negligence or of ignorance corrupt the innocencie of the law of Nature which we all receiue in the Protoplast Adam S. Ambrose in another place iumpeth with Bede in these words Non discreuit concupiscentiam hanc à peccato sed miscuit hoc significans quia cum nec suspicio quidem esset istud non licerè apud deum cognoui inquit esse peccatum Sub sua persona quasi generalem agit causam Lexitaque concupiscentiam prohibet quae propterea quod oblectamento est non putabatur esse peccatum He hath not discerned this concupiscence from sinne but hath coupled it with sinne signifying thereby that when there was not so much as any suspition that this thing was not lawfull before God I knew saith he that it is sinne Vnder his own person he pleadeth as it were the generall cause The law therefore forbiddeth concupiscence which because it delighteth seemeth not to be sinne Thus writeth S. Ambrose whose words cannot possibly be vnderstood of any other concupiscence than of that which is inuoluntarie and originall Thirdly that their owne vulgar Latine text which the late councell of Trent preferreth before both the Hebrew and the Greeke and commandeth all papists to vse it as authenticall and none other hath the word iniquitas in both places and doth call as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ininiquitie these are the expresse words omnis iniquitas peccatum est All iniquitie is sinne Loe their owne translation to which all papists are tied as a Beare to a stake doth flatlie confound them all and saith plainelie and expressely That euerie iniquitie is a sinne And yet the papists of Rhemes bluntishly and impudently defend the contrarie crying out with open mouthes That some iniquitie is not sinne The truth is this that they are driuen to a non plus and cannot tell in the world what to say against this doctrine of concupiscence in the regenerate For both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is truly and fitly tearmed iniquitas or iniquitie VVhich but that I studie to be briefe I could shew by a thousand testimonies out of S. Austen S. Ambrose and S. Bede Answere therefore ô papist if ye can or if ye dare not because ye cannot then reclaime your selues and yeeld vnto the truth for shame I challenge you and adiure you if your hearts faile you not and if your owne consciences condemne you not to send me an answere to this short challenge which I haue compiled very briefely so once to prouoke you to the open combat which I haue now many years expected at your hands and could neuer yet find so much courage in any of you all VVherefore to seale vp the veritie of this article as an vndoubted truth I will here adde for the complement as amost delicat post-past to satisfie the longing appetites of the Iesuit Parsons the arch priest Blackwell and all the traiterous crew of that Iesuited brotherhood the flat testimonie of their saint Thomas Aquinas whose doctrine they are bound to defend beleeue and approue and may not in any case refuse or denie the same these are his expresse words Dicendū quod illud quod homo facit sine deliberatione rationisnon perfectè ipse facit quia nihil operatur ibi id quod est principale in homine vnde non est perfectè actus humanus per consequens non potest esse perfectè actus virtutis vel peccati sed aliquid imperfectum ingenere horum Vnde talis motus sensualitatis rationem perueniens est peccatum veniale quod est quiddam imperfectum in genere peccati VVe must answere that that which man doth without the deliberation of reason he doth it not perfectly because that which is the chiefest 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 vnperfect thing in this kind VVhereupon it commeth that such a motion of sensualitie preuenting reason is a veniall sinne which is a certaine imperfect thing in the nature of sinne Thus writeth Aquinas out of whose words I note these important obseruations First that this Aquinas is a popish canonized saint Secondly that for his great learning he was surnamed Doctor Angelicus The Angelicall Doctor Thirdly that Pope Vrbanus the fourth and Pope Innocentius the fift did so admire and reuerence the excellent learning of this famous schoole-doctor who was a learned clarke indeed that they confirmed his doctrine for authenticall and gaue it the first place after the canonicall Scripture Fourthly that this great doctor so highly renowned in the Romish church that no papist may denie or gainesay that which he hath written graunteeth freely teacheth plainely and auoucheth constantly that the inordinate motion of sensualitie which goeth before reason is properly a sinne though but a veniall sinne as he tearmeth it For it is one thing to be a sinne perfectly another thing to be a sinne properly A veniall and little sinne is as well and as truly a sinne as a mortall and great sinne as the papists tearme them For he is as truly and properly a theefe that stealeth a lambe or a goose as he that stealeth an oxe or a horse though not a theefe in so high degree For mortall and veniall sinnes as the papists tearm them doe onely differ Secundum magis minus according to more and lesse But in truth euery sinne is mortall as I haue alreadie proued in my booke of Motiues Answer ô papists if ye can if not repent for shame The fift Article Of the condigne so supposed merite of workes THe papists either of ignorance or of malice doe most vnchristianlie slander the professors of Christs Gospell as though they were enemies to good workes when in deed they both thinke preach and write more Christianly more religiously and more sincerely than the papists doe of and concerning godlie actions and good workes In regard hereof before I come to the maine point of that which I purpose to oppugne in this article I graunt first of all that though good workes neither doe nor can goe before iustification yet they euer follow as the fruits follow the tree the persons that are freely iustified by Gods mercie in Christ Iesus for his merits and condigne deserts I graunt secondly that though good workes goe not before iustification yet doe they so necessarilie goe before saluation that no man without them can attaine eternall life when possibilitie is graunted to doe them I graunt thirdly that good workes are the true effects of predestination by which the children of God make their saluation sure vnto themselues and manifest vnto the world Yet this notwithstanding I hold constantlie beleeue stedfastly and affirme Christianlie that albeit good workes are the effects of predestination and necessarie fruits of faith and iustification yet neither are they the cause of predestination nor of iustification neither
