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
non sunt sine peccato quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem sed quod habitat in eis peccatum Behold howe they that walke in the waies of the Lord doe not sinne and yet are they not without sinne because now not they work iniquitie but the sinne that dwelleth in them I say thirdly that it is one thing to be blessed in the worke another thing to be blessed for the worke And so when the regenerate become not vaine hearers of Gods worde but bring forth the worthie fruites thereof in holy life they shall doubtlesse be blessed in so doing yet not for the worthinesse of their workes but of Gods meere mercie for his promise sake Thus doth S. Iames expound himselfe in the same chapter when hee saith Blessed is the man that endureth temptation for when he is tried he shall receiue the crowne of life which the Lord hath promised to them that loue him The 4. obiection S. Luke saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth were iust before God not only before men and that they walked in all the commandements of the Lord without reproofe The answere I say first that if Zacharias and Elizabeth had kept y e law exactly in all pointes then Christ needed not to haue died for them or to haue risen again for their iustification For the perfite fulling of the law giueth life to the doer thereof I say secondly that they were of that number of whom S. Iohn saith if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no trueth in vs. And of whom S. Paule saith There is none righteous no not one they haue all gone out of the way there is none that doth good no not one And of whom the Psalmâ—graphe saith for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified And of whom S. Austen saith Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy mercie towards them I say thirdly that they were iust before God as were Dauid Peter Paul and others not for that they were perfitly iust and without sinne but because God reputed them so perfitly iust as if they had neuer sinned and of his great mercie thorough the merites of Christ Iesus did not impute the breach of his law vnto them according to this saying of the scripture Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sins are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne The fift obiection The regenerate liue without sinne and so may they iustly merite heauen For we reade that Noah was iust and perfite and vpright and walked with God Remember saith Dauid howe I haue walked before thee in trueth and with a perfite heart and haue done that which is good in thy sight Wee speake wisedome saith the apostle among them that are perfite and it is written of king Asa y t his heart was perfite all his daies In another place y e prophet saith that he hath not swarued from Gods lawe In another place hee requireth God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse The answere I say first that as the Prophet Dauid in one place required God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse so did he desire God in another place not to enter into iudgment with him because none liuing coulde be iustified in his â—â—ght So then his meaning is not to oppose his owne righteousnesse to the iust iugement of God at which hee euer trembled and neuer durst abide it as he saith in another place but only to shew his own innocent dealing in respect of the malicious and wicked practises of his enemies although the papistes to establish their pharisaical iustice would haue it to be vnderstood of Dauids own merites I say secondly that the perfitnesse which the scripture ascribeth to Gods children is not absolute but relatiue that is to say it is not perfite in respect of Gods law but by reason of imputation of Christes iustice vnto them who hath simply and perfitly answered the law or in respect of the weaker sort who want many degrees of their though imperfect iustice For S. Paule denied himselfe to be perfite Not as though I had alreadie attained to it saith he either were already perfit To which purpose holy Bernard writeth excelleÌ„tly in these words Nostra enim si qua est humilis iustitia recta forâ—itan sed non pura Nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiebant omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris For our base iustice if we haue any is perchance right but not pure or perfitâ— vnlesse perhaps we beleeue that we are better then our fathers were who spake as truly as humbly All our righteousnesse is as filthy clouts But Christ as the apostle saith is our iustice in him we are perfect and consummate I say thirdly that the regenerate are said to liue perfectly and without sin in that they striue against sin and do not suffer sin to raigne in them thogh they cannot be without it And this hath the same Bernard wel obserued and vttered in this maner Quomodo enim pura iustitia vbi adhuc non potest culpa dâ—esse recta proinde interim videri potest iustitiae hominum si tamen peccato non consentiant vt non regnet in eorum mortali corpore For how can their iustice be pure who cannot be without sinne yet may the iustice of men be right if they consent not to sinne nor suffer it to reigne in their mortall bodies In which respect S. Iohn saith that the faithfull sin not because they suffer not sinne to raigne in them The replie If the regenerate cannot fulfill and keepe the lawe exactly then is it giuen in vain and without cause are we charged with the obedience thereof The answere I say first that Adam might haue kept the law perfitly and in him al his posteritie might haue done the same I say secondly that wee may yet keep the law in a certaine measure and therefore must we striue against sinne and studie to increase our sanctification from day to day I say thirdly that by the law we know our owne nakednesse sinnes and miserie and are thereby excited to seeke for remission of our sinnes and to be clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus The replie The apostle saith in one place that the iust are not vnder the law but vnder grace And in another place hee saith y t there is no law for the iust man but where there is no law there can be no transgression and consequently no sinne at all The answere I answere that the iust are free from the coaction curse and condemnation of the law as the apostle witnesseth in another place but yet are they
the Papists themselues and consequently that the papists ought not to make account of his iudgement herein For you doe see that he granteth the punishment of the damned to be mitigated in hell for the prayers of the liuing which thing no papist will or dare auouch And the like is to be saide of other of the Fathers when they folow opinions not grounded vpon the word of God Saint Austen therefore must be reiected by his owne rule as I haue prooued in my Motiues when he dissenteth from Gods word the true touchstone and triall of all trueth And saint Austens inconstancie is plainely vttered in an other place where he hath these wordes Quod quidem non ideo confirmo quoniam non resisâ—o Which verily I do not therefore approue because I do not impugne it Out of which wordes I note that though saint Austen could not approoue the opinion of the vulgar sort as which he knew to haue no ground but a meere naturall affection yet would hee not condemne it but leaue it as in suspense The foureteenth obiection Praier for the dead is proued by the scripture euen in y t new testament for when S. Iohn forbids to pray for them that die without repentance he doubtles exhorts to pray for them that die penitent The answer I say first that when cardinall Allen in his notes vpon this place auoucheth roundly that this text coÌ„uinceth praier for the dead he may tell that tale to wise men and repute himselfe a foole for his paines For first as S. Austen vpon whose authoritie he only buildeth affirmeth that the apostle speaketh of him that dieth impenitent so doth the same S. Austen auouch that he doth iniury to a martyr that praieth for a martyr which is a receiued axiome with the papists and consequently when he inferreth out of S. Austen that we must pray for them that die penitent he concludeth against S. Austen that wee must pray for most constant martyrs and so commit a manifest iniurie So then albeit S. Iohn dehorteth from praying for such as die without repentance yet doth he not exhort vs to pray for those that die penitent for otherwise doubtles wee must pray for martyrs which no papist wil allow I say secondly that S. Iohn exhorteth to pray for penitent sinners here on earth but not for the dead I prooue it because these are saint Iohns words If any shal see his brother sinning a sin not to death but he that sinneth is in this life for wee can not see a man sinning in the next life where no sinne is committed and therfore S. Iohn speaketh of prayer only in this life I say thirdly that saint Iohus purpose is this no other to exhort vs to repentance for our sins in this life because after this life there is neither repentance nor remission of sinnes to be had neither can any other sense be truely deduced out of S. Iohns words Yea their owne cardinall Caietane doth so expound this place to their vtter confusion CHAP. VII Of praying to Saints departed COncerning the inuocation of Saints great abuses and intollerable superstition haue crept into the church and dazeled the eies of the vulgar sort wherein I desire diligent attention and indifferent iudgement vntill the end of my discourse The first Conclusion Albeit a christian man neuer pray to the saints departed yet doth he not sinne therein I prooue it because euery sinne is a transgression of Gods law or commandement but God hath made no law nor giuen any commandement to pray to saints Ergo not to pray to them is no sin at all The proposition is a receiued maxime in the Romish church grounded on these wordes of saint Austen Peccatum est factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam Sinne is any deed word or thought against the eternall law which is the will of God Saint Ambrose confirmeth Saint Augustines description in these wordes Quid est peccatum nisi praeuaricatio legis diuinae caelestium inobedientia praeceptorum What is sinne but the transgression of Gods lawe and the disobedience of his holie precepts The assumption is secure vntil the papists can alleadge some precept out of the olde or new testament for the inuocation of saints which they will doe ad Calendas Graecas But the Papistes thinke they haue a mightie obiection against this Conclusion taken out of Genesis in these wordes Et innocetur super eos nomen meum nomina quaeque patrum meorum Abraham Isaac And let my name be called vpon them and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac To which I answere thus First this vocation or nomination was not any precept from God but the meere fact of Iacob or Israel who as hee was holy so was he a man and might haue erred herein as man Secondly the hebrew text is thus Let my name be named in them that is let them bee called my children by adoption or let them bee surnamed after me For it was the custome both of the Hebrewes and of the Greekes to expresse the surname of euery one by the name of the father as Aristoteles the sonne of Nicomachus Zenophon the sonne of Gryllus Cambyses the sonne of Cyrus Thirdly the whole course of holy scripture doth yeelde this interpretation of Iacobs wordes In the olde testament it was a great reproch for a woman to beare no children though nowe with the Papists they be reputed holy that will rashly vow neuer to marry for which respect the small remnant of men left after the execution of Gods iustice in the destruction of Ierusalem inforced women contrary to womanly shamefastnesse to seek vnto men and to offer themselues to very base conditions to the end they would be their husbands and so take away their reproch Which thing the prophet Ieremy vttereth in these wordes In that day seuen women shall take hold of one man saying We will eate our owne bread and weare our owne garments onely let vs be called by thy name and take away our reproch Thus writeth Gods holy prophet whose discourse with the due circumstances thereof if the christian Reader wil exactly ponder he shall behold as clearely as the glittering beames of the sunne the most impudent and sophisticall dealing of the papists For though the words aswell in the latine as in the Hebrew be all one and the very same yet are the papists ashamed I am well assured to inferre or proue inuocation of Saints by this latter place That which I say is euident because these women desired nothing else of the man but that he would be their husband and that they might be called his wiues and so put away their reproch This interpretation is plainely touched in the expresse wordes of the text when the women desired the man to take their reproch away by letting his name be called vppon them for which end they promised not only
reprobate and not of the elect and godly sort but after he had pondered the text deeply he altered his opinion This is confirmed in these words of the selfe same chapter but I see another law in my meÌ„bers rebelling against the law of my mind leading me captiue vnto the law of sin which is in my members By these words of Paul it is euident that albeit he were the childe of God yet could he not merite any thing in Gods sight but rather in rigor of iustice prouoke his heauy displeasure against him For where or what could be his merite who was prisoner to the law of sinne Againe it is confirmed in these words For I doe not the good thing which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. Thus saiâ—h saint Paul and doubtlesse since hee did the euill which he would not he sinned though he were regenerate and because he sinned he was worthie of condemnation for that death is the stipend of sinne Againe it is confirmed in these words For the law is spirituall but I am carnal sould vnder sinne Thus saith S. Paul of himselfe and yet is it true that one vnder sin can merit nothing saue hel fire and eternal paine Againe it is confirmed in these words Nowe if I do that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in mee Thus saith Saint Paul of himselfe and yet because sin abode in him and did that that was offensiue in gods sight he could neither merite grace nor eternal life as is already proued Further then this no man liueth without sinne as the papists grant and yet is euerie sinne mortall as I haue prooued elsewhere The first obiection Saint Paul speaketh of originall concupiscence which remaineth euen in the regenerate after baptisme but is no sinne at all For he onely calleth it sinne because it prouoketh a man to sin as a mans writing is called his hand for that it is written with his hand which exposition S. Austen approueth in sundrie places of his works The answere I say first that to say against the flat text of scripture without scripture is no reason at all I say secondly that S. Paul doth not onely call concupiscence sin but he proueth it by many reasons For first it striueth against the law of the minde Againe it leadeth one captiue into the law of sinne thirdly it doth that which is not good but euil I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth vndoubtedly iudge it to be sin neither shal any papist in the world euer be able to proue the contrarie howsoeuer they bare the world in hand I wil onely alleage a few places out of S. Austen make effectuall application of the same to which when anie either Rhemist or Romist shall answere sufficiently I promise to become his bondman The first place of Austen Concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccata est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis The concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit striueth is sinne because it is disobedient against the dominion of the mind and it is the punishmeÌ„t of sin bicause it is inflicted for the deserts of disobedient Adam and it is the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth or by the contagion of the child that is borne Thus saith S. Austen In which words he expresseth three things precisely first that concupiscence in the regenerate is the paine or punishment of sinne secondly that it is the cause of sinne thirdly that it is sin it selfe which three he doth not only distinguish but withall hee yeeldeth seueral reasons for the same And therfore most impudent are the papists who auouch with open mouthes that saint Austen onely calleth it sin because it is the cause of sinne The second place of Saint Austen Neque enim nulla est iniquitas cum in vno homine vel superiora inferioribus tur piter seruiunt vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur etiamsi vincere non sinantur For it is some iniquitie when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour or the inferiour parts stubbornly striue against the superiour although they be not suffered to preuaile Thus saith S. Austen whose words are so plaine as the papists can not possibly inuent any euasion at all For hee saith in expresse tearmes that the rebellion which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne euen when it is resisted and cannot preuaile at which time and in which respect the papists wil haue it to be merite and no sinne at all The third place of Saint Austen Virtus est charitas qua id quod diligendum est diligitur haec in alijs maior in alijs minor in alijs nulla est plenissima vero quae iam non possit augeri quamdiu hic homo viuit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est iustus in terra qui faciat bonum non peccet Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis viuens Propter quod vitium si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus nosmetipsos seducimus veretas in nobis non est Propter quodetiam quantumlibet profecerimus necessarium est nobis dicere dimitte nobis debita nostra cum iam omnia in baptismo dicta facta cogitata dimissa sint Charitie is a vertue with which we loue that that ought to be loued This in some is more in other lesse in others none at all but the perfect charitie which can not bee increased while a man here liueth is found in none so long as it can be increased that doubtlesse which is lesse then it shoulde bee proceedeth of sinne by reason of which sin there is not one iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by reason of which vice none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight by reason of which vice if we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs by reason of which sin how much soeuer we profit yet must we say of necessitie Forgiue vs our trespasses euen after that al our thoughts words and works are forgiuen in baptisme Thus saith saint Austen Out of whose most golden words I note sundrie things to the euerlasting confusion of all impenitent papists For first Saint Austen saith that no man can haue charity in that perfite degree which the law requireth Secondly that the want thereof proceedeth of this concupiscence Thirdly that by reason of this concupiscence euerie man is a sinner Fourthly that by reason therof none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight
