The survey of Popery Wherein the reader may clearly behold, not only the original and daily incrementes of Papistry, with an evident Confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of God's Church from Adam until Christ's ascension, contained in the first and second Part thereof: and throughout the third Part Popery is turned upside down. 1. Cor. 13.11. When I was a child, I spoke as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. LONDON Printed by Valentine Sims dwelling on Adling hill at the sign of the white Swan. 1596 To the right Honourable Lords, john the L. Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, one of her majesties most Honourable privy counsel; Matthew the L. Archbishop of York, Primate and Metropolitan of England; Sir Thomas Egerton Knight, the L. Keeper of the great Seal of England; and to the right reverend father in God, Toby the grave and learned Bishop of Durham; Grace and peace from God our Father, and from our Lord jesus Christ. IF many have laudably employed much time and study (right honourable and my very good Lords) and that only to attain skill in profane stories; much more doubtless are their studies commendable, who have spared no time, no labour, no watchings, no lucubrations, to achieve exact knowledge in the holy scriptures and histories ecclesiastical, very necessary for the accomplishment thereof. In which kind of never enough commended exercise sundry virtuous & learned men have so profited the church of God; as their worthy monuments have gotten them immortal fame, before God and all mortal men. Yet such is the condition of our state during this pilgrimage of mortality▪ that the best learned neither have said, neither can say so much, but still more very fruitfully may be said therein. For which cause very wisely wrote S. Austen▪ that he did learn & would learn daily, even to the last hour. While I revolved these matters deeply with myself; I found some writers tedious, some obscure, some confuse, some abounding, some wanting, no one answerable to all desires. In regard whereof, albeit I cannot bring gold, silver, pearls, hyacinths, and precious stones; yet am I very desirous to carry mortar to the building up of the walls of Gods Zion: not for that I think I can say better than is already said by others (as who acknowledge myself the meanest of many thousands;) but because I covet to supply for the measure of my small talon, such wants, for the common good of the simple sort, and of others who have not store of books, as heretofore I find omitted in far more learned works. What variety, what confusion, what obscurity, what uncertainty is amongst historiographers and Chronographers, none doth know or can know sufficiently; but he that doth study the same seriously. What is more necessary for the understandig of the prophesy of Daniel, than the perspicuous and exact enumeration of the 70 weeks? then the ready explication of the 2300 days? then the lively purtra●te of the four monarchies what helpeth more for the true understanding of the former & latter prophets? then to know when, where, of what matter, and before whom they did pronounce their prophes●es. What is more expedient then to know the two captivities, When, where, by whom, and for what causes the Israelites and the jews were so afflicted? what can y●eld greater solace to a christian heart, then to behold as in a glass of crystal the original and daily incrementes of popery, lively discovered before our eyes? when, where, and by whom, and upon what occasion, all popish errors, heresy, and superstitions have crept into the church▪ what shall I say of the time, reigns, and acts▪ of the Emperors of Rome? of their kings, their Consuls, their Dictator's? what of the kings of Babylon, Ashur, Egypt, Macedonia, Persia, Syria? what of the kings of juda and of Israel? What of the birth of our saviour Christ, of his baptism, of his corporal conversation among us? what of other infinite memorable acts recorded in the old and new testament? what of many excellent and golden lessons, specified in the histories of the church? All which and many other important matters, are compendiously and yet sufficiently handled in this small volume▪ and so contrived I hope, as obscure things shall seem plain; with such brevity, as nothing can be thought tedious; with such plenty of matter, as no necessary point will be found wanting, and with such method, as every child may with facility bear the same away. The usual manner is in all such kind of exercises to make choice of some worthy personages for the honest and lawful protection of the same▪ You my L. of Canturburie, did harbour me a long time in your own house. There I enjoyed every thing not as a prisoner, but as a brother, not as a stranger, but as a dear friend; not as a mean person, but as one of far better account, than I either was then, or yet am indeed. You my L. of York, for rare courtesies received both of old and late days, have made me greatly bound unto your grace. You my L. Keeper, to speak nothing of your great zeal for the free passage of Christ's gospel; for the sincere preaching of his sacred word, and for the common good of this realm, have aswell for your rare honourable favour towards mine own seely self, as for your late kind acceptance of my treatise of usury, deserved a far better thing at my hands. You my L of Durham, although as yet ye never saw my face, have nevertheless afforded me such christian affection and rare benignity, as I have not often found the like. I therefore present unto you (my reverend fathers and honourable Lords all four) these fruits of my late studies, as an infallible argument of my unfeigned good will, for your honourable and manifold courtesies, countenances and other benefits received at your hands. Accept the present (my honourable Lords) in good part: respect not so much the person that giveth, as the thing itself that is given; not the value of the gift so much as the mind of the giver; not so much what is done, as what the party was willing to have done: who if it shall so please the Almighty, will hereafter present larger gifts as time, place, and other circumstances shall afford. God vouchsafe to increase his manifold good graces in you all, and to multiply your days upon the earth, for the free passage of his holy gospel, and the peace of his church. From my study this tenth of August. 1595. Your Lordships in all dutiful manner. THOMAS BELL. To the Seminary Priests in Wisbich Castle, and elsewhere dispersed in this Realm. TWo years are fully complete and expired, since my book of Motives came abroad, and was in your hands. In it I promised to subscribe, if either any one among you, or other Papist in Europe whosoever, could effectually confute the same. Your own Papists here at home, greatly wonder at your silence in that behalf: Some (God be thanked for it) are wholly and sound reform: Othersome are enforced so to doubt of your doctrine, as they know not in the world what to say or think thereof: Othersome either seduced by your sinister report, or else to save your credit, if it would be, affirm very desperately, that you have answered my Motives already: and all generally both think and say, that ye will shortly answer them, if there be any truth on your side. One whole year I have expected your putative answer, as who had then, and still have, a most fervent desire, speedily to reply upon the same. Now, since mine expectation is in that point frustrate: in this second year I have addressed myself, to give you a further provocation. In this Book I have not concealed any thing, that I knew or could possibly say for you. I have not dissembled the mightiest objections that can be made in your defence, neither have I passed slenderly over them, but confuted them so pithily and so exactly, as if any of you, or of your brethren abroad, shall be able to yield a sufficient answer in your defence, I promise unfeignedly to subscribe unto his doctrine. Remember therefore what the Orator saith: to wit, that to err standeth with man's infirmity: but to persevere in error, is proper to fools alone. If you can devise, how and in what sort to answer me: all wise men both say and think, that ye will do it undoubtedly. If you know not how to defend your cause, because the truth prevaileth so mightily: then show yourselves to be wise men by embracing the truth willingly, and not to be fools, by striving against the same wilfully. Have the fear of God before your eyes: pray that your hearts may be enlightened with the true knowledge of his sacred word; and let not the shame of the world keep you back, from the public confession of the known truth. Peruse my Book seriously, ponder my discourse deeply, contemn nothing wilfully, examine all my reasons sincerely: and that done, give your indifferent censures accordingly. If you find Popery confuted effectually, then yield to the truth, and give God the glory: if you think I fail in proving my intended purpose; then use your wits and your pens, as well for my confutation, as for the credit of your cause, and the expectation of your silly brethren, who shortly will renounce all Popery, if ye with speed do not defend the same. Amen. To the Christian Reader. IN this small volume (gentle reader,) thou mayest behold the original of Popery with the daily increments thereof, lively discovered before thine eyes; as also an evident confutation of whatsoever can possibly be said in defence of the same. Thou hast together with this, a fruitful summary of the old and new Testament; contained in the first & second part of this present Survey. Throughout which discourse thou must ever remember, that in the books of the Kings, and of the Psalms, I commonly follow the supputation of the latins. And if thou canst reap any commodity by this my labour, then thank God for it, and pray that my daily studies may still tend to his glory, and the common good of his church. I have long expected an answer from the Papists, either severally from some one, or jointly from many. If they be still silent; the world must needs judge, that the truth is not on their side. How sincerely I am persuaded as I writ, to God the just judge I appeal for witness: Albeit, the malicious and mal-content, seek by the contrary and like slanderous reports, to bring me in disgrace. But (as Christ's Apostle saith;) to them that love God, all things (in the end) will turn to the best. Far well in Christ jesus; and continue in loving me christianly, as I hope thou dost. The postscript to all the readers of this Survey in general. AFter that I had accomplished this present volume, a friend of mine gave me to understand, that some persons were offended, because I say in the epistle dedicatory of my Motives, that S. Paul erred gentilizing. For whose satisfaction, if they will be satisfied with reason; I say first, that the nature and condition of some persons is such, that though they be slow to do well themselves; yet are they very propense to reprehend that, which is well done by others. I say secondly, that if such persons would deeply consider the prudent law of the sage & wise Persians, other things well said should have moved them to conceal that fault, though it were as ill as they imagine. I say thirdly, that such persons seek Nodum in scirpo, and that it is no fault at all. I prove it evidently, because to gentilize is nothing else, but to play the part of a gentile, and consequently, since S. Paul, then named Saul, did as cruelly persecute the Christians, as ever did the tyrannical gentiles, Nero, Domitian●, Trajan, Severus, Maximinus, D●cius, or Dioclesianus: It followeth of necessity, that he did gentilize indeed. For as holy writ recordeth, He breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the lord Act. 9.1. & 2. He desired letters to Damascus, that he might bring bound to jerusalem, all aswell women as men, that professed the name of Christ jesus, insomuch, that a voice cried from heaven unto him, Act 9.4. 1▪ Cor. 15.9. and said, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? He likewise saith of himself, that he is not worthy to be called an apostle, because he persecuted the church of God: and all this doubtless he did in error, because as himself saith of the jews his brethren if they had known, 1. Cor. 2.8. they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. Yea he himself saith of himself, 1. Tim. 1.13. that he was received to mercy, because he erred ignorantly through unbelief. S. Paul therefore erred gentilizing, though he were a jew, in that he persecuted Christ and his church, even as did the Gentiles, & in the error of Gentility. Which thing being spoken obiter in the way of mine honest purgation, and not to establish any point of doctrine, was not a sufficient motive to offend any well affected reader. Well, I say with the apostle, Gal. ●. 10. Si hominibus placerem, Christi servus non essem. As before, so now again, I willingly employ my whole industry to glorify my God and to profit his church, if by any means I can. And as I greatly wish to pleasure thankful persons, who ever accept in good part godly labours so do I make no great account to discontent malicious Zoili, who seldom or never broke that well, which is well done by others. THE FIRST PART Containeth the state of the Church; from Adam, until the Monarchy of the Romans. The first book is of the time and memorable acts, from Adam, unto the captivity of the two Tribes. The first Chapter, of the Creation, and other things coincident. The first Section of the creation of man.. GOd created heaven, the four elements, Genes. 2. verse. and all things contained therein; and this he did of nothing, that is, without any antecedent or preiacent matter. He created man in such state, The state of 〈◊〉 in his creation as he never needed to have sinned: and consequently, as he might have lived for ever, although he were indeed mortal. For, as by eating of the tree of knowledge he sinned, and consequently died; even so by eating of the tree of life, he might have preserved his life from time to time. The meat of other trees yielded food to man; the tree of life as an wholesome medicine, defended him from all corruption: The virtue of the tree of life which virtue was either in the tree by some supernatural inherent quality, as sun dry of the ancient father's hold; or else the tree was a sacrament of God's divine grace, by which man might have lived eternally if he had never sinned, as other learned writers think. Which latter opinion I prefer for the better, as which I judge to be saint Austin's; august. de civit. 〈◊〉 3 cap. 20. yet the former is probable, and can not easily be refeiled. The second Section, of man's sustentation. Meat was necessary for man's sustentation, even in the state of innocency; and it should ever so have continued, albeit man had never sinned: for to this end did God plant so many trees in paradise, ●enes. 2.16. ●enes. 3.19. giving man leave to eat thereof: neither after sin came any new necessity to eat, but a special modification of eating was annexed thereunto: for, before sin, man did eat without labour; but after sin, he was appointed to eat with the sweat of his brows. The third Section, of eating flesh. ●enes. 1. ●9. Albeit the eating of flesh before the flood was not in use, as not then approved for good; yet after the flood, to eat flesh was granted unto man. ●enes. 9.3. Why it was then prohibited, and after the flood granted, no infallible reason can be alleged; yet two probable conjectures may be yielded in that behalf: the one, because in the beginning men's bodies were stronger, and so needed less nourishment; the other, because in those days, the earth brought forth better, and more wholesome fruits. CHAP. II. The first Section, of the ages of the world, and the duration thereof. THe jews had a prophecy of Elias, not Thesbites, but one of their own Rabbins, a Cabbalist, mentioned in their Talmud, or canon-law, that the world should continue six thousand years, that is to say, two thousand years before the written settled law published by Moses, two thousand years in the time of circumcision, and two thousand years after Christ's incarnation. Which opinion wanteth not learned patrons, for defence of the same; albeit (in my judgement) it cannot stand, as shortly shall appear. The second Section, of the ages of the world. There be six ages of the world, designed by all approved antiquity. After saint Austen, Aug. de civit. libr. 22. cap. 30. the first age is from Adam to the flood, the second to Abraham, the third to David, the fourth to the captivity, the fift to Christ, the sixth to the end of the world: which sixth and last age (saith he) cannot be measured, with any number of generations, because the Father hath reserved in his own power, the knowledge of the last day. This division of ages which saint Austen assigneth, The difficulty consisteth not in the ages, but in the supputat●●on of the yeare● may well be holden; nevertheless, because the division of ages into six before Christ's first sacred advent, bringeth greater perspicuity to the understanding of the scriptures; I will follow that course with other skilful writers, and make a pithy brief declaration of the same. The variety of writers, concerning the years of the world until Christ's holy incarnation is wonderful; even so many opinions almost of those that I have read (and I have read a good many) as there be writers that handle the same. After Eusebius Caesariensis, Exceeding gre●● variety of opin●●ons. the duration of the world till Christ, is 5199: after the Hebrews, 3962: after the Septuagints, 5328: after others, 4121: after others, 3929: after others, 3969: after others, more: after some, less. This being true (as it is most true indeed) commendable must that labour be, if any such can be found; which in such different confusion, shall deliver a plain manifestation of the truth. And because the truth ought ever to be embraced, by what mouth soever it be uttered; albeit I seem to serve both from old and later writers, yet let the gentle Reader afford me his indifferent censure, at least so far forth as my just and irrefringible probations, shall evidently convince and deserve. Mark therefore my discourse attentively (gentle Reader) and then I trust this great and mighty controversy, will be plain and easy to thee. The first age. 〈◊〉 first age. The first age from the creation of the world to the flood, containeth 1656. years; whereof for the Readers better satisfaction, I put down this plain demonstration. Adam was made of the dust of the earth, in the end of the sixth day Genes. 1. vers. 27, 31. Adam begat Seth, when he was 130. years old Gen. 5. v. 3 Seth begat Enosh, when he was 105. years old Gen. 5. v. 6 Enosh begat Kenan, when he was 90. years old Gen. 5. v. 9 Kenan begat Malaleel, being 70. years old, Gen. 5. ver. 12 Malaleel begat Iared, being 65. years old, Gen. 5. ver. 15 Iared begat Henoch, being 162. years old, Gen. 5. ver. 18 Henoch begat Methusalem, being 65. years old Goe 5. v. 21 Methusalem begat Lamech, being 187. years old, Gene. 5. verse 25. Lamech begat Noah, being 182. years old, Gen. 5. ver. 28 Noah was 600. years old when the flood came Gen. 7. v. 6 The whole sum of years is 1656. and six days. 130 105 90 70 65 162 65 187 182 600 1656 Make addition, and this sum will amount to 1656, to which add six days before Adam's creation. The second age. second age. The second age, from the deluge, to the birth of Abraham, containeth 353. years, and ten days; whereof this is a plain demonstration. The flood endured one whole year, and ten days, Gene. 8. verse 4.13, 14. Sem the son of Noah begat Arphaxad two years after the flood, when himself was 100 years old, Gene. 11. verse 10. Arphaxad begat Shalt or Shelah, when he was 35. years old, Gen. 11. verse 12. Shalt begat Heber, when he was 30. years old Gen. 11. verse 14. Heber begat Peleg, being 34. years old, Goe 11. verse 16. Peleg begat Rehu, being 30. years old, Gen. 11. verse 18. Rehu begat Sarug, when he was 32. years old, Gen. 11. verse 20. Sarug begat Nahor, being 30. years old, Goe 11. ver. 22. Nahor begat There or Terah, at 29. years, Goe 11. v. 24. There begat Abraham, when he was 130. years old, Gen. 11. verse 26. though it seemeth by the text, that he was but 70. years old. This difficulty shallbe solved by and by. The whole sum of years is 315. 1 2 35 30 34 30 32 30 29 130 353 Make addition, and this will be the sum 353. A grave objection against the supputation last rehearsed. It is written Genes. 11. verse 26. that There begat Abraham, when he was but 70. years old: therefore three score years must be substracted from the number abovesaid; that is, from the 130. years assigned to There, before he begat Abraham: which three score years, the greater part, even of the best Chronographers have hitherto omitted. The answer. I say first, that we ought not to consider so much what others have done, as what they should have done. For as a proverb saith; aliquando bonus dormit Homerus: to which this other is consonant; Bernardus non vidit omnia. I say secondly, that as well the old Chronographers, as other ancient Fathers, have showed themselves to be men in many things. I say thirdly, that where I descent from others, I desire no more credit to be given to my words, then manifest reason shall convince. I say four, that There was 130. years old when he begat Abraham: and I prove it, because Abraham was but 75 years old at the death of his father Terah or There, at which time he departed out of Haran Genes. 12. verse 4. and yet was There 205. years old when he died in Haran Gene. 11. v. 32: so then, if There had begotten Abraham when he was 70. years old, as the objection would have it; it would follow of necessity, that Abraham was at his father's death 135. years old; and not only 75. years old, which yet the text (as I have proved) doth avouch. See the 17. chapter following, in the fourth difficulty of the fift Section. The reply. The text saith plainly Gen. 11. verse 26. that Terah was but 70. years old when he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. The answer. August. quaest. sup. Gen. q. 25. I answer with saint Austen, that the scripture only avoucheth There to have been 70. years old before he begat his children, Abram, Nahor, and Haran: and that Abram was not first borne, although he be first named. For as saint Austen considered gravely, he is the first named, by reason of his excellency and prerogative above the rest; Mal. 1. verse 2, 3. ●▪ Par.▪ 4. v▪ 1. even as jacob was named before Esau, and judah before his brethren, though indeed he were but the fourth in number. This answer I make good by sundry reasons; first, because these are the words of the text; Terah lived 70. years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now it is manifest, that he begat them not all three in the 70. year of his age, as saint Austen well observed; and consequently, that he begat some of them in his riper years. Abram therefore was not borne, till Terah was 130. years old. For Terah was 205. years old at his death in Charran Gen. 11. ve. 32. at which time Abraham was 75. years of age Genes. 12. verse 4. which thing saint Steven confirmeth in these words; Acts 7. verse ●. then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelled in Charran, and after that his father was dead, God brought him from thence into this land, wherein ye now dwell. Lo, by the testimony of Moses in the book of Genesis, Abraham was but 75. years old when he went out of Charran; and by the report of saint Steven in the acts of the apostles, he came not out of Charran until his father's death. So then he could not be more than 75. years old when his father was 205. years of age; and consequently he was not the eldest son of Terah, begotten in the 70. year of his age; but his younger son, borne when he was 130. years old, and so we must have 60. years more in this second age then the Chronographers commonly do allow. But the truth must prevail, howsoever man's reason deem. A difficulty of the word Haran. Since the name of Abraham's brother was Haran, as well as the place where he dwelled, how shall we discern the one from the other? I answer to this, that if we will observe the strict and precise manner of pronunciation, we must call the brother Haran, and the place Charran. For in the original, the Hebrew tongue, the brother's name is written with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the place of Abraham's abode with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so as Abraham's brothers name ought to be termed Haran, and the place where Abraham dwelled, Charran; which variety of writing, some translations have well observed. See the 17. chapter following, in the third difficulty of the fift section. The third age. The third age from the birth of Abraham till the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, containeth 505. years: The third age. whereof behold this plain demonstration. Abraham begat Isaac when he was an hundred years old, Genes. 21. vers. 5. Genes. 17. vers. 17. Isaac or Izhak begat jacob when he was threescore years of age, Gene. 25. verse 20, and 26. jacob went into Egypt when he was 130. years old, Gen. 47. verse 9 The jacobites or Israelites abode in Egypt 215. years. So writ Eusebius Caesariensis, and Marianus Scotus: yea, many later writers come short of that supputation by 5. years. The truth of this important difficulty, shall (by the power of God) be decided shortly. The whole sum of years is 505. 100 60 130 215 505 Make addition, and this sum will appear 505. An important objection. We read in Genesis cha. 15. ver. 13. and in the Acts cha. 7. ver. 6 that the Israelites were in Egypt 400. years, and Moses in Exod. cha. 12. ver. 40. avoucheth constantly, that they were there 430. years: so then, to affirm their abode there to be no more but 215. years, is far different from the truth. The answer. I say first, that the variety of supputation set down in holy Writ, ●ee the Fift Section of the eight chapter, where ●his is handled more at large. may easily be accorded; if we duly consider the variety of time, from which the same supputation is derived. For the 400. years must be reckoned from the birth of Isaac, until the departure out of Egypt; and the 430. years from Abraham's going out of his country, for the seed of Abraham was so long afflicted in a land not their own. I say secondly, that it is not possible to prove out of the scriptures, by particular and precise supputation; that the jacobites abode in Egypt, either 400. years, as saint Steven reporteth, or 430. years, as saint Moses telleth us: and therefore we must reckon and begin the said supputations, as is already said. I prove this mine assertion in this manner: jacob was 130. years old when he went into Egypt, Goe 47. verse 9 and he died at the age of 147. years, so as he lived in Egypt no more but 17. years, Gen. 47. verse 28. jacobs' third son Levi of his first wife Leah, Gen. 29. ve. 32. lived but 137. years, Exodus 6. verse 16. Rohath or Caath the son of Levi lived but 133. years Exodus 6. verse 18. Amram the son of Rohath lived but 137. years Exo. 6. v. 20 Moses the son of Amram was but 80. years old when he brought the Israelites out of Egypt Exodus 7. verse 7. Now for perspicuous conceiving of this so intricate a doubt, I note first, that Levi could not be above 95. years in Egypt. I prove it, because joseph jacobs' youngest son was 40. years old, before jacob with Levi and the rest of his family came into Egypt. This age of joseph is thus made manifest; he was 17. years of age when he was sold, Gen. 37. verse 2. he was 30. years old when he became governor of Egypt, Genes. 41. vers. 40, 41, 46. to which add the seven years of plenty, and three years of famine Genes. 41.42, and 45. at which time Levi came into Egypt with his father, and the number of 40. years will be complete. I note secondly, that if we grant Levi to have been 100 years old before he begat Caath, and affirm the same of Caath and Amram; (which thing surpasseth the course of nature, Goe 17. v. 17. and therefore need it not be granted;) we must for all that come short, and neither find the abode of the Israelites in Egypt to be 430. neither yet 400. years in all. I note thirdly, that if we grant Caath, Amram, and Moses, to have been begotten in a competent age; we shall easily find the number of 215. years, which Eusebius and Marianus Scotus have put down. another probation of this difficulty. jochebed was the own daughter of Levi, and the natural mother of Moses, for so we read in the 26. chapter of the book of Numbers, and in the sixth chapter of the book of Exodus: and yet if we grant Levi to have been 120. years old when he begat jochebed; and jochebed to have been 100 years old at the birth of Moses, (both which are impossible by the course of nature,) and if we add thereunto eighty years, the full age of Moses, at the departure out of Egypt, yet will all this be no more but bare 300. years: so then, we are short of the supputation mentioned in Genesis by one full hundred years; and of the reckoning specified in Exodus, by an hundred and thirty years. Therefore the undoubted meaning of those scriptures must needs be as I have already showed. The corollary. First therefore, since Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt: secondly, since he was the son of jochebed: thirdly, since jochebed was the daughter of Levi: four, since Levi was with jacob at his going into Egypt, we must perforce deduce the time of their abode, from Levi, jochebed, and Moses. Let us therefore assign 85. years, to Levi, when he begat jochebed; 50. years to jochebed when she bore Moses; and 80. years to Moses when he brought them out of Egypt (which is as much as can be granted by the course of nature) and we shall find the just number of 215. years: and so the supputation of this third age is consonant. The objection. Eusebius and Marianus Scotus say plainly, that the Israelites abode in Egypt no more but 144 years. The answer. I grant, that some otherwise very learned have so written: but I think their meaning is, according to the words of the authors plainly uttered. For albeit they both say, that they abode but 144. years there; yet do they affirm a little after that, that their whole abode was 215. years. So then, when they term their abode but 144. years, they mean of their grievous servitude after the death of joseph: for Eusebius (whom Scotus doth imitate) hath these express words; Postcuias interritum, Hebraei Aegyptijs seruierunt annis 144. fiunt autem omnes anni quos Hebraei in Aegypto fecerunt 215. qui ab eodem tempore computantur, quo jacob cum filijs suis descendit in Aegyptum. After the death of joseph, the Hebrews or Israelites were in bondage to the Egyptians 144. years: but all the years that the Hebrews were in Egypt make 215. which we must reckon from that time, when jacob with his children went into Egypt. The fourth age. The fourth age, from the coming out of Egypt, until king Solomon began to build the temple, containeth 480. years, hereof this is an evident demonstration. Moses governed the Israelites in the wilderness, the space of 40. years after they came out of Egypt Deute. 1. verse 3. and Deut. 29. verse 5. joshua and Othoniel judged Israel 40. years jud. 3. v. 11: for joshua was over them 32. years, and Othoniel 8. some give but 18. years to joshua, and the rest to Othoniel; but that skilleth not much, because it is certain, that from the death of Moses till the death of Othoniel, were 40. years complete, which no writer doth or can deny, for holy writ hath so revealed. Ehud or Shamgar the son of Anath judged the Israelites fourscore years jud. 3. verse 30, 31. but of these 80. we must ascribe 18. to the interraigne, in which time Israel was in bondage to Eglon king of Moab jud. 3. verse 14. Deborah and Barak judged Israel 40. years jud. 5. v. 31 Gedeon judged the Israelites 40. years jud. 8. ve. 28. but in this time the Midianites oppressed them 7. years jud. 6. v. 1 for fear of which enemies, the Israelites made them dens in the mountains and caves, & strong holds jud. 6. ve. 2. This Gedeon is termed also jerubbal jud. 7. vers. 1. jud. 8. ve. 35 Abimelek judged 3. years jud. 9 verse 22. Thola the son of Puah judged 23. years jud. 10. verse 2 jair judged 22. years jud. 10. verse 3. from this time the Israelites were afflicted with the Ammonites and the Philistines for the space of 18. years together jud. 10. verse 7, 8. jephtee judged six years jud. 12. verse 7. Abesan or Ibzan judged 7. years jud. 12. verse 8, 9 Elon judged Israel 10. years jud. 12. verse 11. Abdon judged the Hebrews 8. years judg. 12. vers. 13, 14 Samson judged 20. years judg. 16. ver. 31. his wife Delilah betrayed him, and delivered him into the hands of the Philistines, who put out his eyes, bound him with fetters, and made him to grind in the prison house: but in the end, when they called him out to make them pastime, and to be a laughing stock to them; he pulled down the two pillars of the house, and so with the fall of the house, killed more Philistines at his death, than he had slain in all his life before judg. 16. ve. 18, 21, 29, 30, 31. Eli the priest judged Israel forty years 1. Sam. 4. ve. 18. Samuel and Saul reigned forty years Act. 13. verse 21. David reigned over Israel forty years 1. King. 2. ve. 11. The whole sum of years is 477. 40 40 80 40 40 3 23 22 18 6 7 10 8 20 40 40 40 477 Make addition, and this will be the sum 477. To these we must add three years of king Solomon, because in the fourth year of his reign he began to build the temple, and so the whole number will be 480. to which must be added one month and one day. This sum is confirmed by the testimony of holy Writ, in thief express terms; in the 480. year (after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt) and in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon over Israel, he built the house of the Lord 1. King. 6. ve. 1. Again, it is thus written; so Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in jerusalem, in the second month, and the second day, in the fourth year of his reign, 2. Para. 3. verse 1. and 2. The fift age. The fift age, from the building of the temple to the captivity of the jews in Babylon, containeth 432. years, whereof this is the demonstration. King Solomon reigned after that he began to build the temple 37. years, 1. King. 11. verse 42.2. Para. 9 verse 30. but hereof we must abate one month and one day, because he began to build the temple in the second day of the second month of the fourth year, as is already proved. Roboam or Rehoboam reigned 17. years 2. Par. 12. v. 13. Abias' reigned 3. years 1. King. 15. verse 2. Asa reigned 41. years 1. King. 15. verse 9 and 10. this Asa was a virtuous and zealous prince; he sought the Lord with a perfect heart; he deposed Maachah his mother from her regency, because she had made an idol in a grove: he broke down the idol and stamped it, and burned it at the brook Kidron. He gathered all judah and Benjamin, and the strangers, and made them swear unto true religion under the pain of death 2. Par. 15. per totum. jehosaphat or josaphat reigned 25. years 2. Par. 20. ve. 31 jehoram reigned 8. years, 2. Par. 21. v. 5. 2. Kin. 8. ve. 26 Ochozias or Ahaziah reigned 1. year, 2. Kin. 8. verse 26. Athaliah the mother of Ochozias reigned 7. years 2. King. 11. verse 1. and 21. for king joas or jehoash was 7. years old when he began to reign. This Athaliah destroyed the king's blood, and was sister to wicked Achab. joas or jehoash reigned 40. years 2. King. 12. verse 1. Amaziah reigned 29. years 2. King. 14. verse 2 Azariah or Ozias reigned 52. years 2. King. 15. verse 2. joatham or jotham reigned 16. years 2. King. 15. ver. 33 Achas or Ahaz reigned 16. years, 2. King. 16. verse 2. Ezechias reigned 29. years 2. King. 18. verse 2. Manasses reigned 55. years 2. King. 21. verse 1. Amon reigned two years 2. King. 21. verse 19 josias reigned 31. years 2. King. 22. verse 1. joachaz or jehoahaz reigned three months, 2. Ki. 23. v. 31. joachim or jehoiachim, or Eliachim reigned 11. years 2. King. 23. verse 36. This Eliachim was a very wicked man: he was made king by Pharaoh Nechoh, who turned his name to Eliachim 2. Ki. 23. verse 34. and 37. in the days of this joachim, began the first captivity of the three: whereof see more at large in the seventh chapter next following. jehoiachim, or jechonias, or Coniah the son of jehoiachim reigned three months and ten days 2. Par. 36. verse 9 2. King. 24. verse 8. jerem. 37. verse 1. In the time of this jechonias began the second captivity, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath simply the name of captivity, and therefore do I follow the same, in this my supputation of the first age. See the second book and first chapter, in the fourth section. Sedechias or Zedechias reigned 11. years 2. King. 24. ve. 18. he rebelled against the king of Babel ibid. ver. 20. wherefore after the siege of two years, Nebuchad-nezar carried him captive to Babel: in the eleventh year of his reign his own eyes were put out, his sons were first slain in his sight, and then he was bound in chains, and so led away to captivity, 2. King. 25. ve. 1, 2, 7. he was uncle to jechonias, and his name was Mattanias', but the king of Babel changed it to Sedechias 2. Kin. 25. verse 17. The first addition. We must first add to this supputation, for the complement of the first age, eleven years of the interreigne, which are found wanting between the death of Amaziah, and the reign of Azariah; for so long was the kingdom of juda void, as holy Writ heareth record. I prove it thus: Amaziah reigned 29. years, 2. King. 14. verse 2. and he began his reign in the second year of joash king of Israel, and lived 15. years after him, 2. King. 14. verse. 1. and 17. jeroboam the son of joash was made king over Israel in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, and he reigned 41. years, 2. Kin. 14. verse 23. Let us adjoin hereunto, that Azariah began his reign in the seven and twentieth year of jeroboam, 2. Ki. 15. verse 1. and then perforce shall we find 11 years wanting, This point must be well noted. from the death of Amaziah, till the first year of the reign of Azariah. These things I grant be very intricate; yet if my words he well marked, the Reader may conceive the matter with all facility: the cause of the interreigne, was the traitorous conspiracy against Amaziah, 2. King. 14. verse 19 The second addition. Although jechonias (in whom I begin my supputation of the captivity) be said in some place of the scripture to have reigned but three months and ten days, yet do I ascribe one whole year to his reign: my reason is this; because he was not carried away to Babel, until the whole year was expired, 2. Par. 36. verse 10. these are the words: and when the year was out, king Nabuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babel with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord, and he made Zedechiah king over judah and jerusalem. The first objection. The scripture saith in one place, that jechonias reigned but three months, 2. King. 24. verse 8. in an other place, that he reigned three months and ten days, 2. Par. 36. verse 9 in another place, that he was eighteen years old when he began to reign, 2. King. 24.8. in an other place, that he began to reign in the eight year of his age, 2. Par. 36. ve. 9 all which can neither agree with three months, nor yet with one only year. The answer. I answer, that he began to reign when he was eight years old, and reigned ten years with his father: and after the death of his father he reigned three months and ten days, which was in the nineteenth year of his age, and so every text of holy Writ is clear. This my answer is confirmed by the express words of holy scripture, 2. King. 25. verse 8. where it is said, that Nebuzaradan chief steward to the king of Babel came in the nineteenth year of the king's reign, to make havoc of the city, and to carry Sedechias into captivity: for jechonias was carried away in the eight year of the king of Babel, 2. King. 24. verse 12. and Sedechias reigned eleven years, 2. King. 24.18. this case is so evident, as every child may perceive the same. The reply. The scripture telleth us, that the king of Babel carried jehoiachim into captivity in the third year of his reign; and yet do you ascribe eleven years to his reign. The answer. I answer, that jehoiakim was carried away in the eleventh year, if we reckon from the time in which Pharaoh Necho made him king: but in the third year, if we reckon from that time, in which he became servant to the king of Babel, 2. King. 23. verse 34, and 36. 2. King. 24. verse 1. The second objection. The scripture calleth Sedechias the brother of jechonias, therefore it is not consonant to the truth, to say he was his uncle. The answer. I answer with saint Austen and saint Hierome, that the custom of the scripture is, to term kinsmen by the name of brothers, and therefore Sedechias is indifferently called uncle, 2. King. 24. verse 17. or brother, 2. Par. 36. verse 10. 37 17 3 41 25 8 1 7 40 29 52 16 16 29 55 2 31 11 11 11 1 443 Make addition, and the sum will be found 443. To the which add three months for the reign of Io●chas. The sixth age. The sixth age from the beginning of the captivity till the sacred passion of Christ jesus, containeth 660. years, whereof let this be the demonstration. The captivity (in which are involved the eleven years of Sedechias) continued the space of 70. years. jerem. 25. vers. 11. and 29. Daniel 9 vers. 2. Esdr. 1. verse 1. 2. Paralip. 36, verse 22. This is confirmed by the reign of the Monarches; for Nebuchadnezzer (from the beginning of whose eight year, the second and chief captivity began) reigned 45. years. Euilmerodach his son reigned 30. years. And Balthasar reigned 3. years. All which put together, make the 70. years of the jewish captivity. For in the first year of king Cyrus (who succeeded Balthasar,) the jews were set at liberty, Esdr. 1 verse 1. S. Clement, Eusebius, and all approved writers do constantly affirm the same. The seventy weeks in Daniel make just 490. years, as all writers do affirm. Concerning which weeks (because there is very great variety amongst historiographers) I will here suppose that, which (by God's grace) I shall prove effectually, when I come to the fourth chapter of the third book of this first part: whither I refer the Reader, for his full resolution in this intricate and important controversy. In the mean season, remember that the 490. years are but 475. years after the course of the Moon. From the end of the captivity until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus inclusiuè (where I hold that the 70. weeks do begin) are just 115. years and two months: all which put together do make just 660. years. For the weeks make no more but 475. years after the course of the sun: which must be marked attentively, and which shall be proved hereafter accordingly. 70 475 115 in all 660 Thus we have it perspicuously proved, even by the testimony of holy Writ, that from the beginning of the world, until the time that Christ suffered on the cross for our sins, be just ●ure thousand, four score and seventeen years, three moneth● and sixteen days. The first age, 1656 The second 353 The third 505 The fourth 480 The fift 428 The sixth 660 in all 4082. Now, because the exact knowledge of the reign of the kings of judah, dependeth more than a little of the reign of the kings of Israel; I purpose in God to adjoin hereunto a manifest declaration of the same, specially, because without the knowledge thereof; the books of the Kings and Chronicles can never be rightly understood. The Kings of Israel. jeroboam reigned 21. years, which I prove thus: Asa king of judah began to reign in the twentieth year of jeroboam, 1. King. chapter 15, verse 9 and Nadab the son of jeroboam began to reign over Israel, in the second year of Asa, 1. King. chapter 15, verse 25: therefore jeroboam his father whom he succeeded in the kingdom, reigned before his death 21. years. Nadab reigned 2. years, 1. King. 15. verse 25. Baasha reigned 24. years, 1. King. 15. verse 33. Elah or Hela reigned 2. years, 1. King. 16.8. Zimri reigned 7. days, 1. King. 16. verses 15, and 16. day 7 Amri or Omri reigned 12. years, 1. King. 16.23. Achab or Ahab reigned 22. years, 1. King. 16.29. Ochozias or Ahaziah reigned 2. years, 1. King. 22.51. joram or jehoram reigned 12. years, 2. King. 3. verse 1. both these two, to wit, Ochozias and joram were the sons of Achab. jehu reigned 28. years, 2. King. 10. verse 36. joachas or jehoahaz reigned 17. years, 2. Kin. 13. ve. 1. joas or jehoash reigned 16. years, 2. King. 13. verse 10. jeroboam the son of joas or joash reigned 41. years, 4. King. 14. verse 23. where we must note well by the way, that the other jeroboam was the son of Nebat, 1. King. 12.2. We must here observe as a necessary rule, that between jeroboam and Zachariah was an interreigne of 23. years. I prove it, because we read, 2. Kin. 15.1, 8. that Azariah king of judah began his reign in the seven and twentieth year of jeroboam; as also that Zacharias began his reign in the eight and thirtieth year of Azariah, to which we must add, that jeroboam reigned 41. years, and so the kingdom perforce was void 23. years. For, if we make abstraction of 14. from 37. the remainder will be 23. years for the interreigne. months 6 Zachariah reigned 6. months, 2. King. 15.8. month 1 Sellum or Shallum reigned 1▪ month, 2. King. 15.13. years 10 Menahem or Manahen reigned 10. years, 2. King. 15.17. Pekahiah or Phaceas reigned 2. years, 2. King. 15.23. Pekah or Phasee reigned 20. years, 2. King. 15.27. Osee or Hosheah reigned 9 years, 2. King. 17. verse 1. In the days of this king, about the year of the world 3304. began the captivity. Of the ten Tribes; whereof see more at large in the eight chapter next following, in the sixth Section. CHAP. III. Of the state of the Hebrews. The people of the jews, the elect people of God lived under the protection and empire of patriarchs. Chieftains or Governors. judges. King's: again, Chieftains after the captivity. Priests before the captivity. and Priests after the captivity. had to do with the kings of the Persians. Egyptians. Syrians. strangers, and with the emperors of Rome. The Israelites were governed 3. ways, by judges, from joshua to Saul. Kings, from Saul to the captivity. Priests, from the captivity to Christ. For exact understanding of this chapter, it is expedient to note well the fift book of this first part; from the second chapter, to the end of the same book. CHAP. FOUR Of the patriarchs. ●he Patriarches of the hebrews were, Abraham Isaac lived years one hundred, & begat Isaac, Goe 21.5. threescore, and begat jacob, Goe 25.26 jacob called also Israel, Goe 35.10 he had 12 children with Lea, Reuben Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Simeon Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Levi Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. judah Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Isachar Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Zabulon Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Zilpha the handmaid of Lea, Gad Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Aser Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Rachel joseph Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Benjamin Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Bala, Dan Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. Nephtali Goe 35.22. these were the heads of the twelve Tribes. he lived 147. years, Gen. 47. ve. 28. he was 70. years in Egypt. joseph, was ruler of Egypt 80. years: he died when he was one hundred and ten years old, Gen. 50. verse 26. After these patriarchs, the Hebrews lived in bondage to the Egyptians, but 144. years; albeit (as is already proved) their whole abode in Egypt was 215. years. See the third age, and the probation thereof. CHAP. V Containing a Table, of the Princes and judges of the Hebrews. The princes of the Hebrews were these two, Moses he ruled 40. years. joshua he ruled 27. years, or 40: together with Othoniel. Moses and joshua are not reckoned among the judges, because they did not only judge, but also rule the people. Lyranus. There were 13. judges over the Hebrews, among whom Othoniel A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 40 Aioth A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 80 Barach A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 40 Gedeon A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 40 Abimelech A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 3 Thola A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 23 jair A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 22 jephthe A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 6 Abesan A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 7 Ahialon A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 10 Abdon A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 8 Samson A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 20 Heli the priest A. M. 2572 ruled years A. M. 2852 40 All this is proved in the second chapter aforegoing in the fourth age. Here is to be observed, See Athanasius in synopsi. that from jair to jepthe there was no judge, which was for the space of eighteen years together, jud. 10. verse 4, 5, 8, & seq. The prophet Elias was God's messenger in Samaria, in the days of Asa and josaphat the good kings of juda, 3. Ki. 15.24. and in the time of Achab, the bad king of Israel, 3. Ki. 18. the heart of king Asa was perfect all his days, 2. Paralip. 15.17. and king josaphat sought the Lord, Anno mund● 3088 and walked in the ways of his father David, 2. Paral. 17. about the age of the world 3088. CHAP. VI Containing, a Table of the kings of juda and of Israel. The kingdom of the Hebrews united under king Saul, with whom was Samuel, Acts 13 David. Solomon. divided into the kingdom of juda, or the two tribes of juda and Benjamin, whose kings were, Roboam Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 17 years Abias' Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 3 Asa Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 41 josaphat Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 25 joram Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 8 Ochozias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 1 Athalia Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 7 joas Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 40 Amazias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 29 Ozias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 52 joathan Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 16 Achaz Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 16 Ezechias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 29 Manasses Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 55 Amon Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 2 josias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 31 joachas Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 3 months Eliachim or joachim Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 11 years jechonias or joachim or Coniah Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 3 months Sedechias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3410 11 years Israel or Samaria, whose kings were, jeroboam Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 21 years Nadab Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 2 Baasa Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 24 Hela Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 2 Amri or Omri Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 12 Achab Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 22 Ochozias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 2● joram Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 12 jehu Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 28 joachas Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 17 joas Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 16 Hieroboam Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 41 Zacharias Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 6 months Sellum Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 1 month Manahen Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 10 years Phacêas or Pekahiah Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 2 Phacêe or Pekah Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 20 Ose●or Hosheah. Anno mundi 3030 and reigned Anno mundi 3283 9 years. Peruse the second chapter aforegoing, where these things are proved sufficiently. CHAP. VII. Of the captivity and circumstances thereto pertaining. The first Section. Of the time of the Captivity. THe Babylonians besieged the city of Jerusalem and took it in the eleventh year of the reign of Sedechias in the ninth day of the 4. month; to whom Nabuchodonozor had given commission for the siege, while himself was at Reblatha. The city being taken, king Sedechias with his wives, children, nobles, and friends, fled away by night into the wilderness. But the Babylonians pursued after them, and Sedechias with his wives, children and friends were brought before the king Nabuchodonozor: whom after the king had sharply reproved for the breach of promise, he caused his children and friends to be slain before his eyes. That done, 4. Reg. 25. jer. 52. he caused Sedechias to be bound in chains, his eyes to be pulled out, and so to be carried to Babylon. In the first day of the first month he commanded to burn the city, to bring away all the vessels of gold and silver out of the temple, and to lead all the people captive unto Babylon. joseph. 10. lib. antiq. cap. 11. The temple was burnt after the building thereof, 470. years, months six, days ten: after the departure out of Egypt 1062. years, months six, days ten: josephus his ●●●putation 〈◊〉 be allowed. 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉, be 〈◊〉 443. years 〈◊〉 my discours●● well obserue●▪ after the deluge 1950. years, months six, days ten: after the creation of Adam. 3513. years, months six, days ten: so writeth josephus, who was himself a jew, a Priest, otherwise of good credit, and wrote the things that were done in his time: nevertheless I have proved in the second chapter, where the fift age is handled, that the temple could not stand so long. For from the building thereof, until the captivity, be only 432. years, and eleven years after that was it burnt, as is proved in the second doubt of this present chapter. The captivity began the fourth year of joachim, aliâs Eliachim, jere. 25. ver. 1. Daniel with others of the Nobility were carried captives. Dan. 1. ver. 3. yea, joachim himself was bound with chains, and so carried to Babel. 2. Paralip. 36. ver. 6. Nabuchodonozor carried away into Babel, joachims' mother, his wives, his eunuchs, and the mighty of the land carried he away into captivity, from jerusalem unto Babel, 4. King. cap. 24. verse 15. The king of Babel made Matthanias his uncle king in his steed, and changed his name to Sedechias, verse 17. ibid. The first doubt. The captivity began, when jeconias was carried away captive to Babylon, as it seemeth in S. Matthew. cap. 1. v. 11. And yet was he eight years old, when he was carried into Babylon. 2. Par. 36. ver. 9 before which time he did not reign, ibid. Therefore the captivity could not begin in the 11. year of Sedechias, as josephus, and the Hebrews reckon, neither at the birth of jeconias, as S. Matthew writeth. The answer. For the manifestation of this difficulty, we must observe that jerusalem was thrice taken by the Babylonians; to wit, in the days of joachim, jechonias, and Sedechias. 4. King. ca 24. & 25. By reason whereof some reckon the beginning of the captivity from joachim, some from jeconias, & other some, as the Hebrews do generally, from the 11. year of king Sedechias. See the answer of the third doubt: hereof I have spoken more at large in the second chapter in the handling of the fift age. The second doubt. The Prophet jeremy writeth, that the City of jerusalem was burnt, together with the kings palace, and the temple, in the tenth day of the fift month in the 19 year of king Nebuchad-nezar. jere. 52. verse 12. but as the book of Kings saith, it was burnt in the seventh day of the said month. 2. Kin. 25. verse 8. The answer. I answer, that the city was three days in burning; to wit, from the seventh day until the tenth; jeremy therefore speaking of the end, is not contrary to the book of the kings; speaking of the original thereof. The third doubt. The prophet Daniel saith, that the calamity began in the third year of king joachim or jehoiakim, Dan. 1 ver. 1. but the prophet jeremy affirmeth, that it was in the fourth year of jehoiachim, and in the first year of Nabuchadnezar king of Babel. jer. cap. 25. verse. 1. The answer. We must here observe, that the captivity the first of the three was in the end of the third year of joachim as Daniel truly writeth in rigour of supputation; yet may it be well said, that it began in the fourth year, as we read in jeremy; because the remnant in the third year was in effect nothing at all. The second Section. Of the time of the siege. The city of jerusalem was besieged the space of two years, that is, from the ninth year, until the eleventh of king Sedechias. 4. Kin. 25. ver. 1, 2. during the time of which siege, the famine was so sore and urgent that the hands of pitiful mother's sod their own children to be their meat. Lam. jer. ca 4. verse 10. which thing seemeth so repugnant to nature, as it were ineredible to be told, if holy writ had not first reported it. The like horror was among mothers in murdering their children, when Titus in the second year of Vespatianus his father besieged it: and many murdered themselves, because the famine was so great. The 3. Section. Of Noah his flood. The scripture recordeth that when God saw the wickedness of man to be great on earth, and all the thoughts of his heart to be nought continually; it repent him that he had created man. Wherefore his holy will was this, to destroy from the face of the earth, the man whom he had made; from man to beast, to the creeping things and to the fowls of the air. And this God purposed to do by drowning of the world with a general flood of water. Yet Noah found favour in God's sight, so that himself, his wife, his sons and their wives, eight persons in all, with cattle, fowls, and all living things, two of every sort, were saved in the ark. Gen. 6.7. Noah was 600. years old, when the flood was upon the earth. Gen. chap. 7. ver. 6. the flood prevailed on the earth. 150. days. Gen. 7. ver. 24. The flood continued a whole year. Gen. 8. ver. 13. It was in the year of the world, 1656. For from Adam to the birth of Noah are 1056. Gen. 5. And from the birth of Noah till the flood are 600. years. The fourth Section. Of the building of the temple. King Solomon builded the temple in the fourth year of his reign, ●●sephus antiq. 〈…〉 8. cap. 2. which was in the 480. year after the children of Israel were come out of Egypt, 3. Kin. 6. ver. 1. And in the year of the world, after josephus, 3102. after others 3149. but after the exact supputation 2994. as is already proved. While the temple was a building, K. Solomon appointed seventy thousand to bear burdens, four score thousand to hue stones in the mountains, and three thousand six hundredth overseers to cause the people to work. Par. cap. 2. ver. 18. The fift Section. Of the abode of the Israelites in Egypt. There is a great controversy and variety not to be dissembled, 〈◊〉. 12. ve. 40. 〈◊〉. 15. ver. 13. acts. 7. verse. 6. amongst Historiographers and learned writers, concerning the time that the Israelites were in Egypt. For Moses saith that the Israelites were in Egypt 430. years. In Genesis it is said, that they were there only 400. years. S. Stephen saith that Abraham's seed should be a sojourner 400. years in a strange land. And yet it is very certain by authentical supputation of the Scriptures, that they were in Egypt only 215. years; so that we want two hundredth years and odd, of the account made in Genesis, Exodus, and the Acts. S. Hierome confessed freely, that he knew not how to reconcile these places of the holy scripture. S. Chrysostome reconcileth the places thus: to wit, that God appointed the Israelites to abide 400. years in Egypt: yet for the heinous sins of the Egyptians, he shortened the time, even as he abridged the 120 years, which he granted before the flood unto men, Gen. cap. 5.32. cap. 6.3. c. 7.6. that they might repent, and brought them to one hundredth. Neither was Niniveh destroyed after 40. days. This appeareth to be so. Neither died Ezechias as God had said. I answer therefore with Saint Austen and other learned writers, that the 400. years mentioned in Genesis, and in the Acts, must be reckoned from the birth of Isaad, jonas. 3.10. Is. 38.5. until the departure out of Egypt: and the 430. from Abraham's going out of his country. For the seed of Abraham was so long afflicted in a land not their own, as the scripture speabeth. Partly in Palestine, partly in Mesopotamia, Gen. 15. ver. 13. and partly in Egypt. This answer is confirmed by the testimony of S. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galathians, where he saith that the law was given 430. years, after that the promise was made to Abraham. Gal. 3. ve. 16.17. For the law was given when the jews came out of Egypt, as all writers agree with uniform consent, Gen. 17. ver. 19 and the promise was made to Abraham, in his son Isaac. The sixth Section. Of the captivity of the ten Tribes. About the year of the world, A.m. 3292. 3292. the Israelites or the ten tribes that were in Samaria, were carried away captives in the third year of the siege, unto Ashur or Assyria, in the ninth year of Hoseah or Osee the son of Elah king of Israel, in the fourth year of Ezechias king of juda. 4. Reg. 17. v. 5. At this time ended the race of the kings of Israel: for after this captivity, did the ten tribes never return: see the 12. chapter, 4. Reg. 18. ver. 9 in the end of the first section. The captivity of the ten tribes (saith josephus) endured 240 years, seven months, and seven days, after their revolt from king Roboham their lawful Sovereign. josephus antiquit. lib 9 ca 14. For they would neither be subject to law, nor obey their Prophets of God that reproved their sins, and therefore were worthily afflicted by the Assyrians: see the second chapter in the end thereof. In the days of king Osee, was the kingdom of Samaria, that is, Athanas. in synop. of the ten tribes, ended. For than was Samaria utterly destroyed, which afterward the Assyrians did inhabit, of whom came the Samaritans (those wicked heretics.) The Israelites would neither obey their king nor God's prophets. Which subjection of the said ten tribes, may be a perpetual document to all christian people; ever to exhibit loyal service to their Sovereigns, and due reverence to God's ecclesiastical messengers, the preachers of his sacred word: which thing notwithstanding is little regarded in these days, through the antichristian doctrine of seditious seminaries. CHAP. VIII. Of the Prophets and Priests of the Hebrews until the captivity. The Prophets and priests of the jews, Prophets, jonas who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Oseas who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Abdias who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Amos who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Esaias who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. johel who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Michaeas who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Nahum who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Abacuc who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Hieremias who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Baruch who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Sophonias who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Ezechiel who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Daniel who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Aggaeus who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Zacharias who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Malachias who lived in the time of both kingdoms, that is to say, of juda and of Israel, especially in the time of the captivity of Babylon. Priests, Sadoch in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Achimaas in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. joram in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Auxieramus in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Nidaeas' in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Sudaeas' in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Hilus in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. joathan in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Urias' in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Nerias' in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Odaeas' in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Sellum in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Helchias in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. Zara in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. josedech in the time of all these the children did ever succeed their fathers, until the captivity. but after the captivity it was otherwise. CHAP. IX. Of the Acts and times of the Prophets' i● brief manner. A. M. 3180. The Prophets of the old testament, A. M. 3504. jonas prophesied to the Ninivites, in the time of Ozias. Osee prophesied against Samaria, in the time of joatham. Abdias prophesied against the Idumeans and other enemies of the Israelites, in the time of joatham. Amos prophesied against the nations adjacent to them, in the time of Ozias. Esaias prophesied against juda and jurasalem, in the time of joatham. joel prophesied to juda and jerusalem. in the time of Ozias. Michaeas' prophesied against jerusalem and Samaria, in the time of joatham. Nahum prophesied to the Assyrians and Ninivites, in the time of joatham. Abacuc prophesied against Babylon and Nabuchodonosor, in the time of Manasses. jeremias prophesied to the city of jerusalem, in the time of josias, and Zedechias. Sophonias prophesied against jurusalem and juda, in the time of josias. Ezechiel prophesied to the captives in Babylon, in the time of joachim. Daniel prophesied to his country men in Babylon, in the time of joachim. Haggaeus prophesied to all the people in jerusalem and juda, in the time of Zorobabel. Zacharias prophesied to the people of jerusalem and juda, in the time of Zorobabel. Malachias prophesied to the people of jerusalem & juda, in the time of in the end of the captivity 〈…〉 CHAP. X. Containing a particular description of the time of the Prophets called the greater. The first section, of the Prophet Esay. THe Prophet Esay was the son of Amos, not of that Amos who was the third of the 12. lesser Prophets; but of another Amos, having different characters with the Hebrews. Aug de civit libr. 18. cap. 27. Hier. in. 1. cap Esaiae. Esay prophesied to jerusalem and juda; that is, to the two tribes of Benjamin and juda. Hier. in 1. cap Esaiae. Esay (who was also called Azarias) Osee, joel, & Amos, prophesied at the self same time, in the days of Osias, A.M. 3307. joatham, Achas, and Ezechias kings of juda. Hier. in princ. Esaiae. The wicked king Manasses, caused the prophet Esay to be sawed in pieces with a wooden saw. Wherefore, that which the Epistle to the hebrews saith of the tortures of God's Saints, that they were hewn in sunder, is very fitly referred to the prophet Esay. Hier. lib. 15. cap. 57 in Esaiam. The second section, of the prophet jeremy. jeremy prophesied to the two tribes of juda & Benjamin, he foretold their captivity in Babylon, he began his prophesy in the days of josias, A. M. 3380. he continued the same in the days of joachim, and until the eleventh year of Sedechias in the time of the captivity. Orig. hom. 1. in Hier. Aug. de ciu. lib. 18. c. 33. Between the time of jeremias and Esaias, were one hundred and fifty years. Hier. lib. 9 cap. 30. in Esaiam. He was the son of Helkias the priest. cap. 1. jere. v. 1. the tradition of the Hebrews is, that whensoever the father or grandfather of any prophet is put in the title, such a one was also a prophet himself. Gloss. ordinar. Sophonias prophesied at the same time with jeremias. Athanas. in synop▪ Aug. de ciu. lib. 18. cap. 33. jehoiakim king of juda burned the book, which Baruc wrote wrote at the mouth of jeremias; in which book the prophet showed, what punishment God had determined to bring upon juda and Israel▪ if they would not return every man from his evil way, and bring forth worthy fruits of repentance. But jeremy at God's appointment wrote another book, which contained the afflictions of juda and Israel, in a far larger manner, jerem. cap. 36. Where we may note by the way, that the wicked do ever kick against the preachers of God's word, especially when their sins are reproved. But at length they taste of the cup of God's wrath, for their great contempt and disobedience. And our papists are now become jehoiakims', as who both burn the writers of all books, that reprove their superstitions and idolatry; and also cast the books into the fire. Yea, even the holy bibles, ●he papists are become jehoiakims. if they be once translated into the vulgar tongue. jeremy began to prophesy when he was a child, in the 13. year of josias king of juda, A.M. 3318. he continued his prophesy during the reign of josias the son of Amon. 19 years, and after that under joachim 11. years, and under Sedechias 11. years, who was the last king of juda. The three months of joachaz and jechonias, are reckoned in the years afore named. So that from the beginning of his prophesy, until the captivity of jerusalem, (in which himself was taken) he prophesied, 41. years, over and beside that time, in which he was carried away into Egypt, and prophesied in Taphins. Hier. in cap. 2. jerem. at which Taphins in Egypt, as some writ, he was stoned to death. But before that time, he was put in a deep dungeon of mire. jere. 38. The third section, of the prophet Ezechiel. Ezechiel followed jeremy, and began to prophesy in the fift year of the transmigration of jechonias, which was the same year of the reign of Sedechias. Hier. lib. 5. cap. 29. in jeremiam. in the 30. year (after some) of his age. Ezechias c. 1. but as S. Hierome writeth, the 30. years whereof the Prophet speaketh, are not the years of the age of Ezechiel himself, but the years from the 18. of king josias, at what time the book of the law was found, until the fift year of the captivity of jechonias. Hier. in cap. 1. Exech. 2. Ezechiel was carried away captive into Babylon, together with jechonias, Daniel, and the three children. Hier. in princ. Ezech. Aug. de ciu. lib. 18. cap. 34. This holy prophet foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity of the jews for their manifold sins and wickedness, earnestly exhorting them to repentance. For which cause the jews were so exasperated against him, (as the wicked are this day against the preachers of God's word, that they trailed him on the ground amongst the stones, till his brains went out. Author. oper. imperf. in Matt. cap. 23. hom, 46. prop. finem. A golden observation. In the days of josias king of juda, Helkiah the Priest found the book of the law of the Lord, given by the hand of Moses. Which when the good king understood, he gathered together all the inhabitants of jerusalem and of juda, and the Priests and the Levites, and all the people from the greatest to the smallest; and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant, that was found in the house of the Lord: kings are supreme governors in causes ecclesiastical. and the king caused all that were found in jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it, and he compelled all the people of Israel to serve the Lord their God. 2. Par. 34.4. Kin. 22. Thus saith the holy scripture. By which we see evidently, that the oversight of all persons in all causes aswell ecclesiastical as civil, pertaineth to the king: and that the king hath the charge of religion committed into his hands, and also that he may compel priests and Levites to do their duties in that behalf. On the other side we may note the intolerable impiety of our disholy fathers the late bishops of Rome. Who most irreligiously and very impudently excommunicate christian kings and monarchs, because they appoint the word of God to be preached in their dominions, read the holy bibles in their vulgar tongues, and cause their subjects to do the like: a thing never heard of, by any writers of approved antiquity. A doubt. S. Peter saith, that certain places of S. Paul's epistles be hard to be understood; and S. Hierome in his Commentaries upon Ezechiel saith, that amongst the jews none could be permitted to read the beginning of Genesis, the Canticles, the beginning and ending of Ezechiel, until he were 36. years of age. The answer. I answer with S. Austen, that whatsoever is necessary for man's salvation, is plainly set down in holy scripture: and that which is obscure in one place, is made manifest by another. his words I have alleged, in my book of Motives, in the tenth chapter, and second conclusion. The fourth section, of the Prophet Daniel. A. M. 3397. Daniel was a prophet of the tribe of juda, descended of noble parentage, and being a child was carried from jury to Babylon Epiphanius de vit. & interrit. Prophet. Of Daniel he was called Balthasar. Which name was given him, either (as josephus saith) of king Nabuchodonozor; or (as Lud. Vives saith) of the kings Eunuch, who had charge of the kings children. This is certain, that he was called Balthasar in Babylon. Orig. in Num. cap. 31. hom. 25. Daniel preached in Babylon, in the very time of the captivity. Dan. 1. ver 7. Daniel departed out of this life in Babylon, and was buried with great honour: his sepulchre is this day to be seen in Babylon, renowned throughout the world. Epiphanius ubi supra. CHAP. XI. Of the Prophets called the lesser. The first section, why some were called the greater, and other some the lesser. Four, to wit, Esay, jeremy, Ezechiel, and Daniel, were called the greater Prophets, because they wrote greater and larger volumes. Twelve, to wit, Osee, joel, Amos, Abdias, jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Abacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, were called the lesser, because they wrote smaller & lesser volumes. Aug. de civit. lib. 18. c. 29. in princ. Of these Prophets, as the latter were nearer the time of Christ, so had they clearer revelations of Christ, than the former. Gloss. in 1. Reg. 3. The second Section, of Osee. Asarias' who was also called Ozias, of the stock of David, reigned in jerusalem over the two tribes, which were called juda, 52. years. After him joatham his son reigned, 16. years: after joatham, Achab his son reigned in like manner, 16. years: in the eleventh year of whose reign, the ten tribes which were called Israel, were taken of Salmanasar the king of the Caldees, and placed in the mountains of the Medes. After Achas reigned his son Ezechias 28 years: whereby it is clear, that when Osee, Esay, joel, Amos, Abdias, jonas, and Micheas prophesied, (who were all at one time) then was the kingdom of the ten tribes ended. Which continued from jeroboam the first king, until Osee the last; the space of 250. years. The same time that Osias began to reign over juda, jeroboam king jehu his nephews son reigned the 12. year over Israel, because God had promised, that his seed should reign until the fourth generation, for smiting two wicked kings of juda and Israel; this I writ 〈◊〉 S. Hierome, to show that Osee wrote both before and 〈◊〉 the captivity of Israel. Hier. in 1. cap, Osee. see the eight ●●●pter and sixth section. per tot. sect. Osee prophesied, that the jews should be converted at the latter end of the world. He preached against the ten tribes, of their fornication, and of the destruction of Samaria, he spoke something also of the other two tribes. Gloss in princ. 1. ca Osee. Osee foretold the coming of the Messiah, and that this should be the sign of his coming. To wit, if that oak in Selom be cloven of itself into twelve parts, and be made so many oak trees, and it came so to pass. Epiphan. de Prophet. vit, & eter. The third section, of joel. The Prophet johel the son of Phatuel was borne in the territory of Bethor, descended of the tribe of Reuben. He prophesied much of jerusalem, and of the consummation of the Gentiles. He died in peace, and was buried with honour in his own country. Epiphan. ubi supr. Like as in Osee under the name of Ephraim, the prophesy is extended to the ten tribes, who are often called Samaria or Israel; even so whatsoever joel saith, pertaineth to juda and jerusalem. Hier. in 1, cap. joel. joel prophesied in the days of king joatham, who succeeded king Ozias. Aug. de civit. lib 18. cap 27. but S. Hierome extendeth the time further, even to the reigns of Ozias, joatham, Achas, and Ezechias. Hier. in joel. The fourth section of Amos. Amos was borne in Thecue, descended of the tribe of Zabulon, he was father to Esay the Prophet: so saith Epiphan. de prophet. vit & inter. but saint Austen and saint Hierome think otherwise, as I have showed. Amos was of Thecue six mile's South from holy Bethlehem, where our Saviour Christ was borne. Hier. in comment. Amos. S. Basill saith, that Amos was a shepherd, but God instructed him with his holy spirit, Amos. 7.14. and so advanced him to the dignity of a prophet. Basilius, Epist. 55. Amos prophesied in the days of Ozias, when Esaias began his prophesy. Hier. in Esaiam. lib. 3 cap. 7. Aug. de civit. lib. 18 cap. 27 He prophesied also in the time of jeroboam, the son of joas king of Israel. Hier. in 1. cap. Amos. The fift section, of Abdias. Abdias or Obadiah was the steward of king Achabs' house, the king of Israel. 