goodness towards the children of the faithful, born 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 vnbeleeuing 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, Iesus 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 aduersaries 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 beleeue our aduersaries. add hereunto, that Iesus Christ saith not, that the kingdom of heaven belongeth to children that are circumcised, but simply to children. He considereth the infancy, 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 Ezechiel 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 haue a child to be for ever 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 vpon 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 vpon us by natural propagation, which no way can be applied to the wilful negligence of parents, in not baptizing their children.  
5 If we desire to haue 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 vs. 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 vpon the eight day after the child was born. In which time of eight dayes a great number of children died, which according to our Aduersaries doctrine must haue been eternally damned. The goodness of God towards all men, specially towards his own people, and those which fear him, bindeth us to beleeue, that if Circumcision had been necessary to salvation, God would haue commanded children to haue been circumcised presently after they were born. He would not haue excluded millions of souls( born of faithful parents, and of Abrahams posterity, and to whom the blessing of God was promised,) from his grace, by the delay of eight dayes. For God taketh no pleasure in the destruction of his creatures, much less in losing children born under his covenant. If the people of Israel had believed that which the Church of Rome believeth, they would haue desired Moses to haue had a shorter time limited unto them for circumcision. And there would haue been great and extraordinary lamentations made by the Iewes for those children that died before those eight dayes were expired. And it is manifest that the people of the Church of Rome do not beleeue 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 mindes 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 born, and that died therein: which great multitude of souls are eternally lost, by the iudgement 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 haue suffered to haue been uncircumcised, if he had believed that without circumcision they could not haue 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 
De Consecratione. Dist. 4. Can. A quodam judaeo, nescitis vtrum Christiano an Pagano, multos in patria vestra baptizatos asseritis,& quid sit ind agendum consulitis, &c.  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 onely in the name of Iesus Christ. By this means, if either a Pagan or a turk hath a Christian 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 vpon 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 death in the birth, must haue 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 shal be more acceptable unto God for profaning the sacrament of his covenant? and that dying thereupon, he goes straight into Paradise?   

An examination of that which our Aduersaries produce out of the Scriptures for the absolute necessity of baptism.  
M. Arnoux, to prove that no man can be saved without baptism with water, allegeth the third and fift verses of the third chapter of S. John, where Iesus Christ saith to Nicodemus, Verily verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. And, Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And verse 7. You must be born again. But our Aduersaries serving their turns with these places, overthrow that which they haue 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 haue vowed to be baptized, and haue not had convenient time and commodious thereunto, may be saved without it; and those also that are sanctified by the holy Ghost, as we haue already declared. All those may be saved( as they say) without baptism with water. And which is more, although our Lord Iesus Christ spake unto Nicodemus, yet our Aduersaries 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 iudgement) but after his resurrection, as we shewed before. above all things, it is to be considered, that Christ did not onely speak to Nicodemus, but also for Nicodemus, which spake of himself, and in respect of himself, when he said, How can a man be born again when he is old? By this is discovered the nature of error, which is, to interrupt itself, 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 aduersaries say that Nicodemus might be saved without baptism, because he was circumcised. How should a man beleeue these Doctors, seeing they beleeue 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, Iesus Christ spake to Nicodemus, and in him to all those persons that are capable of instruction, and sheweth them that they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, if they be not born 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 Iesus Christ baptizeth us with the holy Ghost and with fire, understanding thereby the Spirit moving and purifying our hearts: so in this place Iesus Christ saith, that to enter into the kingdom of heaven, We must be born again of water and of the spirit; understanding thereby, a spiritual washing, or the Spirit washing and purifying the heart. The words to be born again, can receive no other exposition. For, to be born 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 Iesus Christ plainly sheweth, that he speaketh onely 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 born of the Spirit. Then to be born of water and of the Spirit, by our saviour Iesus Christs own exposition, is to be simply born of the Spirit: and this comparison of the wind blowing invisibly cannot agree with any thing but onely with the Spirit of God.  
Yet to gratify our aduersaries, let us grant them that Iesus 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 iudgement, and the same discretion which they use in the exposition of those places whereby they say that Iesus Christ speaketh of the necessity of the Eucharist? In joh. 6.53. Iesus Christ saith, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye haue no life in you. There our aduersaries restrain Christs words to persons that are of the age of discretion, and that are capable of instruction, and that haue means to participate the Eucharist. Then let us say the same in this place, that is, that Iesus Christ speaketh to men that haue attained to yeares of instruction, and to those that haue 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 aduersaries touching the necessity of baptism. 
Lomb. lib. 4. Sententiarum. Dist. 4. litt.& illud intelligendum est de illis qui possunt& contemnunt baptizari.  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 ministery of men, and to persuade that the grace of God necessary passeth through their hands. And superstition layeth hold vpon 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 beleeue her, that the benefit of Iesus Christ is in such sort applied unto them thereby, that by the same they are not exempted from satisfying Gods iustice for the punishments and pains of sins by them committed after baptism. They haue abridged the benefit of Iesus 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 haue witting 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 witting committed before baptism be remitted without any satisfaction: and rhat which is committed by ignorance after baptism, not be remitted without satisfactory punishments imposed vpon it by God?  
The Church of Rome also hath embased baptism, by permitting women and Pagans to administer the same, whereas Confirmation is onely 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 
Omnibus baptizatis per Pontificem &c.  Pope baptizeth lambs made of wax.    

THE XXXVI. ARTICLE: Of the Confession of faith.  We confess, that the holy Supper, which is the second Sacrament, is a witness unto us of the union that we haue with Iesus Christ, because he not onely died and rose again for us, but also truly feedeth and nourisheth us with his flesh and with his blood, that we may be one with him, and that his life may be common unto vs. And although that he is in heaven until such time as he cometh to judge all the world, yet we beleeue, that by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his Spirit, he nourisheth and quickeneth us by the substance of his body and of his blood. We say that the same is done spiritually, and place not Imagination and Thought in stead of Effect and Truth. But for that this mystery far surmounteth the measure of our senses, and all order of nature, as also because it is celestial, it cannot be comprehended but by faith.  

THE XXXVII. ARTICLE.  We beleeue( as it hath been said) that both in the Supper and in baptism, God really and effectually giveth us that which by them he prefigurateth. And that therefore with the signs we join the true possession and enjoying of that which is presented therein. And that thereby all those which come to the sacred table of Iesus Christ with a pure faith, like unto a vessel, truly receive that which the signs testify unto them: that is, that the body and the blood of Iesus Christ are no less nourishing to the soul, then the bread and the wine are unto the body.  

THE XXXVIII. ARTICLE.  So we say, that water being a weak element, doth testify the truth of the interior washing of our souls in the blood of Iesus Christ, by the efficacy of his Spirit;& that the bread and the wine being given unto us in the Supper, truly serve us for spiritual food, because they show us( as it were to the eye) that the flesh of Iesus Christ is our meate, and his blood our drink. And reject all fantastical persons and Sacramentaries, that will not receive such signs and marks, seeing that our Lord Iesus Christ with his own mouth pronounceth and saith, This is my body, and This cup is my blood. 
Of these three Articles, which comprehend the belief of our Churches touching the holy Supper, M. Arnoux onely layeth hold on the last, and discourseth in this manner.  ARNOVX. 
Of the real union of the faithful with Iesus Christ, and of the eating and participation of his body.  
All this Article excludeth the truth and realty of the body and the blood( to serve us with the onely figure, whereby we are holden under the jewish elements, and shadows without bodies.) And although that some Ministers of the latter times, being Caluines disciples, by his example haue induced a subtle method of invention to speak as we do, saying, that the body of Christ substantially, and not onely in effect, is given and united to the faithful in the Supper; yet when they are pressed to make answer, whether the body of Christ is locally present in the signs of bread and wine, they say, no, and that it is distant from them, as heaven is from the earth: from whence ensueth manifest contradiction, and the abuse is discovered by this syllogism.  
It is impossible that two substances distant one from the other as heaven from the earth, should be entirely and substantially conjoined one with the other.  
But the body of the son of God is distant from the signs or species of bread and wine, as heaven is from the earth.  
Ergo it cannot be entirely and substantially conjoined to the body, of those that receive the signs thereof. Therefore it is vainly said of them( to abuse the world) that the body is substantially given, seeing that by their Article it is said, that the bread and the wine are given to show as it were to the eye, that the body and the blood are our nourishment.  moulin. 
If I would simply follow the steps of this Doctor, and content myself to confute him, this work would be very slender, and of small instruction. For therein he neither comprehends our belief nor his own, and doth as much contradict his own as our Church, and observeth neither order, consequence, nor sense in his discourse.  
He maketh us say that we exclude the truth of the body of Christ, and are content with the figure onely, which is clean contrary to that which we beleeue. While the signs are present before our eyes, and in our mouths, Iesus Christ is present to our saith, and really given to our souls, by a contract made, as by a Kings letters patents an house or an inheritance may be really given unto us, although it be far from vs. The sun joineth really with our sight, although it be in heaven and we here on earth. The head is really joined with the feet by means of the soul, which maketh them to be all of one body, although their positure in the body be far asunder. The husband is really one body and one flesh with his wife, although they be absent one from the other. If real and substantial unions are found to be in natural things distant by place one from another, how much more in divine things? Cannot Iesus Christ really join himself to our souls, and by our souls to our bodies, by the means of his Spirit dwelling in our bodies? Cannot he come to us, without suffering himself to be devoured by his enemies, gnawed with mens teeth, and to be enclosed in a wafer, which may be carried away by a beast? The Scripture saith, that we are one body with Iesus Christ, and that he is the head, and we the members; which union I think our aduersaries will not call imaginary and figurative; they rather aclowledge it to be real and true: and yet this union is as well without the Eucharist, as in the Eucharist. For they are constrained to hold the words, although they are ignorant of the thing itself, and strive against the fruit and virtue thereof: and with carnal spirits cannot conceive any other real union with the body of Iesus Christ, then that which is made by eating, as if Iesus Christ were made for the belly, and not for the consciences of men: or as if it were not a privilege given to the children of God to be really conjoined with the son of God: for they make the wicked and hypocrites also to eat Iesus Christ, and really to participate his body; thinking that the dead can eat the bread of life, and that the enemies of God can be really joined with the son of God: esteeming the real eating with the mouth, to be a much more excellent thing then that which is done by faith. Although the eating by the mouth, is common both to the good and to the bad, but that which is by faith, is proper to the faithful. And eating with the mouth( without eating by faith) is hurtful and turneth to condemnation; but eating by faith is always spiritual and necessary to salvation.  
Some grossly subtle spirits mock at the spiritual union of Iesus Christ with us, as if it were a mere imagination, and say, that by the same reason the Spirit of Christ should be substantially united with all creatures, because he is in all places. Which they speak without reason, for although the Spirit of God is in every place, and in all creatures, yet he is not united with every one of thē. There is nothing but the soul that is capable of that union. As in natural forms, it is one thing to assist, another thing to give form or shape; so in the Spirit of Christ, it is one thing to be present with any thing, and another thing to unite itself thereunto, to quicken and to sanctify it. But he that is joined unto the Lord,( saith the Apostle, 1. Cor. 6.17.) is made one spirit with him. So by the union of the Spirit of Iesus Christ with our spirits, his body also is made one body with ours, as when the two extreme links of a chain, are joined together by a third.  
M. Arnoux argues no better when he maketh us to say, that in the Supper the body of Iesus Christ is given in substance, and not onely by effect; as if to give Iesus Christ in substance, and to give him effectually, were not all one thing. He speaketh as if I should say, that such a man was not onely beheaded, but also that he had his head cut off.  
It likewise appeareth, that he understandeth not his own belief, when he disliketh that we beleeue not that Iesus Christ is locally present in the signs of bread and wine: for the Church of Rome doth not beleeue it no more then we.  
The syllogism which he frameth is not a syllogism, for the conclusion is composed of diuers pieces which are not found in the premises. In neither of the propositions is there a word of the body of those that receive the signs. Now nothing ought to be in the conclusion which is not found in the premises.  
It is one thing to speak of the union of the body of Iesus Christ with the signs, and another thing to speak of the union of the body of Iesus Christ with our souls, and by our souls to our bodies. The signs are joined with Iesus Christ by sacramental union, as the water in baptism is joined with the blood of Iesus Christ. But the body of Iesus Christ is united to our souls by a real and spiritual union.  
He goeth on with his argument, and glosseth vpon the places of Scripture by us noted in the margin of our Confession.  ARNOVX. 
Of the real presence of the body of Christ in his Supper, and of transubstantiation.  
Places noted in the margin of the Confession. John 6.31. Our Fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written, he gave them bread from heaven to eat. 1. Cor. 11.23.24. Iesus took bread, and when he had given thankes he broke it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me, Matth. 26.26. And as they did eat, Iesus took the bread, and when he had blessed it, he broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.  
In all these places, is there any direct place by the which it is said, that the figure onely is given unto us, that the bread and the wine is given us for food, and that the bread and the wine show us( as it were to the eyes) the flesh and the blood? I will go a little further, where are those direct words in a matter of so great consequence? And with what face can all the Ministers in the world suffer and endure the reproach of the son of God, when at the day of iudgement of the whole world he shall say unto them, I haue taught by four of my vnreproueable registers, and those of whom you made great account, what I said from mine own mouth at the institution of the Sacrament of love and union: that is, This is my body, this is my blood; and my Church in so many ages hath believed it, and you vpon your own credits quarreled with my Church, and said, that I would haue said, This is bread, this is wine, this sheweth my flesh, this sheweth my blood. Why haue you made a sign of that, which I haue given in truth?& what hurt could it haue been unto you, to suffer the world to beleeue my word, barely and and simply understood, in a thing which I could not propound by equivocation or in a double sense, without incurring the blame of falsehood?  
Contrary places of Scripture. John 6.55.56. My flesh is meate indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Nothing can be said more expressly, and I cannot imagine any more express gloss then this text of itself is without any consequence or figure.  moulin. 
That point of the holy Supper, wherein the truth is clearer then in any other place, is that which satan hath most wrapped in obscurity; and of a band of unity, hath made it the seed of discord, and of an aid and means to lift up our faith to Iesus Christ, hath invented a means to pull down Iesus Christ, and to put him into mans power.  
We haue spoken of this martyr in a book expressly made for the same purpose, which as yet hath not been answered. Here I will say as much as shall suffice to clear this difference, and to defend the truth contained in our Confession of the faith.  

