Confession of the Christian Religion, Observations

Confession of the Christian Religion · Observations

p. 273Obſeruations of the ſame Zanchius vppon his owne confeſſion.

NOT few, nor ſmale were the the occaſions, whereby I was induced, rather to adioyne theſe mine obſernations, to my confeſſion it ſelfe, then to alter anie thing therein contained. Many there bee, to whome it is not vnknowne; vponupon what occaſion, at what time, at whoſe commaundement, in whoſe names, and for what purpoſes, I euen againſt my will and conſtrained thereunto, wrote this ſumme of chriſtian doctrine. For although there is no man but ſeeth, that this cōfeſſion, as was neuer looked for, is publiſhed in their name for whoſe ſakes it was written: yet how this came to paſſe, & for what cauſes it was done, all men do not know: manie wondring at the deede, yet ignorant of the true cauſes. Hereuppon how diuerſe ſuſpitions many men might gather, how diuerſe iudgements might bee giuen, of me, and of the confeſſion it ſelfe, I ſay not of priuate men, but euen of the whole congregations, yea howe diuerſe and ſiniſter ſpeaches might be throwne out among the vulgar ſort, who is it that perceiueth not? I was therefore enforced (before p. 274I dye) to ſtoppe ſuch ſiniſter and falſe ſuſpitions, iudgementes and ſpeaches concerning my doctrine. That I thought could bee done by no better meanes: then to publiſh a parte by it ſelfe, both the confeſſion, euen as I write it: and a part likewiſe my obſeruations vppon the ſame, wherein what ſo is darke, is expounded, and what ſo is doubtfull is confirmed: & ſo to leaue the iudgement of the whole matter together, to all the true catholicke church. I thought moreouer, it would bee no little help, to take away al ſuſpicions of men, if there be any conceiued: if ſuch iudgements as learned men hauehave giuen of my confeſſions, I make knowne to all the godlie readers, out of their owne letters: eſpecially ſith by them it may well appeare vntounto euerie man, what were the cauſes, why the confeſſion came not forth in the ſame manner, as was appointed.

One great learned man write vntounto me concerning that matter, in theſe words.

Whereas you write vntounto me concerning your confeſſion: it hath beene read ouer both by me, by N. and others, with great pleaſure: which is written verie learnedly, and with an exquiſite methode: and if you take out that ſame, which you hauehave added in the ende concerning Arch-biſhops and the hierarchie, it pleaſeth me paſſing well. But whenas together with the brethren N.N. which are with vsus we conferred, about the way and meanes of an agreement among the churches of our confeſſion, p. 275to be begonne: they all with one conſent thought onelyonly this, to be the ſafeſt and ſpeedieſt waye, that the confeſſions of faith receiued and ſet forth by euerie of the churches in each prouince, ſhould bee compoſed and framed into one harmonie: that they might bee alike (touching the ſubſtance of faith) all of them: and each church embrace thē as their owne. This their aduiſe, ſith they cōmended to vsus by many reaſons: we hauehave writtē vntounto you theruppon, and to the reuerend brethren N. N. and other cōgregations round about vsus: who hauehave al of them liked very wel thereof.

Thus farre out of the letters of that learned man: almoſt to the ſame purpoſe could wee bring many things beſids, out of letters written from other about the ſame matter: but (for that it greatly needeth not) wee will for breuitie ſake omitt the ſame. Therefore to our matter.

An obſeruation vponupon the whole confeſſion.

When we vſe the word of condemning: we meane nothing els: thē, that the hereſies which hauehave bin condemned by the catholick church, the ſame alſo wee condemne: and which it allowed not, the ſame alſo we allow not: and this we deſire to leaue witneſſed to all poſteritie.

VponUpon the firſt chapter aphoriſme. 4.

Whereas we hauehave giuen the firſt place, next after the canonicall books, to the Apocryphi in the volume of the Bible: we did it, induced p. 276by the authoritie of the greek and latine churches, who did alwaies giuegive that honour vntounto them, that they ſhould be ioyned with the canonicall books. See the places in Hierome, Cyprian, and the councell of Laodicea, cyted in the confeſſion the firſt chapter & fift aphoriſme. Moreouer, we ſpake of books, not of any manner of writinges. For otherwiſe wee preferre the generall creeds, before the Apocryphi.

VponUpon the ſecond chapter. Of God. The firſt aphoriſme.

Though the propertie of exiſtences bee, to exiſt in the eſſence: yet ſpeaking of God, we would rather vſe another manner of ſpeach, & that more vſuall, for certaine cauſes; as namely to teach, againſt the reproches and skoffes of the Arrians of our time, that the diuine eſſence is not found, but onelyonly in the perſons: and therefore that we do not make an eſſence aparte by it ſelfe ſubſiſting from the perſons: wherein yet three perſons ſhould ſubſiſt, as though the catholicke church ſhould forge foure exiſtences in God.

The third aphoriſme.

Of this reall communication of the eſſentiall proprieties of God, we hauehave alſo written a ſeuerall treatiſe, in the booke, which ſhalbe intituled, Of the incarnation of the ſonne of God, vppon the words to Phil. 2. Who when he was in the forme of God &c. VntoUnto which, we referre the reader, who ſo he bee that deſireth a further p. 277explanation of this doctrine. Surely the Lord Ieſus, when he ſaid, No man knoweth the ſonne, but the father, and no man knovveth the father but the ſonne, and he to whome the ſonne will reueale him: he plainely excepted his created minde from that eſſentiall knowledge, wherewith the father knoweth, that is, (as the ſchoolemen ſpeak,) comprehendeth the ſonne, and the ſonne the father: teaching that what knowledge ſoeuer creatures hauehave in themſelues cō cerning God, the ſame is ſome waye reuealed vntounto them: and therefore ſuch knowledge is not the eſſential & infinite knowledge, which is in God: but a created, and a finite or determinate knowledge.

Ʋpon the 5. chapter of the worlds creation &c. The 2. aphoriſme.

That the heauen of the bleſſed, wherein the Lord Ieſus is now in his bodie, doth differ frō the earth, and from the other heauens, and is aboue all thoſe viſible heauens: beſides that which hath bin already ſaid, theſe few proofs do alſo confirme: Eph. 4. Chriſt is ſaid to hauehave aſcended aboue all heauens: in another place, he is read to hauehave aſcended into heauen, and to bee in heauen, and to ſitt at the right hande of the father. Therefore this heauen is aboue the other heauens, and differeth from them. So in the third to the Colloſſ. the Apoſtle diſtinguiſheth the place where Chriſt is at the right hand of the father, from the earth: and calleth it vpward, ſaying, Seeke yee the things aboue, ſett your affections p. 278on things aboue, where Chriſt is: and in the 4. of the firſt to the Theſſ. he ſaieth the Lord ſhall deſcend from heauen, namely into theſe lower partes: and all the godlie ſhalbe caught vp into the ayre to meete Chriſt in the cloudes. That heauen therefore is aloft, not on the earth, not in the ayre: much leſſe in euerie place. For he ſhall come downe in the viſible ſhape of his body, frō the high heauen, into theſe parts, to iudge the quick and the dead. Of this heauen wee hauehave ſpoken particularly, in our bookes Do operibus dei, of the workes which he created in the ſixe daies. Wee therefore diſallow of that doctrine which is contrarie: which diſtinguiſheth not the heauen from the earth, nor this heauen, from other heauens, but would proue it to be euerie where.

Vppon the 7. chapter. The 11. aphoriſme.

Among other thinges which Iulianus the Pelagian obiected to Auguſtine, proouing & defending originall ſinne, theſe were ſome: that either he made God an author of ſinne, or the deuill a creator of man: and that becauſe, the Pelagians thought that Aughſtine made originall ſinne, the very ſubſtance of man. Al which obiections, he confuted in his 7. Tome, againſt Pelag. the 5. booke and firſt chapter in theſe words. Neither do we aſcribe iniuſtice to God, but rather equitie, in that, euen infants are puniſhed, not vniuſtly with ſuch and ſo many euills, as we ſee: neither doe we attribute the making of man, but the corrupting and depra…ing of mans originall to the deuill: p. 279neither doe we graunt a ſubſtance in the ſinne, but an act… of it in the firſt man: and a contagion thereof in all his poſterity: neither do we graunt vntounto infants, a conſcience without knowledge, in vvhome is neither conſcience nor knowledge: but he knewe what he did, in vvhome all hauehave ſinned, and from whome all hauehave drawn… corruption &c.

Ʋpon the 9. chapter. The 5. aphoriſme.

How they can winde themſelues out of this errour, which denie that the fathers did eate the true fleſh of Chriſt, we ſee not: as though, becauſe he was not as yet indeede exiſting in nature, therefore he was not exiſting in the aſſured promiſe of Chriſt & conſequently could no… be apprehended and eaten by faith. For this propoſition is generall, and to all men, & at all times belongeth. Vnleſſe ye eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man, yee hauehave no life in you. For life is not imparted, but onelyonly to thoſe, which by faith, as members to the head, are ioyned to the fleſh of Chriſt, & by the fleſh to the ſpirit, or foreign To the word, which is life.

VponUpon the 10. chapter. The 3. aphoriſme.

For God would ſhew &c. That which I ſaid of the firſt, ſecond, third and fourth eſtate: had bin more cleare, if I had told, what man was, before he ſinned: what after hee had ſinned: what vnderunder grace: and what he ſhalbe in his glorie.

VponUpon the 11. chapter of Chriſt the redeemer. aphoriſme 6.

That the perſon of Chriſt, ſpeaking properly, p. 280is compounded of the diuine nature, which is immeaſurable, and moſt pure; and of the humaine, which in reſpect of the diuine, is leſſe then a pricke to an infinite maſſe, as of two partes truely and properly ſo called: wee together with the ſchoolemen do iuſtly denie. Tho. 3. p. q. 2. ar. 4For what proportion can there bee betweene that which is finite and the infinite, betweene the creature and creator. But by the way confeſſing with the auncient fathers, that it maye be called foreign compounded, in that ſenſe, as the ſcripture ſaieth the word was made fleſh: and that, he which was in the ſhape of God, was now made in the likeneſſe of man. And this is nothing elſe, but that this eternall Hypoſtaſis, doth now ſubſiſt in two natures: ſo as Chriſt is no leſſe true man, then true God. Hereunto tendeth it, which before we ſaid, of the ſimilitude of the ſoule & body (for of theſe two, as true and eſſentiall partes, conſiſteth the perſon of man) how the ſame doeth not agree fitly euerie way: and yet we allow of the ſame ſimilitude, in that ſenſe which Athanaſius and other fathers vſed it, to ſhew the true and ſubſtantiall vnion of the two diuerſe natures: although it do not fully agree in all things to this great miſterie, as Iuſtinus, in his expoſition of faith and other fahters hauehave freely cōfeſſed. The ſimilitude of the garment is much vſed of the auncient fathers: eſpecially of Athanaſius and it is agreeable to the ſcriptures. For the fleſh of Chriſt, wherewith his deitie was couered, p. 281the Apoſtle calleth a vaile, Heb. 10. ve. 20. And moſt excellently, by this ſimilitude of the garment that opinion of the reall imparting and communication of the diuine proprieties, with the humaine nature is quite ouerthrowne: which ſome doe much labour to prooue by the ſimilitudes, of a fire-hoatiron, and of a bodie with life in it: which they can neuer doe.

The ſeuenth aphoriſme.

We hauehave ſaid that the bodie and the ſoule are two exiſtenees: which is manifeſtly prooued in Adam whoſe bodie did firſt ſubſiſt by it ſelfe: then the ſoule being alſo a ſubſtance ſubſiſting by it ſelfe, was ioyned vntounto it. The ſame is alſo prooued, by the ſeparation of the ſoule from the body: whereof each doeth remaine ſubſiſting by it ſelfe. But ſeing they are the eſſentiall partes of a man: each of them indeed ſeuerally are exiſtences, but yet vnperfect: and being ioyned, they make a perfect exiſtence, that is, the perſon of man. But thus ſtandeth not the caſe in Chriſt, touching the diuine and humaine natures: for his humaine nature neuer ſubſiſted by it ſelfe any waies, before he took it on him, nor ſubſiſteth yet after the taking, but onelyonly in the word: which word was euer by it ſelfe a moſt perfect exiſtence.

The 10. aphoriſme.

The ſimilitude of the ſunne, doth not altogether ſo fittly agree as that ſimilitude of the glorie, which our bodies ſhal receiue, becauſe p. 282that glorie ſhal cleane take away al the ſhame and reproch of our fleſh, but the ſunne, doeth onelyonly dimme the light of a candle, and not cleane put it out: yet notwithſtanding this ſimilitude of the ſunne doth plainly ſhew what we meane: namely that by the reall communication of the ſunne with the ayre, the light of the candell is made altogether vnprofitable, and ſo as it were put out, and to be no light at all: yet that the eſſentiall proprieties of the fleſh, are neuer quite taken away, or ſo weakened, by the perſonall vnion, that they ſerue to no vſe, it is manifeſt. And yet this indeede could by no meanes be auoyded, if the humaine nature ſhould really participate with the diuine omnipotencie; ſo that it could doe whatſoeuer God could doe. For the word, the ſonne of God neuer tooke vntounto him, held or holdeth any thing in vaine. Therefore by this ſimilitude of the ſunne is ſtrongly confirmed, that which is prooued by the ſimilitude of the glorie which ſhall take awaye all ignominie from our bodies.

The 11. aphoriſme. That ſame whole Chriſt &c.