3. King. 18. verse 3. he hide God's prophets in caves, and fed them with bread and water, ver. 4. he gave over the king's court, joined himself to the prophet Elias; and became his disciple. Epiphanius &, Hieronymus. Abdias is brief in words, but pithy in matter, because he hide the 100 prophets in caves, he was advanced to the dignity of a prophet; and where before he was the captain of an army, he now became the captain of God's Church; then he fed a little flock in Samaria; now he feedeth Christ's churches in the whole world. Hier. in Abdiam: yet saint Hierome upon Osee maketh Abdias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Esaias, which seemeth very probable. The sixth section, of the Prophet jonas. The prophet jonas was appointed of God to preach to the Ninivites, that the city after three days should be destroyed: but he being afraid to preach to that great city of the Assyrians, fled from the presence of the Lord, and went down into a ship that went to Tarshishe: but when a great tempest arose, the mariners cast jonas into the Sea, and he was in the belly of a great fish three days and three nights, and after that he was delivered out of the Whale's belly, and brought to the dry land. Then the word of the Lord came to jonas the second time, & he preached to the Ninivites, and they by repentance appeased the wrath of God. jonas. cap. 1. & 3 Athanas. in synop. jonas lived in the days of Elias, who reproved Achab the king of Samaria. He was the son of the widow of Sarepta, whom Elias restored to life, for her hospitality towards him: So writeth Epiphanius, but others think otherwise. Let the Reader use his own judgement herein. jonas did prophesy Christ's death and resurrection, more significantly by his passion, then by his word or preaching. For to what end was he swallowed up of the Whale, and restored again the third day, but to signify Christ's rising from the dead the third day? Aug. de civit▪ lib. 18. cap. 30. Yea, Christ himself interpreted the prophesy of jonas, even as S. Austen doth: For he objected against the jews for their incredulity, jonas his coming out of the Whale's belly, as a most undoubted sign of his resurrection. Mat. 12. ver. 40. Luc. 11. verse 30. The Hebrews say, that jonas was the son of the widow of Sarepta, whom the prophet Elias restored from death. They also write, that Osee, and Amos, & Esay, and jonas, prophesied at the self same time. Hier. hic in prooem. The seventh Section, of the Prophet Micheas. Micheas the Moralist (which is by interpretation humble and fellow heir with Christ, was a prophet of the tribe of Ephraim. Epiphanius. He was so charitably affectced towards the Israelites his brethren, that he wished himself to have been destitute of the spirit of prophesy, to have been reckoned amongst the false Prophets, to have preached an untruth, and himself to have perished alone; so that such a multitude, should believe in Christ, and not be delivered to captivity everlasting. Hier. in cap. 2. Mich. Albeit Micheas was of the same time with Osee, Amos▪ and Esay, who prophesied in the time of Osias king of juda; yet did not Micheas preach in the days of Ozias, but in the time of joatham his son, after whom Achas reigned, Ezechias succeeding in the empire of his father Achas; in whose days the ten tribes, felt their captivity amongst the Assyrians. Hier. hic in cap. 1. Aug. de ciu. lib. 18. cap 27. Micheas prophesied against jerusalem and Samaria, and against Achab. Mich cap. 1.3. Reg. 22. Athanas in Synopsi. The eight Section, of Nahum. Nahum even as jonas did, directeth his prophesy to Niniveh the great city of the Assyrians, which is now called Ninus. And because the Ninivites, after God had mercifully released the punishment foretold by jonas, committed greater offences than before; this Prophet Nahum doth denounce unto the said Ninivites, & to all the persecutors of Israel, God's judgement and everlasting captivity. And withal he comforteth the faithful, showing that the destruction of their enemies shall be for their consolation. Nah. cap 1.2.3. Hier. in proaem. Nahum was the son of Helkeseus, who after the tradition of the Hebrews, was also himself a prophet. He prophesied in the time of Ezechias. Higher & Gloss. After josephus he prophesied in the time of joatham king of juda. joseph. antiq. lib 9 cap. 11. All things foretold of Niniveh, were fulfilled in the hundred and fiteenth year, josephus Ibidem. The 9 Section, of Abacuc. Like as Nahum whom Abacuc followeth, prophesieth against Ninive, and the Assyrians, who destroyed the ten tribes called Israel; even so Abacuc prophesieth against Babylon and king Nabuchedonosor, by whom the two tribes called juda, as also the temple were overthrown, Higher hic in proaemio. Abacuc prophesied many things of the advent of our Saviour, & 2. years before the jews returned from Babylon, he died, and was honourably buried in his own house. Epiphanius. The 10. Section, of Sophonias. Sophonie was of the tribe of Simeon, borne in the mount Sarabatha. Epiphanius. Sophonias the prophet, descended of noble progenitors. Chusa was his father, Godolias his grandfather, Amarias' his great grandfather, Ezechias father to his great grandfather: who all by the tradition of the Hebrews, were also prophets. Hier. in 1. cap. Sophon. Sophonias prophesied in Jerusalem, and in all jewrie: he foretold the day, in which all their idols should be overthrown, and affliction come upon them. He also prophesied of our Saviour, and of his resurrection. After that he preached against Gaza, Ascalon, Azoto, Accaron, Moab, Ammon, Damascus, Niniveh, & against the Aethiopians. Athanas. in synopsi. Sophonias prophesied in the days of josias the son of Amon the king of juda: and so it is evident, that he prophesied before the captivity of Babylon. cap. 1. Sophon. & Lyranus ibidem. The 11. Section, of the prophet Aggaeus. Aggeus directed his prophesy specially to Zorobabel, and jesus the son of josedech, and then to all the people in juda and Jerusalem, commanding them to build up again the temple of the lord Lyranus in princ. S. Austen saith, that these three prophets, Aggeus, Zacharias and Malachias prophesied in the end of the captivity. Aug. de civit. lib. 18. cap. 35. which yet must be understood, after the return from the captivity: whereof saint Austen could not be ignorant, since it is plainly said in the first of Haggai, that in the sixth month of the second year of the reign of king Darius, he received the gift of prophecy. This case shall appear more clearly in the second book, in the discourse of the first monarchy. In which place, mark this point attentively. Haggeus, so soon as he saw the temple of jerusalem builded with his corporal eyes, (for he saw it before in vision) so soon did he sing praises to the Lord; and that done, ended his life in the same place, where he was very honourably buried. Epiphanius. The 12. Section, of the prophet Zacharias. Zacharias son of Barachias, the son of Addo the prophet, began to prophesy two months after Aggeus; that is, in the eight month of the second year of Darius. chap. 1. Zachar. There were sundry Zacharies', one, the son of joiada, another, the son of Barachias, an other, the father of saint john the Baptist. Whereupon ariseth a great controversy amongst the learned, which of all these was that Zacharie whom the jews (as Christ chargeth them in the 23. of Matthew) murdered between the temple and the altar. Hier. in Matt. lib. 4. cap. 23. prope finem. Zacharias after he had prophesied many things of jerusalem, and animated the people to build the temple, and had also reproved the sluggishness of the prophets and priests; he died in his decrepit age, and was buried with Aggeus. Epiphanius. The 13. Section, of the prophet Malachi. The prophet Malachi was of the tribe of Zabulon, borne after the return of the jews from Babylon, in Sopha the land of Zabulon. Epiphanius. Malachias was the last of all the prophets, who after the return from the captivity, and building again of the temple, foretold the desolation thereof, and the ceasing of their sacrifice. Hier. apud Eder. Malachi prophesied of the day of judgement, and of the incarnation of our Saviour: he foretold that Elias (to wit, john the Baptist) should be sent before his advent. Athanas. in synopsi. CHAP. XII. Of the diverse names of the tribes, and of the use thereof in reading the Prophets. The first rule. Whensoever the prophecy is directed to the ten tribes, it is signified by one of these names; Ephraim Samaria Israel joseph jezrael Bethel Bethaven jacob The second rule. Whensoever the prophesy is directed to the two tribes, it is signified by some one of these names; juda jerusalem Benjamin the house of David, and sometime jacob. The third rule. The scripture sometime referreth Israel, to all the twelve Tribes generally. CHAP. XIII. Of the destribution of the offices of the 12. lesser prophets. These prophet's were appointed, ●ome of them to threaten the captivity; as Osee against both the kingdoms of Israel and juda. joel against the two tribes only. Amos against the two tribes, and the kingdoms adjoining. Micheas against the kingdom of Israel especially, because it was the cause of ruin to the rest. to comfort the jews; as Abdias With threats against the kingdom of the Idumeans. jonas With threats against Ninive and the Assyrians. Nahum With threats against the Ninivites for their revolt the second time. Abacuc With threats against Nabuchodonosor and the Chaldeans, who all were enemies to the jews. to call home from the captivity; as Sophonias who preached return to come. Aggeus who preached return present. Zacharias who preached return present, with advise to build the temple. Malachias who preached return past, with exhortation to piety. CHAP. XIIII. Of the time when they prophesied. Of the prophets, some prophesied before the captivity, as well of the ten tribes of Israel, as of the two tribes juda and Benjamin; as Esay Osee joel after the captivity; as Daniel Aggeus Zacharias. when the captivity was at hand; as jeremy in jewrie Ezechiel in Babylon Ex Hier. in 1. cap. jeremiae. The final scope of all the Prophets. The prophets of God, because they would neither discourage the jews with threatenings, nor make them careless by the sweetness of God's promises, sought throughout their books to set before their eyes, the two principal parts of the law; to wit, the promise of salvation, and the doctrine of good life. For the first part, they direct the jews, and in them all the faithful, to the true Messiah Christ jesus, by whom only they shall have true deliverance: for the second part, they use threatenings and menaces to bring them from their vices. For this is the chief scope of all the prophets, either by God's promises to allure them to be godly; or else by threatenings of his judgements, to fear them from sin and wickedness. And albeit that the whole law contain these two points, yet the prophets note particularly, as well the time of God's judgements, as the manner of the same. CHAP. XV. Of the division of the Books of the Prophets. The books of the prophets contain nine common places; to wit, Doctrines Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Speculations Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Exhortations Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Comminations Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Lamentations Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Consolations Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Prayers Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Histories Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. Predictions Ex Epiphanio, de mens. & pond. in initio. CHAP. XVI, Containeth the acts, age, time, and death of famous men that were before the captivity of Babylon. The first Section, of Adam. Adam was created upon friday, the day before the jewish Sabbath, Genes. 1. verse 27. He was 130. years old, when he begat Seth, Genes. 5.3. after josephus, he was 230. years old. he lived 930. years, and then died, Genes. 5. verse 5. He was buried (as the Hebrews write) in the land of Israel. Rabbi Isaac apud Genebr. He had three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth. Cain murdered his brother Abel; and for no other cause, but even for the true service of God. Which, when it is truly done, the devil can not abide it; and for that end doth he always stir up the wicked against the godly, as he did Cain against his brother Abel, that the word of God and his doctrine may be extinguished and trodden under foot. Adam had many sons and daughters, as josephus writeth. The second Section, of Seth. The posterity of Cain was wholly extinct in Noah's flood, but the stock of Seth was multiplied upon earth, as of whom descended all the patriarchs, prophets, and holy men, Gene. 5.6, 7. The nephews of Seth made two pillars, the one of brick, the other of stone, in which they engraved the word of God and his prophecies, for the perpetual conservation thereof. They also divided the year into twelve months; and first observed the course of the stars, and taught astronomy. josephus antiq. libr. 1. ca 2. they are therefore grossly deceived, that either make the Egyptians, or Mercury, or Atlas, or Actinus the authors of Astronomy and other liberal sciences: for as josephus saith, the Egyptians were utterly ignorant in such sciences, before Abraham's coming unto them: which knowledge came first from the Chaldeans to the Egyptians, & from the Egyptians to the Greeks', by the means of Abraham. josephus libr. lib. 1. antiq. ca 6, 7, 8. Seth lived 912. years, and then died, Genes. 5. verse 8. Of the ungodly marriages between the posterity of Seth, in whose families God was truly worshipped, and the posterity of Cain, who served idols, came giants or men of huge magnitude. By means of which wicked conjunction, the knowledge of God was utterly abolished in all, but in Noah, The flood came A. M. 1656 his three sons, and their four wives; so that God destroyed the remnant of mankind in the general deluge, Gene. 6. verse 2, 7, verse 21. The third section, of Noah. When the earth after the flood returned to it former state again, Noah began to play the husbandman, to till the ground, to plant vines, to gather the grapes, and to find out the use of drinking wine, Gen. 9 verse 20. Noah had three sons, Sem, Cham, and japhet. Sem with his children, inhabited that part of the world which is towards the east. For of his son Aram came the Syrians; of Assur, the Assyrians; of Arphaxad, the Chaldeans; of Ela the Persians. I'm inhabited that part of the world, which is toward the south: for of Canaan came the Canaanites; of Mizraim, the Egyptians; of Chus or Cush, the Ethiopians; of Saba the Arabians: and Chanaan is now called jewrie. japheth inhabited the west and north parts, and had many sons; to wit, Gomer, Magog, Madai, javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tyrus. Of javan came the Greeks, whom the Latins call janus and who are now termed jones; of Madai came the Medes; of Gomer the Cimmerians or Simbrians; of Ascanes Gomers' son the Germans; of Magog the Scythians, of whom came the Turks; of Thyras the Thracians, Gen. 10. joseph. antiq. lib. 1. cap. 6. Cari. pag 14. The tradition of the Hebrews is, that japheth was the eldest son of Noah, borne in the 500 year of his age; Cham or Ham his second son, borne in the 501. year of his age; Sem his third and youngest son, borne in the 502. year of his age. Which tradition is very probable, though not altogether certain and undoubted; for Sem is said to be but 100 years old, 2. years after the flood, Genes. 11. verse 10. yet is Sem named first in the scripture, because the history of the church is continued in his line. Noah lived after the flood, 350. years, and when he was 950. years old, he died, Gen. 9 verse 28. in the year of the world 2006. An. M. 2606 From Adam to the birth of Noah, are 1056. years, Gen. 5.3. from Adam until the death of Noah, are 2606. years. The fourth section, of the tower of Babel. The tower of Babel was built, about 130. years after the flood, in the year of the world, 1788. The place where the tower stood, is now called Babylon; that is to say, confusion, because from thence came the confusion of tongues. joseph. antiq. lib. 1. cap. 4. Nimrod was a mighty hunter, and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, in the land of Shinar, for there was an other city in Egypt, called also Babel, Gen. 10. verse 10. Nimrod was a cruel oppressor of the people, and a very tyrant, so as his tyranny came into a Proverb, (as, Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. Gen. 10. verse 9 Before the building of Babel the whole earth was of one language: but they were puffed up with pride, and sought to build a tower to reach up to heaven; that so their name might be magnified, and their power united on earth. Yet suddenly such division of their uniform language was made, as one of them understood not another; they were scattered abroad, and the tower left unperfect, Genes. 11. verse 4, 7, 8. Nimrod was the nephew of Cham, who was son to Chus or Cush, who first affected empire, and began the form of a kingdone in Chaldea; his palace was Babel. He was the first that exercised hunting after Noah's flood, Gen. 10. verse 7.10. About this time began a new kingdom amongst the Assyrians, by Ashur, the son of Sem: An. M. 1758 his chief city was Niniveh: but he builded also Rehoboth, and Calah, Genes. 10. verse 11. Genebr. The fift section, of Abraham. Abraham was borne 352. years after the flood, in the year of the world 2008. the promise was made to Abraham 427. years after the flood, which was 75. years after his birth: he was commanded to go out of his country 423. years after the flood. Abraham's father (Terah) died, when Abraham was but 75. years old. Terah was 205. years old, when he died, Genes. 11, verse 32. Abraham died when he was 175 years old, Genesis 25. verse 7. At the death of his father Terah, he was but 75. years old, Genesis 12.4. Gen. 11. verse 26, 32. In which age of 75. years Abraham departed out of Haran, Genesis 12. verse 4. The first difficulty. It seemeth by the twelfth chapter of Genesis, that GOD spoke to Abraham after the death of his father There or Terah, when he was in Haran. And it is evident by Genes. 11. that God spoke unto him when he was in Chaldea. I answer, that God spoke to Abraham when he was in Chaldea his native country, from whence he went with his father to Haran, where he abode by reason of his father's infirmity, until his death. After the death of his father, he went from Haran with Sarai his wife, to Canaan the land of promise, accordingly as God had commanded him: which resolution will be clear, if we join the beginning of the 12. chapter, with the latter end of the eleventh. The second difficulty. Saint Steven saith in the seventh of the Acts, that Mesopotamia was Abraham's native country, from whence he went to Charran. Therefore it cannot be, that Chaldea was his country. I answer, that Chaldea was his country, and that his country was indifferently called, either Mesopotamia, or Chaldea. Which I prove by two reasons. First, because Plinius lib. 6. cap 26. saith, that Chaldea is a city in Mesopotamia. Secondly, because S. Steven, Acts 7. verse 4. confirmeth the same: neither doth any grave writer deny, but that Mesopotamia joineth to Chaldea; and so Chaldea being in the confines of Mesopotamia, may not unfitly be taken for the same. The third difficulty. It is said in the 11. of Genesis, that when Abraham went from Vr of the Chaldees, he dwelled in Haran: but in the 7. of the Acts it is said, that when he went out of Chaldea, he dwelled in Charran; so it seemeth, that either holy Moses, or S. Steven must utter an untruth. I answer, that that word which Moses in Genesis calleth Charran, is also called Charran by S. Steven in the Acts; although the Latin vulgata editio, and other vulgar translations term it Haran. The reason hereof is this, because the first letter of that word in Hebrew (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) is of divers pronounced diversly. See the second chapter aforegoing, in the end of the second age. The fourth difficulty. This is a great difficulty, and worthy to be well observed. The doubt standeth thus. Moses saith, Genes. 11. verse 26. that Terah begat Abraham when he was 70. years old. In the same place he saith, that Terah died when he was 205. years old: in the twelfth of Genesis he saith, that Abraham was 75. years old, when he departed out of Haran or Charran; for all is one (as is already said:) so that by this reckoning, we must want 60. years of Terahs' age: for albeit the scripture say, that Terah lived 205. years; yet by the computation already made, we cannot find more than 145. years. I answer first, that this difficulty hath troubled many learned men. Some think, that God would conceal the 60. years, that so the end of the world might be kept secret from us. Others think that Abraham stayed those 60. years, with his father at Charran. I answer secondly, that Terah was 105 years old, when he begat Abraham. Neither is holy writ repugnant, to this my answer. For although it say, that Terah was 70. years old when he begat Abraham, Nachor, and Haran; yet doth it not deny him to have been more, but doth connotate the less by the more, by the usual figure synecdoche; very frequent in the holy scriptures. See the second chapter aforegoing, and the objection made in the second age. The sixth section, of Isaac. When Izhak was borne, Abraham was 100 years old, Gen. 21. verse 5. Isaac was circumcised, when he was eight days old, An. M. 2108 Gene. 21. verse 4. in the age of the world, 2108. Circumcision of every man child was appointed by God, Genes. 17. verse 10. in the age of the world 2107. Sodom about this time was destroyed, with brimstone and fire descending from heaven, Genes. 19 verse 24. The promise was made to Abraham, in Izhak his son, Genesis 17. verse 21. in the age of the world 2083. from hence must we reckon the four hundred years, Gene. 15.13. Acts 7. verse 6. Galat. 3. verse 17. for the promised seed began in Isaac, Genesis 21. verse 12. Abraham was appointed by God, to sacrifice his only son Isaac, in whom the promise was made, Genesis 22. ver. 2. whose faith was so strong, that he neither disobeyed God's commandment, neither disinherited his promise, ver. 9, 10. The doubt. How could Isaac be his only son, since Ishmael was borne before him, A. M. 2083 and even then living? I answer, that after Ishmael was by God's appointment put out of Abraham's family, he became as dead, and had no place amongst Abraham's children, Genesis 21. ver. 12. An observation. Although circumcision be called God's covenant, Gene. 17. vers. 10. yet was it not the covenant indeed, but a sign or feal of God's covenant▪ made to Abraham and to his seed after him, Gen. 17. ver. 7. It was called the covenant, because it signified the covenant, and had the promise of grace annexed to it, as all sacraments have. And as circumcision was called God's covenant, and yet but a sign or sacrament thereof; even so in the Lord's supper, the bread is called his body, albeit it be but a sign and sacrament of the same. For which purpose S. Austen in his epistle to Bonifacius, hath a very fine saying, well worthy to be engraven in golden letters. His express words be these. For if sacraments had not a certain resemblance, of those things whereof they be sacraments; they could be no sacraments at all. By reason of the similitude or signification, they oftentimes take the names of the things themselves: as therefore in a certain manner, the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christ's body; and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is Christ's blood; even so the sacrament of faith is also faith. The seventh Section, of jacob. A. M. 2298 jacob was 130. years old, when he went into Egypt and came before king Pharaoh, Genesis 47. verse 7, 9 jacob and his sons in the time of famine, came from Canaan to sojourn in Egypt, and they dwelled (by Pharaohs grant,) in Ramesis a city in the country of Goshen, Genes. 47. verse 4, 11. jacob died in Egypt, Gen. 49. verse 33. he was buried honourably in his own country, Gen. 50. he lived 17. years in Egypt, Gen. 47. verse 28. The children of Israel (the posterity of jacob) went into Egypt together, Genes. 46. verse 6. they were all 70. in number, Genes. 46. verse 27. Deuter. 10 verse 22. The first doubt. In Genesis and Deuteronomie the kindred of jacob surpasseth not 70. persons, yet saint Luke's computation is 75. I answer, that as saint Austen saith, lib. 16. ciu. cap. 40. Saint Luke speaketh not precisely of the time when jacob went into Egypt, but of the whole time during joseph's abode there: in which time joseph had children to supply the number. The second doubt. The persons that came into Egypt (if they be reckoned particularly) are only 66 which descended of jacob, Genes. 46. I prove it, because Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan, and so could not come with jacob into Egypt. No more could the two sons of joseph, Manasses and Ephraim, who were borne in Egypt and there continued. I answer, that the two children of joseph must be in the computation, as I have showed out of saint Austen: to whom we must add Dina, and the patriarch jacob himself; and so the number of 70. is accomplished. The third doubt. The children of Israel were but 70. persons, when they went into Egypt; Exod. 12. ver. 37 and yet they came out of Egypt about six hundred thousand men of foot, besides children and women; which multiplication is not possible by the course of nature. I answer, that the multiplication is possible, even by the course of nature. First, josephus lib. ●. antiquit. cap. 6. because they were in Egypt about 215. years. Secondly, because perhaps the men had many wives, as which was in those days an usual thing. Thirdly, because one woman might have many children at once: for women in Egypt (as writeth Trogus) have seven children at one birth, Plin. lib. 7. cap. 3. Fourthly, because God promised to multiply the seed of Abraham, Gene. 17. The fourth doubt. The Israelites were 400. years in Egypt, as we read in Genesis, and in other places of the scripture; therefore it is false to say, that they were there but 215. years. I answer, that those 400. years must be reckoned from the birth of Isaac, or from the expulsion of Ishmael; because even then that seed began to be afflicted. See the eight chapter in the fift section, where this difficulty is handled at large. The fift doubt. God is not the author of sin, neither tempteth he any man james 1. for 13. but to spoil our neighbours of their own goods, is a great sin, and flat theft: which thing for all that God commanded the Israelites to do, Exodus 12. verse 35. Exod. 3. verse 22. I say first, that as the schools truly teach, the law negative bindeth always and at every instant, so that whatsoever is prohibited by a precept negative, can at no instant be lawfully done; although that which is commanded to be done by the law affirmative, may at some instant be omitted without sin. I say secondly, that sin hath no positive cause, but only a cause deficient, and consequently, God being void of all imperfections and defects, as who is not only good, but the high goodness itself, can not be the author of sin. I say thirdly, that theft (as all learned divines grant with uniform consent) is the taking or detaining of an other man's goods, against the will of the owner. Whereupon it followeth, that since God almighty is the chief lord and owner of all riches, goods, lands and possessions, God commanded not the Israelites, to take from the Egyptians their goods, but that which was his own, and by best right due unto him. Yea, as a most just judge he appointed them so to do, A. M. 2513 in recompense of their labours. The eight section, of Moses. Moses was son to Amram the Levite, his mother's name was jochebed the daughter of Levi. Aaron was his brother, A: M. 2434 Miria his sister, Numer. 26. verse 59 Exod. 2. verse 1. The king of Egypt commanded the midwives of the Hebrew women, that when they did the office of a midwife, than they should kill all sons, but suffer daughters to live. This notwithstanding, the midwives feared God, and therefore preserved alive the men children, Exod. 1. verse 15, 16, 17. A great doubt. God rewarded the midwives, for telling a lie to the king; therefore to lie is no sin. I say first, that to lie is never lawful, neither for one respect nor other. I say secondly, that as God rewarded the midwives Shiphrah and Puah, so did he Rahab; but he rewarded them not, for the telling of a leasing. I say thirdly, with Austen, that God rewarded them, because they loved and feared him, which are the true fruits of a lively faith: which solution is effectually comprised, even in the text itself, Exod. 1. verse 21. neither could an officious lie committed by human frailty, make frustrate their lively faith. Moses, when he was forty years old, A. M. 2474 fled from king Pharaoh, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, Acts 7. verse 23. verse 29. Moses being a fair child, was hid three months in his father's house, Acts 7. verse 20. After three months the mother of Moses (because she could hide him no longer from the tyranny of the king,) made a basket of reeds, and laid the child therein, and put it among the bulrushes by the rivers brink, where Pharaohs daughter espied him, and caused him to be brought up as her own child. Yea by God's providence, his own mother became his nurse, Exod. 2. verse 3.7, 10. The Egyptians made the Israelites weary of their lives, by sore labour in clay and in brick, and in all manner of bondage, which they laid upon them most cruelly, Exod. 1. verse 14. but God (whose providence is never wanting to his children) raised up Moses, who in the 40. year of his age, avenged the cause of his brethren the Israelites, and slew the Egyptian that smote an Hebrew, Exod. 2. verse 11. Act. 7. ver. 23. The children of Israel were 40. years in the wilderness, by the holy and valiant conduction of Moses: in which time, neither their clothes waxed old upon their backs, neither their shoes upon their feet; such was the omnipotent power and merciful goodness of their good God and ours, Deut 29. vers. 5. They were fed with manna forty years in the wilderness, until they came into the land of Canaan, Exod. 16. verse 35. A. M. 2513 The law was given 430. years after the promise made to Abraham, Galat. 3. verse 17. in the age of the world 2513. which was 480. years before Solomon built the temple, 3. King. 6. verse 1. It was given in mount Sinai, which was all on a smoke: the Lord came down upon it in fire, and all the mount trembled exceedingly. Thunders and lightnings were upon the mount, and the sound of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people in the camp was afraid, Exod. 19 ver. 16, 18. which fearful signs God showed in exhibiting his law; as well to cause it be had in greater reverence, as also to make his majesty more feared. The law written with the finger of God in tables of stone, was given the third day of the third month, after the coming of Israel out of Egypt, so that from the 14. day of the first month (in which the Israelites eat the passover) until the day in which the law was given, are reckoned jump 50. days. First, 17. of the first month; then, 30. of the second month; lastly, three days of the third month. The law therefore was given the 50. day after the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt. August. tom 4. libr. 2. quaest. supr. Exod. cap. 70. pa. 103. A. M. 2554 Moses died when he was 120. years old, neither was his eye dim, nor his natural force abated, Deuteronomie 34. verse 7. Moses was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. Deut, 34. ver. 6. lest the jews should thereby have occasion to commit Idolatry, as people most prone thereunto, even as they adored the Serpent, which he had made. Aug. lib. 1. de mirab. S. Script. cap. 35. The whole life of Moses, is divided into three quadragenaries. For he learned forty years in Egypt, in the house of king Pharaoh. He was forty years in exile in Egypt, in the house of a priest of Madian: and he was 40. years in the desert, leader to the Israelites. Aug. ubi supra. There was not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. He did miracles and wonders before Pharaoh in the land of Egypt, and before all his servants. Deut. 34. verse 10. The blessed man Moses in his infancy, was put in a basket daubed with clay, and so exposed to God's providence upon the water. Whereupon he was so called: for More in the Egyptian tongue, signifieth water; and Yses signifieth saved: So that Moses in the Egyptian language, signifieth, saved out of the water. josephus, lib. 2 antiquit. cap. 5. The ninth section, of joseph. joseph was the son of Israel, otherwise called jacob, beloved of his father above all his brethren: his brethren hated him mortally, because he complained to his father of their naughty dealing: they consulted to slay him, and to tell their father that a wicked beast had devoured him. But Reuben (being more merciful than the rest) willed them not to shed his blood, but to cast him into a dry pit in the wilderness, thinking by that means to redeem him. After by the advise of judah, they sold him to the Ismaelites, who sold him to Putiphar, steward to Pharaoh king of Egypt. Gen. 37. The doubt. In the 37. of Genesis, verse 28. and in the 39 of Genesis, verse 1. It is said that the Ismaelites bought and sold joseph: but in the 37. of Genesis, verse 36. it is said, that the Madianites sold him into Egypt. I answer, that Moses speaketh indifferently of the Madianites and Ismaelites, using them both for one and the same people. joseph was blessed of God, and all things prospered under his hands. Which when Potiphar saw, he made him ruler of his house, and put all that he had in his hand. Yet by the naughty dealing of Potiphars' wife, he was cast in prison. Gene. 39 verse 2.3.20. joseph expounded Pharaoh his dreams, for which cause he was delivered out of prison, highly honoured of the king, and made the chief governor of the land of Egypt. Gen. 41. ver. 25.43. joseph was a figure of our Saviour Christ, lively declared by S. Austen. For as josephes' brethren when they saw him, consulted to put him to death; even so the jews when they saw Christ, took counsel him to crucify. josephes' brethren took from him his motley coat, and the jews took from Christ his corporal coat. joseph spoiled of his coat, went down into the pit; and Christ spoiled of his body, descended into hell. joseph coming out of the pit, was bought of the Egyptians; and Christ arising from the dead, was bought of the Gentiles by faith. joseph was sold for 30. pence, by the counsel of judah his brother: and Christ was sold for 30. pence, by the treachery of judas his Apostle. joseph saved Egypt from famine, and Christ saved the world from sin. If joseph's brethren had not sold him, Egypt had starved; even so if the jews had not sold Christ, the world had perished. Aug Serm. 81. de temp. joseph was 80. years ruler in Egypt, Gen. 41. verse 46. Gene. 50. verse 22. He lived a 110. years, he died in Egypt, was there enbalmed, and chested, Gene. 50. verse 22.26. But he was carried thence, and buried with his ancestors. Exo. 13. verse 19 The 10. section, of joshua. joshua or jesus the son of Nun, was a zealous servant of God, and a valiant governor. He brought the Israelites by jordan into the land of promise, & they served the Lord all the days of his life. He lived 110. years, and then died, A. M. 2574 jos. 24. verse 29.31. He was buried in the borders of his own inheritance, which is in mount Ephraim, jos. 24. verse 30. joshua slew five kings (the king of jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of jerimoth, the king of Lachis, and the king of Eglon,) and he hanged them on five trees. jos. 10. verse 26. joshua his faith was so strong in the Lord, that when he fought against the Amorites, he prayed that the sun might stand until he were avenged of his enemies; and not only the sun stood still in Gibeon, but the Moon also in the valley of Aialon, jos. 10. ver. 12.13. joshua subdued all towns and cities (save Gibeon,) he slew much people, killed 31. kings, and gave the whole land for an inheritance to Israel, according to their portions through their tribes. jos. cap. 11. cap. 12. The 11. section of the Rechabites. The Rechabites would drink no wine all the days of their lives, because jonadab the son of Rechab their father, A. M. 3373 had so commanded them. jere. 35. verse 8. The observation. Upon the Rechabites abstinence from wine, the papists of latter days have falsely grounded their superstitious fasts. I say superstitious fasts, because I reverence and highly commend fasting; when it is done christianly, according to the word of God. I therefore say first, that the whole scope of the Prophet, is nothing else in the story of the Rechabites, but by their example to confound the disobedient jews. For the Rechabites kept strictly the commandements of jonadab, even many years after he was dead▪ but the jews would not obey the everliving God, jere. 35. v. 14. I say secondly, that jonadab is not commended for his strict charge, but his children for their ready obedience. I say thirdly, the children are commanded to obey their parents, but only in the Lord, that is, so far forth as their commandements are agreeable to God's holy laws. So saith the Apostle, Ephes. 6. verse 1. I say four, that their abstinence from wine was a civil observance, not any religious worship. And I prove it by two reasons; first, because they were not only prohibited to drink wine, but also to till the ground, to plant Vineyards, and to build or have houses. Secondly, because not only themselves, but their wives also, their sons, and their daughters, had the self same charge; who yet lived almost three hundred years, after the charge was given. Who all by popish collection, should have been Monks and Nuns; which to affirm is very absurd, even in their own manner of proceeding. I say fifthly, that jonadabs' charge was not given for merit or religion, but for a mere civil respect: to wit, to acquaint his posterity with an austere kind of life, that after when God should punish the world for their sins; they might bear it more patiently, & with more facility wander from place to place. And because the vulgar sort is wonderfully seduced, aswell by the doctrine as by the practice of popish fasting; it will happily be nothing out of season, here to speak a little thereof. The first proposition. All mortal living creatures of God (man excepted,) may lawfully be eaten with giving of thanks. I say first (mortal) by reason of the incorporal angels. I say secondly (living) in respect of things inanimate, not apt to yield nourishment. I say thirdly, (except man;) because God made the other things for man, but not one man for another, Gen. 9 verse 3.5. The proposition is thus proved. Christ reproving the pharisees, for their fond opinions in superstitious observance of external ceremonies, (which he termed the traditions of men;) willed all the multitude to hearken unto him, and to understand, that whatsoever was without man, could not defile him when it entered into him, Matt. 15. verse 11. Mar. 7. ver. 15. I know and am persuaded through the Lord jesus, (saith the Apostle) that there is nothing unclean of itself (or by nature:) but to him that judgeth it to be unclean. Rom. 14. verse 14. Saint Peter was long in doubt, concerning this proposition. His reason was, because some meats were made unclean by the old law. For which cause he in a vision saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel come down to him, wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the heaven. And there came a voice to him, bidding him kill and eat. Yet Peter durst not eat, but answered, that he never ate any polluted thing. And the voice spoke the second time, willing him not to repute the things polluted, which God had purified. Thus Peter did, and thus he erred at that time. And even so do many silly souls this day, who make less scruple to rap out great oaths, horrible blasphemies, and slanderous speeches against their neighbours; then they do in eating a piece of cheese, or an egg in Lent: and yet is the one directly against the law of God, the other only against the tyrannical constitution of the pope. The second proposition. There are sundry kinds of fasts. To wit, natural, civil, christian, miraculous, coactive, religious. Natural fasting is, Natural fast. when we fast for physic sake, either to recover our health lost, or to preserve us from diseases to come. Of which kind of fast, who list may read at large, in Hypocrates his Aphorisms, and in Galens' Commentaries upon the same. Civil fasting is, Civil fast. when men are so seriously bend to their civil affairs, that they will use no intermission at all, either for meat or drink. This kind of fast used king Saul, when having the victory in his hands, he pursued the Philistines. For even then commanded he all his army, that none should eat or drink till night. 1. Sam. 14. verse 24. So did the wicked Hebrews, who vowed that they would neither eat nor drink, until they had slain S. Paul, Acts. 23. verse 21. This fast practised joshua, when he charged the Sun and Moon to stand still, till he was avenged of his enemies. jos. 10. verse 12. The christian fast is to keep sobriety in our diet. That is, neither to eat too often, Christian fast. neither immoderately. Which kind of fasting aught to be more familiar, than it is to many a one: for want whereof the country aboundeth, with drunkards, gluttons, and idle belly-gods. Miraculous fasting was practised by the apostles, when our Saviour did thereby confirm the preaching of his gospel. Moses, Elias, and Christ himself, used the same kind of fast. Coactive fasting is, Coactive fast. when by reason of famine or want of food, we are enforced to abstain. With this fast soldiers are afflicted in wars, poor folks in their own houses: rich seldom or never. Wherefore wisely said the Philosopher, touching the hour of dining; that a rich man may dine when he list, a poor man when he can get meat. Religious fast. The religious fast is abstinence with a penitent heart and true faith, not only from all meats and drinks, but even from all things whatsoever, that may any way nourish or delight the body. The form of which fast, is abstinence: the matter is meat, drink, and whatsoever bringeth corporal oblectation; the efficient cause is faith and repentance for our sins; the end is to appease God's wrath, and either to procure deliverance from our miseries or some mitigation thereof. For which cause fasting in the Scriptures, is continually joined with prayer: and being used as is said, God doth accept it for the merits of Christ jesus, not for any worthiness in itself. The third proposition. To fast rightly and christianly, is to abstain from all meats, all drinks, and from all corporal pleasures, until the end of the fast; and to bestow the whole time in praying, in lamenting our sins, and in hearing the word of God, especially godly sermons. For the external affliction of our bodies, by abstaining from meats and drinks, 1. Tim. 4. verse 8. hath no other end, effect, or use, but to dispose & prepare us as is already said. This proposition is proved, by the usual practice of holy people in all ages, recorded in holy writ for our instruction, holy king David, so soon as he understood that his child should die for his sins, gave himself to fasting and prayer, 2. Sam. 12. v. 5.17 and never ate while the child was alive. 2. Sam. 12.5.17. The Ninivites understanding Gods commynations and wrath for their sins, sat in ashes, put on sackcloth, gave themselves to earnest prayer, and abstained from all meats and drinks, until God showed mercy towards them, jon. 3.5.7. Holy queen Hester, when she joined fasting with prayer: neither ate nor drank at all until the end of her fast, Ester. 4. verse 16. Neither can it ever be proved by the authority of holy writ, or by the practice of the primitive Church, or by the testimony of the ancient fathers; that God's people did in any age, at any time, in any place or country, use either to eat or to drink before the end of their fast, whereby appeareth the absurdity of all popish fasting, which thing is most evident, by the story of S. Spiridion, handled in the next proposition. The fourth proposition. Popish choice of meats in their late invented fasts, is wicked and intolerable. I say first, (popish choice) because to put merit or religion in abstaining from one meat more than another, is the peculiar badge of papists; or at least common to them with the Eucratites, with the Tatians, with the Catherans; with the manichees, or like heretics. I prove it, because the Apostle saith plainly, Tit. 1. ver. 15. that all things are pure to the pure; but the papists and other old heretics tell us, that certain meats, at certain times, as in Lent, in the imber days, and Fridays, are unpure, and polluted; yea so unpure, that they pollute all the eaters thereof, 1. Tim. 4. verse 4. and make them guilty of eternal death. Yet the Apostle avoucheth boldly and expressly, that every creature of God is good, and that nothing ought to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. In the first verse of the same chapter, he telleth us, that in the latter times some shall departed from the faith, and give heed to the doctrine of devils. In the third verse he showeth what doctrine of devils he meaneth: To wit, prohibition to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with giving of thanks. Out of which words, I note first; that no creature of God is impure at any time, which is appointed for the nourishment of man. I note secondly, that no meat ought to be refused in Lent, or at other times, if it be received with thanksgiving. I note thirdly, that prohibition from certain meats was not in the apostles time, but invented by heretics of latter days. I note four, that such prohibition is of the devil. I say secondly (late invented fasts,) because Spiridion, who was not only a bishop, but also a man so holy, that he wrought miracles, and was in his life time reputed a Saint: did not refuse to eat flesh in the time of Lent, and that in his own house; To make choice of meats for religion, is the badge of an Infidel. yea; he did not only eat flesh himself, but withal he entreated a stranger that lodged with him, to do the same. And when the stranger refused to eat flesh with him: saying, that he was a christian, and so prohibited to eat flesh at that time: S. Spiridion replied upon him, and said, that the rather he ought to eat flesh, Sozomenus hist. lib. 1 cap. 11. trip. hist. lib. 1. cap. 10. Nicephor. lib. 8. cap. 42. because he was a christian; for all things were pure to the pure. Thus did the blessed bishop, and man of God, renowned for his rare gift of working miracles. Whom the pope would burn for an heretic with fire and faggot, if he were this day living in Rome, and would not retract his opinion. For first, he eat flesh himself contrary to popish doctrine. Secondly, he urged the stranger to do the same. Thirdly, he avouched his fact to be the part of a christian. Fourthly, he signified that to make conscience in choice of meats, was the badge of an infidel. Which fourth observation I gather out of the word (rather.) Fiftly, the fact of Spiridion proveth, that to make choice of meats was deemed superstitious, not only in the Apostles time, but many hundred years after their departure hence. I say thirdly (wicked and intolerable) first, because popish choice of meats taketh away christian liberty, and maketh christian slaves to man's traditions. For to the pure all things are pure, by the liberty of Christ's gospel. Tit. 1. verse 15. Rom. 1●. ver. 14. Rom. 14. ver. 17. I am persuaded, saith the Apostle, that no meat is unclean. And he addeth the reason, because the kingdom of God, is neither meat nor drink. Wherefore we ought not to destroy the work of God, for meats sake. In another place, he saith, that if he should please men, he were not the servant of Christ. Gal. 1. ver. 10. To please men is good and godly, so long as their pleasure is measured with the holy will of God: but when men would spoil us of our christian liberty, then must we fight against their wicked pleasures. So S. Paul expoundeth himself in these words. The false brethren cre●t in privily, to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. And why? ye are bought with a price, Gal. 2. ver. 5. 1. Cor. 7. v. 2●. be not the servants of men. Christ himself forewarned us, to beware of the hypocritical doctrine of the pharisees; because they corrupted the pure word of God, Math. 15. v. 3. with the mixture of their own foolish traditions. Secondly, because the apostle teacheth us, that nothing ought to be refused, 1. Tim. 4. v. 4. if it be received with giving of thanks. Thirdly, because no power on earth, can alter the word of God: Which word telleth us, that all meats are alike lawful. Fourthly, Deut. 4. v. 2. Tit. 1. ver. ●5. because to command the choice of meats for religion sake, is to appoint a new God. For as there is but one God, so is there one only religion, as no papist can deny. Since therefore God's word and religion telleth us, that all meats are at all times indifferent, as I have proved; it followeth necessarily, that the pope's religion which teacheth the contrary, is to be abhorred. The fift proposition. Albeit a certain kind of fast (now in our English tongue called Lent) was of old observed before Easter: yet is that fast neither warranted by the Scriptures, neither commanded by the apostles; neither uniformly practised in the primitive church; but left indifferent to be used, as it seemeth good to every one. I say, first (called in English, Lent:) because in the learned tongues and of all writers, it is termed the fast of 40. days. Why it should be so called, the common people & latter papists give this reason; because forsooth, Christ fasted forty days: but that this their wise reason so supposed, is most absurd and too too childish; I will convince by manifest demonstrations. First, because if Christ's fast were a pattern of our Lent, then should we aswell forbear fish as flesh, which no papist will be bound unto. Secondly, by that reason and rule, we should neither eat nor drink by the space of forty days. Thirdly, by that law, we ought to eat flesh upon maundy Thursday; One silly papist urged by this reason, said that the paschal lamb was a fish indeed. unless they will say, that the Paschall lamb was no flesh indeed, but a fish of the Sea. Fourthly, because Christ fasted not at that time of the year, in which the papists keep their Lent. Add hereunto, that the said number of forty days fast, was ever too too variable, Mat. 4. Mark. 1. Luke 4. as all approved ecclesiastical histories make relation. The old Romans fasted three weeks before Easter, intermitting their fast weekly upon their Saturdays & Sundays. The Slavonians, Alexandrians, and Grecians, fasted six weeks. Others continued their fast for the space of 7. weeks: Trip. hist. lib. 9 cap. 38. but they fasted only 5. days in every week. Our latter papists perceiving a gross error in the reckoning or supputation of Lent, invented a new no fortified bulwark. That is, the pope added four days in the beginning, (which they commonly call cleansing days,) to supply the want. And yet have they not the number, as they wish. For if the Sundays be not in their computation, then have they a mingle mangle Lent. If they be reckoned, they surpass their number by six days: So that their number, no way falleth jump. Secundo principaliter. I say secondly (not warranted by the Scriptures) because neither the old nor the new Testament maketh any mention thereof. Christ indeed willed us to fast and pray; but he neither assigned the time, nor limited the days. Besides this, the popish manner of fasting, is neither agreeable to Christ's fast, neither to the fast of the apostles, nor of Moses, nor of Elias, nor of David, nor of Hester, nor of Spiridion, nor of any other authentical fast, as I have proved. I say thirdly, (not uniformly observed in the primitive church,) First, because as is said, some observe one manner, some another; some keep more weeks, some fewer. Secondly, because as Socrates writeth, some eat nothing that liveth; some of living things eat only fish; some eat fish and birds; some eat herbs and eggs; Trip. hist. lib. 9 c. 18. Sozomen. lib. 7. cap. 19 Euseb. ●ib. 5. cap. 24. some eat only bread; othersome eat nothing at all; other some at night eat all kind of meats. I say four (not commanded by the Apostles, but left indifferent) First, because we find no such commandment in the holy Scriptures. Again, because ecclesiastical histories do expressly testify the same. Because (saith Cassiodorus) there is no law made for fasting; I think the Apostles left this matter to our own consideration: that every one should do without fear or necessity, what seemed convenient for him. The sixth proposition. Popish fa●●ing is ridiculous, and hurtful both to soul and body. I say first (ridiculous) first, Primo principaliter. because they prohibit to eat eggs, cheese, milk, and butter; and yet permit all manner of strong wines, all kinds of most delicate fishes, and other dainties whatsoever, flesh only excepted. And yet do sundry men, like as well of fish as of flesh, if not better. Again, because wines and sundry kinds of fish, bring forth all those inordinate effects, for bridling whereof fasting is appointed, no less than flesh, or rather more. Thirdly, because in all their fasts, the richer sort fill their bellies at noon with dainty dishes. Which is as much as any reasonable idle man, will ask for his diet any day, unless it be for fashion sake. Fourthly, because at night they will have Wines, Fruits, Figs, Almonds, Dates, Raysinges, Marmalate, conserves of Cherries, Wardens, and like dainties. Fiftly, because they use to stuff their paunches so full at noon, as they may well endure until the next day. Sixtly, because great injury is done unto the poor, by this kind of popish fasting. For whereas, the rich either are near the Sea, or else have store of Fishes within themselves, At Rome they are more liberal in eating, because the pope knowing their liberal collations, and not reproving them, is deemed to dispense with the same. This is sound popish doctrine, I assure the reader. or at least have money enough to provide the same; others have all the three; other some want all; yet doth the Popish ridiculous law abandon the poor as well as the rich, from Eggs, Cheese, Butter, and Milk, the only food that they have to live upon. Seventhly, because all the day long, they commonly will drink wine, eat bread, Simnels, Manchetes, and Fruits; and feed thereon at night, as if it were an ordinary settled dinner. And if they refer their dinner till night, as sundry do for better liking sundry times; and as English men have done of latter days, generally upon Christmas Eeve; then do they practise the former privilege, in eating and drinking liberally at noon. Eightly, because to avoid the penalty of the popish law herein, some have feigned themselves sick that were not so; See and note well Aquinas, 22. ●. 147. ar. 6. ad. 2. other some have ridden abroad of purpose, that so they might fill their bellies without suspicion. Yea, though one drink every day, till he be drunken, yet doth he not break his fast by popish doctrine. I say secondly (hurtful to the soul) because by means hereof, Secundo principaliter. many have believed false doctrine to be the word of God: and not only so, but they have also judged and condemned themselves, for transgressing men's traditions, as the very laws of God. Wherein while they sought to establish their own righteousness, they fell from the righteousness of God. Rom. 10. ver. 3. For to put religion in men's traditions, is flatly to abandon the worship of the living God. Mat. 15. v. 9 Yea, by reason of these fasts, their souls were after in damnable state. I prove it, because they persuaded themselves that they were aswell bound to keep the pope's laws therein, as the flat commandments of God; and consequently, so often as they broke them (which was no rare thing) so often did they commit damnable sin, Rom. 14. v. 23. because their acts were not of faith. I say thirdly (hurtful to the body) first, because many have shortened their days, by forbearing necessary food; which they did, Tertio principaliter. through fond persuasion of popish holiness. Secondly, because the poor souls are so wringed with these superstitious fasts, that by reason of their excessive hunger, they rejoice above measure, when the fasting is at an end. Yea, they keep a better reckoning how Lent passeth, and when they may fall to flesh again; then ever they did of and for their sins: so that on Easter day he seemeth the best sped, that first in the morning can get an egg: save that adulti must that day first receive, and then followeth as is said. And on the Sundays in Lent, they are so glad, because they be but days of abstinence, as if they were at Rome in time of Carniuâle, transformed under vizards. Thirdly, because Lent fast is not proportionable to man's body, or to the season of the year. Which I will prove by the laws and received rules, in the noble Art of physic. As there be four distinct times of the year, the Spring time, Summer, Autumn, and winter; so be there four different diets, correspondent to the same. Whosoever will eat temperately and in measure, The art of physic condemneth popish fast in Lent. must eat according to the force and equability of his digestion, and consequently, he ought to moderate and rule his diet, after the qualification of his body, and season of the year. Calor natu●al● cibum digerit. Native heat is the proper workman of digestion, as granteth every good physician: and consequently, because our bodies are most hot in Winter (as recordeth the ancient & grave physician Hypocrates) at that time they stand in need of most meat; Winter. Hypocrates. Aphor. 15. sect. And because our bodies be then cold and moist, hot and dry meats be convenient. Summer. In Summer because native heat is dispersed by exhalations, concoction is weakened, and so less meat required. And because our bodies then be hot and dry; cold & moist meats are proportional. In autumn, because the extrinsical heat is more remiss then in Summer, Autumn. and the natural heat thereby more united; meat more largely aught to be used. Spring time. The spring time keepeth a mean between winter and Summer, and taketh part of them both; and therefore our diet then, must neither be altogether of hot and dry meats as in winter; neither yet altogether of cold and moist meats, as in Summer: and consequently, popish institution of Lent was not only superstitious and ungodly, but altogether prejudicial to the health of the body. I prove it, first, because as Hypocrates writeth, all sudden mutations are dangerous; and so after abundant eating of flesh all the winter season, suddenly to abstain wholly from the same, cannot but be evil. This is confirmed by their own usual popish practice: for to such as have been used to drink only wine, When their 〈◊〉 come 〈◊〉 Rheims. they at Rheims give not at the first bear only; but they give them wine also. This notwithstanding, after all their pleasant belly cheer, during the whole time of their Carniuâle at Rome, they must suddenly, even the next morning, both with alteration of diet and parsimony, begin their Lent fast solemnly. It is yet further confirmed; first, because there is like proportion in eating fish suddenly after flesh, as there is in eating flesh after fish. Which alteration, how dangerous it is, the usual infirmities in Easter week do witness. Secondly, because the nourishment of fish is cold and moist, and so very disproportionable to the Spring time. Thirdly, because concoction is then very strong, as well for the ambient restraint, termed Antiperistasis, as by reason of long sleep; and therefore since much meat is necessary, our popish Lent fast must perforce be prejudicial. But some will say: yourselves this day command to eat fish in Lent. I say first, that our laws command that abstinence for the commonwealth sake, and not for merit or religion. I say secondly, that our laws do tolerate every one, to eat flesh in such measure, as is expedient for the health of his body. I say thirdly, that our laws prohibit only flesh: but popish laws charge all men under pain of mortal sin, even the poorest souls of all, that neither have fish, nor money to provide fish, to forbear eggs, cheese, butter, milk: Which how wicked and tyrannical a law it is, who seethe not? for the silly souls must either eat such meats, or starve for want of food. Such popish hypocritical fasts, God's prophet reproveth most bitterly; Is this the fast (saith the Prophet) that I have chosen? that a man should afflict his soul for a day; and bow down his head as a bull rush, and lie down in sackcloth and ashes? Wilt thou call this a fasting, or an acceptable day to the Lord? it is no fast, saith the Prophet; It is a fast saith the Pope; it is abominable, saith the prophet; it is meritorious, saith the Pope. To fast truly, saith God by his Prophet, is to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that wander into thy house; when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and hide not thyself from thine own flesh. Esaiae. cap. 58. ver. 5.7 The seventh proposition. Popish fasts are not fit means for their pretended end; to wit, mortification. I prove it, because not only sundry kinds of fishes (as both learned men and experience teacheth) but wine especially; (which in popish fasting is ever approved) is altogether against mortification. For as Solomon saith in their approved Latin Edition, Luxuriosa res vinum. Wine maketh a man wanton, Pro. 20. verse 1. And again, Nolite inebriari vino, in quo inest luxuria. Be not drunken with wine, which maketh the body too lusty. Ephes. 5. verse 18. Yea, our religious English moonkes, were so given to mortification, as they could not be content to live one day without good store thereof. For this is true, as I will answer upon the charge of my soul; Sir Thomas Bedell the monk (with whom I was sometime fellow prisoner in York upon Owse-bridge) used ordinarily to send every day for a quart or pint of wine. Popish moonk lived very delicately. He yieldeth a reason of his drinking of wi●●▪ For (quoth he) I was used to such store of wine in our Monastery, that I cannot refrain it now. O mortified popish moonkes! O religious professed Romish Friars! O men of holy perfection! O hypocritical painted poverty! To this may be added, the diet of his brother Comberforth the secular Priest. Monks pro●e▪ poverty but 〈◊〉 feel none. For he made a vow never to eat flesh, neither to drink wine, during his abode in prison. By means of which hypocritical fast, as it seemed, he got great credit amongst popishly affected persons. Yet did the said Comberforth continually drink very strong finely brewed ale, always so compounded with variety of spices, as it was more pleasant, then pure wine, Hypocrisy gaineth souls to the devil. if happily not so costly as the wine. Such hath been, and is the mortification of popish fasts. john true and the other sergeants at that time, can give reasonable testimony hereof if they list. The eight proposition. The council of Chalcedon (one of the first four famous general Synods, which pope Gregory reverenced as the four Gospels) avoucheth popish fasts to be no fasts at all. De consecr. Dis●▪ 1. cap. Solent. These are the express words of the council, as they are alleged by Gratianus in the pope's own Decrees. Solent plures qui se ieiunare putant in quadragesima, mox ut signum audierint ad horam nonam comedere; qui nullatenus ieiunare credendi sunt, fi ante manducaverint, quam vespertinum celebretur off●cium. Many who think they fast in Lent, use to eat so soon as they hear the bell at the ninth hour; who by no means can be thought to fast, if they eat before the evening prayer. Out of which words of the ancient holy council, I note this constant decree▪ to wit, that whosoever eat before the ninth hour, cannot truly fast. And consequently, that no papists fast in their holy Lent, howsoever they brag or boast thereof. The reason hereof is evident, because all papists usually dine at noon; that is, three hours at the least, before the time appointed by the council. I say at the least, because they use to anticipate noon, some more, some less. For better explication whereof, we must observe two things; the one concerning noon; the other concerning the evening prayer. I say therefore that by the ninth hour, the council with all antiquity, understandeth three of the clock at afternoon: for in the time of the Apostles and long after them, the day was divided into twelve hours; which day was again distributed into four Vigils, whereof every Vigil contained three hours: so that their ninth hour was with us, three of the clock in the after noon. Now for the obscuring of this evident confutation of the popish supposed fasting; the papists of latter days have devised this miserable shift, a fit invention of their newly hatched romish religion. The Pope forsooth hath dispensed with his greedy religious godless people, (who will needs be thought devout fathers, albeit they fast not one day in the whole year;) that they may huddle up their vespertine hours, or evening prayer, at any time before twelve of the clock, and then at their pleasures, to eat, drink, and make good cheer. And (if it please your worships) this done; with full paunches to begin their discontinued disholy fast again. The ninth proposition. Of fastings, some are private, and some public. Private fasts may be used of ones own accord, when and so often as shall seem convenient; so they be referred to the glory of God, and true mortification of the body, or be used for the good of our neighbour. Thus fasted king David, all the time his child was sick. After the death whereof, he surceased from prayer and fasting, and ate meat. 2. King. 12. Thus fasted Nehemiah, when he understood the affliction of the jews; he sat down, wept, and mourned certain days; he fasted and prayed before the Lord of heaven, Nehem. 1.4. Thus fasted Daniel, when he perceived the captivity of his countrymen, spoken of by the prophet jeremy. He confessed his own sins, and the sins of the people, and turned to the Lord in fasting & hearty prayer, Dan. 9 vers. 2, 3, 4, 5. Public fasts are appointed either by God in his holy word, or by the magistrate having his authority. Thus did Samuel appoint the Israelites to fast, at such time as the Philistims did grievously afflict them, 1. Kin. 7. ver. 3, 6. Thus king josaphat proclaimed a fast throughout all juda, when the Ammonites, Moabites, and Idumeans oppressed them, 2. Par. 20.3, 10, 22. Thus did queen Hester appoint a public fast to all the jews by the mouth of Mardocheus, Hest. 4. v. 16. Thus did the king of Niniveh command a public fast, after he understood God's wrath by his prophet jonas, 3. verse 7. Here endeth the first Book, containing years, 3426. The second book containeth the description of the first Monarchy, that is, of the Assyrians or Babylonians. The first chapter, of the original and continuance of the monarchy. The first Section, of the reason of the inscription. ALbeit this first Monarchy was, either wholly, or in effect expired, before the accomplishment of the captivity of the two tribes, juda and Benjamin; yet have I thought good to had le it in a several tract, after the said captivity, so to avoid confusion, and for perspicuity sake. The second section, of the original of the monarchy. King Ninus the son of Belus, was the first king of Asia, except the Indians, whom the Assyrians named their god: he reigned 52. years; and in the 43. year of his reign was Abraham borne. He builded the city Ninum in Assyria, now called Niniveh, Euseb. in chronico. When Ninus was dead, Semiramis his wife reigned; she feared, lest for the tender years of her son Nunas, and for her feminine sex, the people should revolt from their due loyalty. For which cause she clad herself in man's apparel, A great policy in a woman. and feigned herself to be the king's son. She excelled in heroical feats, and reigned 42. years in great felicity. She fortified the city of Babylon (which Ninus had conquered from the Chaldeans) with rampires, ditches, and walls. After her death Zameis aliâs Ninias reigned 30. years in all peace and tranquillity, Euseb. Carion. The kings of the Assyrians. Ninus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 52 Kings 36 Semiramis Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 42 Kings 36 Ninias Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 ●8 Kings 36 Arius Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Arelius Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 40 Kings 36 Xerxes Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Armametres Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 38 Kings 36 Belochus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 35 Kings 36 Baleus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 52 Kings 36 Altadas Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 32 Kings 36 Mamitus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Mancaleus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Ipheréus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 20 Kings 36 Mamylas Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Spa●êtus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 40 Kings 36 Ascades Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 40 Kings 36 Amyntas Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 45 Kings 36 Belothus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 25 Kings 36 Bellepares Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Lamprides Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 32 Kings 36 Sosares Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 20 Kings 36 Lampares Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Pannias' Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 45 Kings 36 Sosarmus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 19 Kings 36 Mitreus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 27 Kings 36 Tantanes Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 32 Kings 36 Tantens Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 40 Kings 36 Thineus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Dercilus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 40 Kings 36 Eupales Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 38 Kings 36 Laosthenes Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 45 Kings 36 Piriciades Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 30 Kings 36 Ophrateus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 20 Kings 36 Ophratanes Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 50 Kings 36 Ocrazapes Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 41 Kings 36 Sardanapalus Anno mundi 1948 reigned years Anno mundi 3197 20 Kings 36 Sardanapalus was the last king of the Assyrians, that possessed the whole monarchy: he was a man of very bad behaviour; and being ●●ercome in battle by Arbaces, he burned himself to death by fire. This monarchy endured 1240. years after Eusebius: but see the fourth section following, and mark it attentively. After that Sardanapalus the vicious and effeminate monarch, had burnt himself, together with his riches; Phul Belochus the precedent of Babylon, and Arbaces ruler of the Medes, The kingdom of Assyria divided. divided the monarchy between them. Phul Belochus had Babylon and Assyria; Arbaces enjoyed Media and Persia. The kings that took part with Arbaces, were termed the Kings of the Medes. Such as followed Belochus, the Kings of the Assyrians, Chaldeans or Babylonians. The court lay first at Niniveh, after at Babylon. Arbaces the Mede subdued the Assyrians, and translated the Empire to the Medes. From henceforth many alterations chanced in the monarkie. After Herodotus, the Assyrians held the monarchy 500 years: from which time, now the Assyrians, now the Medes, now the Chaldeans had the upper hand. At the length, the Medes being more mighty than the rest, subdued Babylon, and quietly enjoyed the whole empire. The kings of the Medes Arbaces Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 28 Sosarnus Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 30 Medidus Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 40 Cardiceas Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 15 Diôcles Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 54 Phaortes Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 24 Cyaraxes, or Cyaxares Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 32 Astyages▪ Anno mundi 3195 reigned years Anno mundi 3456 38 The monarkie of the Assyrians (which is also called the monarkie of the Chaldeans, and of the Babylonians, because they sometime enjoyed it, though with small felicity,) began about the age of the world 2008. and continued about 1470. years, at what time Darius king of the Medes, with Cyrus his son in law wan Babylon and killed Balthasar, Dan. 5. verses 30, 31. The third section, of Balthasar. Balthazar king of Babylon, when he was drinking wine, commanded the golden vessels which his father had borough from the temple in Jerusalem, to be set before him, that he, his princes, his wives, and his concubines might drink therein: they drunk wine, and praised the gods of gold, silver, brass● and stone. But what followed all this idololatrical joy? in the very same hour, there appeared fingers of a man's hand writing upon the wall of the king's palace, so that the king's countenance changed, and his thoughts troubled him. The joints of his loins were loosed, A wonderful punishment for idolatry. his knees smote one against the other, and he cried mightily, Dan. 5. verse 2, 3, 5, 6, 7. Behold here, the end of idolatry and superstition. Balthazar forthwith, after he had adored his false gods, was tormented as is said; the same night he was stain, and Darius the Mede enjoyed the kingdom, verse 30, 31. A wonderful example for all kings and monarch, ever to serve the living God, and to set forth his pure religion. The fourth section, of the diversity in computation. Eusebius and some others, reckon the monarchy of the Assyrians from Ninus; and so it continued, 1240. years, as is said in the second section. Yet others (who seem to follow Philo and Metasthenes) begin the monarchy in the 8. year of Nabuchodonosors' reign; See the first part, first book, and second chapter, in the fift and sixth age. and than it endured only seventy years, for Nabuchodonosor reigned 45. years, Euil-merodach his son 30. years, and Balthasar his son 3. years. Such as will in this manner make their supputation, must reckon the first monarchy to be of the Babylonians, & not of the Assyrians. Genebrardus reckoneth the monarchy to have continued 78. years, that is, eight years before the captivity, because the first year of Nabuchodnosor fell in the end of the third year of joachim, Dan. 1. and was the fourth of joachim, jere. 25. but so the verity of the history be granted, it skilleth not much to vary the name. CHAP. II. Of the kings of the Assyrians and Babylonians, after the death of Sardanapalus, and the division of the monarchy. Phul Belochus. PHul Belochus was the first king of the Assyrians, after the division of the Empire, and death of Sardanapalus: he was a magnifical and fortunate Prince, and Ninive was his palace, he was precedent of Babylon, in the time of Sardanapalus, after whose miserable death, he enjoyed half of the monarchy, as I have showed in the first chapter and second section: he ruled 48. years in all. Phul. Assar. Phull Assar surnamed Tiglath, was the second king of the Assyrians: he was a very bad king, he destroyed Galilee, and led some of the tribes into captivity: he reigned 23. years. Salmanasar. Salmanasar was the third king of the Assyrians, he was a tyrannical and cruel king: this Salmanasar destroyed the kingdom of Israel, besieged Samaria, took it, battered it down, slew the king, and led away into Media, the people that remained after the slaughter: for he was ruler in that country, and he reigned eleven years. Sennacherib. Sennacherib the fourth king of the Assyrians, was an arrogant, wicked & godless man: he bent himself against god, with sacrilegious and blasphemous speeches: he sent a great host against Jerusalem, but God's Angel smote in his army an hundred, four score and five thousand; insomuch that he was enforced to retire, and to dwell again in Ninive. For his blasphemy against god, an horrible death befell upon him, for as he was in the temple worshipping his God Nisroch, Adramelech and Saresar his own sons, smat him with the sword, and they escaped when they had slain him, into the land of Armenia, 4. King. 18, 19, chap. so was he murdered even before the idol, whom he adored for God, and by them by whom he ought by nature to have been defended: he reigned 15. years. That the wickedness of this Senacherib might be noted of all posterities, his image was set up in Egypt, with this inscription over it as writeth Herodotus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is to say, Whosoever shall behold me with his corporal eyes let him learn by my calamity to honour the everliving God, and not to blaspheme him as I did: for which cause I made this miserable end, being murdered by mine own children. Note here, that after Eusebius, Senacherib was also called Salmanasar, which I think consonant to the holy scriptures. Assar-addon succeeded Senacherib his father, but was not fortunate: for the strength of the Assyrians began to decay, even while his father was yet living. Besides this, the mighty prince Merodach-baladan the Chaldee made wars both with him & his father before him: forthwith after the death of Senacherib he wan Babylon, and enjoyed it with other territories in Assyria, until the death of Assar-addon, from whose death he possessed the whole Empire: He reigned ten years. Merodach-baladan the first king of the Babylonians, for the fame and memory of the ancient kingdom of Assyria, was called king of the Assyrians also, as were likewise other kings that followed him. He first transported the majesty of the Assyrians to the Chaldees or Babylonians, for the glory of Ninive, where the king's palace was of old, was now translated to Babylon: for which benefit Merodach after his death, was honoured for a God of the Babylonians, jer. 50, ver. 2. he reigned 40. years. Benmerodach the second king of the Babylonians was a mild and mighty Prince: he reigned 21. years. Nabuchodonosor the first or the old, the third king of the Babylonians after Merodach, Nabuchodonosor priscus. was father to that Nabuchodonosor who subdued Jerusalem, and erected the Babylonian monarchy: he made two great battles, the one against Phaortes aliâs Arphaxad king of the Medes; the other against Nechao the mighty king of the Egyptians. He slew king Arphaxad in the mountains of Ragau, as the story of judith maketh mention. But Nechao overcame him, and enjoyed all Syria: he reigned 35. years. Nabuchodonosor magnus. Nabuchodonosor the great, son of Nabuchodonosor the first, shortly after his father's death wan again all Syria. He was the mightiest king of all the kings of Babylon, much spoken of in holy Writ. He subdued the city of jerusalem, and led away the inhabitants thereof captives to Babylon. This Nabuchodonosor, as he was mighty in power, so was he proud in heart. He made an image of gold and set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Which done, he commanded all his princes, nobles, dukes, judges, receivers, counsellors, officers, and all governors of his provinces, to come to the dedication of the image. He appointed an herald to cry aloud, that when they heard the sound of the cornet, trumpet, harp, sackebut, psaltery, dulcimer, and other instruments of music, than they should fall down and worship the image. And because the three holy jews Sidrach, Misach and Abednego, would not adore the image, he caused them to be cast into a very hot burning oven: from which fiery furnace, God delivered them miraculously. In regard whereof Nabuchodonosor magnified the living God, & made a decree, that all people and nations which spoke against the God of Sidrach, Misach, and Abednego, should be drawn in pieces, and their houses made a jakes, Dan. 3.29. After this, the king still swelled in pride; so that he was cast out from his kingdom, driven from men, ate grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till his hairs were grown as eagle's feathers, and his nails like birds claws, Dan. 4. verse 30. Euil-marodaco. After Nabuchodonosor magnus succeeded Euil-merodach; after him, Balthasar. Balthazar: of which two, see the first chapter in the fourth section. CHAP. II. Of the destruction of Troy THe kingdom of Troy was of great antiquity; it began as sundry Chronographers write, a little before the death of Moses, about the 32. year after the departure of Israel out of Egypt. They writ that Dardanus was the first king of the Troyans', and Priamus the last. Alexander the son of Priamus surnamed Paris, took away violently Helena wife to Menelaus' king of the Lacedæmonians, which fact was the occasion of the most bitter and bloody battle of the Trojans. This battle was fought of the most valiant people in Asia and Europe; with mortal enmity and inestimable loss on both sides; with the blood and destruction of many most flourishing regions. Troy was taken, burnt, A. M. 2935 and utterly destroyed 340. years before Rome was built, in the age of the world 2935. From the captivity of Troy, until the first Olimpias, were complete 340. years: albeit Liui●s and some other have their different supputations. CHAP. III. Of the supputation of the Greeks. THe old Greeks' did account as we do now, by the years of our Lord, the first Olimpias, the second, the third, the fourth, and so forth. Some hold that Olimpias is the space of five years, but if thou wilt not be deceived therein (gentle reader) reckon it but for the space of four years. The supputation of the Greeks by the Olimpiads is of all writers deemed true; and therefore albeit before their Olympiads every one wrote as pleased himself, yet after their Olympiads, we ought greatly to respect their account. Africanus writeth that the first Olimpias was in the first year of joatham king of juda, and so it should be in the age of the world 3251. others descent fro that computation & affirm it to be in the time of joas; and than it chanced in the age of the world 3130. which supputation seemeth not so probable, and therefore with Affricanus, Eusebius, and others, I imitate the former: but in reckoning the time of jotham and joas, I descent from them both as is already showed. CHAP. FOUR Of the city of Rome. Room was builded in the end of the sixth Olympias, in the age of the world 3218. after the destruction of Troy 340. before the incarnation of our saviour jesus Christ, about 729. years. Romulus and Rhemus were brothers, twins, both of one age. Contention and controversy fell between them, after whether of them the city which they had newly built should be named. The contention grew from words to tumults, from tumults to strokes, from strokes to bloody battle; insomuch as in the bickering Rhemus was slain: after his death Romulus enjoyed the Empire alone, of whom the City was called Rome. Rome hath been sundry times sacked and overthrown by the Goths and Vandals: ●laricus. first by Alaricus the Gothe, in the year of our Lord God 412. Anno Dom. 412 This king besieged Rome, and after burned it; during which siege such famine was in the city that the mothers were constrained with hunger to eat their own children. It was besieged, taken and sacked the second time, by Gensericus the Vandal, Gensericus. in the year of our Lord 456. An. Dom. 456 It was besieged, sacked, and subverted the third time by Totilas king of the Goths in the year of our Lord 548. in the year after the city was built, ●otilas. 