The belief of both parties.  
The Church of Rome 
Concl. tried sess. 13.  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 vpon the substance, so that the accidents remain without a subject; not that the body of Iesus Christ which is set on the right hand of God, cometh into the host, but it is made there by transubstantiation.  
Vpon condition nevertheless, 
council. tried. Sess 7. can. 11.  that the Priest must haue 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. 
Extra. de celebr. Miss. Tit. 41. cap. De homine. §. Petes.  saith, It is sufficient that the Priest hath an intent to do as the Church of Rome doth.  
To confirm this transubstantiation and 
Platina in Leone 3. Iodocus Coccius. Matthaus Paris an. 1247. pag. 713.  real presence, our aduersaries 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 mens mouths. 
Durand. Ration lib. 4. cap. 35.& Innocent. 3. lib. 3. de mister. Missae, cap. 1. Canon Poenitentialis 39. Quando mus comedit vel corrodit corpus Christi.  And say that certain shepherds having pronounced the words of consecration vpon 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 
Cautelae Missae. Species distinguantur,& reverenter sumantur,& vomitus comburatur, &c.  the provisions of the mass haue ordained certain rules for every one 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 Iesus 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; 
Toletus de Instruct. sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 25. Posset consesacerdos multos cophinos panu& vinidolium si praesentia ista haberet.  for he can make Iesus 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 vpon the cross: 
Innocentius 3. l. 4. de mister. Missae, cap. 2. Est enim hic colour& sapour, quamtitas& qualitas cum nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum, aut quantum, aut quale.  that he hath two eyes in one selfe same point: that he cannot move nor breath 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 quamtitas,& nihil quantum, length and nothing that is long, savour and nothing that savoureth, 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 shewed 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 Iesus Christ made by mens hands: as also that we beleeue in one Iesus 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 beleeue with the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.26. That we eat bread to show forth the death of the Lord Iesus 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 Iesus 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 beleeue that those signs are onely bare figures bereft of all truth, but with the Apostle we beleeue, that breaking that bread we communicate thee in body of Christ. Those signs are not onely significative, but also exhibitiue of Iesus Christ, and of his benefits. For although Iesus 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 Iesus Christ. Therefore we do not adore the Sacrament, but Iesus Christ which is in heaven: taking the Apostles for an example, who did not adore the host in the holy Supper, as neither Iesus 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.  
Our Lord Iesus Christ after the last paschal lamb celebrated with his disciples, instituted an other Sacrament, which Saint Paul calleth the Supper of the Lord, at the which he will haue 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 aduersaries do,) but wholly, and compared together, the truth ought to be drawn.  
Saint Matthew saith, That Iesus Christ took the bread, and when he had blessed it, he broke 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 stead 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 onely 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 Iesus Christ took bread, that he blessed it, and that he broke it. Then seeing that Iesus Christ took, and broke 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 Iesus Christ took bread, that he broke 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 Iesus Christ gave bread. Which is not given but after consecration; it is bread therefore still after consecration.  
3 And S. Matth. witnesseth, That Iesus Christ took bread, that he blessed it, and that he broke it, and that he gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. Therefore we must beleeue, that the bread which Iesus Christ broke,& gave, was his body,& not as the Church of Rome, which believeth that it is no more bread, but onely the body of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 declarative 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 aduersaries 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, 
Corpus& sanguinem Christi dicimus illud quod de fructibus terrae acceptum& prece mystica sanctificatum rectè sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam Dominicae passionnis.  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 Iesus 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 
read the book of Capitefontium, which in the Preface saith, that Innocent and Catharius and Gabriel Biel and the ancient Fathers are of opinion that consecration is made by prayer.  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 aduersaries 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 Iesus 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 aduersaries aclowledge, that when Iesus 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 transsubstantiated into my body, as our aduersaries understand it. 
2. De consecr. Can. Qui manducant. Quod videtur panis est& calix, quod etiam oculi renunciant, quod autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi.  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 Sith 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 Iesus Christ. Which he himself declareth in all the words that follow, which we will particularly sift and examine.  
8 Iesus 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: onely 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 paschal lamb is called the passeouer, 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 favourable 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 Iesus 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 apprehended 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 favour 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 vpon our aduersaries 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, haue corrupted this place, and haue translated that in the future tense which Iesus Christ spake in the present tense, and haue 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 Iesus 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 aduersaries, whether the body of Iesus Christ be really broken into pieces in the Eucharist? or whether therein it be onely 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 Iesus Christ gave to his Disciples was his sacramental body, and a remembrance of him. But if they will haue the body of our Lord to be really broken in the mass, thereby they fall into three inconveniences: The first is, that they wrong Iesus Christ, who being impassable, 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 vpon the cross. The third is, that they contradict themselves: for the Church of Rome believeth, that the body of Iesus 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 onely 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 aclowledge, 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 vpon 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 Iesus 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 vpon the cross, but is sacramentally done in the Supper, and for a remembrance, as Iesus Christ addeth, saying, Do this in remembrance of me.  
These words decide the question. For if that which Iesus Christ giveth be the remembrance of Iesus Christ, it is not Iesus Christ: nothing is the remembrance of itself. And there is nothing so absurd, as that which our aduersaries say, 
Bell. lib. 2. de Euchar. ca. 24. Idem igitur Christus fuit figura sui-ipsius.  that in the Eucharist Iesus 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 Iesus Christ in the mass is the figure of Iesus 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 battels, 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 haue Iesus Christ( invisible in the mass) to be the figure of Iesus Christ on the cross, where he was visible.  
11 Beside, remembrance is of things past or absent, as Aristotle saith in his first 
{αβγδ},  chapter of the book of memory and remembrance. So when the ancient Fathers called the tombs of Martyrs, remembrances, they shewed 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 valour 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 haue a remembrance of God, is to remember his marvelous works, his promises, or his commandements. The same is to be found in all other examples.  
It cannot be denied, that the holy Supper is a commemoration not onely of the person of Iesus 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 Iesus Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me.  
Then we haue the exposition of these words, This is my body, given us by Iesus 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 haue their spirits hardened, and are most resolute to contradict the truth. Then it is to be understood, that the language of the Iewes 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 in stead 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 dayes; and in the 18. verse, The three baskets are three dayes, that is signify three dayes: and in the 41. chapter verse 16. The seven fat kine are seven yeares, and the seven full ears of corn are seven yeares. And the seven lean euill-fauored kine which came up after the other, are seven yeares: and the seven empty ears of corn blasted with the east wind, are seven yeares of famine. And in four places of that chapter the word are is put for signify or represent. So in Ezechiel 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 o King that art this head of gold, in stead of saying, It is thou that art signified and prefigured by the head of gold. And 4.20.22, The three which thou sawest is thou o 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 Graecia. 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 seruant and the free, that is, Agar and Sara, are the two covenants: and Apocal. 17.9.18. The seven heads are seven mountaines whereupon the woman sitteth, and the woman which thou sawest is that great city.  
Then because Iesus 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 lead him, and followed the manner of speaking used among the Iewes, and continued in the holy Scripture. But foreseing 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 thankes, 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 Iesus Christ to be the expounder of Saint Pauls words, seeing that Saint Paul wrote expressly to expound the words of Iesus Christ, to cause the same to be understood.  
Our saviour Iesus 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 aduersaries, whether that which is in the cup be a covenant sacramentally and in a significant mystery, or whether they will haue 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 Iesus Christ broke and put into his disciples hands, was not really the body of Iesus Christ, but sacramentally,& in a mystical signification.  
But if they will haue that which is in the cup really to be a Testament, and the blood of Iesus Christ( which they pretend to be in the cup) to be a Testament, thereby they say and affirm that which they themselves beleeue not. 1. For will they haue the wine to be transsubstantiated into a covenant, or to become a Testament? 2. Can they speak more absurdly, then to say, that the blood of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ every day, maketh the covenant of God, and the Testament of Iesus 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 Philips cloak is not Philip himself, so the blood of the new Testament is not the new Testament itself. And yet our aduersaries 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 transsubstantiated 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 itself, and a seal set vpon a letter is not the letter itself. So that against their wils they yield unto vs. 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 wils,) that the cup is not really the blood of Iesus 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 onely hidden under the accidents and appearance of wine, but it is also hidden in the body: for our aduersaries 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 wilfully 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ in the blood of Iesus Christ? Must we by this means make two sorts of blood of Iesus Christ, as 
Bell. lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 11. §. Ad quartum. Sanguis accipitur duobus modis in his duobus locis.  Bellarmine doth, for fear of putting the blood of Iesus Christ into the blood of Iesus 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 selfe 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 aduersaries 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 Iesus Christ, where of the one is a cup, the other was  shed vpon the cross; whereof the one was powred vpon 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 honour to be the covenant, why should we deprive the blood of the cross of that honour? 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 vpon those that went before; for seeing we haue 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 Iesus 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 vpon the cross, yet we ought to translate the words faithfully. Also the translation in the present tense doth hinder us from knowing that our saviours intent was sacramental, and that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign.  
20 Herein our Aduersaries are much troubled. For if this shedding be sacramental and a commemoration, we haue won our cause: and the Doctors of the Romish Church are on our side, who having glossed vpon the decretal in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, say, Sanguis effunditur, id est, effundi significatur, 
Cant. 5. Quotiescunque.  The blood is  shed, that is, it is signified or represented that the blood is  shed. The mass itself 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 vpon the cross.  
21 Yet our Aduersaries contend with us herein, and affirm, that the blood of Iesus 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 onely refuge is, never to answer any thing 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 colour 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 paschal lamb, the other of the holy Supper, and witnesseth also, that Iesus Christ called the cup of the paschal lamb the fruit of the Vine. But Saint Matthew and Saint mark speak onely 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 necessary say, that Iesus Christ spake twice of the fruit of the Vine, and that administering the cup of the Eucharist, he used the same terms. 
Quod autem vinum in sanguine consecrauit patet ex eo quod ipse subiunxit, non bibam à modo de genimine, &c.  For it were an intolerable boldness to correct Saint Matthew and Saint mark by Saint Luke, and to charge them to haue troubled the order and method of our saviours 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 Iesus Christ called that the fruit of the Vine which he consecrated in the Cup.  
Being put from that, they haue 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 yeares of age, a child, because once he was a child: and ripe grapes veriuice, because they haue 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 haue 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.   

