Not few nor small were the occasions whereby I was induced rather to adjoin these mine observations to my confession itself, than to alter anything therein contained. Many there be to whom it is not unknown, upon what occasion, at what time, at whose commandment, in whose names, and for what purposes, I even against my will and constrained thereunto, wrote this sum of Christian doctrine. For although there is no man but seeth, that this confession, as was never looked for, is published in their name for whose sakes it was written; yet how this came to pass, and for what causes it was done, all men do not know; many wondering at the deed, yet ignorant of the true causes. Hereupon how diverse suspicions many men might gather, how diverse judgments might be given of me, and of the confession itself, I say not of private men but even of the whole congregations, yea how diverse and sinister speeches might be thrown out among the vulgar sort, who is it that perceiveth not? I was therefore enforced (before I die) to stop such sinister and false suspicions, judgments and speeches concerning my doctrine. That, I thought, could be done by no better means than to publish a part by itself--both the confession, even as I write it, and a part likewise my observations upon the same, wherein what so is dark is expounded, and what so is doubtful is confirmed; and so to leave the judgment of the whole matter together to all the true catholic church. I thought moreover it would be no little help to take away all suspicions of men, if there be any conceived; if such judgments as learned men have given of my confessions, I make known to all the godly readers out of their own letters, especially since by them it may well appear unto every man what were the causes why the confession came not forth in the same manner, as was appointed.

One great learned man write [wrote] unto me concerning that matter, in these words:

Thus far out of the letters of that learned man. Almost to the same purpose could we bring many things besides out of letters written from other[s] about the same matter, but (for that it greatly needeth not) we will for brevity's sake omit the same. Therefore to our matter.

When we use the word of condemning, we mean nothing else than, that the heresies which have been condemned by the catholic church, the same also we condemn. And which it allowed not, the same also we allow not. And this we desire to leave witnessed to all posterity.

Upon the first chapter, aphorism four.

Whereas we have given the first place next after the canonical books to the Apocrypha in the volume of the Bible, we did it, induced by the authority of the Greek and Latin churches, who did always give that honor unto them, that they should be joined with the canonical books. See the places in Hierome, Cyprian, and the council of Laodicea, cited in the confession, the first chapter and fifth aphorism. Moreover, we spake of books, not of any manner of writings. For otherwise we prefer the general creeds, before the Apocrypha.

Though the property of existences be to exist in the essence, yet speaking of God, we would rather use another manner of speech, and that more usual for certain causes, as namely to teach against the reproaches and scoffs of the Arrians of our time, that the divine essence is not found, but only in the persons; and therefore that we do not make an essence apart by itself subsisting from the persons; wherein yet three persons should subsist, as though the catholic church should forge four existences in God.

Of this real communication of the essential proprieties of God we have also written a several treatise in the book which shall be entitled, Of the Incarnation of the Son of God, upon the words to Philippians 2, "Who, being in the form of God", etc. Unto which we refer the reader, who so he be that desireth a further explanation of this doctrine. Surely the Lord Jesus when He said, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," He plainly excepted His created mind from that essential knowledge wherewith the Father knoweth, that is, (as the schoolmen speak,) comprehendeth the Son, and the Son the Father; teaching that what knowledge soever creatures have in themselves concerning God, the same is some way revealed unto them. And therefore such knowledge is not the essential and infinite knowledge which is in God, but a created, and a finite or determinate knowledge.

That the heaven of the blessed, wherein the Lord Jesus is now in His body, doth differ from the earth and from the other heavens, and is above all those visible heavens; besides that which hath been already said, these few proofs do also confirm: Ephesians 4, Christ is said to have ascended above all heavens; in another place, He is read to have ascended into heaven, and to be in heaven, and to sit at the right hand of the Father. Therefore this heaven is above the other heavens, and differeth from them. So in Colossians 3 the apostle distinguisheth the place where Christ is at the right hand of the Father, from the earth, and calleth it upward, saying, "Seek those things that are above...set your affections on things above," where Christ is; and in I Thessalonians 4, he saith, "The Lord...shall descend from heaven," namely into these lower parts; and all the godly shall be caught up into the air to meet Christ in the clouds. That heaven therefore is aloft, not on the earth, not in the air, much less in every place. For He shall come down in the visible shape of his body from the high heaven, into these parts to judge the quick and the dead. Of this heaven we have spoken particularly in our books, Deo-peribus Dei, of the works which He created in the six days. We therefore disallow of that doctrine which is contrary, which distinguisheth not the heaven from the earth, nor this heaven from other heavens, but would prove it to be everywhere.

Among other things which Julianus the Pelagian objected to Augustine, proving and defending original sin, these were some: That either he made God an author of sin, or the devil a creator of man; and that, because the Pelagians thought that Augustine made original sin the very substance of man. All which objections he confuted in his 7th [seventh] Tome, against Pelag. the 5th [fifth] book and first chapter in these words: "Neither do we ascribe injustice to God, but rather equity, in that, even infants are punished, not unjustly with such and so many evils, as we see; neither do we attribute the making of man, but the corrupting and depraving of man's original to the devil; neither do we grant a substance in the sin, but an act of it in the first man; and a contagion thereof in all his posterity. Neither do we grant unto infants a conscience without knowledge, in whom is neither conscience nor knowledge; but he knew what he did, in whom all have sinned, and from whom all have drawn corruption," etc.

How they can wind themselves out of this error, which deny that the fathers did eat the true flesh of Christ, we see not; as though, because He was not as yet indeed existing in nature, therefore He was not existing in the assured promise of Christ, and consequently could not be apprehended and eaten by faith. For this proposition is general and to all men, and at all times belongeth. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man...ye have no life in you." For life is not imparted but only to those which by faith, as members to the Head, are joined to the flesh of Christ, and by the flesh to the Spirit, or to the Word, which is life.

For God would show, etc. That which I said of the first, second, third, and fourth estate--had been more clear if I had told what man was before he sinned; what after he had sinned; what under grace; and what he shall be in his glory.

That the person of Christ, speaking properly, is compounded of the divine nature, which is immeasurable, and most pure; and of the human, which in respect of the divine, is less than a prick to an infinite mass, as of two parts truly and properly so called, we together with the schoolmen do justly deny. For what proportion can there be between that which is finite and the infinite, between the creature and creator. But by the way confessing with the ancient fathers, that it may be called compounded, in that sense, as the Scripture saith, "The word was made flesh," and that He which was in the shape of God was now made in the likeness of man. And this is nothing else but that this eternal Hypostasis doth now subsist in two natures, so as Christ is no less true man than true God. Hereunto tendeth it, which before we said, of the similitude of the soul and body (for of these two, as true and essential parts, consisteth the person of man) how the same doth not agree fitly every way. And yet we allow of the same similitude, in that sense which Athanasius and other fathers used it, to show the true and substantial union of the two diverse natures, although it do not fully agree in all things to this great mystery, as Justinus, in his exposition of faith and other fathers have freely confessed. The similitude of the garment is much used of the ancient fathers, especially of Athanasius and it is agreeable to the Scriptures. For the flesh of Christ, wherewith His deity was covered, the apostle calleth a veil (Heb. 10:20). And most excellently, by this similitude of the garment, that opinion of the real imparting and communication of the divine proprieties with the human nature is quite overthrown, which some do much labor to prove by the similitudes of a fire-hot iron, and of a body with life in it, which they can never do.

The similitude of the sun doth not altogether so fitly agree as that similitude of the glory, which our bodies shall receive, because that glory shall clean take away all the shame and reproach of our flesh. But the sun doth only dim the light of a candle, and not clean put it out. Yet notwithstanding this similitude of the sun doth plainly show what we mean; namely that by the real communication of the sun with the air, the light of the candle is made altogether unprofitable, and so as it were put out, and to be no light at all, yet that the essential proprieties of the flesh are never quite taken away, or so weakened by the personal union, that they serve to no use, it is manifest. And yet this indeed could by no means by avoided, if the human nature should really participate with the divine omnipotency, so that it could do whatsoever God could do. For the Word, the Son of God, never took unto Him, held or holdeth anything in vain. Therefore by this similitude of the sun is strongly confirmed that which is proved by the similitude of the glory which shall take away all ignominy from our bodies.

Here in the first part to the Name of Christ, is added the Son of man; in the other part the Son of God. God, that we might show how that divine attributes are spoken of Christ the man; and human, of Christ God, seeing the very person of Christ is meant in either part. For the same Christ, one and the same person, is whole God and whole man, though not wholly (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 whole subsistance of Christ, is not only God; for it is not only God but also man. And the whole Christ is perfect man, but the whole subsistance of Christ is not only man; for it is not only 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 human nature or according to His divine, that yet one and the same and whole Christ performeth the same, it dependeth upon this that the actions were (as the schools say) of supposite natures. But the diversity of the actions proceedeth from the diverseness of the natures or forms by which they were done. Since therefore there is in Christ two natures, and but one person, thereon it comes that there is but only "one worker, namely whole Christ, two natures that can work; and two kinds of actions." Now these actions are called the actions of God and man, not so much for that they proceed from one agent which is , God and man, as that not only the Deity but also the humanity meet together for this work of our salvation, each joining His actions with the others' actions. And this is the first and principal force of this hypostatical, or personal union; namely that by it, the two natures and their properties and actions are so united in one and the same person, that He who by the form of God, wherein He hath from the beginning subsisted, is God, and by the form of a servant, 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 wholly omnipotent and everywhere present, and whole inomnipotent, and existing in a certain place; and the same whole died, and whole by dying destroyed death. And thus it finally followeth that to the obtaining, communicating, and applying of our salvation not only His divine nature worketh, but also the human worketh with it.

The second force followeth of the first; namely that the human nature was made the Deity's instrument united personally thereunto, and therefore a most forcible and effectual instrument to bestow all benefits upon us.

