damned in hell blaspheme Christ ergo there be some vnder the earth that is in purgatorie which worship and adore Christ. The answer I answere that the bowing of the knee whereof the apostle speaketh doth not signify worship or adoration but that subiection which shalbe shewed openlie in the last iudgement when and where the deuilles as well as men and the good angels shall yeeld homage and dominion vnto Christ. For so S. Paul expoundeth S. Paul in his epistle to the Romaines and S. Luke recordeth that the deuill falleth prostrate before Christ and acknowledgeth his power ouer him which is that bowing of the knee whereof S. Paul speaketh Other expositions whatsoeuer are repugnant to the text The replie S. Iohn saith that hee heard all the creatures which are in heauen and on earth and vnder the earth and in the sea and al that are in them saying in this maner praise and honor and glorie and power be vnto him that sitteth vpon the throne and vnto the Lambe for euermore Therefore they be vnder the earth which truely worship Christ and consequently since the deuils as yee grant do rather blaspheme then worship Christ they that worship Christ vnder the earth must needes bee the soules in purgatory The answere I answere that S. Iohn meaneth nothing els then that which S. Paul hath vttered he vseth the figure Prosopopeia after the vsuall course of the scriptures causeth things senselesse and voide of reason to sounde out the praise of God so saith the Psalmograph Dauid All thy workes praise thee O Lord and thy saints blesse thee and in another place thus The heauens declare the glorie of God and the firmament sheweth the worke of his hands yea as the prophet saith and as the three holy Hebrewes sang fire heate winter summer frost snow light darkenesse the starres the sunne the moone and creatures blesse the Lord. The tenth obiection S. Iohn saith that no vncleane thing shall enter into heauen but many depart out of this life which are not pure ergo such must be purged in purgatorie before they come in heauen The answere I say first that faith in Christ Iesus can as well purge a man in this life as the Popes pardons and yet as your selues teach vs a plenarie indulgence will salue this impuritie I say secondly that it is a needelesse thing to establish popish purgatorie because popish pardons supplie the want thereof This is proued copiously in my booke of Motiues I say thirdly that the faithfull and elect children of God haue their cleanenesse before him in Christ his sonne with which they may enter into heauen For as S. Iohn saith they haue washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lambe who as S. Paul saith when hee knew no sinne was yet made the sacrifice for sin that we might be the righteousnes of God in him And as S. Peter saith their hearts are purified by faith yea as Christ himself saith his sacred word hath made them cleane In fine holy Writ pronounceth them blessed that die in the Lord that they rest from their labors Which being so they neither haue any impurity nor suffer any purgatorie paine The replie You all confesse that your inherent iustice is vnperfect and impure and so your vncleanenes must be taken away after this life be fore yee come into heauen ergo there is a purgatorie The answere I answere that original concupiscence is an inseperable accidēt during this life aswel in you as in vs but as it is proper to this state so is it taken away in that very instant in which our state is altered The 11. obiection S. Peter saith that God raised vp Christ after he had loosed the sorrows of hel This place saith our Iesuite must needs be vnderstood of purgatory for first it cānot be meant of the damned because their paines shal neuer end Secondly it cannot be meant of the sorrowes of Christ because they were finished on the crosse Thirdly it cannot be meant of the fathers in Limbo because they had no paine at all it therefore remaineth that it be meant of the sorrowes which soules abide in purgatorie The answere I say first that if their Latin text were sound this obiection would solue it selfe for the originall and Greeke text is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing loosed the sorrowes of death Out of which words nothing can be gathered that fauoreth purgatory any thing at al. I say secondly that if it were as y e papists do reade the sorrowes of hel being loosed their soules should alwayes feele paine but neuer haue an end Which cannot be truely verified of their purgatorie fire I say thirdly that the fathers whō the papists hold to haue bin in Limbo at that time did according to their owne doctrine suffer poenam damni because they were not as yet partakers of the cleare vision beatificall which Bellarmine granteth in another place and so is repugnant to himselfe But let that be deemed a small fault in a Iesuite which is thought a great crime in another man Adde hereunto that poena damni is a greater pain then poena sensus by their best popish diuinitie I say fourthly that by the sorrows of death is meant nothing els but the bitter paines which Christ suffered vpon the crosse to accomplish mans redemption For then did he properly perfectly triumph ouer death when he rose againe from death who was deliuered to death for our sins saith Saint Paul and is risen againe for our iustification And the verie words of the text next following in the Actes doe confirme this exposition for there it is thus written whome God raised vp and loosed the sorrowes of death because it was vnpossible that he should be holden of it as if S. Peter had said although the passion of Christ was so bitter exceeding