proofs thereof by the circumstances of the action.  
All the circumstances of the action speak for, and fight with us against transubstantiation. For, as Iesus 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 sate 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 Iesus Christ daily with them: for they did never eat him, nor swallowed him down into their stomacks, 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 haue Iesus Christ to haue given to his Disciples, was impassable, 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 impassable and without infirmity. contrary things may agree in one selfe same subject at several times, or in several parts of the subject, or in diuers respects, that is, being compared to diuers things: As for example a man may be white to day, 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 selfe 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 impassable, weak and without infirmity, visible and invisible, speaking, and moving itself at the Table, and not speaking nor being able to move under the species of bread. Thus you haue two contrary Iesus Christs, and one of them more perfect then the other: for, to be impassable, is a perfection, and to be passable is an imperfection.  
3 They agree with us, that Iesus Christ in the Eucharist did eat and drink with his disciples; then it followeth,( according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome) that Iesus Christ did eat himself, and that he swallowed his whole body down into his stomach. And seeing that naturally Iesus Christs mouth stood in his head, by this doctrine we must say, that at one selfe 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 Iesus Christ did eat, he was weak, and Iesus Christ eaten by Iesus Christ was without infirmity. Which being a greater miracle then the conception and the resurrection of Iesus Christ, yet they can produce no fruit thereby, nor show us how that can profit us touching our redemption. And if Iesus 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 Iesus Christ did in the body of Iesus Christ, and what efficacy it had therein. And seeing that they say, that the soul is within the host, to what end should Christs soul enter into Christ, seeing it was there already? Do our aduersaries 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 aduersaries hold, with S. Augustine and Saint jerome, that Iudas received the Eucharist with the rest of the Apostles. And indeed Saint Luke after the administration of the Sacrament, witnesseth that Iesus Christ said, Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me at the table. But it is manifest, that the body of Iesus Christ did not enter into Iudas: for the gospel witnesseth that Iudas being at the table, the divell entred into him. Iesus Christ and the divell could not well haue lodged both in one place: for then the divell prevailed in Iudas, and so it must follow, that the divell got the vpper hand of Iesus Christ. But Iesus 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 Iesus 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 sweat drops of blood for grief. And yet at one selfe same time our aduersaries make one Iesus Christ to be in the mouths and stomachs of the Apostles, which being impassable, suffered no pain nor grief, neither sweat drops of blood; which not onely makes two contrary Iesus Christs at one time, but also one Iesus Christ which is not our saviour, 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 Iesus Christ did not command them to take them up, nor to reserve the rest, which he would haue done, if every crumb& piece thereof had been Iesus Christs body fully and wholly.  
7 But say that there was no bread remaining, yet the Apostles in the mean time that Iesus Christ was vpon the cross, or in the sepulchre, might among themselves celebrate the Sacrament: and so there should be one Iesus Christ vpon 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 Iesus Christ is also crucified and whipped, 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.  
The onely 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 Lords 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 sheweth then that that which Iesus Christ said to be his body, was still bread in that sense, and for the reasons aforesaid.  
Then I ask our aduersaries, 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christs words this is my body; therein they manifestly discover their unfaithful dealing. For they know that Iesus Christ is not an expounder of the Apostles words, but that the Apostles are expositors of Iesus Christs 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 Iesus 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 beleeue?  
But seeing that our aduersaries turn all things into figures, let us see how they expound those figures: they will haue the body of our Lord to be called bread, because it was bread before consecration. Which is false, for Christs 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 any more. 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 haue been. 2. Also they say, that Saint Paul saith, that we eat bread in stead 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 aduersaries 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 dishonour of Iesus Christ; as when men tread the kings great seal under their feet, the king,& not the wax is dishonoured 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 dishonoured.  
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 aduersaries 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 aduersaries would endure a Priest, that in stead of saying, I go to sing mass, should say, I go to broke bread? Here also our aduersaries find another figure, and by the word bread, will haue 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 itself. 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 flamme 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, 
{αβγδ} as also capere in latin.  and sometimes receive, but here it cannot be taken for receive. For it is false that the heaven receiveth Iesus Christ until the day of iudgement. He hath been once received therein, and there is contained for ever; and if he be contained there, he is no more on earth.  
5 Iesus 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 haue with you, but me ye haue not always. And 13.1. John saith, When Iesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father. Here Iesus Christ declareth that he is no more in the world, that he left the world, and that we should not always haue him with vs. These speeches dislike the Church of Rome, for she will haue us to haue Iesus 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 haue him to be in a thousand places all at one time; and not onely 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 Iesus Christ saith that he is not visibly in the world, that he leaveth the world, and that we shall not haue him always, as touching his visible presence. This is a kind of mockery. For to haue Iesus Christ invisibly, is always to haue Iesus Christ, and to be always present invisibly, 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 Iesus 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, sand them the holy Ghost, whom he calleth the comforter. certainly if Iesus Christ is really present under the species in the holy Supper, our Lord could and would haue comforted them otherwise touching his absence, by saying, You shall no more haue 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 Iesus Christ, given Mat. 24.24. saying, There shall arise false Prophets and false Christs, 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 beleeue. Then when our aduersaries 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 judgements, touching the hardening of mens hearts.   

A brief and certain exposition of these words: This is my body.  
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 vpon 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 Iesus Christ understood that which he broke and gave to his disciples, and that which he commanded them to eat. The gospel witnesseth that Iesus Christ broke bread, He took bread, and blessed it, and broke 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 Iesus Christ gave bread, He took bread and blessed it, and broke 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 Iesus 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 haue shewed 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 haue been alleged, and against the nature of a Sacrament; and to shun a simplo, 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 Iesus Christ did eat himself, that the body of our Lord and the divell both at one time entred into Iudas. And that the Lord had a mortal body which sate at the table with his disciples, and that at the very same time he had a body without infirmity, and impassable in the mouths and stomachs of the Apostles. Which obstinacy of men resolute in error, God hath punished with so great blindness, that they haue proceeded so far, as that they beleeue 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 aduersaries forge figures, and wrest the words of Iesus Christ and of the Apostles.  
Our aduersaries 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 Iesus 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 Iesus 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 haue already shewed.  
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 haue the Testament to be Iesus 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 haue us by the cup to understand the blood of Iesus Christ in the Eucharist, and that by the words my blood, we must understand the blood  shed vpon the cross, making another blood of Iesus Christ to be powred into the blood of Iesus 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 appearance thereof.  
7 For the same reasons, when Saint Paul three times one after the other saith, that we eat bread, they will haue 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 Iesus 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, joh. 6.51. saith, That if any man eateth his flesh, he shall live for ever; they plainly perceive, that if in those words Iesus Christ speaketh of the participation of the Sacrament, it must of force follow, that Iudas and diverse hypocrites which did, and do participate therein, shall live for ever: which to avoid, they add to the Lords words, and say, that his meaning is, that if a man eateth the flesh of the Lord worthily, he shall live for ever. But we maintain that a man cannot eat the flesh of the Lord unworthily, seeing that it cannot be eaten but onely spiritually and in faith; which cannot be done unworthily. 
1. Cor. 11.  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 haue 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 Iesus Christs intent was to say, If you eat not my flesh, when you haue means to do it, ye shall not haue 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 haue 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 haue a privilege: for they say that the Church of Rome cannot err in her interpretations: 
Tit. 8. De concess. Praebend. cap. Proposuit in Glossa. Papa contra Apostolum dispensat: Item contra vetus Testamentum. Et Dist. 34. Can. Lector. Papá potest contra Apostolum dispensare. Et Caussa 25. Quaest. 1. Can. Sunt quidam. Dispensat in evangelio interpretando ipsum.  and therefore the gloss vpon 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, giuing it interpretations.   

That transubstantiation overthroweth the humanity of Iesus Christ, and exposeth it to great opprobrie and disgrace.  
The worst mischief is, that by this doctrine the humanity of Iesus Christ is abolished, and the dignity of Priests exalted, contrary to the honour of the son of God. This of all others is a principal heresy. For to overthrow the human nature of Iesus Christ, is to cut the band in twain which uniteth us to God, and a stoping of the pipe whereby God maketh his celestial benefits to fall down vpon vs. God doth not aclowledge us to be his children, but onely 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 cloth us with his Spirit. That is it which the Apostle Hebrewes 2.17. saith, Wherefore in all things it behoved 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 Iesus 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 itself, as they say the Lords 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 Iesus Christ, he is no man. Then seeing it is manifest that the interior parts of the body of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 haue shewed before that this doctrine gives Iesus Christ two contrary bodies at one time, one body sitting at the table, the other in the mouths of the Apostles, which sate not at the table: one body speaking and moving, the other not speaking, nor able to stir itself. One a weak and passable body, the other without infirmity and impassable. 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 Iesus Christ? Iesus 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 haue but one being; and to give Iesus Christ a sacramental being, that is to say, significative, is to build castles in the air: our aduersaries confess, that under the species Iesus 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 haue no space, to haue 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 onely doubtful but also ridiculous. For if the body of Iesus 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 Iesus Christ was vpon 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 virgin Maries womb, he was not in other womens wombs? And why Iesus Christ went so often from Galilee to jerusalem, seeing that without stirring from Galilee he might be in jerusalem? Why joseph and mary having left him in jerusalem against their wils, turned back again to fetch him, seeing that he might haue stayed in jerusalem, and yet by their doctrine he might haue 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 every one 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 vs. God is omnipotent because he doth all whatsoever he will, and not all that we will prescribe unto him. But we haue seen before that the will of God is clean contrary unto that which our aduersaries will haue him to will.  
13. And though we ought onely to endeavour 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 Iesus Christ, and that our aduersaries diminish and derogate from it.  
For, it is much more agreeable to the power of Iesus Christ to communicate himself unto us without coming down here vpon earth: as the sun is much more admirable by making itself 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, Iesus Christ is not onely put into the power of a man, but also made so unable, that our aduersaries aclowledge, that under the species he can neither breath, 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 Iesus 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 shal chance to be spilled, or to freeze, or if rats gnaw or eat the body of Iesus Christ, or if the Priest by weakness or drunkenness, casteth up the host out of his stomach? Is it an honouring 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ suffereth nothing by all that, because he is impassable, yet thereby he is greatly dishonoured, and the son of God is openly derided, and exposed to the laughter of the enemies of the gospel.  
16. It is also a dishonour to Iesus Christ to make men beleeue that the bones and relics of Saints, dead at the least 12. or 15. hundred yeares before, can remain without rotting: and yet by experience to aclowledge, that the host becometh moldy in a few dayes, and that the presence of Iesus Christ, which is in it( as they say) doth not preserve it from vermin and the teeth of beasts.  
17. But Iesus Christ is specially dishonoured hereby, that in the papal procession the host is carried vpon a curtal with a lantern, 
This procession is set out in the first book of Ceremonies. lib. 1. sect. 2.  but the Pope is born vpon the shoulders of Kings and Princes, or vpon the shoulders of their ambassadors. And that in the papal mass the Pope is ten times more honoured, 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. 