cannot erre neither all generally nor one finally 207 Emperours of Rome 86 Errour may be in the church 206 Errours how they come 342 The Eucharist giuen to infants 186 The Eucharist expounded by Chrysostome 461 The Eucharist is not Christs body 467 The Eucharist vnder one kindâ— 402 The Eucharist broken 484 Eutiches and his heresie 181 F Abrahams Faith did iustifie him 383 Sole Faith iustifieth 370 Faith can not be without good woorkes 399 The first Faith broken how vnderstoode 241 A true Fast 72 Fasting and choice of meates 60 The Fathers doe erre very often 342 Festiuall dayes 116 Fidelitie allegeance condemned by the pope 528 Free-will how it remaineth 358 G Grace that iustifieth is not inherent 370 The Grace of the Manicheâ—s 176 Saint Paul iustified by Grace yet a sinner stil 374 Grace infused may stand with sinne 350 The virgin Mary abounded with Grace yet not freâ— from sinne 28â— The Greekes and their supputation 8â— Gryphus at strife with his vncle 123 The Gouernement of the Iewes 135 H The Heresie of Arrius 178 Of Nestorius 180 Of Macedonius 181 Of Eutiches ibidem Of Mahomet 182 The Historie of Nectarius 509 Of Spiridion 64 Hierusalem besieged 153 Destroyed 25 Holy dayes and Sabbaths 116 I Iesuites are humble 144 Dissemblers 145 Images 139 Indulgences 270 Inuocation of Saints 319 Ioseph and his acts 57 Iosue 58 Of the Israelites but seuentie persons went into Egypt 53 Israelites 400. yeeres in Egypt 54 Iustice inherent 383 Iustice of the regenerate vnperfit 351 Iustification by faith 370 Iustification formall in Christ ibid. Iustification by workes 383 and 384 Iulianus Apostata 175 K Kings of the Assyrians 74 Of Egypt 128 Of the Iewes 135 Of Israel 20 24 Of Iuda 24 Of Macedonia 116 Of the Medes 76 Of the Persians 94 Of the Romanes 83 Of Syria 123 Kings are supreame gouernors in causes ecclesiasticall 34 and 426 Kings that afflicted the Iewes 147 Kissing the altar 483 The pax 482 The patine 483 The Popes feete 487 L The Law impossible after Adam 350 c. The Law fulfilled by faith 370 Euery transgression of the Law a mortal sin 381 What time the Law was giuen 56 The Lie in the midwiues 55 The Librarie of king Ptolomie 132 M Macedonius â—81 The Maniches 176 Marriage of Priests prohibited onely by mans lawe 216 Gratian alloweth priests marriage 231 The Nicene councell alloweth priests marriage 233 The Masse how it is called a sacrifice 428 The canon of the popish Masse 480 Masse in one kinde contrary to Christs institution and antiquitie 402 Popish Masse iniurious to Christs passion 417 Popish Masse is not a propitiatorie sacrifice 432.433 c. Popish Masse a clowted beggars cloake 476 Priuate Masse is diabolical 414 c. Masse ought to be saide in the vulgar tongue 476 Melchisedech what he offered 422 c. No Merit in mans worke 372 c. The Merit which the fathers ascribe to good workes 394 c. The Meritorious cause of iustification 345 The popish Miter 486 A Monarchie contained not all power in it 129 The Monarchie of the Assyrians 74 Of the Greekes 121 Of the Persians 92 Of the Romanes 149 Moses and his actes 55 N The seuerall Names of the ten tribes 43 Nectarius abolished confession 510 Nestorius 180 Nero and his wicked actes 150 Noah his floud 27 Nouatus the cause and beginning of popish confession 512 Nunnes may lawfully marry euen after vowes 235 O Olympias 116 The Olympiads 81 The Originall of confession 509 c. Of kissing the Popes feete 487 Of pardons 270 Of pilgrimage 341 c. Of popish masse 480 Of changing Popes names 486 The Originall of praying for the dead 296 Of praying to Saints 311 Of praying on beades 487 Of popish primacie 187 Of purgatorie 296 Of single life 224 Of transubstantiation 436 P Pardons 270 Pax vsed in poperie 481 Phocas author of primacie 188 Pilgrimage 341 c. Popes and their wicked dealing 529 Of kissing the Popes feete 487 Changing the Popes name 486 Praying to Saints 311 For the dead 296 In the vulgar tongue 476 Vpon beads 487 Primaâ—â—â— 187 Priuate masse 414 Purgatorie 296 Ptolomaeus his librarie 232 R Reliques of Saints not to be adored 349 Remus how slaine 82 The Romish church hath erred 203 c. The church of Rome holdeth many things whereof it can yeelde no reason 186 The church of Rome vseth to wrest the scripture ib. Rome how it had the name 82 Rome when builded ibidem S The alteration of the Sabbath 108 c. The Sacrifice of the masse 428 The Saracens 182 A Scribe what it signifieth 133 The Scripture must try euery trueth 342 The Sects of Romish religion and when they began 530 The Septuagints and their celles 131 Succession of kings See Kings Succession in the Romish church 194 c. Supremacie of the Romish church 187 T The Temple when it was built 2â— Transubstantiation when it began 436 The destruction of Troy 81 All Trueth to be tried by the scripture 342 V No sinne Veniall of it owne nature 381 Vestments and their colour 490 The Virgin Mary a sinner 287 Virgins may marry after their vowes 235 The Visible church clogged with superstitions See Church Vowes cannot dissolue lawful marriage 253 c. Vowes vnlawfull 265 W The Wearing of a Cardinalles hat 488 The seuentie Weekes in Daniel are declared 101 The scripture must Witnes trueth 342 A Woman pope of Rome 191 A Woman clad in mans apparell 74 Good Workes cannot iustifie before God 383 c Good Workes do not merit 392 Widowes damned for breaking their first faith 241 FINIS Among other faults escaped in the Printing these especially are thus to be corrected Pag. 2. for Cabatist reade Cabalist Pag. 13. for 432 443 Pag. 19 for 428 443 Ibidem for 4082 4097 Pag 21. The first two lines as part of the sentence afore-going Pag. 37. for Achab Achaz Ibidem for eight seuenth Pag. 74. for hadle handle Pa. 75. for Tantanes Tautanes Ibid. for Tantens Tantens Pag. 1â—â— deest made with other literall faultes which the ingenious Reader may easily espie and amend Act. 9.1 2. Act 9.4 1 Cor. 15.9 1. Cor. 2.8 1. Tim. 1.13 Gal. â— 10 Genes 2. vers The state of 〈◊〉 in his creation The vertue of the tree of life â—ugust de ciuit 〈◊〉 3 cap. 20. â—enes 2.16 â—enes 3.19 â—enes 1. â—9 â—enes 9.3 Aug. de ciuit libr. 22. cap. 30. The difficultie consisteth not in the ages but in the supputatâ—â—on of the yeareâ— Exceeding greâ—â— varietie of opinâ—â—ons 〈◊〉 first age second age August quaest sup Gen. q. 25. Mal. 1. verse 2 3. â— Par 4. v 1. Actes 7. verse â— The third age â—ee the Fift Sectiâ—n of the eight â—hapter where â—his is handled more at large This point must be well noted See Athanasius in synopsi Anno mundâ— 3088 4. Reg. 25. Ier. 52. Iosephus his â—â—â—putation 〈◊〉 be allowed 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 443. yeares 〈◊〉
of the tribes and of the vse therof in reading the Prophets The first rule Whensoeuer the prophecie is directed to the ten tribes it is signified by one of these names Ephraim Samaria Israel Ioseph Iezrael Bethel Bethauen Iacob The second rule Whensoeuer the prophesie is directed to the two tribes it is signified by some one of these names Iuda Ierusalem Beniamin the house of Dauid and sometime Iacob The third rule The scripture sometime referreth Israel to all the twelue Tribes generally CHAP. XIII Of the destribution of the offices of the 12. lesser prophets These proâ—hets were â—ppointed â—ome of theÌ„ to threaten the captiuitie as Osee against both the kingdoms of Israel and Iuda Ioel against the two tribes onely Amos against the two tribes and the kingdomes adioyning Micheas against the kingdome of Israel especialy because it was y e cause of ruine to y e rest to comfort the Iewes as Abdias With threats against the kingdome of the Idumeans Ionas With threats against Niniue and the Assirians Nahum With threats against the Niniuites for their reuolt the second time Abacuc With threats against Nabuchodonosor and the Chaldeans who al wer enimies to the Iewes to call home from the captiuity as Sophonias who preached returne to come Aggeus who preached returne present Zacharias who preached returne present with aduise to build the temple Malachias who preached returne past with exhortation to pietie CHAP. XIIII Of the time when they prophecied Of the prophets some prophecied before the captiuitie as well of the ten tribes of Israel as of the two tribes Iuda and Beniamin as Esay Osee Ioel after the captiuitie as Daniel Aggeus Zacharias when the captiuitie was at hand as Ieremie in Iewrie Ezechiel in Babilon Ex Hier. in 1. cap. Ieremiae The finall scope of all the Prophets The prophets of God bicause they would neither discorage the Iewes with threatnings nor make them carelesse by the sweetnesse of Gods promises sought throughout their books to set before their eies the two principall partes of the law to wit the promise of saluation and the doctrine of good life For the first part they direct the Iewes and in them all the faithfull to the true Messias Christ Iesus by whome onely they shal haue true deliuerance for the second part they vse threatnings and menaces to bring them from their vices For this is the chiefe scope of all the prophets either by Gods promises to allure them to be godly or else by threatnings of his iudgements to feare them from sinne and wickednesse And albeit that the whole lawe containe these two points yet the prophets note particularly as well the time of Gods iudgements as the manner of the same CHAP. XV. Of the deuision of the Bookes of the Prophets The bookes of the prophets containe nine common places to wit Doctrines Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio Speculations Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio Exhortations Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio CoÌ„minations Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio LameÌ„tations Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio Consolations Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio Prayers Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio Histories Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio Predictions Ex Epiphanio de meÌ„s pond in initio CHAP. XVI Containeth the acts age time and death of famous men that were before the captiuitie of Babylon The first Section of Adam Adam was created vpon friday the day before the Iewish sabaoth Genes 1. verse 27. He was 130. yeares old when he begat Seth Genes 5.3 after Iosephus he was 230. yeares olde he liued 930. yeres and then died Genes 5. verse 5. He was buried as the Hebrewes write in the land of Israel Rabbi Isaac apud Genebr He had three sonnes Cain Abel and Seth. Cain murdered his brother Abel and for no other cause but euen for the true seruice of God Which when it is truely done the deuil can not abide it and for that end doth he alway stirre vp the wicked against the godly as hee did Cain against his brother Abel that the word of God and his doctrine may be extinguished and troden vnder foote Adam had many sons and daughters as Iosephus writeth The second Section of Seth. The posteritie of Cain was wholy extinct in Noahs floud but the stocke of Seth was multiplied vpon earth as of whom descended all the patriarkes prophets and holy men Gene. 5.6 7. The nephews of Seth made two pillers the one of brick the other of stone in which they ingraued the word of God and his prophecies for the perpetuall conseruation thereof They also diuided the yeere into twelue moneths and first obserued the course of the starres and taught astronomie Iosephus antiq libr. 1. ca 2. they are therefore grossely deceiued that either make the Egyptians or Mercurie or Atlas or Actinus the authors of Astronomie and other liberall sciences for as Iosephus saith the Egyptians were vtterly ignorant in such sciences before Abrahams comming vnto them which knowlege came first from the Chaldeans to the Egyptians from the Egyptians to the Greekes by the meanes of Abraham Iosephus libr. lib. 1. antiq ca. 6 7 8. Seth liued 912. yeeres and then died Genes 5. verse 8. Of the vngodly marriages betweene the posteritie of Seth in whose families God was truely worshipped and the posteritie of Cain who serued idolles came giants or men of huge magnitude By meanes of which wicked coniunction the knowledge of God was vtterly abolished in all but in Noah his three sonnes and their foure wiues so that God destroyed the remnant of mankind in the generall deluge Gene. 6. verse 2 7 verse 21. The third section of Noah When the earth after the floud returned to it former state againe Noah beganne to play the husbandman to till the ground to plant vines to gather the grapes and to finde out the vse of drinking wine Gen. 9. verse 20. Noah had three sonnes Sem Cham and Iaphet Sem with his children inhabited that part of the world which is towards the east For of his sonne Aram came the Syrians of Assur the Assyrians of Arphaxad the Chaldeans of Ela the Persians Cham inhabited that part of the world which is toward the south for of Canaan came the Cananites of Mizraim the Egyptians of Chus or Cush the Ethiopians of Saba the Arabians and Chanaan is now called Iewrie Iapheth inhabited the west and north parts and had manie sonnes to wit Gomer Magog Madai Iauan Tubal Mesech and Tyrus Of Iauan came the Greeks whom the Latines call Ianus and who are nowe tearmed Iones of Madai came the Medes of Gomer the Cimerians or Simbrians of Ascanes Gomers sonne the Germanes of Magog the Scythians of whome came the Turkes of Thyras the Thracians Gen. 10. Ioseph antiq lib. 1. cap. 6. Cari. pag 14. The tradition of the Hebrews is that
in the age of the worlde 2083. from hence must we reckon the foure hundred yeeres Gene. 15.13 Acts 7. verse 6. Galat. 3. verse 17. for the promised seede beganne in Isaac Genesis 21. verse 12. Abraham was appointed by God to sacrifice his only sonne Isaac in whome the promise was made Genesis 22. ver 2. whose faith was so strong that hee neither disobeyed Gods commandement neither distrusted his promise ver 9 10. The doubt How could Isaac bee his onely sonne since Ismael was borne before him and euen then liuing I answere that after Ismael was by Gods appointment put out of Abrahams familie he became as dead and had no place amongst Abrahams children Genesis 21. ver 12. An obseruation Although circumcision be called Gods couenant Gene. 17. vers 10. yet was it not the couenant indeede but a signe or feale of Gods couenant made to Abraham and to his seede after him Gen. 17. ver 7. It was called the couenant because it signified the couenant and had the promise of grace annexed to it as all sacraments haue And as circumcision was called Gods couenant and yet but a signe or sacrament thereof euen so in the Lords supper the bread is called his bodie albeit it be but a signe and sacrament of the same For which purpose S. Austen in his epistle to Bonifacius hath a very fine saying well worthie to be ingrauen in golden letters His expresse words be these For if sacraments had not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they be sacraments they could be no sacraments at all By reason of the similitude or signification they oftentimes take the names of the thinges themselues as therfore in a certain maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christs body and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is Christs blood euen so the sacrament of faith is also faith The seuenth Section of Iacob Iacob was 130. yeeres olde when he went into Egypt and came before king Pharaoh Genesis 47. verse 7 9. Iacob and his sonnes in the time of famine came from Canaan to soiourne in Egypt and they dwelt by Pharaohs grant in Ramesis a citie in the countrey of Goshen Genes 47. verse 4 11. Iacob died in Egypt Gen. 49. verse 33. he was buried honorably in his owne countrey Gen. 50. he liued 17. yeares in Egypt Gen. 47. verse 28. The children of Israel the posteritie of Iacob went into Egypt together Genes 46. verse 6. they were all 70. in number Genes 46. verse 27. Deuter. 10 verse 22. The first doubt In Genesis and Deuteronomie the kinred of Iacob surpasseth not 70. persons yet saint Lukes computation is 75. I answer that as saint Austen saith lib. 16. ciu cap. 40. Saint Luke speaketh not precisely of the time when Iacob went into Egypt but of the whole time during Iosephs abode there in which time Ioseph had children to supply the number The second doubt The persons that came into Egypt if they be reckoned particularly are onely 66 which descended of Iacob Genes 46. I prooue it because Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan and so could not come with Iacob into Egypt No more could the two sonnes of Ioseph Manasses and Ephraim who were borne in Egypt and there continued I answere that the two children of Ioseph must be in the computation as I haue shewed out of saint Austen to whom we must adde Dina and the patriarke Iacob himselfe and so the number of 70. is accomplished The third doubt The children of Israel were but 70. persons when they went into Egypt and yet they came out of Egypt about sixe hundred thousand men of foote besides children and women which multiplication is not possible by the course of nature I answer that the multiplication is possible euen by the course of nature First because they were in Egypt about 215. yeares Secondly because perhaps the men had many wiues as which was in those dayes an vsuall thing Thirdly because one woman might haue many children at once for women in Egypt as writeth Trogus haue seauen children at one birth Plin. lib. 7. cap. 3. Fourthly because God promised to multiplie the seede of Abraham Gene. 17. The fourth doubt The Israelites were 400. yeares in Egypt as we reade in Genesis and in other places of the scripture therefore it is false to say that they were there but 215. yeeres I answer that those 400. yeeres must be reckoned from the birth of Isaac or from the expulsion of Ismael because euen then that seede beganne to be afflicted See the eight chapter in the fift section where this difficultie is handled at large The fift doubt God is not the author of sinne neither tempteth he any man Iames 1. ver 13. but to spoile our neighbours of their owne goods is a great sinne and flat theft which thing for all that God commaunded the Israelites to do Exodus 12. verse 35. Exod. 3. verse 22. I say first that as the schooles truly teach the law negatiue bindeth alway and at euery instant so that whatsoeuer is prohibited by a precept negatiue can at no instant be lawfully done although that which is commanded to be done by the law affirmatiue may at some instant be omitted without sinne I say secondly that sinne hath no positiue cause but onely a cause deficient and consequently God being voide of all imperfections and defects as who is not onlie good but the high goodnesse it selfe can not be the authour of sinne I say thirdly that theft as all learned diuines graunt with vniforme consent is the taking or detaining of an other mans goodes against the will of the owner Whereuppon it followeth that since God almightie is the chiefe lorde and owner of all riches goods lands and possessions God commanded not the Israelites to take frō the Egyptians their goods but that which was his owne and by best right due vnto him Yea as a most iust iudge he appointed them so to doe in recompence of their labours The eight section of Moses Moses was sonne to Amram the Leuite his mothers name was Iochebed the daughter of Leui. Aaron was his brother Miria his sister Numer 26. verse 59. Exod. 2. verse 1. The king of Egypt commanded the midwiues of the Hebrew women that when they did the office of a midwife then they shuld kill all sonnes but suffer daughters to liue This notwithstanding the midwiues feared God and therefore preserued aliue the men children Exod. 1. verse 15 16 17. A great doubt God rewarded the midwiues for telling a lie to the king therefore to lie is no sinne I say first that to lie is neuer lawfull neither for one respect nor other I say secondly that as God rewarded the midwiues Shiphrah and Puah so did hee Rahab but he rewarded them not for the telling of a leasing I say thirdly with Austen that God rewarded them because they loued and feared him which are the true