The third, that by this union, this mass or lump of human nature, is lift[ed] up to such dignity that we neither can nor ought to bend our actions of adoration, faith, prayer, and love to the only Deity of Christ, as is declared in the confession. For we are commanded to worship the Son Himself, that is the person, (Heb. 1), and to believe in Him.

The fourth force is, that because this human nature is personally united to the divine, therefore the gifts of God conferred upon the same are without measure, as is declared in the aphorism following.

Although when I wrote this confession I thought to myself that I had handled all things which belong unto this article, of the person of Christ, yet I thought for the better explaining thereof to join this also which followeth, to that which I said before.

1. There is and ever was one only person of Christ. For there is but one only begotten Son of God and one and the same Christ.

2. This person, being from all eternity by the natural begetting of the Father, is proper unto the Word; but in time was made common to the human nature taken to it, by virtue of the personal union.

For in the Word, the essence which it hath common, yea the very same with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is to be distinguished from the proper manner of subsisting, whereby it comes to pass that it is a certain hypostasis or person, distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost; and therefore is, and is called the hypostasis or person proper to the Son or to the Word.

But this eternal hypostasis, proper by nature unto the Word, is by this union made common as we said, with the divine nature and the human taken unto it; namely that the Word doth no less subsist really in this human form than it doth in that divine form, and in that respect is no less true and perfect man than true and perfect God; yet the natures, properties and actions remaining safe and distinct.

3. Therefore into the unity of that immeasurable, most pure, and most perfect person, was taken the human nature, that is, that lump consisting of the reasonable soul and flesh of man, finite, compounded, and needing many things.

But how? Not so as that (for example) it contained that infinite person within the bounds or limits of its own finite or determinate substance; or that it spread itself, as it were, stretched out into the largeness of it. And that which we say of this property, the same is to be thought and believed of all the rest, because they all remain unchangeable and unmixed. How then was the human nature taken? Surely, it was so taken into unity of the same person; that yet it is not made the very person, but rather existeth in the person, is born and sustained of the person, and ever dependeth wholly upon the same.

For this union of the natures according to the hypostasis, or uniting of the hypostasis, is made without alteration, confusion or division.

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

For like as of the union of the two natures there is not framed a third nature, so neither by taking the human nature into unity of the divine 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 itself. For it is altogether the very same, nor doth it differ from itself, except herein, that the same which subsisted only in the form of God, and was only God, now subsisteth also in the form of a servant and is also man. And before was as a king naked, but is now clothed with our flesh as with a purple garment; so that for this cause, the fathers, not amiss, called the same (in some sort) a compounded person. But mark also this difference besides the rest, that the garment pertaineth not to the essence of a king, but the human nature in Christ is in such sort, that without it, cannot be defined what Christ is.

5. Which is the cause why the human nature thus taken is to be reputed and acknowledged as it were a part of the person of Christ, namely because it is so taken into unity of His person; that as the Word with this human 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 have proved out of the Scriptures. For that flesh is God, not by nature but by hypostasie [hypostasis], in which sense the same flesh is omnipotent, and present in all places; whereupon it comes also that what honor belongeth to the Word of itself, the same is also to be given to the flesh in the Word and for the Word, because of them both there is but one and the same hypostasie [hypostasis].

6. Add this moreover, for better explications sake, that the Word, although wheresoever it be, (and it is in all places) there also the same is not only God, but also man, and that because it hath in all places the human nature united thereunto by hypostasie; yet, wheresoever it is itself, it doth not make itself an hypostasis or personal to the human nature, but only there where the same nature existeth; namely so, as that nature is sustained, born, and wrought or moved by it.

For how should the same be said to be sustained where it doth not exist? The feet are sustained by the soul, not wheresoever the soul is, be it in the head, but only where they themselves are existing. When the flesh was in the virgin's womb, the Word being then personally united unto it did not then sustain the same out of the womb of Mary; but only it was hypostasis unto it in the womb which sustained the same there, and not in any other place, which is also to be said of all the time of Christ's life when He lived in divers places. Likewise after His death it was hypostasis unto His body when it was dead and buried, and sustained the same in itself. But where? Surely not in heaven where the body was not, but only in the grave, even as also it was hypostasis to His soul separated from His body, not in the grave but out of the grave, and sustained the same in itself. And now it sustaineth both the soul and body together in heaven, not in earth, much less everywhere.

7. Neither doth it follow upon this doctrine that the personal union is dissolved; neither doth it come to pass that the whole person is not hypostasis to the flesh, but only in part. 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, wheresoever the flesh existeth; and is also wholly hypostasis in other places where the flesh existeth not, being itself existing in the form of God. Indeed the soul (as is aforesaid) is wholly hypostasis to the head, giving life to it and sustaining it. But where? Not in every part of the body, but only in that where the head itself 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 themselves are. Is then the union which the soul hath with the head dissolved because out of the head it is wholly also in the feet?

8. Finally, that all things which have been spoken of this personal union may more plainly be declared, I add these also:

The soul is hypostasis to the eyes. To what eyes? Such as they are; namely, instruments used for sight, not for hearing. On the other side, to the ears for hearing, not for seeing. So the Word was hypostasis to the human nature, not to destroy death, which was a property of the Word, but to suffer death which was a property of the flesh.

Lastly, it is hypostasis to the flesh not to this end, that the flesh should be it and such like which, and of which sort the Word is. But it should be it, and such like which, and of which sort it is itself, either by nature or by grace, really put into it which they call infused or habitual grace. For the grace of this union is this, that it is taken into this unity of person.

This same doctrine of ours is confirmed by those things which are delivered both by the Scriptures and the fathers concerning the office of the Mediator, that is concerning the end of His incarnation.

Many ends of this incarnation are noted of the fathers in the Scriptures, and particularly of Anselm, in his book entitled Cur Deus Homo (Why God is Man). But the principal and immediate end was not simply that the Word, God, might save us (for He could have performed it by His omnipotence and by His only commandment without taking flesh), but that He might by such means save us from death, namely, by death of His own person; and by His own resurrection might raise us to life, according to that of the apostle to the Hebrews, chapter 2, verse 14, "That through death He might destroy him" etc. And in 2 Timothy 1:10, "Who hath abolished death, and hath brought life" etc. To which the old church consented, saying, "Who by dying destroyed death, and by rising again repaired life." Leo the First [Leo I] declared this end saying, "The Son of God took our flesh, that by one nature He might die, by the other He might not die." Therefore He took upon Him flesh to this principal end, that for the performing of our salvation He might do such things by that flesh which of Himself, being in the form of God, He could not perform, as to suffer and to die. For to kill death, simply He could by Himself have done it. But to kill it by death He could not in Himself do it without taking mortal flesh into unity of His person. Wherefore the Word did not take flesh, that by the flesh it might do such actions as were the proper actions of itself, but that it might work our salvation by such means, namely by the own proper actions joined with the actions of our flesh.

Concerning this true and essential union of us and of our own flesh with the flesh of Christ, there is a notable place in Cyrill, upon John. lib. 10. cap. 13. Col. 500.

We deny not but we are spiritually joined to Christ by true faith and sincere love, but that we have no manner of conjunction with Him according to the flesh, that we flatly deny, and affirm it to be clean against the Scriptures. For whoever doubted but Christ is so the Vine, and we the branches, that from Him we draw life unto our selves? Hear what Paul saith: We are all one body with Christ; for though we are many, yet in Him we are one; for we all are partakers of one bread. Doth he perchance think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown unto us? Which being in us doth it not also make Christ to dwell in us corporally, by communication of the flesh of Christ? For why are the members of the faithful the members of Christ? Know ye not, saith he, that your members are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Our Savior also said, "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in Him." Whereby we may consider that Christ is in us not only by dwelling in us, which is perceived by love, but also by a natural participation. For even as, if one take wax melted by the fire and mingle it with other wax likewise melted, so as of them both he make but one thing--so by this communication of the body and blood of Christ, He is in us and we in Him. For otherwise this corruptible nature of the body could never be brought to incorruption and to life, unless the body of natural life were joined unto it. Believest thou not me telling thee this? Believe (I pray thee) Christ Himself: "Verily, verily, (saith He) I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Thou hearest Him plainly crying out that we shall have no life unless we drink His blood and eat His flesh--in you (saith He) yourselves, that is, in your body. By life may well be understood the flesh of life, for that doth raise us up at the last day. And so need I not think it an uncurrant speech to say, the flesh of life being made flesh of the only begotten Son is brought to the virtue of life, and therefore cannot be overcome of death; and therefore being made in us, puts death from us. For God's only begotten Son is never absent from it, whereupon because He is one with His flesh, "I (saith He) will raise him up." Why then should it be denied that we are called branches, according to the flesh? May it not fitly be said that the vine is His humanity, and we the branches, for the identity or likeness of our nature? For the vine and the branches are of the same nature; so both spiritually and corporally are we the branches, and Christ the Vine. Thus far Cyrill.

In this whole text Cyrill's purpose was to show that Christ, not only according to His deity, as His adversaries the Nestorials did think, but also according to the flesh was the Vine, from which life flowed into us as branches. And consequently that we as branches were joined not only to His deity but also to His humanity and so to His flesh, and do draw life and all our spiritual nourishment not only from His deity but also from His flesh. And the reason is brought from the hypostatical union which maketh the Word and His flesh taken into unity thereof to be but one person, one and the same Christ, one and the same Vine. Therefore, that we cannot be joined to the deity of Christ but also we must be united to His flesh, nor can we draw life from that, but we must also draw it from this.

