dominioÌ„s read the holy bibles in their vulgar tongues and cause their subiectes to doe the like a thing neuer heard of by any writers of approoued antiquitie A doubt S. Peter saith that certaine places of S. Paules epistles be hard to be vnderstood and S. Hierome in his Commentaries vpon Ezechiel saith that amongst the Iewes none could be permitted to reade the beginning of Genesis the Canticles the beginning and ending of Ezechiel vntill he were 36. yeres of age The answer I answere with S. Austen that whatsoeuer is necessary for mans saluation is plainly set downe in holy scripture and that which is obscure in one place is made manifest by another his words I haue alledged in my book of Motiues in the tenth chapter and second conclusion The fourth section of the Prophet Daniel Daniel was a prophet of the tribe of Iuda descended of noble parentage and being a childe was carried from Iurie to Babilon Epiphanius de vit interrit Prophet Of Daniel hee was called Balthazar Which name was giuen him either as Iosephus saith of king Nabuchodonozor or as Lud. Viues saith of the kinges Eunuche who had charge of the kinges children This is certaine that hee was called Balthasar in Babylon Orig. in Num. cap. 31. hom 25. Daniel preached in Babylon in the very time of the captiuitie Dan. 1. ver 7. Daniel departed out of this life in Babylon and was buried with great honour his sepulchre is this day to be seene in Babylon renowmed throughout the world Epiphanius vbi supra CHAP. XI Of the Prophets called the lesser The first section why some were called the greater and other some the lesser FOure to wit Esay Ieremie Ezechiel and Daniel were called the greater Prophets because they wrote greater and larger volumes Twelue to wit Osee Ioel Amos Abdias Ionas Micheas Nahum Abacuc Sophonias Aggeus Zacharias Malachias were called y e lesser because they wrote smaller lesser volumes Aug. de ciuit lib. 18. c. 29. in princ Of these Prophetes as the latter were neerer the time of Christ so had they clearer reuelations of Christ then the former Gloss. in 1. Reg. 3. The second Section of Osee. Asarias who was also called Ozias of the stocke of Dauid reigned in Ierusalem ouer the two tribes which were called Iuda 52. yeares After him Ioatham his sonne reigned 16. yeares after Ioatham Achab his sonne reigned in like maner 16. yeares in the eleuenth yeare of whose reigne the ten tribes which were called Israel were taken of Salmanasar the king of the Caldees and placed in the mountaines of the Medes After Achas reigned his sonne Ezechias 28 yeres whereby it is cleere that when Osee Esay Ioel Amos Abdias Ionas and Micheas prophesied who were all at one time then was the kingdome of the ten tribes ended Which continued from Ieroboam the first king vntill Osee the last the space of 250. yeares The same time that Osias began to reigne ouer Iuda Ieroboam king Iehu his Nephewes sonne reigned the 12. yeare ouer Israel because God had promised that his seede should reigne vntill the fourth generation for smiting two wicked kinges of Iuda and Israel this I write 〈◊〉 S. Hierome to shew that Osee wrote both before and 〈◊〉 the captiuitie of Israel Hier. in 1. cap Osee. see the eight â—â—â—pter and sixt section per tot sect Osee prophesied that the Iewes should be conuerted at the latter end of the worlde He preached against the tenne tribes of their fornication and of the destruction of Samaria he spake something also of the other two tribes Gloss in princ 1. ca. Osee. Osee foretolde the comming of the Messias and that this should be the signe of his comming To wit if that oake in Selom be clouen of it selfe into twelue partes and be made so many oake trees and it came so to passe Epiphan de Prophet vit eter The third section of Ioel. The Prophet Iohel the sonne of Phatuel was borne in the territorie of Bethor descended of the tribe of Ruben He prophesied much of Ierusalem and of the consummation of the Gentiles He died in peace and was buried with honour in his owne countrey Epiphan vbi supr Like as in Osee vnder the name of Ephraim the prophesie is extended to the tenne tribes who are often called Samaria or Israel euen so whatsoeuer Ioel saith pertaineth to Iuda and Ierusalem Hier. in 1 cap. Ioel. Ioel prophesied in the daies of king Ioatham who succeeded king Ozias Aug. de ciuit lib 18. cap 27. but S. Hierome extendeth the time further euen to the reignes of Ozias Ioatham Achas and Ezechias Hier. in Ioel. The fourth section of Amos. Amos was borne in Thecue descended of the tribe of Zabulon he was father to Esay the Prophet so saith Epiphan de prophet vit inter but saint Austen and saint Hierome think otherwise as I haue shewed Amos was of Thecue six miles South from holy Bethlehem where our Sauiour Christ was borne Hier. in comment Amos. S. Basill saith that Amos was a shepheard but God instructed him with his holy spirite and so aduaunced him to the dignitie of a prophet Basilius Epist. 55. Amos prophesied in the daies of Ozias when Esaias began his prophesie Hier. in Esaiam lib. 3 cap. 7. Aug. de ciuit lib. 18 cap. 27 He prophesied also in the time of Ieroboam the sonne of Ioas king of Israel Hier. in 1. cap. Amos. The fift section of Abdias Abdias or Obadiah was the steward of king Achabs house the king of Israel 3. King 18. verse 3. he hid Gods prophets in caues and fed them with bread and water ver 4. he gaue ouer the kings court ioyned himselfe to the prophet Elias and became his disciple Epiphanius Hieronymus Abdias is briefe in wordes but pithie in matter because he hid the 100. prophets in caues he was aduaunced to the dignitie of a prophet and where before hee was the captaine of an armie he now became the captaine of Gods Church then hee fed a little flocke in Samaria nowe he feedeth Christes churches in the whole world Hier. in Abdiam yet saint Hierome vpon Osee maketh Abdias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Esaias which seemeth verie probable The sixt section of the Prophet Ionas The prophet Ionas was appointed of God to preach to the Niniuites that the citie after three daies shoulde be destroied but he being afraid to preach to that great city of the Assyrians fled from the presence of the Lord and went downe into a ship that went to Tarshishe but when a great tempest arose the marriners cast Ionas into the Sea and hee was in the belly of a great fishe three daies and three nightes and after that he was deliuered out of the Whales bellie and brought to the dry land TheÌ„ the word of the Lord came to Ionas the second time he preached to the Niniuites and they by repentance appeased the wrath of God Ionas cap. 1. 3 Athanas.
to eate their owne bread but also to weare their owne clothes that so they be no way burdenous to him And yet as our Iesuite Bellarmine and other papists woulde haue it vnderstood in Genesis the text must yeeld this sense Wee will eate our owne bread and weare our own garments and desire onely that wee may inuocate thy name and make our prayers to thee when thou art dead Which sense is most absurd as euerie childe may perceiue for first if this had beene the meaning of the women in vaine had they made mention of eating their owne bread and wearing their owne garments as which coulde neither profite nor disprofite the man Secondly these women knew not whether the man should be a saued soule in heauen or a damned spirit in hel and therefore would they neuer make such a request to him Thirdly praying to him being dead could not take away their reproch on earth Fourthly the man might suruiue and liue after them all and so their desire was in vaine Fiftly Saint Hierome expoundeth this text euen as I haue saide For these are his words Tantùm ne absque marito esse videantur subâ—acere illi maledicto quod scriptum est maledicta sterilis quae non facit semen in Israel Onelie least they seeme to bee without an husband and to bee subiect vnto the curse which is written Accursed be the barren which bringeth not foorth seede in Israel In sundry places of the Scripture the selfe same phrase is found which can not possibly yeelde any other sense and therefore most impudent are the papists who blush not to father their praying to Saints vpon this fact of Iacob Peruse the ninth chapter of Daniel the eighteene and nineteene verses where it is thus written Beholde the citie wherevpon thy name is called For thy name is called vpon thy citie and vpon thy people That is to say it is named thy citie and they are called thy people Ponder well these words of Saint Iames the second chapter 7. verse Doe not they blaspheme the good name that is inuocated vpon you that is you that of Christ are called Christians The like phrases are in Ieremie the seuenth in Esay the 44. chapter in the booke of kinges and in other places But our Iesuite thinketh the wordes aforegoing in Genesis to prooue his purpose effectually For Ioseph praied to the angel to blesse the sonnes of Ioseph But I answere that that angel whereof Iacob spake is Christ himselfe And I prooue it by other places of the same booke where Iacob calleth God an angell The angel of God saith Iacob said to me in a dreame Yet in y e verse following the angel calleth himself the God of Bethel Which God was the angel that deliuered Iacob from all euill Which God was that Christ in whom Iacob and his seed are blessed And so by conferring place with place it is euident that Iacob praied to God not to the angel Our Iesuites vrge yet another Scripture to prooue inuocation of saintes Call now if anie wil answere thee and turne thee to some of the saintes I say first that these be the wordes of Elyphas the Themanite one of Iobes frindes and therefore not a sufficient warrantize for an article of our faith I say secondly that he speaketh not of the saints departed but of the godly then liuing Whose behauiour he willeth Iob to consider if any of the godly rage against God as he did I say thirdly that our Iesuite confesseth elswhere as I haue prooued that before Christes ascension praying to saintes was not vsed The second conclusion To pray to Saintes departed is a thing at the least vaine and needles I prooue it because God is most able and most willing to helpe vs. Most able for that hee is omnipotent the fountaine of all grace and the giuer of euery good gift Most willing in that he hath not onely mercifully inuited vs to call vpon him but withall faithfully promised to heare and graunt our petitions If any man lacke wisedome saith S. Iames let him aske of God which giueth to all men liberally and reprocheth no man and it shalbe giuen him If any man sinne saith S. Iohn we haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the iust and hee is the reconciliation for our sinnes euen for the sinnes of the whole world Call vpon me in the day of trouble saith God by his prophet and I will deliuer thee The scripture telleth vs in many places that whosoeuer asketh any thing of God shall receiue and whosoeuer seeketh shall finde and to euery one that knocketh the dore shall be opened And that whatsoeuer we shall aske in Christes name we shall attaine the same vndoubtedly The 1. obiection God will often accept the praiers of others for vs when hee will not heare our selues For when his wrath was kindled against Eliphaz the Themanite and his two friendes he would not heare them but yet accepted Iobs praiers for them The answere I answere that God meant not vtterly to reiect Eliphaz his friends for if he had so determined he would neuer haue accepted Iobs praiers for them But because they had contemned Iob and preferred their owne righteousnesse God to giue a testimonie of Iobs innocencie true faith and patience and to confound the proud conceites of Eliphas and his fellowes sent them to Iob and said that hee woulde accept his praiers for them Which my exposition is grounded on these words my wrath is kindled against thee and against thy two friendes for yee haue not spoken of me the thing that is right like my seruaunt Iob. As if God had saide yee haue offended much more then my seruaunt Iob in that yee condemned him by his outward afflictions and did not comfort and solace him with my mercies And therefore doe I send you vnto him that you may know that he hath greater fauour in my sight Thus God shewed the faith of Abraham praying for the Sodomites of Moses for the Israelites and of Paule for the 276. persons in the ship with him The replie If it were true that because God is most willing and most able to helpe vs therefore it is needles and vaine to inuocate or call vpon saintes departed by the same reason it is needlesse to inuocate and call vpon the saintes liuing which yet the scripture commandeth vs to doe The answere I say first that in proper kind of speech inuocation is a speciall part of diuine worship comprehending the affection of the minde that appealeth to his grace help and aid whom it doth inuocate and so it is proper to God alone yet in a large acception it may bee giuen to the liuing I say secondly that the one is vaine and needlesse not so the other The reason is this because we haue commaundement and promise for the one not so for the other For that is neuer to be deemed vaine or
For first the cup doth figuratiuely signifie the liquour in the cup. Again the cup is called the testament and yet it is but the figure or signe of the testament I say secondly that y e figure Metonymie is very frequent in the holy scripture aswell in the old as in the new testament In the old testament we haue these examples this is the passeouer That is this doth signifie the passeouer Againe this is my couenant that is to say this doth signifie my couenant or this is a signe of my couenant Againe the 7. good kine are 7. yeares and the seuen good eares are seuen yeares Againe the the seuen thinne and euill fauoured kine are seuen yeares Againe the seuen emptie eares blasted with the East-wind are seuen yeares of famine In all which places the figure Metonymia is vsed For neither the kine nor the eares were the seeuen yeares as euery childe knoweth but they did signifie the yeares to come they were a signe and figure thereof In the newe testament we haue these examples I am the vine Againe I am a doore Againe My father is an husbandman Againe The seed is the word of God Againe We that are manie are one bread Againe The rocke was Christ. Againe The lyon which is of the tribe of Iuda the root of Dauid hath obteined to open the booke In which places Christ neither was the vine nor the rocke nor the lyon neither was the seed the word of God neither was God the father an husbandman neither are the fathfull one bread but al these things are figuratiuely spoken by the vsuall custome of the holy Scripture I say thirdly that not only the ancient fathers but euen the papistes also haue acknowledged this figure their words and testimonies are alreadie cited I say fourthly that the verie wordes of institution are figuratiue which thing is so plaine as euerie child may perceiue the same For thus saith S. Luke This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Where I am well assured euerie papist small and great will confesse with me that the cup by the figure metonymia is taken for the liquour in the cup. And so against their will they are enforced to acknowledge a figure euen there where they so obstinately denie a figure The fift obiection The Prophet Malachie hath such a plaine testimonie for the reall presence and sacrifice of the altar as it can neuer be aunswered till the worldes end These are the wordes In euery place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure offering These wordes of the Prophet being effectually applied will confound the respondent whatsoeuer hee shall answere For first the prophet speaketh of the oblatiō of the new testament as your selues cannot deny Secondly the prophet saith that this oblation must be in euery place and so it cannot be vnderstoode of Christs bodie offered vpon the crosse for that oblation was but in one place euen without the walles of Ierusalem Thirdly it cannot be vnderstood of the sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing bicause whatsoeuer proceedeth from vs is impure polluted Yea as an other prophet saith Al our righteousnes is as filthie clouts and so no oblation that is ours can be pure Therefore he speaketh of Christs body offered in the masse which is a pure oblation indeede The answere I answere to this insoluble so supposed argument that the prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing And I prooue it by the flat testimonies of the holy Fathers Saint Irenaeus hath these wordes In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo sacrificium purum Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait sanctorum Incense is offered to my name in euery place and a pure sacrifice and Saint Iohn in the Reuelation saith that this incense is the prayers of the Saints Saint Theodoretus doeth expound this place after the same maner in his Commentaries vpon the same text Saint Hierome hath these wordes Sed thymiama hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaeâ nec in vna Iudaeae vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem But incense that is the prayers of saints must be offered to the Lord and that not in Iudea one onely prouince of the world neither in Ierusalem one onlie citie thereof but in euery place must an oblation be made Now where it is said that al our actions be impure and polluted I answere that that is true indeed when our actions be examined in rigour of iustice But not so when we are clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus and haue washed our sins in his bloud for whose sake God doth not impute our pollutitions and filth vnto vs. Not so when God dealeth with vs according to mercie Not so when God accepteth our sinfull and imperfect acts as pure iust and innocent For our owne vnworthienesse the Prophet desired God not to enter into iudgement with his seruants but for Christs righteousnesse the Apostle pronounceth vs free from condemnation For though our sinnes be red as scarlet yet so soone as they be washed in the bloud of the immaculate Lambe they become by acceptation as white as snow This whole discourse Saint Augustine handleth finely in these golden wordes Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the laudable life of men if thou examine it thy mercie set a part And in this sense the obiection taketh place Neuertheles god of his great mercie doth accept our works as iust and pure through faith in Christ Iesus our sweet redeemer for whose sake he doth not impute our sins to vs. So saith the Apostle not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee haue done but according to his mercie hath he saued vs by the washing of the new birth the renewing of the holy Ghost So saith S. Iohn These are they which came out of great tribulation and haue washed their long robes haue made them white in the bloud of the lamb through the merits of which lambe our prayers and works are reputed pure Therefore saith Saint Paul I will therefore that the men pray euery where lifting vp pure hands without wrath or doubting The 6. obiection If the words of consecration be trophicall and figuratiue so as there is but a bare signe of Christs body and bloud then shall our sacraments of the newe Testament bee no better then the sacraments of the old The reason is euident because they did signifie Christs death and passion euen as ours do and yet is it cleare by the scriptures that we haue the verity wherof they had but the figure onely The answere I say first that our sacraments excell the olde sundry waies first because they are immutable and shall not bee altered till the worlds