Here in the firſt part to the name of Chriſt, is added the ſonne of man: in the other parte, the ſonne of God, God: that we might ſhewe, how that diuine attributes are ſpokē of Chriſt the man: and humaine, of Chriſt God: ſeing the very perſon of Chriſt is ment in either part. For the ſame Chriſt, one and the ſame perſon, p. 283is whole God, & whole man, though not wholy (as Damaſcene ſpeaketh) for in two diſtinct natures he ſubſiſteth one and the very ſame. This doth Damaſcene thus declare lib. 3. cap. 7. The whole Chriſt is perfect God; but the vvhole ſubſiſtance of Chriſt, is not onelyonly God; for it is not onelyonly God but alſo man. And the vvhole Chriſt is perfect man, but the whole ſubſiſtance of Chriſt is not onelyonly man; for it is not onelyonly man but alſo God. For the whole ſubſiſtance doth repreſent the nature; but whole Chriſt, the perſon.

But whereas we ſpake of his actions, done by him either according to his humane nature, or according to his diuine, that yet one and the ſame and whole Chriſt performeth the ſame: it depēdeth vponupon this that the actions were (as the ſchools ſay) of ſuppoſite natures. But the diuerſitie of the actions proceedeth from the diuerſneſſe of the natures or formes by which they were done. Sith therefore there is in Chriſt two natures, and but one perſon, thereon it comes, that there is but onelyonly one worker, namely whole Chriſt, two natures that can worke; and two kinde of actions. Now theſe actions are called the actions of God and man, not ſo much for that they proceede from one agent which is, foreign, God and man: as that not onelyonly the deitie, but alſo the humanitie meet together for this worke of our ſaluation: each ioyning his actions, with the others actions. And this is the firſt and principal force of this hypoſtaticall, or perſonall vnion: namely that p. 284by it, the two natures, and their properties & actions, are ſo vnited in one and the ſame perſon: that he, who, by the forme of God, wherin he hath frō the beginning ſubſiſted, is God, and by the forme of a ſeruant, wherein he now ſubſiſteth, is man: and the ſame being whole God, is whole man, and being whole man, is whole God: and conſequently is wholy omnipotent, and euerie where preſent, & whole inomnipotent, and exiſting in a certen place: and the ſame whole died, and whole by dying deſtroyed death. And thus it finally followeth, that to the obtaining, communicating, & applying of our ſaluation, not onelyonly his diuine nature worketh, but alſo the humaine worketh with it.

The ſecōd force followeth of the firſt: namely that the humaine nature was made the deities inſtrument vnited perſonally thereunto: and therefore a moſt forcible and effectuall inſtrument, to beſtow all benefites vponupon vsus.

The third, that by this vnion, this maſſe or lumpe of humaine nature, is lifte vpp to ſuch dignitie, that we neither can nor ought to bēd our actions of adoration, faith, prayer, & louelove, to the onelyonly deitie of Chriſt: as is declared in the confeſſion. For we are cōmaunded to worſhip the ſonne himſelf, that is, the perſon. Heb. 1. and to beleeue in him.

The fourth force is, that becauſe this humaine nature is perſonally vnited to the diuine: therefore the gifts of God, conferred vponupon p. 285the ſame are without meaſure, as is declared in the aphoriſme following.

The 12. aphoriſme.

Although when I wrote this confeſſion I thought to my ſelfe, that I had hādled al things which belong vntounto this article, of the perſon of Chriſt: yet I thought for the better explaining thereof to ioyne this alſo which followeth, to that which I ſaid before.

1 There is and euer was one onelyonly perſon of Chriſt. For there is but one onelyonly begotten ſonne of God and one and the ſame Chriſt.

2 This perſon, being from all eternitie, by the naturall begetting of the father, is proper vntounto the word: but in time was made common to the humaine nature taken to it, by vertue of the perſonall vnion.

For in the word, the eſſence which it hath common yea the verie ſame with the father & the holie ghoſt, is to bee diſtinguiſhed from the proper manner of ſubſiſting, whereby it comes to paſſe, that it is a certaine Hypoſtaſis or perſon, diſtinct from the father and the holie ghoſt: and therefore is and is called the Hypoſtaſis or perſon proper to the ſonne or to the worde.

But this eternall Hypoſtaſis, proper by nature vntounto the word, is by this vnion made common, as we ſaid with the diuine nature and the humaine taken vntounto it: namely that the vvorde doeth no leſſe ſubſiſt really in this humaine p. 286form thē it doth in that diuine form: & in that reſpect is no leſſe true and perfect man, then true and perfect god: yet the natures, properties and actions remaining ſafe and diſtinct.

3 Therefore into the vnitie of that immeaſurable, moſt pure, and moſt perfect perſon, was taken, the humaine nature, that is, that lumpe conſiſting of the reaſonable ſoule and fleſh of man, finite, compounded, and needing many things.

But how? not ſo as that (for example) it cō tained that infinite perſon within the boūdes or limitts of it owne finite or determinate ſubſtance: or that it ſpredd it ſelfe, as it were ſtretched out, into the largeneſſe of it. And that which wee ſay of this propertie, the ſame is to bee thought and beleeued of all the reſt: becauſe they all remaine vnchaungeable and vnmixed. How then was the humaine nature taken? ſurely, it was ſo taken into vnitie of the ſame perſon: that yet it is not made the verie perſon: but rather exiſteth in the perſon, is borne and ſuſtained of the perſon, and euer dependeth wholly vponupon the ſame.

For this vniō of the natures according to the Hypoſtaſis, or vniting of the Hypoſtaſis is made without alteration, confuſion or diuiſion.

4 Whereby it alſo followeth, that the nature taken, (to ſpeake properly) is not a part of this perſon, as is aforeſaid.

For like as of the vnion of the two natures, there is not framed a third nature, ſo, neither p. 287by taking the humaine nature into vnity of the diuine perſon, is there framed, as it were a new perſon, which ſhould be the proper perſon of Chriſt, and ſhould differ from the perſon of the word, which is the word it ſelfe. For it is altogether the verie ſame, nor doth it differ from it ſelfe, except herein, that the ſame which ſubſiſted onelyonly in the forme of God, and was onelyonly God: now ſubſiſteth alſo in the forme of a ſeruant, & is alſo man: and before, was as a king naked, but is nowe clothed with our fleſh, as with a purple garment: ſo that for this cauſe, the fathers not amiſſe, called the ſame (in ſome ſort) a compounded perſon. But marke alſo this difference, beſids the reſt, that the garmēt pertaineth not to the eſſence of a king: but the humaine nature in Chriſt, is in ſuch ſorte, that without it, cannot be defined what Chriſt is.

5 Which is the cauſe, why the humaine nature thus takē, is to be reputed & acknowledged as it were a part of the perſon of Chriſt: namely becauſe it is ſo taken into vnity of his perſon: that as the vvorde with this humaine fleſh, is ſaid to be, and is man: ſo alſo this fleſh in the word, and with the word God, is ſaid to be, and is God: as Athanaſius, Gregorie, Nazianzene, Damaſcene, and other fathers hauehave proued out of the ſcriptures: for that fleſh, is God, not by nature, but by Hypoſtaſie; in which ſenſe, the ſame fleſh, is omnipotent, and preſent in all places, whereuppon it comes alſo, p. 288that what honour belongeth to the word, of it ſelfe: the ſame is alſo to bee giuen to the fleſh in the word and for the word: becauſe of them both there is but one and the ſame Hypoſtaſie.

6 Add this moreouer, for better explications ſake, that the word, although whereſoeuer it bee, (and it is in all places) there alſo the ſame is not onelyonly god, but alſo man, and that becauſe, it hath in all places, the humaine nature vnited therunto by Hypoſtaſie: yet, where ſoeuer it is it ſelfe, it doth not make it ſelfe an Hypoſtaſis or perſonal, to the humaine nature, but only there, where the ſame nature exiſteth: namely ſo, as that nature is ſuſtained, borne, and wrought or mooued by it.

For how ſhould the ſame be ſaid to bee ſuſtained, where it doth not exiſt? the feete are ſuſtained by the ſoule, not whereſoeuer the the ſoule is, be it in the head: but onelyonly where they themſelues are exiſting. When the fleſh was in the virgins wombe: the word being then perſonally vnited vntounto it, did not thē ſuſtaine the ſame, out of the wombe of Marie: but onelyonly it was Hypoſtaſis vntounto it in the womb, which ſuſtained the ſame there, and not in any other place: which is alſo to bee ſaid of all the time of Chriſts life, when he liued in diuers places. Likewiſe after his death it was Hypoſtaſis vntounto his bodie, when it was dead and buried, & ſuſtained the ſame in it ſelfe: but where? ſurely, not in heauen where the bodie was not: p. 289but onelyonly in the graue: euen as alſo it was Hypoſtaſis to his ſoule ſeparated from his bodie, not in the graue, but out of the graue, & ſuſtained the ſame in it ſelfe. And now it ſuſtaineth both the ſoule and bodie together, in heauen, not in earth: much leſſe euerie where.

7 Neither doth it follow vppon this doctrine, that the perſonall vnion is diſſolued, neither doeth it come to paſſe that the whole perſon is not Hypoſtaſis to the fleſh, but onelyonly in parte. The reaſon is becauſe this perſon of the word, as it is infinite, ſo alſo is it moſt ſimple and pure, and therefore both is wholly Hypoſtaſis to the fleſh, whereſoeuer the fleſh exiſteth: & is alſo wholly Hypoſtaſis in other places, where the fleſh exiſteth not, being it ſelfe exiſting in the forme of god. Indeed the ſoule (as is aforeſaide) is wholly Hypoſtaſis to the head, giuing life to it and ſuſtaining it: but where? not in eueryevery part of the body, but onelyonly in that, where the head it ſelfe is: and out of the head is alſo wholly hypoſtaſis to the feet, ſuſtaining them too: not where the head is, but where the feet themſelues are. Is then the vnion which the ſoule hath with the head diſſolued, becauſe, out of the head it is wholly alſo in the feet?

8 Finally, that all things which hauehave bin ſpokē of this perſonal vnion, may more plainely be declared. I add theſe alſo.

The ſoule is Hypoſtaſis to the eyes: to what eyes? ſuch as they are: namely inſtruments vſed p. 290for ſight, not for hearing: on the other ſide to the eares, for hearing, not for ſeing. So the word was Hypoſtaſis to the humaine nature, not to deſtroy death, which was a propertie of the word: but to ſuffer death, which was a propertie of the fleſh.

Laſtly, it is Hypoſtaſis to the fleſh, not to this end, that the fleſh ſhould bee it and ſuch like, which, & of which ſort the word is: but it ſhould be it, and ſuch like, which, and of which ſort it is it ſelfe, either by nature, or by grace reallie put into it, which they call infuſed or habitual grace. For the grace of this vnion is this, that it is taken into this vnitie of perſon.

This ſame doctrine of ours is confirmed by thoſe things which are deliuered both by the ſcriptures, and the fathers concerning the office of the mediatour, that is, concerning the end of his incarnation.

Many ends of this incarnation are noted of the fathers in the ſcriptures, and particularly of Anſelme, in his booke intituled Cur Deus homo, why God is man: but the principall and immediate ende was, not ſimplie that the vvorde God might ſaue vsus (for he could hauehave performed it by his omnipotencie, and by his onelyonly commaundement without taking fleſh:) but that hee might by ſuch meanes ſaue vsus from death, namely, by death of his owne perſon: and by his owne reſurrection, might raiſe vsus to life: according to that of the Apoſtle, to the Hebr. 2. ver. 14. That by death he might deſtroye p. 291him vvho &c. And in the 2. to Tim. 1.10. VVho hath aboliſhed death and hath brought life &c. To which the old church conſented, ſaying, vvho by dying deſtroyed death, and by ryſing againe repaired life. Leo the firſt declared this end, ſaying, The ſonne of God tooke our fleſh: that by one nature he might dye, by the other he might not dye. Therefore he tooke vponupon him fleſh to this principal ende: that for the performing of our ſaluatiō, he might doe ſuch thinges by that fleſh, which of himſelfe being in the forme of God, hee could not performe: as, to ſuffer, and to dye. For to kill death, ſimply, he could by himſelfe hauehave done it: but to kill it by death he could not in himſelfe doe it, without taking mortall fleſh into vnitie of his perſon. Wherefore, the vvorde did not take fleſh, that by the fleſh it might doe ſuch actions, as were the proper actions of it ſelfe: but that it might worke our ſaluatiō by ſuch meanes, namely by the owne proper actions ioyned with the actions of our fleſh.

VponUpon the 12. chapter. The 8 aphoriſme.

Concerning this true and eſſentiall vnion of vsus, and of our owne fleſh, with the fleſh of Chriſt, there is a notable place in Cyrill, vponupon Iohn. lib. 10. cap. 13. Col. 500.