great as implying the curse and malediction due for our sinnes insomuch that the remembrance therof caused him to sweate out drops of blood yet could not death possiblie preuaile against him but that he should rise againe and conquer both hel and it The replie Although the greek word in the 24. verse signifieth death yet in the 27 verse it signifieth hel and so the sense is against you The answere I answer that the hebrew word in the psalme from whence this sentence is taken is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth a sepulchre or graue and so doth your owne great linguiste Arias Montanus interpret it as if the Prophet hadde saide thou wilt not leaue my soule or life in the graue For the course of holy scripture doth comprehende our life vnder the name of the Soule so saith the Prophet Ionas therefore now O Lord take I beseech thee my soule from me for it is better for me to die then to liue So is it in the Hebrew and original and yet by
needlesse which God appointeth to be done The replie Like as nobles and magistrates bring vs to the presence of an earthly king euen so doe saintes by their holy praiers bring vs to the presence and fauour of God the king of heauen The answere Saint Ambrose shall answere as who precisely and fully resolueth this question These are his wordes Ideo ad regem pertribunos aut comites itur quia homo vtique est rex nescit quibus debeat remp credere ad dominū autem quem vtique nihil latet omnium enim merita nouit promerendum suffragatore non opus est sed mente deuota Vbicunque enim talis locutus fuerit ei respondebit illi We are therefore brought to the presence of kinges by Lords and officers because the king is a man and knoweth not to whom he may commit his realme But to win Gods fauour from whō nothing is hid for he knoweth what euery man is meet to haue we need no spokesman but a deuout minde For wheresoeuer such a one speaketh to God God will answere him And this answere of S. Ambrose is consonant to the holy scripture For Christ himselfe saith Come vnto me all ye that are weary and laden and I will ease you Againe we must not iudge what is the wil of God by the similitudes of earthly thinges departed through sinne but by his sacred word reuealed from heauen The 2. obiection God saith by his prophet that though Moses and Samuel stood before him and praied for the people yet woulde not hee heare them Whereupon we may gather that saintes vse to pray for vs and that God heareth their praiers though neither at all times nor for all persons The answere I say first that conditionall propositions proue nothing but when the condition is put I say secondly that by popish doctrine Moses and Samuel did not then stand before God and consequently they did not then pray for the people For as the papists hold they were in Limbo vntill Christes ascension I say thirdly that the meaning of the text is no other then this to wit that if there were any man liuing so zealous as Moses and Samuel who shuld pray for that people yet would not God graunt his request This interpretation is most certaine as may most euidently be gathered out of these wordes of Ezechiel Though these three men Noah Daniel and Iob were among them they should deliuer but their owne soules by their righteousnesse As if he had said thus though most godly men Noah Iob and Daniel were now liuing togither and shoulde pray for this wicked people yet woulde not I heare them By which wordes it is manifest that God both before in Ieremie and now in Ezechiel speaketh of the praiers of the liuing for Daniel was now with Ezechiel aliue in captiuity and yet doth the scripture speake of them all indifferently The third conclusion To pray to be holpen for the merites of Saints departed is very superstitious and plaine diabolicall I prooue it because Christ is the lambe that taketh away the sins of the world because Christ is our aduocate the reconciliation for our sins because Christ only Christ is the mediatour between God vs Because Christ is our high priest the author of our saluatiō because Christ hath offered himself a sacrifice for our sins hath therewith sanctified vs for euer because Christ and onely Christ is hee in whose name wee must be saued Because Christ is hee in whose name we shall receiue whatsoeuer wee aske Because Christ is he through whose merites wee haue peace in God Because Christ is he that suffered for vs that we might be the righteousnesse of God in him Finally because the spirite of God enforceth the papistes themselues to conclude their publique praiers in this maner per dominum nostrum Iesum Christum through the merites of our Lord Iesus Christ. The obiection The fathers of the olde testament did often alledge and oppose against Gods wrath the names and merites of the holie patriarches Remember thy seruantes Abraham Isaac and Iacob For thy seruaunt Dauids sake refuse not the face of thine annointed Why may not wee therefore stand vpon the merites of Christes deere mother and of others his holy saintes The answere I answere that these and like inuocations very frequent in the scriptures do not depend vpon the merites of Gods saints but vpon his couenant and promise made to them and their posteritie So saith holy Moses Remember Abraham Isaac and Iacob thy seruantes to whom thou swarest by thine own selfe and saidst vnto them I will multiply your seed in which wordes he opposeth not their merites but Gods othe and promise So saith Salomon O Lord God of Israel thou hast kept with thy seruaunt Dauid my father that thou hast promised to him for thou spakest with thy mouth and hast fulfilled it with thine hand In