§ 25. Illyricus cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 435. and all other Sectaries of this time do teach but the Pope of Rome is Antichrist as they themselues also teach in the same places Therfore the Pope of Rome sitteth in the true Church of Christ and is the Prince and head of his Church But the Church of Christ can only be one as Christ is one as Caluin also teacheth lib. 4. Instit cap. 1. § 2. Therfore the Lutheram and Caluinists and as many as are out of the Church which is vnder the Pope are out of the true Church Caluin saw this argument and answered that not so much the Church as the ruines of the Church of Christ are seene vnder the Pope For thus he speaketh lib. 4. Instit cap. 2. § 11. As there remained in old tyme certaine peculiar prerogatiues of the Church vnder the Iewes so neither at these daies do we take from the Papists the steps of the Church which the Lord would haue remaining among them of the dissipation And after God hath wrought with his prouidence that there should be also other remnants extant least the Church should wholy perish And as buildings are often so throwne downe that the foundations and ruines remaine so he hath not suffered his Church to be either subuerted from the foundation or quite throwne downe by Antichrist or els he would haue the building halfe saued from destruction And againe § 12. VVherfore hence it is manifest that we deny not that the Churches remayne euen vnder his Tyranny But this solution affoardeth vs two arguments The first if only the ruines of Christs Church remaine then the Church of Christ is fallen Wherfore the truth hath lyed which sayd Matth. 16. and the Gates of hell shall not preuaile against it The other the Church is fallen and the Papists hold the ruines of it and the foundation yea the building it selfe halfe throwne downe Then the Lutheram and Caluinists haue no Church for they haue not the whole and entire Church of Christ for that is fallen and the ruines yet remaine neither haue they it halfe throwne downe for that is among the Papists vnder Antichrist What haue they thē Perhaps a new building but in that it is new it is not Christs And who that is not altogeather blind seeth not that it is more safe to remaine in the true Church of Christ although halfe throwne downe then in none Now I come to the Scriptures by which it is proued that Hierusalem and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist The first is in Cap. 11. Apos where S. Iohn saith That Enoch and Helias shall fight with Antichrist in Ierusalem and be slaine thereby him and their bodies saith he shall lye in the streets of the great Citty which is spiritually called Sodome and Aegipt where also their Lord was crucified vpon which place Arethas Their bodies saith he shall be cast vnburied in the streets of Hierusalem for he shall raigne in that Citty as King of the Iewes In like manner do all other Interpreters expound it and surely it can by no means be denyed that this is spoken of Ierusalem for what Citty is there where our Lord was crucified but Ierusalem Wherfore Chytraeus who would haue this Citty to be Rome letteth passe those words where also their Lord was crucified as though they were not to the purpose Neither is it any hindrance that S. Hierome in ep 17. ad Marcellam endeauoureth to shew that Hierusalem cānot be called Sodome since that euery where in Scripture it is called the holy Citty for in that Epistle he perswadeth Marcella to forsake Rome and come into Palestins and therfore he heapeth vp all that he can in the praise of Hierusalem and in the reprehension of Rome and endeauoureth by all meanes to excuse Hierusalem Neither doth he it in his owne name but in the name of Pauls and Eusto hium whome he thought ought to be pardoued if they explicated any thing some what otherwise then it was For that earthly Hierusalem may be called Sodome for last and offences of the Iewes is manifest out of Isaias who in his first Chapter when he had prefixed the title The vision of Isaias which he saw vpon Iuda and Hierusalem addeth forthwith Heare the word of our Lord you Princes of Sodome harken with your eares the law of my God you people of Gomorrha Neither is that a good argument Hierusalem is called holy therfore it cannot be called Sodome for as S. Hierome sayth in the same Epistle that Rome is called Babylon and the purple harlot by S. Iohn by reason of the Pagan Emperours and yet that it is holy by reason of the Church of Christ the Sepulchers of S. Peter and S. Paul so also Ierusalem is an holy Citty by reason of the Prophets and Apostles which preached there of the Crosse and Sepulcher of Christ and the like and yet it is Sodome and Aegipt by reason of the offences and blindnes of the vnbelieuing Iewes The secōd place is Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn saith that the 10. Kings who shal deuide the Romā Empire among thēselues in whose raigne Antichrist shal come wil hate the purple Harlot that is Rome wil make her desolate wil burne her with fire How then shall it be the seate of Antichrist if it must be ouerthrowne and burnt at that very time Besides as we proued before Antichrist shal be a Iew the Messias and King of the Iewes Wherfore without doubt he shal place his seat in Ierusalem will go about to restore the Tēple of Salomō for the Iewes dreame of nothing els but of Hierusalē of the Temple Neither doth it seeme that they wil euer accept any for their Messias who shal not sit in Hierusalem restore the Tēple in some sort Wherfore Lactantius l. 7. c. 15. saith that in the time of Antichrist the chiefest Kingdome shall be in Asia that the West shall serue the East rule and c. 17. he determineth the part of Asia in which this Kingdome shal be saith that it is Syria that is Iudaea which is part of Syria and which is alway called Syria by the Latins Likewise S. Hierom Theodoret in c. 11. Dan. gather out of Dan. that Antichrist shal fix his tents in the coūtry of Ierusalem at length be slaine in the Mount Oliuet and S. Irenaeus l. 5. said plainely that Antichrist shall raigne in earthly Ierusalem The third place is in those words of S. Paul 2. Thess 2. So that he shall sit in the Temple of God For although there be many expositions giuen by the Fathers and some vnderstand the minds of the faithful in which Antichrist is said to sit whē he hath seduced them as S. Anselme expoundeth it some by the Temple vnderstād Antichrist himselfe with all his people for Antichrist will desire to haue himselfe and his seeme the spiritual Temple of God that is the true Church
doctrine of Antichrist But M. Downam giueth vs two differences betwixt these markes before Antichrists comming and after First vntill the yeare 607. there was not saith he in the Catholike Church an vniuersall subiection to the Pope as the head and consequently till then these things could not be vsed as signes thereof as since they haue But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him take the paines to peruse what Bellarmine The Church was alway subiect to the Pope bringeth in the 19. last Chapter of his second booke concerning this point I doubt not but he will acknowledge an vniuersall subiection to the Pope euen from the Apostles or if he be obstinate and will nor yield to an euident truth yet I am sure he will neuer be able to answere Bellarmines proofes if his pryde be such that he presumeth that he can let him begin when he will and see what he shall gaine by it The second difference which M. Downam alleadgeth is that before the yeare 607. these thinges were not imposed and inioyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they are so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church but the authority of the Popes law But this is a very poore difference and argueth a wonderfull corruption in the ancient Church since that she was so forward to take Antichrists markes that she needed no commaund and besides if M. Downam maketh the ancieÌ„t Church to be very corrupt Downam will take the paines to peruse the ancieÌ„t Councells and Decrees of Popes which Bellarmine bringeth in these particuler controuersies he shall find that there was the same necessity for all men to performe these things then that there is now many of them being commaunded by Gods law and others not exacted of all and some not of any as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulers 6. Wherefore now let vs consider how M. Downam answereth VII Bellarmines particuler obiectioÌ„s And first coÌ„cerning Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607. Chrisme he answereth that those three Fathers speake of the annoynting with oyle vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme and addeth that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retayned among the Papists Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least and though it be true that they acknowledge that Cerimony of Baptisme yet in these places they speake most plainely of Chrisme and the Sacrament of Confirmation For Tâ—rtullian and S. Cyprian compare it with baptisme attributing to it the effects of grace aswell as to Baptisme and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptisme and the Eucharist and calleth it Chrisming which is the proper name of this Sacrament Wherefore M. Downam must of force confesse that these Fathers were Papists in this point also and that this marke was long before the yeare 607. Now whether this vnction were vsed in the primitiue Church or no is a new question belonging to another place and it is inough for vs now that