wringed with these superstitious fastes that by reason of their excessiue hunger they reioyce aboue measure when the fasting is at an end Yea they keepe a better reckoning howe Lent passeth and when they may fall to flesh againe then euer they did of and for their sinnes so that on Easter day hee seemeth the best sped that first in the morning can get an egge saue that adulti must that day first receiue and then followeth as is said And on the Sundaies in Lent they are so glad because they be but daies of abstinence as if they were at Rome in time of Carniuâle transformed vnder visards Thirdly because Lent fast is not proportionable to mans body or to the season of the yeare Which I will prooue by the lawes and receiued rules in the noble Art of phisicke As there be foure distinct times of the yeare the Spring time Summer Autumne and winter so be there foure different diets correspondent to the same Whosoeuer will eat temperately and in measure must eate according to the force and equabilitie of his digestion and consequently he ought to moderate and rule his diet after the qualification of his body and season of the yeare Natiue heate is the proper workman of digestion as graunteth euery good phisition and consequently because our bodies are most hote in Winter as recordeth the auncient graue phisition Hippocrates at that time they stand in need of most meate And because our bodies be then colde and moist hote and dry meates be conuenient In Summer because natiue heate is dispersed by exhalations concoction is weakened and so lesse meat required And because our bodies then be hote and dry cold moist meats are proportional In autumne because the extrinsecall heate is more remisse then in Summer and the naturall heat thereby more vnited meate more largely ought to be vsed The spring time keepeth a meane betweene winter and Summer and taketh part of them both and therefore our diet then must neither bee altogither of hote and drie meates as in winter neither yet altogither of colde and moist meates as in Summer and consequently popish institution of Lent was not onelie superstitious and vngodly but altogither preiudiciall to the health of the body I prooue it first because as Hippocrates writeth all sodaine mutations are dangerous and so after aboundant eating of fleshe all the winter season sodainly to absteine wholly from the same cannot but be euill This is confirmed by their owne vsuall popishe practise for to suche as haue been vsed to drinke onely wine they at Rhemes giue not at the first beare onely but they giue them wine also This notwithstanding after all their pleasant belly cheere during the whole time of their Carniuâle at Rome they must sodainly euen the next morning both with alteration of diet and parsimonie beginne their Lent fast solemnly It is yet further confirmed first because there is like proportion in eating fish sodainly after fleshe as there is in eating fleshe after fishe Which alteration how dangerous it is the vsuall infirmities in Easter weeke doe witnesse Secondly because the nourishment of fishe is colde and moist and so verie disproportionable to the Spring time Thirdly because concoction is then verie strong as well for the ambient restraint termed Antiperistasis as by reason of long sleepe and therefore since much meate is necessary our popish Lent fast must perforce be preiudiciall But some will say your selues this day command to eate fish in Lent I say first that our lawes commaund that abstinence for the common-wealth sake and not for merite or religion I say secondly that our lawes doe tollerate euery one to eate flesh in such measure as is expedient for the health of his body I say thirdly that our lawes prohibite onely flesh but popishe lawes charge all men vnder paine of mortall sinne euen the poorest soules of all that neither haue fish nor money to prouide fish to forbeare egges cheese butter milke Which how wicked and tyrannicall a law it is who seeth not for the seely soules must either eate such meates or starue for want of food Such popishe hypocritical fastes Gods prophet reprooueth most bitterly Is this the fast saith the Prophet that I haue chosen that a man shoulde afflict his soule for a day and bow downe his head as a bull rush and lie downe in sackcloth and ashes Wilt thou call this a fasting or an acceptable day to the Lord it is no fast saith the Prophet It is a fast saith the Pope it is abhominable saith the prophet it is meritorious saith the Pope To fast truely saith God by his Prophet is to deale thy bread to the hungry and that thou bring the poore that wander into thy house when thou seest the naked that thou couer him and hide not thy selfe from thine owne flesh Esaiae cap. 58. ver 5.7 The seuenth proposition Popish fastes are not fit meanes for their pretended end to wit mortification I proue it because not onely sundry kindes of fishes as both learned men and experience teacheth but wine especially which in popish fasting is euer approoued is altogither against mortification For as Salomon saith in their approoued Latine Edition Luxuriosa res vinum Wine maketh a man wanton Pro. 20. verse 1. And againe Nolite inebriari vino in quo inest luxuria Be not drunken with wine which maketh the body too lusty Ephes. 5. verse 18. Yea our religious English moonkes were so giuen to mortification as they could not bee content to liue one day without good store thereof For this is true as I wil answere vpon the charge of my soule Sir Thomas Bedell the moonke with whom I was sometime fellow prisoner in Yorke vpon Owse-bridge vsed ordinarily to send euery day for a quart or pint of wine For quoth he I was vsed to such store of wine in our Monastery that I cannot refraine it now O mortified popish moonkes O religious professed Romish Friers O men of holy perfection O hypocriticall painted pouertie To this may be added the diet of his brother Comberforth the secular Priest For he made a vow neuer to eate fleshe neither to drinke wine during his abode in prison By meanes of which hypocriticall fast as it seemed he got great credite amongest popishly affected persons Yet did the said Comberforth continually drinke very strong finely brewed ale alwayes so compounded with varietie of spices as it was more pleasant then pure wine if happily not so costly as the wine Such hath been and is the mortification of popish fastes Iohn Trew and the other Sergeantes at that time can giue reasonable testimonie heereof if they list The eight proposition The councill of Chalcedon one of the first foure famous generall Synodes which pope Gregorie reuerenced as the foure Gospels auoucheth popish fastes to be no fastes at all These are the expresse wordes of the council as they are
with all popish recusants neuer to pay their debts to loyall christian subiects This assertion because it is strange to good christian eares cannot but bee obscure and hardly vnderstood for explication sake wee must note two principles of lately coyned romish religion First that our most gratious soueraigne Queene Elizabeth and al her faithfull subiects are flatte heretiques Secondly that all her maiesties dominions with all the landes and goods of her loyall obedient and christian subiects are the Popes due vnto him from the first day of the profession of their loyall obeysance and of the true ancient christian romain catholike and apostolike faith That these be their principles their best writers doe testifie their Iesuite Bellarminus their Canonists Nauarrus and Couarrunias their Diuines Syluester and Medina their religious friers Fumus and Alphonsus with many others Vppon these rotten principles of their newe no religion they grounde their most execrable dispensation to witte that it is lawfull for all popish recusants by reason of such dispensations to withholde what landes and goods soeuer from all such as wil not yeelde themselues captiues to the brutish bondage of poperie Hereof it commeth first that so many this daie make conscience to bee absent from diuine seruice in the church who haue no conscience at all to pay their debts Hereuppon it commeth secondlie that manie repute it deadlie sinne once to heare a godlie sermon who thinke it no sinne at all to owe great summes of money and neuer to pay the same Heereuppon it commeth thirdlie that sundrie recusants haue so intayled their landes and so fraudulently away their goods and that of late yeares as no law enforceth them to pay their debts to their poore creditors Hereupon it commeth fourthly that her maiesty is defrauded her faithfull subiects impouerished the Popes vassals enriched the lawes of the realme contemned and domestical rebellion fostered It therefore behooueth good Magistrates to haue speciall regarde hereof Good lawes are established but slowly in many places executed God of his mercie either conuert dissembling hypocrites soundly or else for the common good of his church confound them euerlastingly for a greater and more pestilent plague cannot come vnto the Church then to haue such magistrates as pretend publiquely to fauour it and yet are secret enemies to the same qui potest capere capiat this kind of popish pardoning my selfe though then a papist could neuer brooke but so soone as I vnderstood it did sharplie impugne the same The mediate externall sabboth is that which God appointeth mediately by his church in the new Testament to wit the sunday which is our christian sabboth And here obserue that when I say by the church I specially vnderstand the supreme gouernour of the Church much lesse doe I exclude the same which obseruation shall be made manifest before the end of my discourse And because no veritie doth clearely appeare vntill the difficulties and doubts be plainely vnfolded I will propound in order the greatest obiections that can be made against the same framing briefe pithie and euident solutions thereunto The first obiection The Sabbatharies contend with tothe and naile that christians are no lesse bound this day to keepe the legall sabboth then were the Israelites in time of Moses law and they proue it because God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it which sanctification was nothing else but a commaundement to keep it holy as appeareth by the declaration made by Moses Againe bicause this sanctification was forthwith after the creation and therefore as all nations are bound to make a memoriall of the creation as well as the Israelites so must all nations as well as the Israelites keepe holy the seauenth day that is the day of rest after the creation which is our saturday and vpon which day the Iewes still keepe their sabboth The answere I say first that there is no precept in the olde or new Testament by which either the Gentiles then or christians now are bound to keepe the legall sabboth I say secondly that albeit it could be proued that the fathers before the law had kept it yet would it not follow that wee were bound by their ensample this day to keepe the same for otherwise we shoulde be bound to offer vp bloudy sacrifices as they did both before and after the deluge The second obiection God speaking of the sabboth saide it should be a signe betweene him and the children of Israel for euer and hee added for in sixe dayes the Lorde made heauen and earth and in the seauenth day rested therefore all nations are bound to keepe the sabboth of the seauenth day The answere I say first that the word euer is not taken there simpliciter but secundum quid as the schooles tearme it that is not for eternitie or for the duration of this life but for all the time from Moses vnto Christ which was 1495. yeares I say secondly that though the sabboth be not eternall as it is ceremoniall which I shall prooue by and by yet is it eternall in the thing signified that is ceasing from sin and rest in God which shall be accomplished in heauen for euermore The third obiection The decalogue was before Moses and this day is of force for the Gentiles were bound before the promulgation of the law written in the tables of stone and we christians after the translation of the law to abstaine from blasphemie periurie theft murder whoredome couetousnesse fraudulent dealing and the like as were the Iewes in time of the law The answere I answere that whereas the law of Moses was partly iudiciall partly ceremonial and partly morall the morall part being the verie lawe of nature engrauen in mens hearts in the hour of their natiuities as it was before Moses so shall it endure to the worlds end but all ceremonies which were types and figures of the promises made in Christ Iesus were accomplished and abolished in his sacred aduent such was the circumcision giuen to Abraham the sacrifices commanded to our first fathers and the sabboth in respect of the determination vpon the seauenth day for it was not Gods will to continue shadowes after the things indeede were exhibited The fourth obiection A perpetuall cause requireth a perpetuall lawe and consequentlie since the memorie of the creation and meditation of Gods works is a perpetuall cause of the law of the seauenth day it followeth necessarily that the law of the seauenth day must still abide in force The answere I answer that the memorie of the creation is indeed a perpetuall cause of a perpetuall sabboth but not of a perpetual precise and determinate sabboth the reason hereof is euident because the memorie of our creation may be done as conueniently vpon another day as vpon the seauenth day thus my answere is confirmed because the sabboth which wee now keepe is not the seauenth day but the eight for our sunday is the first day of the weeke
ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile transgressiones voti simplicis solemnis eiusdem speciei sunt etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet ratio est quia specifica differentia actuum est penes obiecta cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum nempe seruare continentiam erunt actus eiusdem speciei erit tamen voti solemnis transgressio grauior ratione perfectioris status The vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect because the subiect of the single vow is able to contract matrimonie albeit he sinne in so contracting but the subiect of a solemne vow is inabled to matrimoniall contract the transgressions of the vowe single and solemne are of the same nature or kind albeit hee that maketh the solemne vow sinneth more grieuously the reason is because the specificall difference of acts resteth in the obiects and since there is one obiect of both the vowes to wit to keepe chastitie the acts shall bee of the same nature or kinde neuerthelesse the transgression of the solemne vow shall be greater by reason of the perfecter state Thus reasoneth Frier Ioseph after the opinion of other popish doctours and his discourse is euident because euerie specificall difference morall ariseth of the obiects and consequently since the obiect of vow single is one and the same with the vowe solemne the difference betweene them can no way be essentiall The sixt building All secular Priests are so free from the solemne vow annexed by the church of Rome to ecclesiasticall orders as their marriage is perfect and of force notwithstanding the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof I proue it first because Scotus Nauarre Iosephus Angles and others doe grant that this vow is onely annexed by the ordinance of the church as shall appeare more at large in the ende of this chapter I prooue it secondly because if the secular priests â—â—e votaries their vowe must either be by the worde spoken or by the deede done not the first because no such word can be proued neither the second because if the art it selfe in taking orders shoulde be the vowe annexed it would follow thereupon necessarily that the Greekes likewise should become votaries as who doe the selfe same thing Who for all that were neuer votaries as Gratianus Syluester and other popish doctours do affirme I proue it thirdly because when two things are essentially and really distinguished the grant of the one doth necessarily include the graunt of the other and yet is the solemne vow of chastitie essentially and really distinct from sacred orders as I haue proued out of Iosephus in the fourth building and as is apparant by Nauarre in his Enchiridion Gratian their owne doctour maketh this case cleere see his assertion in the next chapter in the answere to the first obiection The seauenth building The solemne vowe of chastitie imposed onely by the power of man cannot alter the institution of God and take away the liberty by him granted vnto man For proofe hereof their own deare fryer Antoninus some time archbishoppe of Florence shall suffice who telleth our holy father the Pope that God is his superiour and that he therefore cannot alter any one iâ—te of his law these are his expresse words Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel diuino iurisdictio seu potestas papalis non se extendit sic verò quod ista possit mutare vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris Deus autem superior ad papam Concerning those things which are of the law of nature or law diuine iurisdiction or papall power doth not extend it self so to wit that the pope can change these things or giue power obligatiue vnto them and the reason is because an inferiour cannot change the laws of his superior and God is superiour to the Pope Franciscus a Victoria and other learned Papists hold the same opinion but Antoninus his testimonie is sufficient The proofe of the proposition This foundation and these seauen buildings onely considered my proposition afore rehearsed will be cleare and manifest for first if single life be only imposed by the law of man as the seauenth building proueth secondly if secular priests can no way be proued votaries as in the sixt building is shewed thirdly if the vow single be of one and the selfe same nature with the solemne differing only accidentally from it as the fift building affirmeth fourthly if the solemne vow hath not force of it selfe to dissolue marriage as the fourth building teacheth fiftly if the popes dispensation can make marriage of force after the solemn vow as the third building conuinceth sixtly if marriage made after the single vow be of force as the first building declareth euidently which single vow for all that is of the same essence and nature with the solemne vow as is already said I conclude with this ineuitable illacion that the marriage not only of secular priests but euen of Monks Fryers and all religious votaries is sound perfect and of force An important obiection against the sixt proposition Refuse the youger widowes for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ they will marrie hauing damnation because they haue broken the first faith This place of S. Paule sundrie of the fathers expound of the vow of chastitie neither can it possibly admit any other sence The answere I say first that though sundrie of the fathers thinke it sinne to marrie after the vow of chastitie and that by reason of this place yet doth the same fathers repute such marriages to be true and perfect matrimonie for saint Epiphanius writeth in this manner Melius est itaque vnum peccatum habere non plura melius est lapsum à cursu palam sibi vxorem sumere secundum legem à virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci velut qui mala operatus est velut lapsuâ— fractum obligatione opus habentem non quotidie occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitaete quae à Diabolo ipsi infertur It is better therfore to haue one sin not many it is better for one that is fallen from his course openly to marrie a wife according to the law and to repent a long time from his virginitie and so to be restored againe into the church as one tha hath done wickedly as one that is fallen and broken and hath need of binding vp and not to be daily wounded with the secret darts of that wickednes which the diuell putteth in him Thus writeth Epiphâ—nius shewing plainely to the reader that he condemneth not the marriage in vowed persons monkes or nunnes but the falling from their gudly purpose S. Cyprian hauing sharply inueyed against the licenâ—ious life of certaine deacons and vowed virgins exhorteth them at the length to marry that cannot or wil not