which wordes holy Salomon vrgeth Gods promise not the merites of his father Dauid So saith God himselfe to Isaac dwell in this land and I will be with thee and will blesse thee and I will performe the othe which I sware to Abraham thy father Loe hee remembreth and respecteth his owne othe but not Abrahams merites No no for as I haue prooued alreadie copiously the most holy saintes in heauen are rewarded farre aboue their deserts and merites It is I say not for the merites of the godly but for Gods holy couenant made with them that God dealeth mercifully with their posterity For thus is it written in Gods own book howbeit the Lord will not destroie the house of Dauid because of the couenant that he made with Dauid because he had promised to giue a light to him and to his sonnes for euer The fourth conclusion The honor due to saints in heauen and which they require is not religious inuocation or adoration but holy imitation here on earth I proue it because God will not giue his honor to any other I am the Lord saith he this is my name and my glorie will I not giue to another And that inuocation is the peculiar worship and honour due to God S. Paul declareth euidently in these words for whosoeuer shall cal vpon the name of the Lord shall bee saued but howe shall they call on him in whome they haue not beleeued Austen prooueth this conclusion effectually in sundrie places of his works Non sit nobis religio inquit cultus hominum mortuorum Infra honorandi sunt propter imitationem non adorandi propter religionem Let not saith S. Austen the worship of dead men be our religion they are to be worshipped for imitation but not to bee adored for religion Againe in another place Nos autem martyribus nostris non templa sicut Diis sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis quorū apud deum viuunt spiritus fabricamus nec ibi erigimus
condition of the married For he saith indeede that the vnmarried doth better if he can so continue albeit in marrying he sinneth not yet this is not in respect of any holines that resulteth out of single life but because the vnmarried is more free from the cares of the world and so more apt forstudie the seruice of God I say secondly that S. Paul neuer meant to enforce any person either to be married or to leade a single life therfore did he say that he sought for the coÌ„modity of the Corinthians but not to entangle theÌ„ in the snare as if he had said if I shuld go about to bar you of mariage I shuld tangle you in a snare I say thirdly y t a man may be as holy in mariage as if he liued vnmarried to his liues end which S. Hierome though a great patron of single life both grauely considered and sincerely acknowledged for he saith that Abraham pleased God no lesse in wedlocke then virgins doe in their single life these are his expresse words as the popish canon law reciteth them Abraham placuit in coniugio sicut nunc virgines placent in castitate seruiuit ille legi tempori suo seruiamus nos legi tempori nostro in quos fines coelorum deuenerunt Abraham pleased God in marriage euen as virgins now please in chastity hee serued the law and his time let vs also vpon whom the ends of the world is come serue the law our time Yea S. Nazianzene saith that his father being a bishop was greatly holpen in pietie by his wife the same S. Gregory saith in another place that neither marriage nor single life doth either ioyne vs to God or to the world or withdraw vs from god or from the world This is confirmed by S. Chrysostome in these words Nuptiae licet difficultatis in se plurimum habeant ita tamen assumi possunt vt perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint Although marriage haue great trouble in it self yet may it so be vsed as it shalbe no hindrance to perâ—â—t life S. Austen after that he had auouched holy life to be nothing abated in holy Samuel and Zacharias by reason of their marriages by and by he addeth these words Qua ergo ratione accusatur quod minime obesse probatur quis neget bonum debere dici quod neminem laedit How therefore is that thing accused which is proued to do no hurt who denieth that that ought to be called good which bringeth harme to none S. Clemens Alexandrinus giueth a sufficient solution to this obiection in these expresse words Annon permittitur etiam ei qui vxorem duxit vna cum coÌ„iugio etiam esse solicitum de iis quae sunt domini sequitur ambae enim sunt sanctae in domino haec quidem vt vxor illa verò vt virgo cannot she also that is married together with hir marriage seeke the things that pertaine to the Lord for they both are holy in the lord this as a wife she as a virgin Nicephorus though he were caried away with sundry errors of his time yet doth he make S. Gregory who was a married bishop equal with S. Basill his brother who led a single life these are his words Et quamuis is coniugeÌ„ habuerit rebus tamen aliis fratri minimè cessit though he were married yet was he nothing inferior to his brother in other things In fine S Ambrose saith thus Quid ergo dicimus si virgines de deo cogitant iunctae viris demundo qu espes relinqutur nubentibus apud deum si enim ita est dubium est de salute eorum nam videmus virgines de seculo cogitare matrimonio iunctos dominicis studere operibus What therfore say we if virgins think of god and the married of the world what hope haue the married with God for if it be so their saluation is in doubt for we see that virgins do thinke of the world and that married men are careful for the works of the Lord. The third obiection Defraude not one another but for praier sake saith S. Paul ergo priests that must euer pray must euer abstaine