first ordeine lawes then assigne his Magistrates the Apostles Lastly that this bonde of mutuall societie might not be broken and so the couenable agreement of this Citie disturbed he did erect a Monarchie and therein inuested Peter with the highest soueraigntie First of all what heauenly commoÌ„ wealth do you dreame of vpon earth when as that heauenly Ierusalem is aboue wherein dwelleth God him selfe and our Lord and Sauiour Iesu Christ whereas the earth can haue none other Citie then earthly Neither did Iesu Christ take vnto him mans nature to the end hee would coyne new lawes but to accomplishe the old that the glad tydynges might be preached That prisoners might bee loosed that the sicke might be healed lastly that by offring vp his most precious body on the Crosse our sinnes might be clensed As for any superioritie in gouernement the Apostles receaued none nor any other authoritie was committed vnto them but that they should wander through the whole world emptie of all worldly furniture cariyng nothing with them and should sow in all places abroad the comfortable doctrine of the Gospell Nay rather when arose betwixt them a question who should be greatest amongest them our Lord and Sauiour Christ did so vtterly suppresse that ambicious contention that he briefly denounced that he which was left should be greatest amongest them Agayne when Iames Iohn had besought of our Lord and Sauiour that the one of them might sit on his right hand the other on his left hand when he were ascended into heauen vnto the throne of Maiestie he reproued them both so sharpely blamyng their ignoraunce that he told them They knew not what they asked and immediatly callyng the rest of the twelue together he so tempered vnto them lowlynes humilitie and obedience by manifest Arguments that they might easely perceiue how they were forbidden all maner of superioritie Sith these thyngs therfore are true I woÌ„der what came into your mynde to dreame of so dry a Summer that a Monarchie was erected amoÌ„gest the Apostles and that vnto Peter was geuen the preheminence thereof Was Peter so appointed the chief ouer the rest of the Apostles when as Christ him selfe doth so embace them and fearefully terrifle them from all maner of supremacie was Peter so worthy to be a Monarche when as Christ him selfe did hyde him out of the way bycause they would haue made him a kyng must we be so subiect to Peter and his Successours as vnto Princes when our Sauiour Iesu Christ came downe from heauen for this entent purpose to become a seruauÌ„t vnto others requiryng of his Apostles the selfe same duetie of abacement But there is nothyng you say more cleare then these wordes Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke I will builde my Church And what soeuer thou byndest vpon earth shall be bound also in heauen And I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth may not fainte And thou at the last beyng coÌ„uerted confirme thy brethren And many other like Whereby you will coÌ„streine vs to beleue That Peter was preferred before the rest of the Apostles I will treate therfore of euery of these seuerally That it may be euidently knowen what a deépe insight this Reuerend Prelate hath in Diuinitie For if he haue made here a strong and souÌ„de foundation his passage wil be the easier to the rest of his Assertions But if his groundewordes be planted vpon Sande the rest of his buildyng will quickely shiuer in peéces and come to ruine First of all therefore Note this to bee commonly vsed throughout the whole Scripture That when our Lord and Sauiour Iesu Christ would demaunde any question of all his Apostles Peter would make auÌ„swere in the name of the whole generally and not in his owne name particularely So to that question But whom do you say I am Peter maketh auÌ„swere for them all Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuyng God Agayne when the Lord demaunded Whether they his Disciples would depart away from him with the rest of the Iewes Peter not onely for him selfe but for his whole company denyed saying Lord whether shall we goe Thou hast the wordes of eternall lyfe The life hereof is in Peters Sermon when he exhorted the Iewes to repose their whole affiaunce of saluation in Iesu Christ whom they Crucified and was risen agayne froÌ„ death to life For in the same place it is sayd that Peter alone did not preach to the Iewes but with the other eleuen The wordes were pronounced by Peters mouth onely but the mynde sentence enteÌ„t was agreed vpoÌ„ by all the Apostles Now therfore if those Scriptures do admitte these phrases of speach as appeareth playnly by the wordes of the holy Ghost Then this is a necessary consequent That our Lord Iesu Christ did in lyke maner apply his wonted communication vsed with the Apostles to Peters coÌ„mon aunswere In the like phrase of speach were those wordes Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church For as Peter in the behalfe of all his fellowes affirmed that hee was Christ the sonne of the liuyng God so Christ likewise though he named Peter onely yet acknowledgeth the vniuersall consent and confession of all the rest and in the same doth promise to establish his Church which interpretatioÌ„ if you will not allow without witnesses behold Oâ—otius I haue alledged auncient Fathers mainteinyng myne allegation agaynst you and haue noted their places not obseruyng your disorder herein whiche vse to packe together a Rable of names of Fathers omittyng the matter as though to the resolution of doubtfull matters neéded nothyng but names Next hereunto you place in order the promise of Christ in these wordes What soeuer thou shall bynde vpon earth shall also be bounde in heauen what then ought this promise to bee restrained to Peter onely or was this promise equally coÌ„municated to the other Apostles whose speach is this then Receaue ye the holy Ghost whose soeuer sinnes ye do forgeue shal be forgeueÌ„ them and whose sinnes soeuer you doe reteine the same are reteined Is not this the gift of Christ is not this Christes promise made vnto his twelue Disciples standyng in the middest of them and preachyng vnto them all endyng them all with his heauenly blessing somewhat afore his Ascention Is not this sentence manifest enough the witnesse approued the authoritie not comptrollable vnlesse paraduenture you will contend like a child and stand vpon the nycenes of these sillables byndyng and loosing wherof you made mention before And yet if ye will obstinately persiste herein you shal be vrged with sillables and titles of like wordes Verely verely I say vnto you whatsoeuer you shall bynde on the earth the same shal be bounde in heauen also and whatsoeuer you loose vpon the earth shal be loosed also in heauen Here you this Do you also perceaue it and are ye not ashamed will you attribute that vnto
the questions whereof ariseth our controuersie were so harde and intricate that they exceeded your capacities I would not haue entruded my selfe into your presence with this maner of persuasion but would haue referred my selfe rather to the censure of the learned But for as much as this Religion of Gods holy Gospell which we professe is so resplēdisant in the eyes and eares of all men as the bright shyning Sunne in whott Sommers day the doctrine I say wherewith we are enstructed which preacheth Repētaunce to the bruysed cōscience which agayne imputeth vnto the penitent persons free righteousnesse and deliueraunce from Sinne by fayth without workes in Christ Iesu onely which forbiddeth Idolatry which restrayneth to adde or diminish any title from the prescript rule of holy Scriptures which forbiddeth the inuocation of the dead and prayeng to straūge Goddes which acknowledgeth the humanitie of Christ the Sonne of God to be in no place but at the right hand of the Father which approueth honest and honorable estate of Wedlocke in all persons indifferently which hath made all foode and sustenaunce both fishe and flesh without choyse beyng receaued with thankesgeuyng subiect to the necessary vse of man which taketh away all confidence and affiaunce vsually ascribed vnto merites and workes which calleth vs away from the opiniō of soules health to be set in obseruation of prescribed dayes and monethes which reduceth vs from the naked elementes of the world from worshippyng of signes and outward ceremonies which I say cleareth our hartes and myndes from the bondage of mens traditions and dreames and doth ensure and establish vs in mearcy and grace which allureth all persons indifferently to the readyng of holy Scriptures which denyeth to no man the participation of the Cuppe of the new Testament in the bloud of Iesu Christ which abbridgeth all Ministers of the word from desire of all worldly superiority And to stay here frō the reckoning vpp of all the rest which are more notable and manisest then the bright shynyng Sunne in mydday what cann your Maiestie atchieue more worthy or more beseemyng your highe excellency then to admitt into the secrett closett of your soule this most euident trueth of heauenly discipline If your highnesse be not as yet made acquainted therewith or if ye know the same to be infallible and true that ye will no longer shrowde vnder your protection such pestilent errours allready disclosed and repugnaunt to the