To declare plainly this near and real copulation of our flesh with the flesh of Christ, he brings a similitude of wax. Not that it every way agreeth in all things as is manifest, but because it fitly showeth our communion with Christ to be real and substantial. And this he meant when concluding he said, not only spiritually but also corporally, (that is, not only in respect of the spirit, but also in respect of the body) both Christ is the Vine and we His branches. This therefore he spake not of the manner of our coupling to Christ whether it be spiritual or corporal, but of the things which are coupled, namely, that not only our souls and our spirits are most nearly joined with the soul and spirit of Christ, but also our flesh with His flesh. This is to be gathered out of the adversaries' proposition against which he argueth, which is that we are not joined with Christ in flesh. Coll. 500. B.

These adverbs therefore spiritually and corporally in Cyrill, do not signify the means by which we are united to Christ the vine, but the things which are united, as is already said and declared. But the means also Cyrill granteth to be spiritual, that is by our faith, and by the Spirit of Christ. For in every place he teacheth, and specially upon the sixth of John, that we eat the flesh of Christ by faith; and by this eating He proveth our incorporation.

If any shall make exceptions concerning the law, thus: Were not the elect in the Old Testament endowed with grace to keep the law, as we in the New are endowed with grace to believe the gospel? I answer: They were, but not to the hearing of the law as we are with faith to the hearing of the gospel; but because they first believed in the evangelical promises concerning Christ, and for that cause received the gift (and yet but imperfectly and in part only) to keep the law; not because they heard the law, but because they believed in Christ to come; that always the obedience of the law might follow of the faith in Christ, even as an effect followeth the cause.

When we said that the signification of a sacrament is so received, that not the Word alone, nor the element alone, but the element together with the Word is called a sacrament--we meant nothing else but that as the Word alone without the element or sign cannot be said to be a sacrament, so neither can the sign without the Word. For a sacrament (as the church hath used to define it) is a visible sign of an invisible grace (add) by the Word, that is, by Christ's institution, consecrated to that purpose, that is, altered from the common use to that matter.

So Augustine Tom. 5. decivit. Dei. lib. 10. ca. 5. The visible sacrifice, is, a sacrament or a holy sign of the invisible sacrifice. And in D. de conf. dist. 2. ca. sacrif. A sacrament (saith he) is a visible form of an invisible grace.

And the same Augustine Tom. 9. in Joh. tract. 80. saith concerning the Word of the gospel: The Word cometh to the element and so is made the sacrament, even that visible Word as it were. A sacrament therefore, according to the received signification in the church, we do and ever did acknowledge to be a visible sign. And whereof? Of an invisible grace. But from whence hath it the virtue to be sign of such a thing? From the Word of Christ the Institutor. For take away the Word and it shall be no sacrament. "Pull away the Word (saith Augustine) and what is the water, but water?" This is the meaning of our words: Not that the Word is the sacrament or, to speak properly, any part of the sacrament, inasmuch as a sacrament is defined to be a visible sign of an invisible grace; but because without the Word a visible element cannot be a sacrament of an invisible thing. But therefore it is the visible sign of an invisible thing, because by the Word of the Lord it is instituted thereunto.

Irenaeus also, making no mention of the Word, (because that is always supposed) hath left in writing: That the Eucharist, that is, the sacrament of the Eucharist, consisteth of two matters: an earthly, (that is, the sign) and a heavenly (that is, the thing signified) neither yet the thing signified, is the sign or the sacrament. But because the sign cannot be without the thing signified, (for else, whereof should it be a sign?) therefore, he said that the sacrament of the Eucharist consisted both of an earthly matter, (that is, the sign) and a heavenly matter, (that is, the thing signified.) This belongeth to the confirmation of that which we said concerning the Word and the element.

Of the water it appeareth in the Acts, where it is manifestly showed that never anything was mixed with the water by the apostles. Other form of baptizing, besides that which we have in Matthew 28, Christ did not institute; and that the apostle did simply follow Christ is beyond all controversy. Whereas therefore we read in the Acts that the apostles baptized some in the Name and into the Name of Christ--that doth nothing pertain to the Christian form of baptism. John indeed baptized into the Name of Christ as it appeareth, in which Name notwithstanding, as Ambrose expoundeth it, the Trinity was closely signified, as the person anointed, that is of the Son, in that He had taken the nature; the person anointing, that is the Father; and the anointing, that is the person of the Holy Ghost. But Christ Himself expressly set down the proper form of baptism saying, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Wherefore it is manifest that the phrase of speech, to be baptized into the Name of Christ, doth nothing belong to the form of Christian baptism.

Which is also hereby confirmed, that we never read that the apostles baptized any, saying that they baptized them into the Name of Christ, but we read only that many were baptized in the Name and into the Name of Christ. Then what meant the Holy Ghost by that form or manner of speech? He meant, in my judgment, summarily to show thus much:

First, in that they which professed faith in Christ were commanded to be baptized, that it should be done by the name, authority, and commandment of Jesus Christ; yea, that they should be baptized in this form, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," even by commandment of Christ. Therefore they were baptized in the Name of Christ, that is, according to the commandment and form prescribed by Christ.

Secondly, they which were so baptized, as they were now incorporated into Christ by faith in God's sight and admitted into the fellowship of the new covenant, so are they, by this sign of the new covenant, consecrated unto Christ in the sight of the congregation, and sealed, for to hold fast the faith in Him and to perform obedience to His commandments; and to be ingrafted into the body of His Church; and received into the communion of saints, and to a perpetual amendment of life, and to a continuance of faith in Jesus Christ to their lives end. For the whole church and every of the faithful are baptized into the death of Christ, and buried with Him, whereof the sign is the very dipping into the water, that thereby we may learn that throughout our whole life we must die unto sin and live unto righteousness, which is to be truly baptized into the Name of Christ, who died and was buried for us.

The substance also of the law, yea the canonical law, is perpetual, and forever 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 covenant should be sealed unto God with the sign of the covenant. But now the sign of the covenant is baptism, which succeeded circumcision (Col. 2).

Add the place of Peter out of Acts 2:38-39, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Whereas we said that Paul baptized again those of whom it is spoken in Acts 19, as being not rightly baptized, we said it without prejudice to any learned interpreter, for we condemn none. Only we desire the reader to believe(?) favorably of that word rebaptize. For we meant not that they which were rightly baptized were afterwards baptized again. But they which were not baptized with true baptism, where the true doctrine of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost went before it, they, after Paul had taught them the true and sound doctrine of Christ, then they took true baptism. And after baptism, by the laying on of hands, received the Holy Ghost and the gifts thereof. And this, to speak properly, was indeed not to be rebaptized, but to be truly baptized.

Now why I thought so, and do yet think--I was induced by the authority both of the fathers, and especially Ambrose, and Hieromo so expounding that place; and also by a reason drawn from the text itself.

Touching the authority: First, never any of the fathers did teach that these words, (and when they heard it they were baptized) were the words of Paul, spoken of them which heard John the Baptist; but expounded them as the words of Luke, spoken of them which heard Paul. So Chrysostom Tom. 3. in act. hom. 40. So Oecum in act. ca. 19. So Augustine Tom. 7. cont. Petil. ca. 7. So Gregory Tom. 1. in evang. hom. 20. So Bede in act ca. 19. So all the rest.

Moreover most of them do in plain terms write that these twelve disciples were baptized by Paul, or at least by Paul's commandment, as having not been rightly baptized before, because they heard not the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, nor were baptized into His Name. Ambrosius Tom. 2. despi. san. ad Theo. imp. ca. 3.

Lastly them themselves also which said, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," were afterwards baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And this abounded unto grace, because they then by Paul's preaching knew the Holy Ghost, neither must it be thought a contrariety, because although afterwards no mention is made of the Holy Ghost. Yet it is believed, and that which is omitted in words is expressed in faith. For when it is said, "in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ," by the unity of the name is fulfilled the whole mystery; neither is the Holy Ghost separated from the baptism of Christ because John baptized to repentance, Christ in the Holy Ghost. Thus far Ambrose.

Hierome, Tom. 6. in Joel. ca. 2. pa. 66. Therefore (saith he) the saving health of God cannot be seen, except the Holy Ghost be poured down; and whoso saith that he believeth in Christ and believeth not in the Holy Ghost, he hath not the eyes of perfect faith. Whereon, also in the Acts of the Apostles, they which were baptized by John's baptism into Him that was to come, that is, in the Name of the Lord Jesus; because when Paul asked them, they answered, We know not whether there be an Holy Ghost; they were baptized again, yea, they received true baptism because without the Holy Ghost, and the mystery of the Trinity, whatsoever is received in the name of the one or the other person is unperfect [imperfect], etc.

Augustine cont. Petil. cap. 7. coll. 498. saith. Paul baptized those twelve, either because they had not received John's baptism, but lied; or else, if they had received it, yet they had not received Christ's baptism. For he thought with Cyprian, and Tertullian, and other fathers, that John's baptism and Christ's did differ, of which matter more hereafter. Of our own writers also, that learned man Wolff. Musculus, about the place of Acts 19, thinketh as Ambrose doth, in his common place, the place of baptism, whose words because he handleth that place very largely, we will not repeat. And before Musculus, Bucer both on the third of Matthew and on the fourth of the epistle to the Ephesians; upon Matthew he hath these words: To those Ephesians, which had been baptized with John's baptism, not knowing what it was, because as then they knew not the Holy Ghost, wherewith Paul had preached that Christ should baptize them, we read that he said in Acts 19, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Now what do we else, or ought we to do in baptizing? For ours is also the baptism of repentance; so long as those whom we baptize, we also bury into the death of Christ, that is, we ascribe them into that number which throughout all their life must die unto sin, and live unto righteousness; and yet shall not receive 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; and the infants we commit unto the church to be brought up to the same faith. Therefore Paul would never have rebaptized those Ephesians if they had been baptized with John's baptism, that is, with that baptism wherewith he used to baptize into repentance and the faith of Christ. But seeing they were (as Luke reporteth) only baptized into John's baptism, which notwithstanding they knew not what it was, and were altogether ignorant of the baptism of Christ, that is, of the Spirit, he baptized them, showing unto them what John's baptism was, and how he baptized into Christ, not into his own sprinkling or dipping of the water, as though that could be any profit unto them. He therefore baptized them with this baptism of John, that is, as John used to do, into the Name of the Lord Jesus. And by and by after laying on his hands, he baptized them with the baptism also of Christ, that is, with the Spirit. For immediately the Holy Ghost came on them, as it is there read. This there.