1300, in which siege as in the first, An. Dom. 548 the famine was exceeding great; mothers were enforced contrary to nature and kind, to kill and eat the flesh of their own children. Procopius, Palmerius, The same Totilas about three years after began to repair and build up the city of Rome, Totilas built up the city of Rome. and gave leave to the citizens to return into the city in the year of our Lord 551. The kings of the Romans; Romlus Anno mundi 3220 reigned & was king of Rome Anno mundi 3438 38 244 Numa Pompilius Anno mundi 3220 reigned & was king of Rome Anno mundi 3438 43 244 Tullus Hostilius Anno mundi 3220 reigned & was king of Rome Anno mundi 3438 33 244 Ancus Martius Anno mundi 3220 reigned & was king of Rome Anno mundi 3438 24 244 Tarqvinius priscus Anno mundi 3220 reigned & was king of Rome Anno mundi 3438 37 244 Servius Tullius Anno mundi 3220 reigned & was king of Rome Anno mundi 3438 44 244 Tarqvinius Superbus Anno mundi 3220 reigned & was king of Rome Anno mundi 3438 25 244 Kings first reigned over the Romans 244. years. After kings, the common weal of the Romans was governed by Consuls, then by Tribunes and Dictator's, and again by Consuls, for the space almost of 464. years, even until julius Cesar, who was the first emperor of Rome, julius Caesar. A. M. 3924 and reigned 5. years, seven months, in the second year of the 183. Olympias, and in the age of the world 3924. The first observation. A Consul was a chief officer amongst the Romans, whereof two were chosen yearly to govern their city. A Tribune was an officer among the Romans, that had chief jurisdiction among the commons. His office was to maintain the liberty of the poor people against such as sought to do them wrong. A Dictator was a chief officer amongst the Romans, who had a king's power: he was never chosen but in some great danger of the commonweal. His authority endured but half a year, which at the half years end, he was to yield up under pain of treason. The second observation. Valerius fellow Consul with Brutus died in such poverty, as the Romans were enforced to disburse the common treasure for his funeral: so writeth Eusebius. What was the cause of his poverty I do not read: but this I say, that many rich men are often oppressed with poverty suddenly after the abundance of their wealth: and I add further, that no effect can be without the cause. The explication. Some men are very rich in lands, goods, and possessions, which they enjoy either by their patrimony, or by dissent of blood, which rich men are suddenly afflicted with poverty, when oftentimes the cause is not known to any neighbour: but as the proverb saith, after great getters come great spenders, and how is abundance of riches so soon gone? doubtless it falleth out commonly, for a just punishment of sin. Some rich men get their riches by usury, some by deceitful dealing, some by extortion, some by bribes and gifts for furthering evil causes, some by niggardly and miserly locking up in chests and coffers, that which ought to have been bestowed for the relief of their poor neighbours. All which because they are abominable in God's sight, God punisheth the same diversly, sometime in the getters themselves, (though that chance but seldom) and commonly in their successors: so as it may be truly said, evil gotten goods seldom prosper to the third generation. For some successors to those greedy unconscionable getters, spend their goods lasciviously, some by carding and gamning, some by foolish bargaining, some by prodigality, some by flattery, some by credulity, and some by other means: yet few or none were ever impoverished, for bestowing their goods charitably upon the poor, for as God's prophet wisely saith, from his youth up till his old age, he never saw the righteous man forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. Psal. 37, 25. but in these our days we are so wedded to worldly riches, that we will rather bestow twenty pounds upon our own inordinate pleasures, than twenty pence upon an honest poor needy neighbour, and yet when rich men have scraped together all the wealth they can, sometime it so falleth out, that some of them have not at the hour of death, to discharge the very funeral, even as it befell to this honourable Consul of Rome. It therefore behoveth all christian people, that have regard to their salvation, first never to set their affections upon worldly goods inordinately: secondly, to get their riches honestly and truly: thirdly, to dispense their riches liberally and cheerfully, to all their needy neighbours. God is the giver of all riches; for as the Apostle saith, Paul planted, and Apollo's watered, but God gave the increase, 1. Cor. 3 ver. 6. he maketh some poor to try their patience and faith in him: other some he maketh rich, to prove their fidelity in disposing his treasures: for the rich men are but stewards of their riches; God is the chief owner and Lord thereof, to whom they must one day make a reckoning, and as Saint Hierom saith, he never knew man make an evil end, that in his life time did the works of charity cheerfully. CHAP. V Of the Emperors of Rome. The names of the Caesars; The reign of the Caesars; 1 julius Caesar was the first emperor of Rome, of whom all emperors were afterwards called Caesar's. Anno Mun. 3924 5 years and 7 months 2 Octavius or Octavianus Caesar Augustus was the second, of whom all the rest were afterwards called Augusti: he died in the 76. year of his age, and was buried in Campo Martio. 56 years 3 Tiberius Caesar Augustus was the third Caesar he died in Campania in the village Lucullana, in the 78. year of his age. 23 years 4 Caius Caesar surnamed Caligula was the fourth: he was slain by his protectors in his own palace in the 25. year of his age. 4 years and 10 months 5 Claudius Caesar was the fift, who died in his palace, the 64. year of his age. 13 years and 8 months 6 Nero was the sixth Caesar of the Romans', he flew himself in the 32. year of his age: in him was ended all the family of Augustus. Anno Dom. 55 13 years and 7 months The names of the Caesars; 7 Galba, Otho, Vitellius succeeded by murdering one another. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 1 year and 9 months 8 Vespasianus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 9 years, 11. mon. 22. days 9 Titus eius filius. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 2 years, and 8 months 10 Domitianus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 15 years, and 5 months 11 Nerua. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 1 year, and 5 months 12 Traianus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 19 years, and 6 months 13 Adrianus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 21 years, and 10 months 14 Antoninus Pius. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 23 years, and 3 months 15 M Antoninus Verus with his brother L. Aurelius Commodus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 19 years 16 Commodus the son of Antoninus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 13 years 17 Aelius Pertinax. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 6 months 18 Severus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 18 years 19 Antoninus Caracalla. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 6 years 20 Macrinus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 1 year 21 Marcus Anton. Aurelius aliâs Heliogabalus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 4 years 22 Alexander. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 13 years 23 Maximinus. Anno Dom. 69 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 237 3 years The names of the Caesar's, 24 Gordianus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 6 years 25 Philippus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 7 years 26 Decius. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 1 year, & three months. 27 Gallus cum Volusiano. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 2 years and 4 months 28 Valerianus and Galienus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 15 years 29 Claudius. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 1 year, and nine months 30 Aurelianus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 5 years and 6 months 31 Probus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 6 years and 4 months 32 Carus with his sons Carinus and Numerianus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 2 years 33 Dioclesianus with Maximianus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 20 years 34 Galerius was Augustus, together with Constantius. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 2 years 35 Constantinus magnus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 31 years 36 Constantinus, Constantius, & Constans, the 3. sons of Constantine the great. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 24 years, and 12 days 37 julianus Apostata. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 2 years and 8. months 38 iovinianus. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 8 months 39 Valentinianus and Valens. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 13 years, and five months 40 Gratianus with his brother Valentinianus, and Theodosius the first. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 6 years, and 10 months 41 Arcadius. Anno Dom. 240 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 387 5 years The names of the Caesars; 42 Honorius Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 9 years 43 Theodosius 2. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 29 years 44 Martianus aliâs Martinianus Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 7 years and 2 months 45 Leo 1. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 16 years 46 Zeno Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 11 years 47 Anastasius 1. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 16 48 justinus 1. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 8 49 justinianus 1. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 38 50 justinus 2. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 7 51 Tiberius 2. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 29 52 Mauritius Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 8 53 Phocas Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 17 54 Heraclius Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 27 years 55 Constantinus 3. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 2 56 Constans Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 17 57 Constantinus 4. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 10 58 justinianus secundus, Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 4 59 Leo secundus aliâs Leontius Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 7 years 60 Tiberius 3. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 2 years 61 Philippicus Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 7 months 62 Anastasius 2. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 3 years 63 Theodosius 3. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 2 64 Leo 3. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 24 65 Constantinus 5. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 35 66 Leo 4. Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 6 67 Constantinus sextus. with his mother Irene Anno Dom. 392 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 314 19 years 〈◊〉 names 〈…〉 Caesar's, 68 Carolus magnus. 1. after the translation of the Empire. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 743 14 years 69 Ludovicus 1. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 36 70 Lotharius 1. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 15 71 Ludovicus 2. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 11 72 Carolus 2. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 743 6 73 Carolus 3. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 12 years 6 month 74 Arnulphus. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 12 years 75 Ludovicus 3. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 6 76 Berengarius 1. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 4 77 Berengarius 2. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 4 78 Lotharius 2. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 12 79 Otho 1. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 2 80 Otho 2. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 17 81 Otho 3. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 16 82 Henricus 1. dux Bat. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 19 years 5. months 83 Henricus 2. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 17 years 84 Henricus 3. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 48 85 Henricus 4. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 29 86 Lotharius 3. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 12 87 Conradus sucuus Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 15 88 Fridericus 1. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 37 89 Henricus 5. aliâs 6. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 743 10 years 90 Otho 5. aliâs 4. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno. Dom. 743 13 91 Fridericus 2. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 33 92 Rodulphus. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 19 93 Aldulphus. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 1 year 3. months 94 Albertus. Anno Dom. 333 The reign of the Caesars. Anno Dom. 743 9 years The names of the Caesars; 95 Henricus 6. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 5 years 96 Ludovicus 4. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 33 97 Carolus 4. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 32 98 Venceslaus. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 22 99 Robertus Bat. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 10 100 Sigismundus. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 27 101 Albertus 2. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 2 102 Fridericus 3. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 53 103 Maximilianus. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 26 104 Carolus 5. Flandr. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 30 years 105 Ferdinandus. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 6 years, 4. 〈◊〉 106 Maximilianus. Anno Dom. 752 The reign of the Caesars; Anno Dom. 998 11 years Of these Emperors more shallbe said in peculiar 〈◊〉 when I come to the second part and first book thereof. The third book containeth the description of the second Monarchy, that is, of the Persians. CHAP. I. Of the original of the monarchy and succession in the same. GOd most mighty and most faithful, for his power doth whatsoever pleaseth him; and for his promise sake, he undoubtedly accomplisheth whatsoever he hath said. He suffered the jews his peculiar people to be long afflicted by the Babylonians; but after that 70. years were fully complete and expired, according to his promise, Isai. 45 1.48.20. He with great joy wrought their deliverance. He appointed king Cyrus to set them at liberty, whom for that purpose he called his anointed, Es. 45.1. Which Cyrus having conquered the kingdom of the Medes against Astyages, left the said kingdom to Darius his uncle, by whose aid he took Babylon, and so transported the Monarchy of Babylon to the Persians. Cyrus' delivered the jews from captivity, the very same year that he took Babylon. He also gave them great treasures to build the temple of Jerusalem, and sent them home again under the conduct of Zorobabel, Esd. cap. 1. cap. 2. 2. Par. 36. ver. 23. Esd. 7. v. 15. 〈◊〉 5.8. He commanded to give them of his own revenues day by day, so much as should be necessary. Esd. 6. verse 8.9. 〈◊〉 7, 2. Cyrus' king of Persia brought forth by the hand of Mithridates the treasurer, all the vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nabuchodonosor had taken out of Jerusalem, and placed in the house of his false God. Cyrus numbered them unto Sesbazer the Prince of juda. To wit, 30. Chargers of gold: a thousand chargers of silver; 29. knives, thirty basins of gold 410. basins of silver, and of other vessels 1000 all which with other rich gifts, the king bestowed on the jews, to build up again their Temple, Esd. 1. 2. Par. 36. The building of the Temple was hindered by the adversaries of juda and Benjamin, that is, An. mundi. 3300 the inhabitants of Samaria (whom the king of Assyria had placed in the stead of the ten tribes,) which ten tribes he had carried away unto Ashur, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan and in the city of the Medes: 4. King. 1●▪ for at that time the Medes and Persians were subject to the Assyrians; which vexation & hindering of the jews in building their Temple, The Hebrews call Darius Assuerus. Bergom. lib▪ 5. p. A 1. continued about the space of thirty years; that is, until the sixth year of Darius the son of Histaspis surnamed Assuerus, and Artaxerxes, indifferently, Esdr. cap. 4. The difficulty. The Prophet Daniel (who lived even in the time of the captivity of Babylon) affirmeth constantly, that the same night in which Balthasar the king of the Chaldees was slain, Darius' King of the Medes took the kingdom, being 62. years of age, Dan. cap. 5. vers. 31. and the said Daniel saith, that he understood the time of the captivity by the books of jeremy, in the first year of Darius' son of Assuerus, who was of the seed of the Medes, Dan. 9 vers. 1. but Esdras writeth plainly, that Cyrus was king of Babylon, and gave the jews leave to build their temple: to whom also he gave great treasure, as is already said, Esdr. 1. Esdr. chap. 6. vers. 3. The answer. I say first with Saint Hierome upon Daniel, that Cyrus gave the title of honour to Darius as well in respect of his old age, as for kindred sake. I say secondly, that Cyrus went about wars in other Countries, and so had not the title, though he were king indeed. I say thirdly, that Darius died the same year that he and Cyrus won Babylon, so as the Monarchy of the Medes, Persians and Babylonians, descended wholly unto Cyrus. The names of the kings of the Persian Monarchy Darius A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 9 months Cyrus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 30 years Cambyses A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 8 years Smerdes magus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 7 months Darius Histaspis alias Artaxerxes, alias Assuerus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 36 years Xerxes A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 20 years Artabanus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 7 months Darius Artaxerxes (Longimanus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 40 years Zerxes A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 2 months Sogdianus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 7 months Darius Nothus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 19 years Artaxerxes Mnemon, alias Memnon A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 40 years Darius Ochus alias vagosus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 26 years Arsames son of Ochus A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 4 years Darius Arsami filius, alias Arbelas or Melas. A. M. 3426 the time of their reign A. M. 3655 6 years The first observation. It is to be observed, that Artaxerxes was the common name of all kings of Persia, as Pharaoh was the common name of all kings of Egypt, and as Caesar was the common name of all the Emperors of Rome. The second observation. The custom of the Persians was this, that when any king went to war against any strange nation, he left his son, or the next of the blood royal, to be king in his place. The custom of the Persians. Cyrus therefore when he had war against the Scythians, and marched toward them, appointed Cambyses his son king of the country in his absence, according to the custom of the Persians. Xerxes likewise the son of Histaspis succeeded his father, but left his kingdom to his son Longimain when he went to war against the Greeks'; in regard hereof, sundry writers do not place Cambyses and Xerxes in the lineal order of succession, which point must be well observed to avoid obscurity, and to reconcile the dissenting historiographers. CHAP. II. Of the time of repairing the temple in Jerusalem. KIng Cyrus in the first year of his reign, as he was the Persian monarch, Esdras. 6▪ vers 3. set the jews at liberty and appointed them to build the Temple again in Jerusalem. I say (as monarch) because (as learned men writ) he had reigned certain years in Persia, before he took Babylon & became the monarch. Cambyses and other adversaries did a long time hinder the building of the Temple, so as it had not the accomplishment until the sixth year of Darius Assuerus, Esdr. 6. vers. 15. Albeit Darius in his second year gave commandment, that the work should go forward, Esdr. chap. 4. ver. 24. The first difficulty. The jews objected against our Saviour Christ, that their temple was 46. years a building. joh. 2. vers. 20. yet by the supputation already made, in the fourth section of the first chapter and second book, it cannot be so much. The answer. I say first, that concerning the supputation of years, there is great variety amongst historiographers. Eusebius reckoneth the time from the 55. olympiad to the 64. olympiad inclusiuè, that is, 40. years: others reckon. 21. years; others 23. others 30. neither agreeing with the account of the jews, neither yet with the reign of the monarchs. I say secondly, that the temple was 46. years in building, as the jews affirmed who best knew the time: and their assertion is not dissonant from the reign of the monarchs: for Cyrus reigned 30. years, Cambyses 8. years, Smerdes 7. months, Darius six years, and Nehemias after that builded up the walls. The reply. The temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius, as recordeth Esdras, Esdras▪ 6. ver. 15. and so we want one whole year and five months of the 46. years, whereof the jews spoke. The answer. I answer that the temple is said to be finished in the 6. year of Darius, because all the work in effect was then accomplished; nevertheless some part thereof was left undone, because Nehemias after that builded up the walls, as we read in the first, second and third chapter of his book. The second difficulty. Cambyses (Esdras, 4. verse. 6.7) is called Assuerus and Arta●●rxes, so as the names seem to be confounded. The answer. I say first, that Cambyses successor to king Cyrus a loving and merciful Prince (who furthered in all respects the godly desire of the jews) was a naughty, wicked and tyrannical regent, one that wholly bend himself against God, and against his peculiar flock. Wherein appeareth the uncertainty of man's felicity in this world, while a godly father hath to his successor, a wicked and ungodly son; a son that revoketh the privileges which his father gave to the people of God. But his life was short, miserable and bloody, the proper reward of all brutish tyranny. For as he mounted upon his horse, he suddenly fell upon his diseased sword, and so had a bloody end. I say secondly, that Artaxerxes is a name common to all the kings of Persia; to which name Assuerus is equivalent with the Hebrews; and so Cambyses is indifferently called Artaxerxes or Assuerus, as is said in the first observation. The third difficulty. Esdras writeth that the jews were appointed by three several kings of Persia, to rear up again their temple. Esdras 6. verse 14. and therefore not only at the first by Cyrus, and afterwards by Darius, but also by Artaxerxes the third. The answer. I answer as I said before, that Artaxerxes is the common name to all the kings of Persia; which observation, if it once be forgotten, many difficulties will ensue thereupon. When Esdras therefore saith (by the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes) it is all one as if he had said (and Darius, which is also called Artaxerxes:) for the particle (and) is there not copulative, but expositive, as in other places also. CHAP. III. Of the continuance of the monarchy. Darius Ochus was a tyrannical and bloodthirsty king; he murdered his two brethren, that so he might enjoy the kingdom. He made war with the Egyptians, and by that means cruelly vexed the jews. By this prince, and until the time of Alexander the great, the church was ever in great misery and affliction: All the privileges granted by Cyrus and Darius, were utterly taken away; but God (who never will forsake his church, though he suffer it to be tossed and turmoiled for a time) in the end brought solace and true joy unto the jews. ●he Persian monarchy endured ●49. years, and ●●ght months. For shortly Dariuses Ochus was slain of Bagoses, by whom also Arsames was murdered: and Darius Arbelas the last king of the Persians, was overcome and slain of Alexander the Great. So that the monarchy of the Persians endured 249. years, and eight months: after the supputation of others, 191. whereof more at large hereafter. The resistance was so great, that the jews were enforced to build with one hand, and to hold their weapons in the other. Nehe. 4. verse 17. The Monarchy of the Persians reached from India, even to Ethiopia over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces, Est. cap. 1. verse 1. Darius Assuerus king of the Medes, Persians, and Chaldeans, to show the riches and glory of his kingdom, and the honour of his majesty, made a feast to all his princes and servants, and to all captains and governors of his provinces, for the space of an hundred and fourscore days. And when these days were expired, the king made another feast, to all the people of Susan the chief city, both unto the great and small, 〈◊〉 very magnifi●●all feast, and becoming so migh●●e a prince. none excepted. This he did for the space of seven days, in the court of the kings palace, under an hanging of white, green, and blue clothes, fastened with cords of fine linen, and purple, in silver rings, and pillars of marble. The beds were of gold and of silver upon a pavement of porphyry and marble and alabaster, and blue colour. They gave them drink in vessels of gold, and changed vessel after vessel, and royal wine in abundance, according to the power of the king, and none was compelled to drink more then as best pleased him, Est. cap. 1. v. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The difficulty. In Ester the Provinces are reckoned to be 127. but in Dan. cap. 6. verse 1. reckoning is made only of six score: seven wanting of the number in Ester. The answer. I answer that the usual manner and course of the holy scripture is this, to recite the perfect number, and to omit the odd and unperfect. Even so Daniel expressing the perfect number, was careless for the odd. CHAP. FOUR Of the weeks mentioned in Daniel. The first section. The Monarchy of the Persians contained the kingdoms of the Persians, of the Medes, of the Assyrians, of the Chaldeans, a great part of Asia and of other regions adjacent. It began in the age of the world, 3425. In the 20. year of Darius Longhand, aliâs Darius Artaxerxes, began the seventy weeks foreshowed by Daniel, cap. 9 See the fourth section. No place of holy scripture is more excellent, more worthy or more necessary to be understood of every christian man, than the 70. weeks revealed by the angel to Daniel: For no place in all the old testament, doth more clearly set Christ with all his glory and manifold gifts before our eyes: no place doth more firmly strengthen our faith; no place doth more effectually convince the jews; no place doth more strongly confute all heresies; all fantastical opinions, and all pestilent errors against our Saviour Christ, than this place of Daniel. Worthily therefore ought we to employ our whole care, study and industry, for the exact understanding of the same. The second section. All writers agree in these two points. First, that weeks in the ninth chapter of Daniel, are not taken for common weeks, but for weeks of years, even as we find in Leviticus, cap. 25. verse 8. where it is thus written: Thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, even seven times seven year: and the space of the seven sabbaths of years will be unto thee nine and forty years. Secondly, that the 70. weeks make seventy times seven, according to the phrase of Leviticus, and so the just number must be 49. years. In this point the very Rabbins of the jews do agree with our Christian interpreters and historiographers. And necessity without more ado enforceth us to admit this gloss and exposition of the weeks: because otherwise the assertion of the angel of God notified to us by the Prophet Daniel, should be absurd and utterly swerving from the truth. The third section. Of the probation, for the exposition of the seventy weeks, Dan. 9 verse 24. That 70. weeks do neither signify weeks, as a week importeth seven days; neither yet 70. weeks only, as weeks be taken for years; I prove sundry ways: First, because an angel needed not to have been sent from heaven to instruct Daniel, if the 70. weeks had no mystical nor secret meaning far above the common and literal signification of the words. Secondly, because the vision which Daniel had, and which the angel came to expound, contained the duration of the second and third monarchies (as appeareth in the eight of Daniel.) Which far exceedeth both the number of 70. weeks and 70 years. Thirdly, because God's mercy doth seven fold exceed his judgement; which mercy he promiseth to his people, who were 70. years in captivity; and that it shallbe accomplished in the advent of the true Messiah Christ jesus: By whom and through whom, wickedness shall be finished, sins sealed up, iniquity reconciled, and our righteousness purchased everlastingly. Fourthly, because no other interpretation of the 70. weeks, can possibly accord the words of Daniel. Fiftly, because albeit S. Hierome, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullianus, Africanus, and others, do much dissent in determining the beginning of the 70. weeks; that is, in what year of what king we must begin the supputation; yet do they all jump in the signification of the 70. weeks, as who all do constantly write that they connotate, 490. years. Sixtly, because the supputation of every writer, bringeth us to Christ, From the captivity to Christ. 490. years. which is the scope intended and plainly expressed in Daniel, and consequently no other exposition can be true. Observe well the second section. The fourth section. Of the variety in writers touching the time of the 70. weeks. Some writers begin the supputation of the 490. years, in the second year of the 80. Olympias, Accidental variety in fundamental agreement. which was in the 7. year of Darius Artaxerxes Longimanus. Some begin, in the 32. year of Darius Histaspis. Others begin in the first year of Cyrus. Others sooner, others later. Some end their supputation in the birth of Christ, some in his baptism, some in his preaching, some in his death. So that all agree in the substance of the thing, though they descent in the modification of the same. Affricanus (whose opinion I prefer) beginneth the supputation in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longhand, ●ffr. in. 5. ●olum. temp. because then received Nehemias commandment to build up the walls of the City of Jerusalem, and to consummate the whole work of the temple, walls, and city. Nehe. 2.1.8. from which time if we reckon (saith he) until Christ, we shall find the 70. weeks. But if we begin out computation from any other time, neither the times will be consonant, and many absurdities will ensue thereupon. And we must (saith Affricanus) reckon our years, after the supputation of the Hebrews, ●●ntentia Affri●●ni. who do not reckon months after the course of the Sun, but of the Moon: for from the 20. year of the said Artaxerxes, that is, from the fourth year of the 83. Olympias unto the 202. Olympias and second year of the same Olympias, and 18. year of Tiberius Cesar, (in which year Christ was crucified) are gathered 475. years, which do make 490. years after the supputation of the Hebrews and course of the Moon. 〈◊〉 death of ●●rist. Whoso listeth may read this matter handled at large in Saint Hierome in his excellent Commentaries upon the ninth of Daniel, where he citeth the variaable opinions of Hippolytus, 〈◊〉 S. Hierome. Tertullianus, Clemens, Affricanus, Eusebius, and others; and seeing the difficulty to be great, referreth the judgement to the reader; although he seem indeed to prefer the opinion of Aff●icanus before the rest. That this opinion of Affricanus is grounded in the true meaning of the prophecy of Daniel, I will prove by sundry important reasons. First, because it agreeth very fitly, with the supputation of the Persians and Roman monarchy. Secondly, because from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus until the passion of Christ, be just 490. years according to the course of the Moon, or after the supputation of the Hebrews. Thirdly, because no other opinion doth either jump with the death of Christ, or with the computation of the monarchies. Fourthly, because the prophet speaketh expressly of the death and passion of Christ jesus. These are the words; And after threescore and two weeks, Dan. 9.26. shall Messiah be slain: so than the true account of the weeks must so begin, as they may end just with the death of Christ: but so it is, that no account save only this of Affricanus which I prefer, doth or can agree with the death of Christ, ergo it and none but it, is consonant to the Prophet's meaning. Fiftly the abridgement of the 70. weeks, whereof the Prophet speaketh, can agree with no account but this alone. The first objection. The supputation of the monarchy of the Persians and of the Romans doth far exceed the number of 490. years, whereof the Prophet speaketh. The answer. I answer that from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes inclusiuè until the time of Christ's sacred passion, we find 475. years, neither more nor less, a few odd months excepted. This is the demonstration. Artaxerxis. 20. Darius' Nothus. 19 Mnemon. 40. Ochus. 26. Arsames. 4. Arbelas. 6. Alexander. 6. Ptol. Lagus. 40. Philadelphus. 38. Euergetes. 26. Philopator. 17. Epiphanes. 24. Philometor 35. Euergetes. 29. Phiscon. 17. Alexander. 10. Lathurus. 8. Dionysius. 30. Cleopatra. 22. But two only thereof must be reckoned, because she lived until the 15. year of Octavianus. Add hereunto the reign of the Romans', thus. julius Caesar. 5. Octavianus. 56. Tiberius. 17. In the beginning of the 18. year of this Tiberius, was our saviour Christ crucified. The reply. Your own reckoning in this your answer, is far different from the truth: for 475. can never make 490. years, unless ye will superadd 15. more, as every child can tell. The answer. I answer that as you willingly acknowledge one truth; so do ye unwittingly err about another truth. For 475. years after the course of the Sun, do make 490. years abridged after the course of the Moon. Of which abridged years doth the prophet Daniel speak, as Aphricanus, Beda, and Marinus Scotus, have skilfully observed. Yea, the Prophets express words will effectually make good this exposition. I prove it out of the original Hebrew text, which telleth us that the weeks, whereof mention is made in Daniel, be not usual weeks, but weeks abridged: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Niphal signifieth cut off or abridged, and the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in kal whereof it descendeth, figfieth aswell to cut off or abridge, as to determine: and therefore hath the old Latin interpreter, well translated it in this manner; Septuaginta hebdomades abbreviatae sunt super populum tuum. seventy weeks are abridged upon thy people. Lo, the weeks which the angel came to expound, are not to be understood of years after our usual supputation and course of the sun, but of shorter years, after the course of the moon: for this respect significantly writeth Marianus in these words, Sed notandum est, quòd non simpliciter sed breviter dixit computatas, id est, breviores solitis annis: but we must note that he said not, reckoned simply, but briefly, that is, shorter than the usual years. The second objection. Cleopatra reigned 22. years, and so are there 20. years in the monarchies, more than your account. The answer. I told you afore, that we must reckon only two years in her reign, the reason is evident, because she reigned until the 15. year of Octavianus; and so those 15. years in Octavianus Augustus, and 5. years in julius Cesar, which concurred with the 20. years of Cleopatra, must either be omitted in her or in them. For sith they do concur, they cannot be reckoned in both; and so they be omitted in either, it skilleth not in whether. The third objection. The weeks take place from the going forth of the commandment to bring again the people and to build jerusalem; but this commandment was given even in the first year of Darius. The answer. I answer, that the commandment, by which the temple was wholly and totally accomplished, was given in the twentieth year of Longimanus, as is already proved: for than went Nehemias with his letters patents to jerusalem, and built up the gates and the walls thereof. And therefore it is precisely said in Daniel, that after 62. weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall; even in a troublous time, as also that even then shall the Messiah be slain. The reply. The Messiah was slain in the last week of the seventy, as you said before, and not in your two and threescore week, as you now affirm. The answer. I say first, that it is not said in the two and threescore week, but after threescore and two weeks: to which 62. we must adjoin the 7. weeks spoken of afore, which added to 62. do make 69. weeks, after which 69. weeks the Messiah shallbe slain, that is, in the end of the seuentieth week, and so every thing is clear and plain by this my exposition. The supplement, for the exact understanding of the seventy weeks. For the exact understanding, how 475. years after the course of the sun do make 490. years after the course of the moon; we must observe first, that the Hebrews did reckon the year after the course of the moon, and so it was with them accomplished, in twelve lunary months. We must observe secondly, that the Romans also did reckon the year after the course of the moon, until the days of julius Cesar that famous emperor; who by the advise of the skilful Astronomer Sosigenes, about 45. years before Christ's sacred incarnation, ordained the year to be reckoned and kept, according to the course of the sun. We must observe thirdly, that as that circle is called the year of the sun, in which the sun doth accomplish it course, and consisteth of three hundred, threescore and five days, with some odd hours and minutes. And again, as that circle is called the year of the moon, in which the moon doth accomplish her course, as she doth almost every fourth week: so was that circle called the year of Saturnus, of jupiter, of Mercury, and of the rest of the planets, which they accomplished by returning to the same point; some within two years of the sun, as Mars; some within twelve years, as jupiter; some within 30. years, as Saturnus; and so in the remnant. We must observe four, that albeit the Romans' with all Europe, do this day reckon the year after the course of the sun, yet do the Hebrews make their account after the course of the moon. By reason of which supputation, their years lunary are shorter than ours this day in Europe, by the number of eleven days, with certain odd hours, and minutes. And to have some proportion with the course of the sun, they use to make embolismes and intercalation of one month every third year, which month containeth three and thirty days. Intercalation every third year. Now these embolismes and intercalations being complete, do amount to fifteen lunary years: and if they be adjoined to the 475. years, they will make the just number of the 70. weeks mentioned in Daniel, that is to wit, of the 490. lunary years. Hereof this is a perspicuous demonstration. If ye multiply 475. years of the sun by 11. days which are the surplusage in every year of the moon, ye shall find the total sum to be 5225. days in this manner. The sum to be multiplied, 475 The multiplier, 11 475 475 The sum amounting, 5225 Again, if ye divide the 5225. days by 30. you shall find 174. months, and five days thus; The number to be divided, 5225 5 days 174 months The divisor, 30 To these you must add 87. days, because the moon hath not above 29. days, and the half of one day. Thirdly, if ye will divide the 174. months by 12. ye shall find 14. years and 6. months, thus; The number to be divided, 174 6. months. 14 years The divisor, 12 Let this be well noted. Now, these 6. months remaining, together with the 92. days, odd hours and minutes, will suffice to make up the 15. year that is wanting in the last division. So then, this supputation is consonant to the years of the monarch, and to the just record of the Olympiades' of the Greeks', (which by uniform consent of all learned writers are most certain,) as also answerable to every thing in Daniel, which no other supputation is able by any possibility to afford. For it is without all controversy, that the weeks of Daniel were ended in the 4. year of Tiberius Cesar, at which time Christ was crucified: from which year until the fourth year of the 83. olympiad, which was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, where I hold the 70. weeks of Daniel to begin, be just 475. years after the course of the sun, which make (as is already proved) 490. years after the course of the moon. CHAP. V Of the sabbaoth and festival days of the jews. WHen the children of Israel were come again out of captivity, they, and all such as had forsaken heathenish idolatry, and joined themselves unto them, kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy. And after the temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius, the Priests, Levites, and residue of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication thereof, Esdr. 6.16, 22. Concerning which festival days and the like, because many are superstitious, and some very ignorant, it shall not be impertinent, in this place to set down a brief discourse thereof. The first Section. Of sabbaoths, one is legal, an other spiritual, the third celestial. The spiritual sabbaoth is a ceasing from sin, and is peculiar to the godly and regenerate: for with it dissolute livers and carnally affected persons (such as Sardanapalus was) can have no fellowship at all: albeit they profess a certain external observance of the ceremonial sabbaoth, and glory no little therein. For as the apostle saith, Rom. 8.13. they that live after the flesh must die, but they that mortify the deeds of the body by the spirit, shall live. This sabbaoth is not tied to any certain time or days, but aught to be kept every day without any intermission: for we must ever believe, ever hope, ever love, ever bring forth the fruits of the spirit. Otherwise there should be no proportion, between the spiritual Sabbath, and the spiritual man. The second Section. The celestial sabbaoth is it, in which we shall rest both in body and soul, from the labours and vexations of this present mortality. Yet in this life we may labour in the body, although the mind regenerate do sabbatize unto the Lord. For the spiritual Sabbath doth not so prohibit the regenerate from corporal labours, but that they may in due season exercise the same, for their own honest sustentation and of others. Yea, the minds even of the godly, albeit they sabbatize in the Lord, yet are they oft afflicted, now which temptations, now with errors, with tribulations, now with anguishes, with charitable compassions over their brethren. These are the imperfections of this present life, which the spiritual sabaoth cannot take away, but the celestial sabbath in the heavenly jerusalem, will utterly make an end thereof. For in that sabbath there shall be no place, to any labours, errors, temptations, or miseries whatsoever. For the vision beatifical will wipe away all tears from our face. This is the pure and perfect sabbath, not of the body only as the legal (whereof I am to speak by and by) nor of the mind only, as the spiritual, but of soul and body both together; which sabbaoth was shadowed in the old law, begun in the new law, and shall be accomplished in the kingdom of heaven, where we shall celebrate the sabbaoth of all sabbaoths, world without end. The third section. The legal, ceremonial, and external sabbath is a certain set time appointed in the church, for the ministery of the word and administration of the sacraments. And it is of two sorts, immediate, and mediate; the immediate is that, which was instituted immediately in the old Testament: and this kind was manifold, because there was the sabbath of days, as the seventh day of the week, which was termed by the peculiar and proper name of sabbath; as well in respect of the divine rest which God had from creating new creatures, as of the rest which Gods people must keep that day. There were also other sabbaths of days, though not properly so termed, but by the names of feasts; to wit, the feast of the Passeover, the feast of Pentecost, the feast of Tabernacles, the feast of expiation, Levit. cap. 23. the feast of blowing trumpets, the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of the first fruits. Again, there was the sabbath of months, called neomeniae, 2. Paralipomenon the second chapter and the fourth verse. Thirdly, there was a sabbaoth of years, Levit. 25. vers. 11, ●1, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc. as every seventh year, Leviticus chapter 25. vers. 4. in which year the Israelites were prohibited to till the ground, to sow their seed, and to cut their vineyards. Fourthly, there was also the sabbath of jubilee, which came every fiftieth year, Leuit. 25. vers. 12. in the which year liberty was proclaimed to all that were in bondage: in which year, none might sow, none might reap, none might gather grapes: in which year, every one returned to his own possession: in which year, all land that had been sold, returned to the family: which year when it was far off, they might sell dearer, but the nearer it was, the better cheap aught they to sell their land. An apishimitation of this jubilee, the late Bishops of Rome pretend unto the world. The popish jubilee. But alas, who seethe not what a diabolical illusion it is? In this jubilee none did or could pardon their neighbour's sins; but the Pope pardoneth all, as well great as small: in this jubilee, all bond men were set at liberty, but in the Pope's jubilee, the Turks still row in galies, in bondage they still remain, both in Italy & in Spain: in this jubilee, all sold lands had an end, and returned again to the seller; but in the Pope's jubilee, not only sold lands do not return again, but lands bought with other men's goods do still remain. Note well (gentle reader) what I say, for of late years, An execrable plain diabolical dispensation. since the Pope by diabolical persuasions of ambitious and seditious jesuits, intended the invasion of this land, he hath promised faculty to his jesuits and seminaries, that they may dispense with all popish recusants, never to pay their debts to loyal christian subjects. This assertion, because it is strange to good christian ears, cannot but be obscure, and hardly understood: for explication sake, we must note two principles, of lately coined romish religion. First, The principles of romish religion. that our most gracious sovereign Queen Elizabeth, and all her faithful subjects, are flat heretics. Secondly, that all her majesties dominions, with all the lands and goods of her loyal, obedient, and christian subjects, are the Popes, due unto him from the first day of the profession of their loyal obeisance, and of the true, ancient, christian, romain, catholic and apostolic faith. That these be their principles; their best writers do testify, their jesuite Bellarminus their Canonists Navarrus and Covarrunias, their Divines Sylvester and Medina, their religious friars Fumus and Alphonsus with many others. Upon these rotten principles of their new no religion, they ground their most execrable dispensation, to wit, that it is lawful for all popish recusants, by reason of such dispensations, to withhold what lands and goods soever, from all such as will not yield themselves captives, to the brutish bondage of popery. Hereof it cometh first that so many this day make conscience to be absent from divine service in the church, who have no conscience at all to pay their debts. hereupon it cometh secondly, that many repute it deadly sin once to hear a godly sermon; who think it no sin at all to owe great sums of money, and never to pay the same. Heereuppon it cometh thirdly, that sundry recusants have so entailed their lands, and so fraudulently away their goods, (and that of late years;) as no law enforceth them to pay their debts to their poor creditors. Hereupon it cometh four, that her majesty is defrauded, her faithful subjects impoverished, Fraudulent deeds of gift. the Pope's vassals enriched, the laws of the realm contemned, and domestical rebellion fostered. It therefore behoveth good Magistrates to have special regard hereof. Good laws are established, but slowly in many places executed, God of his mercy, either convert dissembling hypocrites sound, or else for the common good of his church, Dissembling magistrates. ● confound them everlastingly: for a greater and more pestilent plague cannot come unto the Church, then to have such magistrates as pretend publicly to favour it, Mat. 19.12. and yet are secret enemies to the same: qui potest capere, capiat: this kind of popish pardoning, myself though then a papist could never brook, but so soon as I understood it, did sharply impugn the same. The mediate external sabbath is that, which God appointeth mediately by his church in the new Testament; to wit, the sunday, which is our christian sabbath. And here observe, that when I say (by the church,) I specially understand the supreme governor of the Church, much less do I exclude the same; which observation shall be made manifest, before the end of my discourse. And because no verity doth clearly appear, until the difficulties and doubts be plainly unfolded; I will propound in order the greatest objections that can be made against the same, framing brief, pithy, and evident solutions thereunto. The first objection. The Sabbatharies contend with tooth and nail, that christians are no less bound this day to keep the legal sabbath, than were the Israelites in time of Moses law, and they prove it, Genes. 2. verse 3 because God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, which sanctification was nothing else, but a commandment to keep it holy, as appeareth, by the declaration made by Moses: Again, because this sanctification was forthwith after the creation, and therefore as all nations are bound to make a memorial of the creation, as well as the Israelites, so must all nations as well as the Israelites, keep holy the seventh day, that is, the day of rest after the creation, which is our saturday; and upon which day the jews still keep their sabbath. The answer I say first, that there is no precept in the old or new Testament, by which either the Gentiles then, or christians now, are bound to keep the legal sabbath. I say secondly, that albeit it could be proved, that the fathers before the law had kept it, yet would it not follow, that we were bound by their ensample this day to keep the same: for otherwise we should be bound to offer up bloody sacrifices, as they did both before and after the deluge. The second objection. God speaking of the sabbath, said it should be a sign between him and the children of Israel for ever; and he added, Exod. 31. ver. 17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh day rested, therefore all nations are bound to keep the sabbath of the seventh day. The answer. I say first, that the word (ever) is not taken there simpliciter, but secundum quid, as the schools term it; that is, not for eternity or for the duration of this life, but for all the time from Moses unto Christ, (which was 1495. years.) I say secondly, that though the sabbath be not eternal as it is ceremonial, (which I shall prove by and by,) yet is it eternal in the thing signified, that is ceasing from sin and rest in God, which shall be accomplished in heaven for evermore. The third objection. The decalogue was before Moses, and this day is of force: Exod. 34. verse. 4 Deut. 10. ver. 1. for the Gentiles were bound before the promulgation of the law written in the tables of stone, and we christians after the translation of the law, to abstain from blasphemy, perjury, theft, murder, whoredom, covetousness, fraudulent dealing, and the like, as were the jews in time of the law. The answer I answer, that whereas the law of Moses was partly judicial, partly ceremonial, and partly moral, the moral part being the very law of nature, engraven in men's hearts in the hour of their nativities, as it was before Moses, so shall it endure to the world's end; but all ceremonies which were types and figures of the promises made in Christ jesus, were accomplished and abolished in his sacred advent: such was the circumcision given to Abraham, the sacrifices commanded to our first fathers, and the sabbath in respect of the determination upon the seventh day, Re exhibita, ●esat figura. for it was not Gods will to continue shadows, after the things indeed were exhibited. The fourth objection. A perpetual cause requireth a perpetual law, and consequently, since the memory of the creation and meditation of God's works, is a perpetual cause of the law of the seventh day; it followeth necessarily, that the law of the seventh day must still abide in force. The answer. I answer that the memory of the creation is indeed a perpetual cause of a perpetual sabbath, but not of a perpetual, precise and determinate sabbath; the reason hereof is evident, because the memory of our creation may be done as conveniently upon another day, as upon the seventh day: thus my answer is confirmed, because the sabbath which we now keep, is not the seventh day but the eight; for our sunday is the first day of the week, and the day on which God began the creation of every thing. The first objection. We christians observing the first day after the sabbath (which we call sunday) are charged odiously with superstition, by the wicked Anabaptists; and they prove it by S. Paul, who forbiddeth the difference of days in the Christian Church, upon which prohibition it followeth, Coloss. 2. ver. 16. Gal. 4. vers 10, Rom. 14. verse. 6 that it is as unlawful to keep the first day, as the seventh. The answer. I answer, that the Apostle exclaimeth not against every difference of days simply: but against that sole and only difference, which is observed with opinion of necessity or worship. After which manner our christian sabbath or sunday is not observed. For first, in the old testament, the old sabbath was a figure of things to be accomplished by Christ, yet in the new testament, the new sabbath hath not that signification, but is only observed for decency and comely order sake: without which the ministery of the word either cannot be at all, or at least not so conveniently. Secondly, the jews observed their sabbath of the seventh day, as a part of God's divine worship, neither was it lawful for them to change and alter the same: but we christians (who abhor judaisme indeed,) keep our sabbath day, not as a part of God's worship, but for civil order sake, not with opinion of necessity, but with such christian freedom, as we confess it may be changed into another day. And because this liberty granted to the Christian church, is not sufficiently understood of many, whereof some be otherwise well learned, I purpose in God to prove the same effectually. First, by the holy scriptures: secondly, by the judgement of antiquity: thirdly, by the latter writers. Touching the scriptures, my first reason shall be affirmative, my second shall be negative: the affirmative is this, whatsoever is abolished, doth not bind us christians: but the law of Moses is abolished: therefore it doth not bind us. The argument is in form. The proposition is evident, because an obligation canceled is not of force. And the assumption wherein resteth the difficulty if there be any at all, Hebr. 7. ver. 12. is proved by S. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews; where he avoucheth expressly that the law must perforce be changed with the priesthood. Neither will it help to say, Mark well this point. that we keep a day different from the jews (mark well my words gentl reader) because if we keep our day with necessity of the day, so as it may not be altered into another day, Coloss. 2. ver. 16 than such our observation of days, is reproved to the Colossians, and is become a flat ceremony of the jewish law. For, this strict point (tempori obligari, to be tied to determined time) is that only circumstance or ceremony, wherein the jewish sabbaoth differeth from ours. Which point, I hope, will shortly be more evident. My negative reason is this; No text of holy scripture, either in the old or new testament can be alleged, which commandeth to keep our christian sabbaoth, either upon the first day, or upon any other determinate day; therefore it remaineth in the liberty of the church to change that day, as the circumstances of times, places, & persons shall require. The consequence is good, and so the consequent ought not to be denied: for whatsoever is not commanded by the holy scriptures, but appointed by the law of man; all that may be altered even by the law of man. The antecedent I prove sundry ways; first, because the places of scripture cited for this purpose, neither do nor can prove any such thing. For the Apostle to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 16.2. wills only that collections be made for the poor when the congregation is assembled on some sabbath day. But he neither commandeth christians, to observe the first day after the sabbaoth; neither yet doth he affirm, that christians then kept their assemblies upon that day. Yea, the learned and zealous writer master Caluin denieth flatly, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth either signify the first day of the sabbaths, or the sunday. He opposeth himself against the patrons of that opinion, and saith flatly that the apostles did at that time keep the jewish sabbaoth. Apoc. 1.10. And that of the Revelation proveth nothing else, but that S. john had his revelation upon the day of our Lord's resurrection. But saint john neither saith, that christians must observe that day for their sabbaoth, neither yet that the Apostles kept the same. 1. Cor. 16.8. Which thing both Petrus Martyr, and Erasmus do willingly grant. Yea Erasmus avoucheth that the christian Penticost was not yet ordained. And therefore doth he by Penticost in that place understand saint Paul's abode at Ephesus to be 50▪ days. Caluine and Martyr understand the jewish pentecost properly, because the christian pentecost was not yet appointed. I prove it secondly, because if the determination of the christian Sabbath had been set down in the scriptures, and appointed by the apostles; then would there not have been such controversy about that matter, as was in the est and west Churches long after the Apostles time, which thing I have showed at large in my book of Motives. Thirdly, if it were granted, which can never be proved, that the Apostles than kept the sabbath upon the first day, yet would it not follow, that christians must of necessity this day observe the same: which I will make good by sundry important reasons. First, because our saviour Christ, in the very institution of the sacrament of his body and blood, did minister the same after supper, and yet are not we tied to that practice, but do it before dinner. Now since the practice of Christ himself, doth not make a law to be kept of necessity; much less can the practice of his disciples impose such a law upon us. Therefore if it be granted, that the Apostles kept their sabbath upon the first of the week, as this day we observe, and that very laudably, yet may we for our christian liberty, altar the day and keep it upon another. Secondly, because Christ celebrated the holy communion of his body and blood, in sweet and unleavened bread; Exod. 12. ver. 19 and yet notwithstanding that practice, the Greek church did ever, and we ourselves in these days, use leavened bread: even so may we keep our Sabbath upon Tuesday, or upon some other day, (if it so seem good to the church,) albeit the Apostles kept it upon the monday. Thirdly, because the Apostles and the whole church in their time, Act. 15. v. 6.20. decreed to abstain from eating of blood and yet do we this day, without scruple of conscience eat the same. If answer be made, that this decree was not a perpetual law, I reply directly, Vide Socrat. 5. cap. 21. that much less doth their practice bind the church for ever, to a strict ceremony of the jews. Fourthly, because we may justly be accused of that superstition, wherewith the Apostle charged the Colossians and Galatians: Coloss. 2. v. 16. Gal 4. vers. 10. and so the Anabaptists shall have their intended purpose. My second proof is this, Socrates a famous writer, who lived above 1150. years sithence, hath these express words: Mens namque fuit Apostolorum, non de diebus sancire festivitatum sed conversationem rectam & dei praedicare culturam: mihi ergo videtur, Histor. tripar. libr. 9 cap. 38. quod sicut multa alia per provincias ad consuetudinem venerunt, sic & Paschae festivitas tradita sit, eó quod nullus Apostolorum aliquid huic sanxisset. For the meaning of the Apostles was not to make laws for keeping holidays, but to preach the word of God, and holy conversation. I therefore think, that as many other things grew to a custom in diverse countries, so did also the keeping of Easter; because none of the apostles made any law for the same. Out of whose words I do note first, that the scope of Christ's apostles was this, to preach the word of God, not to appoint holidays. Secondly, that the keeping of Easter (which is our sabbaoth) was after the custom of the country. Thirdly, that the apostles made no law for the same. Yea, the first man in the world, that made any positive law for the christian sabbaoth, was Constantine surnamed the Great, who within three hundred and thirty years after Christ, about the 20. year of his reign, to take away all contention in the church, made a flat Edict for the keeping of Friday and Sunday throughout the year. Of this none can stand in doubt, that shall peruse that fine Oration which Eusebius made, Eusebius de laud. Constant. de Laudibus Constantini, the three and thirtieth year of his happy reign. This controversy (by the emperors appointment) was handled in the council of Nice, and immediately after his decree: which thing is evident by the said Eusebius in his third book de vitae Constantini: De vita Const. ●ib. 3. cap. 13 & ●●●inceps. and in his fourth book he affirmeth plainly, that all subject to the Roman empire, were commanded to abstain from all bodily labour, upon the sundays and fridays. Cassiodorus doth prove the same out of Sozomenus, in these express words, ●●stor. tripart. ●ib. 1. cap. 10. Die verò qui Dominicus vocatur, quem Hebraei primam vocant, Graeci autem soli distribuunt, & qui ante septimum est, sanctuit à judicijs aliísque causis universis habere vacationem, & in eo tantum orationibus occupari. The Emperor Constantine decreed, that all people should cease from all suits and other civil causes, and consecrate themselves wholly unto prayer upon the lords day, which the jews do call the first day of the week, and the Greeks' do term Sunday, as also upon the friday. The learned divines in Germany affirm directly, that the Sunday may be altered. These are their words; 〈◊〉 artic. cons●s. ●●gust▪ Nam qui judicant ecclesiae authoritate, pro sabbato institutam esse diei Dominici obseruationem tanquam necessariam, longè errant: for they that think the church appointed the sunday to be kept for the sabbaoth of necessity, are deceived grossly. My third proof is this; Philippus Melancton, The third 〈◊〉 Erasmus Roterodamus, johannes Calvinus, Petrus Martyr, Bullingerus and Vrsinus, do all with uniform consent, yield so manifest testimony to mine assertion; as none doubtless that read them attentively, can without blushing deny the same. Martyr in 1. Co●● cap. 16. Petrus Martyr hath these words; Quòd unus dies certus in hebdomada cultui divino mancipetur, stabile & firmum est; an vero hic vel alius constituatur, temporarium est ac mutabile: That one day in the week must be assigned for divine service, it is constant, firm and perpetual: but whether this or that day ought to be appointed for that purpose, it is a thing that respects the time, and may be changed. Caluin in his Institutions, after he hath commended the alteration of the Sabbath in the primitive church affirmeth flatly, that the day may yet be changed: these be his words; Neque sic tamen septenarium numerum mor●r, ut eius seruituti ecclesiam astringam; Caluin. libr. 2. cap. 8. § 34. neque enim ecclesias damnavero, quae alios conventibus suis solemnes dies habeant, modò à superstitione absint. Quod erit, si ad solam obseruationem disciplinae & ordinis bene compositi referantur. Neither do I for all that make such account of the seventh day, that I will have the church tied to keep the same, for I will not condemn churches which appoint other solemn days for their meetings, so they be void of superstition. Which shall be done, if they appoint such tdayes only for discipline, Vrsinus in 4. precept. p. 223. and for comely order sake. Vrsinus hath these words; Summa est, alligati sumus sabbato moraliter & ceremonialiter in genere, sed non in specie. Hoc est, ad aliquod ministerii publicè exercendi tempus, sed non ad septimum vel aliquem alium certum diem. This is the effect, Vrsinus p. 23●. we are tied to the saboth morally and ceremonially in general, but not in special: that is to say, we are bound sometime to exercise the public ministery, but we are neither tied to the seventh, nor to any other certain day. And again he saith, that all ceremonies appointed by the church, ●●rsmus, p. 226. may be altered again by the counsel of the church. Again in another place, he hath these express words; Ecclesia christiana primum vel aliumdiem tribuit ministerio salva sua libertate: the church of Christ hath liberty, to appoint either the first day or some other day, for God's service. To what end should I allege more authorities? for nothing can be more plainly spoken. ●●ullingerus praecepto 4. ●oc. 2. serm. 4 And as the church hath authority to alter the sabbath day, so hath it power also (which B●llinger hath well observed,) to appoint for the service of God, certain other festival days; as the feast of the birth of our Lord, of his incarnation, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and such like. All which is this day very prudently and laudably, practised in the church of England. An objection. If this your doctrine were true, as you bear the world in hand it is, than would it follow necessarily, that there should be no difference between the ordinance of God and man: the reason seemeth evident, because they both should be of like authority. The answer. I answer, that they are not of like authority, and I yield a double disparity thereof: for first, the sabbath day is de iure divino in general, albeit the determination thereof to this or that day in special, be de iure humano: but the other holidays are both in general and in special, de iure humano. Secondly, because other holidays are as well generally as specially appointed by man, and therefore may be wholly abolished by the power of man. But the sabbath day is generally appointed by God, although the limitation thereof be reserved to his church: and therefore notwithstanding that the church can limit the observation to this or that day, yet can no power upon earth wholly abolish the same. The fourth book, containeth the description of the third Monarchy, that is, of the Greeks', from Alexander, until the Maccabees. CHAP. I. Of the original of the monarchy, and the circumstances of the same. ALexander king of the Macedonians, for his martial prowess and heroical virtues surnamed the Great, began to reign in Macedonia, when Darius Arbelas was made king of the Persians. He made war with the said Darius, he conquered and slew him in Asia, and so translated the Monarchy from the Persians, unto the Greeks'. The monarchy of the Greeks', An. mundi. 3641 began in the seventh year of Alexander's reign, in the age of the world, 3641. The histories of the Greeks' are much more recent, than the stories of the jews. For all their histories, are after the first monarchy of the Babylonians and Assyrians; neither have they any thing certain, which is more ancient than their Olympiad's. Which Olympiad's had their beginning in the first or second year of joatham king of juda, (as Glareanus▪ Paulus Phrigio, Bibliand●r, and others do write,) though some writers otherwise of credit, hold the contrary, in the age of the world, 3251. which was about, An. mundi. 3251 230. years before the monarchy of the Persians. This Monarchy took the name of king Alexander, and was termed indifferently the monarchy of the Greeks', or of Alexander: because he so excelled all others, in power, valour, fortitude, and other virtues, as none in the world were deemed comparable to him. He is highly commended by the prophets, I●remie and Daniel, as a most valiant and happy emperor. Daniel describeth a Goat, Dan. 1. verse 5▪ 20.21. which overcame the Ramine: and he declareth manifestly, that the goat was the king of the Greeks', the Ram of the Persians. His father's name was Philip, his mother's name Olympias. Olympias was the mother of Alexander, and was also taken for the space of 4. years, as I have already proved. But Olympias is a mountain in Greece between Thessalia and Macedonia, above the which there appeareth no cloud: In regard whereof, it is usurped of the Poets for heaven. This hill as Plutarch writeth, is ten furlongs in height. Dan. 8. v. 8.22. The prophet Daniel speaking of the goat: that is, of Alexander, foretold that his Empire should be divided into four kingdoms, and so it came to pass. For Cassander had Macedonia; Seleucus, Syria; Antigonus, Asia the less, and Ptolemeus Egypt. For the exact understanding of daniel's prophesy, it is necessary to understand the succession of the kings and their reigns, especially of the kings of Syria, of whom the Scripture maketh precise mention. King Alexander reigned six whole years, and died in the seventh; after his death, the nobles had mortal domestical wars amongst themselves, striving for the space of thirteen years, who should have dominion. This chanced after that the Empire was divided, as is already said; and shall appear more at large, in the third chapter following. CHAP. II. Of the kings of Syria, succeeding Alexander. The kings of Syria and Asia 1 Seleucus Nicanor Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 31 years 2 Antiochus Soter. Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 19 3 Antiochus Theos Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 15 4 Seleucus Gallinicus Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 20 5 Seleucus Ceraunus Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 3 years 6 Antiochus Magnus Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 36 7 Seleucus Philopator Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 12 8 Antiochus Epiphanes Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 12 9 Antiochus Eupator Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 2 years 10 Demetrius Soter Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 10 11 Alexander filius Epiphan. Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 5 12 Demetrius Nicanor Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 2 13 Antiochus Sedetes Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 3 14 Tryphon Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 3 15 Antiochus pius Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 12 years 16 Demetrius Nicanor Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 4 17 Alexander Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 2 18 Antiochus Gryphus Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 29 19 Seleucus son to Gryphus, was at strife with his uncle and others of his kindred, for the space of ten years. Anno Mun. 3647 the reign of every king of Syria, and Asia Anno Dom. 3877 10 years The first observation. Seleucus the son of Gryphus king of Syria warred against Cyzicenus the son of Antiochus Sedetes, whom after he had taken him, he put to death. By and by mortal wars arose between the brethren. Wherewith the Syrians were so grieved, and so annoyed with the civil wars; that they knew no other fit means to redeem their vexation, then to yield up the kingdom to Tygranes the king of Armenia. Which Tygranes enjoyed Syria until such time as he was overcome of Pompeius, who delivered Syria up to the Romans'. This kingdom of Syria continued about 240. years, and was delivered into the hands of the Romans' 17. years after julius Cesar was first Emperor of Rome. The second observation. Seleucus Callimcus, the son of Antiochus, had two sons; to wit, Seleucus surnamed Ceraunus, and Antiochus Magnus. Seleucus Ceraunus lived but three years, and then left the kingdom to his brother Antiochus Magnus. Which Antiochus made war against Ptolemeus Philopator the king of Egypt and his son Epiphanes, by means whereof the jews and church of God, was in continual affliction. This Antiochus had the repulse in his first attempt; yet after the death of Ptolemeus, (who before his death commended his son to the protection of the Romans',) he returned with a great army into Egypt. By this occasion, long wars were between the Romans' and Antiochus. Hannibal and many Regions in Greece, joined themselves to Antiochus. Nevertheless he was so often discomfited in battle, that he was enforced to seek for conditions of peace. And besides this, he was glad to send his son Epiphanes to Rome for an hostage. In the end, when he went about the sacking of the rich Temple of Belus in Syria, the multitude of the Citizens slew him and all his guard. The jews (saith Carion) lived in great peace, from the time of Alexander to Antiochus Magnus. But when wars began between the Assyrians and egyptians, then the Iewes being seated in the mids, were oppressed on both sides. At length (saith josephus) Antiochus was victor, and brought the jews under his subjection. But so soon as Philopator was dead, his son Ptolomeus Epiphanes sent a mighty army into Syria; under the conduction of Scopa: who recovered certain Cities in Syria, and a good part of judea. Yet within a short space after, Antiochus skirmishing with Scopa, near to jordan, had the upper hand, and took the cities again from Scopa. Then the jews yielded themselves to Antiochus, received his army voluntarily within the walls, and afforded him large help against the garrisons of the said Scopa. In respect of which favour, Antiochus dealt very favourably with them: gave them rich gifts, and granted them liberty to call home again, all the jews that were in dispersion. The third observation. Antiochus Epiphanes was hostage at Rome, where he learned by the Example of the Romans', flattery, deceit, and other bad qualities, to accommodate himself to the time and manners of men. He was famous not for his virtues, but for his naughty dealing. He was called (as some writ) for his dissolute life, not Epiphanes, but Epimanes; that is, not noble, but mad. He began his reign about 134. years after the death of Alexander; at which time his brother Seleucus ceased by death to reign in Syria. At the same time Ptolemeus Epiphanes died in Egypt, leaving behind him to young sons, Philometor and Physcon. Ptolemeus had these sons with his wife the queen Cleopatra, who was sister to Antiochus. Under this pretence Antiochus went into Egypt, and by fair speeches got the regiment, during the nonage of Philometor the young prince. And when he had contrived all things so, as he might take the kingdom upon him at his pleasure, he went to Jerusalem at the entreaty of jason, who sought ambitiously to be made the high priest by his procurement: even as pope's of late years are made at Rome, as hereafter shallbe proved. Where (as writeth josephus,) so soon as he came, the gates were opened to him by men of his own faction. Which usurped dominion, he exercised cruelly and sacrilegiously; neither sparing the goods nor the lives of those that willingly opened the gates unto him. The fourth observation. Demetrius Nicanor, the twelfth king of Syria, was driven out of his kingdom by his brother Antiochus Sedetes, by the aid and means of Tryphon. Yet afterward he was restored to his kingdom again, and ruled Syria peaceably, until Alexander surnamed Sabineus of the house of Seleucus took him prisoner at Tyrus, where he put him to death. CHAP. III. Of the kings of Macedonia, and of the division of the Empire after the sixth year of Alexander. THe holy will of the living God was, that four mighty kings should succeed Alexander the Great, after the sixth year of his reign, whereof every one should possess a part, and no one be so mighty as himself, which thing was evidently foretold by the Prophet Daniel. Daniel cap. 8. ve. 22. The four kings that succeeded Alexander, to wit, Cassander, (who reigned in Macedonia and Grecia) Seleucus (who reigned in Syria) Ptolomeus (who reigned in Egypt, and Antigonus (who reigned in Asia) did all descend of the house, Pedigree, and blood royal of Alexander that most puissant and valiant Emperor, and for that cause surnamed the Great. Cassander caused Olympias daughter of Neoptolemus and mother to Alexander, Cassander a cruel prince. a most chaste and virtuous Queen, to be beheaded cruelly, that so he might reign more licentiously: but God the just judge, (who for his wisdom seethe all things, and for his justice sake letteth no sin pass unpunished) did so in his eternal providence dispose of Cassander's issue, as it was a worthy spectacle to the world. For Antipater and Alexander his sons, had mutual mortal bloody wars the one against the other, as concerning the kindgome of Macedonia. But what was the end? Antipater was slain by Lysimachus his father in law, and Alexander by Demetrius the son of Antigonus; who both were their own complices, to whom they trusted and sought for help at their hands. A worthy observation. King Alexander the great was not only full of valour and prowess, but thoroughly garnished with heroical and moral virtues, amongst which this was not the least, A worthy fact right seemly for a king. that so often as he heard the complaint of one against another, the accused party being absent, his continual custom was, to open one only ear to the plaintiff, and to keep the other closely shut: by which ceremony he lively expressed unto the world, the office of every good Prince and righteous judge: to wit, that they should never have respect of persons, as holy Writ beareth witness; but hear all parties indifferently, and judge ever according to law and equity. Which indifferency king Alexander fitly practised even with the admiration of his auditory, while as he granted to the accuser one ear, so did he to the accused reserve the other, never condemning the one nor justifying the other, before he understood perfectly the truth of the matter. But in our time we may justly exclaim with holy Polycarpe; O God, to what worlds hast thou reserved us? for nowadays judges & lawyers are so corrupt with bribes, that when a poor man crieth he can not be heard with neither ear, because both are shut at once: on the other side, so soon as they grope the rich man's gold, they open both the one ear & the other, there is no stay at al. Of such judges, magistrates, and lawyers, speaketh wise Solomon when he saith, that many reverence the person of the mighty, Prover. cap. 15. verse. 