writtē in Hebrue of Esther the one cōpendious short which we now haue the other more large which might be translated by Lisimachus there spoken of cap. 11. whose translation we now onely haue the originall being perished What goodly gesses here be to make Canonicall Scripture what neede two bookes of one thing If the first were written by the spirite of God and so were Canonicall what neede a secōd the spirite of God vseth not to correct his own writings and this can not be that ample and large storie imagined being shorter and not so full as the first 4 Besides the false storie saith that Haman was a Macedonian Cap. 16. v. 10. the true storie saith he was an Agagite or Amalekite cap. 8.3 how can these two agree Nay the forged booke saith that Haman would haue destroyed the king so cōueyed the kimgdome of the Persians to the Macedonians which could in no wise be for the kingdome of the Macedonians was not yet spoken of and so it continued in small or no reputation till Phillippus the father of Alexander who was many yeares after Vide plura Whitach quaest 1. cap. 8. De Scripturis 5 In the latter Chapters that is repeated which was set downe in the former part which argueth that the story was not writtē by one mā and it is not like he would write one part in Hebrue another in Greeke If any say as the Iesuite saith that this part was in Hebrue and being translated into Greeke was lost why was one part rather lost then the other and was it not as like to be preserued in Hebrue as in Greeke These are verie bare and suspicious coniectures OF CERTAINE CHAPTERS annexed to Daniell THere are three parcels ioyned to Daniell the song of the 3. childrē the storie of Susanna of Bel and the Dragon in the vulgare Latin which are not any part of Canonicall Scripture 1 They are neither extant in Hebrue at this day nor are like to haue bene translated out of Hebrue into Greeke but compiled first in Greeke and therfore not written by Daniell for v. 54.58 of the storie of Susanna where one of the Elders saith he saw her vnder a Lentiske tree the other vnder a prime tree he vseth a certaine paronomasie or allusion vnto the Greeke wordes which cā not stand in the Hebrue as of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith the Angell of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall cut you in two and so of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall deuide thee in two As if a mā should thus allude in English thou wast vnder the prune tree the Lord shall prime thee This allusion is not in the Hebrue as the learned haue verie well obserued but onely in the Greeke 2 The time is vncertaine whē this storie should be done It was in the captiuitie for Susanna dwelt in Babilon but Daniell could not then be so young a child as the storie maketh for he was carried away in the first captiuitie with Iehoiakim as it is Dan. 1. And Ezechiell that liued about that time doth speake of the great prudence sage wisedome of Daniel Ezech. 28.3 and ioyneth him with Noah Iob. cap. 14. All this proueth that Daniell could not bee so very a babe in the beginning of the captiuitie as the storie maketh him 3 In the story of Daniell it is said that he was 6. dayes in the Lyōs den but the true storie saith he was there but one night cap. 6. The Iesuite aunswereth he was twise in the Lyons den or rather he thinketh there were two Daniels the one of the tribe of Iuda which was that great Prophet the other of Leui which was the principall in those two stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon But this is a poore shift to inuent another Daniell whom the Scripture neuer knew and if it were so why are all their actes ioyned together as if one Daniell had done and write them all OF THE BOOKE OF TOBIE 1 THis booke is not found in the Hebrue in the which toung all the oracles of God were kept Ergo it is worthelie doubted of 2 Our aduersaries them selues confesse that in Hieromes time it was not receiued for Canonicall The Iesuite aunswereth that it might be doubted of before it was determined in a Generall Councell to whom saith he it appertaineth to define of Canonicall Scripture As though this were not a greater doubt whether a Coūcell hath any such authoritie to determine which books ought to be receiued for Canonicall for Canus a Papist maketh question of it Lib. 2. cap. 8. And the Iesuite him selfe saith that the Church can not Facere Canonicum de non Canonico make a booke not canonicall to be canonicall but onely to declare those to be Canonicall which are so in deed Wherefore the Papistes take to much vpō them to make this boke within the Canon being of it selfe not Canonicall and so adiudged by antiquitie 3 He that readeth the booke it selfe shall finde that both the stile and the matter is not such as beseemeth Canonicall Scripture read Tremell in cap. 3. ver 8. cap. 13. ver 15. OF THE BOOKE OF IVDITH AN escpeciall Argument against this booke is that the historie can not be assigned to any time 1 It is pretie sport to see how the Papistes doe moyle them selues about this point and can not agree amongest them selues Some hold that this storie fell out after the captiuitie in Cambises time as Lyranus and Driedo some in Darius Histaspis raigne as Gerardus Mercator some would haue it before the captiuitie in Sedechias time as Genebrard some in Iosias time as Iohan. Benedictus but the Iesuite confuteth them all and bringeth the storie to Manasses raigne but he hath also mist the cushin 2 It appeareth that this story could not be after the captiuitie for we read not of any Nabuchadneser afterwards for the kingdome was translated frō the Assirians to the Persians and Meedes Againe it could not be before either in Iosias time Sedechias or Manasses first because in the 5. Chap. v. 18. it is said that the temple had bene destroyed and cast downe which could not be in any of those kings raignes It is but a shift of Bellarmines to say those words were foysted into the text it is rather to be thought that the Iesuite is put to his trūps not hauing els what to answer Secōdly Iudith being at this time in the flower of her age and liuing afterward many yeares till she was 105. yeare old all which time and many yeares after her death the booke saith in the last Chapter the land had rest this can not agree with Manasses time for within 40. yeares or not much aboue the land fell into great trouble straight after Iosias death Where then is this long time of rest And the Iesuite that still groūdeth vpon impossibilities and vnlikele-hoods that Iudith was at this time 40. yeare old which was saith