so long For from the building thereof vntill the captiuitie be onely 432. yeares and eleuen yeares after that was it burnt as is prooued in the second doubt of this present chapter The captiuitie began the fourth yeare of Ioachim aliâs Eliachim Iere. 25. ver 1. Daniel with others of the Nobilitie were carried captiues Dan. 1. ver 3. yea Ioachim himself was bound with chaines and so carried to Babell 2. Paralip 36. ver 6. Nabuchodonozor carried away into Babell Ioachims mother his wiues his Eunuches and the mightie of the land carried he away into captiuitie from Ierusalem vnto Babell 4. King cap. 24. verse 15. The king of Babell made Matthanias his vncle king in his steed and changed his name to Sedechias verse 17. ibid. The first doubt The captiuitie beganne when Ieconias was carried away captiue to Babylon as it seemeth in S. Mathew cap. 1. v. 11. And yet was he eight yeares old when he was caried into Babylon 2. Par. 36. ver 9. before which time hee did not reigne ibid. Therefore the captiuitie could not beginne in the 11. yere of Sedechias as Iosephus and the Hebrews reckon neither at the birth of Ieconias as S. Mathew writeth The answere For the manifestation of this difficultie we must obserue that Ierusalem was thrise taken by the Babylonians to wit in the daies of Ioachim Iechonias and Sedechias 4. King ca. 24. 25. By reason whereof some reckon the beginning of the captiuitie from Ioachim some from Ieconias other some as the Hebrewes doe generally from the 11. yeare of king Sedechias See the answere of the third doubt heereof I haue spoken more at large in the second chapter in the handling of the fift age The second doubt The Prophet Ieremie writeth that the Citie of Ierusalem was burnt togither with the kinges pallace and the temple in the tenth day of the fift moneth in the 19. yeare of king Nebuchad-nezar Iere. 52. verse 12. but as the booke of Kings saith it was burnt in the seuenth day of the said moneth 2. Kin. 25. verse 8. The answere I answere that the citie was three daies in burning to wit from the seuenth day vntill the tenth Ieremie therefore speaking of the end is not contrarie to the booke of the kings speaking of the originall thereof The third doubt The prophet Daniel saith that the calamitie began in the third yeare of king Ioachim or Iehoiakim Dan. 1 ver 1. but the prophet Ieremie affirmeth that it was in the fourth yeare of Iehoiachim and in the first yeare of Nabuchad-nezar king of Babell Ier. cap. 25. verse 1. The answere We must here obserue that the captiuitie the first of the three was in the end of the third yeare of Ioachim as Daniel truely writeth in rigour of supputation yet may it be well said that it began in the fourth yeare as we reade in Ieremie because the remnant in the third yeare was in effect nothing at all The second Section Of the time of the siege The citie of Ierusalem was besieged the space of two yeres that is from the ninth yeare vntill the eleuenth of king Sedechias 4. Kin. 25. ver 1 2. during the time of which siege the famine was so sore and vrgent that the handes of pitifull mothers sod their own children to be their meate Lam. Ier. ca. 4. verse 10. which thing seemeth so repugnant to nature as it were ineredible to be tolde if holy writ had not first reported it The like horror was among mothers in murthering their children when Titus in the second yeare of Vespatianus his father besieged it and manie murthered themselues because the famine was so great The 3. Section Of Noe his floud The scripture recordeth that when God saw the wickednes of man to be great on earth and all the thoughtes of his heart to be naught continually it repented him that he had created man Wherefore his holy will was this to destroy from the face of the earth the man whom hee hadde made from man to beast to the creeping thinges and to the foules of the aire And this God purposed to doe by drowning of the world with a generall floud of water Yet Noah found fauour in Gods sight so that himselfe his wife his sonnes and their wiues eight persons in all with cattell foules and all liuing things two of euery sorte were saued in the arke Gen. 6.7 Noah was 600. yeares olde when the floud was vpon the earth Gen. chap. 7. ver 6. the floud preuailed on the earth 150. dayes Gen. 7. ver 24. The floud continued a whole yere Gen. 8. ver 13. It was in the yere of the world 1656. For from Adam to the birth of Noah are 1056. Gen. 5. And from the birth of Noah till the floud are 600. yeares The fourth Section Of the building of the temple King Salomon builded the temple in the fourth yeare of his raigne which was in the 480. yeare after the children of Israel were come out of Egypt 3. Kin. 6. ver 1. And in the yeare of the world after Iosephus 3102. after others 3149. but after the exact supputation 2994. as is already prooued While the temple was a building K. Salomon appointed seuentie thousand to beare burdens foure score thousand to hew stones in the mountaines and three thousand sixe hundreth ouerseers to cause the people to worke Par. cap. 2. ver 18. The fift Section Of the abode of the Israelites in Egypt There is a great controuersie and varietie not to be dissembled amongst Historiographers and learned writers concerning the time that the Israelites were in Egypt For Moses saith that the Israelites were in Egypt 430. yeares In Genesis it is said that they were there only 400. yeares S. Stephen saith that Abrahams seed should be a soiourner 400. yeares in a strange land And yet it is very certaine by authenticall supputation of the Scriptures that they were in Egypt only 215. yeares so that we want two hundreth yeares and odde of the accompt made in Genesis Exodus and the Actes S. Hierome confessed freely that he knew not howe to reconcile these places of the holy scripture S. Chrysostome reconcileth the places thus to wit that God appointed the Israelites to abide 400. yeares in Egypt yet for the heynous sinnes of the Egyptians he shortened the time euen as he abridged the 120 yeares which he graunted before the floud vnto men that they might repent and brought them to one hundreth Neither was Niniuie destroied after 40. daies Neither died Ezechias as God had said I answere therefore with Saint Austen and other learned writers that the 400. yeares mentioned in Genesis and in the Acts must be reckoned from the birth of Isaach vntill the departure out of Egypt and the 430. from Abrahams going out of his countrie For the seed of Abraham was so long afflicted in a land not their owne as the scripture speabeth Partly in Palestine partly in Mesopotamia and
Ioatham Amos prophesied against the nations adiacent to them in the time of Ozias Esaias prophesied against Iuda and Iurasalem in the time of Ioatham Ioel prophesied to Iuda and Ierusalem in the time of Ozias Michaeas prophesied against Ierusalem and Samaria in the time of Ioatham Nahum prophesied to the Assyrians and Niniuites in the time of Ioatham Abacuc prophesied against Babylon and Nabuchodonosor in the time of Manasses Ieremias prophesied to the citie of Ierusalem in the time of Iosias and Zedechias Sophonias prophesied against Iurusalem and Iuda in the time of Iosias Ezechiel prophesied to the captiues in Babylon in the time of Ioachim Daniel prophesied to his countrey men in Babylon in the time of Ioachim Haggaeus prophesied to all the people in Ierusalem and Iuda in the time of Zorobabel Zacharias prophesied to the people of Ierusalem and Iuda in the time of Zorobabel Malachias prophesied to the people of Ierusalem Iuda in the time of in the end of the captiuitie 〈…〉 CHAP. X. Containing a particular description of the time of the Prophets called the greater The first section of the Prophet Esay THe Prophet Esay was the sonne of Amos not of that Amos who was the third of the 12. lesser Prophetes but of another Amos hauing different characters with the Hebrews Aug de ciuit libr. 18. cap. 27. Hier. in 1. cap Esaiae Esay prophesied to Ierusalem and Iuda that is to the two tribes of Beniamin and Iuda Hier. in 1. cap Esaiae Esay who was also called Azarias Osee Ioel Amos prophesied at the selfe same time in the daies of Osias Ioatham Achas and Ezechias kings of Iuda Hier. in princ Esaiae The wicked king Manasses caused the prophet Esay to be sawed in peeces with a wodden saw Wherefore that which the Epistle to the Ebrewes saith of the tortures of Gods Saintes that they were hewen in sunder is very fitly referred to the prophet Esay Hier. lib. 15. cap. 57. in Esaiam The second section of the prophet Ieremie Ieremie prophesied to y e two tribes of Iuda Beniamin he foretold their captiuitie in Babylon hee began his prophesie in the daies of Iosias he continued the same in the daies of Ioachim and vntill the eleuenth yeare of Sedechias in the time of the captiuitie Orig. hom 1. in Hier. Aug. de ciu lib. 18. c. 33. Betweene the time of Ieremias and Esaias were one hundred and fiftie yeares Hier. lib. 9. cap. 30. in Esaiam He was the sonne of Helkias the priest cap. 1. Iere. v. 1. the tradition of the Hebrewes is that whensoeuer the father or graundfather of any prophet is put in the title such a one was also a prophet himselfe Gloss. ordinar Sophonias prophesied at the same time with Ieremias Athanas in synop Aug. de ciu lib. 18. cap. 33. Iehoiakim king of Iuda burnt the book which Baruc wrote wrote at the mouth of Ieremias in which booke the prophet shewed what punishment God had determined to bring vpon Iuda and Israel if they would not returne euery man from his euill way and bring forth worthy fruites of repentance But Ieremie at Gods appointment wrote another book which contained the afflictions of Iuda and Israel in a farre larger maner Ierem. cap. 36. Where we may note by the way that the wicked do euer kicke against the preachers of Gods word especially when their sinnes are reprooued But at length they tast of the cup of Gods wrath for their great contempt and disobedience And our papistes are now become Iehoiakims as who both burne the writers of all bookes that reprooue their superstitions and idolatry and also cast the bookes into the fire Yea euen the holy bibles if they be once translated into the vulgar tongue Ieremie began to prophesie when he was a childe in the 13. yeere of Iosias king of Iuda hee continued his prophesie during the reigne of Iosias the sonne of Amon. 19. yeares and after that vnder Ioachim 11. yeres and vnder Sedechias 11. yeares who was the last king of Iuda The three moneths of Ioachaz and Iechonias are reckoned in the yeares afore named So that from the beginning of his prophesie vntill the captiuitie of Ierusalem in which himselfe was taken he prophesied 41. yeres ouer and besides that time in which he was carried away into Egypt and prophesied in Taphins Hier. in cap. 2. Ierem. at which Taphins in Egypt as some write hee was stoned to death But before that time he was put in a deep dungeon of myre Iere. 38. The third section of the prophet Ezechiel Ezechiel followed Ieremie and began to prophesie in the fift yeare of the transmigration of Iechonias which was the same yeare of the reigne of Sedechias Hier. lib. 5. cap. 29. in Ieremiam in the 30. yere after some of his age Ezechias c. 1. but as S. Hierome writeth the 30. yeares whereof the Prophet speaketh are not the yeares of the age of Ezechiel himself but the yeares from the 18. of king Iosias at what time the booke of the law was found vntill the fift yeare of the captiuity of Iechonias Hier. in cap. 1. Exech 2. Ezechiel was carried away captiue into Babilon togither with Iechonias Daniel and the three children Hier. in princ Ezech. Aug. de ciu lib. 18. cap. 34. This holy prophet foretold the destruction of Hierusalem and the captiuitie of the Iewes for their manifold sinnes and wickednesse earnestly exhorting them to repentance For which cause the Iewes were so exasperated against him as the wicked are this day against the preachers of Gods word that they trailed him on the ground amongst the stones till his braines went out Author oper imperf in Matt. cap. 23. hom 46. prop. finem A golden obseruation In the dayes of Iosias king of Iuda Helkiah the Priest found the booke of the lawe of the Lord giuen by the hand of Moses Which when the good king vnderstood hee gathered togither all the inhabitantes of Ierusalem and of Iuda and the Priests and the Leuites and all the people from the greatest to the smallest and he read in their eares all the words of the booke of the couenant that was found in the house of the Lord and the king caused all that were found in Ierusalem and Beniamin to stand to it and hee compelled all the people of Israel to serue the Lord their God 2. Par. 34.4 Kin. 22. Thus saith the holy scripture By which we see euidently that the ouersight of all persons in all causes aswell ecclesiastical as ciuill pertaineth to the king and that the king hath the charge of religion committed into his handes and also that he may compel priests and Leuites to doe their dueties in that behalfe On the other side we may note the intollerable impietie of our disholy fathers the late bishops of Rome Who most irreligiously and very impudently excommunicate christian kings and monarches because they appoint the word of God to be preached in their
kinges of Persia as Pharaoh was the common name of all kinges of Egypt and as Caesar was the common name of all the Emperours of Rome The second obseruation The custome of the Persians was this that when anie king went to warre against any strange nation hee left his sonne or the next of the bloud royall to bee king in his place Cyrus therefore when hee had warre against the Scythians and marched towarde them appointed Cambyses his sonne king of the countrey in his absence according to the custome of the Persians Xerxes likewise the sonne of Histaspis succeeded his father but left his kingdome to his sonne Longimain when hee went to warre against the Greekes in regarde heereof sundrie writers doe not place Cambyses and Xerxes in the lineall order of succession which point must bee well obserued to auoide obscuritie and to reconcile the dissenting historiographers CHAP. II. Of the time of repairing the temple in Hierusalem KIng Cyrus in the first yeare of his raigne as hee was the Persian monarke set the Iewes at liberty and appointed them to build the Temple againe in Hierusalem I say as monarke because as learned men write hee had raigned certain yeres in Persia before he tooke Babylon became the monarke Cambyses and other aduersaries did a long time hinder the building of the Temple so as it had not the accomplishment vntill the sixt yeare of Darius Assuerus Esdr. 6. vers 15. Albeit Darius in his second yeare gaue commandement that the worke should go forward Esdr. chap. 4. ver 24. The first difficultie The Iewes obiected against our Sauiour Christ that their temple was 46. yeares a building Ioh. 2. vers 20. yet by the supputation already made in the fourth section of the first chapter and second booke it cannot be so much The answere I say first that concerning the supputation of yeeres there is great varietie amongst historiographers Eusebius reckoneth the time from the 55. Olympiade to the 64. Olympiade inclusiuè that is 40. yeres others reckon 21. yeres others 23. others 30. neither agreeing with the account of the Iews neither yet with the raign of the monarks I say secondly that the teÌ„ple was 46. yeres in building as the Iews affirmed who best knew the time and their assertion is not dissonant from the raigne of the monarks for Cyrus raigned 30. yeares Cambyses 8. yeares Smerdes 7. moneths Darius sixe yeares and Nehemias after that builded vp the walles The replie The temple was finished in the sixt yeare of Darius as recordeth Esdras and so wee want one whole yeare and fiue months of the 46. yeeres whereof the Iewes spake The answere I answer that the temple is said to be finished in the 6. yere of Darius because all the worke in effect was then accomplished neuerthelesse some part thereof was left vndone because Nehemias after that builded vp the walles as wee reade in the first second and third chapter of his booke The second difficulty Cambyses Esdras 4. verse 6.7 is called Assuerus and Artaâ—â—rxes so as the names seeme to be confounded The answere I say first that Cambyses successor to king Cyrus a louing and mercifull Prince who furthered in all respectes the godly desire of the Iewes was a naughtie wicked and tyrannicall regent one that wholly bent himselfe against God and against his peculiar flocke Wherein appeareth the vncertaintie of mans felicitie in this worlde while a godly father hath to his successor a wicked and vngodly sonne a sonne that reuoketh the priuiledges which his father gaue to the people of God But his life was