knowen veritie wherewith your grace may one day hereafter paraduenture desire to be shielded before the dreadfull Iudgemēt seate of the Lord of hostes accordyng to the promise of Iesu Christ. And the trueth sayth he shall deliuer you Iohn 8. And if your highnes shal be persuaded that this reformatiō of Religion whereof I haue treated doth not apperteigne to your estate or to the charge of seculer Princes what doth the wordes of Osori emporte thē wheras writyng of our gracious Queene Elizabeth he doth so carefully admonish her Maiestie to vouchsafe especiall regard to know what the glory of Christ meaneth what the law of the Lord teacheth how much the rule of sacred religiō doth exact of her highnes Again whereas in the same Epistle he doth very learnedly pronoūce that the speciall duty of Princely gouernemēt ought to be wholy employed to the preseruatiō of true and pure Religion Pag. 10. But els otherwise if your grace do thoroughly conceaue that is most true that the gracious restitutiō of gods holy word doth no lesse cōcerne the furtheraūce of the Gospell then the preseruatiō of your Royall estate Saluation of your subiectes I most humbly then beseech you most noble kyng by that redoubled linke of pietie wherewith you are first bounde vnto the Lord That as your Maiestie shall playnly perceaue this cause which we are entred vpon not to varye or decline any iote awrye from the true touchestone of the liuely word neuer so litle that your highnesse of your excellent clemency will vouchsafe to aduertize your Bysh. Osorius That being myndfull of his professiō he do behaue him selfe in debatyng the state of Religion in the vprightenes of iudgement so as the cause requireth and frō henceforth he desiste frō backbyting his neighbours with clamorous lyeng and slaunderous reproches who haue rather deserued well of him then in any respect offended him If he be of opinion that errours ought to be rooted out of the Church lett him first cōuince those for errours which he gaynesayth and shew him selfe abler man to make proofe by Argumēt thē to resist with onely cauillyng By such meanes will he be deemed a more profitable member of the Church and procure him selfe lesse hatred It is an easie matter for euery common rascall to vomitt out disdaynefull names of infamous persons as Protagoras Diagoras Cicloppes Blindsinckes Epicures gortellguttes and monsters But it fitteth comlyer for learned men and more profitable for the Christian congregation to lay aside distompered choler and instruct the vnlearned and reclayme the obstinate with sounde Argumentes and expresse testimonies of the Scriptures If this order be not obserued euery carter may soone by aucthoritie clayme to be a cōmon rayler An other methode of writyng was requisite in Osorius more effectuall to edifie then as he hath vttered in his bookes For this sufficeth not for him to reuile men with odious names as callyng them madd impudent childish and infaūtes and to declame whole cōmon places vsed agaynst heretiques I doe know and playnly confesse That it is most necessary to oppugne erronious sectes heresies But it is not errour forthwith that hath somewhat a bitter smatclie and is vnsauory to euery queysie stomacke neither is it allwayes trueth that is plausible to eche fonde and dotyng phantasie But wise men ought chiefly haue considered how euery mans assertiō is framed to the agreablenes of the word of God Yet now a dayes I cann not tell how the carte is sett before the horse and the preposterous frowardnes of some persons haue brought to passe that bycause men shall not be guided by the Gospell they will runne before it so mens imaginatiōs shall not obey but beare the principall Banner before But where as the right squaryer of Christian fayth hath none other sure foundation but that onely which is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures our dutie hadd bene to direct the buildyng of our Religion by this lyne and leuell and to ramme fast the wallworkes hereof with this cemente and morter But now I cann not tell how it is so come to passe that many do worke guyte contrary For they despise this well fenced order and hauyng as litle regarde to the meanyng purporte of the word they rayse to them selues a Church which they call Catholicke and the same they assigne to be the onely guide and gouernesse yet notwithstandyng they make no demonstration whether it be the Church of Christ yea or nay But measuryng the same by the onely Title of the Romish See
doubted that mens willes can not resiste the will of God but that he must needes doe what God will for as much as he doth dispose the willes also as him listeth and when him listeth Therefore to will and to nill is so in the power of him that willeth and nylleth that it neither goeth beyond Gods power nor hindereth his will but is many tymes hindered by the power of God and alwayes ouermaistered c. But that is somewhat more hard which is obiected out of the same Article that will is so fast bounde that we cā thinke no euill thought by any meanes For so doth Osorius cite the place Wherein he doth first cast a myste before the Readers eyes and then deale iniuriously with Luther For he doth neither faythfully nor fully rehearse the wordes of his Article He is also no lesse iniurious to Melancthon and Caluine whō he alledgeth as partakers of the same opinion Albeit I know right well that they doe not varie from Luthers meanyng yet did they alwayes of very purpose refrayne from this kynde of speache Where did Melancthon euer write that all thynges are performed by vnaduoydeable necessitie Where did Caluine say that Freewill was but a deuise in thynges Who euer heard Bucer say that man was not of power to thinke euill not bycause they varied from him in meanyng and Iudgement but they chose rather to quallifie with some more plausible kynde of stile that which seémed to be propoūded by him somewhat more roughly But to returne agayne to Luthers wordes I doe reknowledge herein not your new furnished cauill Osorius but the auncient rusty canker of many others agaynst Luther as of Leo Roffensis Eckius Iohānes Coclaeus Albertus Phigius Iohn Dreidon Alphansus de Castro Andrew Vega Peter Canisius and such like which do neither read Luthers writyng with Iudgement neither consider his meanyng nor cōferre the first with the last but catch here and there a worde halfe gelded for hast and out of these beyng sinisterly construed if they finde any one thyng more then other fitte to be quarelled withall that they snatch vp that they vrge stiffely and are alwayes rakyng their nayles vpon that scabbe as the Prouerbe sayth And bycause amongest all other his Assertions they can picke out no one sentence more odious in the Iudgement of the simple people it is a wōder to seé what a coyle they keépe here and how viperously they gnaw and turmoyle this one Sentence wherein he sayd That mans will hauyng lost her freédome is now of no force at all not so much as to thinke an euill thought And in this respect surely I can not but marueile much to seé the vndiscreéte disorder of some but chiefly the singuler shamelessenes of Osorius For albeit Luther in so many his Commentaries Sermons Bookes and Aunsweres doth vrge this one pointe alwayes and euery where trauaile earnestly to proue that mās Freewill beyng voyde of Grace auayleth to nothyng but to cōmitte sinne yet doth Osorius so frame all his writyng agaynst Luther as though Luther did teach that mans Freewill could not so much as thinke an euill thought And frō whence doth he pike this quarell out of the wordes of Luthers Article before mentioned I suppose But for as much as Luther doth in the selfe same Article openly professe that Freewill of her owne nature auayleth to nothyng but to Sinne and that all the imaginations of the hart do of a certeine naturall inclination rushe headlong into euill in what sense can that mā be sayd not to be able to thinke an euill thought whiche is alwayes occupied in imaginyng euill But I beleue he will presse vpon vs with Luthers owne wordes wherewith he affirmeth that no mā of him selfe is of power to thinke a good thought or an euill thought c. Well let vs heare what conclusion this Logician will coyne out of these wordes Mans minde whether it thinke well or euill doth neither of them both of her owne power Ergo Mans mynde of it selfe cā neither thinke a good nor an euill thought I do here appeale to your Logicke Osorius What kynde of Argumēt is this by what rule make you this cōsequent what bycause the substaunce of the matter doth depend vpon the first causes properly will you thereupō conclude that the secōd causes do therfore nothing at all Or bycause the freédome of doyng is restreined to the first and principall cause to witte to the onely Maiestie of God that therefore mans will is no cause at all bycause it is not freé and that therfore it cā thinke no ill thought by any meanes bycause it doth it not of her owne strength and libertie as though to do a thyng properly a thyng to be done of her owne proper power were all one to say So then by this reason the Iewes which crucified the Lord of glory shal be sayd to do nothyng bycause all the outrage whatsoeuer they kept was determined before by Gods vnsearcheable coūsell In like maner Pharao in withholdyng the people