it was long before Antichrist came according to the Protestants accompt and that they do not much vse euen the imposition of hands which they acknowledg was vsed in the primityue Church of which M. Downam can giue no better reason then for that it was abused by vs. By which in their opinion they might also leaue off Baptisme Eucharist and all other rites and exercises of How chrisme maketh vs Christians de Consecrat dist 5. c. Vt ieiun Ibid. c. De bis verò Christian Religion as indeed they haue done in great part only they loue to heare themselues talke in a Pulpit though they say neuer a true nor wise word I omit his other impertinent obiections out of the Canon law where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith that a man shall neuer be a Christian meaning a strong and valiant or perfect Christian except he first receaue this Sacrament for so he vseth the name Christianus as the Latins vse Vir and the Aurelian Councell saith that this Sacrament is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme if we respect the person of him who ministreth it because he must of necessity be a Bishop How Chrisme is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme and besides this Sacrament supposeth and in some sort includeth baptisme and in that respect is said to be more venerable then baptisme by it selfe And this is all that M. Downam can say for himselfe or against vs for that which he addeth coÌ„cerning the ordayning of the Sacrament as though it were ordayned by the Church and not by Christ is a fond Chymera of his owne For we affirme that it was instituted by Christ as all other Sacraments were and besides it is now from the purpose since our whole question is whether this Sacrament were vsed before the yeare 607. which Bellarmine hath euidently conuinced that it was To the second obiection M. Downam answereth with a distinction that to cleaue to the Roman Church in ancient tyme was the note of a good Christian because then that Church was Apostolicall but now it is the marke of an Antichristian because now that Church is Apostaticall Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij And besides you see he graunteth asmuch as Bellarmine would haue him that in old tyme the cleauing to the Roman Church was so far from beeing the marke of Antichrist that it was the chiefest note to know a good Catholike Christian from a false and wicked heretike and consequently it is to be accompted so still For the heretikes in those tymes could say as M. Downam doth that the Roman Church was Apostaticall but they were not able to proue it any more then M. Downam is and all good Catholikes were then and are now certayne that it can neuer be so since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors And besides it is very strange that Christ Antichrist cannot haue both one marke Christ and Antichrist should both haue one marke And that the argumeÌ„ts which the old Fathers vsed against heretikes should come to be vsed by Antichrist against Catholikes But to these absurdities must they needes fall who call light darkenes and darkenes light as M. Downam and all heretikes doe M. Downam goeth forward with his distinctions and differences affirming that in ancient tymes at other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them Now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe All which is false for now also other Churches cleaue to the Church of Rome as to their head and the Church of Rome cleaueth to them as to her members and it acknowledgeth many other particuler Churches besides it selfe still though all subiect and subordinate to it as they were euer How the Church of Rome is vnited standeth with other Churches And that which he addeth is a meere
Antichrist himself was spoken of and when his forerūners or members Wherfore since the article is put heere it is euident that the chiefe Antichrist himself is spoken of Neither is it to the purpose that Cerinthus and other denied the Diuinity of Christ for S. Iohn denieth not but that others may deny it aswell as Antichrist but only affirmeth that he shall deny Iesus to be Christ and likewise the Diuinity both of Christ and his Father which others did indirectly and by consequence as M. Downam confesseth which seemeth not sufficient for that which S. Iohn sayth for he speaketh absolutly and affirmeth that Antichrist shall deny aswell the Diuinity of the Father as of Christ And by this M. Downam may see how he was at least deceaued §. 