short miserable and bloudy the proper reward of all brutish tyrannie For as hee mounted vppon his horse hee sodainly fell vpon his disâ—ased sword and so had a bloudie end I say secondly that Artaxerxes is a name common to all the kinges of Persia to which name Assuerus is equiualent with the Hebrewes and so Cambyses is indifferently called Artaxerxes or Assuerus as is saide in the first obseruation The third difficultie Esdras writeth that the Iewes were appointed by three seuerall kinges of Persia to reare vp againe their temple Esdras 6. verse 14. and therefore not only at the first by Cyrus and afterwardes by Darius but also by Artaxerxes the third The answere I aunswere as I said before that Artaxerxes is the common name to all the kinges of Persia which obseruation if it once be forgotten many difficulties will ensue thereupon When Esdras therefore saith by the commaundement of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes it is all one as if hee had saide and Darius which is also called Artaxerxes for the particle and is there not copulatiue but expositiue as in other places also CHAP. III. Of the continuance of the monarchie Darius Ochus was a tyrannicall and bloudthirstie king he murdered his two brethren that so he might enioy the kingdome Hee made warre with the Egyptians and by that meanes cruelly vexed the Iewes By this prince and vntil the time of Alexander the great the church was euer in great miserie and affliction All the priuiledges graunted by Cyrus and Darius were vtterly taken away but God who neuer wil forsake his church though hee suffer it to be tossed and turmoiled for a time in the end brought solace and true ioy vnto the Iewes For shortly Darius Ochus was slaine of Bagoses by whom also Arsames was murdered and Darius Arbelas the last king of the Persians was ouercome and slaine of Alexander the Great So that the monarchie of the Persians endured 249. yeares and eight moneths after the supputation of others 191. whereof more at large hereafter The resistance was so great that the Iewes were enforced to builde with one hand and to holde their weapons in the other Nehe. 4. verse 17. The Monarchie of the Persians reached from India euen to Ethiopia ouer an hundred and seuen and twentie prouinces Est. cap. 1. verse 1. Darius Assuerus king of the Medes Persians and Chaldeans to shewe the riches and glorie of his kingdome and the honour of his maiestie made a feast to all his princes and seruauntes and to all captaines and gouernours of his prouinces for the space of an hundred and fourescore dayes And when these daies were expired the king made another feast to all the people of Susan the chiefe citie both vnto the great and small none excepted This he did for the space of seuen daies in the court of the kinges pallace vnder an hanging of white greene and blew clothes fastened with cordes of fine linnen and purple in siluer ringes and pillers of marble The beds were of golde and of siluer vppon a pauement of porphirie and marble and alabaster and blew colour They gaue them drink in vessels of gold and chaunged vessell after vessell and royall wine in aboundance according to the power of the king and none was compelled to drinke more then as best pleased him Est. cap. 1. v. 3 4 5 6 7 8. The
these expresse words Mens namque fuit Apostolorum non de diebus sancire festiuitatum sed conuersationem rectam dei praedicare culturam mihi ergo videtur quod sicut multa alia per prouincias ad consuetudinem venerunt sic Paschae festiuitas tradita sit eó quod nullus Apostolorum aliquid huic sanxisset For the meaning of the Apostles was not to make lawes for keeping holidaies but to preach the word of God and holy conuersation I therefore thinke that as many other things grew to a custome in diuerse countries so did also the keeping of Easter because none of the apostles made any lawe for the same Out of whose wordes I do note first that the scope of Christs apostles was this to preach the word of God not to appoint holidays Secondly that the keeping of Easter which is our sabbaoth was after the custome of the countrey Thirdly that the apostles made no lawe for the same Yea the first man in the world that made any positiue lawe for the christian sabbaoth was Constantine surnamed the Great who within three hundred and thirtie yeres after Christ about the 20. yere of his reigne to take away all contention in the church made a flatte Edict for the keeping of Friday and Sunday throughout the yeere Of this none can stand in doubt that shall pervse that fine Oration which Eusebius made de Laudibus Constantini the three and thirtieth yeere of his happy raigne This controuersie by the Emperours appointment was handled in the councill of Nice and immediatly after his decree which thing is euident by the saide Eusebius in his third booke de vitae Constantini and in his fourth booke hee affirmeth plainely that all subiect to the Romane empire were commaunded to abstaine from all bodily labour vppon the sundayes and fridayes Cassiodorus doeth prooue the same out of Sozomenus in these expresse wordes Die verò qui Dominicus vocatur quem Hebraei primam vocant Graeci autem soli distribuunt qui ante septimum est sanctuit à iudicijs aliÃsque causis vniuersis habere vacationem in eo tantum orationibus occupari The Emperour Constantine decreed that all people should cease from al sutes and other ciuil causes and consecrate themselues wholy vnto prayer vppon the Lordes day which the Iewes doe call the first day of the weeke and the Greekes doe terme Sunday as also vpon the friday The learned diuines in Germanie affirme directly that the Sunday may be altered These are their words Nam qui iudicant ecclesiae authoritate pro sabbato institutam esse diei Dominici obseruationem tanquam necessariam longè errant for they that thinke the church appointed the sunday to be kept for the sabbaoth of necessitie are deceiued grossely My third proofe is this Philippus Melancton Erasmus Roterodamus Iohannes Caluinus Petrus Martir Bullingerus and Vrsinus do all with vniforme consent yeelde so manifest testimonie to mine assertion as none doubtlesse that reade them attentiuely can without blushing deny the same Petrus Martir hath these words Quòd vnus dies certus in hebdomada cultui diuino mancipetur stabile firmum est an vero hic vel alius constituatur temporarium est ac mutabile That one day in the weeke must be assigned for diuine seruice it is constant firme and perpetuall but whether this or that day ought to be appointed for that purpose it is a thing that respects the time and may be changed Caluin in his Institutions after he hath commended the alteration of the saboth in the primitiue church affirmeth flatly that the day may yet be changed these be his wordes Neque sic tamen septenarium numerum morâ—r vt eius seruituti ecclesiam astringam neque enim ecclesias damnauero quae alios conuentibus suis solemnes dies habeant modò à superstitione absint Quod erit si ad solam obseruationem disciplinae ordinis bene compositi referantur Neyther do I for all that make such accompt of the seuenth day that I will haue the church tyed to keepe the same for I will not condemne churches which appoint other solemne dayes for their meetings so they be voide of superstition Which shal bee done if they appoint such tdayes onely for discipline and for comely order sake Vrsinus hath these words Summa est alligati sumus sabbato moraliter ceremonialiter in genere sed non in specie Hoc est ad aliquod ministerii publicè exercendi tempus sed non ad septimum vel aliquem alium certum diem This is the effect we are tied to the saboth morally and ceremonially in generall but not in speciall that is to say we are bound sometime to exercise the publike ministerie but wee are neither tied to the seauenth nor to any other certaine day And againe hee saith that all ceremonies appointed by the church may be altred againe by the counsell of the church Againe in another place he hath these expresse words Ecclesia christiana primum vel aliumdiem tribuit ministerio salua sua libertate the church of Christ hath libertie to appoint either the first day or some other day for Gods seruice To what end shoulde I alleage moe authorities for nothing can be more plainely spoken And as the church hath authoritie to alter the sabboth day so hath it power also which Bâ—llinger hath well obserued to appoint for the seruice of God certaine other festiuall dayes as the feast of the birth of our Lord of his incarnation circumcision passion resurrecâ—ion ascension and such like All which is this day verie prudently and laudably practised in the church of England An obiection If this your doctrine were true as you beare the world in hand it is then would it follow necessarily that there shoulde be no difference betweene the ordinance of God and man the reason seemeth euident because they both should be of like authoritie The answere I answere that they are not of like authoritie and I yeeld a double disparitie thereof for first the sabboth day is de iure diuino in generall albeit the determination thereof to this or that day in speciall be de iure humano but the other holidayes are both in generall and in speciall de iure humano Secondly because other holydaies are as well generally as specially appointed by man and therefore may be wholly abolished by the power of man But the sabboth day is generally appointed by God although the limitation thereof be reserued to his church and therefore notwithstanding that the church can limit the obseruation to this or that day yet can no power vpon earth wholly abolishe the same The fourth booke conteineth the description of the third Monarchie that is of the Greekes from Alexander vntill the Machabees CHAP. I. Of the originall of the monarchie and the circumstances of the same ALexander king of the Macedonians for his martiall
neither could Aaronicall succession be found any where at all priesthoode was bought with money and the hie priest was changed euery yere Which obseruation if it be annexed to the case of Alcimus will confound our papistes vtterly So write Iosephus and Eusebius Yea Iosephus addeth that from Herod vntill the citie was burnt by Titus there were 28. priestes who liued 107. yeares CHAP. VI. Of the varietie of religion before the incarnation of Christ our Sauiour Epiphanius in praefat contr haereses Barbarisme before the floud from the time of Adam Scythisme after the floud from y e daies of Noah Grecisme which began of the idolaters and was deuided into the sect of Pythagoreans Platonickes Stoickes Epicures Iudaisme which was from the time of Abraham it was deuided into the Scribes Pharisies Sadducees Hemerobaptists Osseans Nazareans Herodians Samaritisme from the time of Nabuchodonozor it was deuided into the Gorthenes Sebneans Essenes Dositheans At what time as the Church was miserably afflicted with the tyrannie of Antiochus sectes and diuisions euery where arose and pure doctrine was troden vnder foote Before Christ these three were the principall the sect of the Pharisies the sect of the Sadduces and the sect of the Essenes The Pharisies as some thinkeâ— had their denomination according to the etimologie of the word that is of separation because they did separate themselues from the common sort of Gods people and liued after another maner Yet others thinke more fitly that they had y â— name of y e interpretation of the holy scriptures because they taught out of the chaire of Moses and declared the scriptures vnto the people So write Reuchlinus and Iosephus and the etimologie of the name is consonant therunto For the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as properly signifie to expound as to deuide For which consideration saith Iosephus they are called Pharisies that professe the knowledge of the legall rites The Sadducees were corrupt with the Philosophie of the Greekes they had many things common with the Epicures they denied the resurrection they held that there were neither Angels nor spirits they reiected the bookes of the prophets and al this notwithstanding they would be called Sadducees that is iust men as the worde soundeth in the Hebrew tongue The Essenes that is workers were euen such and none other then this day be our popish Monks and Iesuits For the Essenes fled from the common people they dealed not with secular affaires they gaue themselues to contemplation they had all things in common they woulde not marrie they had precise houres appointed for reading and prayer they liued in great abstinence they dwelt in celles and were clad in poore attire These were the Essenes saith Iosephus who best knew the sects of his owne time and of his deare countrey-men and who knoweth not our popish Dominicans Franciscans Scotsts Thomists and Iesuites to be the selfe same sectaries They differ onely in these sixe points first they vse not so strict abstinence as I haue proued in the first booke in the 17. chapter and eleuenth section For our Iesuites will conuerse with the best and eate of all meates that are the best yea they are so farre consâ—med with seuere abstenicie that their great doctor Heywood when hee did sowe sedition in this Realme against his naturall soueraigne and natiue countrey pronounced before a great assemblie after he had beene reproued for not keeping the popish fasts that he could dispense both with himselfe and others to eate vppon all dayes at their pleasures which thing neuerthelesse the common people deluded with their doctrine thinke verily to be the ready way to hell Secondly the Essenes were distinguished from other people by their vsuall precise kind of abstinence where and with whome soeuer they did conuerse but our Iesuits are so farre from that that if you meet them in the common inne vpon the friday at Douer or other place of arriuall on what day soeuer yea though it be good fryday they wil eate flesh with you for companie and so accommodate themselues to the time as you may worthily deeme them worldelie politikes and not religious Iesuites as they professe to be Thirdly the Essenes were louers of peace but our Iesuits are fosterers of rebellion the Essenes sought quietnes but our Iesuits stirre vp sedition in euerie countrey Fourthly the Essenes delt faithfully with all men but our Iesuits deale vnfaithfully and glorie in the same Their constant doctrine is marke wel my words that one may say and sweare cleane contrarie to his minde so these three points concurre First if the iudge or magistrate before whom he sweareth be not a competent iudge or lawfull magistrate such a one is not in England by their opinion the Papists onely excepted Secondly if the matter bee not an article of their faith Thirdly if they dissemble to redeeme their vexation or trouble and this kinde of dealing is with them a godly politike equiuocation This rotten foundation once laide they make many sandie buildings thereupon for they will both say and sweare to their neighbours iudges and magistrates here in England that they haue not said masse bin in such places reconciled such persons beene in such company and so foorth when for all that they haue daily practised the same yet they perswade themselues that all this may lawfully be done The like execrable and plaine diabolicall equiuocation they vse when to auoid the danger imminent they are content with their lippes to acknowledge our most gratious soueraigne for their Queene but in their hearts thinke the flat contrarie Which thing is euident by the detestable excommunication of their pope Pius whereof I haue spoken at large in the preface of my Motiues For in that deuillish curse proceeding fro the master deuil himselfe her most excellent M. is not called the true and lawfull Queene but the pretensed Queene of England which their dissimulation is the flat herisie of the Helchesits Fiftly the Essenes taught to yeelde faithfull seruice and obedience to all magistrates specially to princes but our Iesuites stirre vp their Popes to sowe sedition and to make warres against Princes to excommunicate them and to dispossesse them of their royall scepters Sixtly the Essenes professed humilitie as well in deede as in worde but our Iesuites professe nothing lesse indeede though they desire to be so reputed This is to be proued many wayes for first whereas euery secte of their Religion the Dominicans the Franciscans the Carthusians the Carmelites the Capuchenes and the rest hath some one cardinall for their protector the late hatched Iesuites being rumors to all the rest cannot be content to submit themselues to any cardinall for which their hautie mindes they are iustly despised of them all Againe for a shew of humilitie their professed fathers so termed will haue no possessions yet they labour closely tooth and naile to get large possessions to the Seminaries to their penitentiaries readers students