were married to wit that they would be louing diligent carefull obedient to their husbands and aboue all the rest keep their coniugall faith The third faith was that which these widowes made to the bishop the whole church to wit that they would execute their deaconship honestly faithfully constantly perseuer therein to the end The yonger widowes waxing wanton against Christ did not only breake their last promise forsaking the ministery of the church but their first and most holy promis made in baptisme while they departing from the purity of honest life and religion consecrated themselues to paganisme and infidelitie and so purchased to themselues Gods wrath eternal damnation Therefore the apostle maketh no mention of any vow but only reproueth vnconstant women who being relieued a long time by the common tresure of the congregation to minister to the sicke persons did afterward both forsake their promise Christ too and became heathens running after satan For this is euident by the words of the 15. verse of the 5. chapter from whence the obiection is taken where the apostle saith that some widowes are already turned back from Christ their guide to whom they had dedicated theÌ„selues in baptisme folowed after satan It wil not serue the papists to say after their wonted maner that marriage breaketh not our promise made in baptisme For albeit the faith of baptisme be not brokeÌ„ by marrying absolutely and simply yet is it indeede broken by marrieng against Christ that is by marrying in such maner as they renounce christianitie And this my answer is confirmed because if the apostle had meant otherwise he would haue called it the last faith and not the first I say fiftly that these words for when they shall wax wanton against Christ they wil marry do euidently proue that S. Paul meaneth the promise made in baptisme and I desire the gentle reader to marke my discourse attentiuely for this obiection is the bulwarke to defend this article of poperie I therefore note first that these foure things are really distinguished in S. Paul to wit the waxing wanton of the widows the marriage of the widowes the damnation of the widowes and the breach of their faith I note secondly that the wantonnes of the widows was before their marriage for so the apostle saith expresly I note thirdly that the widowes promised in their baptisme to keepe Gods holy commaundements among which one is this Non concupisces Thou shalt not lust I note fourthly y t the breach of euery commandement deserueth eternal death For so saith the apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for y e reward of sin is death And another scripture saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this lawe in doing them for as saint Iames saith though a man keep all the residue of the law yet if he offend in any one point he becommeth guiltie of all I note fiftly that by Gods law we are bound to refer all our workes all our words and al our thoughts to his honour and glory for so teacheth his apostle and consequently that the wantonnes of the yonger widowes was a breach of Gods holy laws These points obserued I conclude that the yonger widows had damnation not for marrying but for being wanton before their marriage For in being wanton against Christ they brake their first faith made in baptisme that is they performed not that obedience they promised in baptisme in not performing that obedience they deserued eternal death and so they had damnation bicause they were wanton against Christ. S. Paul saith not that they had damnation bicause they married which must be wel marked but bicause they made voide their first faith in breaking Gods coÌ„mandements as ye haue heard I say sixtly that saint Paul is so far from condemning marriage in the yonger widowes after their promise or vow which the papists would most willingly father vpon him as he exhorteth them to marry euen after such their promise or vowe I prooue it note wel what I say because so soone as hee hath willed the yonger widowes to marry in the 14. verse foorthwith in the 15. verse he yeeldeth the reason of that his aduise to wit because certaine are already turned backe after Satan Now in the 15. verse he must needs speake of such widowes as were receiued into the ministerie of the church because none could be turned backe from that to which they neuer were admitted he therfore speaketh likewise of the betrothed widows in the next verse before which I make euident three wayes first because otherwise his illation in the 15. verse shoulde be foolish friuolous foolish because it could haue no connexion with the 14. verse friuolous for that it could not conclude his purpose secondly because he had already in the 11. verse charged the bishop Timothy not to receiue any widow vnder the age of 60. yeeres This conclusion therefore being made touching the widowes not yet admitted he goeth forward and giueth his aduise for the yonger widowes then receiued of the church as if he had saide for as much as some of the yonger sort haue alreadie beene wanton and followed sathan and there is also danger in the rest I decree that hereafter none vnder 60. yeares be receiued and I exhort the yonger alreadie receiued and desirous to marrie to betake themselues to holie wedlocke to bring forth children to be housewiues and so to giue no occasion to the aduersarie to speake euill Thirdly because otherwise Saint Paul should equiuocate verie grossely in one and the selfe same reason giuing one signification to the same word in the premisses an other in the consecution Thus much of this obiection in special and of the mariages of Bishops priests deacons and religious persons in generall as also of the first â—rohibition against the same It nowe remaineth for the complement of this discourse that I solue certaine obiections made generally against this doctrine for which shalbe assigned the next chapter CHAP. IIII. Of certaine generall obiections against the marriages of Priests with briefe solutions of the same The first obiection BE sanctified therefore and be holy for I am holy your lord and God I answer that al the Israelits were commanded to be sanctified to be holy aswel as were the priests and so if this argument were of force in popish sence al people aswel as priestes shoulde abstaine from the vse of holy wedlocke yea the priests were euen then married as is already proued The second obiection I would haue you without care the vnmarried careth for the things of the lord how he may please the Lord but he that is married careth for the things of the world how hee may please his wife therefore priests ought not to be married The answere I say first that S. Paul preferreth the state of the vnmarried before the
without consent of the patient which neuerthelesse the best learned papistes will haue to be no sinne at all I say fiftly that Abimelech inquired of cleannesse from women not in respect of the coniugall act but for many other contaminations which might haue happened by comming neere to any woman in her monethly course For not only the woman her self was thereby vncleane in lawe and legall ceremonie but also all such as touched her clothes her bed her seate or whatsoeuer els Which inquisition Abimilech made least hee shoulde seeme to contemne the law that so Dauid if perhaps he had been any way polluted legallie might haue had saltem desiderio purification accordingly I say sixtly that the high priest in the olde lawe was married and begate children and that euen in those daies when he ministred to the Lord for he was bound to offer vp incense on the altar of sweete perfume that was neere the arke of testimonie before the mercy seate not this day or that day onely but euery morning and euery euening throughout their generations for euer Since therefore the high priestes marriage and coniugall acts were nothing preiudiciall to his holy function it followeth consequently that neither can holy wedlocke be now preiudiciall to the ministerie of the newe Testament The fift obiection The councels of Carthage Toledo Agatha and some others haue flatly prohibited the marriage of priestes which doubtlesse they would neuer haue done if it had been a lawfull thing The answere I say first that mans authoritie cannot abridge take away from man that libertie which God himselfe hath graunted vnto man For the inferior cannot alter the law of his superior as is already prooued I say secondly that though the pope and his late councels doe roundly impose lawes against holy wedlocke yet doth S. Paule plainly confesse that hee hath no authoritie so to doe Praeceptum inquit domini non habeo consiliū autem do I haue no commandement of the Lord but I giue mine aduise I say thirdly that the councell of Agatha doth euidently insinuate that the prohibition of priestes marriages was but of late yeares These are the wordes of the councell Presbyteri diaconi subdiaconi vel deinceps quibus ducendi vxores licentia modo non est etiam aliarum nuptiarum euitent conuiuia Priests deacons subdeacons and the rest who this day haue not licence to marry must not be present at the feasts of other marriages This councell was holden in Narbon about 439. yeares after Christ which was 51. yeares after Pope Syricius who first abandoned the mariage of priestes as I haue prooued To which time this councell of Agatha alludeth when it saith who are now debarred from marriage as if it had said Before they might haue married but now it is forbidden them I say fourthly that their owne deere Gratian in his glosse vpon pope Martins wordes confesseth matrimonie to be of so great force euen in deacons that marry after their orders that neither the popes decree nor the vow by him annexed to orders is able to dissolue the same These are his expresse wordes Si vero diaconus a ministerio cessare voluerit contracto matrimonio licitè potest vti nam etsi in ordinatione sua castitatis votū obtulerit tamen tanta est vis in sacramento coniugij quod nec ex violatione voti potest dissolui ipsum coniugium But if a deacon will cease from the ministerie hee may lawfully haue the vse of wedlocke contracted in time of his deaconship for although he offered the vow of chastitie when he tooke orders yet so great is the force of matrimonie that it cannot be dissolued by breaking the vow Out of which words I note two things the one that Gratian speaketh of that matrimonie which deacons contract after they be made deacons the other that such matrimonie is perfect of force notwithstāding y e vow annexed by popish law To which I adde other two thinges first that Gratian auoucheth S. Austen to be of his opinion whose wordes he alledgeth in the next canon Secondly that since marriage is of force after orders in a deacon it is so also in subdeacons priestes and the rest The reason is euident because the vow is of the same force in all neither can or will any learned papist say the contrary I say fiftly that it skilleth not much what many councels say as I haue prooued at large in my booke of Motiues yet here I adde one decree out of one of their councels which maketh the controuersie manifest Thus therefore appointeth the first councel holden at Toledo or Toletanum Si quis habens vxorem fidelis concubinam habeat non communicet Caeterum is qui non habet vxorem pro vxore concubinam habet a communione nō repellatur tantum vt vnius mulieris aut vxoris aut concubinae vt ei placuerit sit coniunctione contentus If anie of the faithfull hauing a wife haue also a Concubine let him not receiue the holy communion but hee that hath no wife and keepeth a concubine in steed of his wife let him be admitted to the communion yet so as hee be content with one onely either woman wife or concubine as pleaseth him Loe this councell giueth a man free libertie to keepe woman wife or concubine at his pleasure so he be content with one at once Neither doth it forbid such an one to receiue the holie communion Yet it prohibiteth euery priest from the communion that keepeth his lawfull wife but the famous councels of Nice and Constantinople were of another minde as I haue prooued The 6. obiection Vow saith the prophet and performe vnto the Lord your God all ye that be round about Therefore priestes and religious men and women which haue vowed cannot marrie at all The answere I say first that this obiection can at the most prooue onely this euen by popish doctrine to wit that such as vow chastitie cannot marry without sinne but not that their marriages bee not of force or not true marriages indeed I prooue it euidently because marriages after simple or single vowes be of force with them and reputed as they are for true marriages indeed And this obiection speaketh of such vowes because the scripture is nothing acquainted with popish solemne vowes I say secondly that they are not only true marriages and of force but also contracted lawfully and without sinne I prooue it because as it is sin to make ill vowes so is it lawful to break the same and double sinne to performe them This is euident in Iephthe who to accomplish his vow became the murderer of his own only daughter In wicked king Herode the Tetrarch who for sake of his vow beheaded S. Iohn the baptist In the fourtie Iewes who to performe their bloudie vow say in wait to destroy S. Paule These wicked votaries as they sinned most greeuously in making their vowes so did
that that vow which for the obedieÌ„ce of mans law is preiudicial to Gods law is wicked and damnable but such is the vowe annexed in popish priests marke well my words therefore the vow imposed to popish priests is wicked and damnable I say first the vow annexed because the priests do not formally vow single life but the Pope hath annexed it to their orders by his wicked decree I say secondly the vowe imposed because the priestes indeede woulde willingly retaine their libertie stil. I say thirdly that gods law doth not onely graunt libertie to marrie but also chargeth euerie one that hath not the gift of continencie to take a wife to vse holy wedlocke for the auoiding of sinne I say fourthly that mans law onely hath prohibited the marriage of priests which being once proued this fourth assertion wilbe manifest Thus therfore writeth their deare Gratian in expresse words Copula namque sacerdotalis vel consanguineorum nec legali nec euangelica vel apostolica auctoritate prohibetur ecclesiastica tamen lege penitus interdicitur For the marriage of priests or kinsfolks is neither forbiddeÌ„ by the law of Moses nor by the lawe of the gospell nor by the law of the apostles yet is it vtterly interdicted by the lawe of the church of Rome Marke well these wordes for Christes sake gentle christian reader for they are able to confound al obstinate papists in the world Obserue therefore first that this Gratian who vttereth these words was a verie famous popish Canonist brother to Peter Lombard surnamed for his supposed deserts the Maister of Sentences who was sometime bishop of Paris and of such renowme in the popish church as his bookes are this day read publiquely in the diuinitie schooles Obserue secondly that this great learned papist Gratian liued with his brother Lombard about 400. yeeres agoe euen then when the pope was in his greatest pompe and tyrannie Obserue thirdly that this Gratian being so learned and so renowmed among the papists did euen in the altitude of popedome commit that to the publique view of the world which vtterly ouerthroweth al papistrie Obserue fourthly that the pope and his vassalles being iustly infatuated for their manifold sinnes had not power to hinder and keepe backe from the print such bookes as vtterly disclose their tyranny falshood and paltrie dealing Oh sweete Iesus great is thy mercy wonderfull is thy iustice infinite is thy wisedome vnsearchable are thy iudgements Truly saith the Psalmograph Vnles the Lord defend the citie in vaine do they labour that keepe the same Thou O God who causest the red sea to giue place to the Israelites thou who causest Balaams asse to speake thou who causest the fire to suspend it force in the burning furnace thou who causest yron to swimme vpon the water thou who causest lockes and brasen gates to open voluntarily thou thou O mightie God of Israel hast enforced Gratian that learned famous and zealous papist to confesse openly for the battering downe of al popery that the marriage of