may not onely truly but also iustly require reward at Gods hands in regard of his promise freely made vnto vs. But I euer denie withall that any reward is due to our best workes for any condigne merit or desert of or in our workes Gods free acceptation mercie and promise set apart For as Saint Austen grauely saith Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the best liuer vpon earth if thou examine his life thy mercy set apart Answere ô papists if ye can and if ye cannot then repent and yeeld vnto the truth for shame I challenge you I prouoke you to the combat I adiure you all ioyntlie and euery one of you seuerally for the credite of your cause for the honour of your Pope and the life of popish doctrine which now lieth bleeding and wil shortly yeeld vp the Ghost if some soueraigne remedie bee not speedily prouided for the same The sixt Article Of the Popish distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes ALthough it be true that all sinnes are not equall but one greater than another and although it be also true that in a good and godly sence some sinne may be tearmed mortall and some veniall which yet may more fitly be called sinnes regnant and not regnant neuerthelesse most true it is to the euerlasting confusion of all impenitent papists that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and onely veniall by way of Gods free acceptation and mercie for his owne name sake and merits of his deare sonne our Lord Iesus I prooue it first both briefely and euidently For Christ himselfe telleth vs in his holy Gospell that we must giue a straight account of euery idle word in the generall day of iudgement And for no other end doubtlesse must this account be made but onely because euery idle word is flatly against the law of God This the papists can neuer denie it is euident to euery child And yet must they likewise confesse that idle words be those sinnes which they call venials And consequently they must confesse against their wils and against their professed Romish doctrine that all sinnes are mortall that is to say against the law of God This doctrine of our Sauiour Christ Iesus is confirmed by the testimonie of S. Iohn his beloued Apostle where he telleth vs that euery sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the transgression of Gods law as is alreadie prooued at large in the fourth article of concupiscence And the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a declining from the right way doth plainely confirme the same Secondly because our popish Rhemists confesse in plaine tearms that euery sinne is a swaruing from the law of God For doubtlesse that which swarueth from the law is truly said to be against the law but not agreeable to the law Thirdly because the famous popish Frier and Romish bishop Iosephus Angles teacheth the same doctrine in his booke dedicated to the Pope himselfe These are his own expresse words Omne peccatum veniale est alicuius legis transgressio Patet quia omne veniale est contra rectam rationem agere contra rectam rationeÌ„ est agere contra legem naturalem precipientem non esse à regula rectae rationis deuiandum Euery sinne veniall is the transgression of some law This is cleere because euery veniall sinne is against right reason and to doe against right reason is to doe against the law of nature which commaundeth vs not to depart or swarue from the rule of right reason Loe euery veniall sinne is against right reason and against the law of nature which is giuen to euery one in his creation in his birth or natiuitie Fourthly because Durandus another famous papist confuteth the late receiued popish opinion of Thomas Aquinas which the Pope and his Iesuits hold to wit that veniall sinnes are preter legem non contra Besides the law but not against the law These are Duâ—ands owne words Ad argumentum dicendum quod omne peccatum est contra legem dei naturalem vel inspiratam vel ab eis deriuatam To the argument answere must be made that euery sinne is against the law of God either naturall or inspired or deriued from them And this opinion of M. Durand is this day commonly defended in the popish vniuersities and schooles So saith Frier Ioseph these are his words D. Thomas eius sectatores tenent peccatum veniale non tam esse contra legem quam preter legem Sequitur Durandus tamen alij permulti hanc sententiam impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata Et haec opinio modo in scbolis videtur communior S. Thomas and his followers hold that a veniall sinne is not so much against the law as besides the law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion auouching veniall sinnes to be against the commaundements And this opinion seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wish the reader to note by the way out of the word modo now adaies the mutabilitie of Romish religion For in that he saith modo now adaies he giueth vs to vnderstand that their doctrine is now otherwise than it was of old and in former ages A note worthie to be remembred For the old Romane religion was catholicke pure and sound and with it doe not I contend but I impugne late Romish faith and doctrine which the Pope and his Romish Schoole-men haue brought into the Church Fiftly because their canonized martyr Iohn Fisher the late bishop of Rochester teacheth the same doctrine so plainely as euery child must needs perceiue the truth in that behalfe These are his expresse words Quod peccatum veniale solum ex dei misericordia veniale sit in hoc tecum sentio That a veniall sinne is onely veniall through the mercie of God and not of it owne nature therein doe I agree vnto you Thus saith our bishop And as he telleth me that he agreeth with Luther therein so doe I tell our Iesuites that I agree with him with Durand Almaine and the other papists that teach the same doctrine Sixtly because Gerson another famous popish writer holdeth the same opinion These are his expresse words Nulla offensa dei est venialis de se nisi tantum modo per respectum ad diuinam misericordiam qui non vult de facto quamlibet offensam imputare ad mortem cum illud posset iustissimè Et ita concluditur quod peccatum mortale veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsecè essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad diuinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis aliud non No offence of God is veniall of it owne nature but onely in respect of Gods mercie who will not de facto imputa euery offence to death though he might doe it most iustly And
so I conclude that mortall and veniall sinnes as they be such are not distinguished intrinse cally and essentially but onely in respect of Gods grace which assigneth one sinne to the paine or torture of death and not another Thus writeth this famous popish bishop who was a man of high esteeme in the counsell of Constance Whose onely testimonie if his words be well marked is able to confound the papists and to strike them dead For first he telleth them plainely that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature Secondly that no sinne is veniall saue only in respect of Gods mercie Thirdly that God may most iustly iustissimè condeme vs for the least sinne we do Note seriously gentle reader the word iustissimè Fourthly that mortall and veniall sinnes are the same intrinse cally and essentially and differ but accidentally that is to say they differ in accident but not in nature in quantitie but not in qualitie in mercy but not in deformitie in the subiect but not in the obiect in imputation but not in enormitie saue onely that the one is a greater mortall sinne than is the other For as Gerson auoucheth we may iustly be damned for the least sinne of all howsoeuer other papists doe flatter themselues in their cursed deformed venials Seuenthly because sinne in generall is the transgression of Gods law as S. Ambrose defineth it yea euery word deed or desire against Gods law as S. Austen describeth it Their words are set downe in the fourth article of this discourse Eightly because the Iesuit Bellarmine vnawares confesseth the same against himselfe These are his owne words Respondeo omne peccatum esse contra legem dei non positiuam sed aternam vt