1. when he affirmed that Bellarmine vnderstood this place of denying of Christ couertly indirectly and by consequence Perhaps when Bellarmine added that all heretikes are called Antichrists Downam mistaketh Bellarmin who in some sort deny Iesus to be Christ M. Downam vnderstood that they were called so in this place But this is a great mistaking since in this place Antichrist is with an article by which Bellarmine gathereth that Antichrist himselfe is spoken of as before where the Apostle saith that many were become Antichrists there is no article and therfore the Apostle speaketh of heretikes Likewise M. Downam is much out of the way when he inferreth that because Antichrist shall come in all deceauablenesse of iniquity as S. Paul affirmeth 2. Thess 2. therefore he shall not deny Christ openly for that seduction or deceauablenesse is vnderstood of his How Antichrist shall seduce subtill and cunning perswasions and not for any moderation in his errours and blasphemies which the greater they shal be the more craft he wil vse to bring men to them and not only craft but also all power and lying signes and wonders as the Apostle testifieth in the same place and finally See cap. 7. most grieuous persecution as we haue seene before Wherfore no doubt besides the authority of S. Iohn Bellarmines inference is very good from the heretikes to Antichrist himselfe for he shall exceed them in opposition to Christ Antichrist shall exceed al heretikes by many degrees so that since they haue denied Christ couertly yea some of them openly also Antichrist shall go as farre and further then any of them in this deniall And though those other comparisons which M. Downam maketh of the parts and points of Christan Doctrine and likewise in respect of the parties which shall ioyne with him and finally in the greatnesse of ambition be also true if they be rightly vnderstood for no doubt Antichrist shall surpasse all heretikes in these also yet this is no proofe that he shall not exceed them likewise in the greatnes of his errours blasphemies which is that that Bellarmine now only affirmeth without the deniall of the rest hath proued both out of the plaine words of S. Iohn and likewise a minori ad maius and thirdly confirmeth it because the Diuell is said to worke the mystery of iniquity by heretikes but the comming of Antichrist is called a reuelation To which M. Downam replieth that the mystery of iniquity 2. Thess 2. 7. is Antichristianisme or that Antichristian Apostasie from Christ mentioned vers 3. But first M. See cap. 2. Downam might remember that Bellarmine in his answere to his third obiection against his second principall argument sheweth that the departure or Apostasy mentioned vers 3 hath diuers interpretations and therfore he should not haue taken this as the only Well we will not stand with him in this since the exposition is probable as Bellarmine declareth in that place but we can by no meanes grant that the mystery of iniquity and this Apostasy is all one since that as we haue shewed before S. Paul himselfe doth euidently See cap. 2. §. 6. The mystery of iniquity the reuelatiō of Antichrist the Apostasy be not alone distingish them affirming that the Apostasy was not come in his time but that the mystery of iniquity did thē worke And in like manner also he distinguisheth the reuelation of Antichrist for of that he likewise sayth that it was to be afterward wherfore I cannot see how M. Downam can affirme that the mystery of iniquity doth most truely belong to Antichrist himselfe vnlesse he would also graunt that Antichrist himselfe was come in S. Pauls time which I think he will be loth to do because if will euidently follow that either the Pope is not Antichrist himselfe or els that S. Peter and S. Paul or whosoeuer els he will make Bishop of Rome in S. Pauls time was Antichrist Wherfore since Antichrist himselfe was not come at that time it is also euident that S. Paul signified his coming by his reuealing because the iniquity which was couered with a mystery before his cōming shall be plainely reuealed and auouched by him which is all that Bellarmine needeth for the force of his argument for now we talke not of the time or manner of this reuelation hauing done that sufficiently in other places But M. Downam must needs say something though it be nothing at all to the purpose 4. M. Downam will needs deuide Bellarmines position into two parts of the former of which we haue treated hitherto the latter is that Antichrist shall impugne all the ordinances of Christ teach that Circumcision the Sabbaoth and the other cerimonies of the law are not ceased This is Bellarmines assertion and not as M. Downam setteth it downe changing a word or two which may seeme to import nothing but yet M. Downam had a meaning in it as we shall see afterward Now the latter dependeth so vpon the former part that Bellarmine bringeth no particuler proofes for it as indeed he need not since it was but an explication of the former yet M. Downam will needs haue him proue Downam his trifling the latter by the former and by the first argument