priests which the Pope enforceth vppon them vnder paine of damnation euerlasting is neither forbidden by the law of Moses nor by the lawe of thy holy gospel nor yet by the law of thine apostles Caietanus their owne deare Cardinall and learned schooleman confirmeth that which Gratian hath already said These are his wordes Nec ratione nec authoritate probari potest quod absolute loquendo sacerdos peccet contrahendo matrimonium Nam nec ordo in quantum ordo nec ordo in quantum sacer est impeditiuus matrimonij siquidem sacerâ—otium non dirimit matrimonium contractum siue ante siue post seclusis omnibus legibus ecclesiasticis stando tantum â—is quae habemus à Christo apostolis It can neither bee proued by reason nor yet by authoritie if we will speake absolutely that a Priest sinneth by marrying a wife For neither the order of priesthood in that it is order neither order in that it is holy is any hindrance vnto matrimonie for priesthood breaketh not marriage whether it be contracted before priesthood or afterward setting al ecclesiastical lawes aparte and standing onely to those things which wee haue of Christ and his Apostles Antoninus is consonant vnto Caietane and writeth in this manner Episcopatus ex natura sua non habet opponi ad matrimonium the office of a bishoppe of his owne nature is not opposite vnto marriage Saint Clement telleth it as a wonder that the Apostle giuing so many rules and precepts touching matrimonie should say nothing of the marriage of Priests if it had beene a thing necessarie these are his words Omnes Apostoli Epistolae quae moderationem docent continentiam cum de matrimonio de liberorum procreatione de domus administratione innumerabilia praecepta contineant nusquam honestum moderatumque matrimonium prohibuerunt All the Epistles of the Apostle which teach sobrietie and continent life whereas they containe innumerable precepts touching matrimonie bringing vp of children and gouernment of house yet did they no where forbidde honest and sober marriage I say fiftly that to take away the christian libertie from man which God hath granted to man is a wicked and damnable sinne and therefore doth the holy vessell of God bid vs to perseuer constantly therein For after that hee hath exhorted euerie one to continue as God hath appointed and withal hath shewed the freedome of marriage to bee granted to all hee forthwith addeth these words Ye are bought with a price be not the seruants of men as if he had said to marrie or not to marrie is in your owne election let therefore neither Iew nor Gentile ouerrule your libertie let none entangle your consciences let none bring you into faithlesse bondage let none impose that heauie yoke vpon your necks which yee are no way able to beare Nowe by due application heereof the vow of single life at the least the vow annexed to priesthood which by the law of man spoileth vs of our christian libertie must needs be a wicked and damnable vowe For as the learned papist Victoria hath wel obserued the gospell is called the law of libertie because christians after the promulgation of the gospel are onely bound to the law of nature And yet our late popes haue made our case more intollerable then euer was the heauie yoke of the Iewes For Saint Paul chargeth vs to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free and not to be intangled againe with the yoke of bondage I say sixtly that to abandon Gods holy ordinance is a wicked and damnable sinne and yet is this done as the Pope bluntishly auoucheth by his tyrannically extorted vowes for matrimonie contracted after priesthood is by Gods law true and perfect matrimonie as is alreadie proued by popish grant and yet is such matrimonie become no matrimonie by popish vow as the Pope would enforce vs
in clericis secularibus de substantia ordinis nec de iure diuino quia alià s Graeci peccarent nec excusaret eos consuetudo Sequitur non solum credo potestateminesse ecclesiae hoc condendi sed credo pro bono salute esset animarum quod esset salubre statutum vt volentes possint contrahere quia experieÌ„tia docente contrarius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa lege continentiae cum hodie non viuant spiritualiter nec sint mundi sed maculantur illicito coitu cum eorum grauiss peccato vbi cum propria vxore esset castitas Continencie in secular priests is not of the substance of their orders nor of the law diuine because otherwise the Greeks should sinne and their custome could not excuse them and I doe not onely beleeue that the church can make such a law but also that such a law were for the good and for the saluation of soules that such as would might marrie because experience teacheth that a contrarie effect followeth of that lawe of continencie since this day they liue not spiritually neither are cleane but are polluted in vnlawfull copulation with their sinne most greeuous though they might liue chastly with their owne wiues Out of which wordes of Panormitan who was their canonist their Abbot their archbishop their cardinall I note first that the prohibition of marriage in secular priestes is neither of the substance of the ministerie nor by the law of God but onely enforced by the law of man I note secondly that priestes marriage may be honourable and honest chastitie I note thirdly that the prohibition of priestes marriage is against their soules health as which causeth the priests to sin damnably Out of which notes I inferre this memorable corollary that the prohibition of priests marriage is against Gods law against the health of mens soules and against the good of the common weale and that by constant popish doctrin So then the pope is neuer able to purge himself of his shameful dealing CHAP. V. Of popish pardons and the originall thereof I Haue spoken so copiously of popish pardons in my booke of Motiues as much more shall not be needfull in this place There I prooued by the testimonie of Roffensis Syluester and other popish doctors that popish pardons are not grounded in or vpon the word of god as also that they crept into the church long after Christes ascension into heauen Bonifacius the eight of that name who began his popedome as a foxe continued in it as a wolf and ended it as a dog their owne writers Platina and Carranza so affirming was the first bishop of Rome that euer tooke vpon him to pardon sinne by publique bulles He appointed a Iubilee and graunted full remission of al sinnes to such as would come in pilgrimage to Rome Their owne Platina hath these expresse wordes Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat qui limina apostolorum visitassent ad exemplum veteris testamenti Pope Boniface brought againe the Iubilee after 1300. yeares and gaue full pardon of all sinnes to those that did visite S. Peters Church in Vaticano at Rome after the example of the olde lawe Out of these words I note first that the old iubilee was neuer heard of in Christs church til the time of Bonifacius our Iewish pope I proue it by the word retulit he brought again from the Iewes I note secondly that the church was free froÌ„ popish pardons the space of 1300 yeares so as popish pardons are not yet 300. yeares old albeit sillie people do so magnifie the same I note thirdly that this pope pardoned not only the paine but euen the sin it selfe yea all sinnes whatsoeuer Though our latter papists to hide their shame if it could be do violently interpret him of the pain I note fourthly that this good father Maliface brought again the Iewish ceremonial law I note fiftly that the remission of the olde law which they pretend apishly to imitate was not of sins but of debts lands bondage such like which the pope vseth not to pardon and yet forsooth he would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe Two hundreth yeares after this that is 1500. yeares after Christ pope Alexander the sixt appointed his Iubilee and like pardons not onely for comming to Rome but to all persons in all places wheresoeuer So writeth their own Polydore and Platina accordeth therunto for the rest see my Motiues in this point The first obiection The church of God vsed to giue pardons aboue a thousand and two hundred yeares sithence as appeareth by the great councell of Nice and by other ancient synods Yea S. Gregorie gaue pardon to al those that did visit the churches at Rome The answere I say first that Emperors kings absolute princes common weales independent may lawfully pardon malefactours the due circumstances of times places and persons wel considered and so may one neighbour pardon an other for trespasses done vnto him I say secondly that in the primitiue church such as were notorius offenders had giuen publike scandall to y e church were inioyned by the church to do publike penance for their publike faults before they could be admitted into the church again Which thing is this day obserued in all reformed churches abroad and in all particular churches God be thanked for it throughout the Realme of England I say thirdly that in the ancient churches many yeares of penance or publike exercises of humiliation were ordained for euerie publike grieuous offence Whereupon it followed that when many penitent persons gaue euident tokens of tru internal remorse for their former scandalous conuersation then the church thought good to giue to such persons some relaxatioÌ„ of their so inioyned publike penance which maner of pardoning is plainely acknowledged in the holy councel of Nice These are the expresse words De his qui praeter necessitatem praeuaricati sunt aut propter ablationem facultatum aut propter periculum aut aliquid huiusmodi quod factum est sub tyrannide Liciniâ— placuit sanctae synodo licet sint indigni misericordia tameÌ„ aliquid circa eâ—s humanitatis ostendi Concerning those that haue voluntarily transgressed or for feare to lose their worldely goods or for danger or anie such like occasion as chanced in time of Licinius his persecution to such although they be vnworthie of mercie yet is it the holy councels mind to graunt them some pardon or relaxation in that behalfe In the councel of Arles and in the councell of Ancyra the like pardon is granted to penitent offenders of which kind of pardons the ancient fathers Irenaeus Tertullianus Eusebius Sozomenus and others do often make relation Yea of this sort were the pardons that Saint Gregorie gaue but of late popish pardons that is of applying to whom they list when they list as well to the liuing
as to the dead the merites of Christ and of his saints as condigne satisfaction for their sins for of such pardons no councell no father no ancient approued Historiographer maketh any mention at all Which thing I haue plainely proued in the third conclusion of the second chapter of my Motiues The second obiection The keyes of heauen were giuen to Saint Peter and consequently to his successours the bishops of Rome and withall promise was made vnto him that whatsoeuer hee should binde on earth the same should be bound in heauen whatsoeuer hee should loose on earth should be loosed in heauen nowe to loose sins is nothing else but to giue a pardon or indulgence for the same The answere I say first that vpon the grosse interpretation of these words many popish priests haue arrogantly presumptuously taken vpon them like the proude pharises to condemne the innocents and to loose the guiltie persons whereas before God not the sentence of the priests but the life of the persons charged is enquired of Thus writeth S. Hierome adding that priests can bind and loose sinners no otherwise now in the new testament then they did binde and loose the Leapers in the old law that is not to forgiue sinnes perfitly and indeede but to declare by Gods word the sinnes of penitent persons to be forgiuen in Gods sight euen as the priests in Moses law did not purge the Leapers but onely declared those whom God had purged alreadie to be cleane and free from the leprosie for as the gospel witnesseth none but God can forgiue sinne I say secondly that all the rest of the Apostles had the selfe same power granted to them all which is here promised to S. Peter for so saith Christ himselfe in another place where hee performeth his promise nowe made to Peter in the person of theÌ„ al consequently if the Pope could pardon as fondly is imagined yet might al other bishops do the same euen aswel as he So S. Austen S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Hylary Origen Theophilacte and others do confesse I say thirdly that S. Peter and the other Apostles haue not power granted by the scripture to forgiue sin but onely to declare and pronounce according to the scripture that God hath forgiuen to truely penitent persons all their sins For they can but onely declare the sinnes to be forgiuen which are by Christ forgiuen already as the priests in the olde law could not purge any from the leprosie indeede but only make declaration of the truth as ye haue heard out of S. Hierome The learned popish Cardinal Hugo to the euerlasting confusion of all impenitent and obstinate papists confirmeth S. Hieromes opinion in these expresse words Vinculo culpae poenae debitae non potestâ—um sacerdos ligare vel soluere sed tantum ligatuÌ„ vel absolutuÌ„ osteÌ„dere sicut sacerdos Leuiticus non faciebat vel mundabat leprosum sed tantum infectum vel munduÌ„ ostendebat The priest cannot bind him with the bond of sin and due punishment either loose him froÌ„ the same but only declare him to be bound or absolued in Gods sight euen as the Leuitical priest did not make or clense him that had the leprosie but onely shewed him to be infected or clensed Their own schoole doctour Durandus singeth the same song in these expresse words Claues nihil operantur ad dimissionem culpae vel maculae quia deordinatio actus tollitur per eius ordinationem dum bene displicet quod malè placuit The keyes work nothing to the remission of the fault or blemish because the deordination of the act is taken away by well ordering the same while that displeaseth well which pleased euil Thus we see by popish grant and doctrine that the metaphorical keyes whereof the papists boast so much can neuer put away sinne neither can any priest absolue any person from sin or from the paine due for sinne saue onely by declaring his sins to be forgiuen as is said The replie It is euident in the holy gospel that not onely God can forgiue sin by his own power but men also by authority commission receiued from him for when Christ had forgiuen the sicke man his sinnes the people maruailed and glorified God which had giuen such power vnto men The answere I answere that our sauior Christ in forgiuing the sicke mans sins shewed himselfe to be tru God which maner of proofe had bin none indeed if any but god could haue done the same which point I wish the gentle reader to obserue attentiuely For the Pharises charged him with blasphemy as who not being god yet toke vpon him the office of God in forgiuing sins Whose opinion for all that Christ himselfe approued for ratification thereof shewed by an euident external miracle that he was god indeed so as they could no longer be in suspence of y e matter but that yee may know saith Christ that the son of man hath power to forgiue sins then said he to the sick of the palsie arise take vp thy bed and goe into thy house as if he had said I confesse that I am God and that yee may knowe the same euidently I make the sicke man whole with mine onelie worde which if I were not God indeede I could neuer doe This case S. Chrysostome maketh so plaine as none that once reade or heare his wordes can stand any longer in doubt therof Thus doth he write in expresse termes Videamus quid ipse ait vtrum opinionem eorum improbauerit an potius comprobauerit nisi enim aequalis esset patri dixisset quid mihi tribuitis non competentem opinionem procul ego absum à tanta potestate Nunc verò nihil horum dixit sed contra tam verbo quam signo affirmauit Ita quoniam solet esse audientibus molestum vt aliquis de seipso apertius dicat aliorum verbis signo deum se patrique aequalem esse ostendit quod mirabilius est non per amicos solum verum etiam per inimicos hoc peragit vt virtutis sapientiae suae pelagus pateat Let vs see what he saith whether hee reprooued their opinion or rather approoued the same For if he had not been equall with his father he woulde haue said why doe ye ascribe to me that incompetent opinion I am farre off from that so great power yet now hee saith no such thing but contrariwise affirmeth it both by word and miracle So because it is woont to bee greeuous to the hearers that any man should speake openly of himselfe he sheweth both by the testimonie of others and by myracle that he is God and equall with his father and which is more wonderfull this he doth not only by his friendes but euen by his enemies that so aswell his power as his wisdom may be known aboundantly Out of which words I note first y t Christ approued