of Israell and Nabuchadonasor in spoylyng them may be sayd to do nothyng bycause the hart of the one was hardened by the Lord and bycause the other leadyng his armye into Egypt was constrayned to chaunge his will in his iourney and bende his force agaynst Ierusalem Likewise neither the Shippe whiles she sayleth nor the Pylote within the Shippe do any thyng at all bycause their course whether it bee fortunate or vnfortunate is not alwayes directed after their owne will but as the wyndes the tydes do driue them For what doth Luthers disputation of Freewill enforce els but that he may referre all the order of doyng to Gods freé disposition onely Neither doth hee dispoyle mā of will altogether which doth onely disable will of freédome Neither is it a good consequent to say bycause mans will is denyed to be freé therfore that man is altogether destitute of will bycause it is not freé but alwayes captiuate bounde an handmayde as the which in euill thyngs is either alwayes seruaunt to Sinne or in good thynges handmayde to grace euen as an Instrument or toole is alwayes at the bestowing of him that worketh withall For what should let but Luther may as well call Freewill by the name of a toole as Esay doth name the wicked by the name of Sawes in the band of the Lord and as well as in many places of Ezechiell those hartes are called stoany hartes which the Lord doth promise to soften and mollifie with his grace And yet I will not much trouble Osorius herein For whether will be freé vnto euill or be seruaunt vnto euill it maketh litle to the present purpose nor will stād Osorius much in steéde This is vndoubtedly true that mans naturall strength bee it freé or be it bond is more thē strong enough to all wickednesse So were all these stormes raysed agaynst Luther neédelesse also consideryng that he doth so frankely
issue of thy body thou shalt haue one whether thou marry a wife or not marry a wife but if thou be predestinate to be childlesse thou shalt surely be childies though thou marry a wife neuer so much The deceite of this Sophisme lurketh herein Bycause our endeuours and Imaginations ought not to depend vpoÌ„ an vncerteine certeintie whiche may be applyable to good or euill indifferently or vpon chaungeable aduenture the successe wherof we know not but must be ordered by a direct assured rule of reason For albeit on the one side it may so come to passe that he that marryeth a wife shall haue no children yet on the other part for as much as it is impossible to haue children without copulation of man and womaÌ„ therfore that ought to be yelded vnto that seémed consonaunt to reason not that which the Argument concluded videl therfore he must not marry a wife In lyke maner fareth it with the other Argument concernyng the Phisition Although it may so come to passe that no Phisicke may helpe me yet bycause it is most agreable to reason that vnlesse Phisicke be ministred health will not bee recouered I will follow herein the most approued rule of reason and will not wilfully throw my selfe by an vncerteine Necessitie of destiny into that whiche seémeth impossible or at least lesse agreable to reason Wherfore as these assumptions be false thou shalt in vayne marry a wife thou shalt vse Phisicke in vayne in lyke maner I aunswere that Osorius Argument is Sophisticall where hee argueth that our endeuours are applyed in vayne that we do trauaile in vayne Well to go foreward to the other triflyng toyes of this Sophister An other Argument touchyng rewardes and punishmentes For as much as vertue and vyce doe proceede from out the free choyse of will it can not be but that he which doth bereaue will of her freedome must also dispoyle the lyfe of man of due reward for vertue and punishment for vyce Luther by byndyng all thynges to Necessitie doth bereaue will of her freedome Ergo by Luthers doctrine it doth come to passe that neither punishment shal be executed vpon malefactours nor vertue aduaunced with condigne reward The very same Argument did Pelagius long â—ithence vse agaynst August though not in the selfe same wordes yet all one in effect I aunswere the partes therof And first concernyng freédome of will mentioned in the Maior how it ought to be distinguished hath bene declared before already Then if in the Minor you respect that kynde of Necessitie whiche forceth vs to yeld whether we will or no your Minor is false As touchyng reward for vertue and punishment for vyce Celestius the Pelagian vrged agaynst Augustine in the same wise Man is not to be blamed sayth he for committing the Sinne which he can by no meanes auoyde Augustine maketh aunswere Nay rather sayth he man is therefore faultie in that hee is not without sinne bycause by maÌ„s Freewill onely it came to passe that he should fall into that Necessitie of Sinnyng which Necessitie by his owne will he can not withstaÌ„d Whereby you perceaue Osor. that Necessitie of sinnyng is neither vtterly abolished froÌ„ maÌ„s nature that malefactours are duely punished notwithstaÌ„dyng for their offences By what reason may this be iustified will you say sithence the Iudgement of our choyse whereby we fall into Sinne is not freé but subiect to thraldome Be it as you say but thorough whose default this seruitude came first is already declared Agayne whether offence be committed through frée or seruile choyse of will it maketh litle to the purpose for the quallyfieng of the punishment so that it appeare to the Iudge that the fact was committed of willfull and corrupt lust and affectioÌ„ But you will say agayne If the offence be voluntary Ergo the doing therof consisteth in our owne power For what soeuer is voluntary seemeth to be within the compasse of our habilitie I aunswere To will we haue in deéde naturally in vs but to will well we haue not So that habilitie to will is of our selues to witte We are able to will but to will well is not in the power of will for this soundenesse of will AdaÌ„ lost when he had receaued it through his own abuse As touchyng rewardes I Aunswere Albeit our deédes deserue not to be rewarded yet doth God righteously reward theÌ„ whenas he doth crowne his owne giftes in vs. Neither doth it follow hereupon bycause God doth reward good workes in vs that therfore those good workes are our own as proceédyng froÌ„ vs through our owne strength habilitie But bycause he hath vouchsaued to make those giftes to be ours bycause he powreth those good giftes into vs therefore worthely are those good giftes rewarded as his owne And yet neither is this reward geueÌ„ as due to desert in respect of the worthynes of the worke but of his gracious liberalitie which he hath bountyfully powred vpon vs vndeserued before to make vs obedient vnto him Briefly if this Aunswere though of it selfe very playne and manifest shall seéme but of small credite with you I will bryng you Augustine for an umpyer betwixt vs sufficient enough I trust who beyng long agoe assayled with the same Obiections by the Pelagians shall for the better maintenaunce of his owne credite fully auÌ„swere these cauillations of those heretiques like vnto your selfe For the PelagiaÌ„s did obiect agaynst him in this sort If it be true that all thynges froÌ„ the begynnyng are determined to their end by Gods foreordinaunce decreé that meÌ„s willes are directed by God to what purpose are lawes made punishment ordeined for malefactours why are men rebuked reproued reprehended accused for what do we that we haue not receaued what maruell is it if we be disobedieÌ„t to God wheÌ„ as he that commauÌ„deth to obey hath not geuen will to obey Euen as Augustine hath aunswered this Obiection long sithence so let Osorius coÌ„tent him selfe to be auÌ„swered in as few wordes For correcting of vyce sayth he punishment is ministred for two causes First bycause no man is euill but by his owne default for the euill that he worketh is euill voluntaryly and of his owne accorde And although it ought not to be doubted that maÌ„s will ought to be subiect to Gods will whom maÌ„ can not let to worke what him best liketh for as much as when him listeth he frameth mans will to worke after his will yet here is no cause to the contrary but that man should receaue due punishement for the offences which him selfe committeth willfully seyng that he is the worker of his owne Sinne for no man Sinneth agaynst his will The other cause why transgressours are worthely punished is bycause the trespassours either are regenerate and such beyng cleansed before and fallyng agayne to their former filthe of their owne accorde can not pleade for defence that they