vnderstand by the rocke Peters faith and the confession which he made Panormitan and Syluester both being great papists are of the same opinion The tenth replie Christ prayed for Peter that his faith should neuer faile therefore the Pope cannot erre The answere I say first that the Popes faith both may faile and hath failed de facto as I haue proued at large in my booke of Motiues I say secondly that the insuffiencie of this consequent is vnfolded in many places of this chapter I say thirdly that as Christ prayed for Peter so did he also for the rest of the Apostles for the whole church And this I do not barely say but I wil proue it by the verdicte of the holy fathers as also of your own doctors first by Christ Iesus his own declaratiō Concerning your Pope all wise men in the world worthily deride you papists for your vaine ridiculous and fabulous conceits of his faith For first the truth enforceth you to grant as I haue proued in my Motiues that your Pope may holde false opinions in matters of faith either sitting in his chaire or walking in his garden or looking about him in his Bel-vidêre or riding on his white palfrey or lying in his bed waking or at the table eating or while he giueth pardons and Iubilees Secondly that hee may vtter the same errour and false faith secretly to his friends Thirdly that he may publish the same in his Extrauagants Epistles and printed bookes Which 3. grants sufficiently ouerthrow your popes supposed priuilege if nothing else could be said against the same Concerning Peters faith it is certaine that Christ prayed as well for al the elect as for Peter and directed his words not to Peter as to one priuat man but as to one representing the whole church and consequently whatsoeuer Christ said or did touching Peters faith must perforce bee vnderstoode of the faith of the whole church which as is proued shall neuer faile indeede This being once made good your mightie obiection wherin ye glorie much wil bee of no force at all My first reason is contained in Christs owne words which are these I pray not for the worlde but for them which thou hast giuen mee for they are thine In which words it is cleare that Christ praieth onely for Peter but for al his disciples as wel as for him and he sheweth the equitie of his petition by sundrie reasons First because hee prayeth for Gods friends Secondly because he prayeth for Gods elect Thirdly because of the vnspeakeable vnion betweene his father and himselfe Fourthly because he is glorified in them so is his father also Fiftly because they are enuironed with many tentations of this wicked world Againe Christ saith I pray not for these only but for them also that shall beleeue in me through their word In which words his former praier which seemed to be made for his disciples only is nowe extended to all the faithfull vntil the worlds ende a sentence doubtlesse replenished with all solace towardes vs and the whole Church of God as which is the onely foundation of our saluation to witte that Christ did no lesse pray for vs then he did for his owne apostles And this reason is confirmed in an other place where Christ promiseth to be among those that are gathered in his name though they be but two in number Which words as our Iesuite Bellarmine doth grant are meant aswel of the Laicall as Ecclesiasticall sort My second reason is grounded vpon the interpretation of the ancient fathers S. Austen hath these expresse words Et Petro dicit Ecce Satanas expostulauit vt vos ventilet sicut triticū ego autem rogaui pro te vt non deficiat fides tua tu tandem conuersus confirma fratres tuos Quid ambigitur pro Petro rogabat pro Iacobo Ioanne non rogabat vt caeteros taceam manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri quia in alio loco dicit ego pro his rogo quos mihi dedisti pater volo vt vbi ego sum ipsi sint mecum And he saith to Peter Behold sathan hath desired to winnow you as wheat but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not therefore thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren What doubt is there Did hee pray for Peter and did he not also pray for Iames and Iohn to say nothing of the rest It is plaine that in Peter all the rest are meant because hee saith in an other place I pray for these O Father which thou hast giuen mee and desire that they may be with mee where I am Origen who liued manie yeeres afore saint Austen affirmeth in a large discourse vpon saint Matthew that all things spoken of Peter touching the church and the keyes are to be vnderstoode of all the rest And the collection of Origen is euident euen by natural reason For if Christ prayed not as well for the rest as for Peter of small credite were a great part of the holy scripture A reason doubtlesse insoluble for all papists in the worlde For if they coulde faile in their faith they could also faile in their writing and yet that they could not so faile was by vertue of Christs prayer My third reason is the flatte opinion and constant doctrine of great learned papists Panormitanus was their skilful Canonist their religious abbot and their renowmed archbishop and consequently his authority must needs gall and confound them all his wordes are these Et pro hac tantùm Christus in euangelio orauit ad patrem ego rogaui prote And for this he meaneth the vniuersall church Christ onely prayed to his father in the gospel when he saide I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not Behold here gentle Reader and yeelde thine indifferent censure When Christ saith the great papist Panorm prayed that Peters faith should not faile hee prayed for the faith of the vniuersall church whose faith shal neuer faile indeede And the said Panormitan prooueth his opinion directly by many texts of the popes Canon law de Elect. cap. significasti Alphonsus à Castro a religious popish Carthusian hath these wordes Non dubitamus an haereticum esse papam esse coire in vnum possint infra Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem papae assentatorem vt ei tribuere hoc velit vt nec errare nec in interpretatione sacrarum literarum hallucinari possit Wee doubt not whether one man may be a pope and an heretike both together For I beleeue there is none so shamelesse a flatterer of the Pope that will ascribe this vnto him that he can neither erre nor be deceiued in the exposition of the scriptures The eleuenth reply All Christs sheepe are committed to Peter and consequently to the pope Ergo The answer I say first that the bishop of Rome is not saint
they iterate their sinne in performing the same Who neuerthelesse shoulde haue sinned but once if after the making of their vngodly vowes they had ceased from the performance thereof For which cause holy Bernard aduiseth his sister grauely not to keepe and performe any ill vow Thus doth he write Rescinde fidem in malis promissis In turpi voto muta decretum Malum quod promisisti non facias Quod incautè vouisti nō impleas Impia est promissio quae scelere adimpletur Breake thy faith in euill promises chaunge thy purpose in vnhonest vowes doe not that euill which thou hast promised performe not that which thou hast rashly vowed That promise is wicked which is performed with wickednesse S. Isidorus hath the selfe same resolution concerning ill vowes as hee is alledged by Gratian. S. Bede after he had largely discoursed vpon euil promises and withall shewed that it is better euen to be periured then to performe naughtie and wicked promises alledged for the confirmation of his opinion the fact of holy Dauid in the death of Nabal These are his wordes Denique iurauit Dauid per Deum occidere Nabal virum stultum impium atque omnia quae ad eum pertinebant demoliri sed ad primam intercessionem Abigail foeminae prudentis mox remisit minas reuocauit ensemin vaginam neque aliquid culpae se pro taliperiurio contraxisse doluit Finally Dauid sware by God that he would kill Nabal a foolish wicked man that he would destroy all his both smal great yet so soon as Abigail Nabals wife a wife woman made her petition to him he abated his anger put vp his sword and nothing lamented the breach of his othe S. Ambrose hauing at large prooued by many golden testimonies that it was sinne to breake ill vows then to performe the same at length alleageth the ensample of Christ himselfe for that only purpose these are his words Non semper igitur promissa soluenda omnia sunt denique ipse dominus frequenter suam mutat sententiam sicut scriptura indicat Therefore all promises ought not to be kept at all times for euen our Lord God himselfe doeth oftentimes change his purpose as holie Writ beareth record S. Austen reputeth it a great point of wisedome not to do that which a man hath rashly spoken thus doth he write Magnae sapientiae est reuocare hominem quod male locutus est It is great wisedome for a man to call backe and not performe that which he hath spoken vnaduisedly Soter who himselfe was the bishop of Rome teacheth expresly that rash promises ought not to be kept these are his words Si aliquid incautius aliquem iurasse contigerit quod obseruatum in peiorem vergat exitum illud salubri consilio mutandum nouerimus magis instante necessitate periurandum nobis quam pro facto iuramento in aliud crimen maius diuertendum If any man shall sweare vnaduisedly which if it be performed bringeth greater harme that ought to be changed by prudent aduise for we must rather be periured if neede so require then for performance of our othe to commit a greater sinne so then it is euident that vngodly and vnlawfull vowes ought not to be kept But such is not the vow of single life say the papists This therefore must be examined The vow of single life is a godly vow and so liked of Saint Paul as he reputed them damned that kept not the same I answer that it is a wicked and vngodly vow to tie our selues from marriage al the daies of our life and I wil proue the same by the best approued popish doctours and by the doctrine established in the Romish church and that because the replie containeth such matters as is no lesse intricate then important I therefore say first that it is a verie wicked and vngodly act for a man to expose himselfe to sinne Thus much is granted by the vniforme consent of all learned Papists insomuch as all the Summists agree in this that those arts which can seldome or neuer be vsed without sin are altogether vnlawfull Gregorie surnamed the Great as hee was vertuous and learned so was he the bishop of Rome and for that respect of great account among the Papists though he were no papist in deede as now a daies papists are so knowne and called thus doth he write Sunt enim pleraque negotia quae sine peccatis exhiberi aut vix aut nullatenus possunt quae ergo ad peccatum implicant ad haec necesse est vt post conuersionem animus non recurrat For there be sundrie arts which can hardly or not at all bee practised without sinne therefore after our conuersion wee may not haue recourse to such as anie way draw vs to sinne Nowe let vs applie this to the matter in hand for it is most certaine that he exposeth himselfe to sinne that bindeth himselfe neuer to vse the remedie against sinne for example if a man should vow that hee would neuer vse the helpe of surgerie or phisicke that man shoulde doubtlesse expose himselfe to the perill of death none but senselesse bodies will or can this denie So in our case of single life because God hath appointed matrimonie for a remedie against sinne so saith the Apostle to auoide fornication let euerie one haue his wife and let euerie woman haue her husband For which respect Saint Gregorie Nazianzene saith that marriage is not so subiect to perill as single life I say secondly that it is a great sinne to debarre and stop the course of naturall propension yea this is a thing so certaine as their angelicall doctour Aquinas proueth thereby the murdering of ones selfe to be sinne bicause it is against the inclination of nature Nowe let vs make application heereof for the propension to beget children is naturall as which was before sinne in the state of innocencie and so hee that maketh a perpetuall vow of chastitie feeling in himselfe this propension committeth a greeuous sinne I say thirdly that it is a damnable sinne to tempt God for it is written in Gods booke yee shall not tempt the Lorde your God Vppon which words the glosse receiued of all papists saith thus Deum tentat qui habens quid faciat sine ratione committit se periculo hee tempteth God who hauing ordinarie meanes committeth himselfe to daunger without cause This exposition is so agreeable to the text as Aquinas willingly admitteth the same Nowe let vs applie it to the matter in hande He that refuseth ordinarie meanes and so committeth himselfe to perill tempts God grieuously as both the popish glosse and Aquinas grant but the ordinarie meanes to auoide fornication is marriage saith the Apostle therefore he that voweth neuer to marrie exposeth himselfe to the danger of fornication thereby tempteth god grieuously and consequently his vow is wicked and damnable I say fourthly
in clericis secularibus de substantia ordinis nec de iure diuino quia alià s Graeci peccarent nec excusaret eos consuetudo Sequitur non solum credo potestateminesse ecclesiae hoc condendi sed credo pro bono salute esset animarum quod esset salubre statutum vt volentes possint contrahere quia experieÌ„tia docente contrarius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa lege continentiae cum hodie non viuant spiritualiter nec sint mundi sed maculantur illicito coitu cum eorum grauiss peccato vbi cum propria vxore esset castitas Continencie in secular priests is not of the substance of their orders nor of the law diuine because otherwise the Greeks should sinne and their custome could not excuse them and I doe not onely beleeue that the church can make such a law but also that such a law were for the good and for the saluation of soules that such as would might marrie because experience teacheth that a contrarie effect followeth of that lawe of continencie since this day they liue not spiritually neither are cleane but are polluted in vnlawfull copulation with their sinne most greeuous though they might liue chastly with their owne wiues Out of which wordes of Panormitan who was their canonist their Abbot their archbishop their cardinall I note first that the prohibition of marriage in secular priestes is neither of the substance of the ministerie nor by the law of God but onely enforced by the law of man I note secondly that priestes marriage may be honourable and honest chastitie I note thirdly that the prohibition of priestes marriage is against their soules health as which causeth the priests to sin damnably Out of which notes I inferre this memorable corollary that the prohibition of priests marriage is against Gods law against the health of mens soules and against the good of the common weale and that by constant popish doctrin So then the pope is neuer able to purge himself of his shameful dealing CHAP. V. Of popish pardons and the originall thereof I Haue spoken so copiously of popish pardons in my booke of Motiues as much more shall not be needfull in this place There I prooued by the testimonie of Roffensis Syluester and other popish doctors that popish pardons are not grounded in or vpon the word of god as also that they crept into the church long after Christes ascension into heauen Bonifacius the eight of that name who began his popedome as a foxe continued in it as a wolf and ended it as a dog their owne writers Platina and Carranza so affirming was the first bishop of Rome that euer tooke vpon him to pardon sinne by publique bulles He appointed a Iubilee and graunted full remission of al sinnes to such as would come in pilgrimage to Rome Their owne Platina hath these expresse wordes Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat qui limina apostolorum visitassent ad exemplum veteris testamenti Pope Boniface brought againe the Iubilee after 1300. yeares and gaue full pardon of all sinnes to those that did visite S. Peters Church in Vaticano at Rome after the example of the olde lawe Out of these words I note first that the old iubilee was neuer heard of in Christs church til the time of Bonifacius our Iewish pope I proue it by the word retulit he brought again from the Iewes I note secondly that the church was free froÌ„ popish pardons the space of 1300 yeares so as popish pardons are not yet 300. yeares old albeit sillie people do so magnifie the same I note thirdly that this pope pardoned not only the paine but euen the sin it selfe yea all sinnes whatsoeuer Though our latter papists to hide their shame if it could be do violently interpret him of the pain I note fourthly that this good father Maliface brought again the Iewish ceremonial law I note fiftly that the remission of the olde law which they pretend apishly to imitate was not of sins but of debts lands bondage such like which the pope vseth not to pardon and yet forsooth he would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe Two hundreth yeares after this that is 1500. yeares after Christ pope Alexander the sixt appointed his Iubilee and like pardons not onely for comming to Rome but to all persons in all places wheresoeuer So writeth their own Polydore and Platina accordeth therunto for the rest see my Motiues in this point The first obiection The church of God vsed to giue pardons aboue a thousand and two hundred yeares sithence as appeareth by the great councell of Nice and by other ancient synods Yea S. Gregorie gaue pardon to al those that did visit the churches at Rome The answere I say first that Emperors kings absolute princes common weales independent may lawfully pardon malefactours the due circumstances of times places and persons wel considered and so may one neighbour pardon an other for trespasses done vnto him I say secondly that in the primitiue church such as were notorius offenders had giuen publike scandall to y e church were inioyned by the church to do publike penance for their publike faults before they could be admitted into the church again Which thing is this day obserued in all reformed churches abroad and in all particular churches God be thanked for it throughout the Realme of England I say thirdly that in the ancient churches many yeares of penance or publike exercises of humiliation were ordained for euerie publike grieuous offence Whereupon it followed that when many penitent persons gaue euident tokens of tru internal remorse for their former scandalous conuersation then the church thought good to giue to such persons some relaxatioÌ„ of their so inioyned publike penance which maner of pardoning is plainely acknowledged in the holy councel of Nice These are the expresse words De his qui praeter necessitatem praeuaricati sunt aut propter ablationem facultatum aut propter periculum aut aliquid huiusmodi quod factum est sub tyrannide Liciniâ— placuit sanctae synodo licet sint indigni misericordia tameÌ„ aliquid circa eâ—s humanitatis ostendi Concerning those that haue voluntarily transgressed or for feare to lose their worldely goods or for danger or anie such like occasion as chanced in time of Licinius his persecution to such although they be vnworthie of mercie yet is it the holy councels mind to graunt them some pardon or relaxation in that behalfe In the councel of Arles and in the councell of Ancyra the like pardon is granted to penitent offenders of which kind of pardons the ancient fathers Irenaeus Tertullianus Eusebius Sozomenus and others do often make relation Yea of this sort were the pardons that Saint Gregorie gaue but of late popish pardons that is of applying to whom they list when they list as well to the liuing