the opiniō of the Pharisies who held that only God could forgiue sin I note secondly that if Christ had not been equall with God the father he would neuer haue taken vpon him to pardon sin and consequently that the pope who will giue a generall pardon of al sinnes must by S. Chrysostomes iudgement be either as good as God or worse then the diuell I note thirdly that it was needfull for Christ to shew himselfe to be God because otherwise he might iustly haue been charged with blasphemie because he did pardon sin And consequently y t our pope and his popish vassals our Iesuites moonkes and friers must either prooue themselues Gods by signes and myracles or else confesse themselues to blaspheme God while they remit and pardon sinne For they all chalenge this power of remitting sinne in their so termed sacrament of penance S. Ambrose and S. Hilary both are of the very same iudgement S. Ambrose writeth in this maner Cognosce interioris homines sanitatem cui peccata donantur quae cum Iudaei asserunt à solo Deo posse concedi Deum vtique confitentur suóque iudicio perfidiam suam produnt qui vt opus astruant personam negant Sequitur magna itaque infidae plebis amentia vt cum confessa fuerit solius dei esse donare peccata nō credat deo pecca ta donanti Acknowledge the curing of the inward man whose sins are forgiuen which when the Iewes confesse that onely God can forgiue they doubtlesse confesse him to be God by their owne iudgement bewray their false faith who to establish the work denie the person Great therfore is the incredulitie of faithles people who confessing that only God can forgiue sins doth not for all that beleeue in God that forgiueth sins S. Hilary hath these words Mouet Scribas remissum ab homine peccatam hominem enim tantum in Iesu Christo contuebantur remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poterat fides enim sola iustificat Deinde murmurationem eorum dominus introspicit dicitque facile esse filio hominis in terra peccata dimittere verum enim nemo potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus ergo qui remittit Deus est quia nemo remittit nisi Deus It stirreth the Scribes that a man should forgiue sin because they beheld in Iesu Christ onely a man not God and that to be forgiuen by him which the law could not release For faith onely iustifieth Afterward the Lord looketh into their murmuring and saith that it is easie for the son of man to forgiue sins on earth for it is true that no man can forgiue sinnes but onely God therefore he that remitteth sinnes is God because no man remitteth sinnes but God By these testimonies it is euident that God and onely God can forgiue sins that our sauiour Christ did effectually proue himselfe to be God in that he could forgiue sin Which kind of reasoning had been of no force at all if others beside god as monks Iesuits could haue remitted sin The replie The text saith that the faithfull people did glorifie God for that he gaue such power to men as to remit sins and to do miracles knowing that so to doe by commission from God was not against his glory The answere I answer that although sundry of the people were reuerently affected towards Christ by reason of his miracles yet did they not behold or confesse God manifested in the flesh but still thought Christ to be a pure man though a great and holy prophet And the reason hereof is euident because they did not acknowledge Christ to be God but to haue receiued that power from God as an holy man for as the text saith the multitudes seeing it were afraid and glorified God that gaue such power vnto men Out of which words I note first that they beleeued not Christ to be God because they were afraid For as Saint Iohn saith he that confesseth Iesus to be the sonne of God wil loue him and be without feare I note secondly that they gaue glorie to god but not to the Sauior of the world for albeit that no man but Christ wrought the miracles yet did they glorifie God for giuing such power to men whereby it is cleare that they esteemed of him as of a pure man and that god had giuen that power to others as well as to him otherwise they would haue spoken in the singular number and not in the plurall of onely Christ whom they saw and not of moe whome they neither saw nor could see working in that diuine maner I note thirdly that it is a bluntish kinde of disputation when the conceit of the vulgar sort is alleaged to refute Christs diuine reasoning The third obiection S. Paul himselfe gaue pardon to the incestuous Corinthian who had committed fornication with his fathers wife The answere I say first that if popish pardons should be grounded vpon this place it would follow by a necessarie consecution that the Pope himselfe could pardon no more then euerie simple priest which sequele I coniecture cannot well stand with the Popes liking I proue it because the other ministers in Corinth gaue the selfe same pardon with S. Paul and therfore doth the Apostle say To whom ye pardon anie thing I also pardon I say secondly that popish confession must of necessity go before popish pardoning in al such as sin mortally and therefore since the apostle doth not once name popish confession it followeth perforce that he neither speaketh of popish pardoning I say thirdly that the pardoning whereof S. Paul speakketh is nothing else but that he who was excommunicate for his publique trespas may after signes of true remorce be restored to the church againe and after their sharpe censure of correction find pardon and mercie at their hands This much I prooue out of saint Paules owne words which are these It is sufficient to the same man that he was rebuked of many so now contrariwise ye ought rather to forgiue him and comfort him lest he should be swallowed vp with ouermuch heauines Wherefore I pray you that ye would confirme your loue towards him After this graue and godly exhortation he adioyneth these words To whom ye forgiue any thing I forgiue also as if hee had saide if yee be content to receiue him into the church againe I am therewith well pleased For he yeeldeth two reasons why the church of Corinth ought to pardon the excommunicate person the one is for that hee seemed to haue giuen sufficient signes of his vnfained repentance the other is lest too much rigour of correction should bring him to desperation For which cause S. Paul requesteth them to declare the consent of the whole congregation that hee was taken againe for a brother and pardoned for his offence So then S. Paul and the church of Corinth did pardon no otherwise indeede but euen as we our selues are
Againe in an other place Without me can ye doe nothing By which testimonies it is clear y t man before he be regenerate hath not power force efficacy or faculty to do good or once to coÌ„sent to any spiritual act The third conclusion The meritorious cause as wel of saluation as of iustification is Christ Iesus and none els This conclusion wilbe manifest if we seriously reuolue in our minds the wonderful mystery of mans redemption In which kind of holy meditation whosoeuer shal deuoutly exercise himselfe that man doubtlesse wil espie with facilitie these foure most excellent attributes of our most sweete redeemer to wit his iustice his mercie his wisedome his loue For first as the worthines of the person increaseth so doth also the offence against the saide person committed Wherupon it commeth that a reprochful word spoken against a meane priuate person is in respect a small offence when it is spoken against a magistrate it is greatâ—r when against our soueraigne the greatest of all and consequently when we offend God whose person is of infinite worthienes our offence must needes be infinite howsoeuer our late papists flatter themselues in their venials and so man vncapable of euerie infinite action cannot possibly yeeld any condigne compensation and yet god of his iustice cannot pardon sin without condigne compensatioÌ„ for the same Behold here Gods iustice Secondly in rigor of iustice the partie that offendeth is bound to make satisfaction for the fault neither is the partie offended bound to accept the satisfaction of any other and conseqently God was not bound to accept his sonnes satisfaction for our sinnes though it were most sufficient and of infinite dignitie In this Gods mercie shewed it selfe Thirdly on the one side pure God could not satisfie though he were of infinit dignitie because pure God is impassible on the other side pure man was not able because euerie his action was insufficient as of which no one amongst al could be infinite God therefore appointed his onely sonne to be incarnate to ioyne humanitie with diuinity in hypostatical vnion and so to make attonement for our sinnes For as man hee was passible and as God he was able to giue infinite dignitie to his passion Wherein we may beholde Gods diuine wisedome Fourthly God seeing man in the chaines and bondage and thraldome of the deuill through sin and hauing tender compassion of him in such his distresse sent his owne deare sonne to set him at libertie again and this he did of meere loue without all merits and deserts of man For as Christ himselfe saith God so loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting All saith the apostle haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God and are iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Againe in another place As by the offence of one the fault came on al men to condemnation so by the iustifying of one the benefit abounded towarde all men to the iustification of life For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous This is the stone saith Saint Peter which the builders refused which is become the head of the corner neither is there saluation in any other for among men there is giuen none other name vnder heauen whereby wee must be saued Wee haue an aduocate with the father saith Saint Iohn euen Iesus Christ the iust and he is the reconciliation for our sinnes Christ redeemed vs saith Saint Paul from the curse of the lawe while hee was made a curse for vs. Againe in another place In whome wee haue redemption through his bloud that is the forgiuenesse of our sinnes Againe Who did by himselfe purge our sinnes and sitteth on the right hand of maiestie on high Againe For he hath made him to be sinne for vs that knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him These saith S. Iohn are they which came from great tribulatioÌ„ washed their stoales and made them white in the bloud of the Lambe Again in another place The bloud of Iesus Christ doth purge vs from all sin I euen I am hee saith God by his Prophet that blotteth out thine infirmities not for thy deserts but for mine owne sake Againe in another place He was wounded for our iniquities hee was torne in peeces for our offences S. Austen shal conclude this point who writeth in this maner Dominus noster Iesus Christus mori venit peccare non venit communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam culpam soluit poenam Our Lord came to die he came not to sin communicating paine with vs without sinne he loosed both sinne and the paine of sinne The fourth conclusion The mercie of God is the efficient cause of mans iustification and Gods glorie the finall cause of the same Of the former speaketh S. Paul when he saith Not by the works of righteousnesse which we haue done but according to his mercie hath he saued vs by the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the holy ghost Againe in another place the same Apostle saith that al haue sinned are freely iustified by his grace Againe he saith Which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead And S. Iohn saith that God of his meere mercy and loue gaue his only son for the redemption of the world Of the latter speaketh the apostle when he saith that God hath made vs accepted in his beloued to the praise of his glory Again in another place whether therfore ye eate or drink or whatsoeuer ye do do all to the glory of God As if he had said ye must referre al your thoughts words and workes to Gods glorie because ye were created to that end The prophet also saith I euen I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake wil not remember thy sins Againe in an other place Surely I wil not giue my glory to any other But doubtlesse if God shoulde iustifie man for any other end then for his owne glory it would follow thereupon that his glorie were giuen to another Yet as Salomon saith God hath made al things for his own sake yea euen y e wicked for y e day of euil The formall cause of mans iustification is not mans owne inherent iustice but the iustice righteousnes of Christ Iesus This conclusion containeth the maine point of a mighty controuersie betweene the papists vs for which respect I wish the reader to marke attentiuely my discourse The late councel holden at Trent setteth downe the opinion of the papists in these words DemuÌ„ vnica formalis causa est iustitiâ— dei noÌ„ qua ipse iustus est sed qua nos
in this chapter the fourth to the Romaines I note thirdly that faith is counted our righteousnesse Which the apostle expresseth more liuely in the fift verse But to him that worketh not saith hee but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse Loe not the worker but the beleeuer is iustified and that by imputation The same apostle after a long discourse to prooue that a man is iustified by faith onely in another place addeth these words We therfore think y t a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Loe the holy apostle after a long disputation which is implied in the worde therefore concludeth that we are iustified by faith without works As if he had said sole faith only faith or faith without works doth iustifie albeit the papistes cannot or will not it see This whole processe is confirmed by the vniforme testimonies of the auncient fathers who all ascribe our iustification to sole faith S. Ambrose hath these wordes Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicena reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei They are iustified freely because they neither doing any worke nor making any compensation are iustified by sole faith through the grace of God The like sayinges hee hath in sundry other places S. Chrysostome hath these wordes Vnum hoc tantummodo donum Deo obtulimus quod futura nobis promittenti credimus atque hac solum via seruati sumus This one only gift do we present to God that we beleeue him when he promiseth vs future giftes and by this only way are we saued Againe in another place he writeth thus Aut fidem dicit decretum illam vocans Ex sola quippe fide nos saluauit Or hee meaneth faith calling it the decree For by only faith hath he saued vs. S. Hilarie hath these wordes Mouet scribas remissum ab homine peccatum hominem enim tantum in Iesu Christo contuebantur remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poterat Fides enim sola iustificat It vexeth the Scribes that man forgiueth sinnes for they onely considered Christ Iesus to be man and that he forgaue that which the law could not doe For sole faith doth iustifie S. Basill hath these words Nam ea demum perfecta omnimodae gloriatio est in Deo quando neque propter suam ipsius quis extollitur iustitiam sed agnoscit se quidem verae destitui iustitia verùm sola in Christum fide iustificatum esse For that is the perfite ioy al maner of comfort we haue in God when no man is puffed vp by reason of his owne righteousnesse but acknowledgeth himselfe to be destitute of true iustice in deed and seeketh to be iustified by sole faith in Christ. Origen writeth in this maner Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum He saith that the iustification of sole faith is sufficient so as a man may be iustified if he only beleeue although hee doe no workes at all And the same Origen prooueth in the same place by a long and learned discourse that wee are iustified by sole faith and not by workes S. Austen is plaine in this point who writeth in this maner Opus autem fidei ipsa dilectio est And charitie it selfe is the worke of faith What plainer testimonie can be had what papist can inuent any solution for the same who but mad men will not yeeld thereunto August in Epist. Ioann tract 10. in initio The 6. conclusion The good works of y e regenerate do neither merite grace in this life nor glory in the world to come This conclusion is against a graund and mightie article in popishe doctrine but I will prooue it by strong and irrefragable reasons S. Paul writeth to the Romaines in these wordes the afflictions of this present time are not worthy of the glory which shalbe shewed vnto vs. The workes of the regenerate saith S. Paul as ye see are not worthy of heauen They cannot therefore say I merite heauen because as the papists themselues doe graunt to merite heauen and to be worthy of heauen is all one the difference is onely in wordes not in sense The papists perceiuing the force of this argument vse this seely euasion although say they the actions of man be not worthie of heauen neither merite grace as they proceed from mans free-will yet are they worthie of heauen and meritorious as they proceede from the holy ghost But this is a friuolous childish and miserable shift onely inuented by the suggestion of Satan to seduce simple soules For first our workes are only ours as they proceed of and from our selues Secondly when the holy ghost and man worke both one and the same work that which the holy Ghost doth can no more be deemed mans act then that which man doth can be deemed Gods act yet so it is that y t which man doth cannot be deemed Gods Ergo neither that which God doth can be deemed mans The assumption wherein resteth the difficultie if there be any at all is manifest by mans sinfull actions For the most cruell act that can be imagined is not done without the concourse of the holy ghost as all learned papistes doe and must confesse Neuerthelesse mans sinfull actes are so farre from being Gods actes as the deformities and irregularities thereof be onely mans and neuer Gods and yet doth God concurre more effectually to those wicked acts in that he is the principall agent of the real and positiue entities thereof then man doth or can concurre to any act of Gods that is to any good act himselfe doth Note well for God is the creator of the diuell as he is an angel but not as hee is such an aungell and euen so is God the authour of mans acts as they be acts but not as such acts This place of the Apostle is handled more at large in my book of Motiues I my self saith the Apostle in my mind serue the law of god but in my flesh the law of sin Out of which words I note first that Saint Paul speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter because hee nameth himselfe who was Gods chosen and elect vessel For which respect and the like expressed in this seauenth chapter to the Romaines S. Austen changed his opinion and granted the apostle to speake here of the regenerate I note secondly that the elect regenerate do serue the law of sinne I note thirdly that the best liuers are so far from meriting grace of glorie that they deserue in rigour of iustice eternal death because death is the rewarde of sinne Which for that Saint Augustine coulde not well digest at the first he thoght that S. Pauls words in this chapter were to be vnderstoode of the