neuer receaued grace as men who through their own Freewill haue made frustrate the Grace of God once receaued by their owne wickednesse But if they be not regenerate yet is that damnable originall sinne worthely punished that will through anguish of punishment may conceaue desire to be regenerate if at least the man that is so chastized be the child of promise That God by outward vsing this meane of scourge vexation and chastizement may by secret inspiration fashion and frame the will to obedience c. And thus much hetherto coÌ„cernyng lawes and ordinauÌ„ces for rewardyng vertue and punishyng vyce in Ciuill gouernement There followeth now an other absurditie to witte where he sayth that by Luthers doctrine man is altogether dispoyled of vnderstandyng depriued of Iudgement bereft of reason and driueÌ„ to that extremitie as to be no better then a naturall stoane throwen out of a mans hand Osorius Argument Whosoeuer do attribute the orderyng of all thynges to absolute Necessitie exemptyng freedome from will doe spoyle men of their vnderstandyng depriue them of Iudgement and bereue them of reason and do traÌ„fforme them into brute beastes and stoanes Luthers doctrine doth bynde mens actions and willes to Necessitie Ergo Luthers doctrine doth dispoyle meÌ„ of their senses and turneth them into stoanes I deny the Maior of this Argument In the Minor I distinguish this word Necessitie Lastly the Argument is altogether vicious and that for two causes Either bycause Osorius thinketh That no Necessitie at all byndeth thynges to be directed by the eternall prouidence and ordinaunce of God or els he supposeth this Necessitie to he such as must neédes exclude all freédome of will Both which are false And first touchyng Necessitie Luther other auÌ„cient writers do learnedly affirme That the actions of mans lyfe are not subiect to fortune but herein they do acknowledge the prouidence of God which they assigne to be the onely and principall gouernesse and guide of maÌ„s lyfe as which directeth maÌ„s purposes boweth and bendeth his will and ordereth all the enterprises thereof Moreouer they teach the same prouidence to be such as whiche is not whirled about through blynd and sudden motions wherein no place is left to the happenynges of fortune nor such a prouidence as must neédes depend vpon inferiour causes or vpon a necessary couplyng together of causes wherein destiny is excluded nor such a prouidence as is vnaduisedly vncerteinly tossed to fro accordyng to the wandryng chaunces of fortune wherein fortune chaunce is taken away but such a prouidence as consisteth in a certeine assured stedfast permanent order workyng so in the meane whiles by inferiour and mixte causes neuerthelesse not as though it were tyed to those causes with any such necessary bonde of couplyng that it may not possibly doe otherwise by her owne absolute and most freé motione neither as though those causes could not possibly doe otherwise but must of Necessitie follow the direction of the same prouidence whereunto they be subiect Whereby it commeth to passe that Freewill beyng occupyed in these meane causes neither ceaseth to be altogether freé as being forced by no forreine constraint but guided by her owne accord nor yet remayneth so absolutely freé but that it is constrayned whether she wil or no to yeld to the direction of Gods prouidence voluntaryly notwithstandyng not coactly Wherupon amongest the learned this Necessitie is called Necessitas immutabilitatis aut certitudâ—nis whiche though doe not vrge thynges with violent coaction yet for as much as nothyng is in al the creation of nature of so small substance as can be without the coÌ„passe of Gods knowledge therfore albeit many things seéme accordyng to our capacities to be done by chaunce yet in respect of Gods prouidence if wee duely consider the originall and principall cause of thynges that are done wee shall finde nothing done but which could not but be done of very Necessitie I make hast to the other absurdities to witte to Osorius his most friuolous brabblynges For in this sorte he crawleth from mans lawes and ciuill gouernement to Gods lawes arguyng as it were in this sort If will be nothing auayleable to good lyfe nor of it selfe can do nothyng but Sinne then are Gods lawes commaunded in vayne in vayne also are exhortatioÌ„s and aduertisementes ministred in vayne are blessinges and cursinges set downe in the Scriptures But no man wil say that these are coÌ„mauÌ„ded in the Scriptures in vayne Ergo this doctrine of Luther is false execrable whereby he leaueth none other habilitie to Freewill but onely to sinne whereby he bindeth all things to necessity This Maior must bee denyed beyng nothyng els but a most manifest cauillation to witte tendyng to this effect as though God commaunded vs to doe nothyng but that we might of our owne selues performe whereunto Augustine aunswereth in this wise O man in the commaundemeÌ„t learne what thou oughtest to doe in the punishment learne thy weakenesse through thyne owne default In the prayer learne from whence thou mayest obteyne c. By the law of commaundyng and forebyddyng therefore accordyng to Augustine we come to the knowledge of our Sinne and infirmitie not of our owne strength power yet is not the law therfore coÌ„maunded in vayne For to vs that aske in the Sonnes name and acknowledge our infirmitie is Grace promised which worketh in vs both to will and to doe accordyng as the same Augustine doth recorde in the same place Let vs remember that hee doth say make vnto your selues a new hart and nâ—w Spirite who hath sayd I will geue you a new hart and I will geue you a new Spirite How is it then that he that sayth make vnto your selues a new hart fayth also I will geue you a new hart Why doth he commaunde if him selfe will geue Why doth he geue if maÌ„ be the worker but bycause he geueth the thyng that he commaundeth and helpeth him whom hee hath commaunded that hee may do it For through grace it commeth to passe that man is endued with a good will which was before of an euill will c. Therfore by this Argument of Augustine appeareth that this word of admonition exhortation or of rebukyng vsed in the Scriptures is as it were a certeine meane or instrument which the holy Ghost doth vse in conuertyng the will of such as are not yet regenerate and in beautifying the first issues of his good giftes in such as are regenerate that they may grow to a more rypenesse through Repentaunce through Fayth and through Prayer And by what wrest of Logicke doth Osorius gather habilitie of Freewill out of the holy ordinauÌ„ces seyng Augustine doth in so many places so directly gayne say him but especially in his 2. booke agaynst the two Epistles of Pelagius writyng in this wise I can see nothyng in the whole Scriptures geuen by God in commauÌ„dement to man to proue that
where none was Nay rather why dyd not the Pope rather throw away his proude ambition and filthy Iucre and embrace the wholesome counsell of his brother and sithence he disdayned the maÌ„ why did he not douchâ—afe to yeld to the truth If he be so humble a seruaunt of the seruauntes of God as in name title he professeth to be why shamed he to harken vnto a godly man a learned Doctour and a graue Deuine not onely teachyng the truth but also castyng him selfe downe so humbly Nay rather why shamed he not to abuse the name of his Christ his Gospell in so false and filthy a matter Why shamed he not to blind the eyes of the people with such smoakes and to delude theÌ„ for whom Christ shedd his most precious bloud so craftely finally why durst he spurne so malapertly agaynst the expresse authoritie of the word and for as much as there is nothyng of more valour and more excelleÌ„t in this life then freé remission and forgeuenesse of Sinnes which we do enioy by the onely bloud of the sonne of God what more pestilent practize of lyeng and deceite could haue bene imagined or what ought he to be adiudged els then the very enemy of mans saluation who betrayeng vs of the most precious iewell in the world doth sell vnto vs smoake and dead coales in steéde of true and perfect Treasure These thynges beyng so manifest and cleare as nothyng caÌ„ be more manifest and cleare for as much also as Luther defended so honest and rightfull a cause as no man euer better and whereunto he was not allured by any his owne affectioÌ„ but forced rather by the peéuishe frowardnesse and manifold iniuries of others euen agaynst his will which also he could neither recant without haynous offence nor mainteyne without perill of lyfe where be those ianglers now which slaunder Luther as that he sought meanes of him selfe to disturbe alter ceremonies where be those whoÌ„ you rayle at so much I pray Osorius Who do set vppe Schoole no where but that they make all thynges more abhominable Finally where be these new Gospellers who so vayne gloriously tooke vpoÌ„ them to restoare the puritie of Gods pure Euangely Nay rather where was your shamefastnesse where was your honesty when you wrate this where was your Logicke wheÌ„ you ouerflowed so monstruously with filthy lyes in steéde of true honest Argumentes For what so simple a witted maÌ„ may be fouÌ„de that caÌ„ not seé a great mayme want to Iudgement in you in this kynde of Logicke when he shall view and read so wynde shaken and rotten Argumentes where in all your Assumptions ye vouche no maner of truth nor yet of all the same Assumptions any one hangeth agreably with the other For first begynnyng with a manifestlye you Assume on this wise Your Prophetes say you and your Apostles tooke vppon them and bounde them selues with an oathe that they would restore the pure and liuely wellsprynges of the Gospell Which is most false where dyd they vtter any such promise in word or halfe a sillable of a word so much But what doe you assume hereof But nothyng is ameÌ„ded in your Churches through their endeuour Hereof we shall seé the proofe hereafter Goe to conclude at the length Therefore those new Gospellers of yours be not of God O wonderfully