And upon the epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 4, the same Bucer writeth thus: Hereby it is also manifest, that the twelve men at Ephesus, which knew not whether there were an Holy Ghost or no whom Paul baptized, were not baptized with the baptism of John, that is, with that which he administered; but as they witnessed themselves, they were baptized into John's baptism. For John preached unto all whom he baptized that Christ should baptize them with the Holy Ghost, and exhorted them that they would believe in him, and that of him they might receive the Holy Ghost. And therefore these Ephesians could not have been ignorant of the Holy Ghost if they had been washed with that baptism which might truly be called John's; which also the apostles' words to those men doth sufficiently declare: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus" (Acts 19:4). For by these words he would teach us that they never received John's baptism who as yet know not John's preaching of Christ, and the promise. Thus far Bucer.

Seeing then the fathers expound this place in Acts 19 as we have now declared, who, I pray, am I that I should dare, or that I ought to gainsay so many and so learned men, in such an exposition of this Scripture, which neither doth any whit wrest the text, nor contrarieth any other Scriptures, nor is against the analogy of faith, nor bringeth with it any absurdities?

For if any man shall object out of the text that same truly and but, it proveth nothing against the fathers' exposition, seeing it is no unusual thing with the apostle, where he saith first truly, not always to join the adversative particle but (Rom. 3:2; Col. 2:23 and in other places). And unto this truly, another but, which Luke for brevity sake left out, might be understood very fitly, as hereafter we will show. So that it is no necessity, with this truly to join that but, which followeth in the 5th verse, in which verse the fathers will have not Paul's speech, but Luke's to be continued. Therefore the fathers' exposition is not repugnant to the text; nor yet with any other Scripture. For if any man say Paul writeth to the Corinthians that he is glad he baptized none but the house of Stephana, it may be answered, it is true, namely at Corinth, but these twelve were baptized at Ephesus; and besides he speaketh of such as were baptized with his own hand, but these twelve he might baptize by some other; to dispute no longer about the circumstance of the time. And it is most certain it is not repugnant to the analogy of faith, nor bringeth with it any absurdities, because the fathers do not speak of a baptism rightly administered, as though Paul had repeated that again. This exposition therefore of the fathers, in my judgment, cannot easily be refelled [refuted]. And this therefore is the chiefest cause why I have ever thus thought and yet think of this action of Paul's, although indeed I cannot consent unto them all, in the cause, why Paul baptized them, but only to Ambrose and Hierome.

That John's baptism and Christ's baptism did differ, the fathers teach, both by this that John said, how he "baptized (only) with water," but Christ should baptize "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." And also by this, that the baptism of John is called "the baptism of repentance," but Christ's baptism is said to be given "for the remission of sins." And because that he prepared the way to this, and (as Tertullian speaketh) that baptism of repentance was, as it were, a sueing for the remission of sins and sanctification in Christ which was to follow after. Read Tertul. of bapt. page 707.

So Cyprian also in his sermon of the baptism of Christ, and of the manifestation of the Trinity, page 430, so August. To. 7. against. Petil. cap. 7. But all of us do not know what the fathers meant by this difference of the baptism. For they meant not that the one differed from the other in the matter, or in the sign, or in the doctrine and form of baptism, but only in efficacy; that namely, although remission of sins was given to them which were washed with John's baptism, yet the same was not of John's baptism, that is, of water, but by the baptism of Christ, which is the baptism of the Spirit, whereunto that belongeth: I baptize with water, but He with the Holy Ghost. And with this baptism of the Spirit were they only baptized which believed in Christ whom John said was then come, though all knew Him not. Therefore John in his baptism did inculcate and often repeat this faith, as Paul witnesseth in that place of the 19th chapter of Acts. They therefore are deceived who for this diversity did think the baptism of water was to be repeated.

August. against Petil. (as we touched a little before) showeth how some held opinion that the twelve did lie unto the apostle. When being asked unto what they were baptized, they answered: Unto John's baptism. So by this--that first those Ephesians said unto him that they had not yet heard whether there were, that is, whether that Holy Ghost did exist or not, namely, the giver of those gifts whereof the speech was--the apostle might be said to convince them of a lie by this argument. Whosoever have been baptized they have professed faith in Christ as the Son of God, and consequently in the Father and in the Spirit of them both. For John did require this faith, and according to the same he baptized men; and in baptizing he always urged that Jesus Christ was He which should baptize in the Spirit. But you, by your own confession, do not know this Spirit, etc., and so believe not rightly in Jesus Christ. Therefore, etc.

But surely, to say that these twelve did lie unto the church and to the apostle, it seems to me to be too hard and vile a thing in men which professed Christ. And for this cause we did ever better allow of the opinion of Ambrose and Hierome--that the twelve did say truly when they said they were baptized unto John's baptism; but yet not by John himself, but by some one of John's disciples who expounded not unto them the true doctrine concerning God, and therefore baptized them not rightly. But all the fathers do hold beyond all controversy that they which are not rightly baptized into Jesus Christ as the natural Son of God, and Mediator, and so also into His Father and the Spirit of them both, the same must be rightly baptized. And therefore those twelve were not, as being not baptized, rebaptized; but, as being not rightly baptized Paul did baptize them with true baptism, first teaching them the true doctrine of the Trinity, which also John had preached unto them.

And thus much of the authority of the fathers, from whom either in their assertions or in their expositions of Scriptures, especially where they all for the most part do agree, I dare not decline for my conscience sake, unless I be constrained by most apparent reasons. Thus I freely confess to the whole of Christ.

The reason also, (besides the authority of the fathers) brought as we saw before, even by the fathers, out of the very text, confirmeth me in the same opinion. This reason is partly gathered out of those words which these Ephesians, being asked by Paul whether they had received the Holy Ghost, that is, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, answered saying that they had not so much as heard whether there be, that is, whether that Holy Ghost be existent, whom Paul would have to be the author of those gifts; so far from them it was that they should have received Him and His gifts. And partly it is gathered out of the words which Paul used concerning the doctrine and baptism of John saying, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." As if he had said, You have not rightly believed in Christ such as He is, the Son of God, God; seeing ye know not His Spirit. The conclusion followed that therefore they, although they were baptized by I know not whom into John's baptism yet were not rightly baptized, seeing they were not instructed in the doctrine of the person of Christ in whom they ought to believe, namely, that He was not only man and the Messias, but also the Son of God, God; from whom also and from the Father proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and consequently not in the doctrine of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the name of all which baptism is to be given. And therefore that they ought to learn the true doctrine concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and resting therein to receive lawful baptism. That afterwards by laying on of hands, they might receive the gifts of this Holy Spirit, which Luke teacheth to be afterwards done, saying, But when they heard it, (namely, those twelve Ephesians) what when they heard? Even, when they perceived Paul's doctrine concerning true faith in Christ the Son of God, and so in His Father and the Holy Ghost, which faith John had also preached and wherein they resting were baptized, etc. This is the interpretation of the fathers--namely, that those twelve were not rightly instructed in the doctrine of God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, and so neither rightly baptized. And it may be confirmed, both by the kindred and country of those twelve, and also by the cause for which Paul, letting alone all the rest, peculiarly asked them whether they have received the Holy Ghost, since they believed.

By kind they were Jews as appeareth by John's baptism unto which they said they were baptized; and they were baptized by a Jew. But the Jews for the most part never rightly held the doctrine of the three persons subsisting in one essence. And therefore these twelve Jews also, though they granted Jesus to be the true Messias, yet they seemed to acknowledge but only two persons--the person of God the Father, and the person of the Messias, even (as the most thought) a bare man, but yet such a one as in whom God the Father dwelt; but that they were altogether ignorant that the Holy Ghost was an existing thing, and the giver of those graces, they are convinced by their own words.

But surely there was some cause why Paul, coming into Ephesus where were many of Christ's disciples, asked this question of the twelve Jews only. Surely it is to be thought by their answer that the apostle, either by their own talk or by telling of some other of the brethren, perceived that these twelve did not think aright concerning the Holy Ghost.

Finally, this was the apostle's argument whereby he would prove by their own answer that they were not baptized with the true baptism of John.

Whosoever hath been baptized with the true baptism of John, he hath also heard his doctrine concerning God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and hath professed the same, and consequently hath known also the Holy Ghost. This proposition is not expressed, but the proof of it the apostle bringeth in the 4th verse saying, "John verily baptized," etc., that is, John preached not only repentance but also faith in Christ; namely, that He is not only man the Messias, but also the Son of God, God; from whom, as also from the Father, proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and that He shall baptize in the Holy Ghost. And therefore all which desire to be saved must also believe in Him as the true Savior.

But you have not heard this doctrine, nor professed it, and therefore have not truly believed in Christ, such as He is. For ye yourselves say, ye have not so much as heard whether there be an Holy Ghost, (namely, when he were baptized). Therefore, etc. So consequently it remaineth that professing this doctrine and faith, ye now receive lawful baptism, and afterward by the laying on of hands those gifts of the Holy Ghost. This is the declaration of the argument according to the exposition of the fathers. But Luke, as the prophets and evangelists use to do, comprehended the whole sum in few words.