6. and every one is friend to him that giveth gifts. When a rich man commenceth any suit against the poor man, every judge, every lawyer, every justice, every bailiff, will for money be ready to further his cause; for gold and money with a beck they come anon, and with a wink they will be gone: though their matter were very bad in the beginning, yet will it be right good in the ending: Ambrose. money worketh so forcibly with them, that it may be said to alter the case, and to change the nature of the thing. Gifts saith Saint Ambrose, dazzle the eyes of judges and weakeneth the force of their authority. Contrariwise, when the poor man cometh to them, either without money or but with a little, they are dumb, deaf, and senseless, they can neither hear, see, nor understand: they will use such dallying, such demurring, such shifts, and delays until the poor man be exhausted and spent; so as perforce he must let the matter fall, and sit down with the loss. For albeit his cause were right good in the beginning, yet will it be stark nought in the ending. Wherefore Innocentius his words are well verified in this kind of people; ●nnocentius. You respect (saith he) not the causes, but the persons, not laws, but bribes; not what reason prescribeth, but what will affecteth; not what the mind thinketh, but what it coveteth, not what should be done, but what ye list to have done; your eye is not single, which should make your body bright; but ever ye mingle a piece of leaven, which corrupteth the whole dough. The kings of Macedonia after the death of Alexander the Great, Philippus Aridaeus Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 7 years Cassander Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 19 years Alexander and Antipater, or after others Antigonus Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 4 Demetrius Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 6 Pyrrhus Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 6 months Lysimachus Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 5 years Ptolomeus Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 1 Meleagres Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 2 months Antipater Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 1 year Sosthenes Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 2 Antigonus Gonatas Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 36 Demetrius Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 10 Antigonus Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 15 Philippus Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 42 Perses Anno mun 3647 The reign of the said kings Anno mun 3805 10 Note here, that some think Aridaeus to have succeeded Alexander; yet that Cassander was his immediate successor, I repute more probable. CHAP. FOUR Of the kings of Egypt. Anno mun. 3608 PTolomeus the son of Lagus began his reign in Egypt, immediately after the death of Alexander, though not without bloodshedding and great wars for sundry years, as is areadie said. He was one of Alexander's captains, as were also Antigonus, Nicanor, and Cassander. The names of the kings of Egypt Ptolomeus Lagi Filius Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 40 years Ptolomeus Philadelphus Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 38 Ptolemeus Euergetes Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 26 Ptolomeus Philopator Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 17 Ptolemeus Epiphanes Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 24 Ptolomeus Philometor Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 35 years Ptolomeus Euergetes Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 29 Ptolomeus Soter alias Physcon, filius Cleopatra Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 17 years Ptolomeus Alexander, Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 10 Ptolomeus Phiscon, alias Lathurus Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 8 Ptolemeus Dionysius Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 30 Cleopatra Anno Mun. 3647 the time of their reigns Anno mun. 3921 22 years The first observation. It is to be observed, that as of julius Cesar, every Emperor of Rome was afterward called Cesar; and of Octavius Augustus, Augustus; so was Artaxerxes the common name of all the kings of Persia; so was also every king of Egypt, called indifferently Ptolomeus, or Pharaoh. Which observation helpeth more than a little, to understand sundry texts of holy scripture. The second observation. We must observe secondly, that albeit a monarch have the chiefest sovereignty on earth, yet is he not the sole and universal governor, so as there is no other king over any other nation. For though the highest and supreme power, authority, and dominion be in every monarchy, so as no other power, no not independent, is able to overrule or prevail against the same; yet were there ever powers independent over and beside the said monarchies, not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In the time of the monarchy of the Babylonians or Assyrians, worthy kings (though of less might and authority) reigned in Egypt, in Israel, in Greece, and else where. In the time of the Persian monarchy, the Macedonians and the Romans' had their authority; so likewise when the Greeks' and Romans' had the monarchical and imperial seat with them, other kings had their several dominions, albeit very small in respect. The third observation. Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt, expelled her son Lathurus from the kingdom, by reason of his tyrannical regiment, and made his brother Alexander king of Egypt in his place. Lathurus fled away into Cypress, & Alexander reigned not long, for he was so afraid of his mother's cruelty, that he forsook the kingdom, and fled away. And so Cleopatra, for the greater part of the 18 years ascribed to Lathurus & Alexander had her reign alone. But at length Alexander her son stew her, and possessed the kingdom again. Yet this Alexander was expulsed by the Egyptians for his cruelty, and Lathurus again restored, who reigned a few years, and then died. This must be diligently observed for the clearing of many difficulties, which otherwise will not easily be understood, touching the years and reigns of the kings. The fourth observation. Cleopatra was the last Queen of Egypt, succeeding her brother Dionysius. But after that she loved Antonius and rebelled against Augustus, he overcame both, for which cause they murdered themselves, and so Egypt became subject to the Empire of the Romans'. The fift observation. Ptolomeus Phisco, was a cruel filthy beast, he married his own sister, ● beastly and ●ost cruel fact. lay with his own daughter, killed his children with his own hands, & gave them to be eaten of his own wife their mother. This Ptolomeus some think to be all one with Euergetes: some deem him to be his successor, otherwise called Soter, which opinion I prefer as more probable. CHAP. V Of the Septuagints. PTolomeus Philadelphus had a library so well furnished with all kind of good books as the like was not to be found in all the world: Anno Mun. 3643 this king was highly renowned for his manifold virtues, especially for his peaceable government, and for his forwardness in furthering of learning. He was very beneficial and friendly to the jews. Learned men of all nations had concourse unto him, whom he ever received honourably, and rewarded them bountifully: he sought diligently the original of all nations, arts, and religions, and he perceived that the jews were most ancient, and that no certainty touching the creation of the world could be found any where, but in their histories and among them. Wherefore he desired of the jews that their scriptures might be translated into the Greek tongue, and that they would send him 72. of their best learned men, for that end and purpose. To which godly motion the jews did willingly condescend, and sent unto him 72. learned men, very expert in the Hebrew and Greek language. These learned men the king received honourably, and by their help had the holy Bible translated into the Greek tongue. Of this interpretation called the Septuagints, divers writ diversly: some writers otherwise learned and of great account, as Ireneus, Chrysostomus, justinus, Augustinus, and others, do think that these 72. jewish priests sent by Eleazarus the high priest, brother to Simon Priscus, into Egypt to king Ptolomeus to translate the old testament out of their vulgar tongue, that is, the Hebrew into Greek, did translate the same severally, being placed in 72. distinct celles, so as no one could know what another did, without divine inspiration. This notwithstanding, The translation of the septuagints. they all agreed so perfectly when their interpretations were compared together, as if they had been all in one place, and one acquainted with another's act. Which if it were true (the decision whereof I leave in suspense to the judgement of the reader, it could not but pr●ceede of the holy ghost. Others as saint Jerome, Aristeas, josephus, and all the jewish Rabbins, hold the flat contrary opinion, and avouch boldly, that the report of the 72. celles, and of the translation accomplished in so many several places, is nothing else but a fable. Which latter opinion seemeth more probable (though not certain,) because the jews could best tell the case, of whom S. Hierome received his opinion. Howsoever it was, two things are certain, first, that the Hebrew text is the foundation and original, and only to be stood upon, so often as any difficulty ariseth in the old testament. Secondly, that howsoever they did translate, yet was there such corruption of their translation, even in saint Hieromes time, and before his days; as it was found in very many places, erer. ad Chrom. ●m. 4. fol. 8. to serve wholly from the Hebrew. Which thing not only Saint Hieerome, but Origen and other writers do witness: ●enebrarda ●eat papist con●●steth no less. for which cause Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine do very wisely and gravely exhort, to have recourse to the Hebrew in the old Testament, and to the Greek in the new Testament, so often as any variety doth appear. And here we must note two things; first that those priests which Eleazar sent to Ptolomee, were 72. in number, as sundry think, albeit the two odd persons be omitted of others, for brevity sake. Secondly, that they translated only the Pentateuche, as writeth josephus in his first book of antiquities. Add hereunto with the same josephus that they were sent to his library at Alexandria, where if we will believe Genebrardus, were 54. thousand and 800. books. CHAP. VI Of Esdras, Zorobabel, and Nehemias. God, albeit he doth often afflict and exercise his people, with the cross of temporal punishment for their good, that so they may behold their own unworthienesse, and appeal to his mercy, and wholly depend upon his holy providence, yet for his mercy sake, he doth in all ages and at all times excite worthy persons, for their great commodity and solace. For after that he had visited the jews, and kept them in bondage seventy years in a strange country among infidels and idolaters, he raised up divers excellent men for their preservation, to wit, Zorobabel, Esdras, and Nehemias. Zorobabel was the captain that brought them home, and caused the temple to be builded: Nehemias builded up the walls of the city, delivered the people from oppression, and provided that the law of God was put in execution among them. This Nehemias was in great favour and authority with king Artaxerxes, and so obtained most honourable and ample letter patents, for the accomplishment of whatsoever he did desire. Esdras descended of the kindred of Aaron, he was a priest well learned in the law of Moses. He was called Esdras the scribe, that is, one who had authority to write the law and to expound it. Saint mark calleth such a one a Scribe: Saint Matthew termeth such persons Lawyers, and doctors of the law, which is a point well worthy the observation. This Esdras performed the office of a true priest indeed, for he collected the books of holy scripture, which were dispersed after the destruction of Jerusalem in time of the captivity, without which books pure and sincere religion could not consist. Yea, Hier. praefat. in libr. reg. to. 4. fol. 7. so soon as the temple was builded again under Zorobabell, he is noted (as Hierome recordeth,) to have found out the Hebrew letters, we now use, whereas until that time, both the Samaritans and the Hebrews had the self same characters. Eusebius Caesariensis a man as well of great antiquity as of learning, calleth Esdras the most excellent divine, Euseb. in chro●. 4●4●▪ and skilful doctor among the jews; affirming that he changed the Hebrew letters for this end and purpose, lest the jews should converse with the Samaritans. He addeth further, that his memory was so great, as he could recite the scriptures without the book. Some writ that he invented the pricks annexed to the text, but others hold the contrary. The fift book, of the Monarchy of the Greeks', from the Maccabees until Christ. CHAP. I. Of the partition of the Monarchy, and the reason of the same. THe former part of the Monarchy of the Greeks' which is from King Alexander the great, unto the Maccabees, containeth 155. years, and may be proved exactly, by the chronography of holy Writ. The latter part of the Monarchy, (which is from the Maccabees unto Christ, or if ye will, from Antiochus Epiphanes, to Herodes Magnus, which is all one,) containeth 173. years; but cannot be proved out of the holy scriptures as the former part, (which is the cause of this my partition for perspicuity sake;) yet may it be gathered sufficiently out of the books of the Maccabees, josephus, julius Africanus, and Egesippus. The observation. A. M. 3641. As Alexander began this monarchy in the seventh year of his reign, in the age of the world 3641. so did Antiochus Epiphanes, son to Antiochus Magnus, the sixth king of Syria, begin the time of this partition, that is the second part of the Monarchy, A. M. 3749. in the age of the world 3749. He was hostage at Rome, from whence he fled, and usurped the kingdom of Syria from his brother's son: he pretended to protect his sister's son Philometor, the young king of Egypt, & by that means sought craftily to get the kingdom of Egypt into his hands. For better expedition of his wicked purpose, he procured certain cities to be yielded into his hands. In his return from Egypt, he took jerusalem and spoiled it. The egyptians perving his crafty dealing, received their cities again; in regard whereof he entered Egypt with a strong army, but had the repulse by aid of the Romans, after which repulse he retured in great rage and tyrannically bend his force against Jerusalem: he constrained the jews for the space of two years, utterly to forsake the law. Dan. 11.21. Machabeus therefore and his sons being priests, rose up in arms against his brutish cruelty, and delivered the people. CHAP. II. Of the government of the jews after the captivity. A triple government was among the jews, between the captivity & the advent of our saviour Christ jesus, for they were governed first by princes of the tribe of juda and royal stock of David, from the captivity until Antiochus. After that they were governed by priests, who were not of the royal pedigree of juda, but of the tribe of Levi. This state was by the Maccabees, in time of Antiochus and his successors the kings of Syria, until Aristobulus the first king among the jews after their captivity. They were governed thirdly, by kings, being partly of their own blood and partly strangers This state continued from Aristobulus until king Agrippa, albeit the birth of our saviour befell in the 32. year of king Herod; which quadruple variety I will set down in four several sections for perspicuity sake. The first Section, of the governors of the jews, from the captivity to the Maccabees. The names of the governors or rulers of the jews Zorobabel Anno mun. 3425 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3610 67 years Rhesa Miseolana alias Mensonla Anno mun. 3425 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3610 66 joanna been Resa Anno mun. 3425 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3610 52 judas Hircanus the first Anno mun. 3425 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3610 30 years Note here that these four governors were before the monarchy of Alexander the great: whereof Zorobabel was he that conducted the jews from the captivity, and encouraged them to build the temple. These other eleven were after Alexander. The names of the governors or ru●ers of the jews, after King Alex●nder. joseph the first An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 7 years Abner Semei An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 11 Eli Matathia An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 12 Asar Mahat An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 9 years Nagid Artaxat An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 10 Haggai Eli An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 8 Maslot Nahum An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 7 years Amos Syrach An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 13 Matathia Siloah An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 10 joseph the second An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 60 years janna Hircanus the second An. mundi. 3641 The time of their government An. mundi. 3788 16 years This Hircanus was the last prince of the jews, that descended of the blood royal, and posterity of king David. The catalogue of the priests, who executed priestly function amongst the jews after the captivity, shall be set down in the chapter following. The second Section, of the Maccabees. The names of the Maccabees judas Machabeus Anno mun. 3805 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3837 6 years jonathas Anno mun. 3805 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3837 18 Simon brother to judas Anno mun. 3805 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3837 8 years Io. Hircanus the son of Simon Anno mun. 3805 the time of their rule Anno mun. 3837 31 years These four were priests of the tribe of Levi, not of juda, or the blood royal; which ought ever to be kept in memory, as hereafter better shall appear. The third Section, of the Kings of the jews, that descended of the Levitical tribe. The names of the kings who were Iewes Aristobulus the son of Hircanus An mundi. 3868 The time they ruled An. mundi. 3909 1 year Alexander the second son of Hircanus alias janneꝰ An mundi. 3868 The time they ruled An. mundi. 3909 27 years Alexandra the wife of Alexander An mundi. 3868 The time they ruled An. mundi. 3909 9 years Aristobulus An mundi. 3868 The time they ruled An. mundi. 3909 4 years Hircanus An mundi. 3868 The time they ruled An. mundi. 3909 22 years The fourth Section, of the Kings that were strangers. The names of the kings Herodes magnus An. mundi 3937 The time of their reign An. mundi 4014 37 years Archelaus dux An. mundi 3937 The time of their reign An. mundi 4014 9 Herodes Tetrarcha, qui & Antipas An. mundi 3937 The time of their reign An. mundi 4014 24 Agrippa Herodis filius An. mundi 3937 The time of their reign An. mundi 4014 7 Agrippa rex Agrippae filius An. mundi 3937 The time of their reign An. mundi 4014 26 years As there is great variety in Historiographers and Chronographers in other matters, so is there no where more obscure difficulties to be found among them, then about the contents of this present chapter. The exact knowledge whereof is nevertheless so necessary, as without which, sundry places of the new testament, can never be rightly understood: which obscurity, together with the difficulty, shall (I hope) be manifest, by the observations annexed thereunto. The first observation. No governor amongst the jews, would after the captivity wear the diadem and be called King, until Aristobulus the son of Hircanus a virtuous priest did advance himself to royal dignity, and put the crown upon his head. But alas, Good parents have not ever godly children. godly children do not always succeed godly parents: For, not only Hircanus his father, but Simon also his grandfather, were very virtuous priests, governors of great fortitude, and zealous favourers of the common weal; yet was this Aristobulus a wicked and cruel man, he made no account of religion, he put his own mother and brethren in prison: and because he feared that his virtuous brother Antigonus would take the kingdom from him, he slew him suddenly, as Cain did his brother Abel. The second observation. Seleucus' surnamed Nicanor, the first king of Syria after the division of the Empire, began his reign (that is the kingdom of the Greeks',) in the 14. year from the death of Alexander, which was the second year of the 117. olympiad, and in the 3660. year of the age of the world. A. M. 3660. Hear beginneth the author of the first book of the Maccabees his supputation, calling the kingdom of Syria, the kingdom of the Greeks, which must be well remembered or else many things will remain both confuse and obscure. The Empire of king Alexander was divided (as is already said) into four parts, according to the prophesy of Daniel. Ptolomeus had Egypt, Antigonus Asia, Seleucus Syria, and Philippus Arideus had Macedonia and Grecia: Philippus or rather Ca●lander, see the beginning of the third chapter. which is the cause that Chronographers begin these kingdoms in the first year of the 114. olympiad, immediately after the death of Alexander. Yet the truth is, that Antigonus and Seleucus began not so soon to reign. For mortal wars amongst the governors, continued 12, or 13. years, and then they began to bear rule indeed, not before. The third observation. Hircanus had three sons, Aristobulus, Antigonus, and Alexander. Aristobulus would needs be called and crowned king, and slew his brother Antigonus, lest he should get the kingdom from him. Alexander had two sons, Hircanus and Aristobulus: this Aristob. was brother to Mariam, who was married to K. Herod; 30. years before Christ, the family of the jews was at an end. for which cause Herod about two years after the death of Antigonus his uncle, made him high priest: shortly after this Aristobulus was drowned, and so the family of the jews was at an end, about 30. years before Christ's incarnation. Herode the stranger was successor to this Aristobulus, in the kingdom and priesthood of the jews. Anno mun. 3937 In the third year of the 186. olympiad, and in the age of the world 3937. years, then in the 32. year of Herod was our Saviour borne. The fourth observation. Herod the great had many children, Aristobulus, Alexander, Antipater, Antipas, Philippus and Archelaus. Of which Aristobulus and Alexander were his children by his beloved wife Mariam: which Mariam he put to death, causing his children Alexander and Aristobulus to be strangled in Samaria. Archelaus, Herodes called Antipas, Antipater, and Philip yet lived, amongst whom the kingdom was divided. Herodes the Great designed his son Archelaus to be king, by his last will and testament: Archelaus non rex, sed dux. but the Emperor Augustus would not confirm Herodes will, and so he was not king at the first. yet Augustus was content that he should be Tetrarke, and upon hope of his good regiment, to be king afterward. This Archelaus (saith Rhegino) did reign in judea, when our Saviour was brought out of Egypt: for fear of which king, he returned into Nazareth a town in Galilee, Matth. 2.19. where he abode till his baptism. This was done in the seventh year of Christ, and in the 15. year of his birth. Archelaus being accused of treason before Augustus, was banished out of jewrie, & the kingdom was divided among his 4. brethren, Herod, Antipater, Lysanias, and Philip. Yet this Antipater (after Carrion) was slain long before. The first observation. Whether Antipater was slain (as writeth Carrion) or living still with Philip, and the rest, (as saith Eusebius) certain it is, that four only are mentioned in the holy scripture; to wit, Archelaus, who reigned in jury after Herod the great: Antipas, (whom S. Luke calleth Herod) who was Tetrarke of Galilee; Philip, who was Tetrarke of Iturea and Trachonitis; Luke 3.1. Matth. 2.19. & Lysanias, who was the Tetrark of Abilene, Pilate being then precedent in jewry: which Lysanias (after Eusebius) was one of the brethren, albeit other writers affirm no such thing. CHAP. III. Of the 2300. days. Daniel had a vision of great persecution, that should come unto the church: Dan. 8. v. 12, 13, etc. that the daily sacrifice should cease, and God's truth be trodden under foot. And that the sins of the jews, were the cause of such horrible afflictions. Yet for the solace of God's children (whom he never forsaketh finally) the time of the desolation is appointed and pronounced, in these obscure words: Unto the evening and morning, two thousand and three hundredth; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Sundry (as S. Hierome witnesseth) trouble themselves miserably, about the exposition of this place. Some for, 2300 read 2200, lest six years and three months abound. Other some understand the place of Antichrist, and that this shallbe really complete in him, which was spoken typically of Antiochus. And this childish imagination, do our late jesuits and other papists imitate: whose fantastical interpretation was confuted by S. Hierome before they were borne. The temple was profaned six years, three months, and an half. But the meaning is plain and easy; that is, until so many natural days be past, which in all make six years, three months and an half. For so long was the temple profaned, under the wicked king Antiochus. And that this is the true sense of the place, I prove by two reasons. First, because that (unto the morning and to the evening) cannot possibly be understood, of either years or months: and yet can the same be truly and simply verified, in so many natural days. Secondly, because the prophet of God doth expound the rest of the vision, even of the kings of Syria. And my reasons are confirmed by S. Hieromes testimony, Hier. in cap. 8. Daniel●●. whose express words are these, Vespere autem & manè, successionem diei noctísque significat. The evening and the morning doth signify, the succession of the day and the night. And in the very same place he proveth by josephus, and the books of the Maccabees, that the setting up of jupiters' Image in the Temple, and the time of the desolation wrought by Antiochus, is correspondent to the 2300. days. CHAP. FOUR Of the priests of the jews after the captivity, unto Alexander the Great. The names of the priests jesus Filius josedech Anno mun. 3427 the time that they lived Anno mun. 3645 72 years joachim Anno mun. 3427 the time that they lived Anno mun. 3645 30 Eliasib, alias Nechasib Anno mun. 3427 the time that they lived Anno mun. 3645 40 joiada Anno mun. 3427 the time that they lived Anno mun. 3645 24 jonathan, alias joannan Anno mun. 3427 the time that they lived Anno mun. 3645 52 jaddo, alias jaddua Anno mun. 3427 the time that they lived Anno mun. 3645 28 years jesus or jeshua was the high priest in the return, even as Zorobabel or Zerubbabel was the civil governor. Esd. 1. & 3. verse. ● divers think diversly, of this succession; but I deliver plainly, what I judge most probable. CHAP. V Of the priests of the jews, from king Alexander unto the Maccabees. The names of the priests Onias Priscus A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 25 years Simon Priscus A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 13 Eleazar A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 20 Manasses A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 27 years Simon junior A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 28 Onias junior A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 39 jason A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 3 years Menelaus A. M. 3643 the time that they lived A. M. 3805 7 years This Menelaus was a very wicked priest, whom Antiochus put to death at Berytus. Antiochus moreover inhibited Onias his son to succeed him, and appointed Alcimus aliâs jacimus the high priest: which Alcimus was of the race and pedigree of Aaron, but not of the same family. Onias therefore son to Menelaus went into Egypt, and insinuating himself into the amity of Ptolomee Philometor and Cleopa●ra his wife, persuaded them to build a temple in Heliopolis, like to that of Jerusalem, and to make him priest in the same place. joseph. antiq. lib. ●0. cap. 8. jacimus after he had been high priest three years, died; leaving no successor behind him, and so the city of Jerusalem, was seven whole years together without a priest. Afterward the government of the jews, was committed to the family of the Assamoneans, and then they rebelled against the Macedonians, and made jonathan the high priest. These points, and specially the case of jacimus or Alcimus, ought diligently to be marked, against the mangled and fond commended popish succession, whereof by the power of God, more shallbe said hereafter. From about this time until Herod the great, judas Machabeus and others of his race, had the government and priesthood among them. From Herode until Christ our redeemer, were years 32. plus minus. During which time, priests were not made of the line of the Assamoneans; neither could aaronical succession, be found any where at all: priesthood was bought with money, and the high priest was changed every year. josephus. lib. 20. antiquit. cap. 8. Which observation, if it be annexed to the case of Alcimus, will confound our papists utterly. So writ josephus and Eusebius. Yea josephus addeth, that from Herod until the city was burnt by Titus, there were 28. priests, who lived 107. years. CHAP. VI Of the variety of religion before the incarnation of Christ our Saviour. Epiphanius, in praefat. contr. haereses Barbarism, before the flood, from the time of Adam. Scythisme, after the flood, from the days of Noah. Grecisme, which began of the idolaters, and was divided into the sect of Pythagoreans Platonics Stoics Epicures judaisme, which was from the time of Abraham; it was divided into the Scribes pharisees Sadducees Hemerobaptists Osseans Nazareans Herodians Samaritisme, from the time of Nabuchodonozor, it was divided into the Gorthenes Sebneans Essenes'. Dositheans. At what time as the Church was miserably afflicted, with the tyranny of Antiochus; sects and divisions every where arose, and pure doctrine was trodden under foot. Before Christ these three were the principal; the sect of the pharisees, the sect of the Sadduces, and the sect of the Essenes'. The pharisees as some thinker, had their denomination according to the etymology of the word; that is, of separation, because they did separate themselves from the common sort of God's people, and lived after another manner. Yet others think more fitly, that they had the name of the interpretation of the holy scriptures, because they taught out of the chair of Moses, and declared the scriptures unto the people. So writ Reuchlinus and josephus: josephus de Bello. jud. lib. 2. ca 7. and the etymology of the name is consonant thereunto. For the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth as properly signify to expound, as to divide. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For which consideration (saith josephus) they are called pharisees, that profess the knowledge of the legal rites. The Sadducees were corrupt with the Philosophy of the Greeks', they had many things common with the Epicures, they denied the resurrection, they held that there were neither Angels nor spirits, they rejected the books of the prophets; and all this notwithstanding, they would be called Sadducees, that is, just men, as the word soundeth in the Hebrew tongue. The Essenes', that is workers, were even such and none other, than this day be our popish Monks and jesuits. For the Essenes' fled from the common people, they dealt not with secular affairs, they gave themselves to contemplation, they had all things in common, they would not marry, they had precise hours appointed for reading, and prayer, they lived in great abstinence, they dwelled in cells, and were clad in poor attire. These were the Essenes' saith josephus, who best knew the sects of his own time, josephus de bello. judaico lib. 2. Cap. 7. and of his dear countrymen, and who knoweth not our popish Dominicans, Franciscans, Scotsts, Thomists, and jesuits, to be the self same sectaries? They differ only in these six points; first they use not so strict abstinence, as I have proved in the first book, in the 17. chapter and eleventh section. For our jesuits will converse with the best, and eat of all meats that are the best; yea, they are so far consumed with severe abstenicie, that their great doctor Heywood, when he did sow sedition in this Realm, against his natural sovereign and native country, pronounced before a great assembly (after he had been reproved for not keeping the popish fasts) that he could dispense both with himself and others, to eat upon all days at their pleasures: which thing nevertheless the common people deluded with their doctrine, think verily to be the ready way to hell. Secondly, the Essenes' were distinguished from other people, by their usual precise kind of abstinence, where and with whom soever they did converse: but our jesuits are so far from that, that if you meet them in the common inn upon the friday at Dover, or other place of arrival on what day soever; yea, though it be good friday, they will eat flesh with you for company, Our jesuits can temporize. and so accommodate themselves to the time, as you may worthily deem them worldly politics, and not religious jesuits as they profess to be. Thirdly, the Essenes' were lovers of peace; but our jesuits are fosterers of rebellion; the Essenes' sought quietness, but our jesuits stir up sedition in every country. Fourthly, the Essenes' dealt faithfully with all men, but our jesuits deal unfaithfully and glory in the same. Their constant doctrine is, (mark well my words,) that one may say and swear clean contrary to his mind, so these three points concur. First, if the judge or magistrate before whom he sweareth, be not a competent judge or lawful magistrate; such a one is not in England by their opinion, the Papists only excepted. Secondly, if the matter be not an article of their faith. Thirdly, if they dissemble to redeem their vexation or trouble: and this kind of dealing is with them, a godly politic equivocation. The doctrine 〈◊〉 the jesuits, to dissemble with God and man. This rotten foundation once laid, they make many sandy buildings thereupon: for they will both say and swear to their neighbours, judges, and magistrates, here in England, that they have not said mass, been in such places, reconciled such persons, been in such company, and so forth, when for all that they have daily practised the same; yet they persuade themselves, that all this may lawfully be done. The like execrable and plain diabolical equivocation they use, when to avoid the danger imminent, they are content with their lips to acknowledge our most gracious sovereign for their Queen, but in their hearts think the flat contrary. Which thing is evident, by the detestable excommunication of their pope Pius, whereof I have spoken at large, in the preface of my Motives. For in that devilish curse proceeding fro the master devil himself, her most excellent M. is not called the true and lawful Queen, but the pretenced Queen of England; which their dissimulation, is the flat heresy of the Helchesits. Fiftly, the Essenes' taught to yield faithful service and obedience to all magistrates, specially to princes: but our jesuits stir up their Popes to sow sedition, and to make wars against Princes, to excommunicate them, and to dispossess them of their royal sceptres. Sixtly, the Essenes' professed humility as well in deed as in word: but our jesuits profess nothing less indeed, though they desire to be so reputed. This is to be proved many ways, for first, whereas every sect of their Religion, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Carthusians, the Carmelites, the Capuchenes, and the rest, hath some one cardinal for their protector; the late hatched jesuits being rumours to all the rest, cannot be content to submit themselves to any cardinal; for which their haughty minds, they are justly despised of them all. Again, for a show of humility, their professed fathers so termed, will have no possessions: yet they labour closely tooth and nail, to get large possessions to the Seminaries, to their penitentiaries, readers, students, and novices; of whom all, and their livings, they are to dispose at their pleasures. Thirdly, albeit cardinals be next to the pope, and above all, but the pope; and albeit also that our Allen was made cardinal by their procurement, that so he might advance them at the recovery of England, which they thought certain by their politic intended invasion; yet were, and are they so hie minded, that such jesuits, as they oddly send into this realm, must have greater privileges than any that he can procure, although there be never so great odds in the persons: yea, the jesuits do this day so rule in this realm among the papists, as they may rather seem Cardinals or Popes, then humble friars professing poverty. For they place and displace the rest of the Seminaries, at their good pleasures. They have their intelligencers, their spies, their collectors, their spare and fresh horses, 〈◊〉, our jesuits humble holy 〈◊〉. their fine lodgings, their secret places, their sanctuaries in every shire, good town, and city. They seize and tax the richer sort of papists, to whom, when, and how much they shall contribute. Of their cruel dealing and pride intolerable I have spoken more at large in my Motives. The names of the Kings that continually afflicted the jews. Antiochus Magnus Filius 2 Antiochus nobilis vol Epiphanes. Antiochus, filius Antiochi, Eupator. Alexander filius Eupatoris. Antiochus adolesceus Alexandri filius. Tryphon Filius 1 Seleue●s Philopator. Demetrius filius Sele●●s Demetrius secundus f●lius D●m●trii. Antiochus filius Demetrii Here endeth the first part; containing the state of God's Church, from Adam, until the monarchy of the Romans. THE SECOND PART Containing the state of the Church; from the beginning of the Monarchy of the Romans, until Christ's ascension. The first Book, of the Monarchy of the Romans, being the fourth in number. The first Chapter, of the original of the Roman Empire and fourth Monarchy. ALexander by testament assigned the administration of the kingdom of the jews, unto Queen Alexandra his wife. After whose death Aristobulus rose up in arms against his brother Hircanus, and dispossessed him aswell of the priesthood, as of the kingdom. Hircanus therefore (by the persuasion of Antipater father to Herod the great, a very factious and cruel man, whom king Alexander had highly advanced) fled into Arabia, there humbling himself to the king, who (through the fair speeches and large promises of Antipater) prepared a strong army, and by that means placed Hircanus again in his kingdom. But Areta king of Arabia was no sooner departed, than Aristobulus came upon Hircanus with a fresh might●e supply. At that time Pompeius that worthy and valiant captain, being then Consul of Rome, and having conquered Tigranes the king of Armenia, thought the cruel wars between the two brethren, to be a fit occasion to dispossess them both of the kingdom. He therefore came with a mighty power to Jerusalem, where he slew 1200 jews: restored the pristhood to Hircanus, carried away Aristobulus prisoner to Rome for a triumph, and made the jews subjects and tributaries to the Romans. This was done in the age of the world 3909. after Rome was built 691. years, A. M. 3909. in the third year of the 179. olympiad. Pompeius' surnamed the Great for his incomparable victories (for he subdued Armenia, Spain, Africa, Judea, Colchis, Albaina, Syria, Iberia, Arabia) did wonderfully enrich the Romans', bringing at one triumph into their common treasury 2000 talents of gold and silver. It is written of him that he excelled in martial prowess: he subdued the valiant captain Sertorius, and vanquished Mithridates the mighty king of Pontus. This Pompeius took to wife julia the daughter of julius Cesar, who lived not long: after her death, the amity between Pompey and Cesar decreased; and by reason of their insatiable ambition, civil war braced out, in which Cesar vanquished Pompey, and Pompey fleeing into Egypt, was there slain deceitfully. After whose death julius Cesar enjoyed Asia, Africa, and all the Roman empire, in the year of the world, three thousand, nine hundred, and four and twenty, which was five and forty years before the birth of Christ, 706. years after the city of Rome was built, in the second year of the 183. Olmypiade. Yet for the space of five years or more, he was grievously molested with wars, and could not quietly enjoy the Empire: he lived in peace little more than five months. julius Cesar was a very virtuous, valiant, and merciful Prince. When he came out of Egypt to Rome, he brought an excellent and skilful mathematician with him: he caused the years to be observed after the course of the sun, and procured the mathematical science to be taught throughout all Italy. After the death of julius Cesar, Octavius Augustus succeeded, and reigned as Emperor after him, and was surnamed Cesar. From henceforth all Emperors of Rome were called Caesar's, of julius Cesar, and Augusti, of Octavius Augustus, their two first Emperors. CHAP. II. Of the Emperor Nero. NEro was the sixth Emperor or Cesar of the Romans', in whom ended all the family of Augustus. In the beginning of his empire; he lived for some years honestly: afterward he became horribly vicious; he exceeded in all naughty dealing and tyranny, & yet had his education under the grave, reverend, and wise Seneca. Nero was adopted into the empire by Claudius, who married his mother Agrippina. He was so blodthirstie and cruel, that he caused his own mother, his wife, his brother, and his dear friend Seneca, to be murdered cruelly. In the days of Nero, a comet appeared for the space of six months; which was a rare and wonderful thing. Nero was the first Emperor of Rome, that by public edict caused the christians to be tormented: about the tenth year of his reign saint Peter and saint Paul were put to death at Rome. Saint Peter was crucified with his head downward; and saint Paul was beheaded with the sword. Nero, besides all other his wicked acts, burnt Rome, and in the fourteenth year of his reign (which was the two and thirtieth year of his age) he received condign punishment for his due deserts. He cut his own throat with his own knife, and uttered these most execrable words, Haec est fides. This is my faith and belief. CHAP. III. Of the ten persecutions of the christians, made by the ten Emperors of Rome. THe first persecution was made by Nero, as is already said, the second by Domitianus, the third by Traianus, the fourth by Antoninus, the fift by Severus, the sixth by Maximinus, the seventh by Decius, the eight by Valerianus, the ninth by Aurelianus, the tenth by Dioclesianus. The tenth and last persecution exceeded all the rest, as ecclesiastical histories make relation: the persecution was furthered by Maximianus, and continued by Maximinus; Maximianus in the east, and Dioclesianus in the west made such havoc of the church, as the christians could abide no where, without most bloody persecution: the temples were set on fire, the books of holy scripture were burnt, and many thousands slain within the space of 30. days. This persecution endured sundry years, to which the faithful souls seemed to allude in the Revelation; when they desire God the just judge, to avenge their innocent blood. Apoc. 6.10 Dioclesianus restored Egypt to the empire, and when he perceived his authority to be weakened by reason of tumults and dissentious; he sought to strengthen himself by joining Maximianus unto him, whom he made equal to himself in imperial regiment. These two Dioclesianus and Maximianus being now equal in authority, were called Augusti: they both afterward gave over the administration of the empire, and betook themselves to the quiet state of a private life: Dioclesianus chose Galerius to supply his place, and Maximianus appointed Constantius in his stead. Galerius and Constantius were not equal in power and authority, but as viceroys and substitutes; and therefore they were not called Augusti, but only Caesar's. Maximianus would afterward have returned to the administration of the empire, to the end that he might have advanced his son Maxentius to the imperial regiment; for which cause Constantius his son in law caused him to be slain. Dioclesianus having lived many years as a private man, at length slew himself; so to avoid the displeasure of Constantius and Licinius, to whom he was suspected to take part with Maxentius their enemy. Constantinus surnamed the Great, succeeded his father Constantius, when he had reigned four years after the death of Dioclesianus. This Constantinus was the first christian Emperor, a zealous favourer of Christ's gospel, and the only patron of Christianity. CHAP. FOUR Of the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Titus the son of Vespasianus the Emperor of Rome, was a man of such valour, prudence, and humanity, & so beautified with all kind of heroical virtues, that he was commonly named in the mouth of every man, Amor & delitiae humani generis, the only delight of mankind. In the second year of Vespasianus, in the month of April, when the jews did celebrate their Passeover, (at which time great concourse of people was assembled from every coast,) he besieged the city of Jerusalem, and the eight day of September, he conquered the same by force and assault. Although the city of Jerusalem, josephus de bello. jud lib. 7.6, 18 was five times taken and destroyed before, by Nabuchodonozor▪ Asocheus, Antiochus, Pompeius, and Herodes; yet was there in the siege made by Titus, such famine, sedition, and domestical desolation, as the like hath not been known in any city. The mothers murdered their own natural children, and that done, boiled them, so to saturate their insatiable hunger. This seemeth incredible, but holy writ reporteth no less, as I have proved in the first book, and the eight chapter of the former part. The wives snatched meat out of the mouths of their husbands, the children from their parents, and the mothers plucked it out of the mouths of their infants. When they killed their children, and one another for want of food; they could not do the fact so secretly, but it was espied, & taken from them by others of greater force: for so soon as their doors were shut, others suspecting that they were eating meat, came violently upon them, and took from them the meat already chewed in their mouth. Yea it is incredible to be told (saith josephus) what tortures and afflictions many suffered, joseph. ubi sup. ca 11. to enforce them to disclose, where they had hid but one loaf of bread. josephus being a jew himself, and greatly favouring his country men, (being taken prisoner of the Romans' long before, and at that time in great credit both with Titus and Vespasianus his father,) laboured by all means possible to persuade the jews, that they well considering their own distress and the mighty force of the adverse part, would in time while there remained place for mercy, yield themselves to Titus, and give up their city into his hands. But in vain was his oration; he had not eloquence to persuade them. From king David to the siege made by Titus, were 1179 years, & from the building of the city to the destruction thereof, 2177. years. Yet such was the deformity of their sins, and their ingratitude in God's sight; as neither the antiquity of their City, neither their wondered riches, neither their renown throughout the world, nor the glory of their religion, was able to defend it from utter desolation. A noble woman, Marry by name, daughter to Eleazar, dwelling beyond jordan, and flying to Jerusalem for aid, was there besieged with others. An horrible fact, and ugly to behold. In the time of the great famine, she killed her own son; and when she had eaten part, she reserved the rest. Others perceiving that she had gotten some meat, did menace death unto her, unless she would tell where it was hid. Which she doing for fear, they were all astonished at the sight thereof. It is my son (saith the woman) eat thereof, for I have eaten before you. I would neither have you more effeminate than a woman, nor more pitiful than a mother. O horrible monster of the world! What can be more unnatural, than the fact? What more cruel, than the words? Over and beside those that were slain in the famine, plague, and the sword; sixteen thousand were sent by Titus to Alexandria, there to do servile works, as bondmen. Two thousand he carried with him for a triumph, whom in public spectacles he proposed to be devoured of wild beasts. CHAP. V Of Constantinus surnamed the Great. COnstantinus for his piety and heroical virtues, surnamed the Great, was the first Cesar that professed Christ and christianity. He was a right christian in deed; as who for a manifest sign of his true zeal in religion, had the gospel of Christ jesus carried publicly before him. He commanded the holy Bibles to be copied out of his own private charges, and to be sent into all parts of Christendom. He called together the learned men, from all parts of the world, to consult and give their opinions, concerning controversies in religion. During which time of disputation, as also for their journeys to and fro, he granted them free allowance, of all necessary provision. He withstood the tyranny of Maxentius, and restored peace unto the Church. He builded the city of Constantinople, terming it by his own name; where was before a goodly mart town, Sozom. lib. ●. c. ●. then called Byzantium. Thither was the empire translated, and the city called new Rome. For he environed it with large walls, and added magnifical building thereunto. The observation. The papists here babbling after their wonted manner, tell us a tale of Robin hood and little john: that forsooth Constantine was baptised in Rome of Silvester, that the very font in which he was christened, is this day to be seen there, and many other fabulous illations grounded thereupon. To which I answer first, with their own dear friar and learned schoolman Victoria; Victor. in relect. 1. de potest. eccles. that such doctrine was first invented by their flattering and beggarly canonists. I say secondly, that their own canon law in the 96. distinction, termeth this kind of doctrine, Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus. false, counterfeit, and not worthy of any credit. For the very inscription itself, avoucheth roundly and boldly, that that which followeth, is but chaff. Out of which words I note first, that the pope hath a long time seduced the world, with fabulous vanities in printed books. I note secondly, that the foundations upon which all popery is built, is nothing else but chaff. For to these foundations, set down in the 96. distinction of their own decrees (I do not bely them, read the place who listeth, and he shall find it to be true) the popish Canonists make this plain inscription, (Palea, Chaff:) as if they should say; Gentle reader, be no longer seduced with such doctrine; for that which followeth, is but chaff. If any living can yield a fit exposition, I desire to know his skill. I note thirdly, that since the papists are enforced by the spirit of God, to acknowledge the counterfeit grounds of the very principal articles in their religion published to the view of the world in their own decrees and canon law; every discreet and wise reader may easily perceive, what credit ought to be given to their popish written vanities, Decretal epistles, Edicts, Canons, extravagantes, & the like; wherewith they have these many years, Popery hath long bewitched us. bewitched and dazzled the eyes of many men. I answer thirdly, that although they would have us to believe as an article of our Creed, that Constantine was baptised at Rome by Silvester. whereupon they ground many absurd consequentes; yet do most holy, learned, and ancient writers, (S. Hierome, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoritus, Sozomenus, Pomponius, and Cassiodorus,) affirm the same to be a fable, and that Constantine was christened at Nicomedia. CHAP. VI Of the wars between Constantine and Maxentius. The most religious Emperor Constantinus, preparing for wars against Maxentius, who had thirsted the blood of christians, and fearing greatly the danger of the battle imminent, did often lift up his eyes towards heaven, and humbly requested help at God's hands. Being at that time a great favourer of christian religion, and a zealous worshipper of the everliving God, (albeit he had not as yet received the sign of Christ's passion) he saw in the firmament the evident sign of the cross; which so glisteren with fiery brightness, as he was astonished at the sight thereof. While he was doubting with himself, he beheld the angels of God standing by him, and saying thus unto him. Constantine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. O Constantine, in this sign get thou the victory. Constantine being joyful with this usion, and assuring himself of the victory against Maxentius; made in his own forehead the sign of the cross; which before he had seen in the firmament. So writ Eusebius Caesariensis, Socrates, Sozomenus, Cassiodorus, and many others of approved antiquity. Whereupon the papists would infer, that it is lawful to make images, to set them up in churches, and to adore the same religiously. For perspicuous confutation whereof, with a manifest declaration of the state of the controversy (because it is maliciously defended by some, unsoundly impugned by others, of others not thoroughly understood,) I purpose to set down these few conclusions. The first conclusion. The sign of the cross appeared to the Emperor Constantine in the firmament, at what time as he was afraid to join battle with Maxentius. Euseb. de vit. Constan. lib. c. 22 This conclusion is granted and approved, by the uniform consent of all learned writers. Constantinus himself (as Eusebius reporteth) affirmed the same to Eusebius, & confirmed the verity thereof with an oath: & not only Eusebius, but all the world for many hundredth years, gave credit thereunto. Hereupon Constantinus and other christian kings generally, used the sign of the cross upon the garments of their soldiers; so often as they had wars with Infidels, and such as were enemies to the name of Christ jesus. For then there was great cause so to do, as since just occasion hath been given to take the same away; which thing hereafter by God's assistance more planly shall appear. The second conclusion. Simply and absolutely to make images for civil use, is not prohibited by the word of God. This conclusion is to be proved, three special ways: By the authority of holy writ, by the testimony of learned writers, and by the general practice of christian kings. Touching the first, God himself endued Bezaleel with the spirit of wisdom, Exod. 35. ●. 30 understanding, and knowledge, that he might work curiously in gold, silver, & brass, in graving stones, and in carving wood, and in all manner of fine work. In the temple of Solomon, were graven Lilies, Pomegranates, Cherubins, Lions, and Palm trees. God commanded Moses to make two Cherubins above the mercy seat. ●. Reg. 7. Exod. 25. v. 22. Num. 21. ver. 8. He also commanded to make a fiery or brazen Serpent, and to set it up for a sign. Touching the second, S. Basill is so far from condemning the civil use of images, that he hath commended the making, and the utility thereof. These are his express words; Nam magnifica in bellis gesta, Basilius in quadrag. martyrs. to. ●. p. 397. & oratores saepenumero, & pictores pulcherrime demonstrant. Hi oratione, illi tabulis describentes atque ornantes, amboque plures ad fortitudinem imitandam inducentes. Quae enim sermo historiae per inductionem praebet, eadem & pictura tacens per imitationem ostendit. For not only Orators oftentimes, but even painters also do finely portray, worthy martial exploits: the one sort, by their fine orations; the other, by their fitly portrayed tables; both persuading many, to the imitation of fortitude. For whatsoever the history doth perform by persuasion, the same doth the silent picture declare by imitation. In which words it is clear, that S. Basill approveth the civil and historical use of images. Eusebius Caesariensis maketh mention of the images of our Saviour, of Peter, and Paul, which were not only in his time, but long before his days. The historical use whereof, he neither reproveth nor condemneth. S. Ambrose, Gregorius Magnus, Eusebius hist. eccles. libr. 7. c. 1●. and many ancient fathers hold constantly the same opinion. Touching the third, Constantinus the first Christian Emperor surnamed the Great, caused after his coversion, Euseb. de vit. Const. lib. 4. his own image to be engraven in his coin: whose example therein, all christian kings at all times in all ages, have de facto, approved to be good. For all kings no one or other excepted, have their inscriptions and images upon their gold and money; neither were they at any time in any age, reproved by any learned writer for the same. Yea, Math. 22. Mark. 12. Luke 20. our Saviour Christ himself seemeth to approve the same, when he requiring to know whose inscription the money had; charged to give to Cesar, that which was his own. In fine, the reformed churches in Germany, this day allow thereof; and the church of England approveth the making of the sign of the cross, in the forehead of baptised infants. The third conclusion. To worship and adore images religiously, is superstitious and idolatricall. This conclusion is proved, by the express commandment of God. For in Exodus it is written thus: Exod. 20. v. 4▪ Thou shalt not make any graven image, thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them. And in Matthew; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Math. 4. v 10 and him only thou shalt serve. For which cause, S. john could not be permitted to adore the Angel, but was bidden to worship God. Apoc. 19 v. 10. For which cause Moses cast the Tables out of his hands, broke them in pieces beneath the mountain, burned the calf in the fire, Exod. 32. v 20. and grounded it unto powder. For which cause the holy ghost commendeth Ezechias, for breaking in pieces the brazen serpent. 2. Kin. 18. ver. 4 For which cause Marcellina was condemned as an heretic, who worshipped (as S. Augustine recordeth) the Images of jesus, of Paul, of Homer, of Pythagoras. Aug. de haeres. haer. 7. For which cause S. Epiphanius seeing the image of a saint hanging in the Church, tore the same in sunder, Epiphan. in epist. ad Io. Hier. haer. 79. and advised the wardens to bury some poor body with the vail, and that no more any such veils should be hanged up in the Church. Yea, the same Epiphanius will not have the blessed virgin Mary to be adored; much less her image. And if her image must be excluded, what image I pray you, council. Elibert. can. 36. can be approved? for which cause, the council of Elibertine decreed gravely, that nothing should be painted on the church walls, which is adored of the people. For which cause Lactantius pronounced freely, Lactant. libr. 2 cap. 19 that where images are, there is no religion. Neither will it help the papists to answer after their wonted manner; that Lactantius speaketh of such images as are adored for gods. For Lactantius maketh the self same objection, in the person of the Gentiles; and inveigheth against it bitterly, as a vain, frivolous, and ridiculous thing. And because I will proceed sincerely in this point, as in all other matters; I think it convenient here to allege his express words, Lactant. lib. 2. de origine erroris cap. 2. which are these; Non ipsa, inquiunt, timemus, sed eos ad quorum imaginem ficta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt; nempe ideo timetis, quod eos in caelo esse arbitramini, neque enim si dij sunt, aliter fieri potest: curigitur oculos in caelum non tollitis? ●●ur ad parietes, & ligna, & lapides potissimum, quam illò spectatis, ubi eos esse creditis. We fear not, say they, the pictures or pourtraies, but them after whose images they be made, & to whose names they are consecrated. Doubtless ye therefore fear them, because ye think they are in heaven. For if they be gods, it cannot otherwise come to pass. Why therefore do ye not lift up your eyes to heaven? why do ye rather look upon the walls, upon stocks and ston●s, then thither, where ye think they are? In which words I note first, that the Gentiles did not adore the images, but the persons represented by the same (for of fearing and adoring Lactan. speaketh indifferently, throughout the whole chapter) & yet are they sharply reproved for their fact. I note secondly, that we must not adhere and fix our minds upon stocks, stones, and the images of saints, but lift up our hearts to heaven, where the saints now are. Worthily therefore do we condemn the Papists; who do not only make images, but also adore the same; and that with the self same worship, which is due and proper to God alone: for so much avoucheth their own dear doctor and canonised saint Aquinas, Aquin. pa. 3. q. 25. ar. 2. and 3. of the image of our Saviour Christ. For which respect Gregory surnamed the Great (who himself was a bishop of Rome) sharply reproved the adoration & worship of images, Gregor. ad Seren. epist. libr. 9 cap. 9 albeit he admitted & well liked the civil use thereof The second Book, of Christ's birth, baptism, preaching, passion, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven; with other things coincident. CHAP. I. Of Christ's birth. ABout the time that Elias the Cabbalist foretold, in the age of the world 3969. the eight calends of january, in the third year of the 194. olympiad, the 32. year of king Herode, and the 42. year of Augustus Cesar, was our Lord and Saviour Christ jesus borne into this world. For albeit the 4000 years were not complete & fully ended, yet was his prediction true (as some report it) because he added, that God would shorten the time for his elect. Our Lord and Saviour was conceived by the holy-ghost, Philip. 2. vers. 7. 1. Pet. 2. vers. 2●. taking flesh, blood, & bone of the blessed virgin Mary, made like unto us in all things (sin only excepted) true man and true God, having two perfect natures subsisting in one divine person; by reason of which hypostatical union, his holy mother was truly called deipara and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well the mother of God as of man. Christ assuming the perfect nature of man, lost no part of his nature divine, and consequently he must have two wills, divine and human, of God and of man. Christ assuming the perfect nature of man, must needs have every thing pertaining to the perfection thereof, among which the sensitive appetite is one, which we call sensuality, yet in Christ jesus there was no motion of sensuality, which was not ordered by reason, and wholly obedient to the same. For the sensitive appetite to be moved according to the course of it own nature, was nothing repugnant to the divine and reasonable human will of Christ. The blessed virgin being 14 years of age, conceived Christ her son by the power of the holy ghost the 25. day of March. He was before all worlds, and by him all things were made; Luc. 1.31. yet was he incarnate in the end of the world, borne after a new and miraculous manner of the virgin Marie, Matth. 1.18. who was Saint joseph's lawful wife. Christ the son of the everliving God, took upon him the form of a servant, was poorly borne in a stall, and made himself of no reputation; Philip. 2.7. and all this he did for the love of man, to teach man humility, and to abase himself as Christ his Lord and master gave him ensample. Luc. ●. 1, 2. In those days Cyrenius being governor of Syria, Augustus Cesar sent out an edict, to tax all that were subject to the Roman empire. Then joseph being of the house and lineage of David, went up from Galilee to be taxed in Bethlehem with Mary his wife, being then big with child, where she brought forth Christ, and wrapping him in swaddling clothes, laid him in a cratch, because there was no room for them in the Inn. So soon as Christ was borne, the angels of God nothing regarding the pride of mighty men, declared to the poor shepherds the godhead and office of the child lying in the crib; how that he was borne to be the saviour of the world. Luc. 2.9, 16, 17 After the departure of the angels, the shepherds went to Bethlehem, where they found Marie, joseph, and the sweet babe lying in the crib: at their return they published abroad, that which was told them of that child. CHAP. II. Of the infancy of our Saviour Christ. Luc. 2.21. WHen Christ jesus was but eight days old, he was circumcised, even then beginning to spend his blood for the love of man: for albeit he was the head of the church, yet was he subject to the law, to deliver man from the curse of the law. Epiphan. haer. 51 The 13. day after Christ's nativity, certain wise men came a long journey out of the East, to adore the Saviour of the world. And albeit Epiphanius affirmeth constantly that this coming was the second year after Christ's birth; yet S. Hierome, S. Augustine, and other learned writers receive the former opinion as most authentical: and they have great reason so to do, because the scripture seemeth to say no less. For first, the wisemen or astronomers are said to come, when Christ was borne. Which phrase can not be fitly verified, but of a thing present or lately done. Again, the wisemen found the babe in Bethlehem, and consequently they came before the day of the purification: for after that time, Christ is not known to have been in Bethlehem. The Papists claim the wisemen's bodies in divers places. And though the papists hold by a vain tradition, that these wise men were three kings of Cullen, Gaspar, Melchi●r, and Balthasar, yet is it neither certain, that they were kings, neither yet that they were no more but three. And their own reason thereof is very frivolous, because their bodies are challenged, to be as well at Milan as at Colen. But here I must answer to some objections, which seem to fortify Epiphanius his opinion. The first doubt. The parents of Christ were so poor at the day of purification, Levit. 12.6, ●. that they were not able to offer a lamb according to the law for rich men, Luc. 2. ●4. but were enforced to offer a pair of Turtle doves, or two young pigeons: and therefore doubtless they had not received the rich treasures, which the wise men brought to Christ. I answer, that the blessed and humble virgin, as she was free from all pride and ostentation, so was she not willing to change her poor state and condition, which she knew well pleased her son the son of God. The second doubt. King Herod slew all the male children in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from 2. years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently learned of the wisemen. Among the rest, he slew his own son, as writeth Macrobius, who therefore wished rather to be Herodes hog, than his child: which certes he would never have done, if there had been but 13. days between the apparition of the star, and the coming of the wisemen. I answer (which is the opinion of saint Austen, and saint Chrysostome) that the star appeared so long before the nativity of Christ, as was sufficient for the wise men to dispatch their journey, and to adore Christ shortly after he was borne. Neither is it of force to object (as some do) that the wise men could not come so far in so short a space: for first, whether these wise men were of the posterity of Balaam, and so came from Mesopotamia, as saint Chrysostome, saint Jerome, Amb. in Luc. and saint Ambrose think; or they came out of Arabia, which is the constant position of justinus; justin. in tryph. or they were Persians or Chaldeans, which the very name seemeth to prognosticate; Num. 23. vers. 7. yet might they have dispatched their journey, in less than ten days. For Jerusalem is distant from Aram (from whence Balak brought Balaam,) but 72. miles, from Vr of the Chaldees 212. miles. Again, the star appeared long before Christ's birth, so that they might be there in time convenient. Thirdly, in those countries they have plenty of dromedaries, A dromedaries journey. one of which will carry a man (as writeth Philostratur) 1000 furlongs in one day, that is, 125. English miles, CHAP. III. Of the perfect age of Christ. Jesus Christ when he was 30. years of age, left Galilee, and came to the flood jordan, Math. 3. verse. 13. where he was baptised of saint john his precursor. By which act, he sanctified our baptism in himself: the outward sign whereof putteth us in mind, that we must change our lives, and become better; assuring us as by a seal, Rom. 6. verse. 3, 4. that we are engraffed into Christ; whereby our old man dieth, and the new man riseth up again. So soon as Christ was baptised, a voice came down from heaven saying; Math. 3. verse. 17. This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. Math. 4. verse. 1. This done, he was tempted in the wilderness of the devil. Christ having fasted 40. days, Math. 4. ver. 2, 14, 15, 16. and being tempted of the devil, returned by the power of God into Galilee; & after that a great fame was spread abroad of him in all the region, he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and as his custom was, went into the synagogue on the sabbaoth day, to expound the scriptures Christ the third day after he came to Cana a town in Galilee, was present at a marriage, where he made water wine, the first miracle that ever he wrought. john. 2. verse. 1, 9 After Christ was baptized, he began to preach the Gospel, being 30. years of age, as is already said. Which holy exercise, he practised almost three years before his passion: his preaching was in the year of jubilee, because he preached the glad tidings of the gospel, the remission of sins, the salvation of his people. CHAP. FOUR Of Christ's death and passion. CHrist called twelve unto him, whom he named Apostles, and sent them into the whole world, to preach the gospel to all nations; that so they might be witnesses of his doctrine confirmed with many myrracles. Which doctrine being accomplished, he offered up himself an unspotted sacrifice upon the altar of the cross, for the expiation of the sins of the world. And this he did the 18. year of Tiberius Cesar, Tertull. adversu judaeos. p. 134. in the eight Calends of April, if we follow Tertullians' supputation against the jews. Christ's passion began not only in his taking and delivery unto death, but even from the very instant of his conception, and continued until he yielded up the ghost. For as Ludolphus writes learnedly, when Christ, as God foresaw in his divine wisdom, the cruel and bitter torments, which he was to suffer infallibly, he could not but naturally sorrow for the same: as which were throughout all his body, throughout all the members of his body, and throughout all the inferior powers of his soul. He suffered in all his time, in all his body, in all his works. In time of his infancy, baseness of his mother's womb, poverty, asperity, vility in the manger, persecution of the adversary, flight into Egypt. In time of his adolescency, frequent disputations, painful peregrinations, loathsome precipitations, In his iwenile age, most bitter & cruel death: for in his whole body, he sustained pains intolerable; in his eyes the effusion of tender tears, in his delicate ears, the hearing of contumelies and execrable blasphemies; in his eyelids the pangs of buffeting; in his nostrils the stinch of ugly spitting; in his sweet mouth, the bitterness of vinegar and gall, in his hands the prints of the nails, whipping and oft scourging, throughout his blessed body. What he sustained in his works, cannot easily be expressed by the tongue of man. For they reviled his divine preaching, his most sacred conversation, his miraculous operation. He was led as a lamb to be slaughtered, and as a thief to be hanged; yet neither did he show any impatience, nor sought any revenge, albeit he could have caused a legion of Angels, to have attended him at his only word: he was bound as a thief, accused as a thief, condemned as a thief, he was crowned with a crown of thorns among thieves, as if he had been the master thief of all thieves; the judge was judged, the King was derided, the Lord of all lords was turmoiled. And yet behold the wisdom of our heavenly Solomon; for as Adam trespassed on Friday, so did he suffer on Friday, as man's salvation seemed to require. Where we have to consider his patience, who was led as a lamb to be slain, his humility, who was condemned with thieves; his charity, who died for his enemies, his poverty, who was borne in a manger, and this done, we may worthily exclaim; O captain where is thine ensign? O prince, where is thy palace? O bishop, where is thy my●er? O king, where is thy diadem? After the consideration hereof, we must acknowledge, that jesus Christ our sweet redeemer, suffered all these pangs, tortures, torments, and villainies, for the sins and love of man, and therefore that man's part and duty is to abhor, detest, and eschew sin, and that for his sake and love, who hath first so tenderly beloved us. CHAP. V Of the hour of Christ's death, and the circumstances of the same. CHrist was led out of the walls of the earthly jerusalem, into Golgotha, a foul place of dead men's carcases, so to declare uncleanness indeed, not of himself who was most holy, most pure, most innocent, but of us most wretched sinners, whose sins he willingly took upon him, to the end that we by faith in him, being made clean through his blood and passion, might be brought into the heavenly jerusalem, the joy of all joys, the kingdom of heaven. Christ suffered his bitter and healthful passion, without the walls of the city, a little before the sixth hour, and gave up his blessed ghost at the ninth hour: Heb. 13. verse. 12 Mat. 27. verse. 50 Mark. 15 verse. 25. joh. 19 ver. 14. so as he was about three hours, in most cruel torments upon the cross. In which time from the sixth hour to the ninth, darkness arose over all the land. Whereby we may sensibly perceive, how angry God was against our sins, which he so severely punished in his only son. For even at the feast of the Passeover and in the full Moon, when the sun shined over all the rest of the world, and at midday, that corner of the world, wherein so wicked an act was committed, was covered with extreme darkness three hours together. Christ hanged naked upon the cross, and was villainously reproved, as if he had been the most wicked caitiff that ever was in the world, to the end, that we being clothed with his righteousness, and blessed with his curses, and sanctified by his only oblation, may be cleansed from our sins and exalted up to heaven. But here it is expedent, that I answer to an important doubt. The doubt. Saint john saith, that Christ suffered about the sixth hour, but Saint Mark affirmeth expressly, john. 19 verse. 14 Mar. 15. verse. 25. that he was crucified the third hour. The answer. For the exact explication of this grave objection, we must diligently observe three things. First, that the jews divided as well the night as the day, into four equal parts. Secondly, that they termed the four parts of the night, vigils, and the four parts of the day, hours. Thirdly, that the names of the four hours were these, the first, the third, the sixth, and the ninth, so that all the morning to nine of the clock with us, was called the first hour with them: from nine to twelve, the third hour; from twelve to three the sixth hour; Partition of the day and night. from three to night, the ninth hour. I therefore answer to the objection, that S. john and saint Mark do well agree; neither is the one dissonant to the other: for when S. Mark saith, that Christ was crucified the third hour, he meaneth in the end thereof, which was about noon, or almost the sixth hour, as S. john declareth it: for every one of their hours contained three of our hours as is already said. And every day with them, both began and ended at six of the clock with us. Where I note by the way, that these hours are sometimes dilated, & made four three, Mat. 20. verse. 1 etc. like to our hours; for so we read in S. Matthew, at the hiring of the labourers into the vineyard. But howsoever the supputation was made, the midday ever jumped with the sixth hour, either in the end or in the beginning thereof. Which observations an● distinction well remembered, many obscure places in the scriptures will be evident. CHAP. VI Of Christ's resurrection, and the adjuncts thereof. AT such time as Christ the son of the everliving God suffered his passion, wonderful and strange sights happened. The Sun was darkened, the Moon being in the full gave no light, (a thing so repugnant to nature, that Dionysius Areopagita pronounced boldly (though then an Ethnic) that either the son of God was tormented, Mar. 15. ver. 33. or else the world would be dissolved;) the vail of the Temple was rend in twain, earthquakes were seen, the rocks were cloven asunder, Math. 27. vers. 51 the graves were opened, and such as slept, arose with Christ to life again. Christ after his resurrection appeared sundry times; first, to Marry Magdalen, when she tarried still at the sepulchre, to see Christ after his disciples were gone away to their own home. ●ohn. 20. ve. 10 11. Christ appeared the second time the self same day to two of his disciples, li●. 24 verse 10, 13, 15, 17. as they went to a town called Emaus, which was distant from jerusalem about three score furlongs. The cause of the second apparition was this; because the said disciples would not believe that which Mary Magdalen, and joanna, and Mary the mother of james, and other women, told them of Christ's resurrection. Christ appeared the third time to all the Disciples, (Thomas only excepted, john. 20. ver. 1●. who was then absent) which apparition was done the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut, where the Disciples were assembled for fear of the jews, and then jesus stood in the mids of them and bestowed his peace upon them. Christ after eight days appeared the fourth time to his disciples, john. 10. v. 26, 27 coming into the midst of them even when the doors were shut, and bidding Thomas to see his hands, and to put forth his hand into his side, and to be no longer incredulous, but faithful. Christ appeared the fift time to his Disciples, at the sea of Tiberias, where they were fishing, at whose word they casting out their net, Math. 28. v. 16, 17 were not able to draw it at all for the multitude of fishes. By these and other his apparitions, he made his resurrection manifest unto the world. Sixtly, he appeared to the eleven Disciples in the mount of Galilee. john. 21. ver. 1.9 But from hence arise doubts very worthy the examination. The first doubt. Christ saith in john, that he appeared but thrice after his resurrection. To this I answer, john. 21. verse. 14. non sunt verba Christi sed evangelist. that the ternary number doth not determine the apparitions in themselves, but the diversity of days and times in which they were made, for all apparitions made in one & the same day are reputed & named one The second doubt. It is said in these apparitions, that Christ came into the mids of his Disciples and stood among them, joh. 20. verse. 26. even when they were within the house, & the doors closely shut. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that Christ's body may be both in heaven, and in the sacrament at one and the same time, for it no more repugneth, for one body to be in divers places at once, then for divers bodies to be in one place at once. Which latter is here verified, of Christ's body and the door or walls of the house. The answer. I answer, that God cannot by his absolute power, make Christ's body to be in divers places at once: not because there is any defect in God, who is omnipotent; but because contradiction is implied in the thing which should be done. Which point I have proved evidently, in the 12. preamble of my Book of Motives. For the reasons there alleged are effectual, if they be applied to this purpose. In like manner I say, that two bodies cannot be in one place at once; because to have parts without parts and to occupy place, is of the formal and intrinsical conceit of every organical and quantitative body, such as Christ's true body is. Whereupon S. Augustine said truly and learnedly, August. ad Dardanum. Epist. 57 that if occupation or spaces of places be taken away from bodies, they shall lose their essence, and be no bodies at all. So then, the entrance of Christ into the house when the doors were shut, and also his coming out of the sepulchre, when the stone was unrolled away; neither doth nor can prove, that two bodies were in one place at once, but that the door and the stone gave place for the time to Christ's mighty power; like as the red Sea gave place to the Israelites, and they passed through the midst thereof. And as S. Peter's chains gave place to his hands; Exod. 14. ver. 21. Psal. 136. ver. 13. and 14. Act. 12. v. 7.10. and as the Iron gate opened to him of it own accord. Furthermore, if Christ's body can be in ten thousand places at once, as the papists impudently avouch; it must also follow, that it may be in infinite places at once, which is the heresy of the Ubiquitaries. For after this manner did S. Hierome reason against john the Bishop of Jerusalem, when he laboured to prove that our bodies may live without meat after the resurrection. Hier. ad Pammach. to. 5. p. 80 If a man may live forty days without meat, saith S. Hierome, as Moses and Elias did by the power of God; then doubtless may he live eternally, by the same power of God. In fine, this verity is made evident, by that argument, which Gods angel made to Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary coming to see the sepulchre. And because the argument is of force to confound all papists in the world, if it be well urged; I will allege the argument as it is in the original, and then make effectual application thereof. Math. 21. v. 1.6. These are the express words of the holy Evangelist Saint Matthew: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Where I observe first, the assertion simply in itself. Secondly, the cause and reason of the same assertion. The assertion is this; Christ is not in the sepulchre: the reason hereof is this; because Christ is risen. Now then, since Christ cannot be in the Sepulchre because he is risen; it followeth of necessity, that either the angel of God inspired with God's holy spirit, made a very foolish and frivolous argument, (which to affirm, is void of all christianity) or else, A flat demonstration against popery. that Christ's body cannot be in two places at once; which is that, that I intent to prove. For if it were not as I say, the women might have replied effectually against the angel thus; albeit Christ be risen as you say: yet may he be in the sepulchre also; because his body may be in two places at once: but the angel reputing it a thing clear and evident, that Christ's body could not be in two places at one & the self same time, concluded directly and forcibly as he thought, Christ's absence in the sepulchre, because he was risen again. See the 3. part, 10. chapter, 4. conclusion, and 3. paragraphe. CHAP. VII. Of Christ's ascension and being in heaven. CHrist having presented himself by many infallible tokens, after that he had suffered his passion, conversing visibly with his disciples by the space of forty days (in which time he spoke of th●nges pertaining to the kingdom of God, & told them that they should be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Act. 1. ver. 1.