not concluded but confused Argument of yours as are all your Argumentes els But if I may be permitted to builde such scattered Cobbewebbes together without morter or lyme why may not I as lawfully argue on this wise Ierome Osorius Bishop of Siluano hath taken vpon hym to confute the Lutheranes But his attempt hath little preuayled vnlesse it be to make their cause more manifest Ergo The purest Elleborus doth grow in Antycyra But let vs proceéde and because you haue taken your pleasure hitherto with our Gospellers teachers reasonably well Syr Ierome may we be so bold to enquire likewise what your Gospellers and great Doctours haue performed at the leÌ„gth what fruites what notable marchaundizes they haue enriched their people withall what aunswere will you make to this They did neuer promise any such thing say you I do beleue you But I demaund not of you what they promised but what they performed howe much they profited to the restoring of the puritie of your Churche what they ought to haue done this is the thing that I do aske You suppose that they haue well acquited themselues when by your testimonye they neuer made any vaunt of themselues to bring any thyng to passe euen as though when your friend shall staÌ„d destitute of your helpe you care not how naked you leaue him so that you binde not your selfe vnto him with any parcell of promise But I am of an other opinion and this I reason with you not because you haue not profited nor giuen any hope of profiting or help towardes the restitution of the puritie of your Churche but this I say and do expostulate with you because the most pure doctrine ordayned instituted by Christ himselfe for our behoofe ratified by the Prophets and Apostles and most wisely deliuered ouer vnto vs by our elders is wholy altogether or surely for the most part therof I say not not conuerted but vtterly subuerted by you because you haue obtruded vpoÌ„ vs such an estate of the Church is neyther Christ nor his Apostles if they were nowe aliue would euer acknowledge which if any man will dought whether be true or no from whence shall be he better certified then if he throughly peruse the very shape and lyuely Image of that Romish Church which your self do represent vnto vs here comparing the samewith the true Apostolique and that auncient Romaine Church that was for many yeares agoe Therefore let vs now harcken to Osorius preaching of hys owne Church First sayth he we haue neyther the Gospels of Luther nor of Melancthon nor of Carolostadius nor of Zuinglius nor of Caluine nor of Bucer but we do firmelye retaine the Gospells of Mathew Marke Luke and Iohn c. This is well done indeéde if it be true that you say and I wolde to god it were so I would to God Osor. you woulde stande faste and vnremoueable within the limytts and bowndes of that doctryne which the Actes wrytinges of the Apostles and Euangelistes haue deliuered ouer vnto vs and beyng contented with the same Gospelles you would not seeke for any other meanes of Saluation but such as in these sacred Scriptures is ensealed vnto vs by the finger of the holy Ghost But what is the cause then that yee defraud the godly of these Gospelles why do you hyde them in darcknes and why do you ouerwhelm them not vnder a Bushell onely but with fagott also and fire and by all meanes possible els consume them As to that where you say that you renounce the Gospelles of Luther MelaÌ„chton and Caluine truely I doe wonderfully commend
the Fathers and Elders which did apperteine to the well ordering and gouernmēt of outward discipline Yet euen in these was such a moderation consonauncy obserued as should nether extinguishe the glory of the Gospell nor entāgle consciences with combersome charge but serue onely for preseruation of necessarye orders For due obseruation of the which was graunted to the Church a certayne authoritye and power to dispose and determine according to the nature of places and necessitye of tymes such thinges as might seéme most agreéable and couenable for their assemblies But this authority hedged in as it were within her certein limits and boundes as was but humaine so forced it not such a necessitye of obseruance as did those other commaunded immediately from God For lyke consideration may not be taken of humaine precepts commaunded by men onely as must be had of thordinaunces of God Hereof commeth it that the breach or not performaunce of that one being done without arrogant cōtēpt or reprochful disdayn is not punishable as mortall deadly sinne In lyke maner the godly ministers of the Church were not without their due honor and authority yet such it was as exceéded not the appointed lymittes and measure For as then function ecclesiasticall was a Ministery and seruice not a Maistry or Lordshippe which consisteth in two thinges chiefly In preaching the worde and ministring the Sacraments and in directing outward discipline and ordering maners and misdemeanours In which kinde of ministery although cōmaundement be geuē to yeald due obediēce vnto the pastors yea though we heare these wordes spoken of Ministers He that heareth you heareth me Yet tend they not to this end that they may after their owne wittes and pleasures make new innouations frame new fashions of doctrine and coyne new Sacraments thrust in new worshippings and new Gods or thereby to erect a kingdome in the Church But their whole power and authoritye is restrayned to the prescript rule of the Gospell not to dispence and dispose thinges after their owne luste but to be the dispensors and disposers of the misteries of God Wherevpon in matters appertayning to Gods Lawe conscience is bound to yealde due obediēce to the pastoures according to this saying He that refuseth you refuseth me In other thinges that concerne the Tradicions of men or that haue no assurance of their creation by any principle of doctrine herein ought speciall regard to be had First to what end they are commaunded then also by what authoritye they are brought into the Church For the ordinaunces which are thrust in vnder such maner and condition as may enfeéble true confidence in the Mediator as may dispoyle cōsciences of their freédome and ouerthrowe the maiestie of gods grace or are linked together with a vayne opinion of righteousnes of worshipping of remission of sinnes of merites of Saluation or of vnauoydable necessitye Such I say ought without all respect to be hauished and abandoned as pestilent batches from the communion and congregation of the Church Consideration also must be had of the difference betwixt these thinges which the Church doth charge mens consciences withall by mans authoritye onely and the thinges which are established and proclaimed by the expresse word and commaundement of God For although the Church may of duety require a certein subiuection to the ecclesiasticall ministers as that we ought to obey the ordinaunces that are instituted for preseruation of ciuill societye and couenable decency Yet must the ministers be well aduised least vnder pretence and colour of ecclesiasticall authoritie they eyther commaund the things that are not expedient or oppresse the simple people with vnmeasurable Burdeines or thinke with them selues that the Church is tyed of neccessity to any Lawes established by men Euen so and the same that hath bene spoken of mēs Constitutions may in effect be applyed to Iudicall Courts Iudgementes For although authoritye be committed to the Church to iudge and determine of doctrines and outward misdemeanours although the resolution of doubtfull cōtrouersies the discouerie and opening of matters obscure the declaring and debatyng of matters confuse the reformation and amendement of matters amysse be left ouer to the Censure and iudgement of the Church many tymes Yet is not this ordinary authoritye so arbitrary and absolute but is also fast tyed to the direct rule of the worde So that in matters of controuersie this Authoritie came conclude commaunde nothing but that which the word of the Gospel must make warrantable Neither hath this authoritye any such prerogatiue to make any alteration of Gods Scriptures or to forge false and vntrue interpretations which may auaile to establishe an authoritye of men or of orders or to make any new articles of fayth or to bring in straunge Inuocations which are directly repugnant to the manifest authoritye of the Scriptures And therfore we creditt the Church as a Mistres and a teacher foreshewing the truth yet after an other maner altogether then as we be bound to obey the word of the Gospell preached in the Church by the mouth of Gods faythfull ministers which authoritye when they put in execution according to the authoritye of Gods word we doe beleue them yet so neuerthelesse beleue them as that our creditt is not grounded now vpon the testimonie of the Church nor vpon men but vpon the worde of God namely because their iudgemēt is agreable and consonant with the rule of the sacred scriptures and with a free confession of the Godly iudging directly accordyng to the voyce and worde of God The Church therfore hath authoritie in decyding controuersies of doctrine Yet so that it selfe must be ouerruled by the authoritie of the word Otherwise the Church hath neither authoritye nor iudgement contrary to the consonancy of the Scriptures In lyke maner in discipline and reformation of maners the Church may determine and iudge But here also consideration must be had of the differēce For the censures ecclesiasticall are of one kinde but Iudgements temporall of an other kinde For in forinsicall and temporall causes when Iudgementés are geuen although they receaue their authoritie from the word of God yet are they in force in respect of the authoritye of the Prince and the Magistrate And therefore they minister correction with punishment corporall according to the qualitye of the trespasse But the iudgements of the Church are farre vnlyke For in those maner of offences which appertayne to the ecclesiasticall Consistorye the Church hath her proper iudgements and peculiar punishments Wherewith it doth not afflict or crucifie mens bodyes notwithstandyng nor pursue vnto death but cutteth of from the congregation onely and common society of men such as doe wilfully and stubburnely sett themselues agaynst the Ministerye and such as doe harden themselues and obstinately perseuer in wickednes agaynst order and conscience and continue in errors and other notorious crimes contrary to the prescript rule of sound doctrine