Qui discordat à Christo nec carnem Christi manducat, nec sanguinem bibit, etsi tantae rei Sacrame●tum ad judicium sui quotidiè accipit.  
Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille panem Domini contra Dominum.   Saint Augustin in the book of Sentences collected by Prosper, saith, He that disagreeth with Iesus 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 vpon Saint John, he saith, that the disciples did eat the bread, which is the Lord, but that Iudas did eat the bread of the Lord, against the Lord. For this Doctor believed that Iesus 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 any thing at all spoken of eating the flesh of Iesus Christ with the mouth.  
The Capernaitan Iewes followed Iesus Christ into the desert, not to hear his words, but to be fed with bread. But Iesus 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 yeares after.  
The difference between us& our aduersaries consisteth in this eating. We say, that in this Chapter he speaketh onely of a spiritual eating which is done by faith in the same manner, as in the fourth Chapter Iesus 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 aduersaries 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 Iesus Christ is really eaten with the mouth in the Eucharist: whereof they say Iesus Christ speaketh in the rest of the Chapter.  
But if we examine the whole tenor of Christs speech, we shall not find any one clause therein, which is not contrary to this kind of eating of Iesus 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 onely the flesh of Iesus 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 transsubstantiated into my body; we must also by these words, I am the bread, understand that Iesus Christ is transsubstantiated into bread.  
3. Iesus Christ addeth, He that believeth in me, shall never thirst. Where plainly he putteth, to beleeue, in stead of, to drink; seeing he saith, that by believing our thirst shall be quenched. The coherence of his discourse, 
Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 7. Verba quae citantur non pertinent ad Sacramentum propriè, said ad fidem incarnationis.  and the natural consequence, requireth that he should haue said, He that drinketh shall never thirst: but he said, He that believeth, in stead 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 sheweth, that this bread is taken by faith. For, seeing that he which believeth in him hath life everlasting, from thence he infereth, 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 haue not life eternal. For it is certain that Iesus Christ speaketh not of eating with the mouth, nor of the Eucharist: for many eat thereof, which haue not life eternal; as Iudas, and an infinite number of hypocrites. Our aduersaries 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 Iesus 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 haue proved( and our aduersaries confess it,) it is manifest, that no man can unworthily beleeue in Iesus Christ, seeing that all our worthiness consisteth in believing in Iesus Christ. Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11. speaketh of eating the bread unworthily, but not of eating the Lords 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 haue taken the host worthily, are damned.  
6. The 53. verse is of no less force, where Iesus Christ saith, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye haue 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 haue eternal life. Now many attain to eternal life, which never participated in that Sacrament, as Saint John Baptist, the thief crucified with Iesus 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 Iesus Christ would haue said, If you eat not the flesh of the son of man while you haue means to do it, you shall not haue 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 haue 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 aduersaries do not beleeue 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 Iesus Christ: and if a faithful person hath received it, the Church of Rome doth not beleeue that Iesus Christ dwelleth in him: for she saith, that as soon as the species are digested in the stomach, the body of Iesus Christ is no more there.  
8. Lastly, Iesus 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 Iewes, to whom he never administered the Eucharist, and which continued obstinately in their jewish opinions. It is certain that Iesus Christ is no liar. If he had promised to administer the Sacrament to the Capernaitans, he would haue kept his promise. And the unworthiness of the Capernaitans could not haue kept the Lord from offering the Sacrament unto them according to his promise, which nevertheless he did not. By this means our aduersaries, as much as in them lieth, make Iesus Christ a liar.  
10. We must likewise remember, that the Eucharist was not as then instituted, till two yeares after; and yet at that time Iesus 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 meate indeed: for this word indeed, doth not hinder but that the word flesh may be taken figuratively, no more then when Iesus Christ in the 15.1. of S. John saith, I am the true vine; where the word true excludeth not the figure. figurative words cease not to be true: seeing that the flesh of Iesus 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 Iesus Christ crucified furnisheth these two nourishments. For by the death of Iesus Christ we are certified and instructed of and in the means that God hath ordained to reconcile himself unto us; and that onely is our sovereign consolation, for without it our souls languish and whither in despair, like a member fallen into a consumption, or like a body destitute of nourishment.  
We must not think it strange, that our saviour Iesus 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, 
joh. 4.  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 meate. Besides that, Iesus 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 aduersaries themselves aclowledge, that to the 50. verse, Iesus 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 any thing that should move us to understand that speech of Iesus Christ otherwise.  
And I wonder how they dare in such manner contradict 
De spirituali comestione Dominus ait: Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hoins& biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Hoc modo corpus Christi soli boni comedunt, &c.  Pope Innocent 3. who in the 14. chapter and 4. book of the Mysteries of the mass, declareth, that in those verses which our aduersaries 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 haue eternal life in you. In this manner those onely 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? Beleeue, 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. 
Certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis& sanguinis Christi, diuina res est, propter quod& per eadem divinae efficimur consorts naturae,& tamen esse non definite substantia vel natura panis& vini. Et certè imago& similitudo corporis& sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur.  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 aduersaries had rather disagree with their Popes, then to agree with vs. But if that book was not made by Pope Gelasius, as the title importeth, but by Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestina, as Bellarmine suspecteth, the book shall be the more ancient and of greater authority. nevertheless, Photius speaking of Gelasius works, maketh mention of a book entitled, {αβγδ}, 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 
Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum, non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis,& bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui: spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos.  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 haue recommended a sacred sign unto you, which being understood spiritually, will quicken you.  
And in the Canon, Ut quid. 
Vt quid paras dentem& ventrem: creed& manducasti. Credere enim in eum hoc est panem& vinum manducare. Qui credit in eum manducat eum.  Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Beleeue and thou hast eaten: for to beleeue in him, is to eat the bread and the wine; he that believeth in him eateth him.  
Which cotrarieth not those that by eating understand something more then to beleeue, 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 Iesus 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. Iesus 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 vs. It is a meate necessary for salvation, and not as the Sacrament of his body, without the which many are saved, and which turns to many mens condemnation. It is a remedy against all our sins, and not onely against venial sins, and those whereof mens consciences are already discharged, 
Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euchar. cap. 17.& 18.  as the Church of Rome teacheth: making the Eucharist to be a plaster for a wound that is healed, and a mean to discharge mens 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.  
Although the mark of papal religion, is to go to mass, yet the mass is much contrary to the papacy. 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 vpon 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 Catechumeni, 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.  
over these presents and gifts of the people, appointed for the celebration of the holy Supper, diuers prayers were said, whereof the greatest part are at this day said in the mass, but changed into another sense. For as in stead of a quantity of bread to communicate to all the assembly, at this day they haue 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ.  
For after the words of 
Panem sanctum vitae aeternae,& calicem salutis perpetuae. Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris& accepta habere vt accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel.  Consecration, offering Iesus Christ to God, he speaketh in this manner to God, saying, Vpon which things may it please thee to look with a good and favourable countenance, and to accept of them, as thou didst accept of the presents of Abel thy righteous seruant. This prayer might be said vpon the offerings and alms of the people, but in no sort can be vpon Iesus Christ. For is there any likelihood that Iesus Christ should be called These things, as if they spake of diverse Iesus Christs, and of things without life? again, can he without impiety desire God to accept as well of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Abels: But the words of the mass will not bear this exposition, which compare not Abels 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 didst accept of Abels 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, 
Supplices te rogamus oimpotens Deus, jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altar tuum.  We beseech thee most puissant God, to command that these things may be born by the hands of thy holy angel into thy heavenly palace, into the presence of thy divine majesty. Is there any thing in all this that can be applied to Iesus Christ? Is Iesus 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, 
Memento etiam Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei& dormiunt in somno pacis.  saying, Lord remember thy seruants which haue gone before us with the sign of faith, and that sleep in peace. For then they believed not that mens souls were burnt in a fire.  
After this there followeth a long catalogue of the names of many Saints; which rehearsed, 
Intra quorum nos consortium non aestimator meriti said veniae largitor admittas, per Christum Dominum nostrum, per quem Domine haec omnia semper bona creas, sanctificas, viuificas, benedicis.  they make this prayer to God, saying, In whose company we beseech thee to receive us, not regarding our merits, but pardoning our offences. 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 any thing in all this that agreeth to Iesus Christ? For can they call the consecrated bread( which they call the host) all these good things, if that host be Iesus Christ? Doth God always quicken Iesus Christ? Doth God create& quicken Iesus Christ, by Iesus Christ? These speeches are fit being applied to the bread and wine, but not unto Iesus 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 thankes 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 sheweth 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 pronoun 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 appearance, that then when men adore the host, and pretend to sacrifice the eternal son of God to God, the Priest giveth thankes to God because he causeth the bread and wine to grow? and remembreth not to give him thankes, because he hath put Iesus 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 thankes unto God, because he maketh it rain vpon the vines, without giuing him thankes for redeeming our souls from hell, by the death of Iesus Christ.  
The many signs of the cross 
Efficit supper ea crucis signaculum, vt per crucis virtutem omnes conatus diabolicae malignitatis effugiant, ne contrasacerdotem vel sacrificium aliquo modo praeualeat.  which the Priest maketh vpon the host and vpon 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 vpon these things to drive away the divell, lest he should prevail against the Priest, or against the sacrifice, that is, against Iesus 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 Iesus Christ against the divell.  
The gloss of the Romish decretal vpon the Canon Hoc est, in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, is no less express touching this subject, then if it had been made at Geneua: 
Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, said impropriè, vnde dicitur suo modo, said non rei veritate, said significante mysterio, vt sit sensus, vocatur corpus Christi .i. significatur.  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, 
Can. Qui discordat à Christo non manducat carnem eius, nec bibit sanguinem, et si tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae perditionis quotidiè accipit.  He that disagreeth with Iesus 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: 
De hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemoratione mirabiliter fit edere licet. Deilla vero quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit, secundùm se nulli edere licet.  It is permitted to eat of this host which is wonderfully made in remembrance of Iesus Christ. But no man is permitted in the same to eat of that which Iesus Christ offered vpon the altar of the cross.  
And in the Canon Quia Morte,( likewise taken out of Saint Augustine) It is said, 
Quia morte Domini liberati sumus, huius rei memoriam in edendo& potando, carnem& sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus.  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 vs.  
The mass( as we haue seen) hath diuers formal prayers against transubstantiation: yet there is a manifest fraud used, and a changing of the ancient liturgy. The Priest saith: 
Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quae sumus benedictam, ascriptam, raptam, rationabilem, acceptabilémque facere digneris, vt nobis corpus& sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Qui pridie, &c.  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 haue the same prayer in the 5. Chap. of the 4. book of Sacraments, among Saint Ambrose works, in these words: 
Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis& sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Qui pridie, &c.  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 Iesus 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 vpon.   