We denie not, but wee are ſpiritually ioyned to Chriſt, by true faith, and ſincere louelove: but, that wee hauehave no manner of coniunction with him according to the fleſh, that we flatly denie: and affirme it to bee cleane againſt the p. 292ſcriptures. For who euer doubted, but Chriſt is ſo the vine, and we the braunches, that from him we draw life vntounto our ſelues? Heare what Paule ſaith. Wee are all one bodie with Chriſt: for though we are many, yet in him we are one: for wee all are partakers of one bread. Doth he perchaunce thinke, that the vertue of the miſticall benediction is vnknowne vntounto vsus? Which being in vsus, doeth it not alſo make Chriſt to dwell in vsus corporally, by communication of the fleſh of Chriſt? For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Chriſt? know ye not, ſaith hee, that your members are the members of Chriſt? ſhal I then take the members of Chriſt, and make them the members of an harlott? God forbidd. Our Sauiour alſo ſaid. He which eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him: whereby wee maye conſider, that Chriſt is in vsus, not onelyonly by dwelling in vsus, which is perceiued by louelove: but alſo by a naturall participation. For euen as, if one take waxe melted by the fire, & mingle it with other waxe likewiſe melted, ſo as of them both hee make but one thing: ſo by this communication of the bodie and blood of Chriſt, he is in vsus, and we in him. For otherwiſe this corruptible nature of the body could neuer be brought to incorruption and to life, vnleſſe the bodie of naturall life were ioyned vntounto it. Beleeueſt thou not me telling thee this? Beleeue (I pray thee) Chriſt himſelfe: Verily verily (ſaith he) I ſay vntounto you: vnleſſe yee p. 293ſhall eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man and drinke his blood, yee ſhall hauehave no life in you. He which eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood: hath eternall life, and I will raiſe him at the laſt day. Thou heareſt him plainely crying out, that we ſhall hauehave no life, vnleſſe we drinke his blood & eate his fleſh. In you (ſaieth he) your ſelues, that is, in your bodie. By life, may well bee vnderſtood the fleſh of life: for that, doth raiſe vsus vpp at the laſt daye. And ſo need I not think it an vncurrant ſpeach to ſay, the fleſh of life being made fleſh of the onelyonly begotten ſonne, is brought to the vertue of life: and therefore cannot bee ouercome of death. And therefore being made in vsus, putts death from vsus: For gods onelyonly begottē ſonne, is neuer abſent from it, whereuppon becauſe he is one with his fleſh, I (ſaieth he) will raiſe him vp. Why then ſhould it be denied that we are called braunches, according to the fleſh? May it not fittly be ſaid that the vine is his humanitie, and we the braunches, for the identitie or likeneſſe of our nature? For the vine & the braunches are of the ſame nature. So both ſpiritually and corporally are wee the braunches, and Chriſt the vine. Thus farre Cyrill.

In this whole text, Cyrills purpoſe was to ſhew: that Chriſt, not onelyonly according to his deitie, as his aduerſaries the Neſtorians did thinke, but alſo according to the fleſh, was the vine, from which life flowed into vsus as braunches: and cōſequently that we, as braū ches p. 294were ioyned not onelyonly to his deitie, but alſo to his humanitie, and ſo to his fleſh: & doe draw life and all our ſpirituall nouriſhment, not onelyonly from his deitie but alſo from his fleſh. And the reaſon is brought from the Hypoſtaticall vnion, which maketh the word, & his fleſh taken into vnitie thereof to bee but one perſon, one and the ſame Chriſt, one and the ſame vine. Therefore that we cannot be ioyned to the deitie of Chriſt, but alſo we muſt be vnited to his fleſh, nor can we draw life frō that, but we muſt alſo draw it from this.

To declare plainly this neere and reall copulation of our fleſh with the fleſh of Chriſt: he brings a ſimilitude of waxe: not that it euerie way agreeth in all thinges, as is manifeſt, but becauſe it fittly ſheweth our communion with Chriſt to be reall and ſubſtantiall. And this he ment when concluding he ſaid, not onelyonly ſpiritually, but alſo corporally, (that is, not onelyonly in reſpect of the ſpirite, but alſo in reſpect of the bodie:) both Chriſt is the vine, and we his braunches. This therefore he ſpake not of the manner of our coupling to Chriſt, whether it be ſpirituall or corporall: but of the thinges which are coupled, namely, that not onelyonly our ſoules and our ſpirites, are moſt neerely ioyned, with the ſoule and ſpirit of Chriſt, but alſo our fleſh with his fleſh. This is to be gathered out of the aduerſaries propoſition, againſt which he argueth: which is that wee are not ioyned with Chriſt in fleſh. Coll. 500. B.

p. 295Theſe aduerbs therefore ſpiritually & corporally in Cyrill, doe not ſignifie the meanes by which we are vnited to Chriſt the vine: but the things which are vnited, as is already ſaid and declared. But the meanes alſo Cyrill graū teth to be ſpirituall, that is by our faith, and by the ſpirite of Chriſt: for in euerie place hee teacheth, and ſpecially vponupon the ſixt of Iohn, that we eate the fleſh of Chriſt by faith. And by this eating he prooueth our incorporation.

VponUpon the 13. chapter. The 7. aphoriſme.

If any ſhall make exceptions concerning the law, thus: were not the elect in the old Teſtament indued with grace to keepe the law: as wee in the new, are indued with grace to beleeue the goſpell? I anſwer. They were: but not to the hearing of the law: as vve are with faith to the hearing of the goſpell: but becauſe they firſt beleeued in the euangelicall promiſes concerning Chriſt: and for that cauſe receiued the gift (& yet but vnperfectly and in part onelyonly) to keep the law: not becauſe they heard the law: but becauſe they beleeued in Chriſt to come: that alwaies the obedience of the lawe might follow of the faith in Chriſt, euen as an effect followeth the cauſe.

Vppon the 24. chapter. Aphor. 1.

When wee ſaide that the ſignification of a Sacrament, is ſo receiued, that not the word alone, nor the element alone, but the element together with the word is called a ſacrament: we ment nothing els, but that as the word alone p. 296without the element or ſigne cannot bee ſaid to be a Sacrament: ſo neither cā the ſigne without the worde. For a Sacrament (as the church hath vſed to define it) is a viſible ſigne of an inuiſible grace (add) by the word, that is, by Chriſts inſtitution, conſecrated to that purpoſe: that is: altered from the common vſe to that matter.

So Auguſtine Tom. 5. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 10. ca. 5. The viſible ſacrifice, is, a ſacrament, or a holie ſigne of the inuiſible ſacrifice. And in D. de conſ. diſt. 2. ca. ſacrif. A ſacrament (ſaieth he) is a viſible forme of an inuiſible grace.

And the ſame Auguſtine Tom. 9. in Ioh. tract. 80. ſaith concerning the word of the goſpell: the vvorde commeth to the element, and ſo is made the ſacrament, euen that viſible vvorde as it were. A ſacrament therefore according to the receiued ſignification in the church, we doe & euer did acknowledge to bee a viſible ſigne: And whereof? of an inuiſible grace. But from whence hath it the vertue, to bee ſigne of ſuch a thing? from the word of Chriſt the inſtitutor: For take away the word and it ſhalbe no Sacrament: Pull away the word (ſaieth Auguſtine) and what is the water, but water? This is the meaning of our words: not that the word is the ſacrament, or, to ſpeake properly, any parte of the Sacrament, in as much as a Sacrament is defined to bee a viſible ſigne of an inuiſible grace: but becauſe without the word, a viſible element, cannot be a Sacrament of an inuiſible p. 297thing: but therefore it is the viſible ſigne of an inuiſible thing, becauſe by the word of the Lord it is inſtituted thereunto.

Irenaeus alſo, making no mention of the word, (becauſe that is alwaies ſuppoſed) hath left in writing: that the Euchariſt, that is, the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, conſiſteth of two matters: an earthly, (that is, the ſigne) & a heauenly (that is, the thing ſignified) neither yet the thing ſignified, is the ſigne or the Sacrament: but becauſe the ſigne cānot be without the thing ſignified: (for elſe, wherof ſhould it bee a ſigne?) therefore hee ſaid that the Sacrament of the Euchariſt conſiſted, both of an earthly matter, (that is, the ſigne:) and a heauenly matter, (that is, the thing ſignified.) This belongeth to the confirmation, of that which we ſaid concerning the word and the element.

Ʋpon the 25. chapter. Of baptiſme. The third aphoriſme.

Of the water it appeareth in the Acts: where it is manifeſtly ſhewed that neuer any thing was mixed with the water by the Apoſtles. Other forme of baptizing, beſides that which we hauehave in the 28. of Matthew, Chriſt did not inſtitute: and that the Apoſtle did ſimplie follow Chriſt, is beyond al cōtrouerſie. Where as therefore we read in the Acts, that the Apoſtles baptized ſome in the name & into the name of Chriſt: that doth nothing pertaine to the chriſtian forme of baptiſme. Iohn indeed p. 297baptized into the name of Chriſt, as it appeareth, in which name notwithſtanding, as Ambroſe expoundeth it, the trinitie was cloſelie ſignified, as the perſon anointed, that is, of the ſonne, in that he had taken the nature: the perſon annointing, that is, the father: and the annointing, that is, the perſon of the holie ghoſt. But Chriſt himſelf expreſly ſet downe the proper forme of baptiſme, ſaying, in the name of the father, of the ſonne, and of the holie ghoſt. Wherefore, it is manifeſt that the phraſe of ſpeach, to be baptized into the name of Chriſt, doth nothing belong to the forme of chriſtian Baptiſme.

Which is alſo hereby confirmed: that wee neuer reade that the Apoſtles baptized any, ſaying, that they baptized them into the name of Chriſt: but we read onelyonly that many were baptized in the name and into the name of Chriſt. Then what mēt the holie ghoſt by that forme or manner of ſpeach? he ment, in my iudgement, ſummarily to ſhewe thus much: Firſt, in that, they which profeſſed faith in Chriſt were commaunded to be baptized, that it ſhould be done by the name, authoritie, and commandement of Ieſus Chriſt: yea, that they ſhould be baptized in this forme, In the name of the father, the ſonne, and of the holy ghoſt, euen by commaundement of Chriſt. Therefore they were baptized in the name of Chriſt, that is, according to the commandement & forme preſcribed by Chriſt.

p. 298Secondly, they which were ſo baptized: as they were now incorporated into Chriſt by faith, in Gods ſight, and admitted into the fellowſhip of the new couenant: ſo are they, by this ſigne of the new couenant, conſecrated vntounto Chriſt, in the ſight of the congregation, & ſealed, for to hold faſt, the faith in him, and to performe obedience to his commaundements; and to bee ingrafted into the bodie of his church: and receiued into the communion of Saintes, and to a perpetuall amendment of life, and to a continuance of faith in Ieſus Chriſt to their liues end. For the whole church, and eueryevery of the faithful are baptized into the death of Chriſt, and buried with him: whereof the ſigne, is the very dipping into the water: that thereby we may learne, that throughout our whole life, we muſt die vntounto ſinne, and liue vntounto righteouſneſſe, which is to be truely baptized into the name of Chriſt, who died and was buried for vsus.

The fourth aphoriſme.

The ſubſtance alſo of the law, yea the canonicall law, is perpetual, and for euer to be holden. For Chriſt came not to deſtroy the law, or the Prophets, touching the ſubſtance of doctrine. And it belongeth to the ſubſtance of the law of circumciſion, that they which are the couenant, ſhould be ſealed vntounto god with the ſigne of the couenant. But now the ſigne of the couenant is baptiſme, which ſucceeded circumciſion. Coll. 2.

p. 299Add the place of Peter out of the Acts. 2. ver. 38. Repent ye, and be baptized euerie one of you in the name of Ieſus Chriſt, for remiſſion of ſinnes, and yee ſhall receiue the gift of the holte ghoſt. For the promiſe is made vntounto you, and to your children, & to all that are a farre of, euen as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. To whomſoeuer therefore, the promiſe of ſaluation by Chriſt belongeth; to them alſo belongeth baptiſme. But Peter teacheth that the promiſe belongeth to the yong children of the faithfull, therefore yong children are to be baptized.

Aphoriſme 6.

Whereas wee ſaide that Paule baptized againe thoſe, of whome it is ſpoken in the 19. of the acts, as being not rightly baptized: we ſaid it without preiudice to any learned interpretor: for we condemne none. OnelyOnly we deſire the reader, to conſter fauourably of that word rebaptize. For we meant not, that they which were rightly baptized, were afterwards baptized againe: but they which were not baptized with true baptiſme, where the true doctrine of God the father, the ſonne, and the holie ghoſt went before it: they, after Paule had taught them the true and ſound doctrine of Chriſt: then they tooke true baptiſme: and after baptiſme, by the laying on of handes, receiued the holy ghoſt, and the gifts thereof: & this, to ſpeake properly, was indeed not to be rebaptized, but to be truely baptized.

Now why I thought ſo, and do yet thinke: I p. 300was induced by the authoritie both of the fathers, and eſpecially Ambroſe, and Hierome ſo expounding that place: and alſo by a reaſon drawne from the text it ſelfe.

Touching the authoritie: firſt, neuer any of the fathers did teach that theſe words, (and when they heard it they vvere baptized) were the words of Paule, ſpoken of them, which heard Iohn Baptiſt: but expoūded them as the words of Luke, ſpoken of them which heard Paule. So Chryſoſtome Tom. 3. in act. hom. 40. So Occum in act. ca. 19. So Auguſtine Tom. 7. cont. Petil. ca. 7. So Gregory Tom. 1. in euang. hom. 20. So Bede in act. ca. 19. So all the reſt.

Moreouer moſt of them do in plaine tearms write that theſe twelue diſciples were baptized by Paule, or at leaſt by Paules commandement, as hauing not bin rightly baptized before, becauſe they heard not the doctrine of the holie ghoſt, nor were baptized into his name. Ambroſius Tom. 2. de ſpi. ſan. ad Theo. imp. ca. 3.

Laſtly they themſelues alſo, which ſaid, wee hauehave not ſo much as heard, whether there be an holy ghoſt, were afterwards baptized in the name of the Lord Ieſus Chriſt. And this abounded vntounto grace, becauſe they then by Paules preaching knew the holy ghoſt, neither muſt it be thought a contrarietie, becauſe although afterwardes no mention is made of the holy ghoſt: yet it is beleeued, and that which is omitted in wordes is expreſſed in p. 301faith. For when it is ſaide, in the name of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, by the vnity of the name is fullfilled the whole miſterie: neither is the holy ghoſt ſeparated from the baptiſme of Chriſt becauſe Iohn baptized to repentance, Chriſt in the holy ghoſt. Thus farre Ambroſe.