Aug. rectè docet Omnis enim iusta lex siue à deo siue ab bomine detur ab aterna dei lege deriuatur Est enim aterna lex vt malum sit viol are regulam I answere that euery sinne is against the law of God not positiue but eternall as Austen teacheth rightly For euery iust law whether it be given of God or of man is deriued from the eternal law of God For the eternall law is that it is euill to offend against the rule These are our Iesuits owne words which as euery child can easily discerne doe euidently confute himselfe and his Romish doctrine For first vnder euery sinne must needs be contained their veniall sinnes or els some sinnes shall be no sinnes which implieth flat contradiction Secondly he telâ—eth vs that euery sinne and consequently veniall sinnes are against the eternall law of God Thirdly he graunteth that they are not onely besides the law sed contra legem but euen against the law Fourthly hence it is cleere and euident that the law eternall is the chiefe and principall law of all other laws seeing from it all other lawes are deriued Ninthly because the papists cannot possibly yeeld any sound reason why in the sinnes of theft one shall be mortall and another veniall For example sake let vs suppose one at one time to steale so many egs as will make a mortall sinne by Romish doctrine another at another time to steale so many as will make a venial sinne by the same doctrine then I demaund of our papists Why God cannot iustly condemne the theefe to hell that stealeth but so many egs and for all that can iustly condemne him to eternall torment that stealeth but one only egge aboue the said number For this must they doe and a good reason here of must they yeeld which I am well assured they can neuer do or els confesse euery sinne to be mortall and so against their wils to subscribe to mine opinion Answere ô papists if ye can if ye cannot then repent for shame and yeeld vnto the truth The seuenth Article Of popish vnwritten traditions THe papists beare the world in hand that many things necessarie for mans saluation are not conteined in the holy scriptures of the old and new testament and consequently that none can be saued but such as beleeue their vnwritten traditions and what their Pope telleth them For the exact knowledge whereof I put downe these propositions The first Proposition with the first reason THe written word or holy scripture containeth in it selfe euery doctrine necessarie for mans saluation I prooue it by the manifold texts both of the old and new testament by the authoritie of the holy fathers and by the the testimonie of renowned and best approoued popish writers Ex testamente veteri Locus primus Ye shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you neither shall ye take any thing away from it Againe thus That which I command that only doe thou to the Lord. Neither add any thing nor take any thing away Againe thus Only be thou strong and of a valiant courage that thou mayest obserue and doe according to all the law which Moses my seruant hath coÌ„manded thee Thou shalt not turne away from it neither to the right hand nor to the left Bee carefull that ye keepe all things which are written in the booke of the law of Moses that ye decline not from them neither to the right hand nor to the left By these manifold texts we may see euidently that the holy scriptures are most perfect and that nothing may bee taken from them neither any thing added to them But doubtlesse if all doctrine necessarie for mans saluation were not sufficiently conteined in them then of necessitie many things should be added to them Bellarmine the mouth of all papists answereth to these and the like places that they are not spoken of the written word precisely but of Gods word generally which is partly written and partly vnwritten Non ait inquit ille ad verbum quod scripsi sed quod ego precipio He saith not quoth our Iesuite to the word which I haue written but which I command But doublesse this is a miserable shift and a very childish answere For first God himselfe wrote his owne wordes in two tables of stone and then deliuered them to Moses Yea after Moses had broken the said tables in his vehement zeale against Idolatrie God commanded Moses to hew two other tables of stone like to the first in which he writ againe the wordes that were in the first tables and commanded Moses to put them vp in an arke of wood Secondly Moses expounded the law of God to the Israelites at large VVhich large explication of the law God himselfe commanded him to write and to giue the same to the Israelites that they might put it in the side of the arke of the couenant and there keepe it for a witnesse against them Thirdly God commanded Iosue to keepe and obserue all things which were written in the booke of the law which Moses had deliuered to the Leuites charging him to meditate therein day and night that he might doe according to the same Fourthly Moses telleth
Athanasius that albeit the words be not expressed in the scriptures yet haue they that meaning which holy writ approoueth Answere ô papists if ye can if not repent for shame and yeeld vnto the truth The eight Article Of the impossibilitie of keeping Gods commandements in popish sense TOuching this article the reader must seriously obserue with me this adiunct in popish sense because it is both emphaticall and of great moment For I will not affirme simply and absolutely that Gods children can not keepe his commandements in a godlie sense and Christian meaning but this I constantly denie and at this presēt intend in God to proue the same effectually against all Iesuits and Iesuited papists That none haue kept do keepe or can keepe Gods commaundements in popish sense and meaning viz. that none are so pure holy and free from sinne that they can stand with God in iudgment and challenge eternall life as of debt due vnto them for their holy life Marke well gentle reader my discourse for I hope in God to hit the naile on the head and to set downe that which will be as heauie to the papists heart as a piece of lead The Apostle telleth vs in plaine and very expresse words That the best liuers vpon earth are sinners In multis enim offendimus omnes For we all offend in manie things But certes if it be true as it is most true indeed for S. Iames being inspired with the holy Ghost cannot lie That the holy Apostles committed many sinnes then doubtlesse it is not in euerie ones power to keepe Gods commandements neither will it helpe the papists to distinguish after their wonted manner of mortall and veniall sinnes For besides that I haue proued alreadie in the sixt Article that euery sinne is mortall in it owne proper nature both the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the transgression of the law and also the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a declining from the right way doe euidentlie conuince the same For it can neuer be trulie said that hee performeth and keepeth the law which transgresseth the law or swarueth from the same It is the truth which S. Paul alledgeth out of the law Cursed is euerie one that abideth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to doe them It is also the truth which S. Iames saith That whosoeuer keepeth the whole law and yet faileth in one point is become guiltie of all To which may be added innumerable texts both of the old and new testament that the best liuers vpon earth doe sinne and transgresse