he in the beginning of Manasses raigne and so to dye about 7. yeares before Iosias yet for all his scanning is driuē to this shift that the many yeares peace after her death must be vnderstood of poore 7. yeares Thirdly if all this happened in Manasses time whom the Chaldeans tooke and carried away prisoner and had much troubled and afflicted the country of Iudaea what neede had Holofernes to enquire so curiously of Achior the Ammonite of the country their Citie people kings and such like seeing they had knowen the country to well before in spoyling and wasting of it as the Iewes by wofull experience had felt OF THE BOOKE OF WISEDOME The Papistes OVr aduersaries reason thus they say that S. Paul Rom. 11.34 vsing this speach who hath knowen the Lordes minde or bene his counseller doth alledge it out of the 4. Chapter of this booke v. 13. Ergo it is Canonicall We aunswere First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimonie though the wordes which he vseth may els where be found Secondly though the like wordes are read in the booke of Wisedome yet is it not necessarie the Apostle should borrow them frō thēce but rather they are alledged out of the 40. of Esay 13. Where the Prophet saith who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counseller And this also is the opiniō of the Rhemistes that S. Paul in that place vseth the Prophets wordes The Protestantes OVr reasons against the authoritie of this booke are these and such like 1 Because this booke is not found in the Hebrue but written onely in Greeke wherefore it is not Canonicall seeing the Iewes had all the oracles of God 2 Philo a Iew is thought by the Papistes them selues to be the author of this booke who liued after Christ in the time of Caligula neither him selfe was a Christian or beleeued in Christ therefore an vnlike man to be a writer of Canonicall Scripture Bellarmine saith it was another Philo who was more auncient Indeed Iosephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time but he was an Heathen and no Iew. 3 If this booke were written by Solomon why is it not extant in Hebrue for Solomon wrote in Hebrue not in Greeke Many of the Papists also do proue that it was not written by Solomon for though Solomon in the 2. Chapter be brought in praying vnto God that is no good argument to proue Solomon the author for the author might speake in the person of Solomon OF THE BOOKE CALLED Ecclesiasticus The Papistes THey haue none but common and generall arguments for the authoritie of this booke as that it was of old read in the church diuerse of the fathers alledged testimonies out of it All this proueth not as we haue shewed before that it was Canonicall but that it was well esteemed and thought of because of many wholesome and good precepts which are conteined in it The Protestantes WE do thus improue the authoritie of this booke 1 The author in the Preface saith that he trāslateth in this booke such things as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrue and excuseth him selfe because that things translated out of the Hebrue do loose the grace and haue not the same force so then it appeareth that this booke can not be Canonicall being imperfect neither was his grandfathers worke which is now lost to be thought any part of the Scripture seeing he was no Prophet him selfe but a compiler and a collector of certaine things out of the Prophetes 2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth and so craueth pardon but the spirit of God vseth not to make any such excuse whose works are most perfect and feare not the iudgement of men 3 This booke saith cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuell prophesied after his death from the earth lift vp his voyce Whereas the Canonicall Scripture saith not that it was Samuell but that Saul so imagined and thought it to be Samuell 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was phantasma Samuelis but a shew onely and representation of Samuell and an illusion of the deuill Lib. ad Dulcitiū quaest 6. For it is not to be thought that the deuill cā disease the soules of any men much lesse of Saints departed OF THE TWO BOOKES OF the Machabees OVr Argumentes against the authoritie of this booke are these ensuing for our aduersaries bring nothing on their part but such Argumentes drawen from testimonies authorities as do generally serue for all the Apocrypha which are aunswered afore 1 Iudas is commended 2. booke chap. 12. for offring sacrifice for the dead which was not commanded by the law neither is it the custome of the Iewes so to do to this day againe they were manifest Idolaters for there were foūd iewels vnder their coates consecrate to the Idols of the Iamnites And our aduersaries graunt them selues that prayer is not to be made for open malefactors dying impenitently 2 Lib. 2. cap. 2. many things are reported of the arke the holy fire the altar the tabernacle which should be hid by Ieremie in a caue and that the Lord would shew the people these things at their returne Here are many things vnlikely and vntrue First it is found saith the text in the writings of Ieremie but no such storie is there found Secondly Ieremie was in prison till the very taking of the Citie and the Citie being taken the temple was spoyled the holy things defaced and carried away how could they then be conueyed by Ieremie Thirdly in their returne they found neither arke nor fire nor any such thing but saith the Iesuite the Iewes in their conuersion to God in the end of the world may haue them againe as though whē they shal beleeue in Christ they will any more looke backe to the ceremonies or rites of the law for what vse then I pray you shall they haue of altar or sacrifice or any such like 3 There is a great disagreeing in the storie betweene the two bookes cōcerning the death of Antiochus Lib. 1. cap. 6. v. 6.16 It is said that Antiochus dyed for grief in Babylon hearing of the good successe of the Iewes Lib. 2.1 ver 16. Antiochus was with the rest of his souldiers slayne in the temple of Nanea and his head cut of throwen forth Chap. 9. the same Antiochus falling sicke by the way dyed with a most filthie and stincking smell cōsumed of wormes How could this man dye thrise in Babylon in Nanea and by the way in a straunge coūtrey It is confessed by the Iesuite that it was the same Antiochus who saith he lost his armie in the temple and sickned by the way and dyed at Babylon But the storie saith that their heads were cut of I thinke thē he could not liue and that he dyed in a straunge country therefore not at Babylon in his bed These things hang not together 4 Further the author of these bookes saith that he
thereof as how he should be crowned with thornes that they should giue him vineger to drinke how the vaile of the temple should be rent darknes should couer the earth for three houres he himself should rise the third day yea she setteth down the very name of the Messiah Iesus Christ. These prophecies came not of the diuell for these mysteries without all doubt were not known to the euill spirits for they were not fully reuealed to the Angels theÌ„selues before the coÌ„ming of Christ. Eph. 3.10 Wherfore we conclude thus that as the gift of prophecying is no sure signe that they are meÌ„bers of the Church elected of God which are endued with it as Christ saith Math 7.22 that many which had prophecied in his name in the day of iudgemeÌ„t should be refused Balaam is set forth as an example of a false Prophet wicked maÌ„ Ep. Iude. 11 so neither is this gift an infallible mark of the Church of God whersoeuer it is fouÌ„d To the second part concerning this miraculous gift which our aduersaries pretend to haue we answere 1. They are but fables which they bring for if al that is reported of Saint Bernard in his life of his miracles and prophecies were true neither S. Paul nor any of the Apostles were to be compared vnto him for number of miracles such casting out of diuels out of men women and children healing of strange diseases foretelling of thinges to come the Gospell almost hath not stranger things of our Sauiour Christ. As for Saint Francis you may gesse by this what spirit he was of that prescribing to his followers a certaine strict order of liuing as to wear no girdle to goe barefoote and such like he called it regulam euangelicam the rule of the Gospell belike making himselfe an other Christ and so bringing in another Gospel for to all Christs Disciples Christs Gospelâ— is sufficient 2. But if they haue any prophecies of credit which they can shew