alwayes commend the person but yf the person be good he doth alwayes commend the place otherwise yf he be euill he doth shame the place And what yf Peter did receaue the keyes from Christ did he alone therefore receaue them was it not also spoken indifferently to all without exception Receaue ye the holy ghost whose soeuer sinnes you louse or binde vpon earth c. Could Peter be sent by any greater authoritye then by the authoritye of Christ himselfe Finally was not this spoken to all thapostles indifferently by Christ himselfe As the liuing father sent me euen so doe I send you Peter therefore did binde Peter did louse I doe perceaue you so did also Paule louse the Corynthian and reteigne Hermogenes and Alexander Iohn the Euangelist did louse the theéfe once or twise as Eusebius doth recorde in his 3. booke Cap. 17. Other Apostles did louse lykewise others euen by the same authoritye receaued from Christ himselfe and not from Peter at all What then because Peter did before the rest of thapostles confesse his fayth and because the keyes were first geuē to Peter doth this argue forthwith that the keyes were geuen to Peter alone But to goe foreward Putt the case that the keyes were deliuered to Peters custody both first yea in respect of his confessing of fayth besides this also to him alone sith you will haue it so yet what kinde of chopplogick is this The keyes were deliuered to Peter cōfessing Christ with a true and sincere fayth Ergo. The Popes of Rome onely be the successors of Peter and are inuested in the possession of the same power of binding and lousing by the expresse worde of God A trymm conclusion surely very Catholick Wherein neither the Antecedent is true and the consequent much more false Forasmuch as neither this force of binding and lousing was geuen to Peter alone their assumption hereof surmised that the Popes of Rome onely are Peters Successors is altogether as false The reason is because the simplicitye and natiue humilitye of the Gospell doth no where acquaint it selfe with any such carnall successions which are applyed to places persons and tymes as neither Christes philosophye doth acknowledge or regard carnall Fathers Sonnes affinities and kinreddes as the which doth mount on high and doth enter by farr more excellent meanes Goe to yet for example sake lett vs imagine that Peter hadd a sonne borne vnto him by his lawfull wyfe and an other Cephas resembling the father and by discent and course of nature next heire What shall we say that this Sonne shall clayme the priuiledge of his fathers Portershippe because he is his next heyre Not so you will say And will you so flattly deny that priuiledge to naturall discent which you yeld to place and to a rotten outward Chayre If Christ did neither acknowledge mother brethren nor sisters vpon the earth but those onely which yelded their due obedience to his fathers commaundements will the same Christ vouchsafe any other successors or vicars of Peter then such as present themselues with the same cognifizaunce and badge that he did acknowledge in Peter And admitt also the very best that maketh for you that the Byshoppe of Rome doth with neuer so good a face pretend this authoritie from Christ what and be not other Byshopps of other Churches endued with semblable fayth what prerogatiue hath he then in this office and keéping of keyes now as to challenge any superioritye ouer other Byshoppes and Presidēts of the Churche The Scripture doth in a certein place deny that he which hath not the spirite of Christ is of Christ. Now this spirite of Christ wheresoeuer it resteth is humble and meéke regardeth not the thinges of the earth seéketh not her owne suffereth the iniuries of others offereth iniury to none neither reuengeth any iniury offred to himselfe haleth no man to the slaughter-house thyrsteth after euery mans sauetye yea prayeth also for his enemies earnestly doth receaue the weake in fayth doth oppresse no man endureth many thinges becometh all in all to all persons that he may winne all vnto Christ accompteth other mens chaunces good or badde as his owne lyueth not to himselfe but to the publique benefite of many doth amend that is amisse addresseth that which is out of order recouereth the lost recomforteth the dispeired estates finally doth not breake in peéces the shieuered Reéde For in very deéde the spirite of Christe canne not be vnlyke to Christ himselfe And therefore hereof we may well conclude that wheresoeuer this spirite doth plant his Seate there doughtles is the successor of Peter there be the true keyes of the Church I doe not presume here to iudge of the spirite of the Pope he hath his Iudge and shall haue his daye of iudgement which shall display abroad into open light secrets of all darkenes In the meane space touching the Popes Pardons whereof these praters preach so presumptuously this is most certen and sure That thorough the whole scriptures or aūcient Fathers one sentēce so much cann not be found to make those their Pardons Iustifiable or coulorable First touching their whole allegation of Succession it is playne fraude and deceipt their bragge of the singuler prerogatiue of Peter is false The power of the keyes doth no more belong to the Seé of Rome then to the vniuersall Church of Christ. For if by those keyes power of binding and lousing be figured as hath bene allready spoken these keyes though Peter receaued first in deéde yet did not he alone receaue them nor did euer at any tyme exercise the power of the same otherwise then as he did enioye them together with thother Apostles which for asmuch as is confirmed by very many infallible profes and established by the cōtinuall vnbrokē course of auncient Antiquitye as also witnessed euidently by the testimony of the Cannons in the Councels of Ancyra and Nice whereof we made mencion before where it is sayd that the custome of the Church was then such as that euery Byshoppe should haue the order and ouersight of euery his peculiar Prouince and vpon due consideration of the behauiour of the Penitentiaries might lawfully either mittigate shorten or cutt of the tyme of their penaunce or prolong the same according as they should thinke in necessary and neédefull for reformation and correction So that it was shamelesse presumption and most arrogant insolencye of Pope Innocent the 3. to make this vndiscreéte decreé in the Councell of Laterane in the yeare 1215. Because sayth he through vndiscreate and superfluous Pardons which certē Prelates of the Church are not affrayd to graūt both the keyes of the Church are despised and penitentiall satisfaction is weakened we doe decree that when the feast of dedication of Saynt Peters Pallaice shall be solemnized Pardon shall not be graunted aboue one yeare and so foorth in the feast of the yearely dedication the tyme of appoynted Pardons