deteriores non remisit nobis supplicium sed vidit hoc manifeste quod peccatis ipsis non mâ—nus damnosum sit non puniri propter hoc imponit poenam non exigens supplicium de peccatis sed ad futura nos corrigens For lest we our selues should be made worse if wee should not be punished when we offend God forgaue vs not the punishment for that he saw euidently that it was no lesse hurtfull to sinne it selfe if it should not be punished For which cause he imposeth paine vpon vs not requiring satisfaction for the sinnes but correcting vs for that which is to come Out of these wordes I note first that if we should escape vnpunished when we sin we would be more prone to sin again I note secondly that the punishment which God laâ—eth on vs is not any part of satisfaction for our sinne committed but a fatherly correction to keepe vs from sinning so againe I note thirdly that saint Chrysostome was not acquainted with popish pardons wherewith the world is this day so pestered I note fourthly that whosoeuer disliketh this my answer must reprooue saint Chrysostome for the same as from whom I receiued it And yet indeede hee saith nothing which holy writ hath not taught vs long before For as wise Salomon saith He that spareth the rodde hateth the childe but he that loueth him chasteneth him betime I blesse thee saith Tobie O Lord God of Israel because thou hast scourged me Thou hast corrected me saith Ephraim and I was chastised as an vntamed heiffer Whom the Lord loueth saith saint Paul him he chasteneth and he scourgeth euery sonne that he receiueth As many as I loue saith God I rebuke and chasten be zealous therefore and amend Marke these wordes well gentle Reader God correcteth vs not in way of satisfaction which we are neuer able to performe as I haue prooued more at large in my booke of Motiues but that we may repent turne to him and amend our sinfull liues For this cause saieth the Psalmograph Blessed is the man whom thou chastisest O Lord and teachest him in thy lawe that thou mayest giue him rest from the dayes of euill while the pit is digged for the wicked For as saint Paul saieth If we would iudge our selues by true faith and repentance wee should not be iudged But when we are iudged we are chastened of the Lord that wee should not be condemned with the world which Christ himselfe confirmed when he willed the adultresse to goe and to sinne no more The sixt obiection S. Paul exhorted the Corinthians who abounded in goods but wanted merites to bestow money largely on the saints at Ierusalem that so they might be partakers of their merites Therefore it is very lawful to procure pardon with our mony by the application of godly mens merites vnto vs. The answere S. Paul meaneth nothing lesse then that the Hierosolymitains should sell spirituall things for money For when Symon the sorcerer euen after his baptisme would haue bought the distribution of holy things with money then saide saint Peter to him Thy money perish with thee because thou thinkest that the gift of God may be gotten with money But the apostle exhorteth the richer sort at Corinth to minister competently to the faithfull at Ierusalem for their necessarie releefe and sustentation and this to do the rather for that heretofore they receiued the gospel from thence so that there may bee an analogicall or proportionable equalitie betweene them For liberalitie ought to be mutuall among christians and as the apostle saith in another place It is no great thing for them that haue sowen to vs spirituall things to reape part of our carnall things Thus seemeth Chrysostome to vnderstand this place whose wordes are these Haec autem dicebat etiam diuitum superbiam deprimens ostendens quod post hanc vitam in maiori dignitate spirituales futuri sint He spake these things to abate the pride of rich men shewing that after this life the godly shal be in greater dignitie as if he had saide esteeme not better of your selues because ye haue more worldly wealth but distribute such things liberally and seeke to abound in spirituall things that so there may be an equalitie The seuenth obiection The article of our creed I beleeue the communioÌ„ of saints doth plainely shew that ones satisfaction may be applied to an other which is that application that the pope maketh when he giues pardons The answer I answer that the duties of charitie are ought to be common among the faithfull in that they are the mysticall members of one mysticall body which saint Paul proueth to be so by the example of the members in mans body And this is that communion of saints whereof mention is made in the Creede apostolike But of popish pardons and merits of supererrogation this article maketh no relation at all Yea as the apostle saith al righteousnes remission of sins and eternall life is ministred to the members of the church by Christ the head Of whose fulnes we haue all receiued euen grace for grace CHAP. VI. Of Popish purgatorie OF popish purgatorie I haue spoken sufficiently in the seuenth chapter of the second booke of my Motiues It will therefore here be sufficient to declare the originall thereof and to solue the obiections against the same The superstitious fond fantasies of purgatorie came from the old heathen Romanes for as saint Austen recordeth they had a purgatorie sacrifice these are his words Ideo terminalia eodem mense Februario celebrari dicunt cum fit sacrum purgatorium quod vocant Februm vnde mensis nomen accepit Therfore men say that the ends of things are celebrated in the same moneth of Februarie when the purgatorie sacrifice is made which they call Februs whereupon the month tooke the name Afterward Origen being too much addicted to his allegoricall speculation fained many odde things touching purgatorie as the ethnicke Plato whom he much imitateth had done before him After Origen others began to cal the matter into question others rashly to beleeue it others to adde many things to Origens conceit Thus by little and little it encreased till the late bishops of Rome made it an article of popish faith But of what credite Origen ought to be in this point his owne opinion will declare sufficiently as who held that the diuels should all be purged at the latter day For of Origen thus writeth S. Austen Qua in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes qui ipsum diabolum atque angelos eius post grauiora pro meritis diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus eruendos atque sociandos sanctis angelis credidit Wherein Origen doubtles was more compassionable who beleeued that the deuill himselfe his angels after great long punishment for their demerites should be deliuered from their torments and placed with the
thy footstoole he meaneth not that Christ shall sit no longer on his right hand No no God auert The 7. obiection If any man build on this foundation golde siluer pretious stones timber hay or stubble euery mans worke shalbe made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shalbe reuealed by the fire and the fire shall trie euery mans work of what sort it is This fire the holy fathers doe vnderstand of purgatorie Ergo it ought not to be denied The answere I say first that all the fathers as well old as latter writers confesse that S. Paules discourse is altogither metaphoricall consequently y t no doctrine of faith can be grounded thereupon I say secondly that the old writers dissent one from another in the exposition of his text For S. Chrysostome vnderstandeth it of hell fire S. Hierome of Gods examination in the day of general iudgment S. Gregorie of the fire of tribulation in this life S. Ambrose and S. Theodoret of the fire of Gods iudgemēt others otherwise Gregorius Magnus hath these expresse words Quamuis hoc de igne tribulationis in hac vita nobis adhibito possit intelligi albeit this place may be vnderstood of the fire of tribulation which we suffer in this life Out of which words I note that although this Gregory thought there was a purgatory of small sins after this life yet did he confesse y t this place could proue no such thing Hereunto I adde that if either this text or any other had been a sufficient warrantize for purgatory aswel the Greekes as the ancient fathers would haue receiued it both which their own Roffensis denieth as is already proued I say thirdly that it cānot possibly be vnderstood of purgatory and I proue it effectually First because al martyrs go straight to heauen as al papists confesse Secondly because al such as haue plenary pardons frō the pope escape purgatory go the ready way to heauē Thirdly because Ieremy Iob. Ioh. Baptist the blessed virgine sundry others in whose passions of supererogation they build the treasure of the church and popish pardons could neuer come in purgatory and yet doth the text say that all aswel good as bad must be tried by that fire whereof the apostle speaketh in this place I say fourthly y t the apostle here speaketh of y e fire of probation but not of purgation as y e papists would haue him to doe These are y e words vniuscuiusque opus quale sit ignis probabit the fire shal trie euery ones worke of what sorte it is Which S. Austen well obserued when he wrote in this maner Ignis de quo locutus est eo loco apostolus Paulus talis debet intelligi vt ambo per eum transeant id est qui aedificat supra hoc fundamentum aurum argentum lapides pretiosos qui aedificat ligna foenum stipulam The fire whereof the apostle Paul speaketh in that place must be vnderstood to be such an one that both sorts may passe through it that is aswel he that buildeth vpon this foundation gold siluer or pretious stones as he that buildeth wood hay or stubble I say fiftly that all thinges spoken of in this text are taken metaphorically gold siluer and pretious stones doe signifie sound doctrine timber hay and stubble signifie false doctrine the builders are such as teach that doctrine the day signifieth time the daughter of trueth and the fire signifieth Gods spirit which reuealeth all trueths maketh false doctrine knowen This exposition is gathered out of the circumstances of the text it selfe out of S. Ambrose and S. Austen and out of late popish writers For their owne Hofmeisterus if my memory faile me not and their Gagnaeius also haue this interpretation in flat and expresse termes It is long since I read them and I haue not now their bookes at hand otherwise I would haue alledged their wordes I say sixtly that al such as would ground popish purgatory vpon this text are enforced to confesse and admit manifold absurdities And for triall hereof togither with that which is already said these wordes of our Iesuite Bellarmine may suffice Respondeo nos cogi ab ipso textu ad aequiuocationem non vnam sed duas admittendas I answere that the very text doth compell vs to admit more then one equiuocation The 8. obiection What shall they do which are baptised for dead if the dead rise not at all Why are they then baptised for the dead out of this place as our Iesuite Bellarmine supposeth nay as hee braggingly boasteth is popish purgatorie prooued vndoubtedly The answer I say first that great is the impudencie of our Iesuit who glorieth so much in his late Romish exposition which neither any one of the ancient fathers approueth neither yet sundrie of his owne fellowes will admit For Epiphanius Theodoretus Chrysostomus Tertullianus Ambrose Sedulius Anselmus Oecumenius Haymo and Theophilactus do expound it flatly against our Romish Iesuite and so doe also his owne deare fellowes Aquinas and Caietanus I say secondly that S. Paul vnderstandeth by those that are baptised for dead such as are at the point of death and are reputed as dead or for dead this saith S. Epiphanius is the true meaning of the Apostle and that he saith truely I appeale to the true iudgement of the indifferent reader These are the words of Epiphanius Alii rectè hoc dictum interpretantes dicunt quod morti vicini si fuerint in pietatis doctrina instructi ob hanc spem ante obitum lavacro digni fiunt ostendentes quod qui mortuus est etiam resurget ob id indiget remissione peccatorū per lauacrū Others interpret this saying of the apostle truly say that such as are at the point of death if they be instructed christiāly are for this hope worthie of baptising before they die thereby signifying that he which is dead shall rise againe and for that ende hath need of remission of his sins by baptisme This then is the true meaning of S. Paul in this place what shall they do which are baptised for dead that is which are rather reputed for dead then for liuing Wherefore are they baptised if the dead rise not againe for since they cannot be baptised for anie commoditie of this life which presently they must forsake being so extreamely sicke their baptisme prooueth the resurrection of the dead And where our Iesuit listeth to wrangle vpon the words pro illis for them it shall suffice to tell him that their latin so magnified edition is false and that in the originall and Greeke copies it is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the dead and so his cauill is not worth a figge The ninth obiection S. Paul saith that in the name of Iesus euery knee voweth both of things in heauen and things in earth and things vnder the earth but the
Surplesse and the stole about his necke sang a collect of martyrs so after his maner canonising a rebellious subiect for a saint Such is the seditious impudencie of newly hatched Romish Iesuites And least any other Iesuite or papist shall denie that they ascribe their saluation to saintes for they vse to say that they make them but mediatours of intercession and not of saluation and redemption I will prooue it flatly out of their owne bookes and church seruice which I wish the reader to marke attentiuely In the praier which the church of Rome readeth publickly vpon Thomas Beckets day sometime the Bishop of Canturburie I finde these wordes Deus pro cuius ecclesia gloriosus poÌ„tifex Thomas gladiis impiorum occubuit praesia quaesumus vt omnes qui eius implorant auxilium petitionis suae salutarem consequantur effectum O God for whose church the glorious bishop Thomas was put to death by the swordes of the wicked graunt wee beseech thee that all which desire his helpe may attaine the effect of their petition to saluation Out of these wordes I note first that Thomas Becket is pronounced a glorious martyr albeit the disobedience of his lawfull prince was the cause of his death I note secondly that the Romish church seeketh for saluation euen through his merites I note thirdly that the papistes make him a Sauiour yea such a Sauiour as is equall with Christ and consequently that they make him another Christ. For as S. Paule truely recordeth Christ redeemed the church with his owne bloud And yet doth the Romish church teache as yee see that Thomas Becket shed his bloud for the church of God Since therefore the proper and onely badge of Christes mediatorship is giuen to Thomas Becket what remaineth for him to be if not another Christ And least we should not fully vnderstand how our redemption is wrought in the bloud of Thomas they deliuer this mysterie more cleerely in another place in these wordes Tuper Tho. sanguineÌ„ queÌ„ pro te impendit fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit Thou O Christ cause vs to come thither where Thomas is euen by the bloud which hee shedde for thy sake Loe Thomas Becket died for vs and shed his bloud to bring vs to heaueÌ„ as the papists teach vs therfore by their doctrine hee is our redeemer and mediatour not only of intercession but also of redemption In their praier bookes deliuered to the vulgar people which God wote they vnderstoode not they teache the people thus to inuocate their proper Aungels Angele Dei quicustos es mei pietate superna me tibi commissum salua defende guberna O Aungell of God who art my keeper by supernall pietie defend mee gouerne mee and saue my soule To S. Paule they teache vs to pray in this maner O beate Paule apostole te deprecor vt ab angelo Sathanae me eripias à ventura ira liberes in coelum introducas O blessed Apostle Paul I pray thee that thou wilt take me from the angel of Satan and deliuer me from wrathe to come and bring me into heauen To Saint Iames in this maner O foelix Apostole magne martyr Iacobe te colentes adiuua peregrinos vndique tuos clemens protege ducens ad coelestia O happy Apostle and mightie martyr Iames helpe thy worshippers defend courteously thy pilgrimes on euery side and bring them to heauenly ioyes To Saint Martin thus Caecis das viam mutisque loquelam tu nos adiuua mundans immunda qui fugas daemâ—nia nos hic libera O Martin thou causest the blinde to see and the dumbe to speake Helpe vs and purge the vncleane thou that castest out diuels deliuer vs here But for breuitis sake I wil wittingly and willingly superseade many particular praiers made to meaner saintes and come to the blessed Virgine The Papistes teache vs to inuocate the holy virgine Mary thus O Maria gloriosa in delitiis delitiosa praepara nobis gloriam O Mary glorious in dainties delicious prepare thou glory for vs. Againe in another place thus Maria mater Domini aeterni patris filij fer opem nobis omnibus ad teconfugientibus O Mary the mother of our Lord the sonne of the eternall God helpe vs all that flie for helpe vnto thee Againe in another place thus Maria mater gratiae mater misericordiae tu nos ab hoste protege hora mortis suscipe O Mary the mother of grace the mother of mercie defend thou vs from our ghostly enemie and receiue vs at the houre of death Againe in another place thus Solue vincla reis profer lumen caecis mala nostra pelle bona cunctae posce Monstra te esse matrem sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus Loose the bandes of the guiltie bring light to the blinde driue away our euils require all good thinges for vs shew thy selfe to be a mother let him receiue thy praiers that was borne for vs and suffered to be thine Againe in another place thus Veni regina gentium dele flammas reatuum dele quod cunque deuium da vitam innocentium Come O Queene of the Gentiles extinguishe the firie heate of our sinnes blot out whatsoeuer is amisse and cause vs to leade an innocent life Againe in their olde Latine primers the people are thus taught to pray In extremis diebus meis esto mihi auxiliatrix saluatrix animam meam animam patris mei matris meae fratrum sororum parentum amicorum benefactorum meorum omnium fidelium defunctorum ac viuorum ab aeterna mortis caligine libera ipso auxiliante quem portasti Domino nostro Iesu Christo filio tuo O glorious Virgine Mary bee thou my helper and Sauiour in my last dayes and deliuer from the mist of eternall death both mine owne soule and my fathers soule and the soules of my mother brethren sisters parents friends benefactors and of all the faithfull liuing and dead by his help whom thou didst beare our Lord Iesus Christ thy sonne Againe after two or three leaues in this maner Vt in tuo sancto tremendo ac terribili iudicio in conspectu vnigeniti filii tui cui pater dedit omne iudicium me liberes protegas a paenis inferni participem me facias coelestium gaudiorum I beseech thee most mercifull and chaste virgine Mary that in thine holy fearefull and terrible iudgement in the sight of thine only sonne thou wilt deliuer and defend me from the paines of hell and make me partaker of heauenly ioyes These praiers if they be well marked will prooue my conclusion effectually as which conteine euery iote of power right maiestie glorie and soueraignty whatsoeuer is or ought to be yeelded vnto our Lord Iesus Christ. Yea these two last praiers make the virgine Mary not onely equall with Christ but farre