The answere I say first that S. Paul doth here shew the necessity of marriage in that he disswadeth not from abstinence saue onely for praier sake I say secondly that priests must not euer be occupied in prayer no more then lay men their nature and condion requireth conuenient recreation I say thirdly that y e apostle speaketh not here of euery kind of praier but of extraordinary praier appointed for vrgent extraordinary causes which kinde of praiers must alwaies haue fasting ioyned with them as the apostle doth expressely say and so if the papistes will needes haue the apostle to speake of vsuall and daily praier then must their priestes vsually and daily fast which I weene their fatted headed moonkes will neuer agree vnto or at least neuer put in practise Yea they must continually absteine from wine for so the law required The fourth obiection When Dauid to satisfie his hunger being vrgent required of Abimelech the priest some cakes of bread or what els came to hand Abimelech answered that hee had no common bread but if he and his companie were not polluted with women hee would giue them hallowed bread Now it is cleere that Abimelech meant of their lawfull wiues because hee coulde not suspect holy Dauid to haue been polluted with naughtie women If therefore lawfull wedlocke did so pollute secular persons that for the vse therof they might not eate the Shew bread how much more shall the vse of wedlocke pollute priests of the new testament that they may not eate Christes body in the holy masse The answere I say first that how holy your Masse is shal by Gods grace appeare in conuenient place I say secondly that wedlocke is an honourable and vndefiled bed and therefore cannot pollute such persons as vse the same lawfully and in the feare of God Yea if the vse thereof had not been lawfull euen in Bishops and other ministers of the church holy Paphnutius durst not haue defended the same publikely in the presence of so many learned men at Nice who for all that did so and was therfore not onely highly commended but the whole councell alsagreed to his godly motion I say thirdly that there were many legall contamination aswel in men as in women whereof who list may see at large in Leniticus but neither was the lawfull matrimoniall act reputed any of them neither do those legall ceremonies concerne vs of the newe testament but the true puritie signified by the same that is Christian purification wrought in the bloud of Christ Iesus and apprehended by a true sincere and liuely faith I say fourthly that many legal contamâ—nations were no other sinnes then the manifold popish irregularities then nocturne pollutions done
Dauid according to my righteousnesse and according to the purenesse of mine handes he recompensed me Yea it is a thing so certaine with God to reward y e good deeds of his faithful seruants that the best liuers giue great respect thereunto Moses saith S. Paul esteemed the rebuke of Christ greater riches then y e treasures of Egypt for he had respect to the recompence of the reward Which reward neuerthelesse proceedeth of Gods meere mercie bountifull benignitie without all desertes of man Which the great papist frier Iohn de Combis wel obserued wheÌ„ in his theological SuÌ„me he wrote in this maner Deus nos punit citra condignuÌ„ remunerat vltra condignum God punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy and rewardeth vs farre aboue our deserts The first obiection S. Iohn saith Qui facit iustitiam iustus est He that doth iustice he is iust Therefore a man becommeth iust euen by doing of good workes The answere I say first that the contrary illation is more fitly gathered out of Saint Iohns assertion albeit the papistes thinke this a bulwarke for their iustification by good works For when he saith he that doth iustice is iust it is all one as if he had said when one doth good works it is a signe that he is iust because none can do good works vnlesse hee be iust For as a tree cannot bring forth good fruit vnlesse it first be good euen so cannot any man do good works vnles he first be the child of god The reason is euident bicause the effect must folow not go before the cause For as saint Austen grauely saith Opera sequuntur iustificatum non praecedunt iustificandum Works follow him that is alreadie iustified but they goe not before him that is to be iustified I say secondly that hee that doth iustice is iust by inherent iustice but imperfectly as is alreadie prooued The second obiection Saint Iames saith that a man is iustified by good works and not by faith onely and he proueth it because Abraham was iustified by offering vp his sonne Isaac The answere I say first that Abraham was iustified indeede before he did any good worke and I prooue it by Saint Paul whose words are these For if Abraham were iustified by works he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God for what saith the scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse Nowe to him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by debt but to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for righteousnes euen as Dauid declareth the blessednes of the man vnto whome God imputeth righteousnesse without works Out of these words of the apostle I note first that whosoeuer ascribeth his iustification to works can haue no ioy with God I note secondly that righteousnesse was imputed to Abraham by reason of his faith not by reason of his works I note thirdly that if Abrahams works could haue iustified him his iustification shoulde haue beene of duetie and not by fauour or grace I note fourthly that the vngodly is freely iustified