certain places out of the ancient Fathers touching this subject.  
Tertullian in his third book against martion, the 19. chap. 
Panem suum corpus appellans, vt& hinc iam eum intelligat corporis sui figuram pani dedisse.  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 martion, 40 chapter, disputing against the Marcionites which denied that Iesus Christ had a true body, 
Acceptum panem& distributum discipulis corpus suum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est corpus meum. Id est, figurae corporis mei.  he saith, Iesus 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, 
Vinum fuit quod sanguinem suum dixit.  We find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that which he called his blood was wine.  
Origen vpon the 15. of Saint Matthew saith: 
Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei pèrque obsecrationem, iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit& in secessum emittitur.  This meate 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 draft, 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, 
{αβγδ}.  We haue received this custom, to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice vpon 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: 
Non dubitauit dicere, hoc est corpus meumcum daret signum corporis sui. Iudam adhibuit ad conuivium in quo corporis& sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendauit& tradidit Videte fide manente signae variantur. Ibi petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in altari ponitur. Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis& bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentam aliquod vobis commendaui, spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos. Quem tenebo absentem? Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi fedentem teneam? Fidem mitte& tenuisti. Parentes tui tenuerunt carne, tu tene cord.  The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. There he doth not onely 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.  
Vpon the third psalm he saith: Iesus Christ received Iudas 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 vpon 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 vpon the table is Christ. Will you learn of Saint Augustine how that which is set vpon the table is Christ? It is, as in time past the rock was Christ.  
Vpon the 38 psalm he saith, understand that which I haue 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 haue recommended a sacred sign unto you, which b●ing understood spiritually, will quicken you.  
And in the 50 Treatise vpon Saint John: Shall I take Iesus 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 parsonage answereth and saith: sand thy faith thither, and thou hast laid hold vpon him: thy ancestors( the Iewes) had him bodily among them, hold thou him in thy heart. And in the first Treatise vpon the first Epistle of Saint John, he saith, Ipsum iam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus, said fide contingere: Being set in heaven, we cannot handle him any more with our hands, but we may touch him with our hearts.  
In the 23 Epistle to Boniface, he saith, 
Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Saeramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est. Ita Sacramentum fidei fides est.  The Sacrament of the body of Christ, in some maner 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 butted by baptism.  
And in the third book of Christian Doctrine, cap. 16. he saith, 
Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hoins& non biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Dominicae esse communicandum,& suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quòd pro nobis caro eius crucifixa& vulnerata sit.  If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink not his blood, you shall not haue 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 haue in remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Note, that he doth not onely 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 haue his death and passion in remembrance, which is an exposition which the Church of Rome receiveth not.  
Ephraim Patriarch of Antiochia, alleged by Photius in his library, saith, 
Pag. 415. editionis August. {αβγδ}.  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 onely 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 sheweth 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.  
Vigilius in his fourth book against Eutyches, saith, 
Si Verbi& carnis vna natura est, quomodo cum verbum vbique sit non ubique invenitur& caro? nam quando in terra fuit, non erat utique in coelo,& nunc quia in coelo est, non est utique in terra.  If the Word and the flesh haue 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 aduersaries 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 haue served the Eutychians, who said also, that the flesh of the Lord is no more visible here on earth. They dispute therefore against Vigilius, and join with the ancient heretics. For Vigilius said, that the flesh of Iesus 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 immovable, where he saith, 
{αβγδ}.  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, 
{αβγδ}.  Iesus Christ honoured 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 
{αβγδ}, &c.  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, necessary 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 haue spoken very improperly and against himself, if to show it, he should haue alleged, that the substance of the bread being changed, the accidents and the appearance of bread remained. That had been as much as if he had pleaded the Eutychians cause, that would haue, that the substance of the flesh of Christ being changed, the appearance thereof remained.  
Gelasius in his book of two Natures saith, 
Et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis& vini. Et certè imago& similitudo corporis& sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur.  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.  
Chrysostome 
Pag. 500. edit. Comel. {αβγδ}  in his 82. homily vpon Saint Matthew saith, When Iesus Christ gave the mysteries, he gave wine.  
Chrysostome, or whosoever is the author of the imperfect work vpon Saint matthew, in the 11. Homily saith, 
Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transfer sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, said mysterium corporis eius continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, &c.  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 Iesus 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 Arrians did corrupt that book: for the Arrians had no other opinion touching that point, then those that hold the orthodoxal and true faith.  
Saint Macarius the Egyptian in his 27 Homily 
{αβγδ}.  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 vpon Denis falsely surnamed the Areopagite, saith, {αβγδ}, 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, 
{αβγδ}.  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 
{αβγδ}.  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: Iesus Christ commanded that we should set vpon 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 abominable 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 Catechumeni, seeing that both their Sermons, and their books, and the councils are not expressly made for the Catechumeni, but for all the faithful. 

Hier. in 1. ad Corinth. c. 11. evagrius lib. 4. histor. cap. 35.  
Nicephorus lib. 17. cap. 25. Hesych. in Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. Eusebius li. 7. cap. 8.  
Augustinus contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. cap. 23.  
Oportet eam career variarum illecebris voluptatum, vt corpus& sanguinem Christi ministret.   And it is not credible that the Fathers speaking to the faithful would lye for fear of offending the Catechumeni, which would haue 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 Iesus Christ himself, that the Pastors of the Church would haue persuaded the Catechumeni that it is not so; seeing that at this day they make little children beleeue it. I know that the Fathers spake of the mysteries of faith with more sobriety before the Catechumeni, but it is one thing to speak to the Catechumeni, and another thing to writ and preach to the faithful, as the Fathers in these places do. Let us hereunto add ancient customs. The Christians in Saint Pauls time made a banquet 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. 
Ambrosius oratione de obitu fratris Satyri.  Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose, hung it about his neck, and swam therewith.  
Things which would never haue 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 Iesus 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, 
{αβγδ}.  called that which they received in the holy Supper, a meate 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, 
{αβγδ}.  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, 
{αβγδ}.  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 {αβγδ}, 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, 
{αβγδ}.  but by drawing of curtains which hung between the table and the people. As S. Chrysostome saith, in his 3. homily vpon 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 haue already shewed.  
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 Catecheticall 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 yeares 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 read with the blood of the Lord: of hote coals brought with tongues by Seraphins, &c. excessive 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 red 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 can not be eaten with the mouth. Saint jerome vpon the Epistle to the Ephesians saith: 
2. De Consecr. Can. Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christi, vel spiritualis illa atque diuina de qua ipse ait, caro mea est verè cibus, vel Caro ea quae crucifixa est,& sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea.  The flesh and the blood of Christ is understood two ways, either that spiritual and divine flesh, whereof he himself saith, My flesh is meate indeed; or that flesh which was crucified,& that blood which was  shed by the souldiers spear. And the same Father in 2. Distinction of Consecration saith: 
Can. De hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemoratione mirabiliter fit, edere licet. De illa vero quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit, secundùm se nulli edere licet.  We are permitted to eat of that host which is wonderfully made in remenbrance of Christ. But it is not lawful for any man to eat of that same host which Christ offered vpon the three 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 vpon the 98. psalm, he produceth Iesus 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 haue 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, 
Si vinum tantùm quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis, si vero aqua sola sit, plebs incipit esse sine Christo.  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 haue 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 Iesus Christ doth not lose his substance in the Eucharist; for who ever 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 can not be said of the crucified body.  
So in the Canon, 
Comperimus quòd quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant.  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 red.  
This being so, it shall not be amiss to know how Saint Ambrose will haue 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 haue bread& Christs 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 infereth, 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 sermone Domini Iesu, 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 haue the bread to remain bread, and nevertheless to be the body of Christ.  
Howbeit, such kindes of speaking haue been stumbling blocks at which the ages ensuing haue stumbled, specially since the holy Scriptures haue been hidden from the people: and that men to advance themselves above Angels, haue boasted that they make God with words,& create their creator.   

An answer to the Prosopopoeia of M. Arnoux.  
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 haue contradicted his four evangelists? why we quarrel with his Church? and why we haue placed a figure in stead 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 stead of administering the holy Supper of the Lord? Why he hath intruded himself to sacrifice the body of our Lord without commandement? Why he hath usurped the office of a sacrificing Priest not ordained by Iesus Christ? Why he hath lifted up an host in the mass to cause it to be adored as God, seeing that Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ? Why he turns his back to the people, seeing that Iesus 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 Iesus Christ caused not any dead bones to be laid under the table? and that salvation is not gotten or obtained by mens merits? Why the evangelists having said that Iesus Christ broke, and gave bread, he hath taken vpon him to teach, that the Priest doth not break nor give bread in the mass? Why Iesus 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 bely 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 mens souls that haue given some thing 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 dispense against the Apostles, and against the gospel in giuing it interpretations. Do they think that such excuses will be admitted in that fearful iudgement, or that thereby they can defend themselves from that heat of the fire that shall consume the aduersaries?  
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 Iewes, and why we do not celebrate it onely vpon a Thursday, and after we haue 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 onely.  
1. Our Lord giuing 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 Iesus Christ spake onely to Pastors, for all those that then were present were Pastors of the Church. But the Church of Rome giuing the Cup to Kings and Princes, sheweth that she doth not beleeue that that commandement was made onely to Pastors of the Church.  
3. moreover, Iesus Christs 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 commandement 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ said, eat. 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 onely 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 itself. And though we look elsewhere for the commandement to eat made to the people, we shall always find that there also is mention made of drinking.  
5. Our aduersaries themselves confess, that Iesus 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 aduersaries say that there is no effusion of blood in the host.  
7. And when Iesus said, This is my body which is given, and broken for you, did he understand that it should onely 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 vpon the name of Iesus, 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 commandement to examine himself is made to all the faithful, so the commandement 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 {αβγδ}, Let him eat, which is the imperative mood, and a word of commandement, 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 itself. For when Iesus Christ, John 6. said, Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you haue no life in you: here our aduersaries expressly affirm and maintain, that Iesus 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 haue shewed 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 haue 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ in this place of Saint John doth not express the manner how to communicate, but sheweth 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, haue 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 Iesus 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 Iesus Christ will haue every man to participate the same. The faithful in eating the bread may remember the shedding of his blood, but God will haue the memory and the exterior sign to go together. And we must not content ourselves 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 dispense with ourselves 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. 
Lib. 2. Sacrarum Ceremoniarum cap. 14. Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit calamum quem Papa ponit in calice in manibus Diaconi existent,& sanguinis partem sugit.  For by giuing the Cup to none but to Priests and to Kings and Princes, Priests haue made themselves companions with Kings: in the same maner 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 practised in the latter times by some ambitious Prelates, is now reserved for the Pope onely, for a mark of his greatness. 
Tanta esset dignitas laicorum circa sumptionem corporis Christi sicut& sacerdotum.  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 onely intent therefore herein is, the honour and exaltation of the clergy.  
The council of Constance holden anno 1416. which is the first council that forbade the Cup to be administered to the people, vpon pain of heresy, and punishment to be imposed by the secular powers, confesseth that Iesus Christ did institute the holy Supper under both kinds, and that the primitive Church did so practise 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 haue 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 onely 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 Iesus 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 haue 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 onely. For that we must constantly, and without any doubt beleeue, that the whole body and blood of Iesus 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 practised 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 maner, 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 Aduersaries.  
To maintain this error against the word of God, they allege certain weak reasons of human wisdom: as if mens reason might contrary the gospel; or as if our aduersaries were sharper sighted then Iesus 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 vpon 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 Iesus 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 Iesus 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 beleeue our aduersaries) the milk of the virgin mary waxeth not sour, nor the bones of Saints putrifie in so many hundred yeares. 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 shal it ever be found that the prohibiting of the chalice did remedy any error, but onely that it serveth to strengthen the error of transubstantiation.  
5. They likewise say, that some countries haue no wine. I answer also, that there are countries that haue 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 in stead 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 discommodity happeneth as well to the Priests as to the people. add hereunto, that if some countries cannot haue wine for the Sacrament, it followeth not but that they may be furnished from an infinite number of other provinces where they may haue 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 aduersaries( 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 maner of the Scripture, by bread to understand all that is set vpon 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: 
Dist. 2. De Consecr. Can. Comperimus quòd quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant. Qui proculdubio( quoniam nescio qua superstitione dicuntur astringi) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur, quia diuisio unius eiusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire. Thereupon the gloss saith, Hoc intelligo de conficiente, nam infirmus vel sanus in necessitate sine vino corpus sumere potest.  so to know how the Sacraments ought to be celebrated, we must not haue 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 haue been advertised that some persons having onely 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 lead 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 onely of Pastors.   