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & de inceps. & all judea, & in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth) he commanded them that they should not departed from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the father; which things when he had spoken, he was taken up in a cloud out of their sight. While they looked steadfastly toward heaven, two men stood by them in white apparel, & said to them; ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing into heaven? this jesus which is taken up fro you into heaven, shall so come as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then the disciples returned to Jerusalem from the mount Olivet which is near to Jerusalem, being from it a sabbaths days journey, which is about 2000 paces or two English miles. While the Apostles (whose names are Peter, james the son of Zebedeus, Act. 1. v. 13.14 john, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, james the son of Alpheus, Simon Zelotes, and judas Thaddeus,) expected the coming down of the holy ghost at Jerusalem; there abode with them certain women, and Mary the mother of jesus, and his brethren (that is his kinsfolks.) For it was as well behooveable, to have the wives confirmed, as the husbands; because they were afterward, to be partakers of the dangers with them. All which prayed with one accord, not only for the sending of the holy ghost, but also for deliverance from present dangers, wherewith they were beset. Act. 3. v. 21. Christ ascended up into heaven, must there remain until his second advent, the day of doom general. And so he neither is, nor can be, in the round cake, as papists impudently contend. After Christ's ascension and coming of the holy Ghost, his apostles went abroad preaching the gospel to all nations: whose limits, acts, and death, the next chapter in particular manner shall describe. CHAP. VIII. Of the several precincts, lives, and deaths of the Apostles, taken out of Epiphanius, Tertullian, Optatus, Eusebius, Oecumenius, Nicephorus, and others. Of Peter, and Philip. S. Peter after that he had preached the gospel of jesus Christ, A. D. 44 in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bithyma, & Italy, was crucified at Rome with his had downward under the emperor Nero, and buried there the third kalends of julie. S. Paul the chosen vessel of God omnipotent, and the immovable pillar of his church, was beheaded the same year, & the same day at Rome: and S. Philip that blessed disciple of Christ, was about the same time crucified at Hierapolis, a city in Asia. Of Andrew and Bartholomew. S. Andrew preached the gospel in Scythia, Thracia, Macedonia, Thessalia, and Achaia. Anno dom. 45 At the length the proconsul Aegaeas caused him to be crucified, because he persuaded Maximilla his wife and Stantocles his brother, to detest his unchristian impiety, and to embrace the faith of Christ jesus. He was buried in Achaia, with his ancestors. S. Bartholomew after he had preached the gospel to the Indians, judaeus erat & Galileus. was at length rewarded with the cruel torture of the cross, and buried in Armenia the great. Of james the son of Zebedee. S. james the son of Zebedeus preached the gospel to the twelve tribes which were in dispersion, A. D. 44 and for his pains was at the length beheaded of Herod the Tetrarch, who was also called Agrippa. He was buried in the city Marmarica, and king Herod (who beheaded him) was eaten up with worms. Act. 12. ver. 23. Of john. S. john his brother preached the gospel in Asia, and being driven into exile in the isle Pathmos by Domitian the emperor, he there both wrote the gospel, and had his revelation. A. D. 104 He died at Ephesus, in the time of Traianus the Emperor. Where note by the way (to avoid the variety which seemeth in some of the ancient fathers, and historiographers) that albeit Domitian banished S. john into Pathmos, yet did S. john survive Domitian, and died in the days and reign of trajan. Of Thomas. S. Thomas called also Didymus, after he had preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, and Indians, A. D. 45 was wounded with darts in his sides; and so being buried in Calamina a city in India, came to him, whose sides he before had felt, Christ jesus. Of Matthew. S. Matthew of a publican became an Apostle, A. D. 41▪ preached the gospel of Christ zealously, and converted many to the christian faith. He wrote the gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and was buried in Hierapolis. Where note by the way, that although many of the old writers affirm S. Matthew to have written in Hebrew, yet some learned do think that he wrote in greek, which opinion I prefer as more probable: but how soever that be, it skilleth not much; for the Greek which now is only exstant, is admitted of all as authentical. Yea, as Theophilactus recordeth, they that hold saint Matthew to have written in hebrew, do not deny but Saint john translated it into greek, and consequently, since S. john was no less inspired with the holy ghost, than Saint Matthew, it must needs follow, that the greek copy is as authentical as the Hebrew, if any such could be found. Of james the son of Alphee. Anno Dom. 63. Saint james the son of Alpheus the brother of our Lord, surnamed justus, after he had preached at Gaza, Eleutheropolis, and other countries adjacent, was made the Bishop of Jerusalem, where he was stoned to death of the jews, and buried in the temple. Of judas Thaddaeus. Saint judas Thaddeus called also Lebbeus, preached in judea, Anno Dom. 44. Galilea, Samaria, Idumea, Arabia, Syria, and Mesopotamia, at the length he came to Edessa, where preaching the gospel of peace he died in peace. Of Simon Zelotes. Saint Simon surnamed Zelotes for his great zeal towards his master Christ jesus, Anno Dom. 107. called also Cananeus because he was borne in Cana Galilea, after he had preached the gospel in Egypt, Africa, Mauritania, Lybia, and in the occidental parts, and had confirmed the same with many miracles, he was crucified under Traianus, being 120. years of age. Of Mathias. Anno Dom. 43. Saint Mathias one of the 70. disciples, was reckoned with the eleven in stead of judas Iscarioth. He preached in Ethiopia, where he suffered many tortures, was almost stoned to death, and then beheaded. An addition for the complement of this chapter. Saint james the Great, and Saint john the Evangelist, were the sons of Zebedeus, the husband of Salome. Saint james the less surnamed justus, and the brother of our Lord, Saint judas, Thaddeus, and Simon Zelotes, were the sons of Cleophas the husband of Mary, who was sister to the blessed virgin Mary. CHAP. IX. Of the three sons of Constantine. COnstantine when he had reigned 38. years appointed by his last will and testament, that his three sons, Anno. Dom. 342. Constantinus, Constantius, and Constans should rule the Empire in several parts severally: to wit, Constantinus, in France, Spain, and Germany; Constantius in the East, & Constans in Italy and Illyricum. Constantinus was not content with partial assigned government, but desired to have the sole and only administration of the Empire: for which cause, having too much confidence in the power of man, specially in an evil cause, he made wars against his brother Constans in Italy; but by that occasion he was slain, and so his brother Constans possessed all the West Empire. CHAP. X Of julianus apostata. IVlianus Apostata was nephew to Constantius and brother to Gallus: he was so excellent well learned, Anno Dom, 365 that in his youth he read the scriptures publicly in the church of Nicomedia: afterwards he went to the famous university of Athens, and studied there; but after the death of his brother Gallus, Constantius sent him into France and Germany. Not far from Argentoratum he put to flight 30 thousand Almains, for which cause by the favour of the soldiers, he was suddenly at Argentoratum designed Emperor. At such time as great dissension arose among christians, through diversity of opinions in Religion, in so much that some despaired, and other some fell to Idolatry, than the new Emperor julianus preferring his own son before the true worship of God, and thinking that to abandon the christian religion, was to advance his royal and imperial estate, forsook the Christian faith, denied Christ openly, and became an Apostata. He inhibited christians to serve in wars amongst the Romans', he overthrew the schools of learning, and spoiled the churches of their treasures. Which thing he did in derision, telling the Christians that he favoured them in so doing, because through poverty, they might sooner come to heaven. CHAP. XI. Of the Manichees. An. Dom. 274 THe Manichees began their heresy in the days of Aurelianus Emperor of Rome, whose grandmaster was Manes a Persian borne. This Manes dispersed his poison, in very large circuits: First in Arabia, after that in Africa. This heresy increased so mightily, as it could not be quenched, by the space of two hundred years: this was the fundamental ground of their false and heretical doctrine, that there are two Gods, the one good, and the other bad, and yet both to be eternal. This doctrine seemed plausible to man's reason, at the first publishing thereof: for since God is good of his own nature, and yet evil aboundeth in the world, it seemeth to follow necessarily, that as there is a good God, so there must also be a peculiar evil God, equal to the good God in power and eternity. The Manichees will neither eat flesh, neither eggs, neither milk, August. de heres. ad q.v. deum, 46. D. neither do they drink wine, albeit they will eat grapes; they think that herbs, trees, and plants, have life in such manner, as they feel great pain when one cutteth or plucketh them up by the roots, or otherwise: for this respect they deem it an heinous offence, to purge the field from thorns and thistles, and so they condemn husbandry, (the most innocent art of all,) as guilty of many murders, yet they think husbandry or tillage of the ground to be pardonable in their auditors, because by that their labour they bring food to their elect; in whose bellies the substance is purged, and the offence taken away. And consequently, although themselves do no murders actually, as they pretend; yet do they live of manifest murders, practised by others really. Where note by the way, that the church of the Manichees consisted of two sorts of people, their elect and their auditors. They held this fantastical opinion, Epiphan. haer. 66. lib. 2. to. pa. 205. that whosoever did eat flesh, should be made the same thing which he did eat. As for example, if a man did eat an hog, he should be made a hog; if a bull, he should become a bull; if a bird, he should be a bird; if a fish, a fish, and so in the rest. The Manichees held also, that if any man marry a wife, Epiphan. ubi sup. that same man so soon as he passeth out of this life, is changed into another body, and becometh a woman. Yea they say further, that if a man kill a man, an ass, or other living thing, that man strait after his death, is changed into that living thing which he killed, be it a mouse, serpent, or whatsoever else. The Manichees use to bless their meats in this manner: O bread, neither did I reap thee, Epiphan. in cattle. dogmatum Manich. neither did I grind thee, neither did I make thee, neither did I bake thee; but an other did all these things, and brought thee to me, myself therefore do eat thee without offence. These and other like monstrous assertions did this heresy bring forth. This is the grace that they use. CHAP. XII. Of the Pelagians, taken out of Saint Augustine. PElagius sometime a monk, and a Brytan borne, extolled free-will so much, Anno. Dom. 413 that he ascribed little or nothing unto grace. He affirmed that man may keep all Gods holy commandments, without his divine grace: and being reproved (saith saint Austen) for derogating so much from the grace of God; he answered with unchristian subtlety, that grace was therefore given to man, that he might keep God's laws with more facility. That grace (saith Pelagius) without which we can do nothing that good is, is only in our free-will: which free-will God engraffed in our nature, without any our deserts: so that God helpeth us by his law and doctrine to this end only (saith Pelagius) that we may learn what to hope for, and what to do; but not to do, what we know aught to be done. The Pelagians hold (saith S. Austin) that infants in their carnal nativity, are so pure and free from original sin; that they need not the second and spiritual regeneration, of water and the holy ghost. Now if any man would ask the Pelagians, to what end infants are baptised: They will answer forsooth (saith saint Austen) that by this external regeneration they may have access into heaven, and not thereby to be absolved from the guilt of sin. For if they die without Baptism, yet do they promise them eternal life, but without the kingdom of heaven. This is the heresy of Pelagius, which I have sincerely recited out of saint Augustine, that excellent writer and immovable pillar of Christ's church, because many talk thereof, who seem not thoroughly to understand the same. With which heresy how the papists agree, and how they descent from the same, shall (God willing) be showed when I come to the next Book, in the chapter of man's justification. CHAP. XIII. Of the Arrian heresy. ARrius the heretic was the reader of divinity in Alexandria, a man of great learning and eloquence, Anno Dom. 323 but withal, proud and ambitious. He denied the divinity and godhead of jesus Christ, affirming him to be pure man, and a mere creature. Which his blasphemous doctrine was dispersed throughout Egypt, Lybia, Alexandria, Thebais, and many other provinces. Alexander a godly bishop laboured by all means possible, to dissuade Arrius from his pestiferous and execrable heresy: but all his travel was in vain, because many other bishops and clergy men embraced the opinion of Arrius, and obstinately defended the same. The most christian emperor Constantinus worthily surnamed the Great, deeply lamenting the church of God to be divided with schism and dissension, Niceph. li. ●. c. 1● Euleb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 5.6. sent Hosius the Bishop of Corduba in Spain, to Alexander and Arrius with his own hand-writing, earnestly exhorting them to set all dissension aside, and to agree in unity, peace, and truth. But when the blessed Emperor could not prevail in his holy purpose, he commanded all christian bishops to resort at a certain day designed, to Nice a city in Bythinia, where this great controversy was decided before Constantine himself; and Arrius with his complices driven into exile. The Emperor Constantinus sent for Arrius into his palace, so meaning fully to make trial of his opinion: Socrat. li. 2. ca 2● Nicephor. libr. 8. histor. cap. 51. who when he asked Arrius if he were of the same opinion with the council of Nice; Arrius without all deliberation and stay, subscribed in the presence of the Emperor to the decrees of the said council. Then the emperor greatly admiring that fact, willed Arrius to confirm his subscription with an oath: to which Arrius yielded deceitfully, as he had done before: insomuch, that the Emperor being persuaded that Arrius was an orthodox and good christian, charged Alexander the bishop of Alexandria severely, to receive Arrius again into his wonted place and dignity. Yet Alexander knowing Arrius to be an enemy to God and his holy religion, and suspecting his dissimulation with the Emperor his sovereign; fearing God on the one side, and reverencing his sovereign on the other; gave himself to devout and earnest prayer, so commending the whole cause unto God. While Alexander was thus devoutly occupied, behold, news came unto him, that as Arrius came from the emperors palace, the worm of conscience did wonderfully trouble him, and solubilitie of body did so vehemently assault him, that he was enforced suddenly to withdraw himself to a common place, where while he sought to have the ordinary course of nature, blood gushed but, all his inwards fell from him, and so he perished most miserably. The secret subtlety, wherewith Arrius fought to deceive the godly and most christian Emperor, was this: Arrius wrote his execrable opinion of Christ, in a piece of paper kept closely under his arm holes: that 〈◊〉, he subscribed in the presence of the Emperor: then the Emperor marveling that he would so do, urged him to confirm the same with an oath. Arrius roundly took an oath, that he thought as he had written, meaning indeed of his first writing, which he kept secretly under his armhole. Where every one may see how grievous a sin it is to dissemble with God and his anointed magistrate; for so much the rare inflicted punishment doth evidently convince. CHAP. XIIII. Of Nestorius and his heresy. Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, albeit he denied not Christ to be god as Arrius did, Anno Dom. 433 yet he affirmed pure man to be borne of the blessed virgin, & that she therefore ought not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mother of God. Whose heresy was condemned in the Ephesine council, under Theodosius junior then Emperor of Rome. Nestorius his heresy consisted in this, that since the blessed virgin was a woman, God could not be borne of her, and consequently she ought not to be called the mother of God. For although he neither denied in Christ, the deity nor the humanity, yet did he place two persons in Christ together with the two natures: and consequently he denied the wonderful hypostatical union, which our christian faith acknowledgeth. Arrius held, that Christ was only man, wholly void of the nature and person of God: but Nestorius held, that Christ had both the nature and person of God, as also both the nature and the person of man: which last was the formality of his heresy, and therefore ought well to be observed of the reader. For albeit there be two natures in Christ, the nature of God, and the nature of man, yet is the●re but one only person in Christ, which is the person or subsistence of God: for in that divine person by unspeakable hypostatical union, the true nature of man subsisteth, without the person of man. By reason hereof it is truly said, and christianly believed, the son of God was borne of the blessed virgin, the son of God did suffer torments, the son of God was crucified, the son of God rose again the third day; the son of God ascended into heaven: All which Nestorius denied, because he severed the natures, by multiplying persons in Christ jesus. Christ therefore taking upon him the nature of man, Note this poin● well. did single it from the person of man, uniting it to himself, and making it subsist in his divine person; by reason of which supernatural union, Christ became perfect God and perfect man, having two distinct natures, subsisting in one indistinct person▪ CHAP. XV. Of Macedonius and his heresy. MAcedonius the Bishop of Constantinople, denied the holy ghost to be God: he said the son was God indeed, Anno. Dom● 383. and equal with the father in substance, but the holy ghost (with him) was without honour and dignity, a servant and minister, little better than the Angels. For the condemnation of this wicked heretic and heresy, the second general council was holden at Constantinople, under the emperors Gra●ianus and Theodosius: where were assembled 150. fathers, for that only end and purpose. CHAP. XVI. Of Eutiches and his heresy. EUtiches (whose complices Dioscorus and Severus held the same opinion,) was the Abbot of Constantinople, who, Anno Do● 456. while he sought to avoid the opinion of Nestorius dividing one Christ into two sons and two persons, fell into another mischief, and taught more absurdly than Nestorius, to wit, that Christ had but one only nature, after the hypostatical union was accomplished, because the humanity was absorpte of the divinity: for so Christ's divinity uncapable of all mortality, was perforce made partaker of the bitter death upon the cross: as therefore Nestorius to avoid the confusion of natures, multiplied the persons; so contrariwise Eutiches, to avoid the multiplicity of persons, admitted the confusion of natures. These heretics, Eutiches, Dioscorus, and Severus, were condemned by the fourth famous general council of Chalcedon, celebrated under Ualentinianus and Martianus the Emperors, where were present 360. Bishops. CHAP. XVII. Of Mahomet and the Saracens. MAhomet descended of the Image of Ishmael and Agar, and being a very poor orphan, joined himself to his kinswoman Chadiga; first, as an hired servant, afterward as her betrothed husband; & so was greatly enriched by her, as who was a woman of exceeding wealth Which Chadiga, when she took very heavily, that Mahomet was troubled with the falling evil; he told her, it was no disease, but that the archangel Gabriel then appeared to him, whose wonderful majesty because he was not able to behold, he fell groveling upon the ground. An. Dom. 623 This Mahomet professed himself to be the mighty prophet of the everliving God, & by that means stirred up to sedition, great troops of men aswell in Asia as in Africa: which people he infected with a new kind of religion, & persuaded them that they were called Saracens by God's holy decree, of Sara the wife of Abraham; & that they were the lawful successors of that divine promise that was made to Abraham & his seed for ever. The form of the aforesaid mangled religion, Mahomet (who was borne and buried in Mecha a city in Arabia) composed by the help of the Arrian monk Sergius, and called it the Alcoran: which word (Alcoran) in the Arabian language, signifieth (law or doctrine.) In which Alcoran they profess that Christ is a prophet, and an excellent doctor; but withal, they deny him to be God, and the true Saviour of the world. The Saracens called Arabians of the place, Ismaelites of Ishmael, and Agarenes of Agar, being in wages under Heraclius the emperor, Genes. 16.4. Genes. 17.20. rebelled for want of pay about the year of Christ 628. and within 38. years they conquered all Syria, Damascus, jerusalem, much of Assyria, and the greater part of Asia: all which they subdued to the religion of Mahomet, at that time but newly broached, and of the Arabians or Saracens first of all received. For so soon as the Agarenes dwelling in Arabia, and serving in wars under Cesar, understood by proclamation that they could no longer have the emperors pay; they stirred up sedition against the Roman captains: by the means whereof the power of Mahomet increased; to whom the common people being destitute of an head, and in some distress for want of money, did submit themselves, aswell for his great riches, as for other his singular gifts. The jews, Arrians, and pseudochristians, did all embrace Mahomet's Alcoran and mangled religion: they first subdued Arabia and part of Syria; for in Damascus Mahomet had his palace. The Saracens having mightily enlarged their dominions, divided themselves into several governments: they termed their chief lord Caeliphae, their next governor, Seriphes', next to him a Sultan, who was over every province: at length, the empire was translated to the Turks. CHAP. XVIII. Of the original of the Turks. THe Egyptians wearied with the yoke of the Romans, submitted themselves to the Saracens, and received their religion. They continued Saracens above 400. years, until such time as the Sultan of Syria conquered them, which was about the year of our Saviour jesus 1170. at which time he made himself Sultan of Egypt also: at length the multitude of captives, Anno Dom 1203 which the Sultan had brought from the Tartarians for his wars, growing mighty, killed the Sultan, & took to themselves the kingdom of Egypt. They called their king Turquemenius, and conquered all Asia the less from the Sultan of Asia, which they termed Turkia. And thus they continued till Zelimus the great Turk conquered Egypt, and destroyed the government of the Mamaluchies, Anno Dom 1517 which were christians that had denied their faith; so it remaineth until this day, under the Turk, holding the new no religion of Mahomet, as do all of the east for the greater part. This kingdom or empire of the Turks, began about the year of our Lord 1300. in the days of Othomannus the rich and mighty Turk; for before it was of no reputation, Anno Dom 1300 though it had some being. The church of God flourished before this tyranny, one full thousand years, even from the days of Constantine the great. From this time the kingdom of Mahomet was called the empire of the Turks. THE THIRD PART of the original of Popery; with the successive Increments thereof, and an evident confutation of the same. The first Chapter, containing certain Preludes, no less necessary for the intelligence of the Chapters following, then for the exact discovery of long hidden Popery. The first Prelude. POpery was not hatched all on one day, month, or year, but crept into the church by little and little: and that because the late bishops of Rome, were not Lines, Clements, and Syluesters; Victor. de pot. pap. relect. 4. pag. 151. but naughty and most wicked men. For so saith their own dear friar and great schoolman, Franciscus a Victoria. Yea, some of them began as foxes, continued as wolves, and ended as dogs. This to be so, Carr. in Epit. conc. pag. 369. will witness with me Bartholomaeus Carranza their learned dominican doctor. Yea Irenaeus, who lived within 200. years of Christ, avoucheth, that before his time, ignorance and negligence had brought many abuses into the Church. And what may we think then of abuses in our days? Read his words, apud Eusebium, histor. lib. 5, cap. 24. The second Prelude. August. libr. ad Bonefaccium, c. 4 ●o 7. MAny things may evidently be proved to have been done, whereof for all that we can yield no sound reason, when, where, & by whom they were done. For first, we know which the Papists can not deny, that in the primitive church infants received the holy communion; yet neither we nor they can tell, when, where, and by whom, that undiscreet custom first began & was abolished: it was usually practised in S. Austin's time. Secondly, we know & they know, that the Lords supper in the Romish church is ministered under one kind contrary to Christ's institution, yet neither we nor they can tell, when, where, and by whom, that execrable custom first began. Thirdly, we know & they know that private mass hath been long practised in the church of Rome; yet can we neither tell, when, where, nor by whom it first began. But this we are assured of, that it is repugnant to Christ's institution, wholly dissonant from apostolical doctrine, and utterly condemned by all approved antiquity. Fourthly, we know & they know, that their reformed Franciscans (now commonly called Capuchens) can tell right perfectly, that their other dissolute Franciscans have swerved fro their ancient order, albeit they can neither tell, when, where, nor by whom, that dissolution first began: but they prove it àposteriori, by their ancient rules manifestly. And even so do we prove by the holy scriptures, (the true touchstone of all verity) that the papists have swerved from apostolical doctrine, albeit we could not (as yet we can) assign the time, place, and persons; when, where, & by whom such antichristian alteration began. The third Prelude. THe usual practice of papists in their commentaries, books, and glosses, hath been such & so intolerable in wresting the holy scriptures, as their own dear brethren and great doctors, cannot deny or conceal the same. And because this may seem strange unto the reader, their own words shall bear me witness: Victor. de potest· Eccl. relec. ●. sect. 6. for besides this, that Victoria confesseth their beggarly and unlearned Canonists to have wrested the scriptures, in the behalf and favour of their Pope; these are the express words of Polidorus Virgilius, their own professed & sworn brother. Non secus isti iurisconsulti aliquoties detorquent sacras literas quó volunt, ac sutores sordidas solent dentibus extendere pelles. These popish Legists & Canonists, P. 39 Poly●●▪ Virg libr. 4. cap. ●. do now and then so wrest, and writhe the holy scriptures; even as cobblers do gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthy skins. Out of which words I note first, that this Polidore was a great Papist himself, and so his testimony must needs be forcible against the papists. I note secondly, that he speaketh not of the meanest and worst sort of Papists, but even of the best and of their renowned doctors, because he meaneth Hostiensis, their grand & famous doctor. Thirdly, that their mangling & wresting of the holy scriptures is most intolerable: & that without the same, they cannot possibly maintain their wicked doctrine. CHAP. II. Of the usurped primacy in the Church of Rome. About the year 590. john bishop of Constantinople sought by all means possible to have that primacy of all other bishops, Anno Dom 590. & for that end termed himself universal bishop. This proud appellation (to be called universal bishop) was so strange a thing in Christ's church in those days, that S. Gregory surnamed the great, the holy & learned bishop of Rome, Gregor. lib●. 7 Epist. cap. 194. stoutly withstood I. of Constantinople, calling him antichrist, & the name antichristian. And because his own assertion plainly recited, is most able to persuade the Reader, I will allege his words, which are these, Ego autem fidentèr dico quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua antichristum praecurrit, and I speak boldly, that whosoever either calleth himself universal priest, or desireth so to be called, is for his intolerable pride, become the precursor of antichrist: & that because in his proud conceit, he prefers himself before all other. This notwithstanding, Bonifacius the bishop of Rome and third of that name, Anno Dom 607. obtained of the emperor Phocas to be called the chief of all bishops, and that Rome should be the head of all Churches: for so soon as Boniface had invaded Peter's seat, (which was about 607. years after Christ,) and had with much ado obtained of the bloody and cruel tyrant Phocas, (who ravished many virtuous matrons, Nicephor, Sigeb●●●. and murdered the good Emperor Mauritius with his wife and children,) that Rome should be called the head of all churches, even then, even than doubles, the beast of the revelation, began to prepare the way for Antichrist. Lo, whoredom and murder, were the preparitives to Romish primacy This point is so evident, as their own zealous papists, & renowned chronographers, Sigebertus, Palmerius, Platina, Bergomensis, Polydorus, and others, are enforced to confess the same. And for the better satisfaction of the reader, I will allege their own words. Thus therefore writeth their own learned and beloved monk Marianus Scotus; Hic impetravit à Phoca Caesare, ut sedes apostolica Romanae caput esset ecclesiae, quum antea Constantinopolis primum omnium se scribebat. This Bonifacius obtained of Phocas the emperor, that the apostolic sea of Rome should be the head of the church, Marianus Scotus in Chron. when before Constantinople wrote herself the chief of all. Sigebertus Gemblacensis an other of their monks, writeth in this express manner: Post quem Bonifacius Romanae ecclesiae praesidet. Sigebert. in in Chron. Hic obtinuit apud Phocam imperatorem, ut ecclesiae Romana caput esset omnium ecclesiarum, quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana scribebat se esse primam omnium ecclesiarum. After whom, Bonifacius governed the church of Rome: and he obtained of the emperor Phocas, that the church of Rome should be the head of all churches; and that because the church of Constantinople wrote itself the head of all churches. Palmer in Chro. Palmerius hath these words; consentiente Phoca institutum fuit, ut ecclesia Romanae caput esset ecclesiarum omnium, cum prius Constantinopolitana id usurpare tentasset. It was ordained by the consent of Phocas, that the Church of Rome should be the head of all churches, whereas the church of all Constantinople, had before usurped that dignity. The other writers have words of like force, which I omit for brevity sake. Peruse Martinus, Polonus, and Philippus Bergomensis, who both teach the same doctrine. The first objection. Phocas did not give the primacy to the church of Rome, but only declared by his decree, that authority which of right pertaineth to the same. The answer. Note this point well. I answer, that neither Scripture, council, nor any authentical w●iter can be alleged; who before the said constitution of Phocas, did at any time ascribe the headship and universal government of all Churches, to the Church of Rome. Eusebius. hist. lib. 5. cap. 24. For first, S. Policarpus would not yield to Anicetus' bishop of Rome, in the controversy about Easter, as witnesseth Eusebius. Secondly, Irenaeus and other bishops of France, reproved Victor the bishop of Rome very sharply, bidding him to have respect to peace and unity of the church. Thirdly, Polycrates and many bishops of Asia did stoutly withstand Victor, in his proceed touching Easter. Fourthly, Cyprian. S. Cyprian roundly opposed himself against Stephanus the bishop of Rome, contemned his decree, and derided his reasons. Fiftly, the Apostles at Jerusalem sent Peter and john, Epist. 74. ad Pomp. to confirm the faithful in Samaria. And consequently, if the pope be not above Peter, he may be sent as an inferior, or at least as an equal, Act. 4. ver. 17. even as Peter was. Sixtly, the fathers of the African council, would not yield to Celestine the bishop of Rome, in the controversy of appeals, concerning Appiarius. Epist conc. Affr. ad Celest. tom. 1. conc. And when pope Celestine alleged, that the counsel of Nice gave liberty to appeal to Rome; the fathers of the council answered, that the true copies of the decree were otherwise. Seventhly, the famous general council of Chalcedon, gave the bishop of Constantinople equal authority with the bishop of Rome, in all ecclesiastical affairs. Eightly, the Council of Nice prescribed limits, aswell to the bishop of Rome as to other patriarchs. Hereby then is it evident, that the lordly usurped primacy of the church of Rome, was only given by the cruel tyrant Phocas. Conc. Nic. can. ● dist. 35. cap. Mos. antiquus, in gloss. Which conclusion is proved more at large, in the sixth chapter of my second book of Motives. The second objection. You are not able to name the pope and time, that first swar●ed from the doctrine of his ancestors. The answer. I say first, that many things have been done in your church, which yourselves can never prove, when, where, & by whom they were done: this is evident by the 2. Prelude and 1. chapter of this third and last part. I say secondly, that Pope Boniface the third of that name, did degenerate from Gregory his predecessor, as is already proved. I say thirdly, that the absurdity of this objection shall be discovered, throughout the chapters following. The third objection. You confess in your Motives, that in the church of Rome for many years together, were sundry learned and godly bishops, who lived orderly, preached the word of God sincerely, and fed their flocks carefully: but we are able to show a lawful succession of our Bishops, even from saint Peter to him that now sitteth in his chair. And therefore granting the former, you seem impudent to deny the latter. The answer. I answer, that the succession of your Romish bishops is not so certain, The first reason as ye would bear the world in hand it is. For first, many grave and learned writers do vary exceedingly, in setting down that succession wherein you so glory. S. Clement (whose epistles the papists magnify when they seem to make for their purpose) testifying for himself, Clemens, ep. 1. Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap, 3. Epiphan. Haer. 27. Euseb. hist. lib. 3. ca 13, 14, 15, that S. Peter appointed him to be his successor. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and the canon of the popish mass, do all with uniform consent, place Linus, and Cletus, before the said Clemens; yet Sophronius, Met●phrastes, and the Popish Pontifical that cannot lie, affirm roundly, that Saint Peter lived after Linus. Secondly, many schisms have been in the church of Rome, and amongst our romish bishops, The second reason. even for many years together: so that the succession of the latter, can never be proved constantly, to have descended without interruption from the former. Their own Onuphrius Panuinius, reckoneth up thirty schisms in the church of Rome, but I will content myself with two only, Onuphr. in chron whereof their own dear friar Bartholomeus Carranza can instruct them sufficiently. The former schism endured for the space of 64. years, Carranz. in epit. p. 370. &. p, 373. during which time, their godly popedom was at Avignon in France, and not one only day at Rome, though at Rome (as they prate) God placed their holy seat. In the latter schism of the twain rehearsed, three of their holy bishops were pope's at one & the self same time, to wit, johannes the four & twenty of that name, Benedictus the thirteenth, and Gregory the twelft. From which three striving and grinning as dogs for a bone, I would learn how they can derive, their holy so supposed succession. Thirdly, a woman as Saint Paul teacheth us, The third reason is not capable of ecclesiastical function. And so the succession derived from our holy mistress john pope, cannot possibly be of force: 1. Tim. 2. v. 11, 12. 1. Cor. 14. ver. 39 which story of Pope john the woman if it be true, let the Papists for ever hold their peace, and brag no longer of their succession. And that the said story of their woman pope john is true indeed, I will prove by the testimony of such writers, as the Papists hitherto have ever thought well of, Seven popish approved writers, agree to this story of Pope john· and reputed for their own: that is, by Sigebertus, Marianus Scotus, Palmerius, Martinus Polonus; Phillippus Bergomensis, Bapt. Platina, and Bartholomeus Carranza. For all these sing one and the self same song, that pope john was a woman though not an holy nun. The first reply. These writers lived long after Pope john, and therefore knew they nothing but by report of others. The answer. I say first, that these seven writers lived longer one after another, than Sigebertus and Scotus lived after Pope john. I say secondly, that all Historiographers writ for the most part, by the report of others. I say thirdly, that so many writers otherwise of good credit with you, may well be credited of us, in a matter concerning your own proceed, especially, since sundry of them be your own holy friars. I say fourthly, that this story of Pope john is publicly painted, and this day to be seen in your own Cathedral churches of Syenna. Which painting our newly hatched jesuits, sought earnestly to have had defaced, in the late repairing of that church; but the bishop would not suffer them to prevail. I say fifthly, that these seven writers who were all papists, and lived so long one after another; would never have published one and the self same thing to the world, if any one of them could in his life time, have learned the contrary to be the truth. The 2. reply. They say only and barely, ut ferunt, as men say. And other grave writers that lived before them all, and nearer the time of pope john, make no mention thereof. The answer. I say first, that to reason ab auctoritate negative, is not holden good in schools, and yourselves do often condemn in others, that kind of disputation. I say secondly, that if these writers had not been persuaded of the truth of the story, they would never have published it to the world; because it maketh so much against Romish Religion, to which they were addicted wholly. I say thirdly, that the said authors write of this matter, even as they do of other things. Palmerius and Segebertus both have these express words; Palmerius & Sigebertus in chro. Fama est hunc johannem faeminam fuisse, & uni soli familiaritantum cognitam, qui eam complexus est, & gravis facta peperit papa existens. Quare eam inter pontifices non numerant quidam, ideo nomini numerum non facit. The report is, that this john was a woman, and known only to one that was her familiar friend. By whose familiarity she became with child, and was delivered even while she was pope (of Rome.) For which cause some do not reckon her amongst the pope's, and so she maketh not up the number. Marianus, Polonus, Bergomensis, Platina and Carranza already named, teach the same doctrine, writing upon the same john. And note well, that M. Scotus affirmeth the story constantly, without all and's or ifs. And so doth also M. Polonus, who was the pope's own penitentiary. To these I may fitly add, Bernard. ad Gaufrid. epist. 1 25 that which your L. Abbot Bernard saith; the beast (saith he) mentioned in the revelation, to whom was given a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make wars with the Saints, sitteth in Peter's chair. His words are cited verbatim, in the preface to my book of Motives. The third reply. S. Austen avoucheth plainly, Aug. co●●r. ep. Manich. cap. 4. that the succession of the Bishops of Rome, was one of the chiefest motives, that kept him in the catholic church. The answer. I answer that succession is of two sorts, material and formal. Material is the succession of persons, one after another in the same place. Formal is the succession of persons, one after another in the same doctrine in what place soever. Now S. Austen in deed writing against the manichees, saith that succession of priests from S. Peter's seat, kept him in the unity of the church. And no marvel, because the Bishops of Rome until the days of S. Austen and long after; were very godly men, and taught the same doctrine, that S. Peter had done before them: and so they joined succession formal with material; which if the bishops of Rome would this day perform, all godly christians would now join with them, Irene. libr. 4. c. 43 as S Austen did in his time. For as S. Irene saith; we ought to obey those priests, that with succession keep the word of truth. The third objection. S. Paul saith plainly, that there must be bishops and pastors in the church, even until the world's end. Ephes. 4. v. 11. Whereupon it followeth, that you protestants have no church at all. For before Luther departed from us, all bishops and priests for many years together (as yourselves can never deny) embraced our Romish religion. This objection doth so gall you all, as ye cannot tell in the world, what answer to frame thereunto. The answer. Gentle words I pray you, Ephes. 4. v. 11. the matter is not so dangerous as ye think. I therefore say first with saint Paul, that pastors and doctors have ever been in the church since Christ's ascension, are at this present, and shall be unto the worlds end. I say secondly, that albeit the visible church cannot want material succession; yet cannot that succession, without formal, yield any sound argument of true faith and religion. In regard hereof, your own doctor Nicolaus de Lyra, after he hath told us that many Popes have swerved from the christian faith, and become flat apostates, concludeth in these words, Lyranus in 16, cap. Matth. Propter quod ecclesia consistit in illis personis, in quibus est notitia vera, & confessio fidei, & veritatis. by reason whereof the church consisteth in those persons, in whom there is true knowledge and confession of the faith and of verity. So then by the confession of your own approved doctor, not they that sic in saint Peter's chair at Rome, are the true and lawful successors of Saint Peter; but they that confess and preach saint Peter's doctrine. I say thirdly, that our reformed churches in England, are this day able to show, succession both material and formal, even from the apostles themselves. And therefore our succession is, and aught to be reputed, far better than yours. The first reply. Howsoever you wrangle about your formal succession, yet is it clear to all that have eyes; that you have no material succession at all, unless you term it material succession, when lay persons possess the rooms of lawful Bishops. For I pray you (good sir) who ordered your Bishops and Priests in king Edward's days? Who sent your Ministers that this day preach and minister your sacraments? Can you for shame deny that they were ordered by such as were runagates from us in Queen Mary's time? All the world knoweth, ye cannot do it. And yet must you be sent by ordinary vocation, or else confess that you most shamefully usurp that holy function. For as saint Paul saith, How shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? Rom. 10.14. And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent? The answer. Our succession is both material and formal, christian and apostolical, as which is consonant to the holy scriptures, and to the usual practice of the primitive church. For first our bishops can prove their doctrine by the scriptures, and by the testimonies of best approved writers, as I have already proved in my Motives, and shall by God's assistance prove more at large in this discourse. Secondly, our bishops have mission and imposition of hands, according to the practice apostolical and of all approved antiquity. Thirdly, our bishops are made in such form and order, as they have ever been accustomed, a few popish, superstitious, and beggarly ceremonies omitted, which of late years had crept into the church; that is to say, be free election of the Chapter, by consecration of the archbishop, and other his associates, & by the admission of the prince. The second reply. S. Epiphanius inveigheth bitterly against one Zachaeus, Epiphan. lib. 3. pag. 355. Hier. contr. Lucifer. who being but a ●ay man, presumed impudently to handle the holy mysteries. And saint Jerome saith of Hilarius the heretic, that he could neither baptise nor administer the eucharist; because he was but a deacon, when he went out of the church. And therefore the man being dead, the sect also died with him. And what are you but deacons? Nay, what are you but mere lay men? For you are neither consecrated after the old manner, nor confirmed by the Pope; but ye are accursed long sithence, by his holy anathematisms. The answer. I say first, that if mere lay men should presume in our churches, to handle the holy mysteries; they could not escape condign punishment, according to their demerits. I say secondly, that the want of your greasing and other your beggarly ceremonies, can not make the consecration of our Bishops unlawful. I say thirdly, that our bishops are consecrated and confirmed, according to the ancient manner of the primitive church. For three things only are necessary; all which are this day (God be thanked for it) practised in the church of England; to wit, election of the whole congregation, confirmation of the Prince, and consecration with godly prayers and imposition of hands. Of the imposition of hands, mention is made to Timothy. 2. Tim. 1.6. 1. Tim. 4.14. Acts. 13 ver. 3. Act. 1. ve. 21. Of prayers with laying on of hands, S. Luke speaketh in the Acts. Of election by voices of the people, S. Peter maketh relation: but of popish paltry ceremonies, I find no where any word at all. That election ought to be by consent of the people, S. Augustine showed plainly in a most godly and prudent epistle, Aug. in Epist. 11. 〈◊〉. 2. when in the presence of Religianus, and Martinianus, bishops, and of Saturninus, Leporius, Barnabas, Fortunatianus, Rusticus, Lazarus, and Eradius priests; he humbly requested of all the people that by their consents, Eradius might be chosen bishop after his death. I wish the reader to peruse the whole epistle, as which is replenished with all spiritual sweetness. But S. Cyprian is so plain and copious in this point of doctrine, as who soever shall once read him with judgement, can no longer stand in doubt thereof. And that which I say of S. Cyprian in this behalf, must also be understood of Caecilius Primus, Polycarpus, and other bishops of Africa, assembled together for this purpose. For the Bishops and people of Spain wrote letters by Felix and Sabinus to the African bishops; requiring their advise concerning the facts of Basilides and Martialis. The bishops of Africa with S. Cyprian, among other things answered to the churches of Spain in these words. Quando ipsa (plebs) maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi: ●pud. D. Cypria. b. 1. epist. 4. quod & ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere, ut sacerdos plebe present sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque idoneus public● judicio ac testimonio comprob●tur. Because the people hath proper power to elect worthy priests, or to reject the unworthy: which thing we see descendeth from Gods own authority, that when the people shall be present, than the priest be chosen before all their eyes, and so be proved worthy and fit by their public judgement and testimony. Out of these words I note first, that the people may choose or refuse him for their bishop, whom they like or dislike. I note secondly, that the people have this liberty de iure divino granted from God himself; and consequently, that it cannot be altered by the power of man: which is a special point, well worthy the observation. I note thirdly, that the people must give public testimony, to the election of their bishop. I note four, that all this freedom is granted to the people, for the due trial of the life and conversation of that person, whom they must have to be their bishop. Yea, this case is so clear, that the great Papist jacobus Pamelius is enforced to grant, jacod. Pamelius in annot. that this was the practice of the primitive church, and continued many hundred years, to wit, until saint Gregory the first of that name, Anno Dom. 590 who lived above five hundred and ninety years after the incarnation of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ: and so long by Pamelius his grant, this was the practice of the primitive church. Yea, this practice was of force indeed, until our disholie father Pope Boniface the third invaded saint Peter's chair, from whom proceeded all idolatry. To this Pamelius objecteth first, Ob. 1. Pamelii▪ that though the voices of the people were required, yet did they not subscribe to the election. I answer, that that skilleth not, because the subscription was not any purpose, unless it had the consent of the people. But Pamelius replieth that the bishops were not enforced to admit whomsoever the people did require. Ob. 2. Pameli●▪ To the which I answer, that neither were the people enforced to receive, whomsoever the Bishops would intrude upon them. This practice of the ancient Church will some men say, is not this day observed in our reformed Churches of England. I answer, that it is virtually observed, Virtual election remaineth yet in the people▪ though not formally. For after the election is made by the Dean and Chapter, liberty is granted to the whole congregation, freely to declare their like or dislike, and what exception they can give against the party: which their freedom and liberty therein is made known, by letters affixed in public place. Now that the Bishop ought to be confirmed by the letters patents of the Prince, and not of the Pope, which is the third and last thing to be proved, I will unfold to the gentle reader, by three important and irrefragable reasons, grounded in the very bowels of that self same practice, The Pope must be confirmed by the letters patents of the Prince. which the papists will they, nile they, must perforce admit for good. The practice whereof I speak, is evident in the confirmation of these three Popes, Pelagius the second, Severinus and Benedictus the second. For all these three, and all other Bishops of Rome till the said Benedict inclusive, were ever elected and confirmed, by the emperors commandment. Which verity is freely confessed in express terms, by four famous popish writers, who therefore are and aught to be of more credit and force against the papists than any other authors whosoever: the names of the Popish doctors are these. Bapt. Platina, Bar●hol. Carranza, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and Onuphrius Panuinius. Platina writeth thus, touching the creation of Pelagius; Nilenim tum in eligendo pontifice actum erat, Platina in vita Pelagii secundi. nisi eius electionem imperator approbasset. For at that time, (which was after the incarnation of our redeemer 579) nothing was done effectually about the election of the Pope, unless the Emperor had confirmed the same. Platina in vita Severini. Touching the creation of Severinus, the same Platina writeth in this manner. Vana tunc enim habebatur cleri ac populi electio, nisi id imperatores auteorum exarchi confirmassent. For the election of the clergy and the people, was of no force at all in those days, Anno Dom 637 unless the Emperors or their lieutenants, had confirmed the same. This was done 637. years after Christ's incarnation. Concerning the creation of benedict, Platina hath these words. Platina in vita Bened. secundi. Ad hunc Constantinus imperator sanctionem misit, ut deinceps quem clerus, populus, exercitús que Romanus in pontificem delegisset eundem statim verum Christi vicarium esse omnes crederent: nulla aut Constantinopolitani principis, aut Italiae exarchi expectata auctoritate, ut anteà fieri consueverat: id enim ratum erat in creando pontifice, quod princeps confirmasset, vel qui eius vices in Italia gerebat. The emperor Constantine sent a decree to this Pope▪ that whomsoever the clergy, people, and Roman soldiers should henceforth choose for their bishop, all people should by and by believe him to be the vicar of Christ (scilicet) if they would. Bartholomeus Carranza a dominican Friar, Carranza in epit. p. 301. hath the very same assertion ad verbum. Anastasius and Onuphrius have these express words, Anastas. apud Onuphr. in ch●●ico. pontifices qui deinde fuerant, creati & consecrati sunt sine Constantinopolitani imperatoris iussione. The Popes that lived afterwards, were made and consecrated, without the Emperor of Constantinople his commandment: as if they had said, in the old time and in the ancient Church, no Bishop of Rome could have been admitted at any time, unless he had brought letters patents from the Emperor, though now the practice be far otherwise. Out of which doctrine, The first corollary I gather these three evident and most necessary corollaries. First, that the vulgar and common sort of people are grossly deceived, when they term papistry the old religion, and repute them for the Catholics. For we indeed are the true and ancient Catholics, and the Papists are nothing else but flat Heretics. For this Benedict could not be made Bishop of Rome, without the emperors Letters Patents. This primacy of the Emperor over the Bishop of Rome, was six hundred, Anno Dom 684 four score and four years after the incarnation of Christ. For at that time was this Benedict made the Pope. So then the Bishop of Rome, for the space almost of seven hundred years after the incarnation of Christ jesus, acknowledged the Emperor for his superior and Lord, as without whose Letters patents he could have no jurisdiction. For, as in civil causes, many are debarred from their lawful inheritance, The pope's tyranny debarred us from our ancient right. and that by the violent dealing of mighty men; even so we catholics have been many years excluded from our own churches, our ancient and lawful possessions, and that by the force, violence, and tyranny, of the bloody Romish antichrists. And as temporal men are in time restored unto their ancient right, by just and godly magistrates, even so were we, and are we, by the goodness of God and most christian princes, king Henry the eight, and king Edward the sixth of famous memory, & our most gracious sovereign Elizabeth, restored to the old, christian, catholic, and apostolic religion, and placed again in our own churches, the spiritual birthright of us and our ancestors. I gather secondly, that our Bishops in England are made and consecrated, The second corollary. according to the ancient, christian, catholic, and Roman manner, that is, by the Letters patents of the Prince. I gather thirdly, that Christian Emperors upon a certain zeal not grounded upon knowledge, The third corollary. yielding up their sovereign rights to the Bishops of Rome, opened the window to all antichristian tyranny. For in short time after, the Romish Bishops became so arrogant and lordly, that they took upon them to depose the Emperors, to translate their Empires, and to dispose at their pleasures, of their royal sceptres and regalities. The third reply. The church of God cannot be without Bishops and priests, ●phes. 4. verse. 11. as you have already granted, and as I have proved out of Saint Paul: but so it is, that when ye first reform the church as you term it; ye neither had any bishops nor any priests of your own, neither could you find any but with us and in our church, when Martin Luther went out from us. Our church therefore and none but ours, is the true church of god. This reason is so strong, as it can never be truly answered. The answer. I say first, that this reason seemeth to carry a majesty with it, and a very plausible show of truth, and therefore did it a long time fascinate and seduce myself, yet I trust by God's holy assistance so to solve it, as no papist shall have cause any longer to glory therein. I say secondly, that if our bishops or our lay-brethrens, had gone at any time to the greek and East churches, they should have found as good a material succession at the least, as that of yours at Rome: but there was no need to take so long and so painful a journey in hand. I say thirdly, that our bishops and priests of late years, were indeed consecrated by such as were sometimes in your church. But thereupon will it not follow I assure you, that the true church of God was with you and not with us: for no more can be inferred upon your reason, but that there remained a certain external face, of the visible church still with you, that is to say, a mingled material succession of place and persons, without the formal evangelical succession of truth and doctrine. The fourth reply. How can the pastors of the church, be without the doctrine of the church: for the church cannot be without the pastors, as I have proved and you also admitted? this is it, that I desire to learn. The answer. The reason hereof is this, because God promised to give always pastors to his visible church: but he never promised this, to put the truth always in their mouths. For this cause saith Saint Paul, that God hath given pastors and teachers to his church until the end: but he never said, Ephes. 4. verse. 13. that he gave them his holy spirit always to preach and teach the truth: no, no, he never promised any such thing. You brag of your succession, you say you are the church representative, & that your pope cannot err, but whatsoever he defineth judicially, that must be as true as the holy gospel. Even so did the wicked jews boast when the Prophet of God reproved them: come said they, let us imagine some device against jeremy; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, jer. 18. v. 18. nor the word from the prophet. Thus did the jews boast then, and thus do the papists boast now. Ezech. 7. ver. 26 But what saith God by his Prophet, to these your arrogant and Pharisaical conceits? doubtless clean contrary; to wit, but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the elder: as if he had said; notwithstanding your great brags of your privileges, yet shall ye be infatuated, and spoiled of all counsel, truth, and doctrine. The fift reply. The Apostle saith, that God gave pastors and teachers to his church for this end, Ephes. 4. v. 14 that they should not be carried away with false doctrine. But if the pastors all have erred, as you would have us to believe; then in vain did God give pastors to his Church to preserve us in the truth. For they that should have taught the truth, did even themselves serve from the truth; and so they became unfit instruments, to do the will of God. The answer. I say first, that albeit Gods will be one as himself is one, willing by his own essence and by one eternal and immutable act, whatsoever he willeth; yet is his will said to be manifold, aswell of the holy fathers, as of the schooledoctors. And this is done, for two special considerations. The former is, for the variety of the things which God willeth. The latter is, Let this solution be well observed, and never forgotten. for the variety of the manner, by which God seemeth to will things. Hereupon arise many divisions of Gods will, assigned by learned writers for explication sake. Some divide Gods will, into antecedent and consequent. Some others divide it, into the will of sign, and will of good pleasure. Others, into the will revealed, and will not revealed. Others, into the will absolute, an● will conditionate, and the like. I say secondly, that though Gods will consequent and will of good pleasure, be ever accomplished undoubtedly; yet is his will antecedent and will of sign, oftentimes neglected and left undone. Of the former will, the prophet speaketh in these words; whatsoever pleased the Lord, Esay. 46. verse 10 Psal. 135. ver. 6. that did he in heaven and in earth, and in the Sea, and in all the depths. And the Apostle saith: for who hath resisted his will? Of the latter, we have many examples in the holy Scriptures. First, Rom. 9 ver. 19 God commanded Pharaoh by Moses to let his people go, but Pharaoh would not obey. Secondly, Exod. 4. ver. 22 Math. 23. ver. 37 God would have gathered the jews together, even as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, 1. Tim. 2. v. 4 but they would not have it so. Thirdly, God would have all men to be saved, as Paul beareth witness; and yet we know by the holy gospel, that the greater part shallbe damned. Mat. 20. ver. 16 I say thirdly, that Gods will mentioned in S. Paul, and now objected against my resolution; is only voluntas signi (his will of sign: Voluntas signi non beneplaciti. ) and not voluntas beneplaciti (his will of good pleasure:) and therefore it can never be effectually concluded out of this text, (which hitherto hath ever been reputed the strong bulwark of popery, and either dissembled or lightly passed over by the gravest writers;) that the pastors of the visible church always teach the truth, and never serve from the same. Thus more plainly for the simple and ignorant sort. When the apostle saith, Ephes. 4. v. 14. that God placed pastors and doctors in the church, that the people be not carried away with false doctrine; he neither meaneth that the pastors shall always infallibly teach the truth, nor that the people shall always constantly embrace the truth. I prove it, because the apostle speaketh indefinitely and indifferently, of all teachers and of all hearers, of all shepherds and of all sheep, neither excepting one nor other; and yet both ye know and we know, that many preachers preach false doctrine, Mark this well for Christ's sake. and that many hearers embrace the same. Whereupon it followeth necessarily, that if the Apostle meant as ye would have him to mean; then Christ's intent and purpose should be frustrate indeed, which yet is it that yourselves impugn. The apostle therefore meaneth only this, to declare voluntate signi, what he would have his shepherds and sheep to do; albeit voluntate beneplaciti, the same be not ever accomplished. This my explication of S. Paul's meaning, is confirmed not only by the holy Scripture, but also by the express testimonies of renowned popish writers. Touching the holy Scripture; First, it is evident, that God would have all men saved, for so saith the apostle: Deus vult omnes homines saluos fieri. 1. Tim. 2.4 God's will is, that all men shallbe saved, and come to the acknowledging of the truth. Whereby we see, that Gods will and intent is to save all: and yet do we know assuredly, that all shall not be saved. Mat. 20. ver. 17 For the gospel saith plainly: Multi vocati, pauci verò electi. Many are called, but few are chosen. Secondly, it is clear, that God appointed good works to this end, that men should walk in them; for so saith holy writ: Ipsius enim sumu● factura, creati in Christo jesu in bonis operibus, quae praeparavit deus ut in illis ambulemus. Ephes. 2. ver. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them. And yet we see by daily experience, that it is far otherwise. Thirdly, God gave us his holy law, Exod. 18.20. Deut. 6.5. Luc. 10.28. Math. 22.37. Mar. 12.29. to the intent that we should accomplish it: (for so the scripture telleth us, and no papist doth or can deny the same:) and yet have we infallible knowledge out of the same scripture, that none living can keep & fulfil the law in all points. For if we could have kept the law in all points, Rom. 7. per totum. we should have been justified by the observation thereof, and so Chr●stes passion and his satisfaction had been needless. In all these places therefore, and the like: Voluntas signi must be understood, but not voluntas beneplaciti. Touching the popish Doctors, the jesuite Bellarmine hath these words: At fine dubio singuli episcopi errare possunt, & aliquando errant, Bellar. lib. 2. de conc. c. 2. & inter se quandoque dissentiunt, ut nesciamus quisnam eorum sequendus sit. But without doubt all bishops may err severally, and do err sometime, and sometime dissent one from another, insomuch that we cannot tell whom we should follow. Out of which words, I note first, that God who caused Balaams' ass to speak, Numb. 22.28. hath enforced our jesuite to confess the truth. I note secondly, that there is no Bishop in the world, but he both may err and sometime doth err; and consequently, that the pope of Rome is either no bishop at all by his own jesuits grant, or else that he both may err, and doth err indeed. Every bishop may err. Which point I have proved copiously, in my book of Motives. I note thirdly, that by our jesuits confession, every bishop hath so many errors, that the people cannot tell whom to follow, and consequently that S. Paul meant nothing less, then that the pastors and doctors of the church, should always teach the truth. I note four, that since every ancient father both may err, and doth err, and that by popish grant; there is no reason why the papists should urge us as they do, to stand to the censure of the fathers in every thing. Their own Cardinal Panormitanus hath these words: Name in concernentibus fidem▪ etiam dictum unius privati esset praeferendum dicto papae, Panorm. de elect cap. significati. poop finem. si ille moveretur mel●oribus rationibus novi & veteris testamenti, quam papa. Nec obstat, si dicatur quod concilium non potest errare, quia Christus oravit pro ecclesia sua ut non deficeret; quia dico, quod licet concilium generale repraesentet totam ecclesiam universalem, tamen in veritate ibi non est vera ecclesia universalis sed repraesentative: quia universalis ecclesia constituitur, ex collectione omnium fidelium. unde omnes fideles orbis constituunt istam ecclesiam universalem, cuius caput & sponsus est ipse Christus. Papa autem est vicarius Christi▪ & non verè caput ecclesiae, ut notat glossa in Clem. Ne Romani de elect. quae notabiliter dicit, quòd mortuo papâ ecclesia non est sine capite, & ista est illa ecclesia quae errare non potest unde possibile est, quòd vera fides Christi remaneret in uno solo, ita quod verum est dicere, quod fides non deficit in ecclesia. Sequitur: Christus ante passionem oraverat pro Perro▪ ut non deficeret fides sua, ergo non dicitur deficere nec etiam errare, si remanet vera fides in uno solo. For concerning matters of faith, even the judgement of one that is a mere lay man, aught to be preferred before the sentence of the pope; if that lay person could bring better reasons out of the old and new testament, than did the pope. And it skilleth not if one say, that a council cannot err, because Christ prayed for his church, that it should not fail. For I say, that although a general council represent the whole universal church, yet in truth there is not truly the universal Church, A lay man's judgement is to be preferred before the pope's. but representatively. For the universal church consisteth, of the collection of all the faithful. Whereupon all the faithful in the world, make this church universal, whereof Christ himself is the head. The pope is the vicar of Christ, but not truly the head of the church, as noteth the gloss upon the Clementines; which saith notably, that when the pope is dead, the Church wanteth not an head, and this is that Church which cannot err. Whereupon it is possible, that the true faith of Christ might remain in one alone, and so it may truly be said, that the faith faileth not in the church. Christ before his passion prayed for Peter, that his faith should not fail; therefore the church is not said to fail, neither to err, so long as the true faith abideth in one only. Out of these words I note first, that by the opinion of the great Papist Panormitan, a mere lay man's judgement even in matters of faith, aught to be accepted and received before the pope's constitution; if the lay man bring better reasons out of the scriptures, Lo▪ the papists acknowledge our doctrine. than the pope doth. Which saying doubtless is the foundation of the doctrine, this day established in the church of England, & in all other reformed churches throughout the world. Neither do we crave more of the papists, than their own doctors will afford us. I note secondly, that a general council may err, because it is not the catholic or universal church indeed. I note thirdly, that that church which cannot err, is not the visible company of pastors and doctors, but the invisible society of all the faithful in the world. Where by (invisible) I mean not, that any of the elect is invisible in his corporal consistence, but that the universal congregation of the faithful as universal, is invisible: that is to say, that no one mortal man seethe or knoweth all true believers in the church. In which sense is truly verified the saying of Elias, when he cried out that he only was left alone. 3. Reg 19.10 For albeit it be true, that there was a visible church in judea under the good kings, Asa and josaphat, 3 Reg. 15 & 18. & 22. 3. Paral. c. 16. etc. 17. even when Elias made his complaint that he was left alone: and although also that Abdias had told Elias, that he had hid an C. prophets by L. in a cave, so as Elias could not be ignorant of a visible church in the world; yet is it most true with all this, that the universal church as universal, was invisible to Elias; and that there were many thousands of true believers even then in Samaria, whom ●lias neither saw nor knew. And therefore did God answer him, saying: I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, which have not bowed the knee to Baal. Rom. 11. v. 3. I note four, that howsoever the visible bishops and pastors err, yet doth not the universal church err, so long as the faith remaineth in any one whosoever. I note fifthly, that as in the time of Elias, there were seven thousand faithful persons whom he knew not: even so were there in those days, The church invisible among the papists. when Martin Luther began his reformation, many thousands among the papists that sincerely believed the gospel, whom he neither saw nor knew. The 6 reply. The scripture telleth us, that the church cannot err. For, as the Apostle saith, it is the house of the living God, 1. Tim. 3 15. the pillar and ground of truth. Therefore either God's apostle teacheth false doctrine, or else doubtless the truth must ever be in the church. The answer. I answer, that the true church of God (which is the mystical body of Christ) doth never err wholly and generally in the fundamental points of religion, and such as are necessary for our salvation. I say first, (the true church of God) because the society of the visible pastors, are not ever the mystical members of Christ. I say secondly, (wholly and generally) because albeit the truth may fail for a time in the pastors of the church, yet shall it never perish in the elect and true members thereof. For though particular churches may err in particular points, yet shall the whole church never err, in the articles of necessary doctrine. Though the elect may err in part, and at sometime, yet shall they never err, Note how the Church cannot err. either all generally, or any one finally. For whom and in respect of whom, the church is rightly called the pillar of truth. This my exposition is made good by the testimony of S. Austen, whose words be these: Secundan ergo Sabbathi non debemus intelligere nisi ecclesiam Christi, sed ecclesiam Christi. in sanctis, ecclesiam Christi in his qui scripti sunt in coelo, ecclesiam Christi in ●is qui mundi huius tentationibus non cedunt. August. in Psal. 47. in praef. Ipsi enim digni sunt nomine, firmamenti. ergo ecclesia Christi in his qui firmi sunt, appellata est firmamentum; quae est, in quit, ecclesia dei vivi, columna & firmamentum veritatis. Therefore we may not understand the second of the sabbath to be any other than the church of Christ, yet the church of Christ in the saints, the church of Christ in those, which are not overcome with the temptations of this wicked world: for they are worthy the name of firmament; therefore the church of Christ is called the firmament in those that are firm, which is (saith he) the church of the living God, Vide Augusti. lib. 7. de bapt. c. 51. tom. 6. the pillar and firmament of truth: The like saying hath S. Augustine in many other places, but especially where he writeth against the Donatists. Saint Chrysostome expoundeth this place of the verity itself, and not of the pastors as you papists do: these are his express words, quip veritas ecclesiae, & columna & firmamentum est; for the verity of the church, is both the pillar and the firmament. And Anselmus holdeth flatly the opinion of Saint Austen, Chrys. homil. 11. in 1. Tim. 3. expounding the words of Saint Paul so plainly of the elect, as no papist is able to avoid the same, unless they will reject Anselmus, because they cannot answer him: and yet they cannot so do without blushing, because they have hitherto reputed him for their own: these therefore are his express words. Domus in qua Deus habitat, ecclesia est ex multis collecta fidelibus qui variis modis sunt docendi, Ansel. super hunc locum. & ipsa eius ecclesia est in perfectis columna, id est, sublimis & recta, & inconcussibilis & sustentans iuniores atque sustollens, & in eisdem perfectis est ipsa firmamentum veritatis; quia verbis & exemplis firmat in cordibus infirmorum, veritatem fidei & mandatorum Dei. The house in which God dwelleth, is the whole congregation of the faithful, who are to be taught diversly: and the same church is in the perfect a pillar, that is, sublime, strait, inconcussible, supporting and lifting up the younger sort, and in the same perfect, it is the firmament of truth, because both by words and examples it confirmeth in the hearts of the weak, the verity of faith and Gods commandments. Out of these words I gather first, that the house of God, whereof the Apostle writeth to Timothy, is (not the rabble of Popes and popish prelate's) but the congregation of the faithful. I gather secondly, that it is meant as well of the laity, as of the clergy: and my reason is founded in these words of Anselmus, (who are to be taught;) for the pastors ex officio must teach the flock, and not be taught of the flock. I gather thirdly, that it is meant specially of the elect; & my ground is this, because Anselmus saith, it is a pillar in the perfect For if there be any perfection, it is doubtless in the elect and none else. The Pope's own Doctors▪ sylvest de eccl. §. 4. Panormitanus and Sylvester do tell us in plain and manifest terms, that it is the whole congregation of the faithful that cannot err: these are Syluesters words. Et sic intellige glossam dicentem, quòd ecclesia quae errare non potest, dicitur non papa, sed congregatio fidelium, quae scilicet tenet fidem quam Petrus cum aliis populis docuit. And thus must the gloss be understood, which saith, that the church which cannot err, is not the pope, but the congregation of the faithful, that is, such as hold firmly that doctrine, which Saint Peter with other (godly) people taught. Panormitan writeth thus, Ecclesia universitatis errare non potest scilicet in fide vel articulis fidei: Panormit. apud Sylues. de fide §. 9 & pro hac tantum Christus in evangelio oravit ad patrem: in aliis autem non solum ecclesia particularis, verum etiam universalis, id est, collecti● fidelium seu concilium generale, errare potest. The church universal cannot err, that is to say, in the faith or in the articles of our belief: Vide ipsum Panormi● de electione, cap. significasti. and for this church only was Christ's prayer, when he prayed to his father in the gospel; yet in other things, not only the particular church, but the universal likewise may err, that is to say, the collection of the faithful, or a general council. Yea, the Popes own decrees affirm so much, to wit, that the church is catholicorum collectio: the congregation of the (faithful) catholics. And the pope's own dear gloss upon his own decrees, can. 14. quaest. ● can. a recta, in glossa. doth most lively describe that church which cannot err, to be the congregation of the faithful: thus is it there written in express terms. Quaero de qua ecclesia intelligas, quod hic dicitur, quod non possit errare si de ipso papa, certum est quod papa errare potest: respondeo, ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur ecclesia, & talis ecclesia non potest non esse. I ask thee (O Pope Luci) of what church thou understandest that, which thou tellest us in this place: to wit, that the church cannot err. For if thou understandest it of the Pope himself, it is very certain that the Pope may err. I answer therefore, that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithful, and such a church can never err (indeed.) Out of these words of Pope Lucius I note first, that when the Pope affirmeth that the church cannot err, than his own dear and faithful interpreter answereth roundly, that that privilege is not granted to the Pope, but to the whole congregation of the faithful. I note secondly, that the said gloss proveth by sundry chapters of the Popes own cannon-law, that the Pope both may err and hath already erred, de facto. I note thirdly, that that church in which the truth always abideth, is the multitude of the faithful. I therefore conclude with S. Paul, S. Augustine, Saint Chrysostome, Anselmus, Sylvester, Panormitanus, the Popes own canon-law, and popish interpreters upon the same, that the congregation of the faithful, is the pillar and ground of truth, and that church which cannot err. The seventh reply. Christ promiseth to be with his disciples until the world's end, but the Apostles departed hence long sithence: therefore as the fathers truly gather, Mat. 28.20. he meaneth of being with the catholic bishops, the true successors of the Apostles. The answer. I say first, that your popish Bishops of late years are neither catholic bishops, nor successors of the Apostles, as I have already proved▪ I say secondly, that Christ promiseth his spiritual and invisible presence, not only to the Apostles for their time, but also to the congregation of the faithful till the world's end: and I prove it by the testimony of the holy fathers, Saint Chrysostome, and Saint Augustine; Saint Chrysostome hath these express words. Nam cum dicit: ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi, non ad eos tantummodo loquitur, sed per eos ad universum prorsus orbem. Chrys. in cap. 5● Mat. hom. 15. tom. 2. For when he saith, behold, I am with you always until the end of the world, he speaketh not only to them, but to all doubtless that are in the whole world● which assertion he hath in many other places of his works. Saint Augustine hath words so important for this end and scope, as more shall not need to be alleged. Thus doth he write in flat terms; Non itaque fi● dictum est apostolis, eritis mihi testes in Jerusalem & in tota judaea, & Samaria, Agu. in Epist. 