by faith in Iesus Christ without works I say secondly that Abraham offered his son Isaac not to worke his iustification by that fact but to giue a testimonie of his faith and that he was already the childe of God For as S. Paule saith that obâ—ation was for the triall of Abrahams faith These are the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaac when hee was tried or prooued for so the Greek word doth significantly expresse And Moses maketh the matter more plaine in these wordes And after these things God did proue or try Abraham where the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make triall And y e proofe followeth in these wordes Take nowe thine only sonne Isaac whom thou louest and get thee to the land of Moriah and offer him there for a burnt offering vpon one of the mountaines which I will shew thee Out of which words with the circumstances before and after recorded in the scripture I gather that Abraham was perfitly iustified before hee offered his sonne Isaac For first God had promised to blesse all nations in his son Isaac as it is written Sara thy wife shall beare thee a son in deede and thou shalt call his name Isaac and I will establishe my couenaunt with him for an euerlasting couenaunt and with his seede after him Again God appointed that sonne to be slaine in whom the promise was made Thirdly the sacrifice was the only sonne of Abraham euen the sonne which he loued most tenderly Fourthly Abraham himselfe was designed to be the butcher to his owne sweet childe Fiftly it passed mans reason how all nations could be blessed in the child that was presently to be slaine All this notwithstanding Abraham neuer once doubted of Gods promise but promptly prepared himselfe to execute Gods will Whereupon I conclude that Abraham was holy and iust in Gods sight before the oblation of his sonne otherwise he could neuer haue yeelded thereunto in such maner and with such alacritie of minde as he did I say thirdly that S. Iames speaketh of iustification before men which was nothing els but the testification of Abrahams righteousnesse to the world Which exposition came from heauen to Abraham in these wordes Lay not thine hand vpon the childe neither doe any thing vnto him for now I knowe that thou fearest God seeing for my sake thou hast not spared thine onely sonne Out of these wordes I note first that this offering vp of Abrahams sonne was to try Abrahams faith and obedience as I said before which I gather out of these wordes for now I knowe that thou fearest God I note secondly y t it was also to make known vnto the world that great faith feare and loue which Abraham had towardes God As if God had said I knew before thy faith and loue towards me but now I haue made the same knowne vnto the world The third obiection S. Iames saith plainly that a man may keepe the law perfitly and be iustified for so doing These are the words Whosâ— looketh in the perfite law of libertie and continueth therein hee not being a forgetfull hearer but a doer of the work shalbe blessed in his deed The answere I say first that no man can keep the law perfitly in this life as I haue alreadie prooued copiously I say secondly y t though the regenerate doe not fulfil the law exactly yet doe they continue therein so long as they striue against sinne and suffer not sinne to raigne in them For as S. Paule saith When wee doe that which we would not it is no more we that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in vs. Whereupon S. Austen saith very finely Ecce quemadmodum qui ambulant in vijs domini non operantur peccatum tamen
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
and that it is truely receiued by faith and spirite according to this doctrine of our maister Christ. The wordes that I spake vnto you are spirite and life Seuenthly he telleth vs that as Christ is on earth still according to his deitie so is he in heauen til the daie of doome according to his humanitie And that as he is present in his god-head till that time so is hee absent in his manhood For saith S. Austen touching the presence of his fleshe hee was but a fewe daies on earth Yea say the papistes S. Austen lieth and when he thus wrote he was a sleepe and so were the rest of the fathers that hold as he doth We affirme without scriptures fathers rime and reason that hee is carnally present at the priestes appointment in ten thousand pixes at once More absurdly then this we say that a mouse can catch Christes carnall body carry it away into an hole and there deuoure it with her teeth Of which blasphemous doctrine the great papist Petrus Lombard surnamed their master of sentences knoweth not what to say or thinke but being at his wits end what answere to make thus answereth the question without answere for his answere is answerelesse in these wordes Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat Deus nouit hoc What therefore doth a mouse take when shee catcheth the reserued hoast or what doth she eate God knoweth this Lo is not this a graue answere of the grauest father amongst our popish doctors He is tearmed the master of sentences and his bookes are publikely read in their schooles of diuinitie and so of the next authoritie to the holy scriptures And for al this so doubtfull and vncertaine is their faith that when a mouse catcheth their accidents without subiects he knoweth not in the world what is become of their carnall reall presence Eeightly he telleth vs that the sacrament of Christs body is not his body properly but after a sort and that sort he affirmeth to be this to wit as the sacrament of faith is faith Now euerie childe knoweth