they are such as are reported of Pope Siluester the 2. who had warrant from the diuel that he should not die before he sung Masse in Ierusalem and so it came to passe for hauing sung Masse in a chappell so called he immediately dyed Not much vnlike to this was that of king Henry the 4. who ended his life in a chamber at Westminster called Ierusalem as he had an olde prophecie Edward the 4. also was tolde that his successours name should begin with G. which was the cause of George the Duke of Clarence death his owne brother but the diuelish prophecie notwithstanding tooke place for Richard Duke of Glocester was king after him In like manner Valence the Emperour had a blind prophecie that one should raigne after him whose name began with Theod. which made Theodorus to rebell against him but so it came to passe in deede that Theodosius was Emperour after him Such blinde prophecies we denie not but the popish Church hath had many which as you see doo cause murder sedition and bloodshed but other good prophecies comming of GOD wee knowe them not to haue any 3. Wee denie not but that there haue liued some amongst them in their Church which in those dayes were counted Prophets and Prophetisses as Hildegardis anno 1146. likewise Briget Catherine Seuensis whom Bellarmine reckoneth vp amongst others that wrought miracles cap. 14. but concerning these we wil answere as the Iesuite doth for Sibilla a Prophetisse amongst the heatheÌ„ that she prophecied as touching such matters as should fall out to the Church for a testimonie of the faith of the Christians And so to bee counted herein a Prophetisse of the Church rather than of the heathen cap. 15. so wee say that if those three abouenamed were Prophetisses they were of our Church and not theirs for they prophesied of the decay of their Church and raising vp of ours Hildegardis first prophecied of the beginning of Friers and of their destruction saying that in the end when their gifts and rewards ceased they should goe about their houses like hungrie and madde dogges drawing in their neckes like doues Briget prophesied of the Church of Rome that it should be as a body condemned of a iudge to haue the skinne flayne off and the flesh to bee cut in peeces Catherine de Senis speaketh of a reformation of the Church such a renouation of Pastors that the onely remembrance thereof sayth she mâ—keth my spirite to reioyce in the Lord. All these things we see nowe accomplished the sects of Friers in many places put downe the Popish iurisdiction cast out a notable reformation to be wrought in the Church Our aduersaries I thinke haue not to reioyce in these prophecies neither haue any great cause to chalenge them for their Prophets But I will help them a little and bring to their remembrance a notable Prophetisse of theirs in king Henry the 8. dayes which was one Elizabeth Barton a Nun commonly called the holy mayd of Kent who beeing instructed by the Friers fayned as though she had many reuelations she prophecied that if the king proceeded in his diuorce then in question betweene him and Q. Catherine that hee should not be king one yeare no not one moneth But GOD bee thanked hee liued almoste twenty yeares after that by whom many worthy things were wrought for the good of Christs Church This prophetisse was afterward iustly met withall and worthily suffered for her demerites with all her accomplices amongst the which Fisher B. of Rochester was one who thereupon was imprisoned and forfayted his goods to the King If they will bragge of their Prophets let not the holy mayd of Kent be forgotten in any wise 4. Now lastly because they shall not outface vs with a vaine brag of Prophets I will shew what prophesies the Gospell hath beene adorned withall Was not Iohn Husse a Prophet who thus sayd at his death centum reuolutis annis deo respondebitis after an hundred years you shall giue account of this your doing vnto God Likewise Hierome of Prage post centum annos vos omnes cito I cite you all to make answere after an hundred yeares Which prophesie of theirs tooke effect accordingly for both these holy men suffered martyrdome about anno 1416. and iust an hundred yeares after anno 1516. the Lord raysed vp Luther who indeede called the Pope and his doctrine to account Was not Sauonarola a Prophet that sayd one should passe ouer the Alpes like Cyrus who should destroy all Italie and is it not so come to passe for neither Cyrus nor whosoeuer els could haue more layde wast the popish Italian Church then the word of God hath done and the liuely preaching of the Gospell Walter Brute prophecied that the temporalities should be taken from the Clergie for the multitude of their sinnes this Walter liued in king Richards dayes the second Bilney that constant martyr and faythful seruant of God prophecied that many Preachers should
would keepe the common and knowne name of the place that it might be out of doubt what Church he ment as for the name of Babylon to be ascribed to Rome though it were so mysticallie yet was it not so called for why might not Paule as well haue written his Epistle to the Romanes vnder that name the Church of Babylon as Peter wrote from thence 2 Agayne they alleadge that storie how Peter ouercame Simon Magus at Rome when he would haue taken his flight into the ayre hauing made himselfe wings and by the prayer of Peter was brought downe agayne and brake his legges and so dyed whereupon Nero being offended with Peter would haue apprehended him who being counsailed by the Church would haue fled from Rome but meeting Christ at one of the gates and saying vnto him whether goest thou Lord And he answered I come agayne to be crucified Peter vpon those words returned backe agayne and was crucified for the testimonie of Iesus Bellarm. cap. 2.3 We answere First we denye not that Peter was at Rome but shewe only the insufficiencie of their arguments and agayne we moue such doubts as by them are yet vnanswered as afterward shall be shewed Secondly concerning this storie of the victorie ouer Simon Magus they that doubt of Peters being at Rome may also doubt of this neither of them being necessarie to be beleeued as articles of faith but probable and coniecturall as matters of storie For some part of the storie is denyed by Augustine as how Peter fasted vpon the Saturday the combat betweene him and Simon Magus following vpon the Lords day after and thereupon rose the custome of the Saturday fast among the Romanes Est quidem saith he haec opinio plurimorum quamuis eam perhibeant esse falsam plerique Romani This is saith he a probable opinion of many concerning Peters fast yet the Romanes themselues thinke it to be false 3 That concerning Christs apparition to Peter seemeth to bee most vnlike of all and sauoureth somewhat of the Popish Legends Like vnto this are the tales of S. Christopher how he caried Christ and how S. Gregorie had him for one of his ghests at his table of hospitalitie such visions and apparitions of Christ are contrarie to the scriptures which say that the heauens must conteyne him till his comming agayne Bellarmine answereth first by this meanes wee doe compedes Christo inijcere wee fetter Christ in heauen We answere belike then heauen is a prison with the Iesuite God send all that are his such a prison at the length Agayne Christ is no otherwise concluded and shut vp in heauen then as it pleaseth himselfe and as he hath appoynted so to be 2 He obiecteth that Christ appeared neere vnto the earth to Paule We answere First there is no such thing proued out of the text but rather the contrarie that the voyce was heard from heauen not neere the earth but aboue Act. 22.6 Secondly Paule heard a voyce onely he sawe no man neither he nor the companie with him Act. 9.7 8. But onely a great light they sawe shining from heauen Act. 22.6 9. Therefore out of this place they cannot prooue any such real apparition of Christ. 