Gods commaundements Holy Moses telleth vs in the first booke of his Pentatench That when God saw that the wickednes of man was great on the earth that all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only euill continually then it repented God that he had made mā on the earth Iob telleth vs That God found no stedfastnes in his Saints yea he saith farther That the heauens are not cleane in his sight And he addeth these wordes How much more is man abhominable and filthie which drinketh iniquitie like water The kingly Prophet saith that in Gods sight none that liueth can be iustified VVise Salomon saith that no man living is able truely to say he is cleane from sinne The same wise man saith in like maner that the iust man sinneth many times Esay saith that all our righteousnes is as filthie clouts Esdras saith he was ashamed for his own sinnes and for the sinnes of the people because their trespasse was growne vp vnto heauen Saint Paul sheweth at large that all men are sinners and that no man is able to be iustified by his workes All saith hee both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne There is none righteous no not one they haue all gone out of the way they haue all beene made altogether vnprofitable there is none that doth good no not one Now we know that whatsoeuer the law saith it saith to them which are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world be subiect to the iudgement of God There is no difference for all hane sinned and are depriued of the glory of God and are iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Againe in another place he hath these words For they being ignorant of the righteousnesse of God going about to stablish their owne righteousnesse haue not submitted themselues to the rightenesse of God the case is cleere and euident For as the Prophet saith If God should marke our iniquities and reward vs after our deeds none of vs were able to endure it Now let vs heare S. Austens graue sentence concerning this controuersie Diliges inquit proximum tuum sicut teipsum Deum vero ex toto corde ex tota anima ex tota mente vt omnes cogitationes tuas omnem vitam omnem intellectū in illū conferas à quo habes ea ipsa quae confers Cum autē ait toto corde tota anima tota mente nullam vitae nostrae partem reliquit quae vacare debeat quasi locum dare vt alia ve velit frui Thou shalt loue thy neighbour saith he as thy selfe but God with thy whole heart with thy whole soule and with thy whole mind that thou maist cōferre vpon him all thy thoughts and all thy life all thine vnderstanding of whom thou hast receiued the selfe same which thou doest conferre or giue But when he saith with all thy heart with all thy soule with all thy mind he hath left no part of our life which may be vacant and as it were giue place to haue fruition of any other thing The same Saint Austen saith againe in another place That this commaundement of louing God with all our heart cannot be perfecty fulfilled of any man in this life These are his wordes In quae plenitudinc charitatis praeceptum illud implebitur Diliges dominū Deum tuū ex toto corde tuo ex tota anima tua ex tota mente tua Nam cum est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae quod vel continendo froenetur non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus Non enim caro sine anima concupiscit quamuis caro concupiscere dicatur quia carn aliter anima concupiscit Tunc erit iustus sine vllo omnino peccato quia nulla lex erit in mēbris eius repugnans legi mentis eius sed prorsus toto corde tota anima tota mente diligit Deum quod est primum summumque praeceptum Cur ergo non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamuis cam in hac vita nemo habeat Non enim rectè curritur si quo currendum est nesciatur In which fulnesse of charitie that commaundement shall bee fulfilled Thou shalt loue thy Lord thy
giue licence to marrie a mans owne naturall sister Answere papists if ye can or els yeeld vnto the truth for shame The fourth Article Of originall concupiscence in the regenerat SAint Paule throughout the whole seuenth chapter to the Romans proueth originall concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne But the papists cannot abide to heare this doctrine they stop their eares against the charmer though he charme neuer so wisely And why I pray you because forsooth it ouerthroweth their holy so supposed iustifications their inherent purities their mutuall satisfactions their condigne merites their pharisaicall supererogations And yet Petrus Lombardus their famous master of sentences whose book to this day is publickely read in their schooles of diuinitie vtterly condemneth their damnable doctrine in this point These are his expresse words Secundum animas vero iam redemptisumus ex parte non ex toto à culpa non à poena nec omnino à eulpa non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus vt non sit sed vt non dominetur But touching our soules we are redeemed in part not wholly from the sinne not from the paine neither wholly from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Thus writeth the worshipfull popish master our reuerend father Lombard out of whose words we may gather with facilitie so much as will serue our turne against the papists For first he saith we are redeemed in part but not in the whole Secondly that we are not wholly redeemed from sinne Thirdly he telleth vs how we are redeemed from sinne viz. that albeit sinne still remaine in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs that it can enforce vs to consent thereunto Loe this doctrine is not mine but the flat doctrine of the papists which I learned of that great papist who for his learning was surnamed the master of sentences and to this day is publickly read in their diuinitie schooles Touching S. Paule he saith first in this manner I my selfe with the mind serue the law of God but with the flesh the law of sinne Out of these words I note first that the Apostle speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter because he nameth himselfe who was Gods chosen and elect vessell For which respect and the like expressed in the seuenth chapter to the Romanes S. Austen changed his opinion and graunted S. Paule to speake here of the regenerate I note secondly that the elect and regenerate doe serue the law of sinne I note thirdly that the best liuers are so farre from meriting ex condigno grace and glorie that they deserue in rigour of iustice eternall death because death is the reward of sin VVhich for that S. Austen could not well digest at the first he thought that S. Paules words were to be vnderstood of the reprobate and not of the elect and godly sort but when he had pondered the Apostles discourse and words more seriously he changed his opinion This is confirmed in the selfesame chapter in these words But I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and subduing me vnto the law of sinne which is in my members By these words it is euident that albeit S. Paule were the child of God yet could he not merite any thing in Gods sight but rather in rigour of iustice prouoke Gods heauie displeasure against him For where or what could be his merite who was prisoner to the law of sinne Againe the same is confirmed in these words For I do not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. Thus saith S. Paule And doubtlesse since he did the euill which he would not he sinned