80. prop● finem. tom 2. pag. 238. &. usque in extremum terrae, tanquam ipsi foli quibus tunc loquebatur tantum munus fuerint impleturi; sed sicut eis solis videtur dixisse quod dixit, ecce ego vobiscum sum usque in consummationem seculi quod tamen eum universa ecclesiae promisisse quae aliis mortentibus, aliis nas●e●tibus hic usque in seculi consummationem futura est, quis non intelliga●? sicut eyes & iliud ait, quod ad eos omnino non pertinet: & tamen sic dictum est, tanquam ad solos etiam pertineret, cum videritis haec omnia, scitote quia propé est in ianu●●: ad quos enim hoc pertinet, nisi ad eos qui in carne tunc erunt, eum omnia complebuntur? It is not therefore so said to the Apostles, ye shallbe my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all jury, and in Samaria, & even to the utmost parts of the world, as if they only to whom he then spoke, should have accomplished so great a matter; but as he seemeth to have said only to them, that which he said (in these words) behold, I am with you to the world's end. Which thing nevertheless every one perceiveth, that he spoke it to the universal church; which by the death of some, and by the birth of other some▪ shall continue to the world's end; even as he saith that to them, which doth nothing at all pertain to them; and yet is it so spoken as if it only pertained to them, to wit, when y●● shall see these things come to pass, know that it is near 〈◊〉 the doors. For to whom doth this pertain, but to those who shall then be living, when all things shall be accomplished▪ In these words Saint Austen proveth plainly, that this objection wherein the papists glory so greatly, make th● 〈◊〉 for them: for (saith he) these words already recited, one spoken to the whole congregation of the faithful▪ which are or shall be to the world's end, and this Saint Austen showeth by two reasons: First, because not only the Apostles, but others together with them, should be his witnesses in Jerusalem and Samaria; albeit Christ spoke that of them, touching the bearing witness of him; as he spoke this to them, concerning his spiritual presence. And therefore as he spoke the other to all the faithful, so did he also this: that is, promised his invisible presence, not only to the Apostles or pastors of the church, but even to all the faithful in the world. Secondly, because Christ spoke that to his Apostles as pertaining only to them, which for all that did nothing at all concern them: as if he had said; it is not a good reason to deny Christ's presence to the whole church, because he uttered the words only to the Apostles. For since he spoke that to the Apostles which pertained nothing to them but only to others; much more might he speak that to them, which belonged to them with others. The eight reply. 〈◊〉. 16. ●3. Christ himself saith▪ that the holy ghost shall teach the Apostles all truth, even many things whereof they were not capable then; and therefore did he be serve those things, till the coming of the holy ghost. The answer. I answer, that the holy ghost after Christ's ascension taught the Apostles all truth, even such things as Christ had reserved; and that by reason of their ●uditie and imperfection in conceiving heavenly doctrine: yet those things so reserved, and the truth so taught was nothing else, but a manifest explication of the self same verity, which they in brief before had heard. For the holy ghost did coin no new doctrine, The holy ghost ●aught no new doctrine, but only revealed ●he true sense of such things ●s the Apostles did not understand. nor reveal any new articles of faith: but only taught the Apostles the true s●nse of Christ's words, which before for their dullness, they were not able to perceive which sense they being directed by the instinct of the holy ghost, delivered to the whole world; first, by word, and afterward by writing. All this I prove by two evident demonstrations: first because Christ himself doth so expound himself, in these words following He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance which I have told you: which saying must be well noted, john. 14 vers. 26. because the latter words are a plain declaration of the former; as if Christ had said: all things which the holy ghost shall teach the apostles after my departure, It is the self same doctrine but more plainly declared. are no new doctrine, but the very same things which they heard before of me, and they differ only in this, that the Apostles do more plainly understand them, by the assistance of the holy ghost. Secondly, because the best learned popish doctors, do hold the same opinion. For Melchior Canus hath these words: Nec ullas in fide novas revelationes ecclesia habet: Canus de locis lib. 3. c. 4. for the church hath no new revelations in matters of faith. Thus saith Christ himself, and thus teacheth their own doctor, and yet would the papists enforce us, daily to admit new doctrines from the church of Rome. The ninth reply. Peter is the rock of the church, against which hell-gates shall never prevail: Mat. 16. verse. 18. therefore Saint Peter's successors can never err. The answer. I answer, that not Saint Peter, but the confession which he made, is that rock of the church, against which hell gates shall not prevail. And this is not my opinion only, but Saint Beda, Saint Austen, Saint Chrysostome, Saint Hylarie, and sundry very learned papists, do teach the same doctrine constantly. These are Saint Austin's words: Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram quam confessus es, Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 13. super hanc petram quam cognovisti dicens, tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Id est, super meipsum filium Dei vivi, aedificabo ecclesiam meam: super me edificabo te, non me super te: thou art Peter (saith Christ) and upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, These are most plain words. saying: thou art Christ the son of the living God, will I build my church, that is, upon myself the son of the living God will I build my church, upon myself will I build thee, not myself upon thee. Saint Chrysostome writeth thus: Columnae quidem, quoniam virtute sua ecclesiae robur sunt: Chrys. serm de p●nt. tom▪ 3. fundamentum, quòd in confession insorum fundata est ecclesia, dicente domino: Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram fundabo ecclesiam meam. The Apostles are the pillars, because by their virtue they are the strength of the Church: they are the foundation, because the Church is built in their confession; when the Lord saith: thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church. Lo, this text upon which the Papists build their popish primacy, is understood of all the Apostles, not of Peter alone; neither is the church built upon any of their persons, but upon the joint confession of them all: Saint Bede holdeth the same opinion. for Peter made the confession in the name of them all, as Saint Chrysostome truly saith, which confoundeth the Papists utterly. S. hilary hath these words: Haec fides ecclesiae fundamentum est: Hila●. de Trinit. lib. 6. P. 103. per hanc fidem, infirmae adversus eam sunt portae inferorum: haec fides regni caelestis habet claves: this faith is the foundation of the church: by this faith hell gates shall not prevail against it; this faith hath the keys of heaven. The received popish gloss upon this text, doth understand by the rock, Peter's faith, and the confession which he made. Panormitan and Sylvester both being great papists, Gloss. in mat. 16. See Panormitan, de electione, cap. significasti. are of the same opinion. The tenth reply. Christ prayed for Peter, that his faith should never fail: therefore the Pope cannot err. Luke. 22. ver, 32. The answer. I say first, that the Pope's faith both may fail, and hath failed de facto, as I have proved at large in my book of Motives. I say secondly, that the insuffiencie of this consequent is unfolded, in many places of this chapter. I say thirdly, that as Christ prayed for Peter, so did he also for the rest of the Apostles, & for the whole church. And this I do not barely say, but I will prove it by the verdict of the holy fathers, as also of your own doctors: & first by Christ jesus his own declaration. Concerning your Pope, all wise men in the world worthily deride you papists, for your vain, ridiculous, and fabulous conceits, of his faith. For first the truth enforceth you to grant (as I have proved in my Motives) that your Pope may hold false opinions in matters of faith, either sitting in his chair, or walking in his garden, or looking about him in his Bel-vidêre, or riding on his white palfrey, or lying in his bed waking, or at the table eating, or while he giveth pardons and jubilees. Secondly, that he may utter the same error and false faith, secretly to his friends. Thirdly, that he may publish the same in his Extravagants, Epistles, and printed books. Which 3. grants sufficiently overthrow your pope's supposed privilege, if nothing else could be said against the same. Three grants of the papists do utterly overthrow the pope's supposed privilege. Concerning Peter faith, it is certain, that Christ prayed as well for all the elect as for Peter, and directed his words not to Peter, as to one private man, but as to one representing the whole church: and consequently, whatsoever Christ said or did touching Peter's faith, must perforce be understood of the faith of the whole church; which, as is proved, shall never fail indeed. This being once made good, your mighty objection (wherein ye glory much,) will be of no force at all. My first reason is contained in Christ's own words, which are these: joh. 27. vers. 9 I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. In which words it is clear, that Christ prayeth only for Peter, but for all his disciples as well as for him; and he showeth the equity of his petition, by sundry reasons. First because he prayeth for God's friends. Secondly, because he prayeth for Gods elect. Thirdly, because of the unspeakable union, between his father and himself. Fourthly, because he is glorified in them, & so is his father also. Fiftly, because they are environed with many temptations of this wicked world. joh. 17. vers. 20. Again, Christ saith, I pray not for these only, but for them also, that shall believe in me through their word. In which words his former prayer which seemed to be made for his disciples only is now extended to all the faithful until the world's end, a sentence doubtless replenished with all solace, towards us and the whole Church of God, as which is the only foundation of our salvation, to wit, that Christ did no less prey for us, than he did for his own apostles. And this reason is confirmed in an other place, where Christ promiseth to be among those that are gathered in his name, Matt. 18.19, 20. though they be but two in number. Which words (as our jesuite Bellarmine doth grant) are meant aswell of the Laical as Ecclesiastical sort. The second reason. My second reason is grounded upon the interpretation of the ancient fathers. S. Austen hath these express words; Et Petro dicit, Aug. in quaest. mixtis. q 75. to. 4 Ecce Satanas expostulavit ut vos ventilet sicut triticum, ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, & tu tandem conversus, confirma fratres tuos. Quid ambigitur? pro Petro rogabat, & pro jacobo & joanne non rogabat ut caeteros taceam? manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri, quia & in alio loco dicit, ego pro his rogo, quos mihi dedisti pater, & volo ut ubi ego sum, & ipsi sint mecum. And he saith to Peter, Behold, sathan hath desired to winnow you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; therefore thou once converted, confirm thy brethren. What doubt is there? Did he pray for Peter, and did he not also pray for james and john, to say nothing of the rest? It is plain, that in Peter all the rest are meant, because he saith in an other place: I pray for these, O Father, which thou hast given me, and desire that they may be with me where I am. Orig. homil. ●. in Matth, Origen, who lived many years afore saint Austen, affirmeth in a large discourse upon saint Matthew, that all things spoken of Peter touching the church and the keys, are to be understood of all the rest. And the collection of Origen is evident, even by natural reason: For if Christ prayed not as well for the rest as for Peter, of small credit were a great part of the holy scripture. An argument insoluble. A reason doubtless insoluble for all papists in the world. For if they could fail in their faith, they could also fail in their writing: and yet that they could not so fail, was by virtue of Christ's prayer. The third reason. My third reason is the flat opinion and constant doctrine of great learned papists. Panormitanus was their skilful Canonist, their religious abbot, and their renowned archbishop: and consequently, his authority must needs gall and confound them all, Panorm. apud sylvest de fide §. 9 de conc. §. 3 his words are these; Et pro hac tantùm Christus in evangelio oravit ad patrem, ego rogavi prote. And for this (he meaneth the universal church) Christ only prayed to his father in the gospel, when he said; I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Behold here (gentle Reader) and yield thine indifferent censure. When Christ (saith the great papist Panorm.) prayed that Peter's faith should not fail, he prayed for the faith of the universal church, whose faith shall never fail indeed. The place is worthy to be noted. And the said Panormitan proveth his opinion directly, by many texts of the pope's Canon law. de Elect. cap. significasti. Alphonsus à Castro a religious popish Carthusian hath these words; Non dubitamus an haereticum esse, & papam esse, Alphons. lib. 1. de haeres. c. 4. coire in unum possint, infra: Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem papae assentatorem ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare, nec in interpretatione sacrarum literarum hallucinari possit: We doubt not, whether one man may be a pope and an heretic both together. For I believe there is none so shameless a flatterer of the Pope, that will ascribe this unto him, that he can neither err, nor be deceived in the exposition of the scriptures. The eleventh reply. All Christ's sheep are committed to Peter, Ioh, 21. vers. 16 and consequently to the pope, Ergo The answer. I say first, that the bishop of Rome is not saint Peter's successor, and I have already proved it effectually. I say secondly, that all Christ's sheep were committed to all the apostles in like manner. For Christ gave all his apostles charge and authority, to go into all the world, and to teach all nations. Which answer saint Austen showeth excellently, in the person of saint Peter to be accomplished: his own words are these; Ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, & cùm ei dicitur, August. de agone. Christ c. 30. to. 3. ad omnes dicitur: amas me? pasce oves meas. Peter representeth the person of the church catholic, and when it is said to him, it is said to all: Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. Lo, the popish bulwark is battered down. CHAP. III. Of the marriage of priests and ministers of the church. The first Proposition. ALL Ministers which are not papists, nor subject to the laws and rules of Popery, may lawfully marry, even by the doctrine of the Church of Rome: albeit the vulgar sort of Papists, most bitterly exclaim against the same. I prove it, because all such ministers are mere lay men, by the judgement of the church of Rome: Let the silly vulgar papists note well this proposition. which church for all that, only debarreth persons ecclesiastical, from the freedom of honourable wedlock. This probation is so evident, as no learned papist can or will deny the same. Peruse the end of the seventh proposition following, and it will satisfy thee in all respects. The second Proposition. Marriage was lawful for all priests and other ministers of the church, during all the time of the old Testament. This proposition is clear, to all such as diligently revolve the holy Bibles; neither do I know any learned papist, that by word or writing denieth the same. For the holy prophet jeremy was the son of Helkiah, jerem. 1.1. 1. Sam. 1. vers. 3. Exod. 18.1, & 2. who was one of the priests that were at Anathoth. Hophni and Phinehas were the sons of Heli the priest, Sephora was the daughter of jethro the priest of Midian: and Saint john Baptist was the son of Zacharias the priest, to whom the angel of God was sent to bring him glad tidings. The tidings were these, that Elizabeth his wife should bear him a son, Luc. 1. vers. 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19 albeit she was barren, and well stricken in age. And he received the message while he was occupied in prayer, and in burning of incense at the right side of the altar. Whereby it clearly appeareth, how acceptable the marriage of priests was then in God's sight. For first, Saint john was a very holy man, and the precursor of our Saviour Christ. Secondly, Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both just, and walked in God's commandments without reproof. Thirdly, the angel of God was sent to Zacharias, to tell him that his wife should conceive and bear him a son. Fourthly, this message was brought him even then, when he executed his priestly function. All which circumstances well observed, do prove undoubtedly, that the marriages of priests are honourable in God's sight. The third Proposition. Marriage is lawful for priests and other ministers of the church, even now in the time of the new testament. Where by the word (priests) I understand all such as are admitted to preach God's word, and to administer the holy sacraments. This proposition may be proved, by many weighty and important reasons. First, because no text in the new Testament can be alleged, which debarreth the ministers thereof from the benefit of marriage granted in the old. If any Papist will say that there is some such text in the new testament, let him show that text, and we will believe him. In the mean season, he must pardon us, if we give not credit to his words. Secondly, because the apostle proveth in two several places, that all priests may be married. Where, what I mean by priests, is already showed. The first place is that reason which Saint Paul maketh to Timothy, and is contained in these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Bishop therefore must be unreprovable, the husband of one wife. 1. Tim. 3. verse 2. This text of holy scripture (if it be thoroughly marked) doth plainly convince, that it is lawful for a Bishop to marry. Let us therefore exactly examine the true meaning and sense thereof. The Papists to maintain their diabolical doctrine of single life, would rack this text to those wives, which bishops had before they were admitted to ecclesiastical function, A shameful wresting of the holy scripture. but that is a forced and violent exposition, contrary to the true meaning of the apostle. For Saint Paul among other virtues convenient for a Bishop, requireth this for one, that he be not coupled to more wives than one at once. Nneither is it possible to imagine any other true sense, of this present text. For first, it is not of necessity, that a bishop have a wife; and yet doth the Apostle say, that he must be the husband of one wife. For both they and we agree in this, that one may be a lawful bishop, and yet live unmarried. Again, the apostle speaketh in the present tense (must be the wife:) and not, (must have been the wife) so that the gloss of the papists must needs be false, who expound the words, of the time already past. Thirdly, the Apostles words must needs be verified, of marriage in some sense. But first, it cannot be meant of marriage already past, because the verb is of the time present. Again, it cannot be meant of the necessity of marriage, because a Bishop may lawfully live unmarried. The true meaning of S. Paul. Therefore thirdly, this must needs be the true meaning thereof: to wit, that a bishop may marry if he list, but yet not have many wives at one and the same time, as the jews and the Gentiles had. And to this exposition do accord not only S. Chrysostome and Theophilact, but also their own dear Cardinal Caietane. Chrysost. in 1. Tim. c. 3. hom. 10. S. Chrysostome hath these express words; Non hoc veluti sanciens dicit, quasi non liceat absque uxore episcopum fieri sed eius rei modum constituens. judaeis quip licitum erat etiam secundo matrimonio iungi, & duas itidem simul habere uxores; honorabiles enim nuptiae. Behold how the fathers and scriptures agree with priest's marriage. He saith not this, meaning to establish a law, as though none could be a bishop, who hath not a wife; but his purpose is, to appoint a measure in that behalf. For the jews might not only be twice married, but also have two wives at once. For marriage is an honourable thing. The apostle therefore speaketh against Polygamy. Hier. in cap. 1. ad Tit. Yea, S. Hierome confesseth that sundry writers expound this place, against the Polygamy of the jews. The same S. Chrysostome in another place, hath these golden words; Chrysost. in 2. c ad Titum, hom. 2 Obstruere prorsus intendit haereticorum ora qui nuptias damnant, ostendens eam rem culpâ career, imo ita esse pretiosam, ut cum ipsa etiam possit quispiam ad sanctum episcopatus solium s●buehi. The Apostle intendeth to confound the heretics, that condemn marriage; declaring that it is faultless, and a thing so precious, as a man may with it be promoted to the holy function of a bishop. Thus saith S. Chrysostome, whose words are so plain and pithy, as no papist is able to wrest and writhe them to serve his turn. For first, Note well what is here said. S. Chrysostome proveth marriage to be honourable and holy, against the heretics that condemned it, and that because a bishops function is honourable and holy, who for all that may be a married man. Which argument were vain and frivolous, if Saint Chrysostome should speak of a Bishop's marriage, while he was a mere lay man. For hereupon would it follow necessarily, that tyranny, persecution, adultery, and murder, should be honourable, aswell as honest wedlock. I prove it, The probation convinceth. because no disparity can be given between S. Chrysostom's reason▪ and this of mine. For first; as the function of a bishop is honourable, so is the function of an Apostle, so is the function of a prophet. Again, as a married man may be a bishop, so may a persecutor of Christ's church be an apostle, for S. Paul was both: so may an adulterer, so may a murderer be an holy prophet: for good king David was all three. Thirdly, as tyranny is a great sin, albeit once a tyrant may afterward become an apostle: and as adultery and murder be grievous crimes, although once an adulterer and once a murderer may afterward be an holy prophet; even so doubtless, marriage may be an unlawful thing; albeit once a married man, may afterward be an holy bishop. And so S. Chrysostome could not well conclude marriage to be lawful, because once a married man may be a Bishop. Answer, O Seminary priests, or else recant your doctrine. S. Chrysostome saith yet further, that even with it, eumeâ, with holy wedlock, one may be made a bishop; even while he is a married man. For as the father and the son, so also the husband and the wife be relatives and correlatives, whose nature is (as all Logicians grant) to place and displace, be and not be, live and die all at once. For so soon as a man beginneth to be a father, so soon hath he a child; and so soon as he ceaseth to have a child, so soon ceaseth he to be a father, although he still remain a man. And even so is it with the husband and the wife. Add hereunto, that S. Chrysostome should not say, (with wedlock,) but, (after it,) if he meant as the papists would have him to do. I therefore conclude, that if S. Chrysostome mean not of a bishops marriage, during the very time he is a bishop, Theoph. in hunc loc●m. his argument is vain and frivolous. And in this argument, Theophilactus subscribeth to S. Chrysostome. The second place is that reason, which S. Paul maketh to the Corinthians, and is contained in these words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 1. Cor. 9 v. 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, aswell as the rest of the apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? By this it appeareth manifestly, (if it be well marked,) that S. Peter and other of the apostles were married; and that they did lead their wives about with them, The popish exposition of this place, is ridiculous. when they went abroad preaching the holy gospel. For first, the Greek word in the original, signifieth a wife as well as a woman. Secondly, the word (carrying about) argueth a certain interest and right, in the party that is carried about. Thirdly, it had been a very scandalous thing, that the apostles being single men, should carry strange women about with them. Fourthly, this place cannot be understood of rich matrons; because such women would have relieved the apostles, and not have suffered them to be chargeable to their auditors: and yet doth the apostle here speak of such women, as were relieved by the preaching of the Gospel. Fiftly, if the Greek word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) be not here taken for a wife, but for a woman, it must needs be a vain and childish addition, because every sister is a woman. Sixtly, because S. Cl●ment, and Eusebius Caesariensis, expound this place of S. Paul's wife, Euseb. hist. lib. 3. secundum. Ruffi. and not of any other woman. johannes Christophorsonus, a great papist, allegeth S. Clement's words, out of Eusebius in this manner. Clemens deinceps apostolos qui matrimonium contraxisse reperiuntur, Euseb. lib. 3 hist. cap. 24. secundum Christophor. en●merat, ídque contra eorum sententiam, qui nuptias tollere abrogareque instituerent Numinquit sunt apostolos improbaturi: Petrus enim & Philippus, liberos procrearunt. Philippus filias viri collocavit in matrimonium. Paulus etiam non veretur in quadam epistola, contugis suae mentionem facere; quam eò minime secum circumduxit, quò facilius liberiusque suo fungeretur ministerio. Clement afterward reckoneth the apostles, who are known to have been married men; and that against their opinion, who endeavoured to abrogate and take away marriage. Will they (saith he) condemn the apostles? for both Peter and Philip begat children, and Philip bestowed his daughters upon husbands in marriage. Paul also blusheth not in one of his Epistles, to make mention of his wife▪ Phil. cap. 4. v. 3 whom he would not carry about with him, to the end he might preach the gospel more freely. See the first proposition following. The first objection. It is clear, that S. Paul would not marry his own sister; and therefore the woman he speaketh of, could not be his wife. The answer. I answer, that the names of brother and sister in the primitive church, were proper to the faithful and true believers. Sundry wives also in those days, were of a dissonant religion from their husbands. S. Paul therefore to show his wife to be a christian, and a true believer, calleth her a sister. As if he had said, the woman I speak of, is not only my wife, but withal a christian and a true believer. The 2. objection. These women that S. Paul speaketh of, were not the wives of the apostles, but certain devout women, that followed the Apostles for zeal of the gospel; as we read of many women that followed Christ, and did not thereby commit any scandal at all. The answer. I say first, that the women S. Paul speaketh of, were the wives of the apostles as I have proved. I say secondly, that it is one thing to follow voluntarily, as the women did our saviour Christ; and another thing to be led about, as were the women of whom the apostle speaketh. I say thirdly, that it was an usual and ordinary thing▪ aswell for women as for men, to resort to Jerusalem, whither these women followed Christ. I say four, that these wom●n were many together, and went in the company of their husbands and neighbours; and so they could not be subject to any scandal at al. But if the Apostles were single men, and went into several parts of the world, and led single women about with them, so must they then needs be subject unto scandal; unless they were, as is said, their lawful wives indeed. I say fifthly, that if they were old women, they could not endure the labours of so painful and long journeys. 1. Tim. 5. v. 9.14 And if they were young women, or under threescore, they ought to marry according to Paul's doctrine. The 4. proposition. Marriage was deemed lawful for all sorts of people; aswell for ecclesiastical persons as others: & that for many hundredth years together, after Christ's glorious ascension into heaven. This proposition I prove many ways; First, because Peter, james, Paul, Philip, and the rest of the apostles, were all married, as is already proved. Secondly, because sundry of the holy fathers, Greg. Nazianz. Orat. de funer. Pat. orat. 28.27. had wives and children. S. Gregory Nazianzene was a bishop's son, and admitted to the pastoral charge by his father in his life time. S. Cheremon the bishop of Nicopolis in Egypt, was a married man and a stout confessor. For both he and his wife being well stricken in year's, Eusebius hist. lib. 6. ca 31. Chrysost. in oratione de Philog. fled from persecution to a mountain in Arabia; from whence they neither returned, neither were after that seen of any man. S. Philogonius so highly commended by S. Chrysostome, was a married bishop, and had a daughter. S. Spiridion, who wrought wonderful miracles in his life time, Socrates hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hist trip. lib. 1. cap. 10. was the bishop of Cyprus, and a married man; he had a daughter Irene by name: who being full of piety and sanctimony of life, died a virgin. This married bishop lived about 350. years after Christ. Hist. trip. lib. 6. cap. 14. Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 10. Eupsychius the bishop of Caesaria was a married man, and soon after his marriage martyred for Christ jesus. For (as Nicephorus and Cassiodorus report in their ecclesiastical histories) he was put to death, being as yet in manner a new married man. Thirdly, because the Pope's own canon law telleth us, that many Popes were the sons of priests, to wit Bonifacius, Agapitus, Theodorus, Syluerius, Foelix, Hosius, Gelasius, Deusdedit; and many others. But perhaps our papists will say, that all these were bastards, Dist. 56 cap. O●●us. and answer with their gloss, that vitium tollitur per successionem, the fault is taken away by succession. Oh, Glossa ibidem. what will not popery do? But yet we may put them in mind of another canon, which telleth them, Dist. 56. cap Cenom●ncus. that all these Pope's aforenamed were legitimate children, because in those days Popes and Bishops might marry lawfully. Which assertion, proveth exactly my proposition. Fourthly, because many counsels have decreed this verity; and the Apostles themselves in their canons, have set down this decree. Episcopus, aut presbyter, aut diaconus, Can. 6. Apostol. uxorem suam praetextu religionis non abiicito: si abiicit, segregator à communione; si perseverat, deponator: Let neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion: if he so do, let him be excommunicate; if he cont●●ue, let him be deposed. Out of these words I note first, that in the days of the Apostles, it was lawful for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to have wives. I note secondly, that if either Bishop, priest, or Deacon, should put away his wife under pretence of (holiness or) religion; for that his offence, he ought to be excommunicated. I note thirdly, that if the Bishop, priest, or Deacon, would not receive his wife again, whom he had put away under pretence of holiness, (which the Pope this day so straightly commandeth,) then such Priest, Bishop, and Deacon, aught to be deprived of his living. I note four, that these Canons how soever they be indeed, are highly magnified of the papists, and therefore must they of necessity, be a forcible testimony against them. In the council of Ancyra it was decreed, that the deacons, who in the time of their orders said they would marry, should continue still in the ministery, Con. Ancyr. can. 10. even after the celebration of their marriage. Where note, that this council was holden about three hundred and eight years after Christ's incarnation. Anno. Dom. 308 The council of Gangra accursed him, that thought a married priest might not minister the holy communion. Conc. Gangr. cap. 4. Sozome●. ib. 3. cap. 13. The third council of Constantinople (the sixth general synod so called) decreed, that Priests, Deacons, and subdeacons, Conc. Constan●in 3. can. 13. should continue with their lawful wives, and bege●te children, at all such time & times, as they were not in actual execution of the ministery: The council confesseth that they hold against the Church of Rome. albeit they knew the church of Rome to have another custom. This famous general council was holden about the year of our Lord 681. where were present two hundred eighty and nine bishops: all which though so many in number, Anno. Dom. 681 and living so many years after Christ, confessed nevertheless, that the marriage of Priests was a lawful thing. The fift Proposition. Note the eight proposition in the third building. The prohibition of marriage in ecclesiastical persons, is not only against Gods holy ordinance, but withal, the flat doctrine of the devil. The former part of this proposition, I prove sundry ways: First, 1. Cor. 7. vers. 2 Saint Paul willeth every man to have his wife, and every woman to have her husband, and that for this end and purpose, to avoid fornication. Out of which words I note first, that where every man is named, there doubtless no man is excepted. I note secondly, that marriage is a sovereign medicine against fornication, and therefore aught to be used of all such, as find themselves grieved with that disease. And consequently, since that disease is as well incident to persons ecclesiastical as secular, the medicine is as necessary and as lawful for the one sort, as it is for the other. For which cause Paphnutius spoke openly in the council of Nice, that it was unlawful to debar Bishops and Priests from their wives, but hereof more at large hereafter. Secondly, S. Paul having commended the estate of the unmarried and widows, 1. Cor. 7. 〈…〉. as more convenient and profitable; doth forthwith wish those that cannot abstain, to use the remedy of marriage. And he yieldeth this reason, because it is better to marry then to burn. Thirdly, marriage is honourable among all, and the undefiled bed; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebr. 1●. verse. ●▪ Out of which words I note first, that since marriage is honourable in all sorts of men, it ought not to be blamed in persons ecclesiastical, unless happily which the Apostle perceived not, their function taketh from them the nature of men. I note secondly the antithesis, which the Apostle here maketh, for as adultery shall be punished in all sorts of people none at all excepted, even so must marriage be honourable in all sorts, no one or other exempted from the same. And where the wound is common to all, Haymo in 〈◊〉 Locum. there the medicine must not be applied only to some few: For as Haymo gathereth learnedly, adulterers are therefore justly punished, because the remedy of wedlock is granted to them: now if this learned writer (who lived above 700 years ago,) conclude effectually out of S. Paul, as every indifferent reader will say he doth, then doubtless must it follow necessarily, that either ecclesiastical persons may as lawfully marry as others; or else that they cannot be so justly punished for fornication, as other men ought to be. This illation is so evident, Note well thi● illation▪ as none with right reason will deny the same Fourthly, Saint Paul confesseth plainly, that he hath no authority to command single life or verginitie; 1. Cor. 7. vers. 25 therefore the Pope challengeth greater authority than the Apostle, when he commandeth to abstain from marriage. Fiftly, Christ appointeth marriage for all such as are neither eunuchs made by men, nor by the impotency of nature, Mat. 19 ver. 12 nor by the gift of continency; but the pope chargeth them that are eunuchs no way, to abstain from marriage solemnly: therefore the pope's commandment is against God's holy ordinance. Theodoretus confirmeth this point, in these words; Theodoret. in 1▪ Timoth. 4. Rectè autem posuit illud, prohibentium contrahere matrimonium. Neque enim celibatum ac continentiam vituperat sed eos accusat qui lege lata ea sequi compellunt: He put that rightly, forbidding to marry: he blameth not single life & continency, but accuseth them that by positive laws, compel to put such things in execution. This law therefore of the pope is intolerable. For which cause saint Clemens avoucheth them to do injury to nature, Clem. Alexand. in pedagogue. lib. 2. cap, 10. that will not use wedlock for procreation of children. The latter part of this proposition the apostle setteth down so plainly, as it is needless to say any more in that behalf. These are Saint Paul's own words: But the spirit speaketh evidently, that in the latter times, some shall departed from the faith, ●. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3 and shall give heed unto spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, which speak lies through hypocrisy, and have their consciences burned with an hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats. In these words it is very clear, that saint Paul termeth the prohibition of marriage and of meats; the flat doctrine of the devil. For, after he had declared wherein the mystery of true religion consisteth, which is taught in the true church of Christ: Prohibition of marriage is the doctrine of An●●christ. he forthwith giveth evident marks of the mystery of iniquity, which is maintained in the false church of Antichrist, in whose synagogue the highest points of religion are the prohibition of marriage and of meats. And who seethe not this day, this to be the state of the church of Rome? as in which church they are specially, and in a manner only reputed religious, who obey the prohibition of marriage and also of meats. And it will not help the Papists to say, as their wonted manner is; that they neither prohibit marriage generally, nor as an unlawful thing. For first, saint Paul speaketh not generally of marriage, but of the precise marriage of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. This do I prove, because so soon as he had declared the duty of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, with their wives and children; by and by in the beginning of the next chapter, he addeth; that in the latter days marriage shall be prohibited, by the doctrine of the devil. Where the word (But) doth effectually insinuate; that he speaketh precisely of the marriage of ecclesiastical persons by him above named. Again, the words (Forbidding and Commanding) argue authority in them that restrain marriage: and so it pertaineth not only to the old heretics, the Manichees, the Tatians, the Eucratites, the Marcionists, the patricians, and the apostolics, but much more to the late Popes of Rome, who strictly command the whole world to abstain from that, whereof God himself hath granted the lawful use. For what is to be extolled above God, 2. Thes. 2. ver 4. if not to alter and change his holy words? Bishops, Priests and Deacons, have always been married in the East church, even from our Saviour Christ, until these our days. This I prove by the testimony of the sixth general council of Constantinople; where 289. Bishops were assembled, in the year of our Lord 677. In the thirteenth canon of this famous council, three special things are decreed: First, that Priests, Deacons, and subdeacons, may have the lawful use of wedlock, at such times as they do not execute the ministery. Secondly, this council excommunicateth all those Priests and Deacons, that after their orders put away their former wives under pretence of religion. Thirdly, it excommunicateth all such as labour to separate Priests and Deacons, from the use and company of their wives. And after all this, this great synod addeth this worthy and memorable observation, to wit, Small account of the church of Rome. that they have thus decreed, albeit the laws of Rome be otherwise. Where I note by the way, that so many learned bishops contemned the usurped primacy of the church of Rome. I prove it secondly, by the verdict of their own canon law, which is the flat opinion of Pope Vrban, as their own Gratian telleth us, his express words are these. Cum ergo ex sacerdotibus nati, Dist. 56. cap. Cenomanens. in summos pontifices supra legantur esse pro●oti; non sunt intelligendi de fornication, sed de legitimis coniugiis nati, quae sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem ubique licita erant, & in orientali ecclesia usque hody eis licere probantur. When therefore we read, that the sons of Priests are made Popes, we must not understand bastards, but sons borne in honest marriage, which marriage was every where lawful for Priests, before the (late) prohibition, and is also lawful this day in the East Church, for which cause the late council of Florence, left the marriage of Priests to the free election of the Greeks'. Yea, their own dear Friar, and grave archbishop Antoninus, Antoninus. p. 2. Tit. 11. ca 2. §. 9 confirmeth the same in these words; Quia Graci etiam in sacerdotio coniugio utuntur. For the Greeks' join the use of matrimony, even with the priesthood. Priests were married for the space of 400. years after Christ. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were likewise married in the West and Latin church, for the space almost of four hundred years, without any prohibition at all. And afterward in some places, for many hundredth years. This is the probation. After that Christ had granted marriage for all men, appointing such to use it, for an wholesome medicine, as wanted the gift of continency; after that Saint Paul had pronounced freely, marriage to be honourable in all sorts of men; after that the Apostles had decreed, that neither Bishops, Priests, nor deacons, should leave the company of their wives under pretence of religion; after that many holy Bishops, priests, and deacons, had lived laudably in the Church, and had used the honest hel● of holy wedlock above three hundredth, eighty and five years, (all which I have already proved;) then one Syricius advanced to the popedom, in the year of Christ 385. seduced by Satan, published wicked doctrine, and prohibited marriage as an unlawful thing. Anno dom. 385 Which matter because it is very important, and the words of our holy father the pope so blasphemous, as hardly any will believe him to have so written, Videtu dist. 8●. cap. proposuist. etc. plurimos. but he that readeth the same; I will allege his words at large. Thus therefore doth he write in express terms. Quod dignum, & pudicum, & honestum est, suademus, ut sacerdotes & Levitae cum suis uxoribus non coeant, quia in ministerio divino quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur: ad Corinthios namque sic Paulus scribit, Syritius in Epistola ad Aphric. tom. 1. conc. Abstinete vos ut vacetis orationi: si ergo Laicis abstinentia imperatur, ut possint deprecantes audiri; quanto magis sacerdos utisque omni momento paratus esse debet munditiae puritate securus, ne aut sacrificium offerat, aut baptizare cogatur? quisi contaminatus est carnali concupiscentia, quid faciet? excusabitur? qua conscientia exaudiri se credit? cum dictum sit, omnia munda mundis, coinquinatis autem & infidelibus nihil mundum. Qua d●re horror, moneo, rogo, tollatur hoc opprobrium quod potest iure etiam gentilitas accusare. Infra: qui autem in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt. We council that, that is meet, chaste and honest; that Priests and deacons have no copulation with their Wives, because they have daily business in the divine ministery, for Paul writeth thus to the Corinthians; do ye abstain, that ye may give yourselves to prayer. If therefore Lay men be commanded to abstain, that they may be heard when they pray, how much more ought a Priest alway to be ready in the purity of cleanliness, lest either he offer sacrifice, or be constrained to baptise? who if he be pulluted with carnal concupiscence, what shall he do? shall he be excused? With what conscience doth he think to be heard? when it is said, all things are clean to the clean, but to the polluted and infidels nothing is clean. Wherefore I exhort, admonish, and require, that this rebuke be taken away, which even the Gentiles may justly reprove: for they that are in the flesh, cannot please God. Out of these words of our disholy Syricius, I note first, that when he came to his popedom he found Priests and Deacons married: which I gather out of these words (cum suis uxoribus, with their wives.) I note secondly, that in his time, Priests and Deacons, had the use of holy wedlock, and begat children: which I gather out of these words, (ut sacerdotes & Levitae cum suis uxoribus non coeant, that Priests and Deacons have not copulation with their Wives) For if Priests and Deacons had then abstained from copulation with their Wives, Pope Syritius found priests married when he came to the popedom. he needed not to have forbidden the same. I note thirdly, that for the space of three hundredth eighty five years (for so long after Christ was Syritius) Bishops, Priests, and Deacons were married without controlment. I note four, that this Syritius termeth holy wedlock, the pollution of carnal concupiscence; which I gather out of these words, Si contaminatus est carnali concupiscentia, quid faciet? If he be polluted with carnal concupiscence, what shall he do? ●. Tim. ●. 1, 2, 3. I add hereunto, that this is the flat doctrine of the devil; and saint Paul is my witness therein. I note fifthly, that he calleth wedlock such a vice, as the Gentiles may justly reprove. Which I gather out of these words, Quod potest iure etiam Gentilitas accusare, which the Gentiles may justly accuse. I note sixtly, that wedlock is such a carnal thing, as one cannot please God in the same. Which I gather out of these words, Qua conscientia exaudiri se credit▪ With what conscience doth he think to be heard? Out of these words also, Qui autem in carne sunt, Behold here the ●lat doctrine of nevilles. Deo placere non possunt: but they that are in the flesh, cannot please God. For these are the weighty reasons; by which, and through which, our holy father Syritius, would dissuade Bishops and priests from holy wedlock: to wit, because marriage is uncleanness, filthtenesse, carnal concupiscence; because married men can not be heard of God; because married men can not please God: which to have only recited, is a sufficient confutation. The probation of the second ●art of the proposition. I say in my position, that after the wicked prohibition of Syritius, priests were afterward married in some places for many hundredth years. And I prove the same: First, because two hundred and six years after pope, Dist. 28. cap. de ●yracus. urbis. Pelagius the second was content to admit the bishop of Syracuse, although he were a married man, and had a wife and children. Neither was that Bishop then urged to forsake the use of holy wedlock. Panorm. de cleri●is coniugatis, ●ap. Cum olim. For as cardinal Panormitan telleth them, experience teacheth their prohibition of marriage to be most wicked, as which enforceth their priests to sin grievously by ungodly copulation, whereas they might live chastely with their own wives. Their own Polidore singeth the same song; both their express words shall be alleged in the end of the next chapter. Dist. 28. cap. de Syracus. Their own Gratianus in the before named distinction, doth infer out of Pope Pelagius his words in this manner: Sive ergo presbyter, sive diaconus, sive subdiaconus fuerit; apparet, quod in praefatis ordinibus constituti, licitè matrimonio uti possunt. Whether therefore he be priest, deacon, or subdeacon, it is clear, that such as are within the aforenamed orders, may lawfully have the use of matrimony. Out of these words of Gratianus, who was a papist, and a great favourer of the pope; I infer against the doctrine of the pope, that priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons', may not only be married, but even while they be married, have the use of holy wedlock, which is a point doubtless, very well worthy the observation. To this testimony of Gratianus, the papists cannot possibly frame any answer, unless they will cry, fire and faggot, for their own Doctor. I prove it secondly, because Pope Nicholas, who lived above three hundred years after Pelagius, was so far from disquieting married priests, Dist. 28. cap. vit. that when the Bulgarians complained of that fault so supposed, he persuaded them to be content, and not to dishonour their married priests. This the Reader shall find to be so, in the pope's own Canon law. I prove it thirdly, because the constitution of Pelagius was of force in Sicilia, only three years before the popedom of Gregory the first. Which was more than two hundred years, after the popedom of Syritius. Thus therefore doth pope Gregory write: Ante triennium omnium ecclesiarum subdiaconi Siciliae prohibiti fuerant, Dist. 31. ca pri●●. ut more Romanae ecclesiae suis uxoribus nullatenus misceantur; quod mihi durum atque incompetens videtur, ut qui usum continentiae non invenit, neque castitatem promisit, compellatur à sua uxore separari. Three years ago, all subdeacons in Sicilia were charged to forbear the use of holy wedlock, according to the custom of the Roman church. Which seemeth to me a very hard and unconvenient thing, that he who neither hath the gift of continency, neither hath vowed chastity, should forcibly be separated from his wife. Out of these words I gather first, that the laws of single life took only place in Sicilia, about three years before the time of Gregory the first. I gather secondly, that it is a diabolical thing to compel such to forbear marriage, as neither have the gift of continency, neither yet have vowed chastity. Hereupon I infer these two corollaries: first, that all Bishops and Ministers in our churches, may this day marry lawfully; and that by the judgement of pope Gregory. Secondly, that the marriage of all secular popish priests, is likewise lawful; and that by the doctrine of their own pope Gregory, because none of them are votaries. For to the vow which they call annexed, they are no more bound in the west church then in the east. And yet all of the east church are free, as you have heard in the sixth proposition. But this pope was not constant to himself in this point of doctrine, and therefore was his constitution disannulled by the sixth general synod, Anno Dom 680 about fifty years after. Lambert. in chron. an. 1074 In other countries, at other times the marriage of priests was abolished. They were married in Germany above 1000 years together. See Lambertus. The objection. The marriage of bishops and priests was forbidden by the general council of Nice: therefore Syricius was not the first author thereof, as who lived almost 100 years after the same. The answer. I say first, that satan, who goeth about as a roaring lion, to make a prey of our souls; Peruse the first proposition. laboured busily to have his doctrine established by the famous council of Nice. For as I have proved out of S. Paul, the prohibition of marriage even in priests is the doctrine of the devil. I say secondly, that God, who never hath been, is, or will be wanting to his church in necessary points of doctrine; raised up his servant holy Paphnutius, a man famous by manifold miracles in his life time: and that for this end & purpose, that he might gainsay and hinder that wicked and ungodly law, which the fathers assembled at Nice, were about to bring into the church. I say thirdly, that Paphnutius excited by the spirit of God, stood up in the midst of the council, and cried aloud; that to forbid marriage to priests, was too severe a law; because marriage was honourable in all sorts of men. Sozo. lib. 1. c. 22. Thus writeth Cassiodorus; thus writeth Socrates; thus writeth Sozomenus. I say four, that the law which the fathers then thought to have made, was a new law, never heard of before. I prove it, because Socrates hath these express words; Visum erat episcopis legem novam in ecclesiam introducere. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 8. The bishops thought indeed, to have brought a new law into the church. I say fifthly, that the council was persuaded with Paphnutius his oration, and referred the whole matter to every priests free election, making no law in that behalf. For Cassiodorus hath these express words; Synodusque laudavit sententiam cius, & nihil ex hac part sancivit, sed hoc in uniuscuiusque voluntate, Hist. tripart. lib. 2. c. 14. non in necessitate dimisit. And the Synod commended his opinion, and so decreed nothing in the matter; but left it in every man's election, to do what he thought good without compulsion. I say sixtly, that Paphnutius affirmed the conjugal acts of priests with their wives, to be chastity. I therefore conclude, that albeit the bishops in the council of Nice assembled, would indeed have made a new and strange law against the marriage of priests; Sozomen. & Socrates ubi supra. yet did the spirit of God speaking in Paphnutius, utterly dissuade them from that ungodly purpose. The reply. It was sometime lawful for married men to be made priests, (because in the beginning necessity so required) but it was never lawful for priests to be married men; and therefore Paphnutius pleaded only for the former, alleging the old custom of the church against the latter. The answer. I affirm first, that Paphnutius pronounced it an honourable thing, even for priests to lie with their lawfully married wives. I affirm secondly, that forasmuch as it was lawful in those days for Priests to marry wives and to lie with them; (for if it had not been lawful, the council would not have yielded to Paphnutius therein) it must needs follow, Note well and keep it mind. that either the pope hath power to alter God's law, which no papist will avouch; or else that it is this day lawful by God's law for priests to marry wives, and to have conjugal acts with them, as they had in former time. And consequently, that the pope's discipline, is the flat doctrine of devils. I say thirdly, that although Socrates and Sozomenus ascribe it to the old tradition of the church, for unmarried priests so to continue; yet doth not Cassiodorus make any mention thereof, in his Tripartite collection. And howsoever Paphnutius alleged tradition, to mitigate the severe laws intended by the council; yet it is very certain, that such tradition was neither general nor divine. I prove it first, because otherwise the Greek church would have admitted it, which for all that it never did, as is already showed. I prove it secondly, because the priests in Bulgaria were married in pope Nicholas his time, and the Subdeacons' of Sicilia until the days almost of pope Gregory. See the seventh proposition. I prove it thirdly, because their own popish champions and canon law, do witness the same with me. For first, where the second council of Carthage would ascribe this observation to the doctrine of the apostles and antiquity; 〈◊〉 4. c. cum in 〈…〉 there Gratianus steppeth in and telleth us, that the apostles taught so by example, (but not by word.) Again, their own gloss affirmeth, that the antiquity the council speaketh of, is but from the time of Syritius: These are the express words of the gloss (For I will neither conceal any thing that maketh for them, neither invent any thing of mine own brain to prevail against them) A tempore Syritij, Glossa. dist. 84 c. Come in praeter. hic vocat antiquitatem. Antiquity here named is from the time of Syritius. And a little before, the same gloss hath these memorable words; Dicunt, quod ista capita facta fuerunt ante tempus Gregorij qui introduxit continentiam subdiaconibus▪ presbyteris verò & diaconibus Syricius introduxit Imò dicunt quod olim sacerdotes poterant contrahere ante Syricium. They say that these chapters were made before the time of Gregory, who debarred subdeacons of marriage; b●t Syritius made the law against priests and deacons. Yea, they say that Priests might of old time have married, even till the of Syritius. Lo, Pope Syritius the first man, that forbade marriage to priests. all this devilish doctrine against the marriage of priests, began of pope Syritius by their own confession. Let this be noted. I say four, that the tradition which Socrates and Sozomenus speak of, was by example, and not by doctrine, as both Gratianus and the gloss expound them. For these are the express words of the gloss; Ergo apostoli docuerunt exemplo, Glossa ubi supr. & opere, & admonitione, non institutione, vel constitutione. Therefore the apostles taught it by example, deed, and admonition, and not by any law or constitution. And so the Nycene council, maketh in every respect against the papists. The 6. proposition. The marriage of moonkes, and other votaries is true and lawful matrimony, See the first proposition, and confer it with this. and cannot be dissolved by the power of man. This proposition consisteth of two parts, as is apparent. Touthing the latter part, no power upon earth hath authority to institute sacraments, or to alter the same. For no inferior hath authority over his superior, no subject over his Sovereign, no creature over the creator. This point I have proved sufficiently, in my book of Motives. The difficulty therefore resteth in the former part, which it remaineth that I prove. The papists assign two kinds of vows; to wit, votum simplex ac solemn, a single vow, and a vow solemn. They call that a solemn vow, which moonkes, friars, nuns, and other religious persons make; and all the rest, they repute vows simple. This distinction laid as a sound foundation, they erect a manifold building thereupon, in manner and form following. The first building. Whosoever marrieth after the single vow of continency, he or she sinneth mortally, but the marriage holdeth, and is of force. Thus teach all popish doctors with uniform consent. Angelus, Rosilla, Calderinus, Covarrunias, Paludanus, Maior, Silvester; Navarrus, Fumus, Scotus, Sotus, Aquinas, and the rest. I will only allege the words of ●umus in the name of all, who writeth in this manner; Fumus de matr. §. 55. Secundum impedimentum est votum simplex. Nam qui vovit castitatem simpliciter, si contrahat, mortaliter peccat, violans fidem deo datam, tame● tenet matrimonium. The second impediment is a single vow: for he that voweth chastity simply, if he afterward marry, committeth a mortal sin in breaking his promise made to God, but yet the matrimony holdeth and is of force. The second building. Every marriage of man and woman made after the solemn vow of approved religion, is not only damnable in the party contrahent, but also void and of no force at all. This likewise teach all popish doctors, Aquinas, Couarru●ias, Silvester, Navarre, and the rest. Fumus hath these words. Fumus de matr. §. 8 & lib. 6. de vo●o cap. unico. Tertium impedimentum est votum non quodcunque sed solemn religionis approbatae, sive fuerit professio express sive tacitè facta, quia impedit, ne quis possit contrahere matrimonium, & si contrahat, est nullum. The third impediment is a vow; yet not every one, but the solemn vow of approved religion, whether profession be made expressly or virtually, because it so hindereth as none can marry; and if they do marry, such matrimony is none at all. Where note, that the papists call that only approved religion, which is confirmed by the pope or bishop of Rome. The third building. Matrimony even after the solemn vow of religion, is lawful and of force; so it be done by and with the pope's dispensation. This doctrine is taught us, by many learned papists, Antoninus, Richardus, Hugo, Innocentius, Covarrwias', and by the real practice of sundry pope's. Thus writeth Antoninus, whom I allege in the name of the rest. A●ton p. 2. tit. 11 cap 2. §. 9 Papa dispensare potest in statuto concilij universalis. De voto solenni per professionem etiam patet, quod licet papa non possit facere quod professus non fuit professus, potest tamen facere quod non sit obligatus religioni, & ad votum religionis; quiae in omni voto intelligitur, excepta authoritate papae. Infra; & communiter canonistae tenent quod papa potest dispensare in voto solenni religionis, non quidem tantum ut sit religiosus & non servet vota; sed de religioso potest facere laicum, ex magna causa urgente. The pope can dispense, in the decrees of a general council. It is also clear, that he can dispense in a solemn vow by profession. For although the pope cannot make a professed person not to have been professed, yet can he this do, What is it, that the pope cannot do? that the professed person shall neither be bound to his religion, nor to his vow: because we must understand, that in every vow the pope's authority is excepted: and the canonists do commonly hold, that the pope can dispense in the solemn vow of religion, not only that one be still a religious person and keep not his vow; but of a religious person he can make a mere lay man, upon an urgent cause. The fourth building. A solemn vow hath not force of itself, and of it own nature, to dissolve matrimony, and to make the solemn votaries uncapable thereof: but all the force and efficacy it hath therein, is wholly derived from the ordinance of the church of Rome. This teacheth their own dear friar, and reverend bishop josephus Angles, whose doctrine is approved by the late pope's of Rome. Thus therefore doth josephus write: Ratio praecisa ob quam votum solemn dirimit matrimonium contrahendum, & voventes solenniter inhabilitat, josephus Angl. in 4. s. p. 2. q. de voto, at. 6. diffic. 1. est ecclesiae institutio; quae ut consanguineos intra quartum gradum, ita huiusmodi personas ad contrahendum inhabilitat. Definita est a Bonifacio 8. cap. unico, de vo●o in 6. ubi solum constituit Rom. pontiff. discrimen inter votum solemn, & matrimonium. Deinde quia possit ecclesia instituere, ut in mundo nullum sit votum solemn matrimonium dirimens; quare voti solennitas est ab ecclesia, & non a deo; ex nullo enim loco sacrae scripturae colligitur inhabilitas voventis solenniter, ut contrahere non possit. Nam per traditionem quae fit in voto solenni, non est ex iure divino & naturali inhabilis vovens adalium statum▪ quia subdiaconus & diaconus tradunt se deo voto solenni castitatis & obedientiae, & tamen papa cum illis saepissimê dispensat, ut Soto concedit. The precise reason, for which a solemn vow dissolveth matrimony to be contracted, O wicked church of Rome? most happy are they, who are made free from thy brutish thraldom. and disableth those that solemnly vow it, is the institution of the church (of Rome,) which as it enableth kinsfolks within the fourth degree to contract marriage, so doth it also the said votaries. Bonifacius the eight hath so defined, where the bishop of Rome only appointeth the difference, between a solemn vow and matrimony. Again, because the church (of Rome) might make a law, that no solemn vow in the world should dissolve wedlock; wherefore the solemnity of the vow is of the church, and not of God. For the inability of the solemn vower, so as he cannot marry, is not gathered out of any place of the holy scripture. For by the tradition which is in the solemn vow, the person vowing is not enabled to another state, either by the law divine, or law of nature; because Deacons, and Subdeacons' deliver up themselves to God, by the solemn vow of chastity and obedience; and for all that, the pope often dispenseth with them, as Soto granteth. Navarrus avoucheth constantly, and without blushing, that many pope's have dispensed, de facto, with professed moonkes, and that in the way of marriage; these are his words: Navarrus de judiciis notab. 3. p. 275. Papa potest dispensare cum monacho iam professo, ut contrahat matrimonium; imò de facto multi papae dispensarunt. The pope can dispense with a monk already professed, that he may become a married man. For many pope's, de facto, have dispensed so. Covarrwias', Richardus, Paludanus, Scotus, Caietanus, and Antoninus, hold the self same opinion. The fift building. The vow single is of one and the same nature with the vow solemn, not distinguished by any essential but mere accidental difference. For thus writeth their own josephus Angles. joseph. Angles in 4. q. de voto, ar. 6 diffic. 2. Votum solemn & simplex, ex part subiecti specie accidentali differunt, propterea quod voti simplicis subiectum est ad contrahendum matrimonium habile, licet contrahendo peccet. At verò subiectum voti solennis, est ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile, transgressiones voti simplicis & solemnis eiusdem speciei sunt, etiamsi qui solenniter vovet gravius peccet: ratio est, quia specifica differentia actuum est penes obiecta; & cum idem sit utriusque voti obiectum, nempe servare continentiam, erunt actus eiusdem speciei, erit tamen voti solemnis transgressio gravior, ratione perfectioris status. The vow solemn and single differ accidentally in respect of the subject, These buildings and distinctions well observed, popery will receive a deadly wound. because the subject of the single vow is able to contract matrimony, albeit he sin in so contracting: but the subject of a solemn vow, is enabled to matrimonial contract: the transgressions of the vow single and solemn are of the same nature or kind, albeit he that maketh the solemn vow, sinneth more grievously: the reason is, because the specifical difference of acts, resteth in the objects; and since there is one object of both the vows, to wit, to keep chastity▪ the acts shall be of the same nature or kind; nevertheless, the transgression of the solemn vow shall be greater, by reason of the perfecter state. Thus reasoneth Friar joseph, after the opinion of other popish doctors: and his discourse is evident, because every specifical difference moral, ariseth of the objects; and consequently, since the object of vow single is one and the same with the vow solemn, the difference between them can no way be essential. The sixth building. All secular Priests are so free from the solemn vow, annexed by the church of Rome to ecclesiastical orders, as their marriage is perfect and of force, notwithstanding the supposed dissolving impediment thereof. I prove it first, because Scotus, Navarre, josephus Angles and others do grant, that this vow is only annexed by the ordinance of the church, as shall appear more at large in the end of this chapter. I prove it secondly, because if the secular priests ●●e votaries, their vow must either be by the word spoken, or by the deed done: not the first, This dilemma catcheth the Pope by the nose. because no such word can be proved; neither the second, because if the art itself in taking orders, should be the vow annexed; it would follow thereupon necessarily, that the Greeks' likewise should become votaries, as who do the self same thing. Who for all that were never votaries, as Gratianus, Sylvester, and other popish doctors do affirm. I prove it thirdly, because when two things are essentially and really distinguished, the grant of the one doth necessarily include the grant of the other: and yet is the solemn vow of chastity, Navar. in e●chir. cap. 22. §. 18. essentially and really distinct from sacred orders; as I have proved out of josephus in the fourth building, and as is apparent by Navarre in his Enchiridion. Gratian their own doctor maketh this case clear: see his assertion in the next chapter, in the answer to the first objection. The seventh building, The solemn vow of chastity imposed only by the power of man, cannot alter the institution of God, and take away the liberty by him granted unto man. For proof hereof, their own dear friar Antoninus, some time archbishop of Florence, shall suffice, who telleth our holy father the Pope, that God is his superior, and that he therefore cannot alter any one jot of his law: these are his express words. Anton. de potest. papae p. 3. Tit. 22. cap. 3. §. 1. Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel divino iurisdictio seu potestas papalis non se extendit, sic verò quod ista possit mutare, vel etiam dare eyes vim obligandi: & ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris: Deus autem superior ad papam. Concerning those things which are of the law of nature, or law divine, jurisdiction or papal power doth not extend itself, so to wit, that the pope can change these things, or give power obligative unto them: and the reason is, because an inferior cannot change the laws of his superior, and God is superior to the Pope. Franciscus a Victoria, and other learned Papists hold the same opinion, but Antoninus his testimony is sufficient. The proof of the proposition. This foundation and these seven buildings only considered, my proposition afore rehearsed will be clear and manifest: for first, if single life be only imposed by the law of man, as the seventh building proveth; secondly, if secular priests can no way be proved votaries, as in the sixth building is showed; thirdly, if the vow single be of one and the self same nature with the solemn, differing only accidentally from it as the fift building affirmeth; four, if the solemn vow hath not force of itself to dissolve marriage, as the fourth building teacheth; fifthly, if the pope's dispensation can make marriage of force, after the solemn vow, as the third building convinceth; sixtly, if marriage made after the single vow, be of force, as the first building declareth evidently, (which single vow for all that, is of the same essence and nature with the solemn vow, as is already said: I conclude with this inevitable illation, that the marriage not only of secular priests, but even of Monks, Friars, and all religious votaries, is sound, perfect, and of force. An important objection, against the sixth proposition. Refuse the youger widows, for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation because they have broken the first faith. 1. Tim. 5. v. 11. 2● This place of S. Paul, sundry of the fathers expound of the vow of chastity, neither can it possibly admit any other sense. The answer. I say first, that though sundry of the fathers think it sin to marry after the vow of chastity, and that by reason of this place, yet doth the same father's repute such marriages, to be true and perfect matrimony: for saint Epiphanius writeth in this manner. Melius est itaque unum peccatum habere, & non plura: melius est lapsum à cursu, palam sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem, & à virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere & sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci, velut qui mala operatus est, Epiphan. h●res. 61 libro. 〈…〉 pag. 167. velut lapsu● & fractum, & obligatione opus habentem; & non quotidie occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitaete quae à Diabolo ipsi infertur. It is better therefore to have one sin, & not many: it is better for one that is fallen from his course, openly to marry a wife, according to the law, and to repent a long time from his virginity, and so to be restored again into the church, as one than hath done wickedly, as one that is fallen and broken, and hath need of binding up, and not to be daily wounded with the secret darts of that wickedness which the devil putteth in him. Thus writeth Epiph●nius, showing plainly to the reader, that he condemneth not the marriage in vowed persons, monks, or nuns, but the falling from their gudly purpose. S. Cyprian having sharply inveighed against the licentious life of certain deacons and vowed virgins, exhorteth them at the length to marry, that cannot, or will not live continent & chaste: these are his words: Cypri. libr. 1 epist. 11. ad Pompon. Quod si ex fide se Christo dedi●auerunt, pudicè & caste sine ulla fabula perseverent; ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent si autem perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt▪ melius est nubant quam inignem delictis suis cadant. If they have betrothed themselves to Christ by faith, let them continue honestly and chastely without all mockery; so as they may in fortitude and stability expect the reward of virginity: but if they will not, or cannot persevere; it is better that they marry, then that they fall into the fire with their misbehaviour. Thus saith saint Cyprian, declaring very plainly, that he approveth the marriages of affianced and vowed virgins. S. Austen, although he understand by the first faith, the vow of chastity; yet doth he flatly allow marriage after the breach thereof: August. in Psal. 75. prope finem tom. 8. these are his express words: Hoc dico nubere licet antequam voveat, superbire nunquam licet. O tu virgo Dei, nubere noluisti quod licet, extollis te quod non licet. Melior virgo humilis, quam maritata humilis; sed melior maritata humilis, quam virgo superba Que autem resp●xerit ad nuptias, non quod voluit nubere damnatur, sed quod iam ante recesserat & fit uxor Loth respiciendo retrorsum This I say, it is lawful to marry before she vow, it is never lawful to be proud. O thou virgin of God, thou wouldst not marry, which is lawful for thee to do, 〈◊〉, damnation is not for marriage, but for the breach of promise. but thou waxest prou●, which thou mayst not do. An humble virgin is better than an humble married woman; but an humble married woman is better than a proud virgin. Yet she that hath looke● back to marriage, is damned; not because she would marry, but because she had already departed (from her holy purpose) and is become Lot's wife, in looking back again. The same S. Augustine hath in another place of his works such a plain declaration of his mind in this point, as whosoever shall once read or hear his words, cannot but perceive the same. Thus therefore doth he write expressly, I will not alter or change one word. Postremò, damnantur tales, Augustin. de ●e no viduitatis. cap 9 & cap. 1● tom. 4· non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continentiae primam fidem irritam fecerunt. Quod ut breviter insinuaret Apost. noluit eas dicere habere damnaetionem, quae postamplioris sanctitatis propositum nubunt, non quiae non damnentur, sed ne in eyes ipsae nuptiae damnari putarentur. Infra: proinde qui dicunt talium nuptias non esse nuptias, sed potius adulteria, non mihi videntur satis acutè ac diligenter considerare quid dicant. In fine, such are damned, not because they are afterward married, but because they have made void the first promise of chastity: which thing the Apostle intending briefly to insinuate, would not say that they were damned, who marry after the purpose of larger sanctimony, not because they are not damned, but lest he should seem to condemn their marriages in them: therefore they that say the marriages of such are no marriages, but rather adulteries; seem to me, not to consider exactly and advisedly what they say. By which words of S. Austen it is clear, that he is so far from condemning the matrimonies of those votive widows, which cannot live continently as he reputeth them for perfect, true, and lawful marriages. I say secondly, that marriage after a solemn vow, aught to be deemed perfect & of force, even with the Pope himself: Caelest. 3. extra. qui clerici & vovent. lib. 4. Tit. 6 cap. 6. for thus is it written in his own canon law; votum simplex apud deum non minus ligat, quam solemn: the simple or single vow bindeth no less afore God, then doth the solemn: and yet as I have already proved, marriage is perfect after the single vow, even by the pope's allowance; therefore with no reason can he deny it to be perfect also, after the double or solemn vow: for unless the pope will impudently say, that his power is greater than gods, he must perforce admit this to be so. And it is a frivolous supposed evasion to say, that there is a delivery of the party in the vow solemn, not so in the single: for thus writeth their own doctor Scotus. Alia ratio est, quod vovens solemniter, Scotus in. 4. S. dist. 38. quaest. 2 in mod. mittit in possessionem illum cui vovit solemniter, vovens autem privaté; non, sed quasi promittit: sed haec valet minus quam secunda, quia omnia intrinseca voto, ut respicit actum voluntatis, per quem ob ligat se vovendo, & transfert dominium suum in alterum; omnia inquam, istae sunt aequalia hinc iude. Igitur non magis datio hic, quam ibi; nec promissio ibi, quam hic. Another reason is this; that he who makes a solemn vow, puts him to whom he voweth, in possession; but so doth not he that maketh a single vow, but only giveth his promise. This reason is worse than the second; for all things that be of the substance of the vow, as a vow concerneth the act of the mind, whereby the mind binds itself by vowing, & transposeth the ownership of itself to another, all these things I say, are of like weight on either side: therefore there is no more delivery in the vow solemn, then in the single; nor more promise in the one then in the other. I say thirdly, that the widows whose vows Paul admitteth, must be no less than 60. years of age; but the pope bids all to take the mantle & the ring, at what age they list. S. Paul would have them then to promise, when the heat of lust is past; but the pope adviseth them to come, even when lust rageth most of all. S. Paul would first have them try their strength, & then to promise; but the pope bids promise roundly, though they perform never so slenderly. S. Paul willed the promise of single life, because they could not both serve the church and their husbands; but the pope requireth the vow of single life, thereby pharisaically to merit heaven. S. Paul exhorts the younger widows to use marriage, as a sovereign remedy against sin; but the pope enforceth the youngest of all, to contemn marriage as a polluted & unlawful thing. S. Paul's widows were godly occupied in ministering to the sick, to the poorer sort, yea & to strangers in way of christian hospitality; but the pope's so supposed virgins, are free from all honest exercise, & live idly, after their own sensual pleasures: & so the pope's counterfeit and hypocritical Nuns, have no affinity with S. Paul's holy widows. I say four, that the first faith whereof S. Paul speaks, may very fitly be understood of the promise made in baptism. And I prove it, because the first promise of these widows was this; to wit, that they would continue in christian religion, & in the purity of honest life & good manners. The second faith or promise was that, which these widows made when they were married, to wit, that they would be loving, diligent, careful, & obedient to their husbands; and above all the rest, keep their conjugal faith. The third faith was that, which these widows made to the bishop & the whole church; to wit, that they would execute their deaconship honestly & faithfully, & constantly persever therein to the end. The younger widows waxing wanton against Christ, did not only break their last promise, forsaking the ministry of the church: but their first and most holy promise made in baptism, while they departing from the purity of honest life and religion, consecrated themselves to paganism and infidelity, and so purchased to themselves God's wrath & eternal damnation. The first faith i● baptism, what i● was, and how it was broken. Therefore the apostle maketh no mention of any vow, but only reproveth unconstant women, who being relieved a long time by the common treasure of the congregation, to minister to the sick persons, did afterward both forsake their promise & Christ too, and became heathens running after satan. For this is evident by the words of the 15. verse of the 5. chapter, from whence the objection is taken: where the apostle saith, that some widows are already turned back (from Christ their guide, to whom they had dedicated themselves in baptism, & followed) after satan. It will not serve the papists to say after their wont manner, that marriage breaketh not our promise made in baptism. The confirmation of the answer For albeit the faith of baptism be not broken by marrying absolutely and simply, yet is it indeed broken by marrying against Christ; that is, by marrying in such manner, as they renounce christianity. And this my answer is confirmed, because, if the apostle had meant otherwise, he would have called it the last faith, and not the first. I say fifthly, that these words (for when they shall wax wanton against Christ, they will marry) do evidently prove, that S. Paul meaneth the promise made in baptism: and I desire the gentle reader to mark my discourse attentively: for this objection is the bulwark, to defend this article of popery. I therefore note first, that these four things are really distinguished in S. Paul; to wit, the waxing wanton of the widows; the marriage of the widows; the damnation of the widows; and the breach of their faith. I note secondly, that the wantonness of the widows, was before their marriage; for so the apostle saith expressly. I note thirdly, that the widows promised in their baptism to keep Gods holy commandments, among which one is this: Non concupisces, Thou shalt not lust. Rom. 7.7. I note four, that the breach of every commandment, deserveth eternal death. For so saith the apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Rom. 6. vers. 23 for the reward of sin is death. And another scripture saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 27.26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law, Galat. 