Hierome, Tom. 6. in Ioel. ca. 2. pa. 66. Therefore (ſaith he) the ſauing health of God, cānot bee ſeene, except the holy ghoſt bee powred downe: and who ſo ſaith that he beleeueth in Chriſt, and beleeueth not in the holy ghoſt: he hath not the eyes of perfect faith. Whereon, alſo in the Actes of the Apoſtles: they which were baptized by Iohns baptiſme into him that was to come, that is, in the name of the Lord Ieſus: becauſe when Paule asked them, they aunſwered, wee know not whether there be an holy ghoſt: they were baptized againe: yea they receiued true baptiſme, becauſe without the holie ghoſt, and the miſterie of the trinitie, whatſoeuer is receiued in the name of the one or the other perſon, is vnperfect, &c. Auguſtine cont. Petil. cap. 7. coll. 498. ſaieth. Paule baptized thoſe twelue, either becauſe they had not receiued Iohns baptiſme, but lyed: or elſe, if they had receiued it, yet they had not receiued Chriſts baptiſme. For he thought with Cyprian, and Tertullian, and other fathers that Iohns baptiſme and Chriſts did differ: of which matter more hereafter. Of our owne writers alſo, that learned man Wolff. Muſculus, about the place of the Act. 19. thinketh as p. 302Ambroſe doth, in his cōmon place, the place of baptiſme, whoſe words, becauſe he hādleth that place very largely, we wil not repeat, and before Muſculus, Bucer both on the third of Matth. and on the fourth of the epiſt. to the Epheſ. vponupon Math. he hath theſe words. To thoſe Epheſians, which had beene baptized with Iohns baptiſme, not knowing what it was, becauſe as then they knewe not the holy gnoſt: wherewith Paule had preached that Chriſt ſhould baptize them; wee reade that he ſaid Act. 19. Iohn baptized indeed with the baptiſme of repentance, ſaying vntounto the people, that they ſhould beleeue in him, which ſhould come after him, that is, in Chriſt Ieſus. Nowe what do we elſe, or ought we to do in baptizing? For ours is alſo the baptiſme of repentance: ſo long as thoſe whome we baptize, we alſo burie into the death of Chriſt, that is, we aſcribe them into that nūber, which throughout all there life, muſt die vntounto ſinne, and liue vntounto righteouſneſſe: and yet ſhall not receiue that neither, but by the gift of Chriſt. Therefore of ſuch as be of years of diſcretion, whom we baptize, we require their faith in Chriſt: & the infants we commit vntounto the church to be brought vp to the ſame faith. Therefore Paule would neuer hauehave rebaptized thoſe Epheſiās, if they had beene baptized with Iohns baptiſme, that is, with that baptiſme, wherewith he vſed to baptize, into repentance and the faith of Chriſt: but ſeing they were (as Luke p. 303reporteth) onelyonly baptized into Iohns baptiſme, which notwithſtanding they knew not what it was, and were altogether ignorant of the baptiſme of Chriſt, that is, of the ſpirit, he baptized them: ſhewing vntounto thē, what Iohns baptiſme was: and how he baptized into Chriſt not into his owne ſprinkling or dipping of the water, as though that could be any profite vntounto them. He therefore baptized them with this baptiſme of Iohn, that is, as Iohn vſed to do, into the name of the Lord Ieſus: and by & by after laying on his hands, he baptized thē with the baptiſme alſo of Chriſt, that is, with the ſpirit. For immediatly the holy ghoſt came on them, as it is there read. This there.

And vponupon the epiſtle to the Epheſ. chap. 4. the ſame Bucer writeth thus. Hereby it is alſo manifeſt, that the twelue men at Epheſus, which knew not whether there were an holie ghoſt or no whome Paule baptized, were not baptized with the baptiſme of Iohn, that is, with that which he adminiſtred: but, as they witneſſed themſelues, they were baptized into Iohns baptiſme. For Iohn preached vntounto all whome hee baptized, that Chriſt ſhould baptize them with the holy ghoſt: and exhorted them, that they would beleeue in him, and that of him they might receiue the holy ghoſt. And therefore theſe Epheſiās could not hauehave beene ignorant of the holy ghoſt, if they had bin waſhed with that baptiſme, which might truely be called Iohns: which alſo the Apoſtles p. 304words to thoſe men doth ſufficiently declare: Iohn verily baptized with the baptiſme of repētance, ſaying vntounto the people, that they ſhould beleeue in him, which ſhould come after him, that is, in Chriſt. For by theſe wordes he would teach vsus, that they neuer receiued Iohns baptiſme, who as yet knew not Iohns preaching of Chriſt, and the promiſe. Thus farre Bucer.

Seing then the fathers expound this place in Act. 19. as wee hauehave nowe declared: who I pray am I, that I ſhould dare, or that I ought to gaine-ſay, ſo many and ſo learned men, in ſuch an expoſition of this ſcripture, which neither doth any whitt wreſt the text, nor contrarieth any other ſcriptures, nor is againſt the analogie of faith, nor bringeth with it any abſurdities?

For if any man ſhall obiect out of the text, that ſame truely and but: it prooueth nothing againſt the fathers expoſition: ſeing it is no vnuſuall thing with the Apoſtle, where hee ſaieth firſt truely, not alwaies to ioyne the aduerſatiue particle but: Rom. 3. ver. 2. Coll. 2. ver. 23. and in other places. And vntounto this truely, another but, which Luke for breuitie ſake left out, might bee vnderſtood verie fittly, as hereafter we will ſhew: ſo that it is no neceſſitie, with this truely to ioyne that but, which followeth in the 5. verſe: in which verſe the fathers, will hauehave, not Paules ſpeach, but Lukes to be continued. Therefore the fathers p. 305expoſition is not repugnant to the text: nor yet with any other ſcripture. For if any man ſay, Paule writeth to the Corinthians, that he is gladd he baptized none, but the houſe of Stephana: it may be anſwered, it is true, namely at Corinth: but theſe twelue were baptized at Epheſus: and beſides, he ſpeaketh of ſuch as were baptized with his owne hand: but theſe twelue, he might baptiſe by ſome other: to diſpute no longer about the circumſtance of the time. And it is moſt certaine, it is not repugnant to the analogie of faith, nor bringeth with it any abſurdities: becauſe the fathers do not ſpeake of a baptiſme rightly adminiſtred, as though Paule had repeated that again. This expoſitiō therefore of the fathers in my iudgement, cannot eaſily be refelled. And this therfore is the chiefeſt cauſe why I hauehave euer thus thought, and yet thinke of this action of Paule: although indeed I cannot conſent vntounto them all, in the cauſe, why Paule baptized them: but onelyonly to Ambroſe and Hierome.

That Iohns Baptiſme, & Chriſts Baptiſme did differ, the fathers teach, both by this, that Iohn ſaide, how he baptized (onelyonly) with vvater: but Chriſt ſhould baptize with the holy ghoſt, & with fire: and alſo by this, that the baptiſme of Iohn is called, the baptiſme of repentance: but Chriſtes baptiſme is ſaid to bee giuen for the remiſſion of ſinnes. And becauſe that he prepared the waye to this: & (as Tertull. ſpeaketh) that baptiſme of repentance, was as it were a ſueing for the p. 306remiſſion of ſinnes and ſanctificatiō in Chriſt, which was to follow after. Read Tertul. of bap. pag. 707.

So Cyprian alſo in his ſermon of the baptiſme of Chriſt, and of the manifeſtation of the Trinitie, pag. 430. So Auguſt. To. 7. againſt. Petil. cap. 7. But all of vsus doe not knowe, what the fathers mēt, by this differēce of the baptiſme. For they ment not, that the one diffred from the other in the matter, or in the ſigne, or in the doctrine, and forme of baptiſine: but onelyonly in efficacie: that namely, although remiſſion of ſinnes was giuen to them, which were waſhed with Iohns baptiſme: yet the ſame was not of Iohns baptiſme, that is, of water, but by the baptiſme of Chriſt, which is the baptiſme of the ſpirite: whereunto that belongeth: I baptize with water, but he with the holy ghoſt. And with this baptiſme of the ſpirit were they only baptized, which beleeued in Chriſt, whome Iohn ſaide was then come, though all knewe him not. Therefore Iohn in his baptiſme did inculcate and often repeate this faith, as Paule witneſſeth in that place of the 19 of the Actes. They therefore are deceiued, who for this diuerſitie, did thinke the baptiſme of water was to be repeated.

Auguſt. againſt. Petil. (as we touched a little before) ſheweth how ſome held opinion, that the 12 did lye vntounto the Apoſtle, when being asked vntounto what they were baptized, they anſwered, vntounto Iohns baptiſme. So by this, that p. 307firſt thoſe Epheſians ſaide vntounto him, that they had not yet heard, whether there were, that is, whether that holy ghoſt did exiſt or not, namely, the giuer of thoſe giftes, whereof the ſpeach was: the Apoſtle might be ſaid to conuince thē of a lye, by this argument. Whoſoeuer hauehave bin baptized, they hauehave profeſſed faith in Chriſt, as the ſonne of God, and conſequently in the father, and in the ſpirite of them both. For Iohn did require this faith: & according to the ſame he baptized men: and in baptizing he alwayes vrged that Ieſus Chriſt was he which ſhould baptize in the ſpirit. But you, by your owne cō feſſion, do not know this ſpirite &c. and ſo beleeue not rightly in Ieſus Chriſt. Therefore &c.

But ſurely, to ſaye that theſe twelue did lye vntounto the church and to the Apoſtle: it ſeemes to me, to be to hard and vile a thing in mē which profeſſed Chriſt. And for this cauſe we did euer better allow of the opiniō of Ambroſe & Hierome: that the 12 did ſay truely, whē they ſaid, they were baptized vntounto Iohns baptiſme: but yet not by Iohn himſelfe, but by ſome one of Iohns diſciples, who expounded not vntounto thē the true doctrine concerning God: and therefore baptized them not rightlie. But all the fathers doe hold beyond all controuerſie, that they which are not rightly baptized into Ieſus Chriſt, as the naturall Sonne of God, & mediatour, and ſo alſo into his father, and the ſpirite of them both: the ſame muſt bee rightlie baptized. And therefore thoſe twelue were not, as p. 308being not baptized, rebaptized: but, as being not rightlie baptized, Paule did baptize them with true baptiſme, firſt teaching them the true doctrine of the trinitie, which alſo Iohn had preached vntounto them.

And thus much of the authoritie of the fathers: from whome, either in their aſſertions, or in their expoſitions of Scriptures, eſpeciallie where they all, for the moſt part doe agree, I dare not decline for my cōſcience ſake, vnleſſe I be cōſtrained by moſt apparant reaſons. Thus I freelie cōfeſſe to the whole church of Chriſt.

The reaſon alſo, (beſids the authoritie of the fathers) brought as we ſaw before, euen by the fathers, out of the verie text, confirmeth me in the ſame opinion. This reaſon is partly gathered out of thoſe words, which theſe Epheſians, being asked by Paule, whether they had receiued the holie ghoſt, that is, the gifts of the holie ghoſt, aunſwered, ſaying: that they had not ſo much as heard, whether there bee, that is, whether that holie ghoſt bee exiſtent: whome Paule would hauehave to bee the author of thoſe gifts: ſo farre from thē it was, that they ſhould hauehave receiued him and his gifts: and partlie it is gathered out of the wordes, which Paule vſed concerning the doctrine and baptiſme of Iohn, ſaying, Iohn verily baptized with the baptiſme of repentance, ſaying vntounto the people, that they ſhould beleeue in him, which ſhould come after him, that is, in Chriſt Ieſus: as if he had ſaid, you hauehave not rightlie beleeued in Chriſt, ſuch as p. 309he is, the ſonne of God, God: ſeing yee know not his ſpirite. The concluſion followed: that therefore they, although they were baptiſed, by I knowe not whome, into Iohns baptiſme, yet were not rightlie baptized: ſeing they were not inſtructed in the doctrin of the perſon of Chriſt, in whome they ought to beleeue, namelie, that he was not onelie man and the Meſſias, but alſo the ſonne of God, God: from whome alſo & from the father proceedeth the holie ghoſt, and conſequentlie not in the doctrine of god the father, the ſonne, and the holie ghoſt, in the name of all which, baptiſme is to be giuen. And therefore that they ought to learne the true doctrine concerning the father, ſonne, and holie ghoſt, and reſting therein, to receiue lawfull baptiſme: that afterwardes by laying on of hands, they might receiue the gifts of this holy ſpirite: which Luke teacheth to bee afterwardes done, ſaying, but vvhen they heard it, (namely, thoſe twelue Epheſians:) what whē they heard? euen, when they perceiued Paules doctrine, concerning true faith in Chriſt the ſonne of God, and ſo in his father, and the holie ghoſt: which faith Iohn had alſo preached, and wherein they reſting were baptized &c. This is the interpretation of the fathers: namelie, that thoſe twelue were not rightlie inſtructed in the doctrin of god the father, the ſonne & holie ghoſt, and ſo neither rightlie baptized: and it may be confirmed, both by the kindred and cuntrie of thoſe twelue: and alſo by the p. 310cauſe, for which Paule, letting alone al the reſt, peculiarly asked them, whether they hauehave receiued the holie ghoſt, ſince they beleeued.