that baptisme or the sacrament of faith is not faith properly but improperly figuratiuely and by way of signification onely Ninthly Saint Ambrose whom â—he papists thinke to make wholy for their side hath these expresse words Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur If there be so great power in the word of our Lord Iesus that things beganne to be which were not how much more is it workefull that things bee which were and bee changed into another thing In these words Saint Ambrose declareth the creatures of bread and wine to remaine still in their proper nature and substaunce and withall to bee changed into another thing that is to say into the sacraments of Christs true body and bloud To this our Iesuite Bellarmine answereth in these words Non dixit vt sint id quod erant tunc enim panis manere deberet sed vt sint quae erant id est nâ—n annihilentur sed maneant quamuis mutata Hee saide not that they may bee that which they were for then the bread ought to remaine indeede but that they may stil be which were before that is that they bee not annihilated but abide still though changed To this answere of our Iesuite I say first that Saint Ambrose meaneth no other thing then did Saint Austâ—n when he called baptisme the sacrament of faith For the omnipotencie of Christs word is required of them both in both sacraments And as the water is changed into another thing that is to be a sacrament and â—eaâ—e of Gods fauor which before was but common water euen so bread is chaunged into another thing that is to be the sacrament of Christs body which was before but common bread I say secondly that as a married man is by matrimonie chaâ—ged into another thing and yet keepeth still the nature of a man and as a Bishop by orders is altered into another thing and yet keepeth still his former substance euen so the bread in the Eucharist is changed mystically and still remaineth true bread This is a good argument against the papists who defend matrimonie and orders to be two holy sacraments I say thirdly that if aliud must needes signifie an essentiall change as master Harding our Iesuite and the rest will haue it to doe then either married men haue gotten nothing by their matrimoniall contractes nor Bishoppes by their consecrations or at least all married men and Bishops haue lost the natures of men and are changed into another substance But as the Logicians tel vs these three transcendents ens res aliquid may bee affirmed of whatsoeuer is and for the order of Bishops the papists tell vs that it imprinteth an indeleble character touching matrimonie Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is an indissoluble band Touching the persons themselues experience telleth vs that they are still as truâ—ly men as they were before and consequently the word aliud may as well signifie an accidentall alteration as an essentiall transmutation I say fourthly that euerie thing is truely denominate of it essentiall forme and therefore if the substance and essentiall partes of bread and wine bee cleane gone and the externall accidents thereof onely remaine as Bellarmine woulde gladly glosse Saint Ambrose then doubtlesse may wee truely say that they are gone which were before not that they still remaine vnlesse perhappes the papists will say that the horse remaineth when nothing is left but his skin and that a man liueth after he be dead For in both more remaineth then of their wine and bread I say fiftly that by Bellarmines answere if himselfe were changed into the essentiall nature of an asse and kept still the externall figure of a man yet shoulde hee still be as truely Bellarmine as he was before and so Iesuits may be both Asses and men at once a priuiledge granted to all others of their crew The first obiection S. Austen alluding to the facts and wordes of Dauid by which Christ was prefigured writeth in this maner Manibus aliorum potest portarâ— homo manibus suis nemo portatur quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam non inuenimus in Christo autem inuenimus Ferebatur enim Christus in manibâ—suâ—s quando coÌ„mendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis ipsa est humilitas Dom. nostri Iesu Christi A man may bee carried in the hands of others but no man is carried in his own hands How this may be vnderstoode in Dauid literally we doe not finde but in Christ wee doe it finde For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commended his owne bodie and saide This is my body For he helde
that body in his handes such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen By whose words it is euident that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples was his true reall naturall body euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary For first he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could not do to wit that he did beare himselfe in his own hands Secondly he saith that this was done literally euen as the words do sound Thirdly he coÌ„mendeth Christs great humility in that fact Now it is cleare y t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely it might be well verified in Dauid for Dauid might haue born the picture figure or image of his owne body in his hands yea this he might haue done literally haue shewed no humilitie therin But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands saith saint Austen as no man can do the like This reason is inuincible all protestants in the world cannot answere the same The answere I say first that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible and so my selfe haue sometime thought I say secondly that if S. Austen