3 Peter dyed at Rome his sepulchre is to be seene there to this day Ergo he was at Rome Bellarm. cap. 3. We answere First it followeth not if Peter were buried at Rome that therefore he dyed there for the translation of the bones and bodies of Martyrs is no vnusuall thing in your Church As it followeth not because Iohn Baptists head as you say is to be seene at S. Siluesters at Rome that therefore he dyed there so neither doth it followe of S. Peter 2 Agayne how shall wee beleeue you that it is S. Peters Sepulchre which is shewed at Rome seeing you haue made so many mockeries alreadie making the world beleeue that Peters bodie is sometime in one place sometime in an other Half his bodie you say is at S. Peters in Rome halfe at S. Paules his head at S. Iohn Laterane his neather iawe with the beard at Poicters in France many of his bones at Trieirs at Geneua part of his brayne You see that we may as well doubt whether Peters bodie bee at Rome as in any of these places And such as you see are our aduersaries arguments for Peters being at Rome The Protestants COncerning Peters being at Rome First wee doe not vtterly denye it but onely affirme that he could not come thither so soone as in the second yeare of Claudius and sit there so long namely fiue and twentie yeares as they hold Secondly it may bee graunted that he was there as a matter of storie not an article of faith Thirdly wee haue certayne doubts and arguments about some circumstances of his being there which our aduersaries are not able to answere 1 There is great disagreeing amongst the writers concerning the time of Peters comming to Rome Orosius sayth hee came thither in the beginning of Claudius raigne Hierome saith the 2. yeare of his raigne other say the fourth yeare other the thirteenth yeare Damasus would haue him come thither in Nero his raigne This dissention of writers sheweth that the matter may be iustly doubted of Fulk in Rom. 16. sect 4. Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere No more doe all agree concerning the time when the world was created nor for the storie of Christs life in what time euery thing was done when he suffered and such like yet it followeth not that those things were not true because there is some diuersitie about the time Rhemist 1. Pet. 5.13 Wee replie First most of these things concerning the chronologie of scripture though it be not necessarie to saluation yet by diligent search may be found in scripture Secondly if they can shewe any scripture for Peters being at Rome as we haue for the other stories we will beleeue it though the time perfectly be not knowne but seeing the scripture maketh no mention at all of his being there and the time is vncertayne we may worthilie doubt of it much lesse are bound necessarilie to beleeue it 2 The storie of Peters comming to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius his abiding at Rome fiue twentie yeres his death and martyrdome in the 14. yere of Nero and the 37. yeare after Christs ascension we proue out of the scriptures to bee false For Peter was at Ierusalem and in those quarters round about till 18. yeares after Christ for Paul sawe him there 3. yeares after his calling and agayne 14. yeares after that Galath 2. there is 17. yeares and one yeare was past before Pauls conuersion in all 18. yeares adde vnto these the 25. yeares of Peters being at Rome that maketh 43. yeares and so Peter should suffer in Vespasianus raigne and not in the time of Nero. Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere that Peter was at Rome seauen yeares before the Councel held at Ierusalem Act. 15. which was in the 18.
Angels for they dare set downe the very day of Christs comming which shall be as Bellarmine presumptuously imagineth iust 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist And to this purpose he abuseth that place of Dan. 12.11 where mention is made of 1290. dayes that is as he fondly interpreteth three yeeres and an halfe the iust time of Antichrists raigne But blessed is he that commeth sayth the Prophet to 1335. dayes that is sayth Bellarmine to 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist and then Christ commeth cap. 9. What intolerable boldnes and presumption is this contrarie to the saying of Christ to attempt to declare the very houre of his comming Agayne the prophecie of Daniel had no such meaning for he onely speaketh of the afflictions of the Church before the comming of Christ as Iohn prophecieth of the troubles that came after Daniel therfore in that place receiueth instructions concerning the cruell persecution of the Iewes vnder Antiochus Epiphanes the beginning and the end thereof There are three times reuealed vnto him The first is of a time two times and halfe a time or rather the deuiding of time or as Tremellius more agreeable to the Hebrew a part or parcel of times so long should the temple be defiled and the abomination set vp in the temple that is three yeeres and certayne dayes And so it came to passe for this desolation began in the temple the 145. yeere of the raigne of the Greekes the fifteene day of the moneth Casleu 1. Macchab. 1.57 when Antiochus caused the daylie sacrifice to cease and incense to bee burnt to Idols And iust three yeeres and ten dayes after which is to bee reckoned for the odde parcell of times Ann. 148. the 25. day of Casleu they began to offer sacrifice in the temple according to the lawe 1. Macchab. 4.52 The second time reuealed is of a 1290. dayes Dan. 12.11 which maketh three yeeres seuen moneths and odde dayes which is the time counting from the desolation when as the sacrifices should be restored and confirmed by the Kings graunt and Letters Patents which accordingly came to passe ann 148. the fifteenth of the moneth Xanthicus which was the last moneth but one as it is recorded 2. Macchab. 11.33 The third time is described by dayes 1335. Dan. 12.12 Blessed is hee that should liue to see that time namely when the Church of the Iewes should fullie bee deliuered by the death of Antiochus which was in the beginning of the next yeere which was 149. 1. Macchab. 6.16 Thus wee see these times were fully accomplished vnder the tyrannie of Antiochus wherefore these prophecies being once fulfilled they cannot bee drawne to signifie any other time but by way of similitude and comparison Neither is that any thing worth which the Iesuite obiecteth out of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2.8 Then shall the wicked man bee reuealed whom Christ shall consume with the spirit of his mouth As though presently after the reuelation of Antichrist Christ should come And therefore Antichrist must not be expected or looked for before the end of the world for the whole time from the first comming of Christ to his second is in the scripture called nouissima hora the last times 1. Ioh. 2.18 And therefore Antichrist at what time soeuer he is reuealed after the ascension of Christ he commeth in the last times whose vtter ruine and destruction shall be reserued for the glorious appearing of Christ as the Apostle there speaketh 3 Whereas the scripture sayth that Sathan must bee bound for a thousand yeeres and after let loose agayne Apocal. 