though he were regenerate and in that he sinned he was guiltie of damnation because death is the stipend of sinne For this cause grauely saith S. Austen Cum deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua VVhen God crowneth our merites he crowneth nothing els but his owne gifts Againe the same is confirmed in these words For the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne Thus saith S. Paule of himselfe And yet it is most true that one vnder the buthen of sinne can merite nothing saue hell fire and eternall paine Againe the same is confirmed in these words If I do that I would not then it is not I that doth it but sinne that dwelleth in me Loe S. Paule graunteth that to be sinne in himselfe which yet himself consenteth not vnto And that he speaketh of originall concupiscence which remaineth in the regenerate after baptisme it cannot be denied And it will not serue the turne to say as Bellarmine doth viz. that originall concupiscence remaineth after baptisme but is no sinne at all and that it is called sinne onely in this respect because it prouoketh a man to sinne as a mans writing is called his hand because it is written with his hand For first their owne master Petrus Lombardus graunteth it to be sinne euen as S. Paule doth Secondly it causeth man to serue the law of sinne which seruice can neuer be but sinne Thirdly S. Paule saith he doth that ill which he would not and that which he doth hate All which must needs be meant of sinne That concupiscence remaining after baptisme is truly called sinne the papists themselues confesse vnawares in a maine point of doctrine and setled ground of their religion Marke well gentle reader what I shall deliuer in this behalfe God chose all in Christ that shall be saued before the foundation of the world and likewise reprobated al both negatiuely and positiuely that I may vse their schoole-tearmes but positiuely for the foresight of original sinne For the proofe hereof it will suffice to alledge the words of our papists at Rhemes in their notes vpon the new testament Thus doe they write So likewise God seeing all mankind and euery one of the same in a generall condemnation and masse of sinne in and by Adam deliuereth some and not othersome These are their own words and that which they teach is the common doctrine of the Romish church Againe the same Rhemists in the chapter afore quoted haue these words by the same example of those twins it is euident also that neither nations nor particular persons be elected eternally or called temporally or preferred to Gods fauour before others by their owne merits because God when he made choise and first loued Iacob and refused Esau respected them both as ill and the one no lesse than the other guiltie of damnation for originall sinne which was alike in them both And therefore where iustly he might haue reprobated both he saued of mercie one This is that strong foundation whereon the papists thinke predestination to be built the which I willingly doe admit as which will make
good my positioÌ„ euen against themselues For seeing as they grant That God beholding all in a generall condemnation for originall sinne saueth the elect of mercie and iustly decreeth to condemne the reprobate for originall sinne it followeth of necessity that either some reprobate shall be saued which the papists neither dare nor may auouch or els that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is sinne indeed which is the doctrine I defend The consequution and illation is euident For if originall sinne be truly remitted in baptisme and be not truly sinne in the baptised then can none be iustly damned that are baptised for how shal they be iustly condemned for that which is remitted it cannot be And to graunt that all baptised persons shal be saued is most absurd neither can I thinke any papist so senselesse as to affirme the same For to name one for all their Pope Boniface the eight who as their owne deere frier Caranza saith entred into the popedome as a foxe reigned in it as a wolfe and died in the end as a dog is not I trow a saint in heauen and yet must we thinke he was baptised or els a terrible vae vobis will fall vpon our papists Now because the papists vse to boast that S. Austen is on their side I will prooue at large that he defendeth this my doctrine here deliuered and that I purpose in God to doe so plainely and euidently as none can stand in doubt thereof that shal seriously ponder my discourse The first place of Saint Austen SIcut caecitas cordis quam solus remouet illuminator Deus peccatum est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cum mali aliquid caeci cordis errore committitur ita 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 peccatiest defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis Like as the blindnesse of heart which onely God the illuminatour doth remooue is sinne through which man beleeueth not in God and the punishment of sinne wherwith a proud heart is iustly chastened and the cause of sinne when through the blindnesse of heart any euill is committed euen so concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit coueteth is sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the mind and also a punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the merits of the disobedient and it is also the cause of sinne by defection of him that consenteth or by contagion of the child that is borne In these wordes Saint Austen expresseth three things precisely first that concupiscence in the regenerate is the punishment of sinne secondly that it is the cause of sinne thirdly that it is sinne it selfe VVhich three S. Austen doth not onely distinguish but withall he yeeldeth three seuerall reasons for the same and that he speaketh of the regenerate it is euident in this because he speaketh of that concupiscence against which the good spirit striueth Most impudent therefore are the papists when they auouch with open mouth that Saint Austen onely calleth it sinne because it is the cause of sinne And the gentle reader may here also obserue that S. Austen compareth concupiscence of the flesh with that blindnesse of heart which breedeth infidelity in man which how great a sinne it is euery one can tell The second place of Saint Austen NEque enim nulla est iniquitas cum in vno homine vel superiora inferioribus turpitâ—r seruiunt vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur etiam si vincere non sinantur For it is some iniquitie when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour or the inferiour partes stubbornly striue against the superiour although they be not suffered to preuaile These words of Saint Austen are so plaine as the papists cannot possible inuent any euasion at all For he saith in plaine and expresse tearmes that the rebellion which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne yea that it is euen then sinne when it is resisted and cannot preuaile At which time and in which respect the papists will haue it to be merite but no sinne at all Behold a flat contradiction it is sinne saith Saint Austen it is merite and no sinne say the papists The third place of Saint Austen SI in parente baptizato potest esse peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non sit sed vt in peccatum non imputetur Sequitur non ergo aliquid remanet quod non remittatur cum fit sicut scriptum est propitius dominus omnibus iniquitatibus