should so meane as you gather of these words he should contradict himself in many other places as is already proued and consequently his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his owne meaning in these expresse words Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est corpus meuÌ„ And he was borne in his hands How was he borne in his hands because when he commended his owne body and his blood hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide This is my body Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde quadammodo after a sorte for Christ had his true reall and natural bodie in his handes after a sort that is sacramentally when he said This is my body He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands but it was after a sort not simplie but sacramentally not naturally but mystically not carnally I say fourthly that neither Dauid nor any other creature coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands For as Aquinas Victoria Antoninus Couarruuias Bellarminus and all learned papists grant no mortall man can institute any sacrament and so no mortal man being pure man could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands I say fiftly that greater humilitie coulde not be then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body bloud as a seale of our reconciliation and of his beneuolence towards vs. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place where he hath these words Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me â—rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and drinke that blood which they shal shed that will crucifie me I haue commended a sacrament to you which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you The second obiectâ—on S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie in most plaine and manifest tearmes Thus doeth he write Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples being chaÌ„ged not in shape but in nature became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word Lo bread was changed not in shape or figure which our sense telleth vs to be so but in nature or substance as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed euen into flesh and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present in flesh bloud and bone But if it were otherwise the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse which yet Saint Cyprian saieth is it that worketh this mightie change If yee yeeld not to this testimonie ye shew your selfe to be obstinate The answere I say first that the grosse and carnal sense of these words did wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was I say secondly that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde haue him hee should bee contrarie to himselfe For hee affirmeth it to be true wine which Christ gaue to his Apostles I haue already alleaged his expresse words peruse them and marke them well I say thirdly that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely expounded then when his owne meaning in one place is gathered out of his owne words in another place That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another we must ioine antecedent to consequent former to latter and one place to another This done wee shal finde with facilitie that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration and that by the word nature hee meaneth natural properties Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius concerning this question nowe in hand Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Infrà Nostra vero ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Iterum sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus vita est corporis ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae sanitas mentis Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in tâ—rris eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis non ministerio corporali And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ and the diuinitie hidden euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably in the visible sacrament For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons nor yet vniteth substances but procureth fellowship in affection and agreement in willes And as the common bread which wee eate daily is the life of the body so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule and the health of the minde We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen and that without help of the body Out of these wordes I note first that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament but so is noâ— his bodie or humanitie and consequently that Christ is not there in inuisible carnall presence I note secondly that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances but affections and willes and yet should our bodies be