A means of agreement.  
Some men desirous of peace, and calling to mind the great quantity of blood that hath been  shed, and the miseries and desolations that haue 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 Iesus Christ redeemed with his blood. For all men confess, that Iesus 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 Iesus Christ did institute it; let men speak in this action, as Iesus 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 kindes; there should be no adoration, nor lifting up of the host; neither should the Priest, bowing himself vpon the altar, require remission of sins of God by the merits of the Saints whose bones are hide 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 Iesus 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 Lords 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 ourselves after the example of Iesus Christ we should be at an agreement. The Apostle speaks of circumstances, and of exterior order, which concerns comeliness, 
tried. council. s●ss. 21. cap. 2.  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 Gods institution.    

THE XXXIX. ARTICLE: Of the Confession of the Faith.  We beleeue, that God will haue the world to be governed by laws and policies, that there might be some restraint of the disordered desires of the world. And as he hath established kingdoms and commonwealths, and all other kinds of principalities, whether they be hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongeth to the state of iustice, and will be known to be the author thereof: so hath he put the sword into Magistrates hands, to repress sins committed not onely against the second table of the commandements of God, but also against the first. Therefore in regard thereof, we must not onely endure and suffer superiors to govern, but also we must honour and obey them with all reverence: holding them for his Lieutenants and officers, whom he hath appointed to exercise a lawful and an holy charge.  

THE XL. ARTICLE.  We say then, that we must obey all laws and statutes, pay all tributes and imposts, and other duties, and bear the yoke of subiection with a good and free will, although they be infidels. So that Gods Empire may flourish and be undefaced. And so we detest those that would reject superiority, and establish community of goods, and overthrow all course of iustice. moulin. 
In the 30. Article of our Confession, wherein we speak not any thing of Kings nor Magistrates, M. Arnoux speaketh of us, as of those that are enemies to all human order, and such as teach men to shake off the yoke of laws and Magistrates. But against these two Articles, wherein we speak of subiection and fidelity to Magistrates, as of a necessary thing ordained by God, he saith nothing, and so justifieth us by his silence. Whether it be that our innocency is known unto him, and for that our Confession touching this point is so express, that it confuteth all sorts of slanders: or because he hath been stricken with some remorse of conscience, and is ashamed to speak any thing in this matter for the obedience due to Magistrates; knowing well that the Popes power, and the doctrine of the Iesuites wholly tend to the subversion of Empires, exempteth clergy men from the subiection of Kings, and putteth the lives and the Crownes of sovereign Princes into the Popes power. Which moveth us to speak briefly of these two things: First, of the exemption of spiritual persons from temporal power: Secondly, of the Popes power to give and take away kingdoms.  

Of the exemption of the clergy.  
The council of Constance in the 31 Session, declareth, that 
Laici in clericos nullam habent jurisdictionem& potestatem.  the laity( that is, Kings and Princes) haue no jurisdiction nor authority over clergy men. The council of Trent in the 25 Session and 20 chapter saith, that 
Personarum Ecclesiasticarum immunitas Dei ordinatione& canonicis sanctionibus instituta est.  The exemption of ecclesiastical persons was instituted by the ordinance of God, and by canonical constitutions. Bellarmine in his book of Clerkes, 28. chapter, saith, 
Clerici non possunt à judice politico puniri, vel ullo modo trahi ad secularis magistratus tribunal.  That Clerks may not be punished by the civil judge, nor by any means be brought before the iudgement seats of secular Magistrates. And in the same place he saith, 
Summus Pontifex clericos exemit à subiectione Principum, non sunt amplius Reges Clericorum superiores  The sovereign Bishop hath exempted Clerks from the subiection of Princes,& therefore Kings are no more Soueraignes over Clerks. And if our Kings and their Courts of parliament do reserve any jurisdiction to themselves over the clergy, as appeals, their regal right vpon vacant benefice, tithes, and the patronage of certain benefice, then the clergy rage, and cry out, and say, that they violate the liberties of the Church. For the liberty which Iesus 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 divell, at this day is converted into an exemption from all subiection to Magistrates, and into franchises and temporal immunities. And if the Magistrate taketh any knowledge of a crime committed by any clerk, 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 Holinesse 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 haue their Iudges and their prisons apart, and their causes are carried to Rome by appeal: 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, vpon which the King loseth his right. For a foeffe escheating to the possession of the clergy falleth into a mortmain, and oweth no more personal serucie to the King, to aid 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 yeares since ecclesiastical persons haue 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 subiects to Kings. It was not in the high Priests power to punish levites with corporal or pecuniary punishment.  
2. King david in the first chapter of the first of Kings calleth Sadoc the high Priest and Nathan the Prophet, his seruants, saying, Take with you the seruants 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 Salomon putteth Abiathar from the office of high Priest, and confineth him to Anathoth. And the actions done in the beginning of Salomons reign are generally commended, in the third chapter, verse 3.  
4. In the 17. of Saint Matthew Iesus Christ payed 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 from 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 subjecteth himself thereunto, in that giuing us an example to conform ourselves to do the like.  
5. He himself appeared before Pilate, as before his lawful judge, and to whom that power was given from above, joh. 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, 
Cap. 3. in Barkl.  that S. Pauls cause was for a point of religion, the knowledge whereof appertained not to the Magistrate. For in Acts. 24. Tertullus accused Paul to haue raised sedition, and Saint Paul 25.8. defendeth himself by alleging, that they accused him to haue 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 Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him.  
8. But Saint Pauls 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 Clerkes or spiritual persons are subiects to the Pope, and that he in respect of them is the superior power; the same Apostle in the 4. and 6. verses sheweth that he speaketh of the power which beareth the sword, and whereunto tribute is payed. For then,& long time after that, there was no superior powers which bare the sword, and to whom men payed tribute, but the power of secular Princes. The interlineat gloss confesseth it, where vpon these words, Potestatibus sublimioribus, the gloss saith, Id est, saecularibus bonis& malis. And it is to be noted, that then Nero reigned, a Pagan Emperour, 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 haue Christians yield obedience. Therfore Chrysostome in his 23. homily vpon the Epistle to the Romans, expoundeth that place in this manner, 
{αβγδ}.  saying: He commandeth that to all men, both to Priests and cloister men, and not onely 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 onely because of wrath, that is, not onely 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 Clerkes, for the exemption of Clerkes, allegeth 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 souldiers 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 born French men, and subiects to the King, why should that natural subiection be defaced by their shaving? Or who can suffer that a French man born in France, of French parentage, should not be subject to the King of France? and that in temporal things he should aclowledge another sovereign out of the realm? and so be exempted from the commandement, 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 subiects 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 subiects( that is, spiritual persons) from being punishable by secular Iudges?  
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 subiects unto him? Shall he without remedy therein taken, suffer certain clergy men to corrupt the good manners of his subiects? or that they should haue secret intelligence with strangers? or that they should conspire treason against his life, or against his State? And if a Bishop being accessary to the same crime, will not degrade a clerk, 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 infereth that he may also exempt Clerkes 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 commandement of God, which saith, Honour 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 haue received these privileges from the liberality& courtesies of Princes, is to contradict the Pope& Bellarmine, who maintain that the Pope hath exempted Clerkes from this subiection, 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 commandement of God, who will haue children to honour their fathers and mothers, by obeying them; so a Prince cannot exempt one part of his subiects( as long as they dwell in his realm) from subiection to punishment for their faults, seeing that subiection 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 onely a counsel. It is a commandement with a condition to do nothing, unless we will ourselves. 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 Crownes and lives of Kings and Princes, and over all the temporalties of kingdoms.  
Popes for the space of 550. yeares, haue attributed power unto themselves to dispossess Emperours and Kings of their kingdoms, and to dispense with their subiects from keeping and observing their oaths of fidelity to their Princes, as also power both over spiritual and temporal Magistrates.  
gregory the 7. 
Platina, Helmodus, abbess Stadensis, uspergensis, Sigonius, Fascicul. temporum, Sigebertus, Nauclerus, Languius, &c.  first drew out this sword against the Emperour 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. 
Mat. Paris p. 215.& 223.& Westmonasteriensis.  deposed John king of England, and gave his realm to Philip Augustus king of France, vpon condition to conquer it at his own cost and peril. After that he absolved the said king John, vpon 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 subiection.  
The council of Latran holden anno 1215. under the same Pope, in the third Chapter, 
Significetur hoc summo Pontifici vt ex tunc ipse vasallos, ab eius fidelitate denunciet absolutos,& terram exponat occupandam.  giveth the Pope power to absolve subiects of their oaths of fidelity made unto their Lords, and to give their lands to other catholic Princes.  
Anno 1191. as Baronius declareth, the Emperour henry the sixth came to Pope coelestine the third, and fell down at his feet. At which time the Pope with his foot spurned the Emperours 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 Emperour Fredericke 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 yeares, there was nothing but deposing and excommunicating of Emperours, unless it were those that maintained themselves by force; from whence ensued infinite bloody warres, and about an hundred main battels, 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, 
See Paulus Aemilius and Nicolas Giles  whereby he declared that king Philip was subject unto him in temporal things: that no collation of benefice 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 Emperour Albertus, vpon condition to conquer it. What answer Philip the Faire made, and how he revenged himself, every man knows.  
Anno 1511. Pope Iulius the second deposed John Albert king of Nauarre, and gave his kingdom to Ferdinand king of Castile, who seized vpon 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 crownes of gold to be stamped with this superscription, Perdam nomen Babylonis.  
Alexander the sixth, gave the West Indies to the Spaniards, and the East Indies to the Portugals, placing the Meridian which passeth by the Azores, for their limits.  

Sanderus& alij plerique nobiles Catholici, freti Bulla Pij 5. in Hibernia contra Angliae Reginam bella pro patria& religione gerunt.  Pope pus 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 pus 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 jacobin.  
Anno 1592. monitory 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 deceased: Or for being upholders of heretics, as Henry the third: Or for want of capacity and weakness of spirit. So Pope zachary 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 Gregories 1. works. Or for attributing unto themselves the collation of Prebends and benefice, which was the cause for which Pope Boniface the 5. thundered at Philip the Faire, and gave his realm to Albertus the Emperour.  
By this means affairs haue been much altered: for before this usurpation, Emperours deposed and punished Popes, as subiects to their Empire.  