3.10. in doing them: for as saint james saith, though a man keep all the residue of the law, james 2. verse 10 yet if he offend in any one point, he becometh guilty of all. I note fifthly, that by God's law we are bound to refer all our works, all our words, and all our thoughts, to his honour and glory (for so teacheth his apostle:) and consequently, that the wantonness of the younger widows, was a breach of God's holy laws. 1. Cor. 10. ver. 31 These points observed, I conclude, that the younger widows had damnation, not for marrying, but for being wanton before their marriage. For in being wanton against Christ, they broke their first faith made in baptism, that is, they performed not that obedience they promised in baptism; & in not performing that obedience they deserved eternal death; and so they had damnation, because they were wanton against Christ. S. Paul saith not, that they had damnation because they married, (which must be well marked) but because they made void their first faith in breaking Gods commandments, as ye have heard. I say sixtly, that saint Paul is so far from condemning marriage, in the younger widows after their promise or vow which the papists would most willingly father upon him, as he exhorteth them to marry, even after such their promise or vow. I prove it, (note well what I say) because so soon as he hath willed the younger widows to marry in the 14. verse; forthwith in the 15. verse, he yieldeth the reason of that his advise, to wit, because certain are already turned back after Satan. Now, in the 15. verse he must needs speak of such widows, as were received into the ministery of the church; because none could be turned back from that, to which they never were admitted: he therefore speaketh likewise of the betrothed widows, in the next verse before; which I make evident three ways; first, because otherwise his illation in the 15. verse, should be foolish & frivolous; foolish, because it could have no connexion with the 14. verse; frivolous, for that it could not conclude his purpose: secondly, because he had already in the 11. verse charged the bishop Timothy, not to receive any widow under the age of 60. years. This conclusion therefore being made touching the widows not yet admitted, he goeth forward and giveth his advise, for the younger widows than received of the church: as if he had said; for as much as some of the younger sort have already been wanton and followed sathan, and there is also danger in the rest: I decree, that hereafter none under 60. years be received; and I exhort the younger already received and desirous to marry, to betake themselves to holy wedlock, to bring forth children, to be housewives, and so to give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil. Thirdly, because otherwise Saint Paul should equivocate very grossly, in one and the self same reason: giving one signification to the same word in the premises, & an other in the consecution. Thus much of this objection in special, and of the marriages of Bishops, priests, deacons, and religious persons, in general: as also of the first prohibition against the same. It now remaineth for the complement of this discourse, that I solve certain objections made generally against this doctrine, for which shallbe assigned the next chapter. CHAP. FOUR Of certain general objections against the marriages of Priests, with brief solutions of the same. The first objection. BE sanctified therefore and be holy, Levit. 11.44. for I am holy (your lord and God:) I answer, that all the Israelits were commanded to be sanctified & to be holy, aswell as were the priests, and so▪ if this argument were of force in popish sense, all people aswell as priests, should abstain from the use of holy wedlock, yea, the priests were even then married, as is already proved. The second objection. I would have you without care: the unmarried careth for the things of the lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things of the world, 1. Cor. 7. vers 32. how he may please his wife: therefore priests ought not to be married. The answer. I say first, that S. Paul preferreth the state of the unmarried, before the condition of the married. For he saith indeed, that the unmarried doth better, if he can so continue, albeit in marrying he sinneth not: ●●ngle life, how it is better. yet this is not in respect of any holiness that resulteth out of single life, but because the unmarried is more free from the cares of the world, and so more apt forstudie & the service of God. I say secondly, that S. Paul never meant to enforce any person, either to be married, or to lead a single life, & therefore did he say that he sought for the commodity of the Corinthians, but not to entangle them in the snare: as if he had said, if I should go about to bar you of marriage, I should tangle you in a snare. I say thirdly, that a man may be as holy in marriage, as if he lived unmarried to his lives end, which S. Hierome though a great patron of single life, both gravely considered, and sincerely acknowledged: for he saith, that Abraham pleased God no less in wedlock, than virgins do in their single life: these are his express words, as the popish canon law reciteth them: C. 32. q. 4. c▪ 7. Abraham placuit in coniugio sicut nunc virgines placent in castitate: seruivit ille legi & tempori suo seruiamus & nos legi & tempori nostro, in quos fines coelorum devenerunt. Abraham pleased (God) in marriage, even as virgins now please in chastity: he served the law and his time; let us also upon whom the ends of the world is come, serve the law & our time. Yea S. Nazianzene saith, that his father being a bishop, was greatly helped in piety by his wife: & the same S. Gregory saith in another place, Nazianz. in opat. ●un●b. pro patre orat. 28. tom. 2. that neither marriage nor single life, doth either join us to God or to the world, or withdraw us from god, or from the world. This is confirmed by S. Chrysostome in these words: In epitaph. Gorgoniae orat. 25. Nuptiae licet difficultatis in se plurimum habeant, ita tamen assumi possunt, ut perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint. Chrys. in 1. Tim. homil. 10. Although marriage have great trouble in itself, yet may it so be used as it shallbe no hindrance to per●●t life. S. Austen after that he had avouched holy life to be nothing abated, August. in quaest. mix. q. 12. in fine. in holy Samuel and Zacharias by reason of their marriages: by and by he addeth these words: Qua ergo ratione accusatur quod minime obesse probatur? & quis neget bonum debere dici, quod neminem laedit. How therefore is that thing accused, which is proved to do no hurt? & who denieth that that aught to be called good, which bringeth harm to none? S. Clemens Alexandrinus giveth a sufficient solution to this objection, Clemens Alex. lib. 3. stromat. in these express words: Anon permittitur etiam ei qui uxorem duxit, una cum coniugio etiam esse solicitum de iis quae sunt domini? sequitur: ambae enim sunt sanctae in domino: haec quidem ut uxor, illa verò ut virgo: cannot she also that is married together with her marriage, seek the things that pertain to the Lord? for they both are holy in the lord: this as a wife, she as a virgin. Nicephorus though he were carried away with sundry errors of his time, Niceph. lib. 11. cap. 19 yet doth he make S. Gregory who was a married bishop, equal with S. Basill his brother who led a single life: these are his words: Et quamuis is coniugen habuerit, rebus tamen aliis fratri minimè cessit: & though he were married, yet was he nothing inferior to his brother in other things. In fine, S Ambrose saith thus: Amber. in cor. cap. 7. prope ●●dem. Quid ergo dicimus si virgins de deo cogitant & iunctae viris demundo, qu espes relinqutur nubentibus apud deum? si enim ita est, dubium est de salute eorum: nam videmus virgines de seculo cogitare, & matrimonio iunctos dominicis studere operibus. What therefore say we, if virgins think of god, and the married of the world, what hope have the married with God? for if it be so, their salvation is in doubt: for we see that virgins do think of the world, and that married men are careful for the works of the Lord. The third objection. Defraud not one another but for prayer sake, saith S. Paul ergo priests that must ever pray, must ever abstain. The answer. 1. Cor. 7. vers. 5. I say first that S. Paul doth here show the necessity of marriage, in that he dissuadeth not from abstinence save only for prayer sake. I say secondly, that priests must not ever be occupied in prayer no more than lay men: their nature and condion, requireth convenient recreation. I say thirdly, that the apostle speaketh not here of every kind of prayer, but of extraordinary prayer, appointed for urgent extraordinary causes: which kind of prayers, must always have fasting joined with them, as the apostle doth expressly say: and so if the papists will needs have the apostle to speak of usual and daily prayer, then must their priests usually and daily fast; Levit. 10. v. 9 which I ween their fatted headed moonkes will never agree unto, or at least never put in practice. Yea they must continually abstain from wine, for so the law required. The fourth objection. When David to satisfy his hunger being urgent, required of Abimelech the priest, 1. Kin. 21. v. 3.4. some cakes of bread, or what else came to hand; Abimelech answered that he had no common bread: but if he and his company were not polluted with women he would give them hallowed bread. Now it is clear, that Abimelech meant of their lawful wives, because he could not suspect holy David, to have been polluted with naughty women. If therefore lawful wedlock did so pollute secular persons, that for the use thereof, they might not eat the Show bread: how much more shall the use of wedlock pollute priests of the new testament, that they may not eat Christ's body in the holy mass? The answer. I say first, that how holy your Mass is, shall by God's grace appear in convenient place. I say secondly, that wedlock is an honourable and undefiled bed, and therefore cannot pollute such persons, as use the same lawfully and in the fear of God. Yea if the use thereof had not been lawful, even in Bishops and other ministers of the church; holy Paphnutius durst not have defended the same publicly, in the presence of so many learned men at Nice: who for all that did so, and was therefore not only highly commended, but the whole council alsagreed to his godly motion. I say thirdly, that there were many legal contamination, aswell in men as in women, (whereof who list may see at large in Leniticus,) but neither was the lawful matrimonial act reputed any of them; Leu. 15. per 〈◊〉 See cap. 21 22. neither do those legal ceremonies concern us of the new testament, but the true purity signified by the same; that is, Christian purification wrought in the blood of Christ jesus, and apprehended by a true, sincere, and lively faith. I say four, that many legal contam●nations were no other sins, than the manifold popish irregularities, then nocturne pollutions done without consent of the patiented: which nevertheless the best learned papists will have to be no sin at all. I say fifthly, that Abimelech inquired of cleanness from women, not in respect of the conjugal act; but for many other contaminations, which might have happened by coming near to any woman in her monthly course. For not only the woman herself was thereby unclean in law and legal ceremony, but also all such as touched her clothes, her bed, her seat, or whatsoever else. Which inquisition Abimilech made, lest he should seem to contemn the law: that so David if perhaps he had been any way polluted legally, might have had (saltem desiderio) purification accordingly. I say sixtly, that the high priest in the old law was married, and begat children, and that even in those days when he ministered to the Lord: for he was bound to offer up incense on the altar, of sweet perfume, that was near the ark of testimony before the mercy seat; Exod. 30. v. 7.8. not this day or that day only, but every morning and every evening throughout their generations for ever. Since therefore the high priests marriage and conjugal acts, were nothing prejudicial to his holy function; it followeth consequently, that neither can holy wedlock be now prejudicial, to the ministery of the new Testament. The fift objection. The counsels of Carthage, Toledo, Agatha, and some others, have flatly prohibited the marriage of priests: which doubtless they would never have done, if it had been a lawful thing. The answer. I say first, that man's authority cannot abridge & take away from man, that liberty which God himself hath granted unto man. For the inferior cannot alter the law of his superior, as is already proved. I say secondly, that though the pope and his late counsels, do roundly impose laws against holy wedlock; yet doth S. Paul plainly confess, that he hath no authority so to do. Praeceptum inquit, domini non habeo, consilium autem do: I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give mine advise. 1. Cor. 7. v. 15 I say thirdly, that the council of Agatha doth evidently insinuate, that the prohibition of priests marriages was but of late years. Conc. Agath cap. ●8. These are the words of the council; Presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi, vel deinceps, quibus ducendi uxores licentia modo non est, etiam aliarum nuptiarum evitent convivia. Priests, deacons, subdeacons, and the rest, who this day have not licence to marry, must not be present at the feasts of other marriages. This council was holden in Narbon, about 439. years after Christ, which was 51. years after Pope Syricius, who first abandoned the marriage of priests as I have proved. Anno Dom 439 To which time this council of Agatha alludeth, when it saith; (who are now debarred from marriage:) as if it had said; Before they might have married, but now it is forbidden them. I say four, that their own dear Gratian in his gloss upon pope Martin's words, confesseth matrimony to be of so great force, even in deacons that marry after their orders: that neither the pope's decree, nor the vow by him annexed to orders, is able to dissolve the same. These are his express words; Si vero diaconus a ministerio cessare volverit, contracto matrimonio licitè potest uti; Dist. 27. cap. 2. diaconus. nam etsi in ordinatione sua castitatis votum obtulerit, tamen tanta est vis in sacramento coniugij, quod nec ex violatione voti potest dissolui ipsum coniugium. But if a deacon will cease from the ministery, he may lawfully have the use of wedlock contracted in time of his deaconship: for although he offered the vow of chastity when he took orders, yet so great is the force of matrimony, that it cannot be dissolved by breaking the vow. Out of which words I note two things; the one, that Gratian speaketh of that matrimony, which deacons contract after they be made deacons: the other, that such matrimony is perfect & of force, notwithstanding the vow annexed by popish law. To which I add other two things: first, that Gratian avoucheth S. Austen to be of his opinion, This is a whip to all popery. whose words he allegeth in the next canon. Secondly, that since marriage is of force after orders in a deacon, it is so also in subdeacons, priests, and the rest. The reason is evident, because the vow is of the same force in all: neither can or will any learned papist say the contrary. I say fifthly, that it skilleth not much what many counsels say; as I have proved at large in my book of Motives: yet here I add one decree out of one of their counsels, which maketh the controversy manifest. Thus therefore appointeth the first council holden at Toledo or Toletanum. Si quis habens uxorem fidelis concubinam habeat, non communicet. Caeterum is qui non habet uxorem, & pro uxore concubinam habet, a communione non repellatur, Conc. Tolet. 1. Can. 17. tantum ut unius mulieris, aut uxoris, aut concubinae, ut ei placuerit, sit coniunctione contentus. If any of the faithful having a wife have also a Concubine, let him not receive the holy communion: but he that hath no wife, and keepeth a concubine in steed of his wife, let him be admitted to the communion; yet so as he be content with one only, either woman, wife, or concubine, as pleaseth him. Lo, this council giveth a man free liberty, to keep woman, wife, or concubine at his pleasure, so he be content with one at once. Neither doth it forbidden such an one, to receive the holy communion. Yet it prohibiteth every priest from the communion, that keepeth his lawful wife: but the famous counsels of Nice and Constantinople, were of another mind as I have proved. The 6. objection. Vow saith the prophet, and perform unto the Lord your God, all ye that be round about. Psal. 76 v. 11. Esaia●, 19 v. ●●. Therefore priests and religious men and women which have vowed, cannot marry at all. The answer. I say first, that this objection can at the most prove only this, even by popish doctrine; to wit that such as vow chastity cannot marry without sin: but not that their marriages be not of force, or not true marriages indeed. I prove it evidently, because marriages after simple or single vows, be of force with them, and reputed as they are, for true marriages indeed. And this objection speaketh of such vows, because the scripture is nothing acquainted with popish solemn vows. I say secondly, that they are not only true marriages and of force, but also contracted lawfully and without sin. I prove it, judg. 11. v. 31.39 Mat 14. v. 7 10. Act. ●3. v. ●1. because as it is sin to make ill vows, so is it lawful to break the same, and double sin to perform them. This is evident in jephthe, who to accomplish his vow, became the murderer of his own only daughter. In wicked king Herode the Tetrarch, who for sake of his vow beheaded S. john the baptist. In the forty jews, who to perform their bloody vow, say in wait to destroy S. Paul. These wicked votaries, as they sinned most grievously in making their vows; so did they iterate their sin in performing the same. Who nevertheless should have sinned but once, if after the making of their ungodly vows, they had ceased from the performance thereof. For which cause holy Bernard adviseth his sister gravely, not to keep and perform any ill vow. Bernard de modo bene vivendi, Serm 62. to. 1. p. 1699. Thus doth he write; rescind fidem in malis promissis: In turpi voto muta decretum. Malum quod promisisti, non facias; Quod incautè vovisti, non impleas; Impia est promissio, quae scelere adimpletur. Break thy faith in evil promises; Isidor. ap. Grat. C. 22. q. 4. in m●lis. change thy purpose in unhonest vows: do not that evil which thou hast promised; perform not that which thou hast rashly vowed. That promise is wicked which is performed with wickedness. S. Isidorus hath the self same resolution concerning ill vows, as he is alleged by Gratian. S. Bede after he had largely discoursed upon evil promises, and withal showed that it is better even to be perjured, then to perform naughty and wicked promises; alleged for the confirmation of his opinion, Beda apud Grat. C. 22. q. 4, si aliquid. the fact of holy David in the death of Nabal. These are his words: Denique iuravit David per Deum, occidere Nabal virum stultum & impium, atque omnia quae ad eum pertinebant demoliri; sed ad primam intercessionem Abigail foeminae prudentis mox remisit minas, revocavit ensemin vaginam, neque aliquid culpae se pro taliperiurio contraxisse doluit. Finally, David swore by God, that he would kill Nabal a foolish & wicked man, & that he would destroy all his both small & great: yet so soon as Abigail (Nabals' wife) a wife woman, made her petition to him, he abated his anger, put up his sword, and nothing lamented the breach of his oath. S. Ambrose having at large proved by many golden testimonies, that it was sin to break ill vows then to perform the same, at length allegeth the ensample of Christ himself, for that only purpose; these are his words: Ambr. lib. de ●●fic. cap. 12. Non semper igitur promissa soluenda omnia sunt: denique ipse dominus frequenter suam mutat sententiam, sicut scriptura indicat. Therefore all promises ought not to be kept at all times: for even our Lord God himself doth oftentimes change his purpose, as holy Writ beareth record. Aug. apud Gr●● C. 22. q. 4. c●●. magna. S. Austen reputeth it a great point of wisdom not to do that which a man hath rashly spoken: thus doth he write: Magnae sapientiae est revocare hominem quod male locutus est: It is great wisdom for a man to call back (and not perform) that which he hath spoken unadvisedly. Soter who himself was the bishop of Rome, teacheth expressly, that rash promises ought not to be kept: these are his words: Si aliquid incautius aliquem iurasse contigerit, Soter in epist ad episcop. Italiae to. 1. conc. C. 22. q. 4. ●i aliquid. quod obseruatum in peiorem vergat exitum, illud salubri consilio mutandum noverimus, & magis instant necessitate periurandum nobis, quam pro facto juramento in aliud crimen maius divertendum. If any man shall swear unadvisedly, which if it be performed bringeth greater harm; that aught to be changed, by prudent advise: for we must rather be perjured, if need so require, then for performance of our oath, to commit a greater sin: so than it is evident, that ungodly and unlawful vows ought not to be kept. But such is not the vow of single life, say the papists. This therefore must be examined. The vow of single life is a godly vow, and so liked of Saint Paul, as he reputed them damned that kept not the same. The reply. I answer, that it is a wicked and ungodly vow, The answer to tie our selves from marriage all the days of our life: and I will prove the same, by the best approved popish doctors, and by the doctrine established in the Romish church, and that because the reply containeth such matters as is no less intricate than important. I therefore say first, that it is a very wicked and ungodly act, for a man to expose himself to sin. Thus much is granted, by the uniform consent of all learned Papists: insomuch as all the Summists agree in this, that those arts which can seldom or never be used without sin, are altogether unlawful. Gregory surnamed the Great, as he was virtuous and learned, so was he the bishop of Rome, and for that respect, of great account among the Papists; though he were no papist in deed, as now a days papists are so known and called: thus doth he write: Sunt enim pleraque negotia, quae sine peccatis exhiberi aut vix aut nullatenus possunt: Gregor. hom. 24. in euange. quae ergo ad peccatum implicant, ad haec necesse est ut post conversionem animus non recurrat. For there be sundry arts, which can hardly or not at all be practised without sin: therefore after our conversion we may not have recourse to such, as any way draw us to sin. Now let us apply this to the matter in hand, for it is most certain that he exposeth himself to sin, that bindeth himself never to use the remedy against sin: for example, if a man should vow, that he would never use the help of surgery or physic, that man should doubtless expose himself to the peril of death: none but senseless bodies, will or can this deny: So in our case of single life, because God hath appointed matrimony for a remedy against sin, so saith the Apostle, to avoid fornication, let every one have his wife, and let every woman have her husband. For which respect Saint Gregory Nazianzene saith, 1. Cor. 7. vers. 2. Nazianz. in laudem. Gorgo. 2. that marriage is not so subject to peril as single life. I say secondly, that it is a great sin, to debar and stop the course of natural propension: yea this is a thing so certain, Aquin. 22. q· 64. ●r. 5. as their angelical doctor Aquinas proveth thereby the murdering of one's self to be sin, because it is against the inclination of nature. Now let us make application hereof, for the propension to beget children is natural, as which was before sin in the state of innocency, and so he that maketh a perpetual vow of chastity feeling in himself this propension, committeth a grievous sin. I say thirdly, that it is a damnable sin to tempt God, for it is written in God's book, Deut. 6. ver. 16. ye shall not tempt the Lord your God. Upon which words the gloss received of all papists; saith thus: Deum tentat, qui habens quid faciat, sine ratione committit se periculo, he tempteth God who having ordinary means, committeth himself to danger without cause. This exposition is so agreeable to the text as Aquinas willingly admitteth the same. Now let us apply it to the matter in hand. He that refuseth ordinary means, and so committeth himself to peril, tempts God grievously, as both the popish gloss and Aquinas grant; but the ordinary means to avoid fornication is marriage saith the Apostle: 1. Cor. 7. ver. 2. therefore he that voweth never to marry, exposeth himself to the danger of fornication, & thereby tempteth god grievously, and consequently his vow is wicked and damnable. I say four, that that vow which for the obedience of man's law is prejudicial to God's law, is wicked and damnable: Quarto principaliter. but such is the vow annexed in popish priests (mark well my words) therefore the vow imposed to popish priests is wicked and damnable. I say first the vow annexed, because the priests do not formally vow single life, but the Pope hath annexed it to their orders by his wicked decree. I say secondly, the vow imposed, because the priests indeed would willingly retain their liberty stil. I say thirdly, that gods law doth not only grant liberty to marry, 1. Cor. 7. v. 25. Mat. 19, v. 11.12 but also chargeth every one that hath not the gift of continency to take a wife, & to use holy wedlock, for the avoiding of sin. I say four, that man's law only hath prohibited the marriage of priests, which being once proved, this fourth assertion willbe manifest. Thus therefore writeth their dear Gratian in express words. Copula namque sacerdotalis vel consanguineorum, nec legali, C. 26, q 2, sor●▪ nec evangelica, vel apostolica auctoritate prohibetur, ecclesiastica tamen lege penitus interdicitur. For the marriage of priests or kinsfolks, is neither forbidden by the law of Moses, nor by the law of the gospel, nor by the law of the apostles; yet is it utterly interdicted, by the law of the church (of Rome.) Mark well these words for Christ's sake (gentle christian reader) for they are able to confound all obstinate papists in the world. Observe therefore first, that this Gratian who uttereth these words, was a very famous popish Canonist, brother to Peter Lombard surnamed for his supposed deserts, the Master of Sentences, who was sometime bishop of Paris, and of such renown in the popish church, as his books are this day read publicly in the divinity schools. Observe secondly, that this great learned papist Gratian lived with his brother Lombard about 400. years ago, even then when the pope was in his greatest pomp and tyranny. Observe thirdly, that this Gratian being so learned and so renowned among the papists, did even in the altitude of popedom, commit that to the public view of the world, which utterly overthroweth all papistry. Observe four, that the pope and his vassals being justly infatuated for their manifold sins, had not power to hinder and keep back from the print such books, as utterly disclose their tyranny, falsehood, and paltry dealing. Oh sweet jesus! great is thy mercy, wonderful is thy justice, infinite is thy wisdom, unsearchable are thy judgements. Truly saith the Psalmograph; Psa. 127. verse 1. Hebr. 11. ve. 29. Num. 22. vers. 28 Dan. 3. verse 25 4. Reg. 6. verse 6. Act. 12. ver. 7, 10 Unless the Lord defend the city, in vain do they labour that keep the same. Thou, O God, who causest the red sea to give place to the Israelites; thou who causest Balaams' ass to speak; thou who causest the fire to suspend it force in the burning furnace; thou who causest iron to swim upon the water; thou who causest locks and brazen gates to open voluntarily; thou, thou, O mighty God of Israel, hast enforced Gratian that learned, famous, and zealous papist, to confess openly for the battering down of all popery, that the marriage of priests (which the Pope enforceth upon them under pain of damnation everlasting) is neither forbidden by the law of Moses, nor by the law of thy holy gospel, nor yet by the law of thine apostles. Caiet. in quodlibet cont. Luth▪ Caietanus their own dear Cardinal and learned schoolman confirmeth that which Gratian hath already said. These are his words; Nec ratione, nec authoritate probari potest quod absolute loquendo, sacerdos peccet contrahendo matrimonium. Vignerius is of the very same opinion, De differentii● voti. §. 5. ver. 14. Nam nec ordo in quantum ordo, nec ordo in quantum sacer, est impeditiws matrimonij: siquidem sacer●otium non dirimit matrimonium contractum, sive ante, sive post, seclusis omnibus legibus ecclesiasticis, stando tantum ●is, quae habemus à Christo & apostolis. It can neither be proved by reason nor yet by authority, if we will speak absolutely, that a Priest sinneth by marrying a wife. For neither the order (of priesthood) in that it is order, neither order in that it is holy, is any hindrance unto matrimony: for priesthood breaketh not marriage, whether it be contracted before priesthood, or afterward, setting all ecclesiastical laws apart, and standing only to those things, which we have of Christ and his Apostles. Antoninus is consonant unto Caietane, Antonin. cap. 3. Tit. 1. cap. 21. §. ● and writeth in this manner: Episcopatus ex natura sua, non habet opponi ad matrimonium; the office of a bishop of his own nature, is not opposite unto marriage. Saint Clement telleth it as a wonder, that the Apostle giving so many rules and precepts touching matrimony, Clemens Alexand. lib. ● stromat should say nothing of the marriage of Priests, if it had been a thing necessary: these are his words. Omnes Apostoli Epistolae, quae moderationem docent & continentiam, cum & de matrimonio, & de liberorum procreatione, & de domus administratione innumerabilia praecepta contineant, nusquam honestum moderatumque matrimonium prohibuerunt. All the Epistles of the Apostle, which teach sobriety and continent life, whereas they contain innumerable precepts touching matrimony, bringing up of children, and government of house, yet did they no where forbid honest and sober marriage. I say fifthly, that to take away the christian liberty from man which God hath granted to man, is a wicked and damnable sin: and therefore doth the holy vessel of God bid us, 1. Cor. 7. v. 23▪ to persever constantly therein. For after that he hath exhorted every one to continue as God hath appointed, and withal hath showed the freedom of marriage to be granted to all, he forthwith addeth these words; Ye are bought with a price, be not the servants of men: as if he had said, to marry or not to marry is in your own election, let therefore neither jew nor Gentile overrule your liberty, let none entangle your consciences, let none bring you into faithless bondage, let none impose that heavy yoke upon your necks, which ye are no way able to bear. Now by due application hereof, the vow of single life, at the least the vow annexed to priesthood, which by the law of man, spoileth us of our christian liberty, must needs be a wicked and damnable vow. Victor. demur. sect. 2. relect. 7. p. 280. For as the learned papist Victoria hath well observed, the gospel is called the law of liberty, because christians after the promulgation of the gospel, are only bound to the law of nature. And yet our late pope's have made our case more intolerable, then ever was the heavy yoke of the jews. For Saint Paul chargeth us, to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galat. 5. verse 1. I say sixtly, that to abandon Gods holy ordinance is a wicked and damnable sin: and yet is this done as the Pope bluntishly avoucheth, by his tyrannically extorted vows: for matrimony contracted after priesthood, is by God's law true and perfect matrimony, as is already proved by popish grant; and yet is such matrimony become no matrimony by popish vow, as the Pope would enforce us to believe. Therefore by due application, the monastical vow is a wicked and damnable thing. I say Seventhly, that every vow must be de meliori bono, of a better good, or of that which is a more holy thing: so writeth their approved doctor and canonised saint Aquinas in his theological Sum: Aquin. 22. q. 11. and therefore because the popish perpetual vow of single life is not of such a better good, it must needs be a wicked & unlawful act. To prove the said popish vow, is not of a better good, the reader must diligently observe these points: first, that it is one thing to speak of virginity in it self, or as it is compared with wedlock; and another thing to speak of it as it is perpetually vowed in such & such a person: secondly, that to lead a single life is indifferent to such persons as have the gift of continency, but not to others: thirdly, that such entangle themselves in snares by Saint Paul's doctrine, as do not know their future continuance, 1. Cor. 7. and for all that make a popish vow of single life for ever: four, that it is a great sin to do any thing which is not of faith, Rom. 14. ver. 23. for so saith the apostle. Hereupon it followeth first, that the vow of single life or virginity, is unlawful: the reason is evident, because it is not a better good. I prove it, by the flat testimony of Saint Gregory Nazianzene, a most eloquent and learned father, who was S. Hieroms master, and taught him the holy scriptures, and for his wonderful knowledge therein was rightly surnamed Theologus, as recordeth Simeon Metaphrastes, these are his express words; Come in duo haec genera vita nostra omnis divisa sit, Gregor. Nazian. orat. 25. in laudem Gorgonia tom. 2. nimirum in matrimonium & caelibatum, (quorum alterum ut praestantius & divinius, ita maioris quoque laboris & periculi alterum humilius quidem & abiectius, caeterum minori periculo obnoxium) vitatis utriusque status incommodis, quicquid in utroque commodi erat, delegerit, in unumque coegerit, alterius nempe sublimitatem, alterius securitatem, fuerìtque citra supercilium pudica, caelibatus commoda matrimonio temperans, ac reipsa ostendens neutrum horum suapte natura tale esse, ut nos prorsus vel Deo vel mundo astringat, vel ab his penitus nos separet: Sic quidem ut alterum natura omnino fugiendum sit, alterum prorsus expetendum; verum mentem esse, quae & nuptias & virginitatem recte moderetur, atque utrumque horum instar materiae cuiuspiam ab artifice ratione componi, & ad virtutem elaborari. Whereas our whole life is divided into these two kinds, to wit, into matrimony and single life, (whereof the one as it is more excellent and divine, so is it also of greater labour & danger; the other more base and vile, but subject to less danger) (Gorgonia) eschewing the discommodities of either state, hath chosen and gathered into one, what commodity soever was in both, that is, the sublimity of the one and the security of the other. She was chaste and nothing proud, tempering the commodities of single life with marriage, and showing in very deed, that neither of the twain is such of it own nature, as can either join us wholly to God, or to the world, or withdraw us wholly from God or from the world. So verily as the one ought of it own nature be avoided, and the other to be required: but that it is the mind that doth rightly moderate both marriage and virginity, and that either of them must be by reason composed of the artificer as certain unwrought stuff, & so be made a virtue. These are the words of this great clerk and holy father, in which he hath learnedly described the natures and properties, both of marriage & virginity; which I have alleged at large, because they are worthy of our consideration, and do exactly explain this intricate and important matter. Out of them therefore I note first, that as virginity is more excellent one way, so is it more dangerous another way, and so all things considered, there is no pre-eminence in either of the twain, at least not in virginity. I note secondly, that as matrimony is more secure and free from peril, so may it also include all the good that is in virginity. For as S. Gregory saith, Gorgonia being a married woman, joined the sublimity & most excellent part of virginity, with the security of her chaste wedlock. I note thirdly, that by S. Gregory's discourse, wedlock is to be preferred before virginity. For all the good parts of virginity may be included in chaste wedlock, not so the good parts of wedlock in virginity, that is, virginity is ever subject to peril, from which wedlock abideth free. I add hereunto, that the world may be continued without virginity, although wedlock be necessary for the same. I note four, that virginity of it own nature, can neither join us to God, nor withdraw us from God, but is as marriage in that respect. I note fifthly, that neither wedlock nor yet virginity is a virtue of itself, but a piece of unwrought stuff, which then becometh a virtue, when it is perfectly laboured by the worker: and consequently, that virginity hath no such perfection and merit as our papists do ascribe unto it. Clemens. Alexander. lib. 3. stromat. Clemens Alexandrinus taught this doctrine long before Saint Gregory. It followeth secondly upon the four observations, that if virginity were a better good as it is considered in itself, (the contrary whereof is proved) yet would it not follow that it were a better good, The disparity ought to be noted well. as it is vowed of him or her that hath not the gift: the reason is evident, because our saviour hath appointed such persons, to use the sovereign medicine of chaste wedlock: and so single life is so far from being a better good in such persons, that it is no good at all, but a flat damnable sin. Mat. 19 vers. 11.12. 1. Cor. 7. verse 2. Besides this, such persons expose themselves to great peril, that is, to commit fornication, because they know not their own future state. It followeth thirdly, that such a vow cannot be of a better good, because it is not of faith. I prove it, because his act cannot be of faith, who knoweth not whether his act please God or not, yea he contemneth God presuming to do that, which is offensive in God's sight. If they answer that they know God will give them the gift for ask; I reply, that so to say is great presumption: For Christ himself saith, that all cannot live single, but they only to whom it is given: Mat. 19 verse 11 and saint Paul after he had wished every man to be as himself, added forthwith; but every one hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. Saint Ambrose saith, sola est virginitas quae suaderi potest, imperari non potest; 1. Cor. 7 verse. 7. Ambros. exhort. ad virgins. tom 1. p. 106. only virginity is a thing which may be counseled, but commanded it cannot be. I say eightly, that a lawful and godly vow must be of such things as are in our own power, & that otherwise it is of no force at all. For this cause, the vows that children made were of no force in the law of Moses, so long as they were under the government of their parents. In like case were the vows of wives, & of servants, Numer. 30. pertotum. without the consent of their husbands and masters, yea, all vows of monks & other religious persons so called, which are made without consent of their abbots, & generals, are for this cause void, & of no force at all: so writ Aquinas, Caietanus, Covarrwias', Navarrus Sylvester, Mat. 19 verse. 11. Fumus, Antoninus, and the rest. And yet is it evident, that Chastity is not in the power of man, for so Christ himself hath taught us. And it is a frivolous evasion to say, that by prayer it may be obtained. For who knoweth that God will grant his prayer for single life? to whom hath God so promised? Certes, the holy Apostle prayed instantly three times, that the prick of the flesh might be taken from him, 2. Cor. 12. v. 7, 8, 9, and yet could not attain the same. Nevertheless every idle Monk, Friar, and Nun, when they have presumptuously entangled themselves in the snare, and that without God's appointment, nay contrary to his commandment, will enforce God to yield to their desire. In this their impious doctrine, our papists doubtless become flat Pelagians, and either for their pride will not, or for their just blindness cannot see it. For julianus the Pelagian taught the self same doctrine, The papists are become Pelagians. and for that was christianly confuted by S. Augustine. These are S. Austin's express words; Dicis enim quod dominum continentiae gloriam libertate electionis honoraverit, dicens, qui potest capere capiat; tanquam hoc capiatur non dei munere, sed arbitrij libertate, & taces quod supra dixerit, August. count julian: Pelagian. lib. 5. ca 7. tom. 7. non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus datum est. Vide quae taceas, quae dicas. Puto quod te pungat conscientia: sed vincit rectum timorem, cum ingerit perversum pudorem, quoquo modo iam defendenda praecipitata sententia. For thou sayest, that our Lord hath honoured the glory of continency with the freedom of election, saying; He that can take, let him take; as if this were taken not by God's gift, but by the free will of man, & thou concealest that which Christ said before, all men do not receive this word, but they to whom it is given. Consider well, what thou concealest, and what thou sayest. I verily think, that thine own conscience pricketh thee: but when a rash sentence must be defended, it bringeth in perverse shame, which overcometh godly fear. Thus saith S. Austen. Out of these words I gather first, that julianus held this opinion, that every one might live a chaste single life, at his pleasure. I gather secondly, that for this end he wrested the holy scripture. I gather thirdly, that julians' own conscience condemned him for this his foolish opinion, as S. Austen thought: and so gentle reader, thou seest evidently, that late popery is become flat Pelagianisme. But our papists in great fury exclaim bitterly against us & say, that God denieth us nothing, that is necessary for our salvation: which I willingly admit, telling them withal, that we may attain eternal salvation, aswell by marriage as by single life. 1. Cor. 7. v. 9 And hereunto I add, that matrimony is ordained for the salvation of all such as cannot live a continent single life: and therefore saith the Apostle; if they cannot abstain, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. Again, albeit God should grant their requests for a time, yet would it not follow that they should so continue to the end of their lives. 1. Cor. 7. verse 12 For as S. Paul adviseth, he that seemeth to stand, aught to take good heed lest he fall. I say ninthly, that vows which are not voluntary and free from all coaction, are not only wicked, but of no force at all. So writ the best popish doctors, Aquinas, Lombardus, Aquinas 22. q. 88 ar. 2. corp. Lomb. in 4. dist. 38. Anton. p. 2. tit. 11 c. 1. §. 1. Fumus, de vo●o, §. 1. sylvest de voto primo. §. 1. Antoninus, Navarrus, Sylvester, Angelus, Fumus and the rest. And who knoweth not that Romish priests, moonkes and others of that irreligious crew, do yield to the perpetual vow of single life by coaction, and reluctante conscientia? it is manifest doubtless in all such as want the supernatural gift. For since they can neither freely be admitted to the ecclesiastical ministery, nor yet professed in the monastery, and so enjoy the expected commodities thereof: at length they condescend by popish restraint, to admit the vow of single life. For howsoever God shall bestow his gift of continent single life, it is decreed before hand, that the younger brothers of the house of Farnesus, & Columna, Vrsinus, and such like, shallbe cardinals bound to single life. So is it commonly intended by gentle men, otherwise virtuous and of good worship, that their younger sons shallbe the parsons of such and such fat livings, whereof themselves are the patrons; although they be as unfit for the popish annexed vow, as ever was Sardanapalus that effeminate wanton. I say tenthly, that all vows are wicked and unlawful which are either of things indifferent, or of unlawful things, or against any commandment. So writ Antoninus, Fumus, Vignerius, Vigner. de virtue inst. c. 5. § 5. v. ●4. Ant. & Fum. v●i supr. and other approved papists. All which nevertheless are truly verified, of the popish vows of single life. For first, virginity is a thing mere indifferent, and no virtue till it be rightly laboured by the workman, as I have proved out of S. Gregory Nazianzene▪ Secondly, the vow of virginity or single life in such as want the gift, is against God's holy commandment expressed not only in S. Paul, 1. Cor. 7. v. ●. Mat. 19 v. 1● but also in his holy gospel. For when Christ saith, he that can take, let him take; he saith also consequently & virtually, he that cannot take, let him not take: as if he had said; whosoever can with a good conscience abstain from wedlock, let him so do; but he that cannot, let him marry a wife, because that is expedient for his salvation. S, Paul doth so interpret Christ, in other words equivalent. I say unto the unmarried, and unto the widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I do: 1. Cor. 7. v. 8.9. but if they cannot abstain, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. Thirdly, virginity vowed as a work of supererogation, of merit, and perfection, is a wicked and superstitious thing, and yet is this the popish manner of vowing the same: for thus writeth Viguerius, their learned professor of divinity and Dominican friar. Viguer. ubi supr. Dicitur melius bonum, quia est supererogationis, & quia iuducit ad perfectionem, ut castitas, paupertas, & obedientia. It is called the better good, for that it is a work of supererogation, and because it bringeth us to perfection; as chastity, poverty, and obedience. Now that none of our works be perfect, or rightly termed works of supererogation; I have proved copiously, in the fift conclusion of the second chapter of my Motives. I therefore conclude, that perpetual vows of single life in the Romish Church, are vain, rash, impious, and most execrable in God's sight. The perioch of the chapter. Priests were married in the old law, and in time of the new testament, in the East church, and in the West: Many pope's of Rome, were the sons of priests: neither were they bastards, but legitimate children. Many holy and learned bishops, were married men▪ S. Gregory, S. Spiridion, S. Cheremon, S. Philogonius, S. Eupsichius. S. Paphnutius defended the marriage of priests publicly in the council of Nice, and avouched in the spirit of God, that the use of holy wedlock was honourable in them, even in time of their priesthood. S. Cheremon and his wife fled together from persecution, even at that time when he was Bishop of Nicopolis. Eupsichius was the bishop of Caesarea and forthwith after his marriage martyred for Christ jesus. The apostles themselves were married, begat children, and carried their wives about with them, while they preached the gospel abroad in the country. Clergy men used the benefit of marriage aswell as secular persons, until the untimely birth of wicked pope Syritius. Bishops, priests, and all religious persons so termed, may most lawfully marry by the laws of God, and are only debarred thereof by the audible laws of man, or rather to use the apostles words, by the detestable doctrine of Satan. All this I have proved effectually in this present chapter. Yea, the marriage of priests was used without restraint in Germany, for the space of a thousand seventy and four years, after Christ's sacred incarnation. Anno Dom. 1074. That is, until the days of the ungracious pope Hildebrand, who termed himself Gregory the seventh, who crept into the popedom by naughty means, in the year of Christ 1074. And because I will charge the Papists with nothing, but that which they shall never be able to deny; their own dear moonk Lambertus Schafnaburgensis, (a man whom their trusty friend Ar. Pontacus Burdegalensis, affirmeth to have handled the histories of his time very exactly) shallbe my witness against the pope, and popishly prohibited marriages. This writer so authentical as ye hear, writeth in this manner; Hildebrandus papa cum episcopis Italiae conveniens iam frequentibus synodis decreverat, Lambert. Sch●●nab Chron. ut secundum instituta antiquorum canonum presbyteri uxores non habeant, habentes aut dimittant, aut deponantur; Anno. Dom. 1074. nec quispam omnino ad sacerdotium admittatur, qui non in perpetuum continentiam vitamque caelibemprofiteatur. Sequitur; adversus hoc decretum protinus vehementer infremuit tota factio clericorum, hominem plane haereticum & vesani dogmatis esse clamitans, qui oblitus sermonis domini, quo ait, non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, qui potest capere capiat; & Apostolus, qui se non continet, nubat; melius est enim nubere quam uri, violenta exactione homines vivere cogeret ritu angelorum, & dum consuetum cursum naturae negaret, fornicationi & immunditiei fraena laxaret. Pope Hildebrand together with the Bishops of Italy decreed in frequent Synods, that after the ordinances of old canons, priests should not have wives; and that such as had wives, should either put them away, or be deprived of their livings; and that none should be admitted to the order of priesthood, but he that would profess the perpetual vow of single life. Against this decree the whole faction of the clergy stormed wonderfully, exclaiming that Hildebrand was mad & a flat heretic, as who had forgotten the words of the Lord, who saith that all cannot live continent, and the Apostle saith, he that cannot abstain, let him marry; for it is better to marry, then to be burnt; and would violently compel men to live like angels; and while he denied the accustomed course of nature, gave liberty to fornication and uncleanness. Out of which words I note first, that this Lambertus was a Monk, and a great patron of popery, which I prove by two reasons; first, for that he termed it a faction, to withstand Pope Hildebrands' wicked decree. Again, because he affirmeth the late prohibition of priest's marriage, to be according to the old canons, which canons for all that, were not before the days of the late Pope Syricius, as I have proved. I note secondly, that since this Lambert was a great and zealous papist, all must needs be of good credit, that he saith against the papists, and popish doctrine. I note thirdly, that priests were married in Germany, above one thousand seventy years after Christ, that is, till the time of this wicked Hildebrand. I note four, that it was so strange a thing in those days to speak against the marriage of priests in Germany, that they reputed Pope Hildebrand a mad man and an heretic, for withstanding the same. And yet such is the fondness and madness of the common sort this day, that they deem them mad men and heretics, who speak in defence thereof. I note fifthly, that all the learned in Germany proved the Pope an heretic, by the flat testimony of Christ and his Apostle. I note sixtly, that by the verdict of all the learned in Germany, that great and goodly country, Pope Hildebrand did not only enforce them violently against their ancient custom, but withal did open the window to all filthy living. Priests were also married in our own country of England, till the late days of the said Pope Hildebrand, if we will believe our own English Chronicles. Polidorus another dear friend of the papists, shall tell them what he thinks of the Pope's proceeding, touching the marriage of priests: thus doth he write. Illud tamen dixerim, tantum abfuisse, ut ista coacta castitas illam coniugalem vicerit, Polidorus. lib. 5▪ cap. 4. in fide. ut etiam nullius delicti crimen maius ordini dedecus, plus malireligioni, plus doloris omnib bonis impresserit, inusserit, attulerit, quam sacerdotum libidinis labes: proinde forsitan tam è republica christiana quam ex ordinis usu esset; ut tandem aliquando ius publici matrimoni● sacerdotibus restitueretur: quod illi sine infamia sanctè potius colerent, quam se spurcissimè eiuscemodi naturae vitio turpificarent. Yet this I will say, that this compelled chastity (of priests,) was so far from excelling chastity in wedlock, as no crime whatsoever hath brought greater shame to priesthood, more harm to religion, more grief to all good men, than the unchaste life of priests. Therefore, perhaps it were no less necessary for the public weal of christendom, then for the order of priesthood, that once again priests might marry publicly, that so they might live honestly & without shame, & not pollute themselves so filthily. This is the judgement of their own popish Polidore, who being an Italian knew best the Romish fashion. He confesseth plainly as you see, that priests were married in old time, wishing for great causes that it were so again. Their great Cardinal Panormitanus giveth so worthy a testimony of this controversy, as which being well marked, will confounded all papists in the world: these be his words; Continentia non est in clericis secularibus de substantia ordinis, nec de iure divino, Panormita●. de clerie. co●●ugati●. cap. cum Olim. quia aliàs Graeci peccarent, nec excusaret eos consuetudo. Sequitur: & non solum credo potestateminesse ecclesiae hoc condendi sed credo pro bono & salute esset animarum▪ quod esset salubre statutum, ut volentes possint contrahere, quia experientia docente, contrarius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa lege continentiae, cum hody non vivant spiritualiter, nec sint mundi, sed maculantur illicito coitu cum eorum graviss▪ peccato, ubi cum propria uxore esset castitas: Continency in secular priests, is not of the substance of their orders, nor of the law divine, because otherwise the Greeks should sin, and their custom could not excuse them: and I do not only believe that the church can make such a law, but also that such a law were for the good, and for the salvation of souls, that such as would might marry; because experience teacheth, that a contrary effect followeth of that law of continency, since this day they live not spiritually, neither are clean, but are polluted in unlawful copulation with their sin most grievous, though they might live chastened with their own wives. Out of which words of Panormitan, (who was their canonist, their Abbot, their archbishop, their cardinal,) I note first, that the prohibition of marriage in secular priests, is neither of the substance of the ministery nor by the law of God, but only enforced by the law of man. I note secondly, that priests marriage may be honourable and honest chastity. I note thirdly, that the prohibition of priests marriage, is against their soul's health, as which causeth the priests to sin damnably. Out of which notes I infer this memorable corollary, that the prohibition of priest's marriage is against God's law, against the health of men's souls, and against the good of the common weal, and that by constant popish doctrine. So then, the pope is never able, to purge himself of his shameful dealing. CHAP. V Of popish pardons, and the original thereof. I Have spoken so copiously of popish pardons, in my book of Motives; as much more shall not be needful, in this place. There I proved by the testimony of Roffensis, Sylvester, and other popish doctors, that popish pardons are not grounded in or upon the word of god; as also that they crept into the church, long after Christ's ascension into heaven. Anno. Dom. 1300 Bonifacius the eight of that name, (who began his popedom as a fox, continued in it, as a wolf, and ended it as a dog, their own writers Platina and Carranza so affirming) was the first bishop of Rome, that ever took upon him to pardon sin by public bulls. He appointed a jubilee, and granted full remission of all sins, Platina in Bonifac. 8, in med. to such as would come in pilgrimage to Rome. Their own Platina hath these express words: jubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo, quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat, qui limina apostolorum visitassent, ad exemplum veteris testamenti. (Pope Boniface) brought again the jubilee, after 1300. years, and gave full pardon of all sins to those that did visit S. Peter's Church (in Vaticano at Rome,) after the example of the old law. Out of these words I note first, that the old jubilee was never heard of in Christ's church till the time of Bonifacius our jewish pope. I prove it by the word (retulit) he brought again (from the jews.) I note secondly, that the church was free from popish pardons, the space of 1300 years, so as popish pardons are not yet 300. years old, albeit silly people do so magnify the same. I note thirdly, that this pope pardoned not only the pain, but even the sin itself, yea all sins whatsoever. Though our latter papists to hide their shame if it could be, do violently interpret him of the pain. I note four, that this good father Maliface brought again the jewish ceremonial law. I note fifthly, that the remission of the old law (which they pretend apishly to imitate) was not of sins, but of debts, lands, bondage, & such like, which the pope useth not to pardon: Leu. 25. vers. 10. & ● and yet forsooth he would be thought to bring the jubilee again. Two hundredth years after this, that is, 1500. years after Christ, pope Alexander the sixth appointed his jubilee, An, Dom. 1500 and like pardons, not only for coming to Rome, but to all persons in all places wheresoever. So writeth their own Polydore, and Platina accordeth thereunto: for the rest see my Motives in this point. The first objection. The church of God used to give pardons, Polidor. lib. ●. cap. 1. above a thousand and two hundred years sithence, as appeareth by the great council of Nice, and by other ancient synods. Yea S. Gregory gave pardon, to all those that did visit the churches at Rome The answer. I say first, that Emperors, kings, absolute princes, & common weals independent, may lawfully pardon malefactors, the due circumstances of times, places and persons well considered: and so may one neighbour pardon an other, for trespasses done unto him. I say secondly, that in the primitive church, such as were notorious offenders, & had given public scandal to the church, were enjoined by the church, to do public penance for their public faults, before they could be admitted into the church again. Which thing is this day observed in all reformed churches abroad, and in all particular churches (God be thanked for it) throughout the Realm of England. I say thirdly, that in the ancient churches, many years of penance (or public exercises of humiliation) were ordained for every public grievous offence. Whereupon it followed, that when many penitent persons gave evident tokens of true internal remorse, for their former scandalous conversation; then the church thought good to give to such persons, some relaxation of their so enjoined public penance: which manner of pardoning is plainly acknowledged in the holy council of Nice. These are the express words. De his qui praeter necessitatem praevaricati sunt, Conc. 1. Nicen. ●an. 11. aut propter ablationem facultatum, aut propter periculum, aut aliquid huiusmodi, quod factum est sub tyrannide Licini●; placuit sanctae synodo licet sint indigni misericordia, tamen aliquid circa e●s humanitatis ostendi. Concerning those that have voluntarily transgressed, or for fear to lose their worldly goods, or for danger, or any such like occasion, as chanced in time of Licinius his persecution; to such although they be unworthy of mercy, yet is it the holy counsels mind, to grant them some pardon or relaxation in that behalf. In the council of Arles, and in the council of Ancyra, the like pardon is granted to penitent offenders: Conc. 2. Arelat can. 10. conc. Ancyr. can. 2. of which kind of pardons, the ancient fathers Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Eusebius, Sozomenus, and others, do often make relation. Yea, of this sort were the pardons that Saint Gregory gave: but of late popish pardons, that is, of applying to whom they list, & when they list, as well to the living as to the dead, the merits of Christ and of his saints, as condign satisfaction for their sins: for of such pardons no council, no father, no ancient approved Historiographer, maketh any mention at all. Which thing I have plainly proved, in the third conclusion of the second chapter of my Motives. The second objection. The keys of heaven were given to Saint Peter, and consequently to his successors the bishops of Rome, Mat. 16.19. and withal promise was made unto him, that whatsoever he should bind on earth, the same should be bound in heaven, & whatsoever he should lose on earth, should be loosed in heaven: now to lose sins is nothing else, but to give a pardon or indulgence for the same. The answer. I say first, that upon the gross interpretation of these words, many popish priests have arrogantly & presumptuously taken upon them like the proud Pharisees, to condemn the innocents and to lose the guilty persons; whereas before God, not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the persons charged is inquired of. Thus writeth S. Hierome, adding that priests can bind and loose sinners no otherwise now in the new testament, than they did bind and loose the Lepers in the old law: D. Hierom. 〈◊〉 cap 16. Matt. that is, not to forgive sins perfectly and indeed, but to declare by God's word, the sins of penitent persons to be forgiven in God's sight; even as the priests in Moses law did not purge the Lepers, Luc. 5. Mat. 8. Mat. 1.44. Levit▪ 13. per totum. but only declared those whom God had purged already, to be clean and free from the leprosy: for as the gospel witnesseth, none but God can forgive sin. I say secondly, Luc. 5.21. that all the rest of the Apostles had the self same power granted to them all, which is here promised to S. Peter: for so saith Christ himself in another place, where he performeth his promise now made to Peter, in the person of them all: & consequently, if the Pope could pardon, as fond is imagined; Mut. 18. v. 18. joan. 20. vers. 22.23. yet might all other bishops do the same even aswell as he. So S. Austen, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Hylary, Origen, Theophilacte, and others do confess. I say thirdly, that S. Peter and the other Apostles have not power granted by the scripture to forgive sin, but only to declare and pronounce according to the scripture, that God hath forgiven to truly penitent persons all their sins. For they can but only declare the sins to be forgiven, which are by Christ forgiven already, as the priests in the old law could not purge any from the leprosy indeed, but only make declaration of the truth; as ye have heard out of S. Hierome. The learned popish Cardinal Hugo, (to the everlasting confusion of all impenitent and obstinate papists) confirmeth S. Hieromes opinion in these express words: Vinculo culpae & poenae debitae non potest●um sacerdos ligare vel solvere, Hugo in. 16. Mat sed tantum ligatum vel absolutum ostendere; sicut sacerdos Leviticus non faciebat vel mundabat leprosum, sed tantum infectum vel mundum ostendebat. The priest cannot bind him with the bond of sin and due punishment, either lose him from the same, but only declare him to be bound or absolved (in God's sight) even as the Levitical priest did not make or cleanse him that had the leprosy, but only showed him to be infected or cleansed. Their own school doctor Durandus singeth the same song, in these express words; Claves nihil operantur ad dimissionem culpae vel maculae, Durand. in. 4. s. d. 18. q. 2. quia deordinatio actus tollitur per eius ordinationem, dum bene displicet, quod malè placuit. The keys work nothing to the remission of the fault or blemish, because the deordination of the act is taken away by well ordering the same, while that displeaseth well, which pleased evil. Thus we see by popish grant and doctrine, that the metaphorical keys (whereof the papists boast so much) can never put away sin, neither can any priest absolve any person from sin, or from the pain due for sin, save only by declaring his sins to be forgiven, as is said. The reply. 〈◊〉 9 verse. 2.8 It is evident in the holy gospel, that not only God can forgive sin by his own power, but men also by authority & commission received from him: for when Christ had forgiven the sick man his sins the people marveled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men. The answer. I answer, that our saviour Christ in forgiving the sick man's sins, L●t this point be well marked. showed himself to be true God: which manner of proof had been none indeed, if any but god could have done the same, which point I wish the gentle reader to observe attentively. For the Pharisees charged him with blasphemy, as who not being god, yet took upon him the office of God, in forgiving sins. Whose opinion for all that, Christ himself approved, & for ratification thereof, showed by an evident external miracle, that he was god indeed, so as they could no longer be in suspense of the matter, Mat 9 verse. ●. but that ye may know (saith Christ) that the son of man hath power to forgive sins (than said he to the sick of the palsy) arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house; as if he had said, I confess that I am God, and that ye may know the same evidently, I make the sick man whole with mine only word, which if I were not God indeed, I could never do. This case S. Chrysostome maketh so plain, as none that once read or hear his words, can stand any longer in doubt thereof. Thus doth he write in express terms. Videamus quid ipse ait, utrum opinionem eorum improbaverit, Chrysost. in ca 9 Mat. hom 30. tom. 2. p. 275. an potius comprobaverit: nisi enim aequalis esset patri, dixisset; quid mihi tribuitis non competentem opinionem? procul ego absum à tanta potestate. Nunc verò nihil horum dixit, sed contra, tam verbo quam signo affirmavit. Ita quoniam solet esse audientibus molestum, ut aliquis de seipso apertius dicat, aliorum verbis & signo deum se patrique aequalem esse ostendit; & quod mirabilius est, non per amicos solum, verum etiam per inimicos hoc peragit, ut & virtutis & sapientiae suae pelagus pateat. Let us see what he saith, whether he reproved their opinion, or rather approved the same. For if he had not been equal with his father, he would have said; why do ye ascribe to me that incompetent opinion? I am far off from that so great power: yet now he saith no such thing, but contrariwise affirmeth it both by word and miracle. So because it is wont to be grievous to the hearers, that any man should speak openly of himself; he showeth both by the testimony of others and by miracle, that he is God, and equal with his father; and which is more wonderful, this he doth not only by his friends, but even by his enemies, that so aswell his power as his wisdom may be known abundantly. Out of which words I note first, that Christ approved the opinion of the pharisees, who held that only God could forgive sin. I note secondly, that if Christ had not been equal with God the father, he would never have taken upon him to pardon sin; and consequently, The pope is worse than the devil. that the pope who will give a general pardon of all sins, must by S. Chrysostom's judgement, be either as good as God, or worse than the devil. I note thirdly, that it was needful for Christ to show himself to be God; because otherwise he might justly have been charged with blasphemy, because he did pardon sin. And consequently, that our pope and his popish vassals, our jesuits, moonkes, and friars, must either prove themselves Gods, by signs and miracles; or else confess themselves to blaspheme God, while they remit and pardon sin. For they all challenge this power of remitting sin, in their (so termed) sacrament of penance. S. Ambrose and S. Hilary both are of the very same judgement, S. Ambrose writeth in this manner. Cognosce interioris homines sanitatem; Ambros. lib. 5. in ●ucam. cap. 5. in 〈◊〉. cui peccata donantur: quae cum judaei asserunt à solo Deo posse concedi, Deum utique confitentur suóque judicio perfidiam suam produnt; qui ut opus astruant, personam negant. Sequitur; magna itaque infidae plebis amentia, ut cum confessa fuerit solius dei esse donare peccata, non credat deo pecca ta donanti. Acknowledge the curing of the inward man, whose sins are forgiven: which when the jews confess that only God can forgive, they doubtless confess him to be God, & by their own judgement bewray their false faith, who to establish the work, deny the person. Great therefore is the incredulity of faithless people, who confessing that only God can forgive sins, doth not for all that believe in God that forgiveth sins. S. Hilary hath these words; Movet Scribas remissum ab homine peccatam; ●il●● can ●. in 〈◊〉. hominem enim tantum in jesu Christo contuebantur, & remissum ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat: fides enim sola justificat. Deinde murmurationem eorum dominus introspicit, dicitque facile esse filio hominis in terra peccata dimittere: verum enim nemo potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus; ergo qui remittit, Deus est, quia nemo remittit nisi Deus. It stirreth the Scribes that a man should forgive sin, because they beheld in jesus Christ only a man, (not God) and that to be forgiven by him, which the law could not release: For faith only justifieth. Afterward the Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith that it is easy for the son of man to forgive sins on earth, for it is true, that no man can forgive sins, but only God, therefore he that remitteth sins, is God, because no man remitteth sins but God. By these testimonies it is evident, that God, and only God can forgive sins, & that our saviour Christ did effectually, prove himself to be God, in that he could forgive sin. Which kind of reasoning had been of no force at all, if others beside god, as monks & jesuits could have remitted sin. The reply. The text saith, that the faithful people did glorify God, for that he gave such power to men, as to remit sins and to do miracles; knowing that so to do by commission from God, was not against his glory. The answer. I answer, that although sundry of the people were reverently affected towards Christ, by reason of his miracles; yet did they not behold or confess God manifested in the flesh, but still thought Christ to be a pure man, though a great and holy prophet. And the reason hereof is evident, because they did not acknowledge Christ to be God, but to have received that power from God, as an holy man: for as the text saith, the multitudes seeing it, were afraid and glorified God, that gave such power unto men. Out of which words I note first, that they believed not Christ to be God, because they were afraid. For as Saint john saith, he that confesseth jesus to be the son of God, 1. john. 4.15. 〈◊〉. will love him and be without fear. I note secondly, that they gave glory to god, but not to the Saviour of the world: for albeit that no man but Christ wrought the miracles, yet did they glorify God for giving such power to men, whereby it is clear, that they esteemed of him, as of a pure man; and that god had given that power to others as well as to him, otherwise they would have spoken in the singular number, and not in the plural; of only Christ whom they saw, and not of more, whom they neither saw, nor could see, working in that divine manner. I note thirdly, that it is a bluntish kind of disputation, when the conceit of the vulgar sort, is alleged to refute Christ's divine reasoning. The third objection. S. Paul himself gave pardon to the incestuous Corinthian, 1. Cor. 5. verse. 1· 2. Cor. 2. verse. 10 who had committed fornication with his father's wife. The answer I say first, that if popish pardons should be grounded upon this place, it would follow by a necessary consecution, that the Pope himself could pardon no more, than every simple priest; which sequel I conjecture cannot well stand with the Pope's liking. I prove it, because the other ministers in Corinth gave the self same pardon with S. Paul: and therefore doth the Apostle say; To whom ye pardon any thing, I also pardon. 2. Cor. 2. ve. 10. I say secondly, that popish confession must of necessity go before popish pardoning, in all such as sin mortally; and therefore since the apostle doth not once name popish confession, it followeth perforce, that he neither speaketh of popish pardoning. I say thirdly, that the pardoning whereof S. Paul speakketh, is nothing else, but that he who was excommunicate for his public trespass, may, after signs of true remorse, be restored to the church again; and after their sharp censure of correction, 2. Cor. 2. vers. 6, 7, 8. find pardon and mercy at their hands. This much I prove out of saint Paul's own words, which are these; It is sufficient to the same man, that he was rebuked of many; so now contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch heaviness. Wherefore I pray you, that ye would confirm your love towards him. After this grave and godly exhortation, he adjoineth these words; To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: as if he had said; if ye be content to receive him into the church again, I am therewith well pleased. For he yieldeth two reasons why the church of Corinth ought to pardon the excommunicate person: the one is, for that he seemed to have given sufficient signs of his unfeigned repentance: the other is, lest too much rigour of correction should bring him to desperation. For which cause S. Paul requesteth them to declare the consent of the whole congregation, that he was taken again for a brother and pardoned for his offence. So then S. Paul and the church of Corinth did pardon no otherwise indeed, but even as we ourselves are taught to pardon in the Lord's prayer, saying; and pardon us our trespasses, as we pardon or forgive them that offend against us. I say four, that the renowned popish Thomist Sylvester Prierias, sometime master of their so termed sacred palace, confesseth plainly according to right and reason, that popish pardons were neither known to us by this place of S. Paul, neither yet by any other place of the whole scripture: these are his express words: sylvest de indulgent. §. 1. Indulgentia nobis per scripturam minimè innotuit▪ licet inducatur illud, 2. Corin. 2. si quid donavi vobis; sed nec per dicta antiquorum doctorum, sed modernorum. Dicitur enim Gregorius indulgentiam septennem in stationibus Romae posuisse, & quia ecclesia hoc facit & servat, credendum est ita esse, quia regitur spiritu sancto. The pope's pardons (saith friar Sylvester their surnamed absolutus theologus) were never known to us by the Scriptures, although some allege S. Paul to the Corinthians for that purpose; neither were they known by the ancient fathers, but only by late writers. For Gregory is said to have appointed seven years of indulgence, in his stations at Rome. And because the church (of Rome) this doth, and thus observeth, we must believe it to be so, for the church is governed by the holy ghost. Out of these words I note first, that this friar Sylvester was a man of great fame among the papists, & for his singular learning reputed an absolute divine, and therefore that his testimony must needs be very authentical among the papists. I note secondly, that Antoninus a learned papist, who was the archbishop of Florence even in the altitude of popedom, holdeth the self same opinion, and hath the very same words now recited out of Sylvester. I note thirdly, that popish pardons can neither be proved by the scriptures, nor by the ancient fathers; and consequently, that pope Boniface the eight of that name was the first founder thereof, as is already proved. For albeit Sylvester seemeth here to ascribe the original of some kind of pardoning to Gregory yet doth he only tell that by hearsay; and besides that, Gregory either gave no pardons in deed, (which is very probable) or at the most, he pardoned after saint Paul's manner, some part of severity enjoined by the church. I note four, that the chiefest ground upon which Popish pardoning is built, is the bare and naked commandment of the pope. For whatsoever the church saith (that is to say the pope) that must be believed, because forsooth the pope cannot err: but yet that he both may err, and hath already erred de facto; I have proved abundantly in my Book of Motives, where the gentle Reader shall find the opinions of other popish doctors, most fit for this end and purpose. Shameless and impudent therefore are the papists, when they blush not to father their Romish pardons upon saint Paul. The reply. In the council of Laterane (which was almost an hundred years before pope Bonifacius) mention is made of pardons with good liking of the same, yea S. Gregory appointed stations and granted pardons for frequenting them. The answer. I say first, that in process of time when sin increased, and the people waxed slow in accomplishing ecclesiastical satisfaction enjoined; redemptions, and commutations succeeded in the place thereof, and canonical discipline began to decay, as their own Burchardus writeth, about the year of Christ 1020. I say secondly, that by little, and little after such redemptions & commutations, superstitious opinions were instilled into the minds of the vulgar people, as that the fulfilling of the multe enjoined by the church, was necessary for salvation, & able to satisfy the just judgement of God; that god required much more satisfaction than was so enjoined, and that for the same they must either satisfy in this life, or afterward in purgatory, if they were not pardoned by the pope. I say thirdly, that albeit penance, satisfaction, or canonical discipline used in the old church and ancient counsels, (which was nothing else but a civil multe imposed to public offenders, Penance satisfaction and canonical discipline is all one to the old writers. not to satisfy God's judgement, but to bridle ill life, and to keep comely order in the church) was by little and little changed into superstitious popish satisfaction, yet had not that execrable doctrine gotten place in the church in the time of the Lateran council. council. 1. later. can. 62. I prove it, because that council maketh mention only, de poenitentiis iniunctis, of penance enjoined, which was holden Anno Dom. 2215. I say four, that the bishop of Rome (now called Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, might have released or pardoned in his own churches and jurisdiction, (as Cornelius and other good bishops did) such ligaments, mults, or canonical corrections as he had enjoined to public offenders: and perhaps Gregory the Great granted some such pardons indeed, but that he gave pardons for sin and to satisfy God's justice, as Popes this day do, it can never be proved out of his works. The fourth objection. The blessed virgin Marie, holy job and many others, have suffered much more than was needful for their own sins. And saint Paul saith of himself, Coloss. 1.24. that he supplied the wants of Christ's passion for his church: which supper abundant satisfactions of S. Paul and others, because they were not determined by themselves to this or that particular person; it pertaineth to the supreme pastor the pope's holiness, to make application thereof as he seethe cause. Which application is termed pardoning, for that when the pope apply twenty degrees of the satisfaction of Christ, or of S. Paul, or some other saint, to one of his nuns, monks, or jesuits; then so many degrees of satisfaction are pardoned to such a nun, monk, or iesuite, which the said nun, monk, or iesuite should otherwise have done, either in this life or else in purgatory. The answer. I say first that no saint did or can suffer so much as is sufficient for his sins. And I prove it evidently, because the best learned papists grant freely and truly, that every mortal sin hath in it infinite deformity, as which is an aversion from God of infinite majesty, and consequently that God requireth infinite satisfaction for the same: yet so it is that pure man is uncapable of every infinite action (for otherwise he should be an other God;) and consequently, man's actions of which no one among all can be infinite, can not yield condign compensation for one only mortal sin: and yet is every sin mortal indeed, as I have proved in my Motives, even by popish doctrine. Peruse the eight article of Dissension in the second Book of the said Motives, and thou shalt see evidently, that not only Gerson, Durand, Baius, Roffensis, and Almayn (who all were renowned papists) but even the common schools of late days do hold the same opinion. I say secondly, that God hath already rewarded every saint in heaven, (as he will also in time reward every saint now on earth) f●r above their deserts. Which I prove briefly by these two reasons: first, because S. Paul so teacheth us, when he saith that the sufferings of this life, Rom. ●. 1●▪ are not worthy of the glory to come. Which saying I have answered at large in my Motives, there answering all replies that can be made against the same. Secondly, because it is the pope's own doctrine, if papists were constant to their own writing. For thus writeth their own dear friar, Io. de Combis libr. 5. Tholog. ver. cap. 11. M. john de Combis; Hoc patet, qui● deus semper remunerat supra meritum, sicut punit citra condignum: This is evident (saith our holy friar john) because God evermore rewardeth us above our deserts, and punisheth us less than we be worthy. So then the pope's holiness may apply to himself, all the superabundant merits of his holy nuns, moonkes, and jesuits, and flee to heaven as a bird without feathers. I say thirdly, that the want whereof the apostle speaketh, is not in the proper passion of Christ, which was of infinite virtue, of infinite worthiness, of infinite dignity; yea, of such force and efficacy, as the least drop of his most precious blood (being the blood both of God and man, by reason of hypostatical union,) was sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and of ten thousand thousand worlds more, if so many had been. I say four, that God in his eternal decree appointed a certain measure of afflictions, which not only Christ should suffer in his own natural body, but also which his mystical body should suffer the congregation of the faithful, before the full accomplishment of their glory. Which thing is very evident by the answer made to the holy martyrs concerning their complaints presented before the majesty of God. For thus is it written in God's book: How long Lord which art holy and true, dost not thou judge and avenge our blood, on them that dwell on the earth? and it was said unto them, that they should rest for a little season, Apocalip. 