20.2 And it is playne that the thousand yeeres since Christ are expired more then fiue hundred yeeres agoe It followeth hereupon that Antichrist is alreadie come for he must bee reuealed with the loosing of Sathan Our aduersaries haue nothing to answere but this that by this 1000. yeeres a certayne time is not ment but the whole space during the time of the newe Testament till the comming of Antichrist Rhemist Reuel 20. sect 1. To whom wee answere that by the same reason neither shall their 42. moneths shewe any certayne time but the whole space so long as Antichrist shall raigne and this number of moneths as of dayes weekes houres the scripture euery where taketh mystically in prophecies but when thousands or hundred yeeres are mentioned they are alwaies taken literally as Isay. 7.8 it is prophecied that Ephraim that is Israel should vtterly cease to bee a people within 65. yeeres which euen so came to passe counting from the fourth yeere of the raigne of Ahaz King of Iuda to the 25. yeere of Manasses when the remnant of Israel was carried away THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE NAME character and signe of Antichrist The Papists THey stoutly affirme that Antichrist shall be one particular man consequently error 58 they also hold that he shall haue a certayne name as Christ is called Iesus so Antichrist must also haue a proper name but what that name shall be no man can tell vntill hee come but it shall consist of certayne letters that in number make sixe hundred sixtie sixe Bellarm. cap. 10. Rhemist annot Apocal. 13. sect 10. 1 Apocal. 13.18 Count the number of the beast for it is the number of a man and his number is 666. Hereupon they conclude that Antichrist shall haue a certayne name which conteyneth that number Bellarm. ibid. Answere First it is the number of the beast and yet of a man Ergo it cannot bee the name of any one man for by the beast the Iesuites themselues vnderstand a companie or multitude Rhemist Apocal. 13. sect 1. Wherefore it must be such a name as agreeth to a companie or succession of men and such is the name Latinus as afterward we will shewe Secondly it must bee a name by number shewing the time not an idle number signifying nothing the time of his comming is set downe to be 666 But the name of their Antichrist cannot shew any such time seeing there are yeeres more then twise 666. gone alreadie and yet they say their Antichrist is not yet come 2 Antichrist shall haue a name as Christ had but it is not necessarie to bee knowne otherwise then Christ his name was which was described by Sibil by the number of 888. as Antichrists is by 666. yet was not his name Iesus perfectly knowne before his comming neither is it necessarie that Antichrists should before that time Iesus in Greeke letters thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh as you see 888. Bellarm. cap. 10. Answere First you must proue Antichrist to be one singular man as Christ was and then striue for his name Secondly you doe euill to match Sibils prophecie and Iohns reuelation together as though her coniecture of the name of Christ by the number 888. were of like authoritie with Iohns prophecie of 666. Thirdly it is false that the name Iesus was onely by Sibil signified by these numbers for Augustine alleadgeth certayne verses of
had not in the meane time been found to be with childe of the holy Ghost for otherwise it shuld seeme to haue been a mockery on Maries behalfe to promise mariage to Ioseph without any purpose to performe the duety of mariage But if it were done with both their consents then mocked they with God who instituted mariage for some ende and purpose which could not be attayned out of mariage for they should haue maried neither for auoyding fornication nor for procreation which are the two chiefe ends of mariage as for the third which is mutuall comfort it ariseth of the former Argum. 2. It was not the manner among the Iewes to vow Virginitie but it was rather a shame and reproch to remayne and die a Virgin and therefore Iephthaths daughter lamented her Virginitie Iudg. 11.38 Howe then could Marie be induced contrary to the custome of the Church to vow Virginitie Yea Augustine confesseth as much Hoc mores Israelitarum recusabant The manners of the Israelites did not suffer it de Virginit cap. 4. though he himselfe els-where and in the same place seemeth to incline to the contrary opinion THE THIRD PART OF THE ASsumption of the Virgin Marie The Papists THey report the story of the death and departure of the Virgin Mary after error 82 this manner At the time of her death after she had liued sixtie three years all the Apostles being dispersed into diuers nations were myraculously brought together to Ierusalem to solemnize her funerall They buried her in Gethsemani and for three dayes together the Angels were heard to sing melodious songs At three dayes ende also Saint Thomas came who being desirous to see her bodie and not finding it in the graue they thereupon assuredly deemed that her body was assumpted into heauen Rhemist Act. 1. vers 14. Argum. 1. It is best agreeable to the priuiledge of the mother of God not to see corruption Rhemist ibid. Seeing also her sonne was exempted from corruption natura Mariae excipitur the nature of Marie must be excepted caro enim Iesu est caro Mariae the flesh of Iesus is the flesh of Marie And seeing Christ came to fulfil the law which sayth Honor thy parents it is very like eum in morte speciali gratia eam honorasse that he did honor her by special grace in her death These reasons and other are to be read in a forged booke amongst Augustines works bearing title De assumptione Mariae Answ. First there is no credite to be giuen to the forged writings which passe vnder the name of Saint Denis and Athanasius out of whom they doe reporte the assumption of Marie nay their owne lesson which they reade vpon the Assumption day doth controll and confute the other First that story saith that without doubt she was taken vp in bodie But your lesson leaueth it as vncertayne whether she were raysed vp in body or not Secondly the forged story sayth she was buried in Gethsemani which was in mount Oliuet your lesson sayth that the place of her buriall is in the midst of the valley of Iehosaphat which is betweene mount Oliuet and the Citie Fulk ibid. Secondly it followeth not because Christ tooke flesh of the Virgin that therfore she should also as well be exempted from corruption for hee tooke flesh also of Dauid and other his progenitors who by the same reason should bee made immortall And if she were priuiledged by beeing the mother of Christ from seeing corruption why not also from hauing anie sinne for her Sonne after the flesh saw neither Thirdly Christ also both did and might honor his mother as he was man though so great a priuiledge bee not graunted vnto her The reuerence which was to be done to his mother was in regard of his manhood and so was he obedient vnto them Luk. 2.51 and so long as he liued in the flesh and therefore he did care for her euen vpon the crosse commending her to the disciple whom he loued But he neither was to honour her as he was God and therfore not to free her from corruption which had been a work of his Godhead and the natural affection and honour due vnto parents ceaseth after this life It were then too grosse a conceit to think that Christ hath such regard now of the virgin Marie in heauen as he had of her being his mother in the dayes of his flesh for Christ as he is not now knowen after the flesh 2. Corinth 5.16 so neither knoweth he any after the flesh The Protestants THis vncertaine reporte of the assumption of Mary with other circumstances thereof we holde to bee a very counterfeit storie and worthy of no credite Argum. 