And I pray, what absurdity can follow hereon? Or what injury is done to the apostle's narration? Is the heresy of the Donatistes and Anabaptists maintained? Nothing less. For they rebaptize such as are rightly baptized; the apostle baptizeth them which had not been rightly baptized, As having not heard nor professed the true doctrine concerning God, he took care they should be rightly baptized. And such when they come into the catholic church, (we speak of them that be of years of discretion) all the fathers teach they must be baptized with true baptism, instructing them first in the doctrine concerning God, and Christ their Savior.

Touching the text itself--it is no whitt wrested. That their answer, "We have not so much as heard whether there by any Holy Ghost," cannot be understood of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, it appeareth by Paul's demand following, being asked with an admiration, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" For no man is baptized unto the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but unto the Holy Ghost itself, as also unto the Father, and the Son. And the apostles held it for certain, beyond all doubt, that whosoever were baptized either of John and his true disciples, or of Christ's disciples, they were surely baptized with instruction of the true doctrine of the Holy Ghost also, according to Christ's institution. Hereupon was that admiration, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" They answered him, "Unto John's baptism." For Paul thought this could not stand together that they should be baptized with John's lawful baptism, and yet should not know, nay, not so much as hear, whether there were and whether there did exist an Holy Ghost, whom John both knew and preached unto all that came to his baptism. Neither did he preach Christ without this Holy Ghost. For he said that he baptized in water, but Christ Jesus should baptize in the Holy Ghost.

Hereupon was it, that meaning to convince them, that they were not baptized of John nor of his true disciples, he added saying, "John verily baptized," etc. This truly or verily is an adversative particle, whereby he would show how it could not agree with the lawful baptism of John that they said they had not so much as heard (namely when they were baptized) whether there by an Holy Ghost or no, since John baptized none without mentioning the same. And to this truly here expressed, doth a but closely understood make answer, so that the argument is such, as before we set down. "John verily baptized," etc., as though he had said: John preached both repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, such as He is, namely the Son of God, from whom as also from the Father proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and who baptizeth in the Holy 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 twelve's own confession, But "we have not so much as heard," etc. What is plainer than this text?

That therefore which followeth in the 5th verse, but "when they heard this," etc., is Luke's own words, showing truly and briefly what followed upon Paul's argumentation, but "when they heard," etc., (namely these twelve)--when they heard what? What it is truly to believe in Christ and that He baptized men according to the confession of this doctrine concerning Christ, and His Father and the Holy Ghost; and that Christ alone, as the only Savior, baptized men into the Holy Ghost. When they heard (I say) these things, not only with the ears of their bodies but also of their minds, and so believed and confessed the same, "they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus." That is, into Jesus, as He is called and described in the Scriptures, not only man but also the Son of God, God; from whom, as also from the Father proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and therefore as a true and only Savior baptizeth us with His Holy Spirit.

Add this also, that by the new interpretation, there is admitted in a little narration, no small bartologie(?) or superfluity of words. For when Paul said, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus," to what end should the apostles have added this concerning them whom John baptized, but "when they heard," namely, that company of those men, were baptized. For who could not understand by the words going before, if John baptized; they therefore which had heard and professed his doctrine concerning repentance and faith in Christ, were by John baptized.

To conclude, if I should allow that interpretation, I see not what Paul could else prove by this whole narration, but that those Ephesians had been rightly baptized; and therefore that nothing else remained but that by laying on of hands, they might receive the Holy Ghost. But this conclusion, I do not think to agree with that which goeth before it, but to be needless.

I have to my power, declared the exposition of the fathers upon this place, and that modestly and without prejudice to any; to no other end but that I may by such reasons as I am able declare unto the brethren which perhaps have took [taken] offense at that particle in my confession, that Paul did baptize those twelve again which had not been rightly baptized; that I did not put those words rashly in my confession. By the way as I said, we condemn no other mens' interpretation.

And this also I freely profess, that my conscience is such that I cannot be easily drawn to dissent from the ancient fathers, either in their assertions or in their interpretations of Scriptures, unless I be convinced and enforced by manifest testimonies of Holy Scriptures, by necessary consequences and plain demonstrations. For so doth my conscience rest, and in this settled stay of mind I desire to die.

And therefore I humbly desire of all the brethren that if in this behalf my opinion be not altogether as theirs is, they will by no means take offense, especially seeing that in all the principal points of Christian faith we have a sound agreement.

The place of 1 Corinthians 6 being diligently marked (as also we noted before in the 15th chapter and 14th aphorism) may well decide the controversy about the wicked mens' eating, that is, the hypocrites; and of the sacramental eating.

We say that hypocrites do not eat the true body of Christ, since they are void of faith (namely, they eat it not truly and indeed, since it is not indeed eaten but only by true faith, which they want [lack]) but only sacramentally, that is, they eat indeed the sacrament and the sign itself. The adversaries say also that hypocrites do eat the true body of Christ only sacramentally, but by this word they mean that they receive not only the sacrament, that is, the sign, but all the thing itself, though not unto salvation. If they mean this in the same sense that the apostle doth when he said the Corinthians were all sanctified, justified, etc., namely that by receiving baptism the sacrament of true regeneration and sanctification, they were reckoned to have received the thing also, since the very sacrament hindereth not, but they might also be partakers of the true sanctification, although all of them did not indeed obtain the same, by reason of their hypocritical faith; then doubtless I see not but such a manner of speaking may be well allowed. So it be declared as it ought, after the apostle's meaning. This I only allege that the brethren may bethink them of some good means of agreement that so great an offense and scandal may be rooted out of the Church. We must all stand before Christ's tribunal seat.

Here should a subdistinction have been added of the godly, because some do come worthily, some unworthily; yea, one and the same godly man eateth sometime worthily, sometime not worthily enough, as in 1 Corinthians 11 it appeareth. And the ungodly also which receive only the element, and not the thing of the sacrament are not all of one sort. For among them are also contained the hypocrites of whom we spake even now. We thought good therefore, here to join a more plain and clear distinction.

There be two kinds of men which, like as they come to the hearing of the Word, so may they come to receive the Supper of the Lord--the ungodly and the godly. Again, of the ungodly, some are wholly and simply wicked, as atheists, godless men, also Jews and Turks, and all such as know nothing, and believe nothing of all those things which they hear by the preaching of the gospel, or see to be done by the administration of the sacraments. Nay, they rather laugh at and condemn all such matters. These if they come to the Lord's Table, they neither eat nor drink anything else but bread and wine, and that also, not as they are sacraments, (for they know not of what things they are sacraments) but only as they are of their own nature, namely, bread and wine. For even so also at the preaching of the gospel, they receive 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 mean, in profession or in sight of men. Such as are the hypocrites in the church who are not endowed with the true and lively faith which is proper to the elect, but have only a temporal and a hypocritical belief. These, coming to the Supper, do indeed eat and drink no more than the former, that is, bread and wine. The reason is because they have no true faith, by which alone Christ's body is truly eaten. For all this the difference between these and the other is not little.

1. For the former, seeing they believe none of all the things which they hear concerning Christ's body in the Supper, nor perceive anything with their minds, as little do they eat the true body of Christ, but only with the mouth of the body they eat bread, as common bread. But the other, seeing that by their only historical, hypocritical and temporal belief, they understand in their mind and in some sort do believe the things which are spoken and done, therefore by the same belief and mind, they may be said in some sort to receive, and in some sort to taste, the body of Christ offered in the Word and sacraments, although they do not in very deed eat it, seeing they do not swallow nor retain the same (for this properly is to eat) in the stomach of their soul for nourishment of their spirit, but rather do spew or vomit out the same, being tasted, and after a sort received down. For so also we read in Hebrews 6 of those temporary professors--that they tasted the heavenly gift and good Word of God, as if he had said, they tasted indeed, and that also by the gift of the Holy Ghost, but being tasted, they cast it up again. And in the parable of the seed, the temporary ones were said to receive the seed of the Word, but that they kept it not, and therefore brought forth no fruit by it. These things cannot be said of the first sort of these wicked ones which are most true of the second sort, namely, these temporary hypocrites. Let this then be the first difference, hereupon follows another difference between the eating of those and these.

2. They, seeing the bread which they take into their mouths they neither acknowledge nor believe it to be a sacrament of Christ's body, therefore they take it and eat it, not as a sacrament but as common bread; and therefore can they not be said to eat the body of Christ sacramentally. But these take the bread not as common bread, but as a sacrament of Christ's body, and for that cause are said to eat Christ's body, though not in very deed, seeing they lack the mouth and teeth of true faith, yet to eat it sacramentally; by an argument drawn, as they call it, aconiugatis, they eat the sacrament as the sacrament of Christ's body. Therefore they eat Christ's body sacramentally, and so far forth as it is a sacrament because they eat not Christ's body in very deed, but only the sacrament thereof.

Hereupon followeth that exposition whereof we spake before, that it is not ungodly to say simply and absolutely that the hypocrites do eat not only the sacrament, but also the thing of the sacrament; that is, not only bread but also the very body of Christ. But in what sense? Namely, in that, wherein the apostle said all they of Corinth in their first state were unclean, ungodly, etc. Afterwards he said they were not only washed (which some might have interpreted only of the water of baptism) but also sanctified and justified, when notwithstanding they were not all made truly such, but as yet there lacked not some hypocrites among them.