Theodoret lib. 2. hist. cap. 16.  The Emperour Constantius, son to Constantine the Great, drove Liberius Bishop of Rome, out of Rome, and banished him to Beroe, and put Felix in his place, giuing Liberius five hundred crownes to maintain himself in his banishment.  
Anno 420. the Emperour Honorius drove 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 ambassador to the Emperour justinian, 
Platina. Sigibert.  and after calling him home, caused him to die in prison.  
Bellizarius Lieutenant to the Emperour justinian, anno 538. drove Siluerius Bishop of Rome out of Rome, and set Vigilius in his place, who by the Emperour Iustinians commandement, 
Liberati Breuiarium.  came to Constantinople, where he was honourably received, but not long after the Emperour 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 Emperour Constantius, caused Pope Martin to be bound in chains, and banished him to Chersona, where he died.  
In the times of these Emperours, the Popes payed 20. crownes for their investitures to the Emperour, as to their Prince, as we may see by Iustinians Authentickes 123. cap. 3. The Emperour Constantine le Barbu, released this tribute to Pope Agathon, anno. 679.  
And since the Emperours of Constantinople lost italy, the successors of Charles the Great drove away and punished diuers Popes. Anno. 963. the Emperour Othon drove John the 13. out of the papacy: anno. 1007. henry the second deposed 3. Popes, bennet 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 thankes to God in open consistory. 
This Oration was printed at Paris by Nicholas Niuelle, and Rollin Thierri, with approbation of three Doctors, Boucher, de ●reil, and Ancelin.  His oration was put in print by our aduersaries. And the Iesuite 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 subiects of their oaths of fidelity, and, if need were, to deprive them of their regal authority, touching the execution it belongeth to others. 
Si Papa regem deponat ab illis tantùm poterit expelli vel interfici quibus ipse id commiserit.  And the Iesuite 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 giuing express commission to kill him, in that case( he saith) it belongeth onely 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 aduersaries that writ in the defence of the Popes power over the Crownes and temporal jurisdictions of Kings, 
2. of King chap. 11.  As Bellarmine, Becanus, Francis de Verona, Suarez, Ribadinera Gretzer, Eudaemon johannes, and Emanuel Sa, &c. allege the example of queen Athalia, deposed and slain by the commandement of joiada the high Priest, and maintain that the Pope hath the same power. Therefore the iudgement 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 moneys, without once mentioning the book which he wrote of the institution of a King, in the which the murder of Kings is approved. 
Hoc tamen temperamento uti in hac quidem disputatione licebit, si non ipse qui perimitur venenum haurire cogatur quo intimis medullis concepto pereat. said exterius ab alio adhibeatur, nihil adiuuante eo qui perimendus est, nimirum cum tanta vis est veneni vt sella eo aut vest delibuta vim interfieiendi habeat.  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 Moores,) then to poison his drink, or his meate, 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 haue a care of those souls whose bodies they cause to be killed.  
To support this bloody doctrine, they note certain maxims of devilish divinity, 
Eudaemon, in Apol. Garneti. c. 13.& Suarez tractae tu de Poenitentia. Nullum tantum potest esse maium cuius vitandi causa confessionem prodere liceat.  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. 
Bellarmin. in Barklaium cap. 13. In bono sensu Christus dedit Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum,& de non peccato peccatum.  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 Bellarmines 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. 
Toletus lib. 4. de Instruct. sacerdotali c. 58.  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: 
Canone Excommunicatorum. Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur quos aduersus excommunicatos, Zelo matris Catholicae Ecclesiae ardentes, aliquos eorum trucidasse contigerit.  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. 
Toletus lib. 1. de Institutione Sacerdotali cap. 13. Excommunicatus non potest exercere actum jurisdictionis absque peccato: Immò si publica est excommunicatio facta, sententiae nullae sunt.  That the sentences, decrees, and judgements of Iudges 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. 
Bellarmine in Barkl. cap. 21.  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 Iesuites are full, and which the Iesuites of France haue oftentimes been moved and solicited to condemn, and to writ against them, but never could be induced thereunto.  
Some,( as the cardinal du Perron in his oration made to the States in Paris vpon the 15. of Ianuarie, 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 hostes, 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 defence 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 honour, 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 haue survived their Empires, or that haue preserved their lives when they lost their Crownes. 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 vpon that which he hath lost. Then whosoever he be that will not haue Kings killed, but will haue 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 shewed 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 consistory; 
look touching this ceremony the 1. book of Sacred Ceremonies. Sect. 9.  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 
Note that the said cardinal lived three yeares and a half after the publication of the King of great Brittains book  for ever, 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, problematical and uncertain:) from whence it followeth, that the martyrdom which a man suffereth for such a cause should be problematical and uncertain.  
Now that which is most hard and intolerable in this matter, is, that our aduersaries confess, that the Pope may err in his iudgement, and depose an innocent King, and 
Cap. 31. Quod autem dicis iniustam sententiam non laedere eum in quem fertur, verum est quando is in quem fertur eam humiliter tolerat& observat, donec iniustitia vel potius nullitas manifestè se prodat. Cap. 17. Si fortè Princeps spiritualis abutatur potestate sua iniustè excommunicando Principem temporalem, vel eius subditos sine iusta causa ab eius obedientia absoluendo, peccabit Princeps spiritualis, said non poterit tamen Princeps sibi sumere judicium de spiritualibus rebus, aut spiritualem Principē judicare.  nevertheless they will haue that King which is so unjustly condemned to be peaceable, and not to contend, but to leave his kingdom, and to stay till the iustice of his cause shall be tried. It is Bellarmines speech in the 17. and 31. chapters of his book against Barkley. For he presupposeth that the new king that shall haue seized vpon the kingdom, will not put the deposed king to death, but finding him to be innocent will receive him again, and re-establish 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 vpon the majesty of God, in the persons of his anointed and his Lieutenants, our aduersaries gather together a great number of places in the Scripture, as first, the Lord said to S. Peter, feed 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 ieremy, 1. chap. 10. verse, I haue this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms. And Saint Paul said, 1. Cor. 2.15. The spiritual man iudgeth all things. This spiritual man is the Pope. And God said to Saint Peter. whatsoever thou vnbindest on earth shall be unbound in heaven. Therefore the Pope may discharge subiects of their subiection 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 divels said, If thou wilt cast us out, sand 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: Iesus 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 sate, loose him, and bring him hither. Ergo, the Pope may dispose of all temporal things, and put Kings from their thrones. 
S. Paul 1. Cor 9.4. saith, Haue we not power to eat and to drink?  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 drove King Osias from the government of the realm: That S. Paul said to the Corinthians, that it is a shane for Christians to be judged by Iudges 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 Crownes of Kings, and over the temporalties of kingdoms, is contrary to the word of God, and to all reason  
1. In this point if we will beleeue and give credit to the Scriptures, the controversy is ended. There were many idolatrous Kings in judaea, as Achas and Manasses, against whom the high Priests did not pronounce any sentence of deposition.  
2. The Prophet ieremy 27.12. saith, Bring your necks under the yoke of the King of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. He will haue the Iewes to serve a Pagan King, as established by God. Conformable to that which Daniel 2.37. saith, speaking of the same king. Thou o 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 shane of human kind, and the first Emperour 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 commandement was but by provision and for a time. Which is a means to avoid all the commandements of God, and to dispense with them when we will. He should at least haue shewed how long that provisional commandement continued, and at what time it began to bind mens 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 commandement of God,) but to a provisional 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 subiects to the Emperour, 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 onely because of wrath, that is, for fear to incur his displeasure, but also for conscience sake.  
Compare Iesus Christ paying tribute to Caesar, with the Pope which maketh Caesar pay tribute unto him, and bindeth 
This ceremony is described in the 1. book of Sacred Ceremonies. Sect. 5. cap. 3.  him to lay a quantity of gold at his holinesse feet, that day when he setteth the crown vpon his head. Compare Iesus Christ counseling the Iewes to pay tribute to a Pagan Emrour, with the Pope that dispenseth with subiects touching their obedience to Christian Emperours and Kings: And Iesus Christ, saying, that his kingdom is not of this world, with the Pope which hath erected a worldly Empire for himself. Compare Iesus 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: 
Luke 12.14.  And Iesus 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 distributor of kingdoms.  
add to this the rule of the word of God, which forbiddeth perjury, 
Exod. 20. Psal. 15.  and will haue us to keep our promise although it be unto our own hindrance. To the which commandement 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 seruant for obeying of his master, is greater then his master. And hereby it will be found, that God shall not be served nor obeied, 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 seruants, 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 Nauarre was deposed, and deprived of his kingdom by Pope Iulius 2? and so of henry the 4. of the Emperour Fredericke the 2. of Philip le Bel, of John King of England, and diuers 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 Gods 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 ourselves, and when he will deliver it from danger, we need not to bring perjury and sedition to aid 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 Emperours 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 honouring 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 Emperours of the authority which they had over Empires, that so the Emperours might not pretend cause of ignorance? Why did not the Bishop of Rome depose those Emperours when they violently persecuted the Church? Was it because they would use courtesy and clemency unto those poor Emperours? But that clemency had been cruelty towards the Church. Was it because they feared the power of those Emperours? 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 Emperours. In the time of the Emperour julian the Apostata, three parts of the Empire were Christians, and his armies were composed of Christians, and yet the Bishop of Rome did not think vpon deposing him from the Empire. The same Bishop also did not pronounce sentence of deposition against the Kings of the goths that were Arrians, reigning in spain; nor against the Kings of the Vandals that were Arrians, 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 beleeue that Iesus Christ gave Saint Peter and his successors a charge for so many yeares together, without power to execute it? and that he gave them a sword to hang up a thousand yeares together against the wall, and never to be drawn out but of late yeares? Is it credible, that the Popes began first to know the nature of their charge, then when their Sea or seat fell into all maner of vices, as the greatest flatterers of the Pope confess and aclowledge? 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 giuing any absolution to a Prince, but vpon 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 Holinesse with paternal compassion receiveth him into his favour, and bestoweth all maner of spiritual benedictions vpon 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 shewed 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 haue 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 Iesuites opinion. For it is out of doubt, that Clowis being a Pagan, did not aclowledge 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 vpon the day of his conversion lost the splendour and sovereign dependence thereof, and began to be in the disposition of another, and that then he began to aclowledge 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 subiects are? and that Kings should be hardlier dealt withall then particular persons? For if a subject of France shall err in the faith, or commit adultery, or use his seruants 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 withall? Why should the Pope haue 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 haue less spirit and less courage then particular persons? Or rather because the Pope abusing Kings in that maner, raiseth himself to sovereign greatness, and becometh thereby distributor of Empires and kingdoms?  
We haue 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 al subiection. Our Confession protesteth the contrary, and experience justifieth vs. We never attempted any thing 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 Iesuites, or Iesuites disciples. We never spake of deposing our Kings, neither beleeue that any man living in the world can depose a King, or dispense with his subiects touching their oaths of fidelity. And they that know the truth, will aclowledge, 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 beleeue 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 vpon the Pope. And causes of benefice 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 Holinesse profits would much diminish. Which if we would not meddle withall, he would by special privilege suffer and permit us to beleeue 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.  
Thomas 
Thom. 2. 2. Quaest. 10. Art. 10. Dominium& pralatio introducta sunt ex jure humano. Et Quaest. 12. Art. 2. Dominium introductum est de jure gentium, quod est ius humanum.  the chief of the Schoolmen, saith, that the power of Princes and sovereign Lords, is but an human institution, and proceedeth not from God. With whom cardinal Bellarmine joineth in his book against Barkley; and M. Arnoux, who vpon the 30 Article of our Confession, calleth the power of Magistrates an human law; conformable to the Apophthegme of the reverend father Binet the Iesuite, that said to M. Casaubon, that it were better that all Kings were killed, then to reveal a confession: 
Casaub. in Epist. ad Frontonem Ducaeum Iesuitam.  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, 
Gen. 11.  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 neighbour Prince. Thirdly, that Emperours 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 commandement set down by God to obey henry or Lewis, or to aclowledge this or that man more then another to be King. Fiftly, 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 Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme, or unto Gouernours, &c. 1. Pet. 2.13.  
We on the contrary maintain, that obedience due to Kings and Magistrates proceedeth from the divine Law,& is grounded vpon 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 onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake. And S. Peter in the same place which they object against us, will haue us to yield obedience to Kings for the Lords sake. And although Nabuchadnezzar 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 o 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 lawgiver in Israel, was established by the ordinance of God,& Ioshua after him. Nū. 27.18. Saul first King of Israel, 
1. Sam. 10.1. and 16.13.  and david his successor were anointed by Samuel, and consecrated to be Kings according to Gods 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 itself 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 beleeue 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.  