1. If it were a matter of such waight as they make it who haue erected a new found holy-day of the assumption of Mary surely the scriptures would not haue been silent therein especially Saint Iohn as Augustine saith to whose charge she was committed would haue left somewhat in writing of that matter for sayth he Nullus fideliùs id narrare potuerit for no man could more truely and faythfully make relation thereof Argum. 2 That generall sentence pronounced vpon Adam and all Adams seede must needes also take place in the virgin Marie Thou art dust and to dust shalt thou returne Genes 3.19 Christ onely is excepted and that by the testimonie of the word of God wherefore vnles this priuiledge of the virgin could be proued out of scripture as Christs is we must needs hold her subiect to that generall law of corruption Augustine sayth Assumptio eius in apocrypha non in catholica reperitur historia the assumption of Mary is found in an Apocryphal that is an obscure and vncertaine not a Catholike or authentical storie THE FOVRTH PART OF THE HOnor and worship of the Virgin Marie The Papists error 83 THey doe ascribe vnto her a kinde of religious honor more then to any of the Saynts beside For whereas they call the worship of Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruice the honor of the Virgin they tearme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a higher kinde of seruice Bellarmin de Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 25. They call her Regina mundi scala coeli thronus dei ianua Paradisi The Queene of the world the ladder of heauen the throne of God and gate of Paradise yea they giue her iurisdiction ouer her sonne Iube natum commaund thy sonne Iure matris impera filio commaund thy sonne by the right of a mother Coge Deum compell God to be mercifull to sinners Annot Fulk 1.15 Againe they say she is to be honoured with the feasts of her Natiuitie Assumption and Conception for the other two of her Purification and Annuntiation are not proper to the Virgine but concerne Christ the one his Conception the other his Presentation Rhemist actor 1. sect 7. Argum. She her selfe prophecieth of all Catholike generations that they should blesse her in keeping her festiuities and memorials but if these
not onely of remission of sinnes but that Christ is become our righteousnes and sanctification 1. Cor. 1.30 that he will assist vs with his spirite and replenish our harts with grace Ioh. 4.14 yea the spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a pledge vnto vs of the resurrection and of life eternall Ioh. 6.54 But that amongst the rest it also assureth vs of remission of sinnes thus it is proued Argum. Christ after S. Mathew saith This is the blood of the new testament that is shed for many for remission of sinnes Math. 26.28 But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sinnes Iere. 31.34 Yea our Sauiour setteth it downe in plaine termes for why els should our Sauiour make expresse mention of forgiuenes of sinnes if this sacrament did not serue for that vse Secondly we doe holde that to haue a liuely faith in the promises of God with repentance for our sinnes and a full purpose to amend our liues is a sufficient preparation for the Communion and that this sacrament is a soueraigne remedy for a troubled conscience Neither ought men to refraine from the Communion till they haue fully satisfied for their sinnes as the Papists teach and are cleered in their conscience of all their sinnes for so few or none at all should be admitted to the Lords table but in whom faith hath alredy wrought repentance in some measure he may safely receiue the sacrament for his further comfort and assurance of remission of sinnes Argum. Iohn 6.35 He that beleeueth in me saith Christ shall neuer thirst S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselues 1. Corin. 11.28 which is nothing els as himselfe expondethu it then to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Ergo the examination or triall of faith is a sufficient preparation for the Lords table Augustine saith Ad Deum acceditur fide sectando corde inhiando charitate currando We come or haue accesse vnto God in folowing him by faith seeking him in our heart and running to him with loue In Psalm 33. concion 2. Ergo by fayth we haue accesse vnto God Rom. 5.2 but a liuely fayth which worketh by loue Galath 5.6 THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE manner to be obserued in receiuing the communion The Papists 1 THey holde it in no wise lawfull for Christians otherwise then fasting to error 121 receiue the communion and that they ought to eate nothing before they doe communicate vnlesse it be in a case of great necessitie Concil Constantiens sess 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 22. ratione 4. The Protestants 1 WHat they here vnderstand by necessitie it may be doubted seeing they themselues will not graunt the like necessitie to be in the Eucharist as they say there is of Baptisme All sacraments we graunt are necessary that is profitable expedient requisite so often as they may bee had But none so necessary that the want thereof vnto a faythfull man that in heart doth wish and desire them can be any hindrance to his saluation 2 That it is lawfull for any man to eate before he come to the communion if his stomack be weake and not able to fast so long for otherwise if a man can abstaine we wish him so to do rather Saint Paul sheweth writing to the Corinthians 1. cap. 11.34 If any man be hungry let him eate at home Some of them he sayth came hungry some drunken vers 21. the Apostle commendeth neither but telleth them if they bee hungry they haue houses to eate in Againe in that our Sauiour Christ after supper instituted the sacrament it doth euidently declare vnto vs that it is no sinne to eate or drink before we receiue the sacrament Augustine sayth Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus We compell none to take the Lords Supper in dinner while or after dinner neither dare wee forbid any so to doe so hee maketh it a thing indifferent to communicate fasting or otherwise The Papists 2 THey binde the people onely once in the yeare to receiue the communion error 122 at Easter time and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to doe Concil Trident. sess 13. can 9. The Protestants 2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practise of the Apostles whom the Rhemists confesse to haue ministred the sacrament to the Christians daylie Annotat. Act. 2. sect 6. So expounding the wordes of the text They continued dayly in breaking of bread 2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Pauls rule who speaketh of often communicating Doe this sayth he as oft as you drink it 1. Corinth 11.25 For seeing the eating of that bread and drinking of that cuppe is nothing els but a shewing foorth of the Lords death till he come who seeth not that it ought oftener then once or twice in the yere to be receiued seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembred and shewed foorth 3 Therefore Augustine doth boldely reprehend their custome that content themselues with once receiuing in the yeare Si panis quotidianus est cur post annum illum sumas accipe quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit If it be thy daylie bread why doest thou take it but yearely take that daylie and continually which may profit thee daylie In Luk. serm 28. THE EIGHT QVESTION OF RECEIuing the Sacrament in one kinde The Papists error 123 CHristians say they are not bound by any commaundement of GOD to receiue the sacrament in both kinds Concil Trident. sess 21. can 1. And whosoeuer saith that the Church hath erred or done amisse in decreeing that lay men and the Clergie not saying Masse should receiue in the one kinde that is bread onely Or that it is lawfull for them to communicate in both contrary to the determination of the Church let him bee accursed Concil Trident sess 21. can 2. Rhemist Iohn 6. sect 11. Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 20. Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in euery parte of the sacrament his blood by a certaine concomitance is in the bread his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup for otherwise Christ should be deuided But euery spirit sayth the Apostle that dissolueth Iesus is of God 1. Iohn 4.3 Wherefore hee that receiueth in one kinde is as well partaker of whole Christ and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament as if hee receiued in both Bellarmin cap. 21. Ans. 1. We denie any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament for he is not in his carnall presence with his very flesh and blood there included as we haue shewed before the bread and wine are signes onely of his body and blood and therefore Christ is not diuided they being the signes onely and not the thing signified 2 The place alleadged out of Saint Iohn is greatly abused and corrupted by them while they choose rather to follow their
we made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ but this fayth the wicked cannot haue The first part is proued out of the Gospell He only that drinketh of the blood of Christ shall neuer thirst agayne Iohn 4.14 He that shall neuer thirst must beleeue in Christ Iohn 6.35 Ergo he onely that beleeueth doth drinke the blood of Christ. So Augustine saith Nolite parare fances sed cor non quod videtur sed quod creditur pascit doe not prepare your iawes but your heart it is not that which is seene but what is beleeued that nourisheth Ergo Christ must bee receiued by faith therefore Infidels or vnbeleeuers cannot receiue him Argum. 2. Whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood shall haue eternall life Iohn 6.54 But the wicked haue not eternall life Ergo they neither eate nor drinke Christ. Augustine sayth De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad mortem quibusdam ad vitam res verò cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit From the Lords table some doe receiue vnto life some vnto death but the thing whereof it is a sacrament worketh in all to life in none to death whosoeuer are partakers of it But the bodie and blood of Christ are the things signified in the sacrament Ergo whosoeuer receiueth them hath life thereby the wicked then receiue them not THE SECOND PART OF THIS CONTROVERSY CONCERNING the Popish Masse THis part likewise comprehendeth diuers questions 1 Of the diuers representations of the death and sacrifice of Christ. 2 Of the sacrifice of the Masse the name thereof and of the sacrificing priesthood 3 Of the vertue and efficacie which they falsely ascribe to the Masse 4 For whom the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable whether for the quicke and the dead 5. Of priuate Masses 6. Of the manner of saying and celebrating Masse 7. Of the ceremonies which they vse in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse some goe before some are obserued in the celebration thereof 8. Of the forme of the Masse which consisteth partly of the Canon and of the preface to the Canon where we are to shew the foule and heretical blasphemies which in great number are belched out by them in the Masse Of these now in their order THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE DIVERS representations of the death of Christ. The Papists THey are not contented with that one liuely representation of the death of Christ which is exhibited in the Lords Supper but they haue brought in error 126 two more beside that and so make three in all the first say they is simplex repraesentatio a simple and plaine representation of the death of Christ which is done so often as the Sacrament is receiued the second is Repraesentatio ad vinum A liuely and full representation of Christs death which they doe vse yearely to set forth by solemne gestures apparell and other ceremonies vpon Good Friday as it is commonly called before Easter when they doe make nothing else but a Pageant play of the Sacrament the third representation is also a sacrifice beside and that is the sacrifice of the Masse Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 1. The Rhemists make a fourth representation beside which is in the solemne receiuing of the Communion at Easter So then first Christs death is shewed forth by the Sacrament of the Eucharist all the yeare long as it hangeth in the pixe or when it is carried to house the sicke Catechism Rom. pag. 408. Secondly it is represented once in the yeere by their solemne Pageant vpon good Friday when there is no Sacrament consecrated but an histrionicall expressing by certaine gestures and actions the manner of Christs crucifying Thirdly in the continuall sacrifice of the Masse Christ his death is represented And lastly in the solemne receiuing at Easter for then especially the mysterie of Christ our Paschall lambe is commended to the people to be eaten with all sinceritie in the Sacrament and so doe the Rhemist expound that place of Saint Paul Let vs keepe feast or holy day not with the leauen of malitiousnes 1. Cor. 6.8 literally applying it to the feast of Easter Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants FIrst we are taught by the word of God that by eating the bread and drinking of the cup in the Sacrament not by gazing looking lifting vp turning hanging vp bread in pixes or by any such meanes but onely as we haue saide is the Lords death shewed forth and represented 1. Corinth 11.26 Wee acknowledge therefore one onely Sacramentall representation of Christ and no more in the Lords Supper the sacrifice of the Masse we iudge to bee an abominable idol as afterward shall be shewed Secondly it is a foule absurditie to make any representation of Christs death by bare gestures shewes and actions of the bodie without any Sacrament as they doe in their popish pageants vpon Christs Passion daye for at that time there is no Sacrament consecrated Eckius cap. 15. But the Priest by certaine gestures and motions of the bodie in bowing bending casting abroade his armes and such like dooth resemble Christ crucified Bellarm cap. 1. But to call this a liuely representation being done without a Sacrament and the other in the Sacrament simplicem repraesentationem but a simple and plaine representation is too great presumption wherein they prefer their owne superstitious deuises before the ordinance of Christ. Thirdly that place of Saint Paul is vnfitly applied to the celebration of Ester Augustine expoundeth it far otherwise Diem festum celebremus non vtique vnam diem sed totam vitam in azymis synceritatis veritatis Let vs keepe holy day not one onely day but all our life long in the vnleauened bread of purenes and trueth So then in Augustines iudgement the Apostle had no relation to any certaine time which he would haue kept holy but to the reformation of the whole life THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE sacrifice of the Masse and the Priesthoode thereto belonging THE FIRST PART OF THE name and terme of Masse The Papists error 127 THere are diuerse opinions amongst them concerning the originall of this name Some say it is called Missa the Masse Quia oblatio preces ad Deum mittantur Hugo de S. Victore Others quod Angelus a Deo mittatur quisacrificio assistat Because an angell is sent of God to bee assistant at the Masse Thom. Aquinas 3. part quaest 83. artic 4. Some of the hebrue worde Missath Deut. 16. which signifieth an oblation Some ex missis donarijs symbolis of the giftes and offerings sent or put in before the Communion But what beginning soeuer it had they doe now generally take the Masse for that solemne action whereby the Sacrament is made a sacrifice and offered vp to God Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. The Protestants WE doe not greatly force vpon this name for both the name