So all they which, professing faith in Christ, do come to His Supper and eat the sacrament of the Lord's body are said also to eat the Lord's true body by reason of the sacramental union; which causeth that he which receiveth the sign is by the church judged to have received also the thing signified, because there is no fault either in the Institutor of the sacrament or in the sacrament itself, but that he which hath received and eaten the one might have also received and eaten the other, since Christ by the minister doth truly offer them both, and the soundness and truth of the sacrament dependeth not upon our faith, but upon Christ's institution. So that if we receive not the whole sacrament but only the sign without the thing signified, the fault is in our own selves who receive one part with the mouth of our body, and cast away the other part by our infidelity (for an hypocritical faith is infidelity), separating those things which God would have to be joined. By these things it appeareth what difference is in the eating of those that are simply wicked, and the hypocrites, although neither sort can be said truly to eat Christ's true body. For such only do truly eat Christ who are also truly ingrafted into Christ by a true and lively faith, with which alone the elect are endowed. They which are dead corporally can no longer eat corporal meat. How then should they which are dead spiritually be fed with spiritual food? And only the faithful do therefore live, because by a lively faith they are joined unto Christ, which is our life, as members to their Head; as branches to the vine, as the boughs to their tree. And if, as Cyprian saith, "it be meat of the mind, not of the belly; surely it is eaten with the teeth, not of the body, but of a faithful mind," which only the godly can do.

If likewise the body of Christ be (as Ireneus speaketh) "a heavenly matter," how can it be eaten of them which have nothing in them that is heavenly, but are altogether earthy men, and endowed with no faith whereby they may ascend up into heaven and eat the heavenly food? Therefore only the godly can do this.

But the faithful also are not affected all alike, or after one sort, seeing very often they eat worthily but sometime it chanceth that they eat unworthily, and therefore are sundry ways chastened by God for it.

They are said to eat worthily who, before they eat of the Lord's bread, do examine themselves whether they be in faith; and if they be, then they diligently weigh and consider the signification and greatness of this mystery. Moreover they try their consciences whether they be touched with a true repentance, and by earnest and hearty prayers do stir themselves up to both.

And they eat unworthily who although they be planted in Christ by faith and the Spirit of regeneration, yet their faith being in some sort choked with the cares of this world and other affections of the flesh, do not sufficiently prove themselves; do not diligently examine nor stir up themselves to an earnest consideration of so great a mystery; nor weigh with an attentive mind what is given in that holy Table; what the Lord requireth of them; for whom, and for what purpose the Supper was instituted by the Lord. Lastly, they do eat unworthily who (as the apostle speaketh) discern not the Lord's body, and so come not to that Table with a due reverence and fear of the Lord; discerning in their mind and by faith the things signified from the signs, and the signs from other common meats and drinks in such sufficient manner as they ought, whereby they do not as well open the mouth of the inward man, to eat the spiritual food, as they do the mouth of the outward man to eat the food which (of it's own nature) is corporal. By reason of this duty so neglected, namely, that they do not sufficiently prove themselves, nor discern or judge of the Lord's body, and consequently do eat unworthily the Lord's bread, Christians and faithful men otherwhiles are wont to be visited with divers chastisements of God; yet such as are for their salvation, lest they should be condemned in this world. And of them doth the apostle properly speak in 1 Corinthians 11, and not of such as be simply wicked and more hypocrites, when he saith these do eat judgment unto themselves, etc. This is thus proved:

1. Because he saith not that they which thus eat unworthily do eat unto themselves , which signifieth eternal destruction, but judgment; which words, what difference there is betwixt them, is manifest in the same text where the apostle in verse 32 saith ; we are judged or corrected of the Lord, lest we should be condemned with the world.

2. When he declareth the punishment which they shall have which eat unworthily, he rehearseth none but temporal chastisements, making no mention of eternal destruction. "For this cause, (saith he) many are weak and sickly," etc.

3. Add this that he saith, "if we would judge ourselves," (that is try ourselves, and acknowledging our sins, chastise ourselves by repentance, and by true faith and amendment of life separate ourselves from the world), "we should not be judged," namely of the Lord, who doth therefore chasten and mortify us, because we do not mortify our affections, nor repent us of our sins.

4. And what meaneth this, that in most plain words he calleth this judgment, by which we are therefore judged because we eat unworthily the Lord's bread, a chastening very profitable for us. For thus he saith, "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

5. And surely he placeth himself and all the other true believers in the number of those which being judged are chastised of the Lord for their salvation. For he maketh two sorts of men: the wicked, which are understood in the name of the world, and teacheth that upon them awaiteth eternal destruction; and then the godly who by reason of their many falls and unworthinesses, are also chastened by many punishments, lest they should also be condemned together with the wicked; and them he setteth down under judgment, that they may avoid , eternal destruction. This place therefore is to be understood properly of the faithful, but [that they are] such as are unperfect, and therefore do grievously sin because they come unworthily to the Lord's Table.

Whereas some do expound the same also of the wicked, and do take judgment, for condemnation, this is rather to be understood, that it is by a certain consequence, with an argument drawn from the less to the greater, than by force of the text. Thus, if the godly which sometime eat unworthily do eat unto themselves condemnation, then what condemnation shall abide the wicked?

Therefore, if it be spoken of the godly, is taken for chastisement; if of the wicked, it signifieth eternal destruction.

Here we spake of such as be of years of discretion. Concerning the young infants of the faithful, the reason is otherwise, as in another place we declared. For the Holy Ghost doth ingraft them into Christ as true members to their Head, from whom they draw their life. Yea, and we also believe that they are endowed with the Spirit of faith, although through the weakness of nature in them they cannot use the same, even as they cannot use the virtue of their understanding, when as notwithstanding they are not without a mind or the faculties thereof.

In the description of faith, I willingly used those two words of wisdom and prudence, following the most learned divine, M. B. upon the Epistle to the Ephesians; because in the former I comprehend the knowledge of Christian religion, of God, of Christ, etc. In the latter the practice thereof, into which two the whole gospel is distinguished, which Christian religion embraceth, and upon which only it is grounded.

Whereunto belongeth also that others do teach, how faith is an assured knowledge concerning God and Christ, conceived by the Word of God, etc. And the whole Christian doctrine consisteth partly in knowledge, and partly in practice.

And there be two kinds of the actions of faith: One in the understanding; another in the will. The understanding being endowed with the light of faith doth perceive, assent unto, and believe things set down in the Word. The will being filled with the power of faith doth love, desire, and embrace the same things as good. And further, such things as pertain to outward works, those it commandeth to be performed faithfully and prudently by the other faculties of the mind and instruments of the body.

Whereas I so expounded that place concerning the faith of Abraham out of Genesis 15 and Romans 4, as I said that that same thing was imputed unto him for righteousness which he believed concerning Christ the promised seed--I did it rather respecting the matter itself than the bare word of faith. For I was not ignorant that both Moses and Paul spake of the faith of Abraham, that this (faith) was imputed to him for righteousness, seeing the apostle manifestly gathering a general doctrine from the example of Abraham, adjoineth these words, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," that is, he is therefore accounted just with God because he believeth in Him which justifieth the ungodly; by which place it most plainly appeareth, that from the true justification of us are excluded our own works, and that it is wholly ascribed to only faith, as well touching the end as touching the beginning.

But when the question is asked what cause there is, why justification should be attributed to faith and not to the works thereof, it is wont to be answered, and that both well and truly, because faith and not the works thereof doth apprehend remission of sins, and Christ our righteousness. For by it we are not justified in respect that it is a work, but in respect that Christ is apprehended by it; by the righteousness of whom alone, being imputed unto us, we are properly reputed just before God. And this is that which some say, how faith justifieth not in respect of itself but in respect of the object which it taketh hold on. Thus is it manifest that it is true which I said, how that was properly imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, for that he believed God concerning Christ, namely that in Him all nations should be blessed, and therefore Abraham himself also.

Neither do we allow of those which set our justification in the only remission of sins, denying the imputation of the justice and obedience of Christ, which we think to be repugnant to the Scriptures.

Isaiah 7--A child is given unto us, etc. Whatsoever therefore he did, or hath, it is wholly ours.

Romans 5--"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The disobedience of Adam was the breaking of God's commandment, therefore the obedience of Christ consisteth not only in His death, but also in His whole former keeping of the law. Likewise, the disobedience of Adam was wholly imputed to us. Why not then also Christ's whole obedience? Also, we are two manner of ways made sinners by Adam's disobedience, namely, by imputation of his transgression, and by the real derivation of sin, that is, of concupiscence into us. Why then should we not think the same of Christ? The virtue of His obedience to the commandments of God the Father is truly communicated unto us, so that we also begin to obey God's law. What lets then, why we may not say, that His whole obedience is imputed unto us?

1 Corinthians 1--"...who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Philippians 2--"He became obedient unto death," for which humbling of Himself, and obedience even unto death, God hath highly exalted Him, and in Him us, etc. He hath deserved by His obedience, eternal glory, for Himself and us, as all the schoolmen and fathers do teach. Therefore His obedience also to the law is imputed unto us for righteousness.

Galatians 4--He was made subject to the law, that He might "redeem them that were under the law." Therefore He kept the law for us, and for our salvation. The testimonies of the fathers, and also of the learned men of this age, for brevity's sake we overpass. To conclude, we believe concerning Christ, that as for us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven and was incarnate; so also for the same cause He kept the law, and did all the other things.

When I write this confession of faith I write everything upon a good conscience; and as I believed, so I spake freely, as the Holy Scriptures do teach that we ought to do. My faith is grounded simply and principally on the Word of God. And next, somewhat upon the common consent of the whole ancient catholic church, if it do not gainsay the Holy Scriptures. For I believe that the things which were decreed and received of the fathers, by common consent of them all gathered together in the Name of the Lord, without any contradiction of Holy Scriptures, that they also (though they be not of equal authority with the Scriptures) come from the Holy Ghost. Hereupon it is that the things which are of this sort, I neither will nor dare disprove with a good conscience. And what is more certain out of the histories, the counsels, and writings of all the fathers, than that those orders of ministers of which we spake were ordained and received in the church by common consent of all the whole Christian common wealth? And who am I that I should disprove that which the whole church hath approved? Neither have all the learned men of this age dared to disprove the same; as knowing, both that the church might lawfully do so, and that all those things were ordained and done upon a godly purpose, and to excellent good ends, for edification of God's children.