in this chapter the fourth to the Romaines I note thirdly that faith is counted our righteousnesse Which the apostle expresseth more liuely in the fift verse But to him that worketh not saith hee but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse Loe not the worker but the beleeuer is iustified and that by imputation The same apostle after a long discourse to prooue that a man is iustified by faith onely in another place addeth these words We therfore think y t a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Loe the holy apostle after a long disputation which is implied in the worde therefore concludeth that we are iustified by faith without works As if he had said sole faith only faith or faith without works doth iustifie albeit the papistes cannot or will not it see This whole processe is confirmed by the vniforme testimonies of the auncient fathers who all ascribe our iustification to sole faith S. Ambrose hath these wordes Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicena reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei They are iustified freely because they neither doing any worke nor making any compensation are iustified by sole faith through the grace of God The like sayinges hee hath in sundry other places S. Chrysostome hath these wordes Vnum hoc tantummodo donum Deo obtulimus quod futura nobis promittenti credimus atque hac solum via seruati sumus This one only gift do we present to God that we beleeue him when he promiseth vs future giftes and by this only way are we saued Againe in another place he writeth thus Aut fidem dicit decretum illam vocans Ex sola quippe fide nos saluauit Or hee meaneth faith calling it the decree For by only faith hath he saued vs. S. Hilarie hath these wordes Mouet scribas remissum ab homine peccatum hominem enim tantum in Iesu Christo contuebantur remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poterat Fides enim sola iustificat It vexeth the Scribes that man forgiueth sinnes for they onely considered Christ Iesus to be man and that he forgaue that which the law could not doe For sole faith doth iustifie S. Basill hath these words Nam ea demum perfecta omnimodae gloriatio est in Deo quando neque propter suam ipsius quis extollitur iustitiam sed agnoscit se quidem verae destitui iustitia verùm sola in Christum fide iustificatum esse For that is the perfite ioy al maner of comfort we haue in God when no man is puffed vp by reason of his owne righteousnesse but acknowledgeth himselfe to be destitute of true iustice in deed and seeketh to be iustified by sole faith in Christ. Origen writeth in this maner Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum He saith that the iustification of sole faith is sufficient so as a man may be iustified if he only beleeue although hee doe no workes at all And the same Origen prooueth in the same place by a long and learned discourse that wee are iustified by sole faith and not by workes S. Austen is plaine in this point who writeth in this maner Opus autem fidei ipsa dilectio est And charitie it selfe is the worke of faith What plainer testimonie can be had what papist can inuent any solution for the same who but mad men will not yeeld thereunto August in Epist. Ioann tract 10. in initio The 6. conclusion The good works of y e regenerate do neither merite grace in this life nor glory in the world to come This conclusion is against a graund and mightie article in popishe doctrine but I will prooue it by strong and irrefragable reasons S. Paul writeth to the Romaines in these wordes the afflictions of this present time are not worthy of the glory which shalbe shewed vnto vs. The workes of the regenerate saith S. Paul as ye see are not worthy of heauen They cannot therefore say I merite heauen because as the papists themselues doe graunt to merite heauen and to be worthy of heauen is all one the difference is onely in wordes not in sense The papists perceiuing the force of this argument vse this seely euasion although say they the actions of man be not worthie of heauen neither merite grace as they proceed from mans free-will yet are they worthie of heauen and meritorious as they proceede from the holy ghost But this is a friuolous childish and miserable shift onely inuented by the suggestion of Satan to seduce simple soules For first our workes are only ours as they proceed of and from our selues Secondly when the holy ghost and man worke both one and the same work that which the holy Ghost doth can no more be deemed mans act then that which man doth can be deemed Gods act yet so it is that y t which man doth cannot be deemed Gods Ergo neither that which God doth can be deemed mans The assumption wherein resteth the difficultie if there be any at all is manifest by mans sinfull actions For the most cruell act that can be imagined is not done without the concourse of the holy ghost as all learned papistes doe and must confesse Neuerthelesse mans sinfull actes are so farre from being Gods actes as the deformities and irregularities thereof be onely mans and neuer Gods and yet doth God concurre more effectually to those wicked acts in that he is the principall agent of the real and positiue entities thereof then man doth or can concurre to any act of Gods that is to any good act himselfe doth Note well for God is the creator of the diuell as he is an angel but not as hee is such an aungell and euen so is God the authour of mans acts as they be acts but not as such acts This place of the Apostle is handled more at large in my book of Motiues I my self saith the Apostle in my mind serue the law of god but in my flesh the law of sin Out of which words I note first that Saint Paul speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter because hee nameth himselfe who was Gods chosen and elect vessel For which respect and the like expressed in this seauenth chapter to the Romaines S. Austen changed his opinion and granted the apostle to speake here of the regenerate I note secondly that the elect regenerate do serue the law of sinne I note thirdly that the best liuers are so far from meriting grace of glorie that they deserue in rigour of iustice eternal death because death is the rewarde of sinne Which for that Saint Augustine coulde not well digest at the first he thoght that S. Pauls words in this chapter were to be vnderstoode of the
Fiftly that by reason thereof whosoeuer saith he hath no sinne is a flat lyer Sixtly that how vertuously soeuer we liue yet must we desire God to forgiue vs our sinnes by reason of this concupiscence Seauenthly that wee must thus pray euen after all sinnes be forgiuen vs in our baptisme The fourth place of Saint Austen Si in parente baptizato potest esse peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est Adhaec respondetur dimitti concupisceÌ„tiam carnis in baptismo non vt non sit sed vt in peccatum non imputetur If it be demanded how concupiscence can be without sinne in the parent that is baptised and yet be sinne in the childe I answere that concupiscence is forgiuen in baptisme yet not so that it remaineth not still but that it be not imputed for sinne Thus saith Saint Austen in which words he sheweth plainely that concupiscence remaineth as well in the baptised parent as in the vnbaptised childe yet with this difference that it is sinne in the parent though not for sinne imputed but in the child it is both sinne and so reputed The fift place of Saint Austen Ideo apostolus non ait facere bonuÌ„ sibi non adiacere sed perficere Multumâ—n boni facit qui facit quod scriptuÌ„ est postconcupiscentias tuas non eas sed non perficit quia non implet quod scriptum est non concupisces The Apostle therefore saith not that he hath not power to do good but that he can not perfect that which is good For he doth great good who doth that which is written follow not thy lustes but he doth not perfect his well doing because he fulfilleth not that which is written Thou shalt not lust Thus saith S. Austen Out of whose words I note first that S. Austen speaketh these words of the regenerate for they onely can do good as is already prooued I note secondly that though the regenerate can do good and striue against lust yet can they not do that good so perfectly but it is alwayes annexed to sinne and chayned with it as with an heauie yokefellow I note thirdly and I wish the reader to marke well my words that the tenth commaundement which is thou shalt not lust prohibiteth not onely actuall lust done with consent but also originall lust without consent and consequently that concupiscence remayning in the regenerate is sinne properly and formally I prooue it because S. Paule could not performe this precept as S. Austen truely and learnedly obserued and yet concerning actuall consent S. Paule was free and innocent as who fought mightely against his concupiscence and would in no wise yeeld vnto the same He was therefore guiltie by reason of originall concupiscence which abode in him against his will To will is present with me sayth S. Paule but I finde no meanes to perfourme that which is good for I do not the good thing which I would but the euill which I would not that do I. Now if I do that I would not it is no more I that do it but the sinne that dwelleth in me Loe the holy Apostle confesseth plainely that he sinneth against his will and that by reason of originall concupiscence which remayned in him after Baptisme S. Austen singeth the same song and yet our Papists will not haue it sinne and why because forsooth it ouerthroweth their holy iustifications their inherent purities their condigne merites their mutuall satisfactions and their pharisaicall supererogations And yet Petrus Lombardus their worthie maister of Sentences whose booke to this day is publikely read in their schooles of Diuinity vtterly condemneth their hereticall doctrine in this point these are his expresse words Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus ex parte non ex toto à culpa non à poena nec omninò à culpa non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus vt non sit sed vt noÌ„ dominetur But touching our soules we are redeemed in part not wholy from the fault not from the paine neither wholy from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Thus writeth the venerable popish master our reuerend father Lombarde out of whose words wee may gather with facility so much as wil serue our turn against al papists For first he saith y t we are redemed in part but not in al. SecoÌ„dly that we are not wholy redeemed froÌ„ sin Thirdly he telleth vs how and in what maner we be redeemed from sin to wit that albeit sin stil remaine in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs as it can enforce vs to consent thereunto The second obiection If concupiscence were sinne in the regenerate it would make them guiltie of eternall death and yet are they free from all condemnation as witnesseth the Apostle The answer I answere that concupiscence as wel as other sinnes is apt of it owne nature to condemne vs but God of his mercie doth neither impute it nor other sinnes of humane frailtie vnto the faithfull for the merits of Christ Iesus The first replie Euery thing as the Philosophers truely say hath the denomination of the formalitie thereof but doubtlesse the formalitie of original sinne is taken away in baptisme other else in vaine were infants baptised and so there onely remaineth the materialitie as the schooles tearme it that is a certaine rebellion and inclination to sinne-ward The answere I answere that the formalitie of original sin is of two sorts or double to wit the guilte and the deordination The former by which the partie that sinneth is bound to paine temporal eternall is remitted by grace and baptisme in this life The latter which is a certaine disorder and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the mind wil and actions of man continueth stil euen to the last houre The second replie Naturall things neither make vs worthie of praise nor of dispraise as the Philosophers all grant but certes concupiscence in man is natural and so can it not be sinne The answere I answere that concupiscence as it is naturall indeede and giuen to man as man in the state of innocencie is ordinate agreeable to reason and altogether without sinne but concupiscence as it is connatural to corrupt man is inordinate rebellious against the spirit and altogether sinful in Gods sight The third replie S. Austen in one place saith plainely that originall concupiscence is no sinne vnlesse wee consent vnto it These are the words Quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis Howe much more is it without sin in the bodie of him that consenteth not if it be without sinne in his body that is a sleepe The answere I answer that S. Austen meaneth nothing lesse then to denie concupiscence to be sin for
manifest if wee ponder deepely what famous popish doctours haue written herein Bernard hath these expresse wordes Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cum audias apud prophetam non propter vos sed propter me ego faciam dicit dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita So there is no cause that thou shouldest nowe aske by what merites we hope for glorie especially since thou hearest the prophet say I will doe it saieth the Lorde not for your sake but for mine owne It is sufficient to merite to know that our merites are not sufficient Thus saith deuout Bernard who though hee liued in the greatest mist of poperie and so was carried away with some errours of his time yet did hee teach most christian doctrine almost in all his workes and because hee was reputed a great papist with the papists his testimonie is euer most forcible against them and their proceedings Aquinas hath these expresse words Manifestum est autem quòd inter Deum hominem est maxima inaequalitas in infinitum enim distant totum quod est hominis bonum est à Deo Vnde non potest hominis à Deo esse iustitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem sed secundum proportionem quandam in quantum scilicet vterque operatur secundum modum suum Modus autem mensura humanae virtutis homini est à Deo ideo meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest nisi secundum praesuppositionem diuinae ordinationis ita scilicet vt id homo consequatur à Deo per suam operationem quasi mercedem ad quod Deus ei virtutem operandi destinauit And it is manifest that betweene God man there is exceeding great inequalitie for they differ in infinit all the good that man hath is of God Wherefore mans iustice receiued of God cannot be according to absolute equalitie but after a certain proportion to wit in as much as either worketh according to his condition Now man hath the measure and condition of his vertue from God and therefore mans merite cannot be with God saue onely according to the supposal of Gods holy ordinance so to wit that man may attaine that at Gods hand by his working as reward to which God hath appointed his power of working Thus writeth the master papist Aquinas who vtterly ouerthroweth all popish merite as it is this day defended in the church of Rome For first marke well gentle Reader for this is a weightie point Aquinas telleth vs that where there is not perfert equalitie there can be no merite properlie Secondly hee graunteth that there is infinite inequalitie betweene God and man Thirdly hee confesseth that mans iustice is not absolute but imperfect Fourthly he granteth that maÌ„ doth merite nothing in Gods sight saue only by way of his free acceptation Fiftly he confesseth that eternall life is not properly hyre but as it were hyre by reason of the same acceptation Durandus their owne schooleman denieth euery mans works how iust or holie soeuer he be to be simply and properly meritorious but onely to merite in an vnproper and large kinde of speech Meritum inquit propriè de condigno est cui simpliciter debetur aequale virtute operis nullum autem opus nostrum aequale potest esse vitae aeternae neque illam largitur nobis Deus ex iustitia sed ex quadam liberalitate sane quia gratìs acceptat nostra opera Merite saith Durand is properly of the worthy to which that is simply due which is equall by the vertue of the worke but no worke of ours can be equall to eternall life neither doth God giue it vs of iustice but of meere liberalitie in that he freely accepteth our workes Gregorius Ariminensis Marsilius Thomas Waldensis Paulus Burgensis and Io. Eckius all being zealous papists doe for al that denie mans workes to be meritorious of eternal life how holy soeuer the man be And gentle Reader that thou mayest fully knowe howe the papists haue of late yeeres bewitched the world and vnder pretence of holy zeale seduced simple soules call to minde that they vse to wrest the scriptures as I haue already proued out of their owne doctors and to come new no distinctions to make their false doctrine good Which for thy better satisfaction I will prooue concerning this present controuersie of the merite of works out of Iosephus Angles a grey frier and learned popish bishop who euen in that booke which he dedicated to the pope himselfe so mightie is the truth writeth in these expresse words Diuus Chrysostomus ait Etsi millies moriamur etsi omnes virtutes animae expleamus nihil dignum gerâ—mus ad ea quae ipsi à Deo percipimus Eodem etiam modo coÌ„siderantes omnes alij doctores sancti naturalem solummodo bonorum operum valorem illum à valore iusta vitae aeternae aestimatione longissime distare perpendentes prudenter dixerunt opera nostra non esse meritoria aut digna vita aterna Ex lege tamen siue conuentione siue promissione facta nobiscum opera bona hominis cum adiutorio gratiae Dei fiunt aeternae vitae digna illi aequalia quae seclusa illa dei promissione quae passim in sacris literis repetitur fuissent tanto praemio prorsus indigna Saint Chrysostome sayeth though wee dye a thousand times and accomplish all vertue of the minde yet doe wee nothing worthie of those things which wee receiue of God And all other holy doctors considering after the same manner the naturall valure only of good words and perceiuing that it is exceeding farre distant from the valure and iust estimation of eternall life sayd wisely that our works are not meritorious nor worthie of eternall life Yet for the couenant and promise made with vs the good works of man with the help of Gods grace are worthy of eternall life and equall with it which for all that that promise of God which is frequent in the scriptures set aside were altogether vnworthie of so great reward Thus sayth our Popish Bishoppe and holy Frier who though he bestirre himselfe more then a little to establish the condigne merite of works yet doth he in his owne kind of reasoning vtterly confute and confound himselfe For first he graunteth that not onely S. Chrysostome but all the rest of the holy Fathers with him affyrme good workes neyther to be meritorious nor worthy of eternall life Agayne he graunteth that workes considered in their naturall kinde are vnworthie of eternall life Thirdly he graunteth that good works euen as they proceede of grace and assistance of the holy Ghost are for all that vnworthy of eternall life if Gods promise and free acceptation be set apart Which three poynts doubtlesse are all that we desire to be graunted concerning the doctrine of good works And so though the Papists