nostris sed donec fiat quod sequitur qui sanat omnes languores tuo qui redimet de corruptione vitam tuam manet in corpore mortis huius carnalis concupiscentia If concupiscence can both be in the baptised parent and withall be no sinne why is the selfe same made sinne in the child to this this is the answere that the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiuen in baptisme not so that it remaine not but so that it is not reputed for sinne Not any thing therefore remaineth which is not forgiuen seeing that is done which is written God is mercifull to all our iniquities but vntill that be done also which followeth which healeth all thine infirmities which redeemeth thy life from corruption carnall concupiscence abideth in the bodie of this death Saint Austen in these wordes sheweth plainely that concupiscence remaineth aswell in the baptised parent as in the vnbaptised child yet with this difference that it is sinne in the parent though not for sinne imputed but in the child it both is sinne and is also so reputed And the reader must not forget that Saint Austen saith Nothing remaineth which is not forgiuen He doth not say Nothing is sinne that remaineth or thus No sinne remaineth but thus Not any thing remaineth which is not remitted As if he had said sinne indeede remaineth still in the baptised but shall not be imputed to the faithfull Marke well gentle reader the phrase which Saint Austen here vseth It is forgiuen that still remaineth saith Saint Austen or not any thing remaineth which is not forgiuen Therefore he must needes meane that something remaineth which is sinne though pardoned and not reputed sinne For nothing hath need of forgiuenesse but that which is sinne indeed The fourth place of Saint Austen I Deo apostolus non ait facere bonum sibi non adiacere sed perficere Multum enim boni facit qui facit quod scriptum est post concupiscentias tuas non eas sed non perficit quia non
falsly supposed ground For it is as vnuoluntarie in the one as it is in the other neither can it bee any more auoided in the one than in the other This is the gordian knot which the papists are neuer able to loose or vntie Bellarmine himselfe is enforced to confesse that Saint Austen acknowledgeth all the motions of concupiscence euen those which be inuoluntarie to be properly sinne and flatly condemned by the tenth commaundement These are his expresse wordes Haec dicta sunt ad mentem S. Augustini qui precepto non concupisces intelligit prohiberi aliquo modo motus omnes concupiscentiae etiam inuoluntarios assensum vero his motibus prohibere docet illo alio precepto post concupiscentias tuas non eas These things are spoken after Saint Austens mind who by this precept Thou shalt not lust vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence euen the inuoluntarie to be prohibited in some sort and that the consent to these motions is forbidden by that other precept Follow not thy concupiscence Thus writeth the Iesuiticall Cardinall by whose doctrine it is euident that Saint Austen affirmeth the first motions of concupiscence which preuent reason cannot be auoyded to bee condemned by Saint Paul as sinfull and against the law of God Which doctrine of Saint Austen doth so sting and confound all papists that Bellarmine knoweth not in the world what he shall answere to the same And therefore deceitfully he addeth in his exposition of Saint Austens words the word quodammodo after a sort which word neither is in Saint Austen nor yet agreeable to his meaning For Saint Austen saith plainely simply and absolutely without all ands or ifs or other qualifications that such motions are forbidden by this commandement non concupisces And for the consummation of this doctrine which ouerthroweth the best part of poperie I will here adde to Saint Pauls doctrine and the exposition of Saint Austen the flat testimonie of Saint Iohn an other Apostle who singeth the same song with Saint Paul Saint Iohn in his first epistle hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euery one that sinneth transgresseth the law And sinne is the transgression of the law These are S. Iohns words truly translated out of the originall Greeke But before we proceed any further in the discourse hereof let vs take a view of that doctrine which our papists of Rhemes haue sent vs. These are their words Iniquitie is not taken here for wickednesse as it is commonly vsed both in Latin and in our language as is plaine by the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying nothing else but swaruing or declining from the straight line of the law of God or nature So that the Apostle meaneth that euery sinne is an obliquitie or defect from the rule of the law but not contrarie that euery such swaruing from the law should be properly a sinne as the heretikes doe vntruly gather to proue that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is a very sinne though we neuer giue our consent vnto it Thus they write Out of whose words I gather two notable documēts the one that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a defect and swaruing from the law but not properly a sinne the other that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be proued to be sinne properly then wil it also follow of necessity by S. Iohns doctrine that concupiscence in the regenerate is properly sinne Let this doctrine be wel marked as which is no lesse apparant then important Now it only remaineth for the victorie truth of this article That I proue against our papists the Rhemists that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie sinne properly behold the proofe A very famous papist and great linguist Ben. Arias Montanus saith plainely in expresse teames that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is transgressio legis the transgression of the law Now that the transgression of Gods law is properly sinne none is so sottish that he doth not vnderstand it none so impious that he will denie it none so peeuish that he will not acknowledge it But I proue the same S. Ambrose hath these words Quid est enim peccatum nisi preuaricatio legis diuine coelestium inobedientia preceptorum For what is sinne but the transgression of Gods law and disobedience to his heauenly precepts Loe sinne saith S. Ambrose is nothing els but the transgression of Gods law that is to say nothing els but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Iohn tearmeth it and as Arias Montanus doth interprete it S. Austen hath these words Peccatum est transgressio legis Sinne is a transgression of the law Loe S. Austen concludeth with S. Ambrose and they both agree with S. Iohn The same S. Austen in another place defineth sinne in this manner Peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aternam Sinne is a word deed thought or desire against the eternall law of God And what the eternall law is he sheweth in these words next following in the same place Lex aeterna est ratio diuina vel voluntas Dei ordinem naturalem conseruari iubens perturbari vetans The eternall law is the reason or will of God which commaundeth the naturall order to be obserued and forbiddeth the same to be perturbed Thus writeth this auntient graue and learned father by whose iudgement it is properly sinne whatsoeuer is against the will of God So then Gods will is that law and rule by which euery sinne must be measured and tried And consequently whatsoeuer deflecteth declineth