white garmentes least the shame of thy nakednes do appeare and annoynt thine eyes with precious oyntment that thou mayst see c. But here will some one interrupt me and say that the keyes of heauen were not geuen in vayne Neither do I gaynsay him herein But that is not the thyng that we seéke to be satisfied in at this presēt whether Christ gaue any such keyes but this is it whether the keyes were geuen to the Byshop of Rome onely For we do not defraude the Church of her right but accordyng to right we do pleade agaynst the Pope who raketh vppe vnto him selfe as matter of his proper professiō that which was geuen to the whole Church in the name of Peter excluding all other Churches ioynte commoners with him in the same By meanes whereof the Pope doth incurre a double trespasse and is to aunswere double dammage for the one wherein he entruded wrongfully vpon the right of the whole order for the other wherein he doth most filthely abuse the right vse of the keyes For if it be true first that Augustine doth protest boldly and which Thomas Aquinas doth not deny That in the person of Peter the keyes were committed to the other Apostles and to the whole Church herein surely that most horrible abuse of the Romish challenge doth bewray a notorious fraude who scraping to it selfe full prerogatiue of all power doth penne vppe within such narrow streightes all other Archbyshops and Byshopps as that it shall not be lawfull for any one to geue Pardon aboue the space of one whole yeare within his peculiar Prouince or Diocese without leaue of his Lordshypp Agayne he doth committ as great an offence in the vse of the keyes For whereas this power of bindyng and lousing wherein the whole force and efficacie of the keyes consisteth was receaued of the Preachers and Ministers of the word for none other end but to the necessary consolation and comfort of the Church nor was executed at any tyme by the Apostles but in very hard and weighty necessitie onely As if a man had dispayred of the mercy of Christ or had cōmitted some haynous and notorious offence publiquely here was their power employed either to comfort and rayse vp them that were fallen or to suppresse and bridle the insolency of such as seémed manifestly iniurious and rebellious agaynst the glory of Christ. Which kynde of Iudiciall vse of the keyes was not very commonly frequented by the Apostles nor yet applyed but in great and vrgent necessitie There was besides this at the same tyme an other more vsuall execution of the keyes and is now commonly in vse in euery well ordered Congregation For whereas the Preacher doth openly proclayme by the authoritie of the word euerlastyng lyfe to all whosoeuer truly an vnfaynedly repenting and beleéuyng in Christ Jesu what doth he els then open the kyngdome of heauen to mē as it were with a key and close it fast agayne as neéde shall require For euen as with a materiall keye as witnesseth Thomas doores be opened the barres and gynnes beyng forced backe which did forclose the passadge to them that would enter in Euen so when as by hearyng the word fayth ariseth and the blockes and barres of Sinne be turned out of the waye these keyes therfore are rightly sayd to be cōmitted to the Ministers of the Church wherewith as it were vnlockyng the lockes and vnloasing the obstacles of sinnes they do lead and conduct Sinners into heauē and open the eyes of the blind With this power was Paule also furnished by the Lord him selfe beyng sent vnto the Gentiles That thou mayest open their eyes sayth he whereby they may be cōuerted from darckenes to light and deliuered from the power of Sathan vnto God may attaine Remission of their Sinnes and their portion emongest the Saintes through fayth which is in Christ Iesu our Lord. I beseéch you Syr could Peter be sent with more authoritie in any respect vnto the Iewes thē Paule was sent vnto the Gentiles And what shall I say of the rest of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ was this a small slender authoritie wherein was committed vnto them the whole world to be taught in the word of GOD whereby also they wrought so many miracles so great signes emongest the people wherfore if these wordes byndyng and lowsing do consiste in the power of the holy Ghost in propagation of Fayth in the ministery of Reconciliation in publishyng the Gospell what aunswere will myne opposed aduersary make me here doth the Byshop of Rome onely Preach the Gospell Or is he onely endued with the power of the holy Ghost doe not other Byshops and Ministers Preach the word as well as he And from whēce then hath this notable Prelate this so notorious a fullnes Now to graunt this much to the Ministers of the Churche that the keyes are commēded to them together with the Byshop of Rome wherewith they may deteigne and release Sinnes accordyng to their power cōmited vnto them yet ought not this power be so narrowly streighted either to one Byshop onely or emparted also with other Ministers in such wise as though there were none other Remissiō of Sinnes besides in the Churche vnlesse it come by the Ministers keyes or the Popes Pardons or as though no man could make him selfe a way passable into heauē vnlesse he be admitted by this Popish Porter or his Ministers The Minister doth open in deéde Be it so Yet doth he not so open but the euery one may open also to him selfe by his owne Fayth So also doth the voyce and authoritie of the Ministers breake the bandes of Sinnes a sunder in those which do hartely repent Yet neuerthelesse this sentence remayneth alwayes vnreproueable Being iustified through fayth we haue peace with God through our Lord and Sauiour Iesu Christ. Again this also feare not beleue onely thou art made whole All things are possible to him that doth beleue And in an other place purifiing our hartes by fayth Moreouer we heare our Lord himselfe speaking That they may receiue Remission of their sinnes and their portion amongest the Sanctified through fayth which is in me And although it serue to great purpose in the Church to haue due consideration what and to whom release is made in Christ his name by the ministery of a faythfull Minister Yet is not the force and effectualnesse of fayth any title diminished hereby but that she may make a way passable to the throne of the Maiesty in assured confidence Neither must we thinke that the Lord gaue vnto the Ministers so large a commission of these opening Keyes as that there remayne none other meanes of attayne forgeuenesse of sinnes It may sometimes come to passe and euen so it happeneth very often that the voyce and coūcell of the Ministers must needes be inquyred as when a man is at any time ouer greéuously
word of God Ergo They are worthy to be accursed whosoeuer will spurne agaynst this Catholicke doctrine And because they may seéme to speake this not without some good ground they haue scraped together a few shreddes out of Auncient Fathers namely Cyprian Hesychius Ierome Ambrose Irene Oecumenicus wherewith they may bolster vpp not their credytt but their false packyng shuffled in among to delude the simple people withall Out of Cyprian is vouched first this sentence in an Epistle of hys For why rather sayth he the priest of the high God then our Lord Iesus Christ who did offer a sacrifice vnto God the Father and did offer the selfe same that Melchizedech did namely bread and wine to witt his body and bloud c. And immediately after As therefore it is sayd in Genesis that the representatiō of the sacrifice did goe before by Melchizedech consisting of bread and wine which thing the Lord performing and accomplishing did offer the bread and the cupp mingled with wine and he that it fulnesse it selfe hath fulfilled the verity of the prefigured representation Whereupon groweth this Argument We are commaunded to do the same that Christ did Christ did at his supper offer the Sacrifyce of his bodye and bloud Ergo We also ought to do the same if we beleeue Cyprian I do acknowledge the wordes of Cyprian I doe allow the authority neyther doe I sist out ouer narrowly how he doth agreé herein with the trueth of the hebrue letter because he sayth that Melchizedech did offer bread and wine and that vpon this offring hys Pryesthood was grounded because he did offer bread and wine As though Melchizedech were not a Pryest before he offered bread and wine Neyther doe I presume to take vpon me to aunswere herein as Augustine did aūswere Crescentius I am not bound to the authority of this Epistle because I doe not accompt the Epistles of Cyprian as canonicall but I do measure thē by the Canonicall scriptures And whatsoeuer I finde in him agreable with the authority of Gods word I doe allow of it and cōmend him therefore but whatsoeuer is contrary to Gods word I do by his patience refuse it c. And therefore lett those sayinges of Cyprian be true and autentick for me Goe to then and what aduantage hereof may be gathered for the ratyfiyng of the popish sacrifice wherein they do say that they do offer the sonne of God really for a propitiatory sacrifice which is auayleable not to the Receauer onely but to the quicke and dead also We are commaunded sayth he to do the same that Christ did at his last supper But he did not offer sacrifice for himselfe at his last supper as I suppose And how then doth the Pryest do the same thing that Chryst did yet neuerthelesse he did offer at his supper his owne body and bloud Did he offer it for sinnes yea or nay If you say yea The Apostle will deny it who did acknowledge none other sacrifice of Christ but onely one and doth likewise affirme that Christ was offered once onely to purge and wype away the sinnes of many If you say nay how then doe the Priestes the selfe same who do sacrifyce for sinnes as they say But I returne agayne to Cyprian Christ sayth he accomplishing in effect and trueth that which went before in a shadow dyd offer his owne body and bloud This is true in deéd But where did he offer it at his supper surely so say the Papistes But Cypriā doth not say so For whereas he speaketh of bread and wyne mixt together what he meaneth thereby he doth imediately declare in the same Epistle very playnely and doth interpret himselfe openly that it may appeare that this was not done at the tyme of hys supper but doth confesse that the same was performed at the passion and death of our Lord which was foreshewed and prefigured before And agayn a whiles after he shall wash sayth he his garment in wyne and his vesture in the blood of the grape Now when it is named the blood of the grape what els is declared then the wine of the cupp of the blood