An answer to the 5. objections of our aduersaries.  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 yeares. 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 vpon the earth; to which children, their seruants being added, one family alone made a great commonwealth. Likewise in Abrahams time, when mans life was much shortened, we read that Abraham was by the hittites called a Prince of God, that is, an excellent Prince. Gen. 23.6. And that out of his family he took 318. souldiers to go to war therewith. If you add his seruants and such seruants as were unfit for the war, you must confess that although he had no children, his family would haue 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 mans 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 vpper 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 vpon a new form of government, and if all the officers throughout the country haue taken their oaths of fidelity to the new King: then we must beleeue 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 battels 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 aduersaries will haue the power of Popes to proceed from the ordinance of God, although they enter into the papacy by election, by indirect courses, by artificial devices, and by worse means then human ways.  
4. If there be no commandement in the word of God to obey Henry or Lewis, it sufficeth that there is a commandement to obey the King, and a commandement 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 commandement of God to be found that binds us to obey Clement or Boniface as Popes, to whom nevertheless our aduersaries 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 beleeue in Iesus Christ, because the Scripture doth not particularly ordain that Thibault, Anthony, or William, should fear God, and beleeue in Iesus 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 diuers 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 vpon 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 ourselves thereunto for Gods sake: and so to obey his commandement.  
whosoever buildeth the authority of Kings vpon mens institutions, and not vpon the ordinance of God, cutteth off three parts of their authority, and bereaveth them of that which assureth their lives and their Crownes more then the guards of their bodies, or puissant armies, which put terror into subiects hearts, in stead of framing them to obedience. Then the fidelity of subiects 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.    
FINIS.   

A TABLE OF THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST book, ACCORDING to the order of the Sections.  

OF the Apocrypha books, Sect. 1. pag. 3.  
Of the testimony which the Church giveth of the canonical books, Sect. 5. p. 10.  
What the belief of the ancient Church was touching these canonical books, and whether the Church be the infallible judge of the sense of the Scriptures, Sect. 6. p. 12.  
Of particular inspiration, to interpret the Scripture, Sect. 7. pag. 18.  
Of the interpretation of the Scripture, and whether the Church of Rome be the infallible interpreter of the Scripture, and whether it belongeth to every particular person to interpret the same. Sect. 9. p. 23.  
Whether the Church may err, and whether the Church of Rome hath erred, Sect. 10. p. 30.  
Of the perfection of the Scriptures, and of Traditions, Sect. 13. 14. 15. p. 40.  
The iudgement of the ancient Fathers touching the perfection of the holy Scriptures, Sect. 16. p. 53.  
Of the authority of the Church, and whether she or the Scripture be the judge, and whether M. Arnoux hath reason to call the holy Scriptures a dumb rule, Sect. 19. p. 57.  
Whether the lips of the Priest do infallibly preserve knowledge, Sect. 20. p. 64.  
Of the providence of God, and how God conducteth the actions of the wicked, without being or participating with their vices, Sect. 21. p. 69.  
Of free-will, and of natural corruption, Sect. 22. p. 78.  
Whether man by his free-will can choose goodness, Sect. 26. p. 85.  
Of original sin after baptism, Sect. 29. p. 89.  
Of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, Sect. 32. p. 102.  
Of human satisfactions, Sect. 36. p. 110.  
Of superabundant satisfactions, and whether the merits of Christ are applied unto us by our satisfactions, Scct. 40. p. 123.  
Of justification by faith, and what true faith is, Sect. 42. p. 127.  
Of justification onely by faith, and of the word justify, Sect. 43. p. 132.  
How according to Saint james, man is justified by works, Sect. 44. p. 136.  
Of the certainty of salvation and of perseverance, Sect. 46. p. 137.  
Whether a man is saved and elected, vpon condition that he shall beleeue and do good works, Sect. 47. p. 142.  
Of the fear of the faithful, and whether it derogateth any thing from the certainty of salvation, Sect. 49. p. 144.  
Of certainty to persever, Sect. 50. p. 147.  
Whether faith can be without good works, Sect. 54. p. 154.  
Of the first and second justification according to the Church of Rome, Sect. 61. p. 159.  
Of Merits, Sect. 62. p. 160.  
Whether God is debtor unto us,( as M. Arnoux saith) and of our reward, Sect. 68. 69. p. 171.  
Of works of supererogation, Sect. 70. p. 173.  
Of the invocation of Saints, Sect. 71. p. 181.  
Whether the Saints understand our prayers, and know all that is done here vpon the earth, Sect. 73. p. 182.  
Whether Iesus Christ be our onely mediator and advocate, Sect. 74 p. 187.  
That the Saints are not our advocates, and that the Church of Rome calleth vpon some Saints that never were, and whose holinesse is very questionable, Sect. 75. p. 191.  
That the mutual prayers of the living, make nothing for the invocation of Saints dead, Sect. 76. p. 196.  
Of the credit of Saints in heaven, Sect. 77. p. 197.  
proof of the invocation of Saints by Aristotle, Sect. 78. p. 199.  
Confutation of the invocation of Saints by the Scriptures, Sect. 81. p. 201.  
Confutation of the places of Scripture, alleged for the invocation of Saints, Sect. 82. p. 207.  
Of Purgatory, Sect. 84. p. 209.  
The description of purgatory, Sect. 85. p. 210.  
The opinion of the ancient Fathers touching the state of the souls of the faithful after this life, Sect. 86. p. 214.  
Confutation of purgatory by the word of God, Sect. 87. p. 220.  
Places out of the Fathers against purgatory, Sect. 88. p. 230.  
Of Pardons, Sect. 89. p. 236.  
Of single life, or perpetual abstinence from marriage, Sect. 90. p. 239.  
Of the difference of meats, Sect. 91. p. 253.  
Of the word Church, and of the diverse significations thereof, Sect. 92. p. 262.  
Whether the Church be visible, and to whom it is visible, Sect. 93. p. 267.  
Of the true marks of the true Church, Sect. 94. p. 268.  
Of the false marks of the Church, and of the title catholic, the first mark, Sect. 95. p. 272.  
Of antiquity the second mark, Sect. 95. p. 273.  
Of succession of chairs, the third mark, Sect. 97. p. 274.  
Of perpetual continuance the fourth mark, Sect. 98. p. 275.  
Of multitude and greatness the fifth mark, Sect. 99. p. 276.  
Of miracles the sixth mark, Sect. 100. p. 277.  
Of unity the seventh mark, Sect. 101. p. 278.  
Of the circled in disputation, Sect. 103. p. 280.  
again of the Church and her marks, Sect. 104. 105. p. 282.  
marks whereby M. Arnoux will haue the true Church to be known, Sect. 105. p. 285.  
again of the perpetuity of the Church, Sect. 106. p. 288.  
Of libertinism and profane life, Sect. 110. p. 292.  
Of Peters supremacy, Sect. 111. p. 295.  
Of Peters successors, Sect. 114. p. 299.  
again of the perpetuity of the Church, Sect. 115. p. 302.  
Of idolatry in the Romish Church, and in how many sorts the Church of Rome is idolatrous, and what idolatry is, Sect. 116. p. 303.  
Of the words Image and idol, and of the Hebrew words Pesel and Temunah which God useth in the Law, Sect. 117. p. 305.  
Of the Images of God and of the trinity, Sect. 118. p. 307.  
Whether it be lawful to set up pictures and images of Saints that are dead, in the Churches, for helps and furtherances of piety and devotion, Sect. 119. p. 312.  
Of the adoration of Images, and of the service which is done unto them, Sect. 120. p. 328.  
Of the adoration of the cross, and of the sign of the cross, Sect. 121. p. 328.  
Of relics and of the adoration of them, Sect. 122. p. 333.  
Confutation of the adoration of relics by the word of God, Sect. 123. p. 340.  
Of the dominion of the Prelates of the Church of Rome, Sect. 124. p. 344.  
again of Saint Peters supremacy, Sect. 129. p. 350.  
Of the vocation of Pastors, Sect. 130. p. 353.  
again of the perpetuity and infallibleness of the Church of Rome, Sect. 132. p. 362.  
Of ecclesiastical policy, Sect. 136. p. 366.  
Of excommunications in the Church of Rome, Sect. 139. p. 369.    

A Table of the matters contained in the second book.  

OF the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation, Sect. 2. p. 376.  
Of the Sacrament of Penance, Sect. 3. p. 382.  
Of auricular confession, Sect. 4. p. 386.  
Of absolution and sacramental satisfaction, Sect. 5. p. 389.  
Of the pretended sacrament of Marriage, Sect. 6. p. 395.  
Of extreme Unction, Sect. 8. p. 404.  
Of the sacrament of Orders, Sect. 9. p. 412.  
Whether the order of Priesthood be a sacrament, Sect. 10. p. 413.  
Of the order of Priesthood in the Chuech of Rome, and of their sacrificing, Sect. 11. p. 414.  
Of the sacrifice of the mass, Sect. 12. p. 420.  
Reasons which our aduersaries allege for the sacrifiee of the mass, Sect. 13. p. 429.  
How and in what sense the holy Supper may be called a sacrifice, Sect. 14. p. 437.  
The opinions of the Fathers touching the sacrifice of the Eucharist, Sect. 15. p. 439.  
Of baptism and the necessity thereof, Sect. 16. p. 444.  
The signification of the word baptism, Sect. 18. p. 446.  
Of the necessity of baptism of persons that are at yeares of discretion, Sect. 18. p. 447.  
Of the necessity of baptism of little children, Sect. 19. p. 450.  
The deciding of this question by the holy Scriptures, Sect. 20. p. 453.  
The examination of that which our aduersaries produce for the absolute necessity of baptism, Sect. 21. p. 458.  
Of the real union of the faithful with Iesus Christ, and of the eating of his body, Sect. 22. p. 463.  
Of real presence, and of transubstantiation, Sect. 23. p. 466.  
The belief of both parts, Sect. 24. p. 467.  
proof of the doctrine of our Church by the words of institution of this sacrament, Sect. 25. p. 470.  
proof of the same by the circumstances of the action, Sect. 26. p. 484.  
Other places of the Scripture for the same matter, Sect. 27. p. 487.  
A brief and certain exposition of those words, This is my body, Sect. 28. p. 492.  
With what liberty our aduersaries forge figures, Sect. 29. p. 494.  
That transubstantiation abolisheth the humanity of Christ, and exposeth it to great opprobrie and disgrace, Sect. 30. p. 497.  
That in the 6. of S. John, there is nothing that maketh for transubstantiation, Sect. 31. p. 502.  
That the mass, and the Decrees, and Glosses, of the Church of Rome overthrow transubstantiation, Sect. 32. p. 509.