with which he proued the former which is nothing but meere trifeling and to giue himselfe an occasion to make an idle repetition of part of that which he had said before Wherfore omitting this let vs see how he answereth the Fathers To which first in generall he giueth this censure that in this question they descrue no further credit then they conspire with the Prophesies of Scripture and agree with the euent Both which latter you must giue M. Downam liberty to interpret and declare as he thinketh good And besides I would faine know what questions those be in which M. Downam will giue the Fathers credit without this or the like limitations Well the censure presupposed M. Downam is content for this time to vouchsafe euery Father his particuler answere and first to S. Hilary he saith that he calleth those heretikes who deny Christ to Antichrist shall deny Christ to be so much as the adopted Sonne
which interprete the Temple of God to be the Churches of Christ do in no sort deny that Antichrist shall also sit in the Temple of Hierusalem yea the greater part do expresly affirme it and besides by the Churches of God they vnderstand not the Christian and Catholike See cap. 13. people but the materiall Churches erected in the honour of Christ which Bellarmine proued so plainely that M. Downam thought it his best course to passe it ouer in silence without giuing him any answere at all or taking any notice of any such proofe And the second point so far as it is different from the former is affirmed also by vs for we only differ from the Protestants in that they affirme that Antichrist is to be reuealed in the Church of God And we also affirme that he is not to be reuealed till after the Roman Empire be taken out of the way by the 10. Kings which shall rule togeather at Antichrists comming Wherfore secondly M. Downam acknowledgeth that their assertions concerning Antichrist are grounded on the prophesies of Scriptures expounded by the euent and that the opinion of the Fathers agree with them where they are consonant to the Scripture and the euent and that the assertions of the Papists are wholy grounded either vpon the vncertaine and many times mis alleadged contectures of the Fathers who were no Prophets and therefore being not able to foresee the euent did not many times vnderstand the Prophesies c. And is Downam acknowledgeth the Fathers to be against him not this all one in effect with that which Bellarmine affirmeth Doth not M. Downam giue vs the Fathers coniectures and expositions and take to himselfe the Scripture expounded by the euent which the Fathers were not able to foresee and consequently these expositions by the euent must needs be since the Fathers dayes and therfore rightly called by Bellarmine new Glosses and how false they are appeareth sufficiently by their contrariety to the expositions of the Fathers and by the confutation of Bellarmine for this deuice of M. Downam to make his exposition good by the euent is no more in effect but to say that he will first suppose as certaine out of his owne head and without all Scripture that the Pope is Antichrist and then afterward he will make the Scripture say so by one deuice or other and to all arguments against this interpretation he will answere that the euent is cleare and consequently the obiection nothing worth And this indeed is the Protestants proceeding in all controuersies by which they make their owne idle foolish fancy the rule of Faith and of Scripture and Fathers The Protestāts proceeding in all controuersies and all other proofes After this M. Downam commeth more nigh to his reply for Illyricus but first he disgraceth him fowly calling him one of the vnsoundest writers of his side which how his brethren the Lutherans who make so great accompt of Illyricus will put vp I neither know nor greatly care But I must needs tell M. Downam that he doth Bellarmine great iniury Illyricus one of the vnsoūdest Protestant writers in Downams iudgment to charge him that he doth vse to cull out some stragling sentēces out of some one of the vnsoundest writers for all men know that Bellarmine flyeth none of their arguments but many times affoardeth them some of his owne when they want And M. Downam should haue shewed vs what author that Bellarmine had seene hath any better arguments then those of Illyricus for this point for his telling vs that he hath proued it Bellarmin vniustly charged himselfe better in another place only argueth that M. Downam hath a good conceipt of himselfe and that he hath gotten some new deuise since Bellarmine wrote aswel in this as in other things but this is nothing against Bellarmine how good soeuer his proofes be which the Reader shall iudg See part 2. c. 5. after they be examined and perhaps find them not so good as M. Downam