By kinde they were Iewes, as appeareth by Iohns baptiſme, vntounto which they ſaide they were baptized: and they were baptized by a Iewe. But the Iewes for the moſt part, neuer rightlie held the doctrine of the three perſons ſubſiſting in one eſſence. And therefore theſe 12 Iewes alſo, though they graunted Ieſus, to bee the true Meſſias: yet they ſeemed to acknowledge but onelyonly two perſons: the perſon of God the father, and the perſon of the Meſſias, euen (as the moſt thought) a bare mā, but yet ſuch a one, as in whome God the father dwelt: but that they were altogether ignorāt that the holie ghoſt was an exiſting thing, & the giuer of thoſe graces, they are conuinced by their owne words.

But ſurely there was ſome cauſe, why Paule comming into Epheſus, where were manie of Chriſts diſciples, asked this queſtion of the 12 Iewes onelyonly. Surelie it is to bee thought, by their aunſwer, that the Apoſtle, either by their owne talke, or by telling of ſome other of the brethren, perceiued that theſe twelue did not thinke aright concerning the holie ghoſt.

Finallie this was the Apoſtles argument, whereby he would prooue by their owne aū ſwere, that they were not baptized with the true baptiſme of Iohn.

Whoſoeuer hath bin baptized with the true p. 311baptiſme of Iohn: he hath alſo heard his doctrine, concerning god the father, the ſonne, & the holy ghoſt: and hath profeſſed the ſame, and conſequently hath knowne alſo the holy ghoſt. This propoſition is not expreſſed: but the proofe of it, the Apoſtle bringeth in the 4. verſe, ſaying, Iohn baptized &c. that is, Iohn preached not onelyonly repentance, but alſo faith in Chriſt: namely, that he is not onelyonly man the Meſſias, but alſo the ſonne of God, God: from whome, as alſo from the father, proceedeth the holie ghoſt, and that hee ſhall baptize in the holie ghoſt: and therefore all which deſire to bee ſaued, muſt alſo beleeue in him, as the true Sauiour.

But you hauehave not heard this doctrine, nor profeſſed it, & therfore hauehave not truely beleeued in Chriſt, ſuch as he is. For yee your ſelues ſay, yee hauehave not ſo much as heard whether there bee an holie ghoſt, (namelie, when yee were baptized). Therefore &c. So conſequentlie it remaineth, that profeſſing this doctrine and faith, yee nowe receiue lawfull baptiſme: and afterward by the laying on of handes thoſe giftes of the holie ghoſt. This is the declaratiō of the argument according to the expoſition of the fathers: but Luke, as the Prophets and Euāgeliſts vſe to doe, cōprehended the whole ſumme in few words.

And I praye, what abſurditie can followe hereō? or what iniurie is done to the Apoſtles narration? is the hereſie of the Donatiftes & Anabaptiſts p. 312maintained? nothing leſſe. For they rebaptize ſuch as are rightlie baptized: the Apoſtle baptizeth them, which had not beene rightly baptized: as hauing not heard nor profeſſed the true doctrine concerning God, he tooke care they ſhould be rightlie baptized. And ſuch when they come into the catholicke church, (we ſpeake of them that bee of yeares of diſcretion) all the fathers teach, they muſt be baptized with true baptiſme, inſtructing them firſt in the doctrine concerning God, & Chriſt their Sauiour:

Touching the text it ſelfe: it is no whitt wreſted. That their aunſwer. (But wee hauehave not ſo much as heard whether there be an holie ghoſt) cā not bee vnderſtood of the giftes of the holie ghoſt, it appeareth by Paules demaund following, being asked with an admiration: Ʋnto what were yee then baptized? For no mā is baptized vntounto the giftes of the holie ghoſt: but vntounto the holie ghoſt it ſelfe, as alſo vntounto the father, and the ſonne. And the Apoſtles held it for certaine, beyond all doubt, that whoſoeuer were baptized either of Iohn, & his true diſciples, or of Chriſts diſciples: they were ſurelie baptized, with inſtruction of the true doctrine of the holie ghoſt alſo, according to Chriſts inſtitution. Hereupon was that admiratiō: Ʋnto what were ye then baptized? They anſwered him, vntounto Iohns baptiſme: For Paule thought this could not ſtād together that they ſhould bee baptized with Iohns lawfull baptiſme, p. 313and yet ſhould not knowe nay not ſo much as heare, whether there were, and whether there did exiſt an holie ghoſt: whom Iohn both knewe and preached vntounto all that came to his baptiſme: neither did he preach Chriſt without this holie ghoſt. For he ſaid that he baptized in water, but Chriſt Ieſus ſhould baptize in the holie ghoſt.

Hereupon was it, that meaning to cōuince them, that they were not baptized of Iohn, nor of his true diſciples, he added, ſaying: Iohn indeed &c. This truely or verely is an aduerſatiue particle: wherby he would ſhew, how it could not agree with the lawfull baptiſme of Iohn, that they ſaid, they had not ſo much as heard (namelie when they were baptized) whether there be an holie ghoſt or no: Sith Iohn baptized none, without mentioning the ſame. And to this truely here expreſſed, doeth a but cloſelie vnderſtood make aunſwer: ſo that the argumēt is ſuch, as before we ſet downe. Iohn indeed baptized &c: as though he had ſaid: Iohn preached both repentance, and faith in Ieſus Chriſt, ſuch as he is, namely the ſonne of god, from whome as alſo from the father proceedeth the holy ghoſt, and who baptizeth in the holie ghoſt, and into the confeſſion of this doctrine, he baptizeth men. The minor was to be added, which Luke expreſſed not, becauſe it is contained in the twelues owne confeſſion, but vvee hauehave not ſo much as heard &c. what is plainer then this text?

p. 314That therefore which followeth in the fift verſe, But when they heard it &c, is Lukes owne words, ſhewing truelie and brieflie, what followed vponupon Paules argumentation: But when they heard &c, (namely theſe 12) whē they heard, what? what it is truelie to beleeue in Chriſt, & that he baptized men, according to the confeſſion of this doctrine concerning Chriſt, & his father, and the holie ghoſt: and that Chriſt alone, as the onelyonly Sauiour, baptized men into the holie ghoſt: when they heard (I ſaye) theſe things, not onelyonly with the eares of their bodies, but alſo of their mindes: and ſo beleeued and confeſſed the ſame: They vvere baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus; that is, into Ieſus, as he is called and deſcribed in the Scriptures, not onelie man, but alſo the ſonne of God, God: from whome, as alſo from the father proceedeth the holie ghoſt: and therefore, as a true and onelie Sauiour baptizeth vsus with his holy ſpirite.

Add this alſo, that by the new interpretation, there is admitted in a little narration, no ſmale Battologie or ſuperfluitie of words. For when Paule ſaid, Iohn verily baptized vvith the baptiſme of repentance, ſaying vntounto the people that they ſhould beleeue in him, which ſhould come after him, that is, in Chriſt Ieſus: to what ende ſhould the Apoſtles hauehave added this concerning thē, whom Iohn baptized, but whē they heard, namely that companie or thoſe men, were baptized. For who could not vnderſtand, by the wordes p. 315going before, if Iohn baptized: they therefore, which had heard & profeſſed his doctrine concerning repentance, and faith in Chriſt, were by Iohn baptized.

To conclude, if I ſhould allow that interpretation, I ſee not, what Paule could els proue by this whole narration, but that thoſe Epheſians had beene rightlie baptized: and therefore that nothing elſe remained, but that by laying on of hands, they might receiue the holy ghoſt. But this concluſion, I doe not thinke to agree with that which goeth before it, but to bee needeleſſe.

I hauehave to my power, declared the expoſition of the fathers, vponupon this place, and that modeſtlie, and without preiudice to anie: to no other end, but that I may by ſuch reaſons as I am able declare vntounto the brethren, which perhaps hauehave tooke offence at that particle in my confeſſion, That Paule did baptize thoſe twelue againe, vvhichwhich had not bin rightly baptized: that I did not put thoſe words raſhlie in my confeſſion. By the way as I ſaid, we condemne no other mens interpretation.

And this alſo I freely profeſſe, that my cōſcience is ſuch, that I cannot be eaſily drawne to diſſent frō the auncient fathers, either in their aſſertions, or in their interpretations of ſcriptures. Vnleſſe I be cōuinced & enforced by manifeſt teſtimonies of holy ſcriptures, by neceſſary conſequences & plaine demonſtrations. For ſo doeth my conſcience reſt, and in this p. 316ſetled ſtay of minde I deſire to die.

And therefore I humbly deſire of all the brethren, that if in this behalfe, my opinion, be not altogeather as theirs is: they will by no meanes take offēce: eſpecially, ſeeing that in all the principall points of Chriſtian faith: we hauehave a ſound agreement.

VponUpon the 16. chapter. The 9. aphoriſme.

The place of the 1. to the Corinth. 6. beeing diligently marked (as alſo we noted before in the 15. chap. and 14. Apho.) may well decide the controverſie about the wicked mens Eating, that is, the Hypocrites; and of the ſacramentall eating.

We ſay, that hypocrites doe not eate the tru body of Chriſt, ſith they are void of faith (namely they eare it not truely and indeede, ſith it is not indeede eaten, but onelyonly by true faith, which they want) but onelyonly ſacramentally, that is, they eate indeede the ſacrament, and the ſigne it felfe: The Adverſaries ſay alſo, that hypocrites doe eate the true body of Chriſt, onelyonly ſacramentally: but by this word they meane, that they receiue not onelyonly the ſacrament, that is, the ſigne, but all the thing it ſelfe: though not vntounto ſalvation. If they mean this in the ſame ſence, that the Apoſtle doth, when he ſaid, The Corinthians were all ſanctified, iuſtified &c. namely that by receiuing baptiſme the ſacrament of true Regeneration, and ſanctification, they were reckoned to hauehave receiued the thing alſo: ſith the very ſacrament p. 317hindred not, but they might alſo be pertakers of the true ſanctification, although all of them did not indeede obtaine the ſame, by reaſon of their hypocriticall faith; thē doubtleſſe I ſee not, but ſuch a manner of ſpeaking may be well allowed: ſo it be declared as it ought, after the Apoſtles meaning. This I only alleadge, that the brethren may bethinke them of ſome good meanes of agreement, that ſo great an offence and ſcandale may be rooted out of the Church. We muſt all ſtand before Chriſts Tribunall ſeate.

VponUpon the 16. chap. Apho. 10.

Here ſhould a ſubdiſtinction hauehave beene added of the godly: becauſe ſome doe come worthely, ſome vnworthely: yea one and the ſame godly man eateth ſometime worthily ſometime not worthily enough, as in the 1. to the Corinth. 11. it appeareth. And the vngodly alſo which receiue onelyonly the element, and not the thing of the ſacrament, are not all of one ſort. For among them are alſo conteyned the Hypocrites, of whome we ſpake evē now. We thought good therefore, here to ioyne a more plaine and cleare diſtinction.

There be two kindes of men, which, like as they come to the hearing of the word, ſo may they come to receiue the ſupper of the Lord: the vngodly, and the godly. Againe, of the vngodly, ſome are wholly and ſimplie wic…ed: as Atheiſts, Godleſſe men, alſo Iewes and Turkes, and all ſuch as knowe nothing, and p. 318beleeue nothing of all thoſe thinges, which they heare by the preaching of the goſpell, or ſee to bee done by the adminiſtration of the Sacraments: nay they rather laugh at and cō temne all ſuch matters. Theſe if they come to the Lords table: they neither eate nor drinke anie thing elſe, but bread and wine, and that alſo, not as they are ſacramēts, (for they know not of what thinges they are ſacraments) but onelyonly as they are of their owne nature, namelie, bread & wine. For euen ſo alſo at the preaching of the goſpell, they receiue nothing but bare words and the ſound of the words. Another ſort are indeed and before God wicked, though they are not ſo in reſpect, I meane, in profeſſion, or in ſight of men: ſuch as are the hypocrites in the church: who are not indued with the true and liuelie faith, which is proper to the elect: but hauehave onelyonly a temporall and an hypocriticall beleefe. Theſe, comming to the ſupper, doe indeed eate and drinke no more then the former: that is, bread & wine. The reaſon is, becauſe they hauehave no true faith, by which alone, Chriſts body is truely eaten. For all this the difference betweene theſe and the other is not little.

1 For the former, ſeing they beleeue none of all the things which they heare concerning Chriſts bodie in the ſupper: nor perceiue anie thing with their mindes: as little do they eate the true bodie of Chriſt: but onelyonly with the mouth of the bodie they eate bread, as common p. 319bread. But the other, ſeing that by their onelyonly hiſtoricall, hypocriticall and temporall beleefe, they vnderſtand in their minde, and in ſome ſort, doe beleeue the things which are ſpoken and done: therefore by the ſame beleefe and minde, they may bee ſaide in ſome ſort to receiue, and in ſome ſorte to taſte, the bodie of Chriſt offred in the word and ſacraments: although they doe not in verie deede eate it, ſeing they do not ſwallow nor retaine the ſame (for this properlie is to eate) in the ſtomacke of their ſoule for nouriſhment of their ſpirite: but rather do ſpue or vomitt out the ſame, being taſted, and after a ſorte receiued downe. For ſo alſo we read in the 6 to the Heb. of thoſe temporary profeſſors: that they taſted the heauenlie gifte and good word of God: as if he had ſaid, they taſted indeed, and that alſo by the gift of the holie ghoſt, but being taſted, they caſt it vp againe. And in the parable of the ſeede: the temporary ones were ſaid to receiue the ſeede of the word: but that they kept it not, and therefore brought forth no fruite by it. Theſe things cannot be ſaid of the firſt ſort of theſe wicked ones, which are moſt true of the ſecond ſort, namelie, theſe temporarie hypocrites. Let this then bee the firſt difference: hereuppon followes another difference betweene the eating of thoſe and theſe.