of the Lord And thus much Cyprian not meaning the supper surely but the crosse of Christ which doth appeare euidently by this that he annexeth forthwith in the same place denying that we are able to drinke the blood of Christ vnlesse Christ had bene troden and prest in the wine presse first and had dronken of the Cupp before of which Cupp he should haue tasted first to the beleeuers Which speéch of Cyprian forasmuch as can not be aptly applied to any other thyng then to the sacrifyce of the Crosse it may easily appeare hereby what aunswere ought to be framed to the Argument The same which Christ did must be imitated of vs. Christ did offer at his supper hys bodye and his bloud according to the Testimony of Cyprian But this is false For Cyprian throughout all that whole Epistle did neuer affirme that Christ dyd offer his bodye and bloud at hys supper but vpon the Crosse. If an Argument must neédes be framed from out the wordes of Cyprian we shall argue much more probably on thys wyse The same that Christ did offer we must offer also Christ did offer the same that Melchizedech did Ergo We must offer the same that Melchizedech did But Melchizedech did offer bread wine according as Cyprian doth witnesse Ergo We also must offer bread and wine Is there any sillable here that may helpe the Papistes cause or vtterly ouerthrow it rather Here is an other boane to pycke vpon raked out of Ierome where he sayth Melchizedech in the Type of Chryst dyd offer bread and wyne and dyd dedycate a Christian Mystery in the bloud and body of our sauiour c. This knott also is cleane cutt away with the very same two-edged Axe for I am not ignoraunt that the Ecclesiasticall writers doe make comparison now and then betwixt the presentes of Melchizedech which he gaue to Abraham and the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse to witte that one figuratiuely this other truely and in veryty Be it now as they say Yet is thys no good proofe notwithstandyng to iustify that the Priest doth forth with offer the Sonne of GOD in the mysticall Supper really to God the Father in full remyssion of sinnes And yet here also do not all the holy Doctours agreé amongest themselues in all poyntes whereas some do compare the oblation of Melchyzedech with the Sacrifice of the Crosse Agayne other do compare it with the Celebrating of the holy communion yea and do make it equiualent therewyth Some do neyther agreé with thēselues applying the Allegory now this way now that way and many times both waies Finally though they should be vniforme in theyr Allegory yet how true that Argument is that is deriued from an Allegory accordyng to that saying which is commōly frequēted in
schooles which doth affirme that an Allegoricall Argument concludeth no trueth I referr me to the Logicians Of no greater valydyty is that Argument lykewyse which they rake out of Augustines wordes For on thys wyse is Augustine cited Melchizedech sayth he did deliuer to Abraham first as to thè Father of the faythfull the Eucharist of the body bloud of Christ. c. To graunt this vnto them as for confessed which neuerthelesse resteth yet vnproued That Melchizedech did represent the Euchariste in a type and vnder a veyle of likenesse yet whereas he offered nothing but bread and wyne this is not a good argument to proue that the Pryest which doth celebrate the Masse shall by and by offer vpon the Altar vnto God the Father the very same substaunce of his sonne for sinnes whiche suffered on the Crosse. Neyther is thys forme of argument allowable in Schooles Melchizedech did represent the Eucharist in a figure Ergo The flesh of the sonne of God is really offered for the quick and the dead in the Masse or Communion But lett vs proceéde to the remnaunt of our Aduersaryes Fragmentes There is also thrust in place a saying of Hesychius who writing vpon Leuiticus but as going before sayth he he did offer vpp himselfe in the Apostles supper Which they do know who be partakers of the efficacy of the misteries c. Nothing withstandeth but that Christ may be sayd after a certeine sorte to offer himselfe to the Father in his last supper euē by the same figuratiue speéch wherein the Lambe is sayd to be slayne from the beginning of the world Or as it is sayd in the old Testament that oblation is offered by Sacrifices in which phrase of speéch the same Hesychius in an other place in the same Chap. doth call Christ an Altar Christ being incarnate in the Uirgines wombe to be a soddē Sacrifice not in actuall veritye in naturall trueth of the thing in deéde but in power and vertue of a Mystery Whereupon lett vs heare what aunswere August doth make not vnaptly to these figuratiue speéches of Hesychius was not Christ once offred in himselfe sayth he And yet he is offred to the people not onely at euery solemne feast of Easter but euery day also Neither doth he lye that being demaunded shall aunswere that he was Sacrificed For if Sacraments hadd not a certain lykenesse of the thinges whereof they be Sacramentes they should not be Sacramentes at all Thus much Augustine whose authoritye if be not of sufficient creditt Lett vs annexe thereunto the Sentence of Lombard For thus speaketh he After this sayth he question is demaunded whether the action of the Priest may be called a Sacrifice properly or an oblation And whether Christ be dayly offred or whether he be offred once onely whereunto may be aunswered briefely That the thing that is offred and consecrated by the Priest is called a Sacrifice an oblatiō because it is a memoriall and a representatiō of the true sacrifice an oblatiō offred vpon the Altar of the Crosse. For Christ did suffer death vpon the Crosse once and was there offred in himselfe But he is dayly offred in the sacrament because in the same sacrament a memoriall is made of the same thing that was once offred c. And because we may not seéme to want witnesses lett vs couple hereunto the common Glosse differing nothing at all from the Maister of the sentēces which enterlacing a commentary vpon the place of Augustine where Christ is sayd to be Sacrificed De consecrat Distinct. 2. he doth expound the wordes of the distinction on this wise Christ is sacrificed That is to say the sacrifice of Christ sayth he is represented and a memoriall is made of his passion c. Now Syr how doe these hang together with the decreés of the Tridentine ghostly Fathers who are not satisfied to call the Masse by the name of Sacramentall Sacrifice wherein a memoriall and a representation may be made of the Lordes Sacrifice vnlesse it be accompted also a Satisfactory and Propitiatory sacrifice beyond all consideration and trueth of Scripture and besides all custome of the auncient Fathers But I retourne agayne to Hesychius who sayth that Christ did Sacrifice himselfe at his supper which saying I do admitt But Augustine doth playnely disclose what maner of Sacrifice that was De consecratione distinct 2. The very Sacrifice sayth he which is made with the Priestes handes is called the Passion of Christ his death his crucifying not in the trueth of the thing in deed but in a signifyeng mistery c. And agayne When the hoast is broken and the blood powred into the mouthes of the faythfull what is signified thereby els then the offering of the body of Christ vpon the crosse c. Therefore such as be of sound iudgementes will say that to deduct true and vnreproueable propositions frō the wordes that are spoken figuratyuely and after a certein sort is a shyft of subtle sophisters and not a poynt of sober Diuynes After this ensueth a place out of Irene very much and many times canuassed by our Aduersaries And he tooke sayth he that which is of the substaunce of bread and gaue thankes saying This is my body And the cuppe likewise which is of the creature of wine that is vsuall with vs he did confesse to be his bloud and did teach a new oblation of a new Testament which the Churche receiuing from the Apostles doth offer vnto God through the whole world of the which amongest the twelue prophets Malachy did prophecy on this wise I haue no pleasure in you sayth the Lord God of hostes and I will not accept an offering of your handes c. The place of Irene whereupon they beate their braynes so busily is chopt in here at this present according as the olde prouerbe sayth as good neuer a whitt as neuer the better as iust as Germaines lipps For whereas proofe ought to haue bene made that the same boyd of Christ which was once hāged on the Crosse thrust through the side vpon the Crosse is offered dayly in the Masse really and substantially in an vnbloudy Sacrifice for the redemption of sinnes for hereunto tendeth their inuincible Maxime they slipp away frō thēce now are come to shew that we are bound to offer vnto God the first fruites of all his creatures by the commaūdemēt of God least we may seéme vnthākefull vngratefull For besides this the wordes of Irene emporte nothing Now to graunt them all this that Christ tooke bread and the cupp of the Creature of wine that is vsuall with vs and did call the same his bloud what will all this preuaile to defend them in this lurking hoale for the question here is not whether we onght to make an oblation to God of the first fruites of all his creatures nor whether Christ gaue his commaundement to his Apostles which they did