or swarueth from the will of God the same is most properlie sinne The reason hereof is euident because not to be correspondent and agreeable to Gods will is the very intrinsecall reason essence and nature of sinne But so it is that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disorder and concupiscence in the regenerate is repugnant and disagreeable to the will of God and consequently it must be sinne indeed S. Bede who for his learning and vertue was renowned throughout the whole Christian world and thereupon surnamed venerabilis hath these expresse words Virtus huius sententiae facilius in lingua Graecorum qua edita est epistola comprehenditur Si quidem apud eos iniquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur quod significat quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum Si quidem lex Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellatur sequitur sed latinum nomen eidem rationi congruit quod iniquitas quasi aequitati aduersa nuncupatur Quia quicunque peccat contarius nimirum aequitati diuinae legis peccando existit The force and efficacie of this sentence is more easily perceiued in the Greeke tongue in which the epistle was written For iniquitie with them is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth As done against law or without law For the law is called in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The
which all papists doe and must appeale in this weighty and most important question For example sake if thou wouldest wish me to lend thee my cloake to defend thee from a showre of raine and promise to giue me an hundred pounds for the loane then doubtlesse were it true to say that after such loane an hundreth pounds were due vnto me yet withall would it be most true also that such loane of my cloake were not the condigne merit of that hundreth pounds but that it proceeded principally of the free gift and promise made vnto me farre aboue my merit and desert neither could my act be any way rightly tearmed the condigne merit of that reward And yet it is euident that thus standeth the state of the question betweene the condigne merit of mans workes and the excellencie of the ioyes of heauen For I willingly graunt that eternall life is due to the workes of Gods elect and that it is as well the crowne of iustice as of mercie but withall I constantly affirme that God bestoweth it on his elect freely for his owne name sake and not for any merit worthinesse or condignitie of their workes For this cause their owne deere frier Ioannes de Combis teacheth this golden lesson Meritum condigni dicit aequalitatem meriti ad remunerationem dico autem aequalitatem non arithmeticam sed geometrieam id est non quantitatis sed proportionis Et hoc patet quia Deus semper remunerat supra meritum sicut punit citra condignum Condigne merit doth connotat the equalitie of merit to the thing that is merited I say equalitie not arithmeticall but geometricall that is not of quantitie but of proportion And this is euident because God euer rewardeth aboue our merits as he punisheth lesse than we deserue Out of these wordes we see two things cleered the one that we deserue greater punishment for our sinnes than God inflicteth vpon vs for the same the other that for our well doing we receiue greater reward than our workes doe or can deserue And consequently that wee doe not condignely merit eternall life For this cause saith their famous popish doctour Nicolaus de Lyra in this maner Salus enim aeterna excedit totaliter facultatem naturae humanae Propter quod non potest eam attingere nisi ex largitate diuinae misericordiae For eternall life doth farre surmount and wholly exceed the facultie and power of mans nature VVherefore man can no way attaine vnto it but onely by the liberalitie of Gods mercy For this cause saith another popish doctor Dionysius Carthusianuns in this maner Ex gratia seu per gratiam Dei datur iustis pro praemio vita aeterna Non hoc dicitur merita excludendo sed vt insinuctur quod principaliter ascribendum sit gratia Dei qui etiam premiat vltra condignum Eternall life is giuen for reward to the iust of grace or through the grace of God This is not said to exclude merits but to insinuate that reward must principally bee ascribed to the grace of God who rewardeth vs aboue our deserts Loe this great papist laboreth with maine and might to stablish popish condigne merit of workes who affirming more boldly than wisely that the elect doe merit eternall life telleth vs with one breath that the reward is aboue our merits and deserts And so vnwittingly and vnwillingly he confuteth himselfe and refelleth that doctrine which he gladly would confirme To conclude our Iesuit and renowned Cardinall frier Bellarmine who after mature deliberation and graue consultation had with all the best learned Iesuits in the world and with the Pope himselfe whose faith iudiciall cannot faile say they saith all that possibly can be said for the life of poperie doth with great grauitie and prudent sagacitie in the name of all papists deliuer this doctrine vnto vs Quod vero attinet ad rem ipsam Durandi sententia si nihil aliud vellet nisi merita nostra non esse ex condigno siue ex iustitia absolutè sed tantum ex hypothesi id est posita liberali Dei promissione non esset reprobanda sequitur respondeo absolutè non posse hominem á Deo aliquid exigere cum omnia sint ipsius tamen posita eius voluntate pacto quo non vult exigere à nobis opera nostra gratis sed mercedem reddere iuxta proportionem operum verè possumus ab eo mercedem exigere quomodo seruus non potest absolutè a domino suo vllum premium postulare cum omnia quae seruus acquirit domino suo acquirat tamen si domino placeat donare illi opera sua pro ijsdem tanquam sibi non debitis mercedem promittere iure mercedem pro suis operibus postulabit Touching the matter it selfe Durands opinion if he had no other meaning but that our merits are not absolutely iust and condigne but hypothetically in respect of Gods liberall promise were not to be reiected I answere that man cannot absolutely exact any thing of God seeing all things are Gods owne neuerthelesse his will and couenant being made that he will not exact our workes of vs freely but will reward them according to their proportion we may truly require hyer of him like as a bondman cannot absolutelie require any reward of his lord seeing euery thing which the bondman gaineth is gotten and gained to his master yet for all that if it shall please his master and lord to bestow his works on him and to promise reward for the same as if they were not due vnto him then may the bondseruant iustly demaund reward for his workes Thus saith the Iesuit Bellarmine and consequently this is all that all papists say or can say for the life of popish doctrine Out of whose wordes I note first that his brother Durands opinion hath put him to his best trumpe Secondly that Durands opinion as is already prooued is this viz. that the merit of workes in the best liuer vpon earth cannot truly and properly be called meritum ex condigno condigne merit but onely merit in way of acceptation and in respect of Gods free mercy and promise made vnto man without all deserts Thirdly that Bellarmine graunteth this opinion in this sense For hee saith plainely If Durand admit merit in respect of Gods promise his opinion cannot be reproued Fourthly that our Iesuit maketh good that doctrine which I here defend as which is the selfe same that Durand holdes And consequenly if Bellarmine and his popish fellowes and followers would stand constantly to their owne doctrine which they publish in printed bookes wee and they should soone agree and these great controuersies would haue an end Fourthly that man cannot absolutely exact any thing at Gods hands because all things are Gods owne Fiftly that in respect of Gods good pleasure and couenant frely made to man we may truely require reward of God Yea my selfe graunt that we