2 They, ſeing the bread which they take into their mouthes, they nether acknowledge p. 320nor beleeue it to bee a Sacrament of Chriſts bodie: therefore they take it and eate it, not as a Sacrament, but as common bread: and therefore can they not be ſaid to eate the bodie of Chriſt ſacramentallie. But theſe take the bread, not as common bread, but as a Sacrament of Chriſts bodie: and for that cauſe, are ſaid to eate Chriſts bodie, though not in verie deede, ſeing they lack the mouth and teeth of true faith, yet to eate it ſacramentallie: by an argument drawne, as they call it, à coniugatis: they eate the Sacrament, as the Sacrament of Chriſts bodie: therefore they eate Chriſts body ſacramentally: and ſo farre forth as it is a Sacrament, becauſe they eate not Chriſts bodie in verie deed, but onelyonly the Sacrament thereof.

Hereupon followeth that expoſitiō, wherof we ſpake before, that it is not vngodlie to ſay ſimply and abſolutely, that the hypocrites do eate not onelie the Sacrament, but alſo the thing of the Sacramēt, that is, not onelyonly bread, but alſo the verie bodie of Chriſt. But in what ſenſe? namelie, in that, wherein the Apoſtle ſaid, all they of Corinth in their firſt ſtate were vncleane, vngodlie, &c: afterwards he ſaid, they were not onelyonly vvaſhed (which ſome might hauehave interpreted onelie of the water of baptiſme) but alſo ſanctified. and iuſtified: when notwithſtā ding they were not all made truelie ſuch: but as yet there lacked not ſome hypocrits amōg them.

p. 321So all they which profeſſing faith in Chriſt doe come to his ſupper, and eate the Sacramēt of the Lotds bodie, are ſaide alſo to eate the Lords true bodie, by reaſon of the ſacramentall vnion, which cauſeth, that he which receiueth the ſigne, is by the church iudged to hauehave receiued alſo the thing ſignified. becauſe there is no fault either in the inſtitutor, of the Sacrament, or in the Sacrament it ſelfe, but that he which hath receiued & eaten the one, might hauehave alſo receiued and eaten the other: ſith Chriſt by the miniſter doeth truelie offer them both: and the ſoundnes and trueth of the Sacrament, dependeth not vppon our faith, but vppon Chriſts inſtitution, So that if we receiue not the whole Sacrament, but onelyonly the ſigne without the thing ſignified the fault is in our owne ſelues, who receiue one part with the mouth of our bodie, and caſt away the other part by our infidelitie (for an hypocritical faith is infidelitie:) ſeparating thoſe thinges which God would hauehave to be ioyned. By theſe thinges it appeareth, what difference is in the eating of thoſe that are ſimplie wicked, & the hypocrites: although neither ſort can bee ſaid truely to eate Chriſts true bodie. For ſuch only do truely eate Chriſt, who are alſo truely ingrafted into Chriſt, by a true and liuelie faith: with which alone, the elect are indued. They which are dead corporallie, can no longer eate corporall meate: how then ſhould they which are dead ſpirituallie, bee fedd with ſpirituall p. 322foode? And onelie the faithfull, doe therefore liue, becauſe by a liuelie faith, they are ioyned vntounto Chriſt, which is our life, as members to their head: as braunches to the vine, as the boughes to their tree. And if, as Cyprian ſaieth, it be meate of the minde, not of the bellie: ſurely it is eaten vvith the teeth not of the bodie, but of a faithfull minde: which onelyonly the godlie can doe.

If likewiſe the bodie of Chriſt be (as Ireneus ſpeaketh) a heauenlie matter: …owe can it bee eaten of them, which hauehave nothing in them that is heauely, but are altogether earthly mē: & indued with no faith, whereby they may aſcend vp into heauen, and eate the heauenlie foode? therefore onelyonly the godlie can do this.

But the faithfull alſo are not affected all alike, or after one ſort: ſeing verie oftē they eate worthelie, but ſometime it chaūceth, that they eate vnworthelie: and therefore are ſundrie wayes chaſtened by God for it.

They are ſaide to eate worthelie, who before they eate of the Lords bread, doe examine themſelues, whether they be in faith: & if they be, then they diligentlie waye and cō ſider the ſignification and greatnes of this miſterie: moreouer they trye their conſciences, whether they bee touched with a true repentance: and by earneſt & hartie prayers do ſtirre themſelues vp to both.

And they eate vnworthilie, who although they be planted in Chriſt, by faith and the ſpirite p. 323of regeneration: yet their faith being in ſome ſorte choaked with the cares of this world, & other affections of the fleſh: doe nor ſufficientlie proue themſelues: do not diligētlie examine, nor ſtirr vp themſelues, to an earneſt conſideration of ſo great a miſterie: nor weigh with an attentiue minde, what is giuen in that holie table; what the Lord requireth of them; for whome, and for what purpoſe the Supper was inſtituted by the Lord: Laſtlie, they do eate vnworthelie, who as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh) diſcorne not the Lords bodie: and ſo come not to that table, with a due reuerence, & feare of the Lord: diſcerning in their minde and by faith, the thinges ſignified, from the ſignes, and the ſignes from other common meates and drinkes, in ſuch ſufficient manner as they ought: whereby they doe not aſwell open the mouth of the inward man, to eate the ſpirituall foode; as they doe the mouth of the outward man, to eate the foode, which (of it owne nature) is corporall. By reaſon of this duetie ſo neglected, namelie, that they do not ſufficientlie prooue themſelues, nor diſcerne or iudge of the Lords bodie, and conſequentlie do eate vnworthilie the Lords bread, chriſtians and faithfull men other whiles are wōt to be viſited with diuers chaſtiſemēts of God, yet ſuch as are for their ſaluation, leaſt they ſhould be condemned in this world. And of them doth the Apoſtle properly ſpeake, in the 1. Cor. 11. and not of ſuch as be ſimplie wicked p. 325and more hypocrites, when he ſaith, theſe doe eate iudgement vntounto themſelues, &c. This is thus prooued.

1 Becauſe he ſaieth not, that they which thus eate vnworthilie, doe eate vntounto themſelues foreign, which ſignifieth eternall deſtruction, but foreign iudgement: which words, what difference there is betwixt them, is manifeſt in the ſame text, where the Apoſtle in the 32 veiſe faieth foreign, Wee are iudged or corrected of the Lord, foreign, leaſt we ſhould be condemned with the world.

2 When hee declareth the puniſhment, which they ſhall hauehave which eate vnworthily, he rehearſeth none but teporall chaſtiſemēts, making no mention of eternall deſtruction: For this cauſe, (ſaieth he) many are vveake, and ſicke &c.

3 Add this, that he ſaieth, if vvee vvill iudge our ſelues, (that is, trye our ſelues, and acknowledging our ſinnes, chaſtife our ſelues by repentance and by true faith, and amendment of life, ſeperate, our ſelues from the world, we ſhould not be iudged: namelie of the Lord, who doth therefore chaſten & mortifie vsus, becauſe we do not mortifie our affections, nor repent vsus of our ſinnes.

4 And what meaneth this, that in moſt plaine wordes, hee calleth this iudgement, by which wee are therefore iudged, becauſe wee eate vnworthilie the Lords bread, a chaſtning, verie proſitable for vsus. For thus he ſaieth. But whē p. 326we are iudged, we are chaſtened of the Lord, becauſe we ſhould not be condemned with the world.

3 And ſurelie he placeth himſelfe and all the other true beleeuers, in the number of thoſe, which being iudged, are chaſtiſed of the Lord for their ſaluation. For he maketh two ſortes of men: the wicked, which are vnderſtood in the name of the world: and teacheth that vponupon them awayeth eternall deſtruction: and then the godlie, who by reaſon of their manie falles and vnworthineſſes, are alſo chaſtened by manie puniſhments, leaſt they ſhould alſo be cō demned together with the wicked: and them hee ſetteth downe vnderunder foreign iudgement, that they may auoide foreign, eternall deſtruction. This place therefore is to bee vnderſtood properlie of the faithful, but ſuch as are vnperfect, and therefore doe greeuouſlie ſinne, becauſe they come vnworthilie to the Lords table.

Whereas ſome doe expound the ſame alſo of the wicked, and do take foreign iudgement, for foreign condemnation, this is rather to bee vnderſtood, that it is by a certaine conſequēce, with an argument drawne, from the leſſe to the greater, then by force of the text: Thus, if the godlie which ſometime eate vnworthily, doe eate vntounto themſelues foreign condemnation: then what foreign condemation, ſhall abide the wicked?

foreign therefore, if it be ſpoken of the godlie, is taken for chaſtiſement: if of the wicked, it ſignifieth eternall deſtruction.

Vppon the 17. chapter. Aphoriſme 1.

Here we ſpake of ſuch as bee of yeares of diſcretion: concerning the yong infants of the faithfull, the reaſon is otherwiſe: as in another place we declared. For the holie ghoſt doeth ingraft them into Chriſt, as true members to their head, from whome they draw their life: yea and we alſo beleeue that they are endued with the ſpirite of faith: although through the weakenes of nature in them, they cannot vſe th… ſame: euen as they cannot vſe the vertue of their vnderſtanding; whenas notwithſtanding, they are not without a minde or the faculties thereof.

The 2. Aphoriſme.

In the deſcription of faith, I willingly vſed thoſe two words of wiſedome and prudence: following the moſt learned diuine M. B. vppon the Epiſtle to the Epheſians: becauſe in the former, I comprehend the knowledge of chriſtian religion, of God, of Chriſt &c. in the latter the practiſe thereof, into which two, the whole goſpell is diſſinguiſhed, which chriſtiā religion imbraceth, and vponupon which onelyonly it is grounded.

Whereunto belongeth alſo, that others doe teach, how faith is an aſſured knowledge concerning God, and Chriſt, conceaued by the word of God &c. And the whole chriſtiā doctrine conſiſteth partly in knowledge, & partly in practiſe.

p. 327And there bee two kindes of the actions of faith: one in the vnderſtanding, another in the will. The vnderſtanding being endued with the light of faith doeth perceiue, aſſent vntounto, and beleeue thinges ſet downe in the word: The will being filled with the power of faith doeth louelove, deſire and embrace the ſame thinges, as good: And further, ſuch thinges as pertaine to outward workes, thoſe it commaundeth to be performed faithfully and prudently by the other faculties of the minde and inſtruments of the body.

VponUpon the 19. chap. Of iuſtification. Aphoriſme 6.

Whereas I ſo expounded that place concerning the faith of Abraham out of the 15 of Geneſis, and the 4. to the Rom. as I ſaide, that that ſame thing was imputed vntounto him for righteouſnes, which hee beleeued concerning Chriſt the promiſed ſeede: I did it rather reſpecting the matter it ſelfe, then the bare word of faith. For I was not ignorāt, that both Moſes and Paule ſpake of the faith of Abraham, that this (faith) was imputed to him for righteouſnes: ſeing the Apoſtle manifeſtly gathering a general doctrine from the example of Abraham, adioyneth theſe wordes: But to him that vvorketh not, but beleeueth in him that inſtifieth the vngodlie, his faith is counted for righteouſnes: that is, hee is therefore accompted iuſt with God: becauſe he beleeueth in him which iuſtifieth the vngodlie: by which place it moſt p. 328plainelie appeareth, that from the true iuſtification of vsus, are excluded our owne works, and that it is whollie aſcribed, to onelyonly faith, aſwell touching the ende, as touching the beginning.

But when the queſtion is asked, what cauſe there is, why iuſtification ſhould be attributed to faith, and not to the works thereof: it is wōt to be aunſwered, and that both well and truely, becauſe faith & not the works thereof, doth apprehend remiſſion of ſinnes, and Chriſt our righteouſnes. For by it we are not iuſtified in reſpect that it is a worke, but in reſpect that Chriſt is apprehēded by it: by the righteouſnes of whom alone, being imputed vntounto vsus, we are properlie reputed iuſt before God: and this is that which ſome ſay, how faith iuſtifieth not in reſpect of it ſelfe, but in reſpect of the obiect, which it taketh hold on. Thus is it manifeſt, that it is true which I ſaide, how that was properlie imputed vntounto Abraham for righteouſnes, for that hee beleeued God concerning Chriſt, namelie that in him all nations ſhould be bleſſed: and therefore Abraham himſelfe alſo.

Likewiſe in the laſt aphoriſme.

Neither deo wee allow of thoſe which ſet our iuſtificatiō in the only remiſſion of ſinnes: denying the imputation of the iuſtice and obedience of Chriſt: which we thinke to be repugnant to the Scriptures.

Eſay 7. Achild is giuen vntounto vsus, &c, Whatſoeuer p. 329therefore he did, or hath, it is wholly ours.

Rom. 5. As by one mans diſobedience, many were made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one, many ſhalbee made righteous. The diſobedience of Adam, was the breaking of Gods commaundement, therefore the obedience of Chriſt cōſiſteth not onelyonly in his death, but alſo in his whole former keeping of the law. Likewiſe, the diſobedience of Adam was whollie imputed to vsus: why not then alſo Chriſts whole obedience? Alſo wee are two manner of wayes made ſinners by Adams diſobedience: namelie by imputation of his tranſgreſſion, and by the reall deriuation of ſinne, that is, of concupiſcence into vsus. Why then ſhould we not thinke the ſame of Chriſt? The vertue of his obedience to the commaundements of God the father, is truely communicated vntounto vsus: ſo that wee alſo begine to obey Gods law. What lets then, why wee may not ſay, that his whole obedience is imputed vntounto vsus? 1. Cor. 1. He is made vntounto vsus of God wiſedome and righteouſnes, and ſanctification, and redēption. Phil. 2. He became obedient vntounto death: for which humbling of himſelfe, and obedience euen vntounto death, God hath highlie exalted him, and in him vsus, &c. He hath deſerued, by his obedience, eternall glorie, for himſelfe & vsus: as al the ſchoolemen and fathers do teach. Therefore his obedience alſo to the law, is imputed vntounto vsus for righteouſnes.