omnes sumere oportet For the oblation offered belongeth to the whole people because all are signified in one bread For in that we are all one we must al receiue of one bread Durand though he fauour the papistes all that hee may yet could he finde no place for priuate masse Thus doth he write In primitiuâ ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererāt singulis diebus communicare solebant eò quòd apostoli omnes de calice biberunt Dom dicente bibite ex hoc omnes In the primitiue church all that were present at the masse did euery day receiue the communion because all the apostles drank of the cup according to our Lordes commandement Out of whose words I note first that in the primitiue Church none could be permitted to be at masse but such as woulde receiue the communion I note secondly that Christes commandement tied all the people thereunto A plainer testimonie doubtlesse cannot be giuen Their angelical doctor Aquinas hath these expresse wordes Nam in primitiuâ ecclesiâ quando magna vigebat deuotio fidei Christianae statutum fuit vt quotidie fideles communicarent Vnde Anacletus papa dicit peractâ consecratione omnes cōmunicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic enim apostoli statuerunt sancta Rom. tenet ecclesia In the primitiue church when the faithfull were feruent in deuotion it was decreed that the people should receiue the communion daily Wherupon the pope Anacletus saith when the consecration is ended let all communicate that will not be driuen out of the church doores for so both the apostles ordained and the holy Romaine Church obserueth Out of these wordes I note first that all were driuen out of the church that would not receiue I note secondly that it was the ordinaunce of the Apostles so to doe I note thirdly that as the same Aquinas saith a little after want of charitie and aboundance of iniquitie made this holy ordinance to cease Whereby it appeareth euidently that christian zeale is decaied in the Romish church The 3. conclusion The popishe oblation of Christes naturall bodie in their masse by which they ascribe remission of sins to the quicke and the dead is blasphemous and iniurious to Christes holy passion I prooue it first because the apostle saith that we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Iesus Christ once For if it be true that S. Paule saith that it is but once offered it must needes bee false that the papistes say that it is offered in their masses ten thousand times in one houre I proue it secondly because the apostle saith that Christ hath with one oblatiō made perfect for euer them that are sanctified For doubtlesse where one oblation doth make vs perfite and consummate there need neither mo oblations nor often iteration of the same Therefore the popish oblation of Christ to his father in their masse is blasphemous against Christ as which maketh his oblation vpon the crosse vnperfect and insuffcicient for our sinnes I prooue it thirdly because the apostle prooueth Christes priesthood to excell the priesthood of the old lawe for that Christ did take away sinnes by one onely oblation which the priestes of the law could not doe with many But doubtles this reason of S. Paul is friuolous and to no purpose if Christ must stil be offered in the masse to put away sinne I prooue it fourthly because the apostle saith that as it is appointed to men that they shall once die and after that commeth the iudgement euen so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many and vnto them that looke for him shall he appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation Loe Christ is no more offered before his second aduent then men die before the iudgment and yet euery child knoweth that men die but once by ordinary course I prooue it fiftly because S. Paul saith that if he should often offer himselfe as the high priest entred into the holy place euery yeare then must hee haue often suffered since the foundation of the world as if he had said hee can but suffer once and therefore he is but once onely offred Note this reason well for doubtlesse it doth conuince I proue it sixtly because there is nowe no other thing in the holy Eucharist then that which Christ gaue to his apostles at his last supper Marke well my words gentle Reader and thou shalt with facilitie espie the blasphemous trecherie of the papists For if that which Christ gaue to his apostles in his supper were his natural body sacrificed for the sinnes of mankind then was mans redemption twise accomplished then was Christ sacrificed before he died then was mans redemption really done before it really began then was hee dead before his passion then was his body in one place and his bloud in another then was hee both liuing and dead at once then was his death in vaine for al these absurdities do follow perforce vpon the forged propitiatorie sacrifice in the popish masse I proue it seauenthly because Christ himself said of his holy and bitter passion that it was the consummation of euery thing needefull for mans saluation But doubtlesse where one oblation once made maketh mans saluation perfit and consummate there not only moe oblations but also the iteration of the same oblation is meere frustrate and needelesse I prooue it eightly because the Apostle saieth flattely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is not henceforth any oblatiō for sin For if Saint Paul say truely that there is no oblation for sinne after Christs death on the crosse then doubtlesse the papists must needs say falsely that they haue a daily propitiatorie sacrifice in their masse I proue it ninthly because if the sacrifice of the masse were the self same sacrifice of the crosse but vnbloudy as the papists dreame then shoulde their masse sacrifice be of infinite valure which yet no papist dareth auouch This reason doth confound the papists therfore I wil proue effectually euerie part therof First that it is the same sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse all papists grant being enforced with S. Paules words when he saith With one oblation he made perfit for euer those that are sanctified Secondly that it is not of infinite valure our Iesuite graunteth in these wordes Valor sacrificii missae finitus est The valure of the sacrifice of the masse is finite Now I prooue the consequution of my proposition which is the third thing remaining wherein resteth all the difficultie if there be any at all First therefore the sacrifice supposed to be in the masse is the naturall body and bloud of the son of God For otherwise it could not be the same that was offered vpon the crosse Againe he that is supposed to offer the sacrifice daily in the masse is Christ himselfe the sonne of God Who as the papistes teach blasphemously held
his vertue as he is spiritually present How can he tel vs more plainely that Christs body is spiritually in the Eucharist but not corporally It is not possible for any man to yeelde a more sensible declaration which if the gentle reader wil obserue attentiuely it will minister to him a great light for the perfect vnderstanding of the whole mysterie My second proofe is grounded in the figures of the old testament for first circumcision was called Gods couenant and yet was it not the couenant indeede but a signe and signification thereof For it is common to all sacraments to haue the name of the thing that they signifie That it was called the couenant it is cleere in these wordes This is my couenant which yee shall keepe betweene me and you and thy seede after thee Let euerie man child among you bee circumcised And neuerthelesse that it was not the couenant but the signe of the couenant it is euident by these words Ye shal circumcise the foreskinne of your flesh and it shal be a signe of the couenant betweene mee and you The couenant indeede was this To be Abrahams God and the God of his seede after him so saith the text Secondly the Lambe was called the Lords passeouer and yet was it not the passeouer indeede but the signe and representation thereof That it was called the passeouer it is cleare by these words of Moses For it is the Lords passeouer And also by these words of the Euangelist Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the passeouer that is the Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe in these wordes I wil keep y e passeouer at thine house Again in these words And they made readie the passeouer In all which places the scripture speaketh onely of the signe that is of the lambe and giueth it the name of the thing that is of the passing ouer Now that it was not the passeouer indeede but the signe or figure thereof it is euident by these words of holy Writ And the bloud shal bee a token for you vpon the houses where yee are so when I see the blood I will passe ouer you and the plague shal not be vppon you to destruction when I smite the land of Egypt Lo the lambe was but a token and signe of y e angels passing ouer them And this lambe was a figure of our passeouer Iesus Christ as he was really sacrificed vpon the crosse so saith the holy apostle For Christ our passeouer is sacrificed for vs. This S. Iohn confirmed when hee willed the Pharisees to behold the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world And in the Reuelation this lambe is saide to be slaine from the beginning of the world Since therefore the scripture telleth vs so plainly that the paschall Lamb was the type and figure of the true Messias who was sacrificed to his father for the sins of the world it shall not bee vnprofitable to the Reader to consider the allegorie of the rites which God appointed to be obserued therein The Type Exod. 12 Â The thing signified 1 The lambe was a memoriall of the deliuerance out of Egypt That is to say 1 Christ deliuered vs from hell sin death and satan Gal. 3.13 2 The lambe was a sacrifice distinguishing the Israelites from other nations 2 Christ is the eternall sacrifice who being eaten spiritually by faith distinguâ—sheth gods faith full people from infidels Ioh. 6.56 3 The lambe was a true lambe of the flocke 3 Christ was a true man borne of the blessed virgin Ioh. 1.14 4 The lambe was truely slaine 4 Christ was truely crucified 1. Corinth 5.7 Iohn 19.30 5 The lambe was not boyled in water but rosted drie 5 Christs body was inclosed in a new tombe that had no water in it Matth. 27.60 6 The lambe was killed at euen 6 Christ was killed in the ende of the world Hebr. 1.2 7 The Angell beholding the doores sprinckled with the lambes bloud passed ouer the Israelites 7 God beholding our soules sprinckeled with the bloud of Christ doeth not impute our sinnes to vs Rom. 3.34 8 The lambs bloud saued the Israelites from common death 8 The bloud of Christ deliuered vs from eternal death He. 2.9 9 All the Israelites did eate of the lambe 9 All the faithfull shall eate of Christ spiritually Iohn 6. 10 Euery part of the lambe was eaten 10 Euery mysterie of Christes incarnation must be beleeued 2. Timoth. 3. 11 The lambe was eaten without leauen 11 Christ is eaten by faith with out hypocrisie 1. Corint 5.8 12 The lambe was eaten wyth sowre hearbes 12 We must eate Christ in bearing his crosse Matth. 10.38 13 The lambe was appointed to be eaten with speede 13 Wee must embrace Christes Gospell with all expedition Matth. 6.33 14 The lambe was eaten of the circumcised onely 14 Christ is onely eaten by faith of the regenerat 1. Cor. 11.29 15 The lambe was without blemish 15 Christ was free from sinne 1. Pet. 2.22 THis passeouer of the olde law with other sacrifices and figures which were but shadows of y e Messias to come are al wholy abolished by Christs sacred aduent For Christ now readie to die and to offer vp himselfe as the true passeouer and veritie of all figures made an end of the olde passeouer with a solemne banket and instituting the Eucharist in stead therof commanded the faithfull to obserue the same for a memorie of his death and passion vntil his second aduent which shall be in maiestie and glorie My third proofe is grounded in the phrases of the new testament For Christ himselfe saide that he would not henceforth drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill he rose againe S. Paul in like manner calleth it bread verie often euen after the consecration But if it had beene Christs natural bloud and his naturall body neither would he haue called it the fruit of the vine nor Saint Paul haue tearmed it bread Which Saint Paule maketh plaine in another place where hee hath these words The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ for we that are many are one bread and one body because we all are partakers of one bread Out of which words I note first that Saint Paule tearmeth it bread after the consecration or Christs blessing or after the wordes of Christes institution which is all one in a right and godly sense I note secondly that he calleth it not Christs body but the participation of his body I note thirdly that the bread he speaketh of is broken I note fourthly that wee are all one bread and one body which annotations beeing ioyned together I inferre first that the bread is Christs body spiritually and by faith but not corporally as the papists say For Christs naturall body cannot be broken as their own learned Canus granteth and as verie
pronuntia non linguâ sed conscientiae tuae memoria tunc demum spera te misericordiam posse consequi I doe not bid thee come forth in publicke neither to accuse thy selfe before others but I would haue thee to obey the prophet when he saith reueale thy way to God Before God therfore confesse thy sinnes before the true Iudge in prayer pronounce thine offences not with thy tongue but with the memory of thy conscience and then hope to haue mercie Againe in another place he hath these wordes Vos oro fratres charissimi crebrius deo immortali confiteamini enumeratis vestris delictis veniam petatis numen propitiū Non te in theatrum conseruorum tuorum duco non hominibus peccata tua detegere cogo repete coram deo conscientiam tuam explica ostende Deo medico praestantissimo tua vulnera pete ab eo medicamentum ostēde ei qui nihil opprobret sed humanissimè curet Cur taces quae optimè ille nouit dicatque enumera vt fructum maximum consequaris I desire you my deere brethren to confesse your sinnes often to God almightie when you haue reckoned vp your sinnes then to craue his pardon and mercie I doe not leade thee into the theatre of thy fellow seruauntes I doe not compell thee to disclose thy sinnes to men Repeate before God thy conscience and vnfolde it shewe to God thy woundes and aske him a medicine for the same shew them to him y t neuer vpbraideth but cureth with all humanitie Why doest thou conceale those things which he knoweth right well tell and number them that thou maiest reape the great fruite thereof Againe in another place he writeth in this maner Confunderis erubescis peccata tua effari atqui oportebat maximè apud homines eadicere inuulgare Confusio enim est peccare nō est confusio confiteri peccata Nunc autem neque necessarium praesentibus testibus confiteri cogitatione fiat delictorum exquisitio absque teste sit hoc iudicium Solus te Deus confitentē videat Thou art confounded ashamed to vtter thy sins but somtime it behooued to tell and publish them especially before men For it is confusion to sin but it is no confusion to confesse our sins And this day it is not necessarie to haue witnesses present whē we confesse our sins Let vs examine our sins in thought and cogitation let this iudgment be without any witnesse let God only see thee when thou confessest Thus saith S. Chrysostome whom I haue alledged at large the rather to confute the Iesuite Bellarmine Whom whether I haue confuted or no let the indifferent reader giue his censure when he hath heard my discourse to the end Our Iesuite wil needs saue the life of his popishe auricular confession though himselfe spend the best bloud in his body in defense of the cause In regard hereof hee imagineth that in the time of Nectarius not onely publique confession but also priuate Romishe enumeration was in vse This graue Iesuiticall consideration premised hee telleth vs sagely if we will beleeue him that S. Nectarius abandoned onely publicke confession permitting Romishe auricular confession still to remaine in force This is the whole scope of the Iesuite it cānot be denied And because S. Chrysostome was the next bishop in Constantinople after this holy Nectarius cōsequently must needs best know his practise the Iesuite perforce wil haue S. Chrysostome only to speake against publick cōfession not at al to disproue their priuate Romish mumbling I therefore note first out of S. Chrysostomes wordes that he doth not indeed speake expressely of Romish priuate confessiō as which was not hatched in his time though virtually he do in manifest termes condemne the same I note secondly that he earnestly in euery place exhorteth to confesse our sinnes to God and withal laboureth to perswade vs that that is enough to attaine remission at Gods handes I note thirdly that albeit he speake an hundreth times of cōfession to God yet doth he not once wil vs to confesse our selues to man I note fourthly that S. Chrysostome vtterly disswadeth from confessing our sins to men For first hee willeth vs not to confesse to our fellow seruants Secondly not to confesse with our tongue Thirdly not to haue any witnesse of our confession Fourthly to confesse only within our selues and in our own secret cogitations Fiftly to confesse in such maner as only God heareth vs. By all which waies and reasons he opposeth that confession which is made to God against that auricular confession which our Iesuite would haue to be made to man I note fiftly that he saith we are freed from confessing our sinnes to men which somtime we were bound to do Where no doubt he vnderstandeth that time in which Nectarius had not abandoned the law of confession And consequently that if we were still bound to popish auricular confession he would haue made some mention thereof and not haue said generally and without al exception y t we are made free frō confessing to man For no man doubtlesse is free from confession that still remaineth bound vnto the same I note sixtly that if Nectarius had abandoned but one kinde of confession and not another S. Chrysostome being so wise and so learned and speaking so often and so much of the one would haue spoken at the least some one word of the other which yet he edid not because there was no such thing in his time I prooue it thirdly because Nectarius did not only displace and put out of office the penitentiarie-priest but withall left it to the free iudgement of euery one to come to the holy communion without confession as euerie mans conscience mooued him Which could no way be true if the penitentes had bin stil bound to popish auricular confession For as I said before the late Romish confession at that time was not heard of in the world This determination of Nectarius is witnessed not only by Socrates Sozomenus but also by Cassiodorus and Nicephorus I wil only alledge Nicephorus for al whose words are these Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis vt cuique permitteretur pro conscientiâ fiduciâ suâ communicare de immaculatis mysterijs participare Nectarius determined by their aduise he meaneth Eudaemon of Alexandria and his complices as writeth Socrates that euery one might communicate be partaker of the holy mysteries as his own conscience and faith directed him Ergo neither publicke nor yet priuate confession was required at that time I prooue it fourthly because both Sozomenus and Cassiodorus after him doe say that sinnes did more abound by reason that confession was taken away For the confession of al sinnes must needs bridle sin more then the confessiō of a few sins specially of such sins as were known before These are Sozomenus his own words Siquidem anteà vt ego