imagineth Now let vs examine his second charg against Bellarmine in defence of Illyricus which is that he depraueth his first reason which is not sayth he because the Downam cannot defend Illyricus Pope maketh himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ but this because he vaunting himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ doth notwithstanding vsurpe greater authority then the Sonne of God claymed vnto himselfe of which that which Bellarmine alleadgeth as a second reason is by Illyricus added as a proofe But why then doth Illyricus alleadge our Sauiour XXII XXIII XXIV to expound S. Paul Which Bellarmine sheweth to be a threefould absurdity and M. Downam answereth not a word nor yet to Bellarmines censure of the blindnesse and impudency Gal. 4. 4. Christ is said to be vnder the law Luc. 2. 51. to be subiect to his parents because he obserued obeyed both not being bound to either of our aduersaries who some times vtter such things as are against common sense by which M. Downam seemeth to acknowledg that he hath his share in both But no doubt we shall find a sound reply vpon Bellarmines answere to Illyricus his second argument which M. Downam acknowledgeth to be his and replieth by calling it an impudent and shamelesse denyall that Christ subiected himselfe to the law and word of God or that the Pope taketh vpon him to dispense with the Scriptures or that any Catholik◠writer hath sayd that he may dispense with Diuine precepts both which notwithstanding M. Downam saith that he hath els where proued by many instances and most euident allegations where by both he seemeth only to meane the two later and so we must take the first vpon his poore credit which might perhaps haue had some sway if he had answered Bellarmines euident proofe to the contrary or impugned his solution taken out of S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine But See part 2. c. 5. §. 10. 11. 12. since he is altogeather silent in both the Reader hath good cause to suspect that he is so impudent and shamelesse that he will affirme that which he can neither proue nor defend And consequently at least suspend his iudgement of those many instances and most euident allegations for the other two points which he boasteth of till we come to that place where they are to be examined And now for conclusion of this whole argument and discourse I will intreate the Reader to consider his substantiall reply against Bellarmines answere concerning Illyricus his consequence for thus M. Downam writeth for that which he Bellarmine addeth of Christ his subiecting himselfe to the Prophesyes and not to the preceptes as though Illyricus had spoken of the one in his proposition and of the other in the assumption it is partely false and partely ridiculous and indeed not worth the answering Thus M. Downam as it seemeth in a great chafe at Bellarmines vnlearned answer But good Syr vouchsafe out of your high wisdome to
Fathers togeather euen those who were many ages before S. Gregory Heare in the name of the rest only S. Augustine epist 23. ad Bonifacium speaking thus VVas not Christ offered once in himselfe and yet in the Sacrament not only all the solemnityes of Easter but euery day he i◠sacrificed and offered for the people §. V. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that not only outward actions repugnant to the law of God are sinne but also doubts of God carnall security and contumacy and concupiscence which is borne in vs and remayneth in those which are borne againe Rom. 7. The Papists deny that these euills remayning in those which are borne againe are sinnes repugnant to the law of God Bellarmine The Papists that is Catholikes teach in no place that only outward actions are sinnes but it is lawfull for you to lye for you learned that of your Father who stood not in truth Now we doubt not that doubtes of God carnall security contumacy and concupiscence are sinnes if they be voluntary but if they be inuoluntary as those desires of the flesh against the spirit were which S. Paul felt though he did not consent vnto them we constantly deny that they are sinnes Neyther do we striue with you about S. Paules words as though they seemed true to you and false to vs but about the interpretation of those wordes Neither must you take it ill if we preferre S. Augustine and all the Quyre of Saints before you new Vpstarts For thus speaketh S. Augustine lib. 1. cont duas epistolas Pelagianorum cap. 13. But concerning this concupiscence of the flesh I thinke they are deceaued or deceaue with which it is necessary that euen the baptized and this if he profiteth most diligently and be moued with the spirit of God doth striue with a pious mind But this although it be called sinne it is so called not because it is sinne but because it was made by sinne as a writing is called a mans hand because his hand made it §. VI. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that man in his weaknesse of nature cannot satisfy the law of God and that he is not iust and free from all sinne by this perfect fulfilling of the law Rom. 8. The sense of the flesh is enmity against God for it obeyeth not the law of God neyther indeed can it The Papists striue that man may satisfy the law of God and that he is iust and deserueth euerlasting life with this fulfilling of the law Bellarmine The Papists that is the children of the Catholike Church say not that man in this weaknesse of nature is free from all sinne for we acknowledge and professe that it is most true which S. Iohn saith in the beginning of his first epistle If we shall say that we haue no sinne we seduce our selues But because these daily sinnes neither take away iustice nor are so much against as besides the law since that for the remission of such offences euery Saint prayeth in opportune tyme Psal 31. and all the children of God doubtlesse iust and holy are taught daily to say Forgiue vs our debts Matth. 6. Therfore we are not afraid to say that man being iustifyed by the grace of God may by the help of the same grace both fulfill the law of God and by that fulfilling merit euerlasting life for we know who said And his Commaundements are not heauy Io. 1. 5. and who likewise said Call the workmen and render them their reward Matth. 20. And againe Come you blessed of my Father possesse the Kingdome prepared for you c. for I was hungry and you gaue me to eate Wherefore S. Augustine lib. de gratia lib. arb cap. 16. It is certaine saith he that we keep the commaundements if we will but because our will is prepared by our Lord we must aske of him that we may will so much as is sufficient that willing we may do And de spirit lit cap. 10. Grace is therefore giuen not because we haue fulfilled the law but that we may fulfill the law Neither doth that word of the Apostle moue vs The sense of the flesh is enmity against God for the same Apostle had said before Rom. 7. Therefore I my selfe with my mind serue the law of God but with my flesh the law of sinne But that which we do with our mynd we truly do and that which we do with our flesh if the mind repugneth is not our deed as the same Apostle saith If I do that saith he which I will not now I worke it not §. VII Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that those only are good workes which are commaunded by God c. according to the rule which I commaund thee do only these thinges for thy Lord neither adde nor diminish The Papists contrarywise haue ouerwhelmed the whole Church with traditions c. Bellarmine These thinges haue bene already a thousand tymes repeated by you and refuted by vs. And it is false which thou saiest that it is in the Ghospell that those are only good workes which God hath commaunded for where I pray thee hath God commaunded virginity Doth not S. Paul say But of Virgins I haue not our Lordes precept 1. Cor. 7 And yet he saith in the same place that it is a good worke to remayne a Virgin Therefore saith he he that ioyneth his virgin in Matrimony doth well and he that ioyneth her not doth better Neither doth that rule much help thee Do only those things for the Lord which I commaund thee For God forbiddeth not any other thing in that place but that we corrupt not his preceptes but that we keep them entirely as he hath commaunded not declining to the right hand nor to the left Wherefore S. Aug. lib. de sanct virginit cap. 30. distinguishing precepts from counsailes for neither saith he as it is said Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not kill can it be so Thou shalt not marry those thinges are exacted these are offered If these be done they are praised vnlesse those be done they are condemned In those God commaundeth vs a debt in these if thou shalt supererogate or bestow any more Note he will restore it you at his returne §. VIII Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that both partes of the Sacrament of the Lordes supper are to be ministred to all Christians and truly of the cuppe he expresly saith Drinke all of this The Papists contrariewise determine and define c. Bellarmine Hitherto we haue not seene that place of the Ghospell where we are taught that both partes of the Sacrament of our Lords supper are to be ministred to all Christians For our Lord saith not of the chalyce Drinke all you Christians of this but drinke you all of this and who those all were S. Marke explicated when he added And they dranke all of it but all Christians dranke not but all the Apostles who only then did eate with our Lord. §. IX Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that true