Gal. 4. He was made ſubiect to the law, that hee might redeeme thoſe vvhichwhich were vnderunder the lavve. p. 330Therefore he kept the law for vsus, and for our ſaluation. The teſtimonies of the fathers, and alſo of the learned men of this age, for breuitie ſake we ouerpaſſe. To conclude: we beleeue concerning Chriſt, that as for vsus men, and for our ſaluation, hee came downe from heauen, and was incarnate: ſo alſo for the ſame cauſe, he kept the law, and did all the other things.

Vppon the 25. chapter. Aphor. 10. and 11.12.

When I write this cōfeſſion of ſaith, I write euerie thing vppon a good conſcience: and as I beleeued, ſo I ſpake freelie: as the holie ſcriptures doe teach that wee ought to doe. My faith is grounded ſimplie, and principallie, on the word of God: and next, ſomewhat vponupon the common cōſent of the whole auncient catholicke church if it doe not gainſaye the holie Scriptures. For I beleeue, that the thinges which were decreed and receiued of the fathers, by common conſent of them all gathered together in the name of the Lord, without anie contradiction of holie Scriptures: that they alſo (though they bee not of equall authoritie with the Scriptures) come from the holie ghoſt. Hereupon it is, that the thinges which are of this ſorte, I neither will nor dare diſprooue, with a good conſcience. And what is more certaine, out of the hiſtories, the councells, and writings of all p. 331the fathers: then that thoſe orders of miniſters of which wee ſpake, were ordained and receiued in the church, by common conſent of all the whole chriſtian common wealth? And who om I, that I ſhould diſprooue that which the whole church hath approoued? Neither hauehave all the learned men of this age, dared to diſprooue the ſame: as knowing, both that the church might lawfullie doe ſo, and that all thoſe thinges were ordained and done vppon a godlie purpoſe, and to excellent good endes, for edification of Gods children.

For confirmation ſake hereof: I hauehave thought good here to inſert, that which Martin Bucer of godlie memorie, a man both for life and learning moſt famous, hath left written concerning thoſe matters vponupon the Epiſtle to the Epheſians.

The miniſterie of the worde, being performed by reading and rehearſing the diuine Scriptures, by interpretation and expoſition of the ſame, and with exhortations takē there out, and alſo by rehearſall and catechiſme, which is done by mutuall queſtions and aunſwers of the yong beginner and the catechizer: and alſo by holie conferences, and deciding of the hard queſtions about religion: according to this manifold diſpenſation of wholeſome doctrine, there are alſo manie dueties in this function. For whatſoeuer belō geth p. 332to the perfecteſt manner of teaching, is with an eſpeciall care to bee vſed in the miniſterie of the doctrine of ſaluation: becauſe indeed it ought to be deliuered as a knowledge both of all other moſt diuine, and of all, moſt difficult: namelie, that he which is man, ſhould liue according to God. Now they which do teach diligently the artes, as they are contained in certen knowne books: as, if they meane to teach mathematicall principles out of Euclide: firſt of all they will reade and rehearſe the ſame booke: by and by, they will expound the ſeuerall words, ſuch as euerie one knowes not, as euerie art hath it owne proper wordes and names. Then if there be any collection or argumētation darke or intricate, they explaine the ſame by Analyſis or reſolution, and ſet it forth by examples: and by generall precepts they teach particular things, and declare how largelie the ſame are ment and taken. And this is properlie to teach. Now though this bee in faithfull and ſound deliuerie of inſtruction, yet a true & faithfull teacher, not contenting himſelfe thus, doth alſo rehearſe and often taketh accompt of that which he teacheth: and is ſtill at hand among his ſchollers, that of ſuch things as they doubt, they may euer require and aske the plainer expoſition of himſelfe. Moreouer the thinges which he hath taught them, he alſo propoundeth to be decided and handled in publike diſputations, that no whit p. 333of doubt may remaine. To theſe thinges alſo, he adioyneth oftentimes exhortations, to encourage them forward in the ſame inſtructiō: and exhortations from ſuch matters as may hinder the ſame, and alſo generall admonitions, reprehenſions, and childings. Laſtlie, ſuch a maiſter marketh diligentlie, what profite euerie one of his ſchollers taketh: & if he finde anie one to loyter in his learning, he both priuatelie corrects him, and admoniſheth him of his duetie: if he perceiue anie to goe through his learning luſtilie, him he encourageth, commendeth, and whetteth on to follow the ſtudie of it more & more. From the ſeuen dueties of teaching were brought into the church 7. orders of miniſters.All theſe ſeuen points of teaching, did our Lord Chriſt alſo obſerue. In the Synagoge at Nazareth he read the 61. chapter of Eſay and expounded it, Luc. 4. He expounded the commaundements of God vponupon the mount, Math. 5. And he taught in all places: and exhorted: he reprehended, out of the word of God. And he made aunſwer to al that asked him, aſwell good as badd: and alſo asked them, as Matt. 22. He alſo catechized his diſciples: and he himſelfe was preſent at a catechizing, Luc. 2.

Sith then the miniſterie of teaching doth require ſuch manifold labour: there hauehave bin alſo many ſorts or orders of miniſters appointed to this miniſterie. And firſt of all readers, whoſe office was in ſome pulpit or high place, to rehearſe the diuine ſcriptures. Now this rehearſall of the ſcriptures was inſtituted to this p. 334ende, that the language and manner of phraſe, in the ſcripture, and the ſcripture it ſelfe alſo might ſo bee made better knowne and more familiar to the people. For within one yeare they reade ouer all the bible to the people: where as they which ſhall expound the ſcriptures, are not able to performe more thē ſome one parte, and that not greatnether, in one yeares ſpace. And meane while by the onelyonly reading of the holie Bible to the people, the knowledge of all the principles of our ſaluation, was wōderfullie confirmed: for the ſame are ſtill againe and againe repeated in each of the holie books, and are declared by other & other words, ſo that the people might often, by the following readings, learne that which by the former they could not ſo wel conceiue: And by this verie meanes the peoples iudgement was ſtrengthened, aſwell in religion, as alſo in the expoſitions of ſcriptures, and in all doctrine, which was brought vntounto them either by the lawfull curats & teachers of the church, or by others. For this cauſe this office of onelyonly reading the Scriptures to the people, was greatly eſteemed in the auncient churches: neither were any choſen for this miniſterie, vnleſſe they were commēded for ſingular piety. Which we may knowe aſwell by other monuments of the auncient fathers, as eſpecially by two epiſtles of Saint Cyprian, as the fiue Epiſt. of Aurelius the reader ordained, & the 5 & 3. Epiſt. booke 2. of Saturus, and in the 4. booke p. 335of Celerinus, Celeſtinus. To theſe readers were afterwardes alſo added queriſters or ſinging men, which ordered and directed the ſinging of the pſalmes and hymnes. For the reading of the holie Scriptures, it is, by Gods grace, verie well appointed in the churches of England: if ſo bee that there were meete men ordained, which might add a grauitie and a religion worthy the diuine miniſterie in the holie readings. Let them therefore diligentlie weigh & conſider whoſe mouth they make themſelues, which read the holie books vntounto the people in their ſacred aſſemblies: euen the mouth of the Lord Almightie: as alſo of what force, and of what dignitie the words at which are read, which be the words and precepts of eternall life: Laſtlie, vntounto what manner of men: and for what purpoſe the readers of the diuine Scriptures ought to ſerue. For they ſerue to adminiſter the worde euen to the children of God; for whoſe ſaluation the firſt begotten ſonne of God powred out his precious blood: and to whome, by them, the ſame ſaluation is more and more declared & made perfect. All which things, whoſoeuer weigheth with himſelfe in true faith, what grauitie, decencie, religiouſnes, can be vſed in any action, which ſuch a reader may ouerſlipp? And this they, whoſoeuer be appointed for that office, ought euermore to hauehave in the ſight of their minde: that the things which are read, muſt effectually ſerue for the edificatiō of faith in the p. 336hearers: which is then done, when the ſame things are well vnderſtood and receiued as the very words of god. To both which is requiſite, a pronunciation, verie plaine, diſcreet, graue, and religious. Hereby it is knowne, that they are not Chriſts miniſters, who do ſo read the holie Scriptures, as if onelyonly this were to bee required, that as little tarrying as may be, might be made in rehearſing the ſame.

Now another duetie is, the interpretation of the doctrine which is to be diſpoſed, namly, a more plaine declaration of the wordes, and ſentences. This office was performed by biſhops and Elders: and ſometime by them of the order of Deacons and ſubdeacons: ſometime alſo they employed vntounto this function ſome of the laitie, whom they found by the holie ghoſt to be made fitt for the profitable executing of the ſame. So Origen alſo a lay man, was called vntounto this office in the church at Cęſarea in Paleſtine, by Alexander biſhop of Hieruſalem, & by Theoctiſt biſhop of the ſame church at Caeſarea. So Euelpis was called by Neonus biſhop of Larandi: and Paulinus, by Celſus biſhop of Iconium, and Theodorus of Atticus, biſhop of Sinadi. This we read in Euſebius his ſixt booke of his eccleſiaſticall ſtorie chap. 20: and out of the epiſtle of thoſe two biſhops, Alexander of Hieruſalem, and Theoctiſt of Caeſarea in Paleſtine, vntounto Demetrius biſhop of Alexandria, who had reprehended the deed of theſe two biſhops concerning Origen, p. 337as a thing neuer heard of, that a lay man where biſhops were preſent, ſhould ſpeake to the people in the congregation. But this the ſame biſhops manifeſtly affirmed, was not true but that godlie biſhopps had euer vſed, to exhort ſuch as they knewe meet men among the laitie, to profite the people by interpreting the Scriptures and by teaching, to execute this duetie, euen when themſelues were preſent. And therefore this ſecond and third parte of the holie m…niſterie, name lie interpretation & teaching; the Biſhops and Elders did adminiſter by themſelues: yet if they knewe or found anie among the inferior orders, and of the laye ſort alſo, that were fitt for that duetie, they ioyned them as fellow-workers with themſelues. In the ſame manner alſo the Biſhopps and Elders did execute the fourth part of the deliuerie of the doctrine, which is, out of the ſcriptures expounded to make exhortations to the dueties of piety, and dehortations from ſinne, and from al things which might neuer ſo little hinder and ſtopp the courſe of a godlie and holie life: to reprehend them which ſinned, & to cōfort the penitent: this function was chieflie performed by the biſhops and elders, becauſe irrequireth an eſpecial authority, 1. Tim. 5. The fift part, Catechizings they committed to Elders, or Deacons, or ſometimes to miniſters of inferior orders, euen as eueryevery one, was thought moſt fitt for that kinde of teaching. So Origen was alſo a Catechiſt at Alexandria, p. 338as wee may reade in the ſixt booke of Euſebius his ſtorie of the church chapter thirteene and twentie. The ſixt parte alſo, the holie diſputations, they appointed to thoſe that ſeemed meeteſt: albeit for the moſt part the biſhops themſelues ordered the ſame. The ſeuenth parte, priuate conference, and admonition, the biſhops alſo themſelues had a ſpeciall care to looke vntounto: and alſo euermore exhorted the elders, and the grauer ſort of the inferior orders to do the ſame 1. Theſſ. 5. Therfore this miniſterie muſt be executed, by readers, in rehearſing the holie Scriptures: and by biſhops in expounding and teaching, exhorting, diſputing, & priuate conferring: as alſo in reading and catechizing, if there bee not particular readers and catechiſts. But the catechizings they committed to certaine elders and deacons, or ſome ſpecially choſen for that purpoſe, out of the inferior orders: like as they did alſo imploye in theſe dueties of interpreting, teaching, & diſputing, whomſoeuer they found meete for the ſame, in any order of the miniſterie, and alſo in the laitie as wee ſaide. And this was diligentlie marked and conſidered in them all: that the holie ghoſt did ſo impart theſe giftes of teaching among men, that to one hee giueth a gifte and a ſingular facultie to interpret the holie Scriptures, and explane the ſame, to whome notwithſtanding hee giueth not the gift ſo readilie and profitablie to teach and confirme the principles and p. 339grounds of our opinions out of the holy ſcriptures, or to defend the ſame by diſputation. To another alſo hee giueth a peculiar and notable skill to make exhortations out of the holie Scripture, or admonitions, or reprehenſions: alſo to cathezice: and to inſtruct priuatelie: to whome notwithſtanding, are not giuen the other partes of teaching. This varietie and diuerſitie of the giftes of the holie ghoſt wee hauehave dailie experience of in thoſe, which teach publikelie the people of Ieſus Chriſt, which are the true churches of Chriſt, and doe ſuffer themſelues to bee whollie gouerned by the holie ghoſt: Such doe religiouſlie obſerue what ſpirituall giftes are giuen to each one in the church: and do imploye euerie one in his owne function according to the ſame giftes ſo much as in them lieth. Wherefore to all the pointes of teaching, they appoint ſeuerall miniſters, if among their owne they finde ſuch as bee ſingularlie quallified and furniſhed by the Lord to euerie ſeuerall parte of teaching. But becauſe it is requiſite for the ſaluation of Gods people, that not anie church ſhould omittanie of theſe ſeuen partes of teaching, which I hauehave reckened: Euerie one of the miniſters, and laye-men alſo in what place ſoeuer of the church hee bee placed, ought ſo farre forth as hee is able, to performe all theſe partes of teaching: both reading, interpreting, teaching, exhorting, catechizing, diſputing, and, priuate confening. p. 340For each one muſt take vntounto himſelfe in adminiſtring theſe dueties, ſo much of each one of them, as he findeth himſelfe furniſhed & made fitt for by the holie ghoſt. Let vsus weigh & conſider, the example of a houſhold well ſorted & ordered, in which the maiſter or husband executeth ſome dueties, the houſwife or matron, other dueties: the ſonnes other, & the daughters other: the menſeruants other, and the maideſeruants other: Here while they be all at home and in health, euerie one fulfilleth his owne duetie: but if anie of the familie be from home or bee ſicke, yet (if the neceſſitie of that ſeruice ſo vrgeth) they muſt all needs ſupplie that want, ſo that oftentimes the men muſt diſcharge womens duties, and women mens, the maiſters their ſeruants, and ſeruants their maiſters.