otherwise he should be contrarie to himselfe who affirmeth it to bee sinne in many places of his works as is alreadie prooued but hee onely laboureth to perswade the reader that it is neuer imputed to the faithfull that stoutly striue against it And that this is the true meaning of S. Austen I proue it by the iudgement of S. Ambrose concerning the selfe same matter Thus doth hee write Caro contra spiritum contra carnem spiritus concupiscit â—ec inuenitur in vllo hominum tanta concordia vt legi mentis lex quae membris est insita non repugnet Propter quod ex omnium sanctorum persona accipitur quod Ioannes apostolus ait si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus nosipsos seducimus veritas in nobis non est cum tamen idem ipse dicat qui natus est ex Deo peccatum non facit qoniam semen ipsius in eo manet non potest peccare quoniaÌ„ ex Deo natus est Vtrumque ergo verum est quia nemo sine peccato est in eo quod nemo est fine lege peccati qui natus est ex Deo peccatum non facit quia per legem mentis id est per charitatem quae Dei semen est peccatum non facit Charitas enim operit multitudineÌ„ peccatoruÌ„ the flesh lusteth against the spirit the spirit against the flesh neither is there found in any man such concord but that the lawe of concupiscence which is ingrafted in the members fighteth against the law of the mind And for that cause Saint Iohns words are taken as spoken in the person of all saints If we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs when for al that the same apostle saith He that is borne of God sinneth not because his seed abideth in him and he cannot sinne because he is of God Therfore both are true because no man is without sinne for that no man is without the law of sinne that is concupiscence and he that is borne of God sinneth not bicause he sinneth not by the law of his mind that is by charitie which is Gods seede for charitie couereth the multitude of sinnes Out of these words I note first that concupiscence moueth rebellion against the spirit in the holyest man vpon earth I note secondly that this rebellion of concupiscence is sinne in euerie one because S. Iohn speaketh of sinne indeede whose words saint Ambrose applieth heere to concupiscence I note thirdly that hee speaketh of originall concupiscence because he speaketh of that concupiscence which is in the saints that is in those that are borne of God I note fourthly that the faithfull sinne not because charitie couereth their sins So then S. Austen meaneth as S. Ambrose doth that they are without sin to whom sinne is not imputed Yea Aquinas himselfe granteth which is to be admired that the inordinate motion of sensualitie euen which goeth before the deliberation of reason is sinne though in a lowe degree These are his expresse wordes Dicendum quòd illud quod homo facit sine deliberatione rationis non perfectè ipse facit quia nihil operatur ibi id quod est principale in homine vnde non est perfectè actus humanus per consequens non potestesse perfectè actus virtutis vel peccati sed aliquid imperfectum in genere horum Vnde talis motus sensualitatis rationem praeueniens est peccatum veniale quod est quiddam imperfectum in genere peccati I answere that that which man doth without the deliberation of reason he doth it not perfectly because that which is the chiefe in man worketh nothing there wherefore it is not perfectly mans act and consequently it cannot be perfectly the act of vertue or of sinne but some imperfect thing in this kinde Whereupon such a motion of sensuality preuenting reason is a venial sinne which is a certaine imperfect thing in the nature of sinne The fourth replie Concupiscence at the most is but a little venial sinne as S. Thomas Aquinas truely saith therefore it cannot bring a man to hell neither debarre him of heauen The answere I answere that euerie sin is mortall vndoubtedly as which is flatly against Gods holy commaundements For that the transgression of Gods commandements is a grieuous mortal sinne no man euer did or will denie Cursed is euery one saith the apostle that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them Againe in another place The reward or wage of sinne is death And S. Iames saith Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe and yet faileth in one point he is guiltie of all Nowe that euerie sinne aswel great as small is against Gods holy lawe I prooue sundrie waies First because the Apostle saith that al our thoughts words and works ought to be referred to the glorie of God for most certaine it is that no sinne at al is referred to Gods glorie For no sin no not the least of al is referrible to god but is of it own nature repugnant to his glorie Secondly because wee must yeelde an account to God for euerie idle word as Christ himselfe telleth vs and yet as euerie child can perceiue God most merciful and most iust wil neuer lay that to our charge which is not against his holy law Thirdly because the apostle saith of sin generally that the punishment thereof is death Fourthly because sinne in generall is defined by the fathers to bee the transgression of Gods law which definition could not bee true if anie little sinne could stand with his commaundement Fiftly because famous popish writers as Ioannes Gerson Michael Baius Almayn and our owne Bishop of Rochester doe all freely graunt that euerie sinne is mortall of it owne nature and deserueth eternall death their words I haue alleaged in my booke of Motiues Sixtly because Durandus and Iosephus Angles to whom the Schooles of the papistes this day accord doe sharpely impugne Aquinas his doctrine in that he teacheth Venials not to be against Gods law The 7. conclusion Although good works do not iustifie yet are they pretious in Gods sight and neuer want their reward Christ himselfe prooueth this conclusion when he promiseth that not so much as a cup of colde water giuen in his name shall passe without reward And in another place hee saith That whosoeuer shall leaue house parents brethren wife or children for his sake shal receiue much more in this world and in the world to come life euerlasting And in another place Christ telleth vs that when the sonne of man commeth in his glory and al his holy angels with him then will he pronounce them blessed that haue done the works of charitie to their poore neighbours God saith S. Paul will reward euery man according to his workes The Lord rewarded me saith holy