neuer cease to impeach accuse slaunder and condemne vs in this behalfe yet do we defend nothing heerein but that which their owne best Doctors and printed bookes doe teach vs yea euen such bookes as are dedicate to the Popes holinesse himselfe The conceites which this Bishop alledgeth to make good his intended purpose are childish and too too friuolous For first where hee sayth that the Fathers speake of good workes onely in respect of their naturall valure as hee tearmeth it I aâ—nswere that that glosse and exposition is onely inuented by him and his fellowes to salue their beggerly doctrine if it wold be For besides y t no father saith so they repute al works before grace meere sin as I haue prooued out of Austen And our Bishop vnwittingly confuteth himselfe of such force is the trueth when he graunteth that good works done in grace are vnworthy of heauen if Gods promise be set apart For if they merite ex condigno as he auoucheth then doubtlesse promise couenant and mercie is altogither needlesse Secondly where the bishop fleeth to distributiue iustice so to establishe the merite of workes I answere that both the fathers and his fellowes are against him yea euen Aquinas himselfe For they vnderstand iustice commutatiue and require arithmetical equalitie And if Geometricall proportion were to be admitted yet should greater equalitie be required then can be found between our workes and eternall life The 9 obiection Ye brag that the merite of good workes cannot be found in all the Scripture But therein you belie both vs and the holy scripture For in the booke of Ecclesiasticus I finde these expresse wordes Omnis misericordia faciet locum vnicuique secundum meritum operum suorum All mercie shall make place to euerie one according to the merite of his workes Loe here is made expresse mention of the merite of his good workes The answere I say first that the booke of Ecclesiasticus is not canonicall Scripture as which was not found written in the holy tongue I say secondly that it is not for nothing that your late councel of Trent hath so magnified your Latine vulgata editio For such stuffe as this it doth affoord you in time of neede I say thirdly that in the originall and Greeke text your worde merite may long seeke for lodging before it finde any For these are the expresse wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Make place to all almes for euerie one shall find according to his workes The 10. obiection One Scripture saith that if we giue almes all things are pure vnto vs. Another scripture saith that charitie couereth the multitude of sinnes And it is frequent with the holy fathers that good workes deliuer vs from hell The answere I say first that S. Luke reprooueth y e extortions of the Pharisies exhorteth them to works of charitie As if he had said not vnwashed handes make you eate vncleanly but your wicked extortions Vse therefore charitie and giue almes to the poore and then your soules shalbe cleane though the platter be vnwashed This sense is gathered out of the verses aforegoing I say secondly that almesdeedes and other good works proceeding of faith do neither merite nor iustifie as is prooued but yet they are testimonies before men that wee be iustified by faith through the merites of Christ Iesus For which respect iustification is often ascribed vnto them as to the effects therof I say thirdly that the fathers in many places doe speake of temporal remission which often is graunted for almes deeds and the like The replie If good workes can neither iustifie nor merite then is it but a vaine thing to exercise our selues therein The answere I say first that thus to say and thinke is a probable signe of the reprobate who hath no feeling of Gods holy spirite but is become senselesse in all spirituall contemplation I say secondly that albeit good workes doe neither iustifie nor merite in proper kinde of speech yet be there many good and necessary causes why we should doe good workes First because God is glorified therein Therefore saith Christ let your light so shine before men that they may see your good workes and glorifie your father which is in heauen Secondly because by good workes we shew our gratitude loue towards God Therfore saith Christ If ye loue me keep my coÌ„mandements Thirdly because it is the end for which we were created Therfore saith the apostle For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them Fourthly because they are necessary effectes of our predestination and consequently yeeld and euident morall certitude both to our selues to our neighbours that we are y e childreÌ„ of God Therfore saith the apostle There is no coÌ„demnation to theÌ„ y t are in Christ Iesus which walk not after y e flesh but after the spirite as if hee had said Who soeuer are the childreÌ„ of God cannot but liue after Gods holy lawes Which is the selfe same doctrine that Christ himselfe taught vs saying If ye shall keepe my commaundementes yee shall abide in my loue as I haue kept my fathers commandement and abide in his loue And S. Iohn confirmeth the same in these wordes In this wee know that we loue the children of God when we loue God and keepe his commandementes For this is the loue of God that we keep his commandementes So then if we keep Gods commandementes it is an euident signe that we loue God and that by faith wee are of his free mercie made his children for the merites and righteousnesse of Christ Iesus See more hereof in the eleuenth preamble in my first booke of Motiues The 8 conclusion Although good workes doe neither merite grace in this life nor glorie in the life to come as which are imperfect polluted with sinne and in rigour of iustice worthy of condemnation as is alreadie prooued yet because God hath decreed in his eternal counsel to bring vs to heauen by them as by ordinary meanes and right fruites of a sound christian faith they may in a godly sense be termed The secundary instrumentall cause of eternall life but in no sense the cause of mans iustification Explico I say of mans iustification because the latter can neuer be the cause of the former and consequently good workes following our iustification as the immediate fruites thereof can by no meanes possible be the cause of the same In regard whereof S. Austen as in many other thinges so in this point saide very learnedly Quòd opera non praecedunt iustificandum sed sequuÌ„tur iustificatum That workes doe not go before iustification but followe him that is iustified I say of eternall life because when there be many gradual effectes of one and the same cause then the former may fitly be termed the materiall cause of the latter that is as the schooles terme it Causa sine qua non
before did signifie sacramentally by bread and wine in his last supper The second reply The Fathers by you alledged doe proue constantly that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God most high and not only brought it forth to refresh Abraham and his companie as you defend The aunswere I say first that out of the text can no more be prouided but that he brought forth bread and wine for the reliefe of Abraham his souldiers I say secondly that so much is coÌ„fessed by holy auncient very learned writers For Iosephus writeth in this maner hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil eis ad victum deesse passus simulque ipsum adhibituÌ„ mensae meritis laudibus extulit deo cuius fauore victoria coÌ„tigerat debitos hymnos vt sua pietate dignum erat cecinit Abrahamus contrà de manubijs decimas ei dono dedit This Melchisedech entertained Abrahams souldiers suffering them to want no competent foode he also placed Abraham himselfe at his owne table giuing him his condigne gratulation praysed God religiously as became his piety by whose fauour the victory was had Abraham on the other side gaue him tythes of all that was gotten in the spoile S. Austen is of the same mind and hath these words obuiauit Melchisedech sacerdos dei summi Abrahae reuertenti à caede regum protulit panes vinum obtulit ei benedixit eum Melchisedech the priest of God most high met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings and brought forth bread and wine and offered them to him and blessed him In these words of S. Austen I note two things the one that the oblation of Melchisedech was not made to God as the Papists affirme but to Abraham himselfe in y e way of refection The other that S. Austen nameth breads in the plurall number as if he had sayd Melchisedech brought good store of meat for Abraham and his souldiers Tertullianus hath these words denique sequentes patriarchae incircumcisi fuerunt vt Melchisedech qui ipsi Abrahae iam circumciso reuertenti de praelio panem vinum obtulit incircumcisus In fine the partiarks that followed were vncircumcised as Melchisedech who being vncircumcised offered bread and wine to Abraham that was now circumcised when he returned from the battaile Saint Ambrose teacheth the same doctrine by the tradition of the Hebrews These are his words nec esse nouum si Melchisedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit in refectionem tam ipsius quam pugnatorum eius panem vinumque pâ—otulerit benedixerit ei Neither ought it to seeme strange if Melchisedech went to meete Abraham the conquerour and brought forth bread and wine for the refection of him and his souldiers and blessed him Yea your owne byshop Canus granteth all this I say thirdly that the fathers do indeede confesse Melchisedech to haue offered bread wine neither do I denie the thing it selfe in the sense of the fathers But I denie that either it can be proued out of the scriptures or that the fathers admit your popish application thereof And so haue I yeelded a sufficient answere to all that is or can bee saide in this intricate matter whereon you seeke to grounde your popish masse The second obiection Euerie priest saith S. Paul is ordained for men in things pertaining to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sinne therefore doubtlesse wee must haue some sacrifice in the new testament and priests to execute the same for without priests gifts oblations and sacrifices to God for the sins of the people no person no people no common wealth can appertaine to God neither can such soueraigne duties be done by any in the world but by a priest chosen for y e purpose For diuers princes as the scripture recordeth were punished by God Ieroboams hand dried vp Ozias smitten with the leprosie and king Saul deposed from his kingdome specially for attempting such things The answere I say first that S. Paul speaketh not generally of al the ministers of Gods holy word sacraments but of the priesthood of the old law yea hee speaketh especially and expressely of the hie priests onely who was a type and figure of Christ Iesus the true perfect and eternal priest of God most high I say secondly that the people of the newe testament want neither priesthood nor yet external sacrifice for Christs eternal priesthood fulfilled and abolished the legall priesthood together with the law and all legall sacrifices which were but figures of Christs sacrifice vpon the crosse were exactly accomplished in the same so that Christ being our eternall priest and his sacrifice once offered being so perfect as the vertue thereof endureth for euer we people of the new testament haue neither need of legall priests nor yet of popish massing priests who can neuer put away their owne sins much lesse the sinnes of others For if we expect any other priest or appease to any other sacrifice in the new testament wee deceiue our selues make frustrate Christs onely sacrifice and doe great villany to his eternal priesthood I say thirdly that though in the reformed christian churches there bee no externall propitiatory sacrifice acknowledged saue onely the sacrifice of Christ vppon the crosse yet is there in the same the preaching of the word and the administratioÌ„ of the sacraments according to gods holy ordinaÌ„ce which no man takes on him to execute but he that is lawfully called thereunto I say fourthly that albeit in the preaching of y e word the administration of the sacraments the chosen minister hath onely the charge and authoritie to execute them nethelesse Gods annointed prince hath the supreme charge and authoritie to command the execution thereof as also to puniâ—h the minister for neglecting his duetie in that behalfe Of which point I haue spoken sufficiently in my booke of Motiues I say fiftly that Ozias Ieroboam and Saul were not punished for correcting the abuses or negligence of the priests wherein Goâ—s word giueth them supreme and soueraigne authoritie but because they intruded themseleus and insolently executed priestly function which God did flatly porhibite in his sacred word The third obiection S. Austen S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose all the fathers generally do vsually terme the masse or eucharist the sacrifice of the mediator the sacrament of the altar the vnbloudy sacrifice the price of our redemption whosoeuer denieth this must either be condeÌ„ned of malice as speaking against his owne knowledge or of meere ignorance as not knowing what the fathers write The answere I say first that it were a vaine contention to striue for the name so we could agree in the thing For as it is not material if we call the ministers of the new testament priests so wee vnderstand rightly the thing it selfe so is it not of importance if we tearme the sacrament of Christs