Alſo concerning clergie diſcipline.

The third part of clergie diſcipline is a peculiar ſubiection, wherein clerks and miniſters of inferior degrees do ſubiect themſelues to them which are in the ſuperior orders & miniſterie. This part of diſcipline the Lord taught vsus, alſo by his owne example: who ordained his diſciples to be teachers of gods choſē through out the whole world, giuing them a certaine gouernement or domeſticall diſcipline, peculiar for this office: whome the Apoſtles imitating, had alſo euerie one his diſciples, whome he inſtructed to the right performance of that holie miniſterie.

p. 341For euerie difficult and hard courſe of life, requireth alſo a peculiar & perpetual teaching, inſtruction, and watchfulneſſe ouer it: as wee ſee in the ſtudies of philoſophie, & in military diſcipline. Which Lycurgus conſidering, ſo inſtituted (as Xenophon reporteth) the cōmon wealth of the Lacaedemonians: that there ſhould not be one ſort or order in the commō wealth, but ſhould hauehave a gouernement in it. Alſo Plato in his lawes and common wealth requireth that among citizens there ſhould be nothing without gard. Hereuppon our Lord alſo, deſirous that all that be his, ſhould ſo bee ſetled and agree together, as the members in a bodie are ſetled and knitt one to another: doth make eueryevery one of his to be in ſubiectiō vntounto others by whome they may bee maintained, mooued and gouerned, as by members hauing a more large & ample power and efficacie then others hauehave. The ſame is commanded by the holy ghoſt, Be ſubiect one to another in the feare of God, Eph. 5.

The holy fathers therefore in times paſt thus conſidering theſe matters, ſo appointed this order in the clergy, that al the reſt of the clerks ſhould be maintained and guided of the preſbiterie or Elders with ſingular care & diligence. And that among the Elders, the biſhop, as a conſull among the Senators of a cōmō wealth, ſhould beare the chiefeſt care and gouernāce both of the whole church, and alſo peculiarly of the whole order of the cleargie. And in all p. 342the greateſt and moſt populous congregatiōs they ordained biſhops, and to each of thē they cōmitted the next cōgregations, which were in little townes & villages, & decreed that the elders & curats of thoſe cōgregations whom they called Chorepiſcopi: cuntrie or pettie-biſhops, ſhould eueryevery one harken & obey the biſhop & presbitery next vntounto thē. Theſe thoſe ſuperior biſhops did call together, & all their whole clergie, and did inſtruct them in knowledge, and the diligent execution of their office. But whereas it was the Lords will, that his people ſhould mutuallie louelove among them ſelues, and ſhould mutually care one for another, euen as farre and wide as might be poſſible (for all chriſtians are one bodie:) the holie fathers ordained that the biſhops of each prouince (for then all the romaine iuriſdictions were diſtributed into prouinces) ſhould meet together with their presbiteries, ſo often as the neceſſitie of the churches required: but alwaies twiſe in the yeare, and there they ſhould enquire concerning Chriſts doctrine and diſcipline, howe the ſame was adminiſtred, and how it proſpered in the churches: that where they found anie default, they might correct it: that which they knew to be well, they might confirme and ſet forward. And that theſe Synods might alſo bee ordered aright and orderlie, they would hauehave the Metropolitaine, the biſhops of eueryevery mother cittie, to be the chiefe directors, to call them together and to guide p. 343thē: For in each prouince, the head citty, wherin was the māſion or ſeat of the chiefe gouernor, was called Metropolis, or the mother cittie. And therfore they inioyned vntounto theſe Metro. politaine biſhops a certen care & charge ouer al the churches throughout their prouince: that if they ſhould vnderſtād of any thing taught or done amiſſe either of the miniſters of the churches or of the cōmon ſort, that they ſhould giuegive warning therof in time: & if by their admonitions they could not amēd the ſame, thē for the correction therof they ſhould call a Synode of biſhops: for it was not graunted vntounto thē, that they ſhould execute any iudgement vpō their owne authority, ouer churches which had biſhops of their owne: for the power of iudgmēt ouer both clergie & laity, was only in the hāds of the biſhop & elder of the ſame place. And the biſhops themſelues were iudged by the Synods. Therefore when there were any biſhops to bee ordained for churches, it was decreed, that they ſhould aſſemble at the ſame church, withall (if it might without hurte of the churches) if not with ſome, at the leaſt two or three of the biſhops of their owne prouince, which (if he were not alreadie elected) ſhould guide and gouerne in the election of the biſhop, and the election being done ſhould examine it, and inquire of the man elected moſt ſeuerelie, and make due proofe of his whole life, and of his skill and abllitie to performe the office and duetie of a biſhopp. And then at laſt p. 344ſhould inueſt him in his biſhops function. All which thinges were inſtituted and ſerued to this end, that there might be as much know ledge and mutuall care betweene churches & the miniſters thereof, as could be poſſible: both for the remoouing & expelling of all ſcandalls of doctrine and life, and alſo to the earneſtes and more effectuall maintaining, prouoking & encreaſing of the edification of faith, & a life worthie of Chriſt our Lord. In ſo much as if any one did loyter or neglect their owne duetie, the other biſhops might be readie to help, yea euen ſo farre forth as to the ſuſpending of the obſtinate, and vtter caſting them out of their biſhops function. Wee ſhould conſider what Saint Cyprian writeth to Stephan the romaine biſhop, concerning Martian biſhop of Arelatenſis: who fell into the ſect of Nouatian, booke 2. Epiſt. 13, and which he writt in his 3. epiſtle and firſt booke, Of a certaine flock diſtributed vntounto euerie one of the ſhepheards, and which hee ſpake in the councell of Carthage, as hee writt to Quirinus.

Nowe further when the world beganne to be full of churches, & that the Metropolitanes had alſo neede of their peculiar care: (for not all, there beginning now to grow very many, had other skil inough or watchfulnes inough for their place: for euer and in all orders of mē there be few that doe excell) the care of ſome prouinces was committed to certen biſhops of the chiefe churches, as to the biſhop of p. 345Rome, of Conſtantinople, of Antioch and Alexandria, and afterwards of Caeſarea, & Cappadocia, and certaine others, as by reaſon of the great encreaſe of churches of the faithful, neceſſitie did require. But notwithſtanding, theſe primate biſhops, (whom afterward they called Patriarches) had no authoritie ouer the other biſhops or churches, more then (as I ſaid before) the Metropolitaines had ouer the biſhops and churches of their prouinces. Euerie one did owe a ſpeciall care and diligence to that portion of the churches that belonged to him: it was his duetie alſo to admoniſh the biſhops in time if any had offended, or neglected his duetie: and if admonition preuailed not, then to add the authoritie of a counſell. Among theſe the firſt place was giuen to him of Rome: both for the reuerence of S. Peter, and alſo for the maieſtie of the cittie. Which reaſon the fathers afterward following, gaue the ſecond place to him of Conſtantinople, as being a ſecond Rome, and the biſhop of the emperiall ſea: whereas Antioch before, had obtained the ſecond place among theſe patriarches.

But as the nature of man depraued by ambitiō, did euer labour more, that his rule might ſtretch farre, then to gouerne well: theſe patriarches, by occaſion of this generall care of the churches committed vntounto them, drewe vntounto themſelues, firſt the ordaining of their neighbour biſhops: and by that ordaining, they p. 346crept by little and little and at laſt confirmed a iurisdiction ouer ſuch biſhopps, and their churches: which miſchiefe when it grew to bee verie great, there beganne a grieuous contention, for a vniuerſall rule ouer all churches: which the firſt that laboured to get vntounto himſelfe, was one Iohn biſhop of Conſtantinople, vnderunder the emperour Mauricius: concerning which cōtentiō there are extant many epiſtles, among the epiſtles of S. Greg. booke 5.6.7.10.

At length vnderunder Phocas, hee of Rome obtained this title of vniuerſall biſhop, which the biſhops of that ſea beganne more and more by degrees to abuſe: euen vntill by occaſion, firſt by diuiſion of the Empire vnderunder Charles the great, afterwardes by diſſentions of princes and nations, whereby they tore and rent the power of the emperors of the Weſt, and other kinges: they exalted themſelues into that antichriſtian power which nowe they bragg of: hauing oppreſſed the powers, firſt of biſhops, and then of all kinges and emperors. Thus therefore hath Sathan ouerthrowne the holeſome obedience and gouernment of the clergie orders: For the romaine Antichriſt got to himſelfe an immediate rule ouer all both clergie and laitie: & hath diſſolued & broken the care and charge of biſhops, ſuch as were good biſhops, ouer thoſe that were committed to their truſt. But ſeing it muſt needs be, that all orders of clerks muſt hauehave their gouernors & ouerſeers, therefore the power of biſhops p. 347muſt be reſtored, as alſo of Archdeacons, and al others, by what name ſoeuer they be called, to whome anie portion of gouerning and keeping the clergie, is committed: and alſo a watchfullnes and inquirie that there be none in this order vngarded or vnlooked vntounto. Thus farre Bucer, not onelyonly rehearſing, but alſo commending the cuſtome of the auncient church, ordaining diuers orders of eccleſiaſticall functions, whereof we before ſpake.

I ſhould alſo hauehave had conſideration of thoſe churches, which albeit they imbrace the goſpell of Chriſt Ieſus: yet they ſtill retaine their biſſiops and Archbiſhops both in deed and name.

What? that in the churches euen of the proteſtants, neither biſhops indeed nor archbiſhops are wanting: whome, hauing turned the names out of good greeke, into badd latine, they call Superintendents, and generall Superintendents? yea there alſo, where neither thoſe old names in good greeke, nor theſe newe in ill latine, are vſed at all: yet there are wont to bee ſome ſuperior perſons, in whoſe hands is almoſt the whole authoritie. The controuerſie then hath beene about the names: but ſeing wee agree about the thing, why ſhould wee cōtend about the names? By the way, as I did not diſallow the Fathers, in that matter, whereuppon the queſtion is: ſo can I not but louelove the zeale of our men, which do therefore hate thoſe names, becauſe p. 348they are afraide, leaſt with the names, the old ambition and tirannie ſhould bee brought in againe, to the deſtruction of the church.

Aphoriſme 12.

For neither did Chriſt ordaine any ſuch head: neither would the fathers admit therof, becauſe it was not expedient for the church: but contented themſelues with the foure Patriarches of Rome, Conſtantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, all which, were of an equall authoritie and power: and eueryevery of them conteined within his owne bounds: as alſo it was decreed in the coūcel at Nice, & cōfirmed in others: & that not without many & very weightie cauſes: whereof, in my iudgement, this was not one of the leaſt, leaſt there ſhould bee a doore ſet open to tirannie in the church: but rather if that any one durſt attempt any thing, againſt the ſound doctrin of Chriſt, & againſt the libertie of the church: then the other archbiſhops with their biſhops, of no leſſe authoritie, might oppoſe themſelues againſt him, & ſuppreſſe his inſolencie and cut of his tiranny. The church in reſpect of Chriſt is a kingdome: in reſpect of men, which are in it, and ether rule or be ruled, it is an Ariſtocracie.

Aphoriſme 21.

Theſe be two queſtions farre differēt: whether biſhops may alſo be princes, and princes biſhopps, keeping alſo their principalities in their hands: and, whether they which are both biſhops and princes, beſids their eccleſiaſtical p. 349authoritie, may alſo hauehave ciuill power ouer thoſe that are their ſubiects, and ſo, whether their ſubiects muſt obey them as princes, or not. In my Aphoriſme, I ſpake not one word, of the former queſtion, for it was not needful, but onelyonly of the latter. Now who ſeeth not, how I ſhewed by apparent demonſtrations, that princes muſt be wholly obeyed, howſoeuer, rightfullie or wrongfullie, they bee made princes? For why ſhould not they that are ſubiects both to the princes and Archbiſhops of Colone, Mentz, and Treuers, in matters that are not repugnant to chriſtian pietie, be obedient vntounto them? Surely it were meere ſedition in them not to obey them. And if to theſe: why ſhould not they alſo, which are within the iuriſdiction of the biſhop of Rome, in the ſame matters & for the ſame cauſe obey him? For there is one and the ſame reaſon of them all.

Of the former queſtion (as I ſaye) I ſpake not at all: neither purpoſed I nowe in this briefe confeſſion to diſcourſe thereof: knowing, that all are not herein of one opinion: & much may be ſaid to and fro both wayes: that place in the 20 of Mat. (Yee know that the Lords of the Gentiles hauehave dominion ouer them, and they that are great, exerciſe authoritie ouer them. But it ſhall not bee ſo among you:) ſome expound it one waye, of the Apoſtles onelyonly, and miniſters of the word: others another waye, of all Chriſts diſciples and all chriſtians.