For confirmation sake hereof, I have thought good here to insert that which Martin Bucer, of godly memory, a man both for life and learning most famous, hath left written concerning those matters upon the epistle to the Ephesians.

The ministry of the Word, being performed by reading and rehearsing the divine Scriptures, by interpretation and exposition of the same, and with exhortations taken thereout, and also by rehearsal and catechism, which is done by mutual questions and answers of the young beginner and the catechizer; and also by holy conferences and deciding of the hard questions about religion; according to this manifold dispensation of wholesome doctrine, there are also many duties in this function. For whatsoever belongeth to the perfectest [most perfect] manner of teaching, is with an especial care to be used in the ministry of the doctrine of salvation, because indeed it ought to be delivered as a knowledge both of all other most divine, and of all, most difficult; namely, that he which is man should live according to God. Now they which do teach diligently the arts, as they are contained in certain known books, as, if they mean to teach mathematical principles out of Euclid, first of all they will read and rehearse the same book. By and by they will expound the several words, such as everyone knows not, as every art hath its own proper words and names. Then, if there be any collection or argumentation, dark or intricate, they explain the same by analysis or resolution, and set it forth by examples; and by general precepts they teach particular things and declare how largely the same are meant and taken. And this is properly to teach. Now though this be in faithful and sound delivery of instruction, yet a true and faithful teacher, not contenting himself thus, doth also rehearse and often taketh account of that which he teacheth, and is still at hand among his scholars, that of such things as they doubt, they may ever require and ask the plainer exposition of himself. Moreover the things which he hath taught them, he also propoundeth to be decided and handled in public disputations, that no whit of doubt may remain. To these things also, he adjoineth oftentimes exhortations to encourage them forward in the same instruction; and exhortations from such matters as may hinder the same; and also general admonitions, reprehensions, and chidings. Lastly, such a master marketh diligently what profit every one of his scholars taketh, and if he find anyone to loiter in his learning, he both privately corrects him, and admonisheth him of his duty. If he perceive any to go through his learning lustily, him he encourageth, commendeth, and whetteth on to follow the study of it more and more. All these seven points of teaching did our Lord Christ also observe. In the synagogue at Nazareth He read Isaiah 61 and expounded it (Luke 4). He expounded the commandment of God upon the mount (Matthew 5). And He taught in all places, and exhorted; He reprehended out of the Word of God. And He made answer to all that asked Him, as well good as bad; and also asked them, as in Matthew 22. He also catechized His disciples, and He Himself was present at a catechizing (Luke 2).

Since then the ministry of teaching doth require such manifold labor, there have been also many sorts or orders of ministers appointed to this ministry. And first of all readers, whose office was in some pulpit or high place, to rehearse the divine Scriptures. Now this rehearsal of the Scriptures was instituted to this end, that the language and manner of phrase in the Scripture, and the Scripture itself, also might so be made better known and more familiar to the people. For within one year they read over all the Bible to the people, whereas they which shall expound the Scriptures are not able to perform more than some one part, and that not great neither, in one year's space. And meanwhile by the only reading of the Holy Bible to the people, the knowledge of all the principles of our salvation was wonderfully confirmed. For the same are still again and again repeated in each of the holy books, and are declared by other and other words, so that the people might often, by the following readings, learn that which by the former they could not so well conceive. And by this very means the peoples' judgment was strengthened, as well in religion as also in the expositions of Scriptures, and in all doctrine which was brought unto them either by the lawful curates and teachers of the church, or by others. For this cause this office of only reading the Scriptures to the people was greatly esteemed in the ancient churches. Neither were any chosen for this ministry unless they were commended for singular piety. Which we may know as well by other monuments of the ancient fathers, as especially by two epistles of Saint Cyprian, as the five epistles of Aurelius the reader ordained, and the fifth and third epistles, book 2, of Saturus, and in the fourth book of Celerinus, Celestinus. To these readers were afterwards also added queristers or singing men, which ordered and directed the singing of the psalms and hymns. For the reading of the Holy Scriptures, it is by God's grace, very well appointed in the churches of England; if so be that there were meet men ordained which might add a gravity and a religion worthy the divine ministry in the holy readings. Let them therefore diligently weigh and consider whose mouth they make themselves, which read the holy books unto the people in their sacred assemblies; even the mouth of the Lord Almighty, as also of what force and of what dignity the words at [are] which are read, which be the words and precepts of eternal life. Lastly, unto what manner of men and for what purpose the readers of the divine Scriptures ought to serve; for they serve to administer the Word even to the children of God, for whose salvation the first begotten Son of God powered out His precious blood; and to whom, by them, the same salvation is more and more declared and made perfect. All which things, whosoever weigheth with himself in true faith, what gravity, decency, religiousness, can be used in any action, which such a reader may overslip? And this they, whosoever be appointed for that office, ought evermore to have in the sight of their mind; that the things which are read, must effectually serve for the edification of faith in the hearers; which is then done when the same things are well understood and received as the very words of God. To both which is requisite, a pronunciation, very plain, discreet, grave, and religious. Hereby it is known, that they are not Christ's ministers who do so read the Holy Scriptures as if only this were to be required, that as little tarrying as may be, might be made in rehearsing the same.

Now another duty is, the interpretation of the doctrine which is to be disposed, namely, a more plain declaration of the words 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 unto this function some of the laity whom they found by the Holy Ghost to be made fit for the profitable executing of the same. So Origen, also a layman, was called unto this office in the church at Caesarea in Palestine, by Alexander, bishop of Hierusalem [Jerusalem ?], and by Theoctist, bishop of the same church at Caesarea. So Evelpis (?) was called by Neonus, bishop of Larandi; and Paulinus by Ceifus, bishop of Iconium, and Theodorus of Atticus, bishop of Sinadi. This we read in Eusebius, his sixth book of his ecclesiastical story, chapter 20; and out of the epistle of those two bishops, Alexander of Hierusalem, and Theoctist of Caesarea in Palestine, unto Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, who had reprehended the deed of these two bishops concerning Origen, as a thing never heard of, that a layman, where bishops were present, should speak to the people in the congregation. But this, the same bishops manifestly affirmed, was not true but that godly bishops had ever used to exhort such as they knew meet men among the laity to profit the people by interpreting the Scriptures and by teaching, to execute this duty, even when themselves were present. And therefore this second and third part of the holy ministry, namely, interpretation and teaching, the bishops and elders did administer by themselves; yet if they knew or found any among the inferior orders, and of the lay sort also, that were fit for that duty, they joined them as fellow workers with themselves. In the same manner also the bishops and elders did execute the fourth part of the delivery of the doctrine, which is, out of the Scriptures expounded to make exhortations to the duties of piety and dehortations [discouragements ?] from sin and from all things which might never so little hinder and stop the course of a godly and holy life; to reprehend them which sinned and to comfort the penitent. This function was chiefly performed by the bishops and elders because it requireth an especial authority (1 Tim. 5). The fifth part, catechizings, they committed to elders or deacons, or sometimes to ministers of inferior orders, even as everyone was thought most fit for that kind of teaching. So Origen was also a catechist at Alexandria, as we may read in the sixth book of Eusebius, his story of the church, chapter thirteen and twenty. The sixth part also, the holy disputations, they appointed to those that seemed meetest; albeit for the most part the bishops themselves ordered the same. The seventh part, private conference and admonition, the bishops also themselves had a special care to look unto, and also evermore exhorted the elders, and the graver sort of the inferior orders to do the same (1 Thes. 5). Therefore this ministry must be executed by readers in rehearsing the Holy Scriptures, and by bishops in expounding and teaching, exhorting, disputing, and private conferring; as also in reading and catechizing, if there be not particular readers and catechists. But the catechizings they committed to certain elders and deacons, or some specially chosen for that purpose out of the inferior orders; like as they did also employ in these duties of interpreting, teaching, and disputing, whomsoever they found meet for the same, in any order of the ministry, and also in the laity, as we said. And this was diligently marked and considered in them all; that the Holy Ghost did so impart these gifts of teaching among men, that to one He giveth a gift and a singular faculty to interpret the Holy Scriptures, and explain the same, to whom notwithstanding He giveth not the gift so readily and profitably to teach and confirm the principles and grounds of our opinions out of the Holy Scriptures, or to defend the same by disputation. To another also He giveth a peculiar and notable skill to make exhortations out of the Holy Scripture, or admonitions, or reprehensions; also to catechize, and to instruct privately, to whom notwithstanding are not given the other parts of teaching. This variety and diversity of the gifts of the Holy Ghost we have daily experience of in those which teach publicly the people of Jesus Christ, which are the true churches of Christ, and do suffer themselves to be wholly governed by the Holy Ghost. Such do religiously observe what spiritual gifts are given to each one in the church; and do employ everyone in his own function according to the same gifts so much as in them lieth. Wherefore to all the points of teaching, they appoint several ministers, if among their own they find such as be singularly qualified and furnished by the Lord to every several part of teaching. But because it is requisite for the salvation of God's people that not any church should omit any of these seven parts of teaching which I have reckoned, every one of the ministers and laymen also in what place soever [whatsoever place ?] of the church he be placed ought, so far forth as he is able, to perform all these parts of teaching--both reading, interpreting, teaching, exhorting, catechizing, disputing, and private conferring. For each one must take unto himself in administering these duties, so much of each one of them as he findeth himself furnished and made fit for by the Holy Ghost. Let us weigh and consider the example of a household well sorted and ordered, in which the master or husband executeth some duties, the housewife or matron, other duties; the sons other, and the daughters other; the menservants other, and the maidservants other. Here while they be all at home and in health, everyone fulfilleth his own duty; but if any of the family be from home or be sick, yet (if the necessity of that service so urgeth) they must all needs supply that want, so that oftentimes the men must discharge womens' duties, and women mens'; the masters their servants, and servants their masters.