marriage lawfully contracted and consummate is onely made voyd in the case of adulterie as we haue before proued 2. Neither doth the infidelitie of the one partie make a nullitie of marriage for S. Paul sayth that the woman in that case is not to forsake her husband 1. Corinth 7.13 Of this matter see more quaest 2. part 2. of this controuersie 3. Neither is the fault committed before the marriage sufficient to disable the marriage once done for thē question might haue been made of the strength of Dauids marriage with Bathsheba And Augustine doubteth not thus to conclude Posse sanè fieri nuptias ex male coniunctis honesto postea placito consequente That marriage may very well stand betweene those that once had vnlawfull carnall copulation but afterward an honest purpose of marriage followed But there are certaine cases wherein matrimonie vnlawfully contracted yea consummate may be dissolued as first if the consent of either partie be wanting as when by tyrannicall coaction and compulsion they come together and the consent is still withholden Secondly if the consent of both be wanting as in the marriage of children that are not able to giue consent Thirdly if there be an error of the person as if one be thrust vpon a man in stead of another as Lea was vpon Iacob or an error in the condition of the partie as if he or she be an Hermaphrodite an Eunuch or such like Fourthly if they marrie within the degrees forbidden by Moses law In all these cases Matrimonie thus vnlawfully begun and ratified may be dissolued But lawfull matrimonie cannot be abrogate but either by naturall death or lawfull diuorce for fornication In the case of desertion also and long absence of either partie after the expecting of his returne some terme of yeeres with probable intelligence of the parties death or if he be wilfully absent of his lewd and dishonest life the innocent partie by the wise and deliberate sentence of the Magistrate may be pronounced free THE FIFT QVESTION OF THE COMPARISON betweene Virginitie and Marriage The Papists error 40 VIrginitie is preferred before marriage not onely for that it is a more quiet state of life and freer from troubles in this world but that it is more conuenient for the seruice of God and that it hath a gratefull puritie and sanctitie both of bodie and soule which marriage hath not Rhemist Argum. 1. Corinth 7.32 The vnmarried careth for the things of the Lord how she may please God Ergo virginitie is a fitter state of life to serue please God in Rhemist ibid. The Protestants FIrst we graunt according to the Apostles saying in this place that virginitie is also a fitter state of life for the seruice of God yet not simplie but for those onely that haue the gift of continencie for they which cannot abstaine may and doe serue God with a more quiet mind being married then many popish virgines which burne in the lust of concupiscence Secondly yet it followeth not that virginitie is a more holy and cleane thing in it selfe and more meritorious before God then marriage is for this were to make marriage vnholy vncleane whereas it is not the act of marriage but the abusing thereof that bringeth vncleannes with it before God in themselues neither is more holy then other Argum. It is faith which maketh vs accepted of God not the merite of any worke and therefore of all faithfull beleeuers it is sayd Apocal. 14.4 These are they which were not defiled with women for they are virgines And he vnderstandeth all that are redeemed by Christ from amongst men and are the first fruites of the Lambe vers 4. And not onely those which properly in common vse of speech we call virgines True godlines therefore a sincere faith whereby we are diuorced from the world and ioyned to God is the true virginitie Augustine Sicut non est impar meritum patientiae in Petro qui passus est in Iohanne qui passus non est sic non est impar meritum cōtinentiae in Iohanne qui nullas est expertus nuptias in Abraham qui filios generauit As there was no greater merit of patience in Peter that suffered then in Iohn who suffered not so there was no greater merit of continencie in Iohn that was neuer married then in Abraham that begat children See then by his iudgement there is the same merit of married and vnmarried persons THE SIXT QVESTION OF THE TIMES OF marriage prohibited The Papists THere are certaine seasons in the yeere wherein for the holines of the festiuall times they hold it vnlawfull to haue marriage solemnized as from the Aduent error 41 to the Epiphanie from Septuagesima Sunday as it is called to the octaues of Easter from 3. daies afore the Ascension to the octaues of Pentecost Ruard Tapper artic 20. pag. 526. But the Councel of Trent hath somewhat moderated this time and cut it shorter thinking it vnreasonable that marriage should be prohibited the third part of the yeere for so much the time interdicted ariseth to if account be taken of the weekes The time of Pentecost therefore they haue dispensed with and the time prohibited at Easter they would haue begun not from Septuagesima but from Ashwednesday Sess. 24. cap. 10. Vpon these times they hold it vnlawfull publiquely to haue marriage solemnized both for the holines of so great feasts and because of receiuing the Sacraments Bellarm. de matrim cap. 31. Argum. God commanded the people to abstaine from their wiues when he was to appeare vnto them in Mount Sinai Exod. 19.15 And Sam. 21.4 Before the high priest would deliuer the shewbread to Dauid and his companie he asked if the young men had kept themselues from women Ergo marriage is not lawfull at all times Bellarm. ibid. Ans. First these places alleadged doe rather proue that men in those interdicted times ought not at all to come at their wiues thē that the solemnization of marriage should be restrained but I thinke they would be ashamed to forbid men their wiues companie so long together as fiue or sixe weekes at the Natiuitie and eight or nine weekes at Easter why then should not the one bee as lawfull as the other Secondly the abstinence from their wiues was commanded then as a legall and ceremonial kind of sanctification as was also the washing of their clothes Exod. 19.10 And the companie of women was at some times counted as a legall pollution not as a sinfull or vncleane act of it selfe as the women after childbirth were commanded to purifie themselues Leuit. 12. from a legall pollution onely not from any sinfull or vncleane act for then it had been a manifest iniurie to that holy birth that Mary purified her selfe according to the lawe Luk. 2.22 Wherefore seeing it was a legall kind of sanctification it is not to be intruded imposed vpon Christians now Thirdly neither can they proue that this kind of abstinence