the Popes iudgement alone is infalliable VVherefore they ad this clause to salue the Popes proceedings That councels are called not for necessitie sake but for the better contentation of the weake I therefore conclude against the popish supposed bulwarke that seeing all bishops may erre seuerally as the Iesuit Bellarmine hath taught vs and seeing also that the constitutions in popish councels are nothing else in deed but the bare decrees of one onely bishop as is alreadie prooued it followeth of necessite and cannot be denied that all bishops in the popish Church may erre egregiously and that as well iointly as seuerally as is to be seene at large in my Golden ballance of triall to which treatise I referre the reader for better satisfaction both touching the Popes double person and concerning his priuate and publike errors In the interim I must needs tell the papists that a generall councell is aboue the Pope that a generall councell hath power to depose the Pope that a generall councell did de facto depose Iohn the 12 long sithence and Iohn the 13 of that name as I haue prooued at large by sound popish testimonie in my Anatomie of popish tyrannie And thus haue I prooued that the sole and onely scripture inspired from heauen is the infalliable rule of truth and that all traditions must bee examined by the same and then addmitted when they be consonant thereunto not otherwise howsoeuer antiquitie be pretended in that behalfe The fourth Proposition Popish vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine and doubtfull that the best learned papists are at great contention about them and cannot possibly be accorded therein For the proofe of this proposition it were ynough to call to mind that great and endlesse strife which was in the Church about 1400 yeeres sithence betweene Victor then Bishop of Rome and the bishops of Asia The controuersie was among them concerning the keeping of Easter Tradition apostolicall was alledged earnestly and both sides did stoutly defend the same The same tradition was in controuersie afore Polycarpus the bishop of Smyrna and Anicetus the Bishop of Rome But neither could Polycarpe perswade Anicetus nor Anicetus perswade Polycarpus albeit they both agreed as deere friends The storie is set done at large by Eusebius a learned father and most famous historiographer But Victor the Bishop of Rome dealt so furiously in that controuersie that Ireneus and other bishops of Gallia did sharply reprooue him for the same VVhat need more bee said for the varietie and vncertaintie of traditious For first the bishops that thought and taught thus diuersly of tradions did all of them liue within 200 yeeres after Christ at which time the Church was in in good estate and stayned with very few or no corruptions at all Secondly the one side doubtlesse must needs be seduced with false and vnsound traditions For apostolicall doctrine was vniforme and constant and could not possible bee contrarie to it selfe Thirdly Saint Policarpe Polycrates and the other bishops did in those dayes make no more reckoning of the bishop of Romes opinion than they did of another mans Fourthly they all were so farre from acknowledging the bishop of Rome to be the supreme head of the Church and that he could not erre that they all with vniforme assent affirmed him to defend a grosse errour and to hold a false opinion that they all reputed themselues his equals touching gouernment ecclesiasticall that they all verie sharpely reprooued him and with might and maine withstood his proceedings VVhereas this day if any bishops magistrates or other potentates in the world where poperie beareth the sway should doe the like they might all roundly be excommunicated and not onely deposed from their iurisdiction but also be burnt with fire an faggot for their paines Fiftly if Saint Polycarpe had cause in his time being the flourishing age of the Church to doubt of romish traditions much more doubtlesse haue wee cause at this day to stand in doubt thereof in these doolefull dayes I say in which iniquitie hath gotten the vpper hand in which the bishops of Rome haue brought an huge multitude of errors into the Church and seduced a great part of the Christian world Another controuersie touching traditions is for and about the keeping of Lent For albeit Saint Chrysostome tel vs plainely that Christ did not commaund vs to imitate his fast but to learne of him to be humble and meeke in heart yet doe the papists this day mordicus defend it to be an apostolicall tradition yea many of them are so blinded and besotted with vnsauorie traditions and superstitious illusions that they deeme it a greater sinne to eat flesh in Lent than to commit adulterie murder or periurie Of this vnwritten tradition falsly supposed apostolical Eusebius Caesariensis a famous historigrapher of great antiquitie writeth in this maner Non solum de die paschae agiter controuersia sed de ipsa specie ieiunij Quidam enim putant vno tantum die obseruari debere ieunium alij doubus alij vero pluribus nonnulli etiam quadraginta Quae varietas obseruantiae non nunc primum neque nostris temporibus coepit sed multò ante nos ex illis vt opinor qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditū est tenentes in alium morem vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam postmodum dicidêre The controuersie is not onely touching the day of Easter but alos concerning the very king or manner of fasting For some thinke they must onely fast one day some two dayes others moe dayes and there bee that thinke they should fast fourtie VVhich varietie of fasting did not now begin first neither yet in our daies but long before our time I thinke by them who keeping not simply what they receiued from the beginning did afterward fall to another manner either of negligence or els of ignorance Socrates in like manner reporteth hystorically that they differed no lesse in their manner of eating than they did in their daies of abstaining For some saith he would eat no liuing thing othersome of liuing things ate onely fish some together with fish did eat also birds but some ate only bread and others at night ate all kind of meates without difference Yea he telleth vs in the same place that the Romans fast three weekes before Easter besides the Sabboth and the Lords day And that the Illyrians and Alexandrians do fast six weekes and yet do they all tearm their fasts Lent By which testimonies euery man may easily perceiue how doubtfull and vncertaine vnwritten traditions be Thirdly there was another endlesse controuersie concerning traditions betweene the Greeks and the Latins whether the Eucharist ought to be celebrated in leauened or in vnleauened bread Fourthly Irenaeus a very auntient father affirmeth out of Apostolicall tradition that Christ was fortie yeeres old when he suffered his bitter passion Papias another father saith vpon the like traditiō that Christ