is that the sacrifice of the holy masse is a signe and commemoration of the sacrifice of the crosse but withall wee tel you that as it is the signe so is it the thing signified also Neither is that with vs anie absurditie as ye grossely fondly imagine For Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as the apostle witnesseth and yet if ye deny him to be the same substance with his father yee prooue your selfe an Arrian so a loafe of bread in the bakers window is both a signe of bread to be sold and also the bread it selfe But your dull heades cannot conceiue these scholasticall distinctions The answer I say first that how dull soeuer our wits bee yet doe wee well perceiue your opinatiue diuinitie I say secondly which is a receiued maxime in the schooles that nullum simile est idem no similitude is the selfe same thing whereof it is a similitude For to be a relatiue and the correlatiue of the same at the same time and in the same respect is flat contradiction I say thirdly that though Christ be the same substance with his father as he is God yet is he termed the figure of his substance as he is man because the diuinitie is hid in the humanitie as vnder a figure or vaile So saieth the apostle in another place For in him dwelleth the fulnesse of the godhead corporally And the same answere serueth to your loafe For it is neither idem numero with the other loaues as you imagine and affirme of your putatiue sacrifice neither doeth the loafe of it selfe so signifie but the people by the modification of the loafe are brought into the notice of the sale of bread I say fourthly and this confoundeth you all your sottish imagination that y e veritie is more excellent then y e figure the bodie then the shadow the thing signified then the signe For your owne selues labour by this means to prooue the sacrifice of your idolatrous masse These are the wordes of your Iesuite Bellarmine Figurae necessariò inferiores esse debent rebus figuratis Figures of necessitie must be of lesse value then the thinges that are figured by the same The 4. conclusion The Eucharist or holy communion which the papists terme the sacrament of the altar is a commemoration representation signe or sacrament of Christes body bloud offered and shed vpon the crosse for mans redemption but not the reall substantiall and naturall bodie of Christ Iesus which was crucified for our sinnes This conclusion that it may be exactly vnderstood of the vulgar sort and euerie popishe conceite therein plainly discouered and effectually confuted shalbe prooued by way of certaine briefe paragraffes The first paragraffe of the forme of consecration The papistes defending the bread to be made Christes naturall body by vertue of consecration are at variance among themselues and cannot tell in the world which are the precise words of that their putatiue consecratien For the common opion among the papists to which their practise agreeth holdeth the consecration to consist in these words This is my body But their learned pope Innocentius telleth them another tale to wit that Christ consecrated by the power of excellencie which is not tied to the Sacramentes and consequently that hee first consecrated it and afterward pronounced the words which the other papistes will haue to be essentiall to the consecration Iosephus Angles telleth vs very grauely that this opinion of Innocentius is not hereticall although it cannot be defended without great temeritie But by our friers good fauour if the wordes of the consecration be as they defend then must the bread perforce be broken before it be Christes body then did Christ breake bread and not his body then did Christ deliuer bread and not his bodie For Christ first blessed the bread then brake it then gaue it to his apostles and after said This is my body So that against their willes they graunt vnwittingly that that which Christ gaue to his disciples was substantially bread and not his body This point is handled more at large in the 12. preamble in the booke of my Motiues The 2. Paragraffe Of the validitie of consecration The papistes teache that these wordes this is my body doe change and transelementate the substance of bread into the substance of Christes reall substantial and naturall body and that the bare formes of bread and wine doe after consecration existe without any subiect But this doctrine doth confute it selfe For first if the wordes of supposed consecration doe worke transubstantiation then must euery worde haue his due operation in that kinde of worke For otherwise some of the wordes should be frustrate and needlesse as which could haue no proper effect And yet dareth no papist assigne any effect to euery worde because it would follow thereupon that Christes body should be made by diuisible partes Secondly if the fourth word meum concurre essentially to the consecration then is Christes body either made by successiue operation which Aquinas and all learned papistes denie or the whole effect proceedeth totally of the fourth word without the actiuitie of the other three The sequele is euident because the prolation of the words is with succession and not in an instant Thirdly if the wordes of consecration be of such force as the papistes teach then must both Christes body and bread be vnder the forme of bread at once or els the forme of bread must for a certaine time be aswell without the substance of bread as without the body of Christ. I prooue it because as Christes body is made present vnder the forme of bread in an instant so doth the substance of bread cease to be in instant and consequently since two instantes cannot be immediate they must both either be togither in the same instant or both absent for the time mediate Fourthly the popish supposed transubstantiation is very ridiculous and absurd I prooue it because when the priest saith this my bo hee then either holdeth in his handes substantially bread or corporally Christes body if substantially bread then are their wordes of consecration not of force if corporally Christes bodie these three absurdities doe insue First Christes body is made by succession Secondly the sillable bo which by it selfe signifieth nothing is made significant Thirdly the last sillable die which is commonly deemed to accomplish their consecration is become officiperda redundant and superfluous Fiftly if the wordes of consecration be operatiue as the papistes holde then if the priest chaunce to die in the midst of the prolation Christes body shalbe left mangled and vnperfect for otherwise halfe of the consecratory wordes shall stand for cyphers and haue no effect at all The 3. Paragraph Of the impossibilitie of transubstantiation When two vnequall dimensiue quantities are placed togither it is vnpossible for the conteined to bee bigger then the conteiner but Christes body in the eucharist reteineth
you papistes auricular confessâ—on is an holy sacrament and to be made of such sinnes only as are committed after baptisme And yet doth S. Iohn speake as is euident by the text only of those sins that were done before baptisme This is your Hysteron proteron to whom an horse-mil and a mil-horse is all one I say thirdly that the confession which these Ephesians made whereof S. Luke speaketh is an euident external signe of true inward remorse and of sincere faith in Christ Iesus but doubtlesse it doth nothing at all resemble the blasphemous popish auricular confession For first they confessed their sinnes verbally as they burnt their bookes really but of absolution S. Luke speaketh not one word which for all that in poperie is essentiall Secondly this confession was voluntarie but popish confession is by compulsion Thirdly this confession was done in the face of the congregation but popish confession is made in the priests eare Fourthly as some of the faithfull made this confession so other some did not but amongst the papistes it must be made of all vnder paine of damnation Fiftly as Mathew confessed himselfe to haue been a publican and as Paule confessed that he had persecuted Christes Church but neither of them confessed any other sinne So the faithfull at Ephesus of zeale confessed their notorious deedes but not all their particular sinnes Nay they only confessed how Satan had seduced them and for that end they burnt their bookes Which publick attestation done to the glory of God can neuer establish secret popish whispering in the priestes eare I say fourthly that S. Hierome maketh altogither against popish confession as who affirmeth the priest or bishop to haue no other power in binding and loosing then the priest of the old testament had in making cleane or vncleane That is to say as the priestes of the old testament did declare who were cleane or vncleane so the ministers of the Church knowing some sinners to be penitent and other some to be vnpenitent pronounce according to Gods worde that the sinnes of the one sorte are bound and of the other sort loosed And heere note by the way that the word peccatorum in S. Hierome doth as aptly signifie sinners as sinnes and therefore these wordes Auditâ peccatorum varietate I thus translate hauing heard the varietie of the sinners This I say because the papistes seeke to make aduantage of the indifferencie of the word And yet howsoeuer they take it it cannot serue their turne The 2. obiection Christ commanded him that was clensed from his leprosie to go vnto the priest And he likewise commanded his apostles to loose Lazarus that was bound thereby signifying that they should loose our sinnes The answere I say first that this text of Scripture prooueth plainly that the priest cannot forgiue sinne or make the sinner cleane but only pronounce and declare him to be cleane whom God hath alreadie clensed For otherwise God would haue sent him to the priest that had the leprie before hee was clensed from the same that so hee might haue found remedie at the Priestes handes I say secondly that as yet the ceremonies of the lawe were not abrogate and therefore Christ woulde not haue them contemned or omitted Now the law was as we reade in Leuiticus that whosoeuer was clensed from the leprosie should present himself before the priest and offer vp the sacrifice of thanksgiuing This is the mysterie wherein the papistes would stablish their popishe absolution The end of the lawe was that Gods goodnesse shoulde be publickly approoued and that the party clensed should giue a signe of gratitude Therfore doth it follow in the text Goe and shewe thy selfe to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commaunded for a witnesse to them For he could not be receiued into the congregation but by the iudgement of the priest I say thirdly that Christ commanded not only his disciples to loose Lazarus but all the Iewes also and the very women that were present And consequently not priests only but euen lay men and women also may giue absolution Which thing I weene the wiser sort of papists will neuer graunt Yet the end of this loosing was not to establishe popishe absolution but to make the miracle manifest to the incredulous Iewes I prooue it by these wordes next afore going I knowe that thou hearest me alwaies but because of the people that stand by I said it that they may beleeue that thou hast sent me Yea it cannot be prooued by the text that the disciples were appointed to loose Lazarus saue only in generall termes as also were the women that stood by And indeed Christ seemeth to haue committed that office principally to the Iewes that so all occasion of incredulitie might be taken from them The 3. obiection S. Iames saith confesse your sinnes one to another and pray one for another that he may be healed And Christ himself saith receiue ye the holy Ghost Whose sinnes so euer yee remit they are remitted to them and whose sinnes so euer ye reteine they are retained And a little before he saith thus As my father sent me so doe I send you Now it is certaine that Christ was sent with all power euen to binde and loose mens sinnes and therefore his apostles being sent in the same maner must needes haue power to forgiue sinnes as he had Yea the church hath euer thus vnderstood these Scriptures The answere I say first that in these wordes Christ gaue authoritie to preach the gospel which whosoeuer beleeue haue their sinnes remitted and whosoeuer beleeue it not are subiect to damnation Other binding and loosing we finde none in the scriptures neither yet that Christ heard any confessions This sense of binding and loosing by preaching the word of God S. Hierom whom the papistes boast to be their patrone heerein maketh so euident as more to a reasonable man cannot be wished These are his words Funibus peccatorum suorum vnusquisque constringitur quos funes atque vincula soluere possuÌ„t apostoli imitantes magistrum suuÌ„ qui eis dixerat quaecunque solueritis super terraÌ„ erunt soluta in coelo Soluunt autem eos apostoli sermone Dei testimonijs scripturarum exhortatione virtutum Euery one is bound with the cordes of his sinnes which cordes and bandes the Apostles can loose while they imitate their maister that said these words vnto them what things soeuer ye shall loose on earth shalbe loosed also in heauen And the apostles loose them by y e word of God by the testimonies of the scriptures by the exhortation of vertues Behold here these golden words The papists bitterly exclaime against vs when we teach that Gods ministers do bind loose mens sins by the true preaching of his sacred worde and yet the holy and most learned father S. Hierome whom the papistes in their
Constantinople Sigebertus writeth in this maner Secunda synodus vniuersalis 150. patrum congregatur Constantinopoli iubente Theosio annuente Damaso papa quae Macedonium negantem spiritum sanctum Deum esse condemnans consubstantialem patri filio spiritum sanctum esse docuit The second general synode of an hundred and fifty bishops is assembled at Constannople by the commandement of Theodosius Damasus agreeing thereunto in which councell Macedonius who denied that the holy ghost was God was condemned the consubstantialitie of the holy ghost with the father and the sonne was confirmed in the same Nicephorus Theodoretus and Prosper teach the same doctrine whose words for breuitie sake I here omit The third conclusion The third generall councel being the first Ephesine of two hundred bishops was proclaimed by the commandement of the Emperour Theodosius the yonger against Nestorius denying the virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirming Christ to haue two persons prouing that two natures did subsist in one onely person of Christ Iesus in the yere of our Lord 433. Euagrius hath these words Haec nefaria Nestorij dogmata cum Cyrillus episcopus Alexandria vir c. When Cyrillus the bishop of Alexander a man of great renowned had distinctly confuted the wicked opinions of Nestorius and Nestorius for al that gaue no place to his writings neither obeyed Cyrillus nor the councell of Caelestinus the bishop of old Rome but licentiously powred out his poyson against the church then Cyrillus made sute to Theodosius the yonger who at that time was Emperour in the East that by his will and authortie a councell might be called at Ephesus The Emperour vppon this sent his letters to Cyrillus and to the other presidents of the churches appointing the assembly to bee vppon Whitsunday at what time the holy Ghost came downe vnto vs. Nicephorus hath these words Theodosius imperialibus literis suis in metropoli Ephesi locorū omnium episcopos conuenire iussit sacram c. Theodosius commanded by his imperiall letters that all bishoppes should meete in the metropolitaine church of Ephesus at the day of Pentecost which wee call Whitsunday for on that day the holy ghost came vppon the Apostles He added this to his letters that no man shoulde excuse himselfe either before God or the worlde but that euerie one should be there present at the day appointed Cassiodorus hath these words Non multo post tempore iussio principis episcopos vndique Ephesum conuenire praecepit No long time after the commandement of the Emperor Theodosius charged the bishops to come from euery place to Ephesus Sigebertus hath these words Tertia synodus vniuersalis Ephesina prima ducentorum episcoporum iussu Theodosii iunioris Augusti aedita est quae Nestorium c. The third general councel the first Ephesine of 200. bishoppes was celebrated by the commandement of the emperor Theodosius the yonger which councell iustly condemned Nestorius affirming Christ to haue two persons shewing that two natures in Christ did subsist in one person The fourth conclusion The fourth generall councel of Chalcedon against Eutiches who affirmed Christ to haue but one onely nature after the hypostaticall vnion although hee granted him to haue had two before the coniunction thereof was called by the commandement of the emperour Martian in the yeare of our Lord 454. Socrates hath these words Passimque in historia imperatorum mentionem propterea fecimus quod ex illo tempore quo Christiani esse coeperunt ecclesiae negotia ex illorum nutu pendere visa sunt atque adeo maxima concilia de eorundem sententia conuocata fuerunt adhuc cōuocantur I haue therfore made mention of the emperours in euerie place of my hystory because since that time in which they became Christians the affaires of the church depended vppon their good wil and pleasures in regard whereof most famous councels were then called by their appointment and are so caled euē to this day Out of these words I note first that Socrates was a famous greeke Historiographer I note secondly that hee liued aboue 400. yeares after Christs sacred incarnation I note thirdly that the end for which he made mention of the Emperours was to declare that the chiefest matters of the church did depend on their good pleasures I note fourthly that councels were euermore appointed by authoritie of the Emperors euen to the dayes of Socrates which was 400. yeares after Christ. These obseruations well marked this Corollarie followeth of necessitie that the vsual practise of the ancient Christian Apostolike and Catholike church doth flatly ouerthrow all Poperie and late Romish abhomination Nicephorus hath these words Earum rerum gratia imperatorum literis locorum omnium episcopis conuocatis synodus Chalcedone est coacta In regard of these matters a councell was called at Chalcedon and all bishops sent for thither by force of the Emperours letters Sigebertus hath these words Instantia Leonis papae iubent imperatore Martiano congregata habita est quarta vniuersalis synodus sexcentorum triginta episcoporum apud Chalcedonem The fourth generall councel of six hundreth thirtie bishops was holden in Chalcedon by the commandement of the Emperour Martian at the request of Pope Leo. Loe the Pope could but request to command was in the Emperours power Euagrius in the second booke and second chapter of his hystorie teacheth the selfe same veritie The 5. conclusion The Emperor euermore had the chiefest place in councels which thing is an euident confirmation of the former conclusions Sozomenus hath these words Vbi autem venit praestituta dies in qua c. And when the day appointed came that they shuld decide the cōtrouersies the bishops come together into the palace as the emperor had decreed that he might consult with them of the matters And when he came to the place where the priests were he passed by to the highest roome of y e assemblie and sate downe in a chaire prepared for him and commanded al that were present in the councell to sit downe Out of these words I note first that all the bishops came at the emperors appointment to attend his maiesty at the time place by him designed I note secondly that he consulted with them for and concerning the controuersies of religion as who knew right well that the vnitie and peace of Christs church pertained to his charge I note thirdly that he had the highest place in y e councel I note 4. that bishops did not sit down vntil the Emperour commanded them so to do The famous popish archbishop and Cardinall Panormitanus hath these golden words to the great comfort of all true Christians the confusion of al papists Ipse autem Imperator repraesentat totum populū christianum cū in eum translata sit iurisdictio potestas vniuersi orbis loco ipsorū hoc ergo populorum