time in which the Nouatians seuered thēselues from the church and refused to communicate with them that were fallen during the persecution of the Emperour Decius the bishops of the churches added to the canō that in euery church a priest shoud be ouer the penitents to the end that whosoeuer were fallen after baptisme might confes their sins before the priest designed for that purpose Thus writeth Socrates by whose words it is cleare that to confesse our sins committed after baptisme was the appendice to the canons yet cannot the Iesuite Bellarmine denie that Nectarius abolished that appendice or addition and consequently wil he nill he he must likewise grant that Nectarius disanulled the law for confessing sins after baptisme These are the expresse words of our Iesuite Non sustulit Nectarius nisi appendicem ad veteres canones quae accesserat initio haeresis Nouatianae Nectarius tooke away nothing saue onely that appendice which was added to the olde canons which was made in the beginning of the Nouatian heresie And thus me thinke the stornie of Nectarius though somewhat intricate is discussed sufficiently CHAP. XIII Of the authoritie of summoning councels OF the force validitie of late popish councils I haue spoken sufficiently in my booke of Motiues Now where the papists chalenge to their Pope a great prerogatiue aboue the Emperour because as they say he euer commanded generall councels to be holden euery where this doctrine in this place I purpose briefly to disproue The first conclusion The first general councel of Nice in which Arrius denying the consubstantialitie of the son of God was condemned was not celebrated by the Popes appointment who in those daies was reputed but as other bishops but by the flat and expresse commandement of the Emperor Constantinus surnamed the Great in the yere 327. This I do not barely say but I will prooue the same after my wonted manner by the expresse testimonies of approued Historiographers Al the fathers assembled in the sacred councel of Nice wrote to the church of Alexandria and to the inhabitants of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis in this expresse maner Quoniam dei gratia mandato sanctissimi Imperatoris Constantini qui nos ex varijs ciuitatibus prouincijs in vnum congregauit magnum sanctum concilium Nicaenum coactum est necessariū videtur c. Because through the grace of God and by the commandement of the most holy Emperor Constantine who hath gathered vs together out of diuerse cities and prouinces the great and holy councel of Nice is assembled it seemeth necessary that the whole councell send letters to you by which ye may vnderstād aswel those things that were called into questiō as the things that are decided decreed in the same Thus writeth Socrates Out of these words I note first that this testimonie is of greatest credit without al exception as which was not published by one or two but by more then three hundred bishops as writeth Nicephorus who were the most vertuous learned priests in the christian worlde I note secondly these holy fathers of this famous councel doe not once name the Pope in their letters so far were they in these daies frō ascribing the chiefe prerogatiue in councels to the B. of Rome I note thirdly that al the councel confesseth in their ioynt letters as we see that the councel was called by the emperor and that they all were assembled together by his commandement Where I wish the reader to obserue diligently the word Cōmandement for if the emperor did not cal coūcels together by his own authority but by the popes as the papists prate then could not this holy councel truely say as al the fathers thereof constantly do say to wit that they came thither by the Emperours commandement I note fourthly that none in the world can better tell how the councell was called then the fathers of the councel who were the persons called and yet do they ioyne the emperors commandement with the grace of God and exclude the Pope altogether Theodoret hath these words Verum vbi spes eum fefellerat celebre illud Nicaenum concilium cogit publicos asinos mulas mulos quinetiam equos episcopis comitibus suis ad iter faciendum vtendos dat Sozom. hath these words Verū vbi contra quà m expectabat res succederet contentio reconciliationem concordiae c. But after the matter succeeded otherwise then he expected reconciliation was hindered with contention and Hosius also sent to make peace returned leauing y e thing vndone y e emperor appointeth a councel at Nice a city in Bythinia writeth to the presidents of al churches to be presēt at a day appointed Niceph. hath these words Infectis reb ad imperatorē rediit qui ad pacem componendam missus fuerat Hosius Itaque imperator c. Hosius that was sent to make peace returned to the Emperour not hauing accomplished the matter Therfore the Emperour perceiuing the mischife to grow to a head doth proclame the famous councel of Nice in Bythinia and by his letters calleth al bishops thither at the day appointed Thus wee see euidently by the vniforme testimonie of foure graue Historiographers whereof three liued more then a 1100. yeares ago that the bishop of Rome had no more to do in general councels then other bishops had First they tel vs that the Emperour sent Hosius the bishop of Corduba to bring the contentious to vnitie Secondly when that would not take place that hee proclaimed a councell to bee holden at Nice in Bythinia Thirdly that he cōmanded al bishops to come thither at a certain day apointed But of the B. of Rome neuer a word at al. The second Conclusion The second generall councell of Constantinople holden against Macedonius and his complices for denying the diuinity of the holy ghost was called by the commandement of the emperour Theodosius the first about the yeare of our Lord 389. Socrates hath these words Imperator nulla mora interposita concilium episcoporum ipsius fidem amplectentium conuocat quo tum fides concilii Nicaeni corroboraretur c The emperor Theodosius with al expedition calleth a councel of bishops embracing the right faith that aswel the faith of the Nicene councell might be confirmed as that a bishop might be appointed at Constantinople because he was in hope to make the Macedonians to agree with the bishops that held the right faith he sent forthe bishops that were of the Macedonian sect Sozomenus hath these words Breui deinde concilium episcoporum sibi consententium cōuocauit partim vt Nicaeni concilii decreta confirmarentur patrim vt ordinaretur aliquis qui Constantinopolitanae sedis episcopatum administraret Then shortly after Theodosius called a councel of Bishoppes that agreed with him partly that the decrees of the Nicene councell might be confirmed partly that one might be appointed B. at
traditions Out of these words I note first that the vaine curious distinctioÌ„s of the schoole doctors haue brought much mischeif into the church of god which if a papist had not spoken it wold seeme incredible to the world I note secondly that it is impossible for a papist to make his confession according to the popish law consequently that al papists by popish doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke wel my words gentle reader The papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleef that we are bound to make our confessions as the popish lawe prescribeth that is as Aquinas and Scotus haue set towne the same And for al that Geâ—lerius a papist himselfe and a great diuine complained often to his friendes that no man coulde possiblie performe the same Nowe then since on the one side the popish confession must bee made vnder paine of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as is required it followeth of necessitie by popish doctrine that all papists must be damned eternally O miserable poperie confounded by thy selfe Thine owne doctors O popery such force hath the truth haue bewrayed thy trecherie to the world It is to vs his great mercy for the merits of Christ Iesus and to you papists his iust iudgement for the punishment of your sinnes If you wil in time repent and embrace his holy gospel his mercie is open towards you if you will still continue in your wilful obstinacie God doubtlesse wil reuenge the bloud of his innocents at your hands For with your beggerly vnwritten traditions you deuour the soules of many thousands I note thirdly that many liuing among the papists doe externally obey the popish law who in their hearts detest a great part of their late hatched Romish religion This is euident by the secret complaint of this learned man Geilerius who tolde that to his trustie friends which hee durst not disclose to others I say thirdly that in S Cyprians time some were so zealous and so esteemed the sacred ministerie that although they did not denie the faith publikely in time of persecution yet bicause they had some doubts therein were troubled in their minds they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods ministers humbly desired their godly aduise and submitted themselues to do what they thought expedient by reason whereof they sometime had publike penance inioyned them and confessed that in the face of the congregation which they before disclosed secretly to the ministers which thing was appointed for edification sake by the ministers and of deuotion voluntarily performed by the penitents This my answere is fully contained as well in the words of Origen as of Saint Cyprian Saint Cyprian hath these words Quanto fide maiores timore meliores sunt qui quamuis nullo sacrificij aut libelli facinore constricti quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitauerunt hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes dei dolenter simpliciter confitentes exomologesin conscientiae faciunt animi sui pondus exponunt salutarem medelam paruis licet modicis vulneribus exquirunt How much sounder in faith and better in holy feare are they who neither hauing offended by sacrificing to the Idols nor by exhibiting libels to the magistrates yet because they sometime thought of these matters do simply penitently confesse the same to Gods ministers doe lay open their conscience and do disclose the griefe of their minds and seeke for wholesome medicine though their wounds be small and easie to be cured Out of these words I note first that all generally made not their confessions of secret faults but onely certaine zealous deuout persons I note secondly that as al people did not confes their secret faults so neither did these deuout penitents confes al their secret faults but only their secret cogitations concerning y e denial of their faith in persecution I note thirdly that these deuout persoÌ„s perceuing theÌ„ that did the facts openly to be inioyned to confesse the same in the face of the congregation withal doubting what themselues were bound to doe for their secret thoughts of the same matters came voluntarily to Gods ministers confessed the griefe of their mind vnto them and desired their godly counsell All which may be gathered out of S. Cyprians words and more plainely out of Origens words following Origen hath these expresse words Tantumodo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum Proba prius medicum cui debeas causam languoris exponere qui sciat infirmari cum infirmante flerecum flente qui condolendi compatiendi nouerit disciplinaÌ„ vt ita demum si quid ille dixerit qui se prius eruditum medicum ostenderit misericordem si quid consilii dederit facias sequaris si intellexerit praeuiderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conuentu totius ecclesiae exponi debeat curari ex quo fortassis caeteri aedificari poterunt tu ipse facilè sanari multa hoc deliberatione satis perito medici illius consilio procur andum est Onely looke about thee diligently to whom thou maist confes thy sinne Trie first the Phisition to whom thou must disclose the cause of thy disease such a one as knoweth to be infirme with him that is imfirme to weepe with him that weepeth and hath learned to sorrow and take compassion that so at the length if hee shall say any thing who before hath shewed himselfe to be a skilfull merciful Phisition if he shall giue thee any counsell thou maiest do and folow the same If he shall perceiue and foresee thy disease to be such that it must be disclosed in the assemblie of the whole congregation so be cured wherby perhaps both others may be edified thy selfe made whole then this must be done with great deliberation by the skilful counsel of the said phisition Out of these words I note first that the penitents made election both of that they did confesse and of the priest also to whom they did confesse Where this day by the law of poperie wee must confesse euery sin by compulsion and also to our parish-priest only I note secondly that we must confesse to none but to such as we first know to be discreet and learned so by your fauour we must this day confesse to few parish priests in Europe For they are commonly sir Iohns lacke-latine as wise as none of theÌ„ al. I note thirdly that when such things as were voluntarily confessed to the priest seemed to be such as might edifie the people then the priests exhorted to confesse the same againe before the whole congregation Which point conuinceth plainely that such their confessions were voluntarie and not by constraint of law I prooue it because the priest may not for the safegard of his life nor for to saue the whole world reueale any one sinne of auricular
confession or once vrge the penitent to do the same For so much the selfe same popish lawe teacheth no learned papist can denie The replie That confession which Nectarius did abrogate at Constantinople was priuate and not publike as Rhenanus thinketh For Sozomenus Cassiodorus and Nicephorus doe all three affirme iointly that that priest was designed ouer the penitents in euerie church who was knowen to bee a discreete person and a keeper of secrecie But doubtles in vaine was a keeper of secrecy chosen where euery thing was to be published The answere The true intelligence of this storie will bring great light to the whole matter of confession For which respect I will proceede so methodically in answering this obiection as possibly I can I therfore say first that Nectarius the B. of Constantinople vtterly abolished the law made for confession that to auoide the great vices which ensued thereupon Which being so it must folow of necessity that confessioÌ„ was not commanded by the law of God For otherwise it shuld be in mans power which no wise man will grant to disanull the law of God Againe neither the holy B. Nectarius would euer haue attempted so to abolish gods ordinance neither would so many famous bishops haue imitated his fact And yet is it certaine that all the bishops of the east church did follow his opinion yea euen S. Chrysostome who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople that goodly patriarchall seat of the world So saith Nicephorus Now for the proofe of the principal point to wit that Nectarius abandoned confession simply and wholy which is the point that the papists do and must denie or els forsake their popery I proue the same first by Thomas Waldensis a papist highly renowmed among them who affirmeth the story so absolutely as our Iesuite Bellarmine caÌ„not deny the same his reasons to the contrarie are ridiculous and childish For first he saith that pope Nicholas calleth Nectarius y e mighty aduersarie of heretikes and the defender of the church Secondly he saith that saint Chrysostome and many other bishops approued Nectarius his opinion Ergo saith our Iesuite he could neuer take away auricular confession S. Chrysostome and all the bishops of the East practised the same that Nectarius appointed and Thomas Waldensis a zealous papist vnderstandeth it of confession generally and yet Nectarius because he was a godly man could not abolish popish confession saith our Iesuite But I weene I may better conclude that because Nectarius was an holy man and sawe great knauerie vsed by reason of confession to wit whoredom between the deacon and the confessionist therefore hee iustly abolished that lawe which was only made by the power of man For our Iesuite taketh that as graunted that is in controuersie which is a great fault in the Schooles called Petitio principij For I am so far from granting his auricular confession to be of God that I haue copiously disproued the same already I prooue it secondly by the manifold testimonie of S. Chrysostome who was the next successor to this holy Nectarius In one place he hath these words Peccata tua dicito vt deleas illa Si confunderis alicui dicere quia peccasti dicito quotidie in anima tua Non dico vt confitearis conseruo tuo vt exprobret Dicito Deo qui curat ea Tell thy sins that thou maiest blot them out If thou be ashamed to confesse them to any man because thou hast sinned confesse theÌ„ dayly in thy mind I say not this to cause thee to confesse them to thy fellow seruaunt that hee may vpbraid thee Confesse them to God that cureth them Againe in another place he saith thus Condemnasti peccatuÌ„ tuum deposuisti sarcinam Quis haec dicit ipse iudex tuus Dic tu peccata tua prior vt iustificeris cur igitur te quaeso pudescis erubescis dicere peccata tua caue enim homini dixeris ne tibi opprobret Neque enim conseruo confiteris vt in publicum proferat sed ei qui Dominus est ei qui tui curam gerit ei qui humanus est ei qui medicus est ostendis vulnera Neque enim ignorat etiamsi tu non dixeris qui sciebat etiam antequaÌ„ perpetrares Quidigitur causae est quo mâ—nus dicas non enim ex accusatione fit grauius peccatum imò mitius magis ac leuius ob hoc ipsuÌ„ Deus vult te dicere non vt puniaris sed vt relaxeris non vt ipse sciat peccatum cur enim id postulet quum iam sciat sed vt tuscias quantum tibi debitum remittatur Ideo verò vult te scire beneficii magnitudinem vt perpetuò gratias agas vt segnior fias ad peccandum vt ad virtutem promptior Nisi dixeris debiti magnitudinem non agnosces donationis eminentiam Non inquit cogote in medium prodire theatrum ac multos adhibere testes Mihi soli dic peccatum priuatim vt sanem vlcus teque dolore liberabo Hast thou condemned thy sin then hast thou discharged thy selfe of thy load Who saith so euen thine owne iudge Tel thou thy sins first that thou maiest be iustified Why therefore I pray thee art thou bashfull and ashamed to tell thy sins beware to tel them to man least he vpbraid thee For thou doest not confesse them to thy fellow seruant that hee may tell them abroad but to him that is thy Lord to him that hath care of thee to him that is gentle to him that is the phisicion doest thou shew thy woundes For neither is he ignorant of them although thou tell them not who knew them before thou diddest them What then is the cause that thou maiest not tel them For the sin is not made greater for coÌ„fessing it but rather more light and easie And for this cause will God haue thee to tell it not for to punish thee but for to acquite thee not that he may know thy sin for why should he require it since he knoweth it already but that thou maiest know how much debt is forgiuen thee therefore will he haue thee to know the greatnesse of the benefite that thou maiest alway giue thankes and be more slow to sinne and more propense to vertue Vnlesse thou tell the greatnesse of the debt thou shalt not know the excellencie of the gift I doe not saith he compell thee to come forth into the middest of the theatre and to bring many witnesses Tell thy sinne to mee alone priuately that I may heale thy disease and I will deliuer thee from thy griefe Againe in another place hee writeth thus Non tibi dico vt te prodas in publicum neque apud alios te accuses sed obedire te volo prophetae dicenti reuela Domino viam tuam Ante Deum ergo tua confitere peccata apud verum iudicem cum oratione delicta tua