The third part of clergy discipline is a peculiar subjection, wherein clerks and ministers of inferior degrees do subject themselves to them which are in the superior orders and ministry. This part of discipline the Lord taught us, also by His own example; who ordained His disciples to be teachers of God's chosen throughout the whole world, giving them a certain government or domestical [domestic] discipline, peculiar for this office; whom the apostles imitating, had also every one His disciples, whom He instructed to the right performance of that holy ministry.

For every difficult and hard course of life requireth also a peculiar and perpetual teaching, instruction, and watchfulness over it, as we see in the studies of philosophy, and in military discipline. Which Lycurgus considering, so instituted (as Xenophon reporteth) the commonwealth of the Lacaedemonians; that there should not be one sort or order in the commonwealth, but should have a government in it. Also Plato in his laws and commonwealth requireth that among citizens there should be nothing without guard. Hereupon our Lord also, desirous that all that be His, should so be settled and agree together, as the members in a body are settled and knit one to another, doth make every one of His to be in subjection unto others by whom they may be maintained, moved and governed, as by members having a more large and ample power and efficacy than others have. The same is commanded by the Holy Ghost, Be subject "one to another in the fear of God" (Eph. 5).

The holy fathers therefore, in times past thus considering these matters, so appointed this order in the clergy, that all the rest of the clerks should be maintained and guided of the presbytery or elders with singular care and diligence. And that among the elders, the bishop, as a consul among the senators of a commonwealth, should bear the chiefest care and governance both of the whole church, and also peculiarly of the whole order of the clergy. And in all the greatest and most populous congregations they ordained bishops, and to each of them they committed the next congregations, which were in little towns and villages, and decreed that the elders and curates of those congregations whom they called chorepiscopi, country or petty bishops, should every one harken and obey the bishop and presbytery next unto them. These those superior bishops did call together, and all their whole clergy, and did instruct them in knowledge, and the diligent execution of their office. But whereas it was the Lord's will that His people should mutually love among themselves, and should mutually care one for another, even as far and wide as might be possible (for all Christians are one body), the holy fathers ordained that the bishops of each province (for then all the Roman jurisdictions were distributed into provinces) should meet together with their presbyteries, so often as the necessity of the churches required, but always twice in the year, and there they should inquire concerning Christ's doctrine and discipline, how the same was administered, and how it prospered in the churches; that where they found any default, they might correct it; that which they knew to be well, they might confirm and set forward. And that these Synods might also be ordered aright and orderly, they would have the Metropolitaine [metropolitan], the bishops of every mother city to be the chief directors, to call them together and to guide them. For in each province, the head city, wherein was the mansion or seat of the chief governor, was called metropolis, or the mother city. And therefore they enjoined unto these metropolitaine [metropolitan] bishops a certain care and charge over all the churches throughout their province, that if they should understand of anything taught or done amiss either of the ministers of the churches or of the common sort, that they should give warning thereof in time. And if by their admonitions they could not amend the same, then for the correction thereof they should call a Synod of bishops; for it was not granted unto them that they should execute any judgment upon their own authority, over churches which had bishops of their own; for the power of judgment over both clergy and laity was only in the hands of the bishop and elder of the same place. And the bishops themselves were judged by the Synods. Therefore when there were any bishops to be ordained for churches, it was decreed that they should assemble at the same church with all, (if it might without hurt of the churches) if not with some, at the least two or three of the bishops of their own province, which (if he were not already elected) should guide and govern in the election of the bishop, and the election being done should examine it, and inquire of the man elected most severely, and make due proof of his whole life and of his skill and ability to perform the office and duty of a bishop; and then at last should invest him in his bishop's function. All which things were instituted and served to this end, that there might be as much knowledge and mutual care between churches and the ministers thereof as could be possible, both for the removing and expelling of all scandals of doctrine and life, and also to the earnester [more earnest] and more effectual maintaining, provoking and increasing of the edification of faith, and a life worthy of Christ our Lord. Insomuch as if anyone did loiter or neglect their own duty, the other bishops might be ready to help, yea, even so far forth as to the suspending of the obstinate, and utter casting them out of their bishop's function. We should consider what Saint Cyprian writeth to Stephan the Roman bishop concerning Martian bishop of Arelatensis, who fell into the sect of Novatian, book 2, epistle 13, and which he writes in his third epistle and first book, "Of a certain flock distributed unto every one of the shepherds," and which he spake in the counsel of Carthage, as he wrote to Quitinus.

Now further when the world began to be full of churches and that the Metropolitanes had also need of their peculiar care,(for not all, there beginning now to grow very many, had other skill enough or watchfulness enough for their place; forever and in all orders of men there be few that do excel) the care of some provinces was committed to certain bishops of the chief churches, as to the bishop of Rome, of Constantinople, of Antioch and Alexandrea, and afterwards of Caesarea, and Cappadocia, and certain others, as by reason of the great increase of churches of the faithful necessity did require. But notwithstanding, these primate bishops, (whom afterward they called patriarchs) had no authority over the other bishops or churches, more than (as I said before) the Metropolitanes had over the bishops and churches of their provinces. Everyone did owe a special care and diligence to that portion of the churches that belonged to him. It was his duty also to admonish the bishops in time if any had offended or neglected his duty; and if admonition prevailed not, then to add the authority of a counsel. Among these the first place was given to him of Rome, both for the reverence of S. Peter, and also for the majesty of the city. Which reason the fathers afterward following, gave the second place to him of Constantinople, as being a second Rome, and the bishop of the emperial sea; whereas Antioch before, had obtained the second place among these patriarchs.

But as the nature of man depraved by ambition, did ever labor more, that his rule might stretch far, then to govern well, these patriarchs by occasion of this general care of the churches committed unto them, drew unto themselves, first the ordaining of their neighbor bishops; and by that ordaining, they crept by little and little, and at last confirmed a jurisdiction over such bishops, and their churches; which mischief, when it grew to be very great, there began a grievous contention for a universal rule over all churches; which the first that labored to get unto himself was one John bishop of Constantinople, under the emperor, Mauricius; concerning which contention there are extant many epistles, among the epistles of S.Greg. booke 5.6.7.10.

At length under Phocas, he of Rome obtained this title of universal bishop, which the bishops of that sea began more and more by degrees to abuse, even until by occasion, first by division of the Empire under Charles the Great, afterwards by dissentions of princes and nations, whereby the tore and rent the power of the emperors of the west, and other kings. They exalted themselves into that anti-Christian power which now they brag of; having oppressed the powers first of bishops, and then of all kings and emperors. Thus therefore hath Satan overthrown the wholesome obedience and government of the clergy orders. For the Roman antichrist got to himself an immediate rule over all both clergy and laity; and hath dissolved and broken the care and charge of bishops, such as were good bishops, over those that were committed to their trust. But seeing it must needs be that all orders of clerks must have their governors and overseers, therefore the power of bishops must be restored, as also of Archdeacons and all others by what name soever they be called, to whom any portion of governing and keeping the clergy is committed. And also a watchfulness and inquiry that there be none in this order unguarded or unlooked unto. Thus far Bucer, not only rehearsing, but also commending the custom of the ancient church, ordaining divers orders of ecclesiastical functions, whereof we before spake.

I should also have had consideration of those churches which, albeit they embrace the gospel of Christ Jesus, yet they still retain their bishops and archbishops both in deed and name.

What? that in the churches even of the Protestants, neither bishops indeed, nor archbishops are wanting. Whom, having turned the names out of good Greek into bad Latin, they call superintendents and general superintendents? Yea, there also, where neither those old names in good Greek, nor these new in ill Latin, are used at all. Yet their are wont to be some superior persons in whose hands is almost the whole authority. The controversy then hath been about the names; but seeing we agree about the thing, why should we contend about the names? By the way, as I did not disallow the fathers in that matter, whereupon the questions is, so can I not but love the zeal of our men which do therefore hate those names because they are afraid, least with the names, the old ambition and tyranny should be brought in again to the destruction of the church.

For neither did Christ ordain any such head. Neither would the fathers admit thereof, because it was not expedient for the church; but contented themselves with the four patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, all which, were of an equal authority and power; and every of them contained within his own bounds, as also it was decreed in the Council at Nice, and confirmed in others. And that not without many and very weighty causes, whereof in my judgment this was not one of the least, least there should be a door set open to tyranny in the church. But rather if that anyone durst attempt anything against the sound doctrine of Christ, and against the liberty of the church, then the other archbishops with their bishops of no less authority might oppose themselves against him and suppress his insolency and cut off his tyranny. The church in respect of Christ is a kingdom; in respect of men which are in it, and either rule or be ruled, it is an aristocracy.

These be two questions far different: Whether bishops may also be princes, and princes bishops, keeping also their principalities in their hands. And, whether they which are both bishops and princes, besides their ecclesiastical authority, may also have civil power over those that are their subjects, and so, whether their subjects must obey them as princes, or not. In my aphorism, I spake not one word of the former question, for it was not needful, but only of the latter. Now who seeth not, how I showed by apparent demonstrations, that princes must be wholly obeyed, howsoever, rightfully or wrongfully, they be made princes? For why should not they that are subject both to the princes and archbishops of Colone, Mentz, and Trevers, in matters that are not repugnant to Christian piety, be obedient unto them? Surely it were mere sedition in them not to obey them. And if to these, why should not they also, which are within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, in the same matters and for the same cause obey him? For there is one and the same reason of them all.

Of the former question (as I say) I spake not at all. Neither purposed I now in this brief confession to discourse thereof, knowing that all are not herein of one opinion, and much may be said to and fro both ways. That place in Matthew 20, ("...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you...") some expound it one way, of the apostles only, and ministers of the Word; others another way, of all Christ's disciples and all Christians.