6. v. 10 11. until their fellow servants and their brethren who should be killed as they were, were fulfilled. Thus saith holy writ. Out of these words of the holy scripture, I note first, that God in his secret counsel hath decreed, aswell the number as the persons that shall suffer in his church. I note secondly, that the afflictions of God's children shall not wholly cease, until the general day of doom. I note thirdly, that God will avenge at that dreadful day, all injuries done unto his saints. These annotations well observed, this illation will manifestly result out of the same; to wit, 1. Cor. 5. v. 7. 1. joan. 2. Heb. 10. v. 14. Osee, 13.4. Esai. 43.25.53.5. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. that the afflictions whereof S. Paul speaketh to the Colossians, were not satisfactions for the sins of the church: (for so to suffer was the peculiar office of Christ our only saviour,) but they were testimonies of the zeal and patience which ought to be in the church, and of that conformity which is required between the members of the mystical body and the head. Which sense may easily be gathered out of Anselmus his golden gloss, upon the apostles words in this place. Thus doth he write; Adimpleo inquit, ea quae desunt. Cui desunt? in carne mea. Name in carne Christi quam virgo peperit nihil passionum deest, Anselm. in 2. cap. Colost. sed omnes in illa passiones sunt impletae; sed adhuc restat pars passionum eius in mea carne, quas quotidie tolero pro universali corpore eius quod est ecclesia. Si enim ab eruditione fidelium cessarem, has passiones ab infidelibus non sustinerem. Sed quia semper ecclesiae studeo prodesse, semper adversa cogor tolerare. I fulfil saith he, those things that want. To whom do they want? in my flesh. For in Christ's flesh which the virgin bore, no passion at all wanted, but all passions were fulfilled in it; nevertheless some part of his passions yet remaineth in my flesh, which I daily suffer for his universal body which is the church. For if I should leave off from instructing the faithful, I might be free from these persecutions of Infidels. But because I ever desire to profit the church, I am always enforced to abide persecution. Out of this grave, virtuous, and learned commentary, I note first, that Christ's passion was most absolute and perfect in itself. I note secondly, that some passions of Christ yet remained, which S. Paul ought to suffer in his flesh. Where observe by the way, that the afflictions of the faithful, are reputed Christ's own passions: for when Paul persecuted his disciples, he cried aloud; Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Act. 9 v. ●. I am jesus whom thou persecutest, it is hard for thee to kick against the prick. I note thirdly, that the afflictions which S. Paul sustained, were for the good of the whole church: yet not by the way of satisfaction, but by the ordinary means of christian instruction. For as Anselmus truly saith; afflictions came to the apostle, because he preached the gospel. From preaching whereof if he would have ceased, Anselm. ubi sup. S. Ambrose expoundeth this text in the self same manner. he might have been free from his passions here mentioned. Where we must diligently observe, that God appointed when, where, and how long S. Paul should preach the gospel, for the good of the whole church. In regard whereof S. Paul pronounced woe unto himself, if he should not preach the gospel. 1. Cor 9 v. 17. Heb 10. v. 12.14 1. Pet. 3. ve. 18. 2. Tim. 3. v. 11.12 Rom. 8. v. 17.18. 1. Pet. 2. v. 21. To which preaching of the gospel these passions were annexed, as the complement of Christ's passions: not of his passions in himself, but in the church his mystical body. For as he suffered once for all in himself, for the redemption of the world, so doth he still suffer daily in his members. For he hath appointed his elect to suffer much tribulation, before they shall possess eternal rest. Notwithstanding that the glory which we expect doth a thousand fold surmount the misery of our afflictions. First therefore, since the afflictions of God's saints be reputed Christ's own passions: Secondly, since S. Paul was appointed when, where, and how long he should preach the Gospel: Thirdly, since S. Paul, when he wrote to the Colossians, had not preached the gospel so simply and so largely as he was appointed: Fourthly, since he could not possibly preach the gospel, but perforce he must suffer persecution for the same: Fiftly, since the task of preaching was enjoined him, for the benefit of the church, which is Christ's mystical body: I conclude, that when S. Paul said he in his flesh supplied the wants of Christ's passions for his body the church; he meant nothing else thereby, but that he suffered affliction while he preached the gospel, as God had appointed for the good of his church. And so there is no place in S. Paul for popish pardons, though the papists glory above measure in this text. The first reply. Our blessed lady the virgin Mary, was not only borne and conceived without sin, but lived all her life without sin, as Saint Austen and the church believeth. Therefore she at least, had good store of merits and satisfactions for others; for though she suffered intolerable anguish and grief, yet had she being free from sin, no need at all to suffer for herself. Luc. 2. v. 3●. The answer. I say first, that what the late church of Rome believeth, is not much material; because it is become the whore of Babylon, as I have proved copiously. I say secondly, that though the blessed virgin had great grace and sanctification bestowed on her, as who was not only the mother of man, but of God also; yet was she conceived in original sin undoubtedly. For so the holy scripture doth convince, so the ancient fathers affirm, so the best approved popish doctors grant, and so right reason doth evidently conclude. As by one man (saith the apostles) sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death went over all men, in whom all men have sinned. Again, as by the offence of one, Rom. 5. v. 12. the fault came on all men to condemnation, so by the justifying of one, verse 18. the benefit abounded toward all men to the justification of life. And in another place, there is none righteous, no not one. Again, in another place; Rom. 3. v. 1●. Gal. 3. v. 22. the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by the faith of jesus Christ, should be given to them that believe. And the holy Psalmographe saith▪ Enter not into judgement with thy servant, Psal 143. v. 2. for in thy sight shall none that liveth be justified. All which texts and such like are generally spoken of all, no one nor other is exempt. S. Ambrose hath a long discourse, in which he proveth that none but only jesus Christ is void of sin. Ambro. in Psal. 118. circa med. These among others are his words. Omnes intra retia erant, imò adhuc intra retia sumus; quia nemo sine peccato nisi solus jesus, quem non cognoscentem peccatum peccatum pro nobis fecit pater. Infra; venit ad laqueos jesus, ut Adam solueret; venit liberare quod perierat Omnes retibus tenebamur; nullus alium eruere poterat, cum seipsum non possit eruere. All were in the nets, yea we are yet in the nets; because none is without sin but only jesus, whom when he knew no sin, the father made him a sacrifice for sin, in our behalf. jesus came to the snare, that he might lose Adam; he came to deliver, that which was lost. We were all taken in the net, we could not deliver one another, when no man could deliver himself. S. Augustine teacheth the same verity in many places of his works, but I will content myself with one or two. Thus therefore doth he write upon the 34. Psalms; sic ergo peccatum domini quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Aug. in Psal. 34. conc. 2. tom. 8. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae, Adam mortuus est propter peccatum, & caro domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. Even so therefore (is it called) the sin of the Lord, which is made of sin; because he took flesh from thence, of that mass which had deserved death by reason of sin. For to speak more briefly; Mary descending of Adam, is dead by reason of Adam's sin; Adam is dead for his own sin; and our Lord's flesh of Mary, is dead to put away sin. Aug. de Genes. ad literam, libr. 10. c. ●8. tom. 3. S. Augustine in another place hath these words; Proinde corpus Christi quamuis ex carne foeminae assumptum est, quae de illa carnis peccati propagine concepta fuerat; tamen quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo erat illa concepta, nec ipsa erat caro peccati, sed similitudo carnis peccati. Therefore Christ's body, although it were assumpted of the flesh of a woman, which was conceived of the stock of the flesh of sin, yet because it was not so conceived in it, as it was conceived: therefore was it not the flesh of sin, but (only) the similitude of the flesh of sin. The same S. Augustine in another place, writeth in this manner; Aug. count jul. Pelag. libr. 5. c. 9 tom. 7. Sine dubio caro Christi non est caro peccati, sed similis carni peccati; quid restat ut intelligamus, nisi ea excepta omnem reliquam humanam carnem esse peccati? & hinc apparet illam concupiscentiam per quam Christus concipi noluit, fecisse in genere humano propaginem mali; quia Mariae corpus quamuis inde venerit, tamen eam non traiecit in corpus, quod non inde concepit. Doubtless Christ's flesh is not the flesh of sin, but only like to the flesh of sin; what therefore must we understand, but that all other men's flesh besides it, is the flesh of sin? And heereuppon it is clear, that that concupiscence by which Christ would not be conceived, dispersed sin throughout mankind, because the body of Marie though it came from thence, yet could it not convey that into the body, which was not conceived thereupon, (but of the holy ghost.) These words of S. Austen and Saint Ambrose are so plain and easy, as they need no declaration, Thomas Aquinas, albeit he constantly defendeth, that the blessed virgin was neither borne in sin, nor yet sinned actually after her birth more or less, granteth for all that, that she was conceived in original sin: and he proveth it by two evident reasons, whereof this is one. Aquina p. 3 q. 27 ar. 2. in. corpore Sanctificatio de qua loquimur, non est nisi emundatio à peccato originali, culpa autem non potest emundari nisi per gratiam, cuius subiectum est sola creatura rationalis, & ideo ante infusionem animae rationalis B. virgo sanctificata non fuit. Sanctification whereof we now speak (saith the chiefest popish doctor,) is nothing else but a cleansing from original sin, but sin cannot be purged without grace, whose subject can be nothing but a reasonable creature, and therefore the blessed virgin could not be sanctified from sin, before a reasonable soul was infused into her body. This argument of Aquinas is so invincible in popish manner of proceeding, as no jesuite in the world (though they all hold the contrary) can invent a sufficient solution for the same. Devout and holy Bernarde (whose authority is great with all Papists) holdeth the same opinion with Aquinas. Bernard. epist. 174. ad Canon. Ludg. For albeit he sharply reprove the practice of the cathedral church of Lions for keeping the festivity of the conception of the blessed virgin, calling that practice the novelty of presumption, the mother of temerity, sister of superstition, and the daughter of levity: yet doth he hold that she was borne without sin, and 〈◊〉 continued all her life. All learned men that ever wrote before our seditious lately hatched jesuits, confess the conception of the blessed virgin, to have been polluted with sin: and I prove it by an irrefragable demonstration. First, because the blessed virgin, if she had ever been free from sin, Mat. 1.21. 1. Tim. 4.10. should have needed no Saviour, nor had any Saviour, and so Christ should not have been her jesus: which to say, is both against the scripture, and against the honour of that holy virgin. Bernardus and Aquinas saw the force of this reason, and gravely urged the same. Yea, the holy virgin renounceth flatly their heretical and hypocritical doctrine, in her humble thanks to God for her salvation. Luc. 1.46. My soul (saith she) doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoiceth in God my saviour. For this cause Bernard crieth out in these words; Bernard. ubi sup. Non est hoc virginem honorare, sed honori detrahere. The virgin is not this way honoured, but greatly dishonoured. Secondly, because as Bernard saith, Where lust is, there must needs be sin: and therefore since the virgin was conceived with lust, or else (as they dare not say) by the holy ghost; it followeth, that she was conceived in sin. Other reasons the same Bernard hath, but these may suffice. The second reply. But saint Austen saith that he will always except the holy virgin Mary, when he disputeth or reasoneth of sinners or sin. The answer. I say first, that saint Austen confesseth flatly (as you have heard) that the blessed virgin was undoubtedly conceived in original sin. I say secondly, that original sin is of infinite deformity (as is already proved;) and consequently, that the blessed virgin being polluted therewith, was never able to yield condign compensation for the same, how great soever her holiness was afterward: the reason is afore yielded, for that the infinite malice of sin, surmounteth the value of the finite actions of all creatures. And if she were not able to satisfy for her own sins, much less had she any surplusage of satisfaction left, which may serve to bind up the pope's pardons, for the sins of others. I say thirdly, that albeit S. Austen would not for the honour of our Saviour, as he saith, call the blessed virgin into question touching sin; yet doth he not affirm her to have been void of all actual sin, but seemeth rather to hold the contrary. For he addeth these words, unde enim scimus, quod ei plus gratiae colla tum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex part peccatum, Aug. de Nat. & Grat. c. 36. tom▪ ● quae concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum. For how know we that she had more grace given her to overcome all sin, who did conceive and bear him, that certainly was free from all sin? In which words S. Austen showeth plainly, that he can not tell, whether the blessed virgin was void of all actual sin or no: yet is he unwilling to call her into question, for the honour of our Lord jesus, whose mother she was according to the flesh. Yea, Saint Austen in his questions upon the new testament, (if it be his work,) confesseth freely, that she sinned for want of faith. These are his express words; Hoc utique significavit, Aug. in q. nou. test. q. 73. tom. 4. quia etiam Maria per quam gestum est mysterium incarnationis salvatoris, in morte domini dubitaret, ita tamen ut in resurrectione firmaretur. This verily is signified, that Marie by whom was accomplished the mystery of the incarnation of our Saviour, doubted in the death of our Lord, yet so as she was confirmed in his resurrection. Thus he writeth, and yet knoweth every child, that to doubt in matters of faith is no little sin. S. Basil dissenteth nothing from Saint Augustine, Basil. apud Aqu. p. 3. q. 27. ar. 4. ad 2. when he telleth us, that the blessed virgin standing by the cross, wavered and was doubtful in her mind, while she beheld on one side, what misery he suffered, on the other side, what wonders he had done. Saint Chrysostome affirmeth so expressly that the blessed virgin sinned, Aquin. 3. p. q. 27▪ ar. 4. ad 3. that their angelical doctor Aquinas is enforced to use this silly shift, for a colourable answer to his words; to wit, that he was excessive in his words. But who will not rather think, that he was presumptuous in his answer. These are S. Chrysostom's express words, Quae estmater mea, & fratres mei aiebat; Chrysost. hom●. 20. in joan. 10. siquidem non adhuc debitam de ipso opinionem habebant, sed more matrum Maria iure omnia filio se praecepturam censebat, cum tanquam dominum colere & revereri licebat; ideo in hunc modum respondit: who is my mother, & my brethren said Christ, for they had not yet a right opinion of him; but Marry after the manner of mothers, thought she might command her son to do all things, albeit she might well have honoured him as her Lord; therefore did he answer in this manner. Again he saith thus: ●aulo superius Optabat enim ut tam hominum gratiam conciliaret, & ipsa clarior filii gratia efficeretur, & fortasse aliquo humano afficiebatur affectu For she wished, that now he would win the favour of men, & that she might be more famous for his sake; and perhaps she was touched with some human affection. Again, in another place he saith thus: Ambitione quadam ac ostentatione commoti, foris eum in praesentia omnium evocarunt, ut viderentur facile ac magna cum potestate Christo imperare. Chrys. hom. 45. in mat▪ to, 2. Infra; unde patet inani quadam gloria illos commotos fuisse, nihil adhuc magni de ipso cogitantes, quod apertius joannes significavit, dicens; quia neque fratres eius credebant in eum. They being tickled with ambition and vain glory, called him out in the presence of all, that they might seem to command Christ at their pleasure, and with authority. Whereupon it is clear that they were tickled with vain glory, having no great opinion on him as yet, which john signified evidently, when he said; For neither did his brethren believe in him. Saint Hierome shall conclude this point, (which I have handled more at large, because many stumble at it, and few seem to understand it well) these are his express words; Conclusit Deus omnes sub peccato, ut omnium misereatur, absque eo solo; Hier. ad Algas. q. 8. tom. 4. in fine qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius. God hath shut up all under sin, that he may show mercy unto all, him only excepting that sinned not, neither was there guile found in his mouth. The third reply. She was Christ's mother, and therefore was more blessed than all other women. The answer. I confess willingly, that she was blessed above all women, and yet that she was a sinner, and had Christ not only for her son, but even for her Lord and Saviour; neither was it so great a grace simply and barely to bear Christ as the Papists feign it to be: but the holy fathers S. Austen and S. Chrysostome shall tell us what they think thereof. S. Austen hath these express words. Hoc in ea magnificavit dominus, quia fecit voluntatem patris, August. tract. 10 in joan tom. 9 non quia caro genuit carnem. Propterea cum dominus in turba admirabilis videretur faciens signa & prodigia, & ostendens quid lateret in carne, admiratae quaedam animae dixerunt, foelix venter qui te portavit: & ille, imò foelices qui audiunt verbum Dei & custodiunt illud; hoc est dicere, & matter mea quam appellatis foelicem, inde foelix quia verbum Dei custodit, non quia in illa verbum caro factum est, & habitavit in nobis; sed quia custodit ipsum verbum Dei per quod facta est, & quoth in illa caro factum est. Our Lord magnified this in her, for that she did the will of his father, not because her flesh bore his flesh. Therefore when our Lord seemed admirable to the people, working signs and miracles, and showing what was hid in the flesh, the people marveling said, happy is the belly that bore thee, and he answered; yea happy are they that hear the word of God and keep it, that is to say, my mother whom ye call happy, is therefore happy because she keepeth the word of God, not because the word was made flesh in her and dwelled in us, but because she keepeth God's word by which she was made, and which was made flesh in her. Again, in another place he writeth thus; Beatior ergo Maria percipiendo fidem Christi, quam concipiendo carnem Christi. Name & dicenti cuidam, beatus venter qui te portavit, ipse respondit: August. de sanc, virgin. cap. 3 tom. 6. imo beati quiaudiunt verbum Dei, & custodiunt: denique fratribus eius, id est, secundum carnem cognatis, qui non in eum crediderunt, quid profuit illa cognatio? Sic & materna propinquitas nihil Mariae pofuisset, nisi foelicius Christum cord quam carne gestasset. Therefore Marie was more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, then in conceiving the flesh of Christ: for he answered to one that said, blessed is the womb that bore thee: yea, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. Finally his brethren, that is, his kinsmen in the flesh, that believed not in him, what good had they by that kindred? And even so motherly kindred had done Marie no good, unless she had borne Christ more blessedly in her heart, than she bore him in her flesh. S. Chrysostome hath these express words. Ea sententia dictum existima, Chrysos. hom. 20 ● joan. tom. 3. non quod matrem negligeret, sed quod nihil utilitatis ei matris nomen allaturum ostenderet▪ nisi bonitate & fide praestaret. Infra, Nam si id profuturum erat per se Mariae, profuisset etiam judaeis, quorum consanguineus erat Christus secundum carnem, profuisset civitati in qua natus est, profuisset fra●ribus. Atqui dum fratres verum suarum curam habuerunt, nihil eis propinquitatis nomen profuit, sed cum reliquo mundo damnati erant. Think that Christ spoke that, not because he had no care of his mother, but because he would show the name of a mother to profit her nothing, unless she were better in piety and faith. For if that could have done Marie good of itself, it would also have profited the jews, it would have profited the city in which he was borne, it would have profited his brethren: but while our Lords brethren set their hearts upon their own worldly matters, the name of kindred did them no good at all, they were damned with others in the world. The fift objection. Nathan the Prophet brought word to David, that God had forgiven him his sin, and that he should not die, nevertheless because David caused God's enemies to blaspheme by reason of that his sin, God punished him by the death of his child. So David being penitent for his sin in numbering the people, 2 Reg. 12. v 13. ●. Reg. 4. v. 10.11, 12, 1●. obtained remission of the fault, and yet suffered three days pestilence in his people. So God forgave the Israelites their rebellious murmurings against him, Numer. 14. v. 20.23. & yet for that fault none of them could enter into the land of promise: so in baptism also our sins are freely forgiven us, and yet do we still suffer temporal pains for the same, all the days of our life. Which texts of holy scripture, and others of like sort do plainly insinuate, Rom. 8. verse. 1. that after God hath forgiven us our sins, and remitted both the fault and the eternal pain, there still remaineth some temporal satisfaction to be done for the same, either in this world or in purgatory, which satisfaction is accomplished in the pope's pardons, while he maketh application of the superabundant passions of holy men and women, locked up in the treasure of the church of Rome. The answer. I say first, that when God forgiveth us any sin, he freeth us as well from the pain as from the fault: which I prove by many reasons. First because otherwise God's works should be impefect, though holy writ hold them most perfect, when it saith, Dei perfecta sunt opera, God's works are perfect: which in the original and Hebrew is uttered more significantly, Deut. ●2. 4. where God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stone or rock, noting unto us that his works are done with power and might, and therefore with all exact perfection. And doubtless, if his act in forgiving sin be perfect, as it is most perfect, then after God hath remitted the fault, there can remain no satisfaction for the same. Secondly if man's act should be a partial satisfaction for sin, than could not Christ be a perfect and absolute redeemer; but as it were a joint redeemer, together with man. Thirdly, the fault is never truly & perfectly forgiven, where payment is still required for the same. Fourthly, God (who is faithful in all his promises) hath promised to forget all our iniquities, when soever we truly become penitent for the same; & yet can be not possibly forget that, for which he requireth our satisfaction. Fiftly, Ezech. 18. v. 22● God absolveth in baptism A culpa & paena▪ say the papists all the papists grant with uniform consent generally, that in baptism & martyrdom god remits sins wholly and perfectly, aswell in respect of the pain as of the fault, and yet can they never yield any sufficient disparity, between the forgiveness of our sins, before & after baptism, whereupon they may build their fond forged satisfaction. This is a mighty reason, as which troubled me all the while I was a papist, & because I could never read or invent any sufficient solution to the same (though at that time I would most willingly have done it,) it was one motive to excite me against their superstitious and idololatrical doctrine: in regard hereof, gravely, learnedly, and christianly saith S. Augustine, August. serm. 14. 1· de tempore to. 10. Christus communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam, & culpam soluit & poenam: Christ while he took part with us of our pain without sin, purged us both from the sin and from the pain due for sin. I say secondly, that the punishment which God layeth on us, after he hath remitted and forgiven us our sins, are not satisfactions for our sins committed, but they are fatherly correctious to teach us our duties to minister to us fit matter of spiritual exercises, and to keep us and others from sin to come; as also to engraff in our hearts, how odious a thing sin is in God's sight. This to be so, Chrysostome rightly surnamed Os aureum, ●hrysost serm. 〈◊〉 poeni● & con●●ss. to.▪ 5. p. 907. golden mouth, uttereth very perspicuously in these golden words; Nam ne peccantes & inulti manentes nos efficeremur deteriores non remisit nobis supplicium, sed vidit hoc manifest, quod peccatis ipsis non m●nus damnosum sit non puniri; propter hoc imponit poenam, non exigens supplicium de peccatis, sed ad futura nos corrigens. For lest we ourselves should be made worse, if we should not be punished when we offend; God forgave us not the punishment, for that he saw evidently, that it was no less hurtful to sin itself, if it should not be punished. For which cause he imposeth pain upon us, not requiring satisfaction for the sins, but correcting us for that which is to come. Out of these words I note first, that if we should escape unpunished when we sin, we would be more prone to sin again. I note secondly, that the punishment which God layeth on us, is not any part of satisfaction for our sin committed, but a fatherly correction to keep us from sinning so again. I note thirdly, that saint Chrysostome was not acquainted with popish pardons, wherewith the world is this day so pestered. I note four, that whosoever disliketh this my answer, must reprove saint Chrysostome for the same, as from whom I received it. And yet indeed, he saith nothing which holy writ hath not taught us long before. For as wise Solomon saith, Prou. 13.24. He that spareth the rod, hateth the child; but he that loveth him, chasteneth him betime. I bless thee (saith Toby) O Lord God of Israel; Tob. 11. v. 14. because thou hast scourged me: jerem. 31.18. Thou hast corrected me (saith Ephraim) and I was chastised as an untamed heiffer. Whom the Lord loveth (saith saint Paul) him he chasteneth; Hebr. 12. vers. 6. and he scourgeth every son that he receiveth. As many as I love (saith God) I rebuke and chasten, Apoc. 3. vers. 19 be zealous therefore and amend. Mark these words well, gentle Reader. God correcteth us not in way of satisfaction, which we are never able to perform (as I have proved more at large in my book of Motives;) but that we may repent, turn to him, and amend our sinful lives. For this cause saith the Psalmograph; Blessed is the man whom thou chastisest (O Lord) and teachest him in thy law; Psal. 9 4. v. 12. that thou mayest give him rest from the days of evil, while the pit is digged for the wicked. For as saint Paul saith, If we would judge ourselves (by true faith and repentance) we should not be judged. But when we are judged, 1. Cor. 11.31. we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world: which Christ himself confirmed, when he willed the adulteress to go and to sin no more. joh. 8.11. The sixth objection. S. Paul exhorted the Corinthians, who abounded in goods, 2. Cor. 8.13, 14 but wanted merits, to bestow money largely on the saints at jerusalem, that so they might be partakers of their merits. Therefore it is very lawful to procure pardon with our money, by the application of godly men's merits unto us. The answer. S. Paul meaneth nothing less, then that the Hierosolymitains should sell spiritual things for money. For when Simon the sorcerer even after his baptism, Act. 8.19, 20. would have bought the distribution of holy things with money: then said saint Peter to him, Thy money perish with thee; because thou thinkest, that the gift of God may be gotten with money. But the apostle exhorteth the richer sort at Corinth, to minister competently to the faithful at jerusalem, for their necessary relief and sustentation: and this to do the rather, for that heretofore they received the gospel from thence, so that there may be an analogical or proportionable equality between them. For liberality ought to be mutual among christians: and as the apostle saith in another place, 1. Cor. 9.11. It is no great thing for them that have sown to us spiritual things, to reap part of our carnal things. Thus seemeth Chrysostome to understand this place, whose words are these; Chrysost. sup. hunc loc. hom. 17. in fine. Haec autem dicebat etiam divitum superbiam deprimens, ostendens quod post hanc vitam in maiori dignitate spirituales futuri sint: He spoke these things to abate the pride of rich men, showing that after this life the godly shall be in greater dignity: as if he had said, esteem not better of yourselves, because ye have more worldly wealth; but distribute such things liberally, and seek to abound in spiritual things, that so there may be an equality. The seventh objection. The article of our creed (I believe the communion of saints) doth plainly show, that one's satisfaction may be applied to an other, which is that application that the pope maketh, when he gives pardons. The answer. I answer, that the duties of charity, are & aught to be common among the faithful, in that they are the mystical members of one mystical body; 1. Cor. 12.25, 26 27. which saint Paul proveth to be so, by the example of the members in man's body. And this is that communion of saints, whereof mention is made in the Creed apostolic. But of popish pardons and merits of supererogation, this article maketh no relation at all. Yea, as the apostle saith, Rom. 3.24. c. 5.1. all righteousness, remission of sins, and eternal life, is ministered to the members of the church by Christ the head. Of whose fullness we have all received, joh. 1.10. even grace for grace. CHAP. VI Of Popish purgatory. OF popish purgatory I have spoken sufficiently, in the seventh chapter of the second book of my Motives. It will therefore here be sufficient to declare the original thereof, and to solve the objections against the same. The superstitious & fond fantasies of purgatory came from the old heathen Romans; for as saint Austen recordeth, they had a purgatory sacrifice: Aug. de civit. ●bi. 7. cap. 7. these are his words; Ideo terminalia eodem mense Februario celebrari dicunt, cum fit sacrum purgatorium quod vocant Februm, unde mensis nomen accepit. Therefore men say, that the ends of things are celebrated in the same month of February, when the purgatory sacrifice is made which they call Februs, whereupon the month took the name. Afterward Origen being too much addicted to his allegorical speculation, Paganism the original of purgatory. feigned many odd things touching purgatory, as the ethnic Plato (whom he much imitateth) had done before him. After Origen others began to call the matter into question, others rashly to believe it, others to add many things to Origens' conceit. Thus by little and little it increased, Anno. Dom. 250 till the late bishops of Rome made it an article of popish faith. But of what credit Origen ought to be in this point, his own opinion will declare sufficiently, as who held that the devils should all be purged at the latter day. For of Origen thus writeth S. Austen; Aug. de civit. Dei libr. 21. cap. 17. Quadratus in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes qui & ipsum diabolum atque angelos eius post graviora pro meritis & diuturniora supplicia, ex illis cruciatibus eruendos atque sociandos sanctis angelis credidit. Wherein Origen doubtless was more compassionable, who believed that the devil himself & his angels, after great & long punishment for their demerits, should be delivered from their torments, and placed with the holy angels. Lodovic. in comment. de civit. Origens' purgatory. And Lodovicus Vives upon the same place of S. Austen hath these words; Et istos quoque supplicijs liberabat Origenes, sicut ex sanctis angelis praecedente tempore diabolos faciebat, quae illius erant vicissitudines. These also did Origen deliver from punishment, as in process of time he made of angels devils, such was his changeable course of dealing. Roffensis our late popish bishop of Rochester confesseth a truth in this matter; to wit, Popish purgatory hath no constant ground. that the Greeks' did never believe there was a purgatory. Again, that purgatory was not received in all places at once, neither yet generally for many hundred years. His words I have alleged in the first book of my Motives, in the seventh preamble. The first objection. I have loosed thy prisoners out of the pit, Zachar. cap. 9.11 wherein there is no water: Ergo, (saith our jesuite Bellarmine) there is a purgatory, for out of hell none can be loosed. The answer. I answer, Hier. in 9 cap. Zach. that the prophet means nothing else but that God will deliver his church out of all dangers, how great soever they seem. Again, this text may fitly be expounded of hell, as Saint Hierome taketh it. His words are these; In sanguine passionis tuae eos qui vincti in carcere tenebantur inferni, in quo non est ulla misericordia, tua clementia liberasti. Thou hast delivered in the blood of thy testament of thy free mercy, those that were bound in the prison of hell, where there is no mercy. And indeed the merit of Christ's blood preserved us from hell, which otherwise was prepared for us. This text may also be understood of the captivity of Babylon, from whence the church was delivered. The second objection. We went through fire and water, and thou hast brought us to a place of comfort or refreshing. By this place it is clear, that there is a purgatory. Psal. 65. v. 12. The answer. I say first, that before hell had no water in it, but now there is found both fire and water, such is the constancy of popish divinity. I say secondly, that by fire and water the prophet here understandeth, the victories which martyrs have had in their manifold passions. That is to say, martyrs after all their crosses, miseries, and afflictions, are brought to Christ their head and true comfort. Thus doth S. Hierome expound this place, whose express words are these; Hier. in psal. 65. ver. 12. Martyrum hic ostendit victorias, quas in diversis passionibus meruerunt; & ad unum eos dicit refrigerium, id est, Christum Dominum, per laqueos, per cruces, per verbera, per ignes aestusq, & alia diversa supplicia (per quae & holocaustum acceptum effecti sunt) pervenisse. He showeth the victories of martyrs, which they were worthy of in their manifold passions; and he saith they came to a place of refreshing, that is, Aug. in Psal. 65 Prope finem. to Christ our Lord, through snares, through crosses, through beatings, through fire and heat, and divers other tortures, (through which they became an acceptable sacrifice.) S. Austen expoundeth it, in the self same manner. The third objection. Psal. 106. v. 13.14 They cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He brought them out of darkness, and out of the shadow of death, and broke their bands asunder: Ergo there is a purgatory. The answer. I answer, that the whole Psalm containeth in effect nothing else, but thanks giving to the Lord for his great mercy, in that he hath delivered them not only from hell justly deserved for their sins, Aug. hic▪ but also from the manifold dangers of this life. So writeth S. Austen upon this Psalm, Hier. in Psal 106. and S. Hierome is of the same opinion. For these are his express words; Vinctum enim erat genus humanum catenis criminum, & carceri diaboli mancipatum. For mankind was bound with the chains of sin, and kept in prison as a slave by the devil. The 4. objection. He shall fine the sons of Levi, Malac. 3. v. 3. and purify them as gold and silver, that they may bring offerings unto the Lord in righteousness. Which fining say our papists, cannot be understood but of purgatory. The answer. I answer, that the prophet Malachi speaketh flatly, of the first advent of our Saviour jesus Christ; who by his bitter and sacred passion, will purge his church from all her sins, Hier. in. 3. cap. Malach. and then shall the faithful offer up the sacrifice of land and thanksgiving. Thus doth S. Hierome expound this text, neither can any other gloss be consonant to the discourse of the prophet. The 5. objection. S. Matthew saith, Math. 12. v. ●2. that the sin of the holy ghost shallbe forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. By which words he giveth us to understand, that some sins are forgiven in the world to come; Ergo there is a purgatory. The answer. I answer, that God's spirit knoweth best how to interpret the scripture, and consequently that S. Matthew meaneth nothing else by these words, (neither in this world, neither in the world to come) but that the sin against the holy ghost, shall never be forgiven. For so doth S. Mark, another Evangelist, interpret this self same text. These are the words; he that blasphemeth against the holy ghost, Mat. 3. v. 29. shall never have forgiveness, but is culpable of eternal damnation. Yea, which is a confusion to the papists. S. Matthew himself so expoundeth himself, Math. 12. v. 31. Chrys. hom. 42. in Mat. in the next verse aforegoing. And so doth S. Chrysostome expound this place. The 6. objection. Mat. 5. v. 26. Thou shalt not departed thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Ergo, after satisfaction made, or the pope's pardon granted, thou mayest come out of purgatory. The answer. I answer with S. Augustine, that the prison whereof S. Matthew speaketh is hell, Aug. de q. Dulcitil. q. 1 in fine. tom. 4. from whence there is no departure in deed. For he that is once committed thither for non payment; must tarry there world without end, because he can never answer this infinite debt. The reply. When he saith (until thou hast paid) he giveth us to understand, that after a certain time, we shall come out. I answer, that the word (until) doth not connotate the end of imprisonment, but the continuation thereof: because so is the usual acception of that term, in the holy scriptures. For when S. Matthew saith, (he knew her not until she had brought forth her first borne son:) it followeth not, that he afterward knew the blessed virgin. Mat. 1. v. 25. So when it is said, (that Michol had no child to the day of her death) it followeth not, that she had children after her death. 2. Kin. 6. v. 23. Thirdly, when our Saviour promised to be with his disciples till the worlds end, it doth not import that he will after forsake them. Fourthly, when the prophet saith, (as the eyes of a maiden look unto the hands of her mistress, Mat. 2●. v. 20. so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us) he meaneth not that our eyes shall not afterward wait upon the Lord. Psal. 122. v. 2 No, God forbidden. Fiftly, when God saith (sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool) he meaneth not, Psal. 109. v. 1. that Christ shall sit no longer on his right hand. No, no, God avert. The 7. objection. If any man build on this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay, or stubble; 1. Cor. 3. v. 12. every man's work shallbe made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shallbe revealed by the fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. This fire the holy fathers do understand of purgatory. Ergo it ought not to be denied. The answer. I say first, that all the fathers as well old as latter writers, confess that S. Paul's discourse is altogether metaphorical; & consequently that no doctrine of faith can be grounded thereupon. I say secondly, that the old writers descent one from another, in the exposition of his text. For S. Chrysostome understandeth it of hell fire; Vide istos patres in hunc locum. S. Hierome of God's examination in the day of general judgement; S. Gregory of the fire of tribulation in this life; S. Ambrose and S. Theodoret, of the fire of God's judgement, & others otherwise. Gregorius Magnus hath these express words; Gregor. li●. 4 dialog. cap. 39 Quamuis hoc de igne tribulationis in hac vita nobis adhibito possit intelligi; albeit this place may be understood, of the fire of tribulation which we suffer in this life. Out of which words I note, that although this Gregory thought there was a purgatory of small sins after this life, yet did he confess, that this place could prove no such thing. Hereunto I add, that if either this text, or any other had been a sufficient warrantise for purgatory; aswell the Greeks' as the ancient fathers, would have received it; both which their own Roffensis denieth, Roff. contra Luther. ar. 18. as is already proved. I say thirdly, that it cannot possibly be understood of purgatory: and I prove it effectually. First, because all martyrs go strait to heaven, as all papists confess. Secondly, because all such as have plenary pardons from the pope, escape purgatory, & go the ready way to heaven. Thirdly because, jeremy, job. joh. Baptist, the blessed virgin, This third illation is proved in my Motives, & sundry others (in whose passions of supererogation, they build the treasure of the church and popish pardons) could never come in purgatory; and yet doth the text say, that all aswell good as bad, must be tried by that fire, whereof the apostle speaketh in this place. I say four, that the apostle here speaketh of the fire of probation, but not of purgation, as the papists would have him to do. 1. Cor. 3. v. 13. These are the words; uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit. the fire shall try every one's work, of what sort it is. Which S. Austen well observed, when he wrote in this manner; Ignis de quo locutus est eo loco apostolus Paulus, talis debet intelligi, ut ambo per eum transeant; Aug. in Euchirid. cap. 68 tom. 3. id est & qui aedificat supra hoc fundamentum, aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosoes; & qui aedificat ligna, foenum, stipulam. The fire whereof the apostle Paul speaketh in that place, must be understood to be such an one, that both sorts may pass through it; that is, aswell he that buildeth upon this foundation, gold, silver, or precious stones, as he that buildeth wood, hay, or stubble. I say fifthly, that all things spoken of in this text, are taken metaphorically, gold, silver, and precious stones, do signify sound doctrine; timber, hay, and stubble, signify, false doctrine; the builders are such as teach that doctrine; the day signifieth time, the daughter of truth; and the fire signifieth God's spirit, which revealeth all truths, Popish purgatory is built upon rotten foundations. & maketh false doctrine known. This exposition is gathered out of the circumstances of the text itself, out of S. Ambrose, and S. Austen, and out of late popish writers. For their own Hofmeisterus (if my memory fail me not) and their Gagnaeius also, have this interpretation in flat and express terms. It is long since I read them, and I have not now their books at hand; otherwise, I would have alleged their words. I say sixtly, that all such as would ground popish purgatory upon this text, are enforced to confess and admit manifold absurdities. And for trial hereof, together with that which is already said; these words of our jesuite Bellarmine may suffice. Respondeo, nos cogi ab ipso textu ad aequivocationem non unam, sed duas admittendas. Bellar. in lib. 1. de purge. c. 4. p, 1387 I answer, that the very text doth compel us, to admit more than one equivocation. The 8. objection. What shall they do, which are baptized for dead? if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then baptized for the dead? out of this place, (as our jesuite Bellarmine supposeth) nay as he braggingly boasteth, 1. Cor. 15▪ 29 is popish purgatory proved undoubtedly. The answer. I say first, that great is the impudency of our jesuit, who glorieth so much in his late Romish exposition, which neither any one of the ancient fathers approveth, neither yet sundry of his own fellows will admit. For Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Chrysostomus, Tertullianus, Ambrose, Sedulius, Anselmus, Oecumenius, Haymo and Theophilactus, do expound it flatly against our Romish jesuite; and so do also his own dear fellows Aquinas and Caietanus. I say secondly, that S. Paul understandeth by those that are baptized for dead; such as are at the point of death, and are reputed as dead, or for dead, Epiphanius co●t. Cerinth. haer. 28. p. 37 & this saith S. Epiphanius, is the true meaning of the Apostle: and that he saith truly, I appeal to the true judgement of the indifferent reader. These are the words of Epiphanius; Alii rectè hoc dictum interpretantes dicunt, quod morti vicini si fuerint in pietatis doctrina instructi, ob hanc spem ante obitum lavacro digni fiunt; ostendentes quod qui mortuus est etiam resurget, & ob id indiget remissione peccatorum per lavacrum. Others interpret this saying of the apostle truly, & say, that such as are at the point of death, if they be instructed christianly, are for this hope worthy of baptizing before they die: thereby signifying, that he which is dead shall rise again; and for that end, hath need of remission of his sins by baptism. This then is the true meaning of S. Paul in this place, The jesuite preferreth his own judgement before all writers without all ti●● and reason. what shall they do which are baptized for dead? that is, which are rather reputed for dead then for living. Wherefore are they baptized, if the dead rise not again? for since they cannot be baptized for any commodity of this life, (which presently they must forsake, being so extremely sick) their baptism proveth the resurrection of the dead. And where our jesuit listeth to wrangle upon the words (pro illis, for them,) it shall suffice to tell him, that their latin so magnified edition is false, and that in the original and Greek copies, it is thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the dead, and so his cavil is not worth a fig. The ninth objection. S. Paul saith, that in the name of jesus every knee voweth, both of things in heaven, and things in earth, Philip. 2.10. and things under the, earth; but the damned in hell blaspheme Christ, ergo there be some under the earth, that is, in purgatory, which worship and adore Christ. The answer. I answer, that the bowing of the knee (whereof the apostle speaketh) doth not signify worship or adoration, but that subjection which shallbe showed openly in the last judgement, when and where the devils as well as men and the good angels, shall yield homage and dominion unto Christ. For so S. Paul expoundeth S. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans': and S. Luke recordeth, Rom. 14. vers 10, 11. that the devil falleth prostrate before Christ, and acknowledgeth his power over him: Luke. 8.28. which is that bowing of the knee, whereof S. Paul speaketh. Other expositions whatsoever, are repugnant to the text. The reply. S. john saith, that he heard all the creatures which are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that are in them, Apoc. 5. verse. 13. saying in this manner, praise, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for evermore. Therefore they be under the earth, which truly worship Christ, and consequently, since the devils (as ye grant) do rather blaspheme then worship Christ; they that worship Christ under the earth, must needs be the souls in purgatory. The answer. I answer, that S. john meaneth nothing else, then that which S. Paul hath uttered: he useth the figure Prosopopeia, & after the usual course of the scriptures, causeth things senseless, and void of reason, to sound out the praise of God: so saith the Psalmograph David; All thy works praise thee, O Lord, Psal. 144. v. 10. and thy saints bless thee▪ and in another place thus; The heavens declare the glory of God, Psalm. 18. ver. 1. and the firmament showeth the work of his hands: yea, as the prophet saith, and as the three holy Hebrews sang, Psalm. 148. fire, heat, winter, summer, frost, snow, light, darkness, the stars, the sun, the moon, and creatures bless the Lord. Dan. 3 secund. ●at. The tenth objection. Ap●cal, 21. v. 27. S. john saith, that no unclean thing shall enter into heaven, but many depart out of this life, which are not pure, ergo such must be purged in purgatory, before they come in heaven. The answer. I say first, that faith in Christ jesus can as well purge a man in this life, as the Pope's pardons: and yet as yourselves teach us, a plenary indulgence will salve this impurity. I say secondly, that it is a needless thing to establish popish purgatory, because popish pardons supply the want thereof. This is proved copiously in my book of Motives. I say thirdly, that the faithful and elect children of God, have their cleanness before him in Christ his son, with which they may enter into heaven. For as S. john saith, they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; who (as S. Paul saith,) when he knew no sin, Apoc ●. 14. was yet made the sacrifice for sin, 2. Cor. 5.21. that we might be the righteousness of God in him. And as S. Peter saith, their hearts are purified by faith: yea, as Christ himself saith, Act. 15. verse. ● his sacred word hath made them clean. In fine, holy Writ pronounceth them blessed that die in the Lord, & that they rest from their labours. Which being so, they neither have any impurity, joan. 15. verse. 3. Apoc. 14, 13. nor suffer any purgatory pain. The reply. You all confess, that your inherent justice is unperfect and impure, and so your uncleaneness must be taken away after this life, be fore ye come into heaven; ergo there is a purgatory. The answer. I answer, that original concupiscence is an inseparable accident during this life, aswell in you as in us, but as it is proper to this state, so is it taken away in that very instant, in which our state is altered. The 11. objection. S. Peter saith, that God raised up Christ after he had loosed the sorrows of hell. This place saith our jesuite, Act. 2.24. must needs be understood of purgatory: for first, it cannot be meant of the damned, because their pains shall never end. Secondly, it cannot be meant of the sorrows of Christ, because they were finished on the cross. Thirdly, it cannot be meant of the fathers in Limbo, Bellarm, de purge. lib. 1. c. 4. col. 1396. because they had no pain at all: it therefore remaineth, that it be meant of the sorrows which souls abide in purgatory. The answer I say first, that if their Latin text were sound, this objection would solve itself: for the original and Greek text is this; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having loosed the sorrows of death. Out of which words, nothing can be gathered, that favoureth purgatory any thing at al. I say secondly, that if it were as the papists do read, (the sorrows of hell being loosed) their souls should always feel pain, but never have an end. Which cannot be truly verified, of their purgatory fire. I say thirdly, that the fathers whom the papists hold to have been in Limbo at that time, did according to their own doctrine suffer poenam damni, Bellarminus, de ●entit. sanct. lib. 1 cap. 20. because they were not as yet partakers of the clear vision beatifical: which Bellarmine granteth in another place, and so is repugnant to himself. But let that be deemed a small fault in a jesuite, which is thought a great crime in another man. Add hereunto, that poena damni is a greater pain than poena sensus, by their best popish divinity. I say four, that by the sorrows of death is meant nothing else but the bitter pains which Christ suffered upon the cross, to accomplish man's redemption. For than did he properly & perfectly triumph over death, when he rose again from death, who was delivered to death for our sins, (saith Saint Paul) and is risen again for our justification: And the very words of the text next following in the Acts, Rom. 4.25. Act. 2.24. do confirm this exposition: for there it is thus written; whom God raised up and loosed the sorrows of death, because it was unpossible that he should be holden of it: as if S. Peter had said; although the passion of Christ was so bitter & exceeding great, as implying the curse and malediction due for our sins (insomuch that the remembrance thereof caused him to sweat out drops of blood) yet could not death possibly prevail against him, but that he should rise again, and conquer both hell and it. The reply. Although the greek word in the 24. verse signifieth death, yet in the 27 verse it signifieth hell, and so the sense is against you. The answer. I answer, that the hebrew word in the psalm, from whence this sentence is taken, Ps. l. 10. vers. 10. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and signifieth, a sepulchre or grave, and so doth your own great linguist Arias Montanus interpret it: as if the Prophet had said, thou wilt not leave my soul or life, in the grave. For the course of holy scripture, doth comprehend our life under the name of the Soul: so saith the Prophet jonas, therefore now O Lord take I beseech thee; my soul from me, jonas. 4. ●. for it is better for me to die, then to live. So is it in the Hebrew and original, and yet by the word (soul) must we understand life: for so the words following, do require of necessity: so saith Paul, Act. 20.10. trouble not yourselves, anima enim ipsius in ipso est, for his soul (that is, his life) is in him: And a little after, he saith thus; Act. 20.24. neither is my soul dear to me, so I may fulfil my course; Mat. 2.20. where by the word (soul) life must needs be understood. So joseph was bidden to take the babe and his mother, joan. 10.11. & to go into the land of Israel; because they were dead, that sought the babes soul, that is, his life: so Christ saith, that a good shepherd giveth his soul for the sheep, that is, his life. These and other like places do prove evidently that our soul in the scriptures, is taken for our life; so that when the scripture saith, God will not suffer Christ's soul to tarry in the grave, it meaneth Christ's life; as if it should say, Christ shall not be long dead, death shall not swallow him up, or prevail against him. The 12. objection. Saint Austen and other of the fathers, have taught flatly that there is a purgatory; and therefore whosoever denieth purgatory opposeth himself against the fathers. The answer. I say first, that I have said sufficiently for the authority of the fathers, in my book of Motives, in the ninth chap. of credit due unto writers. I say secondly, that the fathers as they were men, so had they their imperfections and errors, & are no less rejected of the papists when they make against them, then of us. Yea, no man rejecteth the fathers with such temerity; as doth the jesuite Bellar. when he dislikes them. This is proved in my book of Motives. I say thirdly, that though sundry of the fathers seem to grant that there is a purgatory, yet do they it so doubtfully, so unconstantly, so coldly, as none of them do or can make it an article of our belief. And for proof hereof, one only, S. Austin may suffice for the rest. Aug. in euch●. c. 69. tom. 3. In one place he writes in this manner; Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit quaeri potest. It is not incredible, but that some such thing may be after this life, and it is a question, whether there be any such thing or no. Again in another place, after he hath discoursed largely of purgatory, in the end he concludeth doubtfully thus, Aug. de civit. lib. ●●. ●. 26. Non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est, I do not reprove it, because perhaps it is true. Again in another place, he hath these express words; Sive ergo in hac vita tantum homines ista patiuntur, Aug de fide & operibus cap. 16. tom. 4. sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur, non abhorret quantum arbitror a ratione veritatis iste intellectus huius sententiae. Whether therefore men suffer these things only in this life, or also after this life some such judgements follow; this interpretation as I think is not repugnant to reason. Thus we see clearly, how unconstant and how cold S. Austin's doctrine is, concerning popish purgatory. The 13. objection. The ancient fathers both prayed and offered up sacrifice for the dead; which they would never have done, if there had not been a purgatory. The answer. I say first, that sundry of the fathers prayed for the dead, who never once dreamt of popish purgatory Which thing is so fully proved in my Motives, as may be sufficient for this objection. I say secondly, that in the hot persecutions of the primitive church, when martyrs were daily put to death for confessing Christ jesus; then the church did offer the sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving, & did celebrate anniverssaries or annual memories of her faithful children; Cyprian. lib. 4. Epis 5. Ambros de obitu Valent. ● in which memories were publicly named all such persons, as died constantly for the christian faith. Not by that means to procure any merit, remission, or satisfaction to those blessed martyrs, (for as the papists grant, martyrs need no such thing, August. in ser. 17. de verbis apos. c. 1 ) but so to excite the living after their godly example, boldly to confess the name of Christ, and therein to be ready to yield up their lives; when time and place should so require. I say thirdly, that they prayed for the dead, to insinuate their hope in the resurrection, to mitigate their own sorrow, and to declare their affection towards the dead. Ambros. de obitu Valent. & Theod. But never did any of the approved antiquity, pray in such sort for the dead, as the papists this day do. I say four, that the prayers which the old fathers used, ministered great occasion to that superstition, which is now an high point of Romish religion. For the ignorant posterity, wrested every thing to serve their turn. I say fifthly, that as the fathers were excited to pray for the dead, of a certain natural affection towards them; so were they doubtful what effect their prayers should have, and whether they did profit the dead or no. Yea, some of the fathers prayed only for the resurrection of the body, as I have proved in my Motives. The uncertainty & doubts which the other fathers had, Aug. lib. 9 conl. c. 13. tom. 1. shall appear evidently by S. Austin's testimony. First, therefore S. Austen prayed for his mother, & that she might have remission of her sins, (for I will conceal nothing that seemeth to make for the papists:) & yet did S. Austen thus pray, only to show his loving & ardent affection towards his mother, & not to procure any remittall for her sins; as whose sins he constantly believed, were already pardoned. For these are his express words. Et credo iam feceris, quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine. And I verily believe, that thou hast already done as I desire; yet Lord accept my inward affection, uttered by my lips. Out of which words I note, that Austen believed his mother's sins to be forgiven, before he prayed for her: and that the end and intent of his prayer was only this; to show that he was naturally and dutifully affected to his mother. Upon which kind of undiscreet zeal, great superstition and flat idolatry followed in his posterity, as I said before. Secondly, S. Austen having distinguished three sorts of dead; to wit, very good, very evil, August. in e●chi●. c. 110. and neither very good nor very evil, affirmeth that prayers made for the very bad & damned souls, do make their damnation more tolerable. These are his express words; Pro valde malis etsi nulla sunt adiumenta mortuorum, qualescunque vivorum consolationes sunt. Quibus autem prosunt, aut ad hoc prosunt, ut sit plena remissio, aut certe ut tolerabilior fiat ipsa damnatio. For the very bad although they be no helps to the dead, yet are they some solace to the living. And whom they profit, they profit for this, that either they may have full remission, or that their damnation be more tolerable. Out of which words I note, that Saint Austen holdeth in this point of praying for the dead, that which neither is sound, neither yet allowed by the Papists themselves; and consequently, that the papists ought not to make account of his judgement herein. For, you do see that he granteth the punishment of the damned, Mark this point 〈◊〉. to be mitigated in hell for the prayers of the living; which thing no papist will or dare avouch. And the like is to be said of other of the Fathers, when they follow opinions not grounded upon the word of God. Saint Austen therefore must be rejected by his own rule (as I have proved in my Motives) when he dissenteth from God's word, the true touchstone and trial of all truth. And saint Austin's inconstancy is plainly uttered in an other place, Aug. de civit. lib. 21. cap. 24. where he hath these words: Quod quidem non ideo confirmo, quoniam non resis●o. Which verily I do not therefore approve, because I do not impugn it. Out of which words I note, that though saint Austen could not approve the opinion of the vulgar sort (as which he knew to have no ground, but a mere natural affection) yet would he not condemn it, but leave it as in suspense. The fourteenth objection. Prayer for the dead is proved by the scripture, even in that new testament: 1. joh. 5.16. for when S. john forbids to pray for them that die without repentance, he doubtless exhorts to pray for them that die penitent. The answer. I say first, that when cardinal Allen in his notes upon this place, avoucheth roundly that this text convinceth prayer for the dead: Aug. de verb. apostol. serm. 17. cap. ●. he may tell that tale to wise men, and repute himself a fool for his pains. For first, as S. Austen (upon whose authority he only buildeth) affirmeth that the apostle speaketh of him that dieth impenitent; so doth the same S. Austen avouch, that he doth injury to a martyr, that prayeth for a martyr, which is a received axiom with the papists: and consequently, when he inferreth out of S. Austen, that we must pray for them that die penitent; he concludeth against S. Austen, that we must pray for most constant martyrs, and so commit a manifest injury. So than albeit S. john dehorteth from praying for such as die without repentance, yet doth he not exhort us to pray for those that die penitent: for otherwise doubtless we must pray for martyrs, which no papist will allow. I say secondly, that S. john exhorteth to pray for penitent sinners here on earth, but not for the dead. I prove it, because these are saint john's words; (If any shall see his brother sinning a sin not to death) but he that sinneth, is in this life; for we can not see a man sinning in the next life, where no sin is committed, and therefore S. john speaketh of prayer only in this life. I say thirdly, that saint johus purpose is this, & no other, to exhort us to repentance for our sins in this life, because after this life, there is neither repentance nor remission of sins to be had; neither can any other sense be truly deduced out of S. john's words. Yea their own cardinal Caietane doth so expound this place, Caiet. in ie●tac. octavo. quaest. quinta. to their utter confusion. CHAP. VII. Of praying to Saints departed. COncerning the invocation of Saints, great abuses and intolerable superstition have crept into the church, and dazzled the eyes of the vulgar sort: wherein I desire diligent attention, and indifferent judgement, until the end of my discourse. The first Conclusion. Albeit a christian man never pray to the saints departed, yet doth he not sin therein. I prove it, because every sin is a transgression of God's law or commandment; but God hath made no law, nor given any commandment to pray to saints: Ergo not to pray to them is no sin at all. The proposition is a received maxim in the Romish church, grounded on these words of saint Austen; Peccatum est factum, vel dictum, Aug. count Faust. libr. 22. cap. 27 tom. 6. vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam: Sin is any deed, word, or thought against the eternal law, which is the will of God. Saint Ambrose confirmeth Saint Augustine's description in these words: Quid est peccatum, Ambr. de parad. cap. 8. nisi praevaricatio legis divinae, & caelestium inobedientia praeceptorum? What is sin but the transgression of God's law, and the disobedience of his holy precepts? The assumption is secure, until the papists can allege some precept out of the old or new testament for the invocation of saints, which they will do ad Calendas Graecas. But the Papists think they have a mighty objection against this Conclusion, taken out of Genesis in these words: Et innocetur super eos nomen meum, nomina quaeque patrum meorum, Abraham & Isaac. And let my name be called upon them, Genes. 48.16▪ and the names of my fathers, Abraham, and Isaac. To which I answer thus; First, this vocation or nomination was not any precept from God, but the mere fact of jacob or Israel: who as he was holy, so was he a man, and might have erred herein as man. Secondly, the hebrew text is thus; Let my name be named in them, that is, let them be called my children by adoption, or let them be surnamed after me. The grandfather jacob made joseph's children his by adoption. For it was the custom both of the Hebrews and of the Greeks', to express the surname of every one by the name of the father; as Aristoteles the son of Nicomachus, Zenophon the son of Gryllus, Cambyses the son of Cyrus. Thirdly, the whole course of holy scripture, doth yield this interpretation of jacobs' words. In the old testament it was a great reproach for a woman to bear no children, (though now with the Papists they be reputed holy, that will rashly vow never to marry;) for which respect, the small remnant of men left after the execution of God's justice in the destruction of jerusalem, enforced women contrary to womanly shamefastness, to seek unto men, and to offer themselves to very base conditions, to the end they would be their husbands and so take away their reproach. Which thing the prophet jeremy uttereth in these words; In that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying; We will eat our own bread, and wear our own garments, Esa. 4.1. only let us be called by thy name, and take away our reproach. Thus writeth God's holy prophet, whose discourse with the due circumstances thereof, if the christian Reader will exactly ponder, he shall behold as clearly as the glittering beams of the sun, the most impudent and sophistical dealing of the papists. For though the words aswell in the latin as in the Hebrew be all one and the very same, yet are the papists ashamed (I am well assured) to infer or prove invocation of Saints, by this latter place. That which I say is evident, because these women desired nothing else of the man, but that he would be their husband, and that they might be called his wives, and so put away their reproach. This interpretation is plainly touched in the express words of the text; when the women desired the man to take their reproach away, by letting his name be called upon them: for which end they promised not only to eat their own bread, but also to wear their own clothes, that so they be no way burdenous to him. And yet as our jesuite Bellarmine and other papists would have it understood in Genesis, the text must yield this sense: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own garments, and desire only that we may invocate thy name, and make our prayers to thee when thou art dead. Which sense is most absurd, as every child may perceive: for first if this had been the meaning of the women, in vain had they made mention of eating their own bread, and wearing their own garments, as which could neither profit nor disprofit the man. Secondly, these women knew not whether the man should be a saved soul in heaven, or a damned spirit in hell, and therefore would they never make such a request to him. Thirdly praying to him being dead, could not take away their reproach on earth. Fourthly, the man might survive and live after them all, and so their desire was in vain, Fiftly, Hier. in 4. cap. Esaiae. Saint Hierome expoundeth this text, even as I have said: For these are his words; Tantùm ne absque marito esse videantur, & sub●acere illi maledicto quod scriptum est; maledicta sterilis, quae non facit semen in Israel: Only lest they seem to be without an husband, and to be subject unto the curse which is written; Accursed be the barren, which bringeth not forth seed in Israel. In sundry places of the Scripture the self same phrase is found, which can not possibly yield any other sense: and therefore most impudent are the papists, who blush not to father their praying to Saints, upon this fact of jacob. Peruse the ninth chapter of Daniel, the eighteen and nineteen verses, where it is thus written; Behold the city whereupon thy name is called: For thy name is called upon thy city, and upon thy people. That is to say, it is named thy city, and they are called thy people. Ponder well these words of Saint james the second chapter 7. verse; Do not they blaspheme the good name, that is invocated upon you? that is, you that of Christ are called Christians. The like phrases are in jeremy the seventh, jere. 7.14. Esaiae, 44. v. 5 in Esay the 44. chapter, in the book of kings, and in other places. But our jesuite thinketh the words aforegoing in Genesis, to prove his purpose effectually. Gen. 48. v. 16. For joseph prayed to the angel, to bless the sons of joseph. But I answer, that that angel whereof jacob spoke, is Christ himself. And I prove it by other places of the same book, where jacob calleth God an angel. The angel of God saith jacob, Gen. 31. v. 1●. 1● said to me in a dream. Yet in the verse following, the angel calleth himself the God of Bethel. Which God was the angel that delivered jacob from all evil. Which God was that Christ, Gen. 28. v. 14.18 in whom jacob and his seed are blessed. And so by conferring place with place, it is evident that jacob prayed to God, not to the angel. job. 5. v. 1. Our jesuits urge yet another Scripture, to prove invocation of saints: Call now, if any will answer thee, and turn thee to some of the saints. I say first, that these be the words of Elyphas the Themanite one of jobes' friends, and therefore not a sufficient warrantise, for an article of our faith. I say secondly, that he speaketh not of the saints departed, but of the godly then living. Whose behaviour he willeth job to consider, if any of the godly rage against God as he did. I say thirdly, that our jesuite confesseth elsewhere as I have proved, that before Christ's ascension, praying to saints was not used. The second conclusion. To pray to saints departed, is a thing at the least vain and needles. job. 42.2. Gen. 17.1. Num. 16.31. Deut. 4. ●4. jac. 1.17. I prove it, because God is most able and most willing to help us. Most able, for that he is omnipotent, the fountain of all grace, and the giver of every good gift. Most willing, in that he hath not only mercifully invited us to call upon him, but withal faithfully promised to hear and grant our petitions. If any man lack wisdom saith S. james, let him ask of God, I●●. 1. verse 5. 1. joan. 2. v. 1. Psal. 49. v. 15 which giveth to all men liberally, and reproacheth no man, and it shallbe given him. If any man sin saith S. john, we have an advocate with the father jesus Christ the just, and he is the reconciliation for our sins, even for the sins of the whole world. Call upon me in the day of trouble saith God by his prophet, and I will deliver thee. The scripture telleth us in many places that whosoever asketh any thing of God, shall receive, and whosoever seeketh shall find, Luc. 11. v. ●. Math. 7. v. 7. Mar. 11. v. 24. joan. 16. v. 23. 1. joan. 5. v. 14. and to every one that knocketh, the door shall be opened. And that whatsoever we shall ask in Christ's name, we shall attain the same undoubtedly. The 1. objection. God will often accept the prayers of others for us, when he will not hear ourselves. job. 42. v. 78. For when his wrath was kindled against Eliphaz the Themanite and his two friends, he would not hear them, but yet accepted jobs prayers for them. The answer. I answer, that God meant not utterly to reject Eliphaz & his friends; for if he had so determined, he would never have accepted jobs prayers for them. But because they had contemned job, and preferred their own righteousness; God to give a testimony of jobs innocency, true faith, and patience, and to confound the proud conceits of Eliphas and his fellows, sent them to job, job. 42. v. 7. and said that he would accept his prayers for them. Which my exposition is grounded on these words; my wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, like my servant job. As if God had said; ye have offended much more than my servant job, in that ye condemned him by his outward afflictions, and did not comfort and solace him with my mercies. And therefore do I send you unto him, that you may know that he hath greater favour in my sight. Gene. 18.32. Psal. 100L. v. 23. Acts 27. v. 34. Thus God showed the faith of Abraham, praying for the Sodomites, of Moses for the Israelites, and of Paul for the 276. persons in the ship with him. The reply. If it were true, that because God is most willing and most able to help us: 1. Tim. 2. v. 1. jac. 5. v. ●6. therefore it is needles and vain to invocate or call upon saints departed, by the same reason it is needless to invocate and call upon the saints living, which yet the scripture commandeth us to do. The answer. I say first, that in proper kind of speech, invocation is a special part of divine worship, comprehending the affection of the mind that appealeth to his grace, help, and aid, whom it doth invocate: and so it is proper to God alone; yet in a large acception it may be given to the living. I say secondly, that the one is vain and needless, not so the other. The reason is this, because we have commandment and promise for the one, not so for the other. For that is never to be deemed vain or needless, which God appointeth to be done. The reply. Like as nobles and magistrates bring us to the presence of an earthly king, even so do saints by their holy prayers, bring us to the presence and favour of God the king of heaven. The answer. Ambr. in cap. ad Rom. p. 177. Saint Ambrose shall answer, as who precisely and fully resolveth this question. These are his words; Ideo ad regem pertribunos aut comites itur, quia homo utique est rex, & nescit quibus debeat remp credere: ad dominum autem (quem utique nihil latet, omnium enim merita novit) promerendum suffragatore non opus est, sed mente devota. Vbicunque enim talis locutus fuerit ei, respondebit illi. We are therefore brought to the presence of kings by Lords and officers, because the king is a man, and knoweth not to whom he may commit his realm. But to win God's favour, (from whom nothing is hid, for he knoweth what every man is meet to have) we need no spokesman, but a devout mind. For wheresoever such a one speaketh to God, God will answer him. And this answer of S. Ambrose, is consonant to the holy scripture. Mat. 11. v. 28. For Christ himself saith; Come unto me all ye that are weary and laden, and I will ease you. Again, we must not judge what is the will of God, by the similitudes of earthly things departed through sin, but by his sacred word revealed from heaven. The 2. objection. ●ere. 15. v. 1. God saith by his prophet, that though Moses and Samuel stood before him, and prayed for the people, yet would not he hear them. Whereupon we may gather, that saints use to pray for us, and that God heareth their prayers; though neither at all times, nor for all persons. The answer. I say first, that conditional propositions prove nothing, but when the condition is put. I say secondly, that by popish doctrine Moses and Samuel did not then stand before God, Moses & Samuel not then in heaven by popish doctrine. and consequently they did not then pray for the people. For (as the papists hold) they were in Limbo until Christ's ascension. I say thirdly, that the meaning of the text is no other than this; to wit, that if there were any man living so zealous as Moses and Samuel, who should pray for that people; yet would not God grant his request. This interpretation is most certain, as may most evidently be gathered out of these words of Ezechiel. Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, Ezech. 14. v. 14 and job were among them, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness. As if he had said thus; though most godly men Noah, job, and Daniel, were now living together, and should pray for this wicked people, yet would not I hear them. By which words it is manifest, that God both before in jeremy and now in Ezechiel, speaketh of the prayers of the living for Daniel was now with Ezechiel alive in captivity, and yet doth the scripture speak of them all indifferently. The third conclusion. To pray to be helped for the merits of Saints departed, joan. 1. v. ●●. 1. joan. 2. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5 is very superstitious and plain diabolical. I prove it, because Christ is the lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world; because Christ is our advocate, & the reconciliation for our sins; because Christ & only Christ, Heb. 5. v. 9 10 Heb. 10. v. 12 14 Act 4. v. 12. joan. 16. v. 23 Rom. 5. v 1 2. Cor. 5. v. ●1. is the mediator between God & us: Because Christ is our high priest, & the author of our salvation; because Christ hath offered himself a sacrifice for our sins, & hath therewith sanctified us for ever: because Christ and only Christ is he, in whose name we must be saved: Because Christ is he, in whose name we shall receive whatsoever we ask: Because Christ is he, through whose merits we have peace in God: Because Christ is he that suffered for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him: Finally, because the spirit of God enforceth the papists themselves, to conclude their public prayers in this manner; per dominum nostrum jesum Christum, through the merits of our Lord jesus Christ. The objection. The fathers of the old testament, did often allege and oppose against God's wrath, Gen. 32. v. 9.11. Deut. 9 v. 27. Psal. 132. ver. 10.4. Reg. 19 v. 34. the names and merits of the holy patriarchs. Remember thy servants Abraham, Isaac, and jacob. For thy servant David's sake, refuse not the face of thine anointed. Why may not we therefore stand upon the merits of Christ's dear mother, and of others his holy saints? The answer. I answer, that these and like invocations very frequent in the scriptures, do not depend upon the merits of God's saints, but upon his covenant and promise made to them and their posterity. Exod. 32. v. 13. Deut. 26. v. 3. So saith holy Moses; Remember Abraham, Isaac, and jacob thy servants, to whom thou sworest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed: in which words he opposeth not their merits, but God's oath and promise. So saith Solomon; O Lord God of Israel, thou hast kept with thy servant David my father, 3. Reg 8. ver. 23. ●4. that thou hast promised to him: for thou spakest with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand. In which words holy Solomon urgeth God's promise, not the merits of his father David. So saith God himself to Isaac; dwell in this land, and I will be with thee, Gen. 26. v. 3. and will bless thee; and I will perform the oath, which I swore to Abraham thy father. Lo, he remembreth and respecteth his own oath, but not Abraham's merits. No, no, for as I have proved already copiously; the most holy saints in heaven, are rewarded far above their deserts and merits. It is I say, not for the merits of the godly, but for God's holy covenant made with them, that God dealeth mercifully with their posterity. For thus is it written in Gods own book; howbeit the Lord will not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he made with David, ●. P●r. ●1. v. 5● & because he had promised to give a light to him, and to his sons for ever. The fourth conclusion. The honour due to saints in heaven, and which they require, is not religious invocation or adoration, but holy imitation here on earth. I prove it, because God will not give his honour to any other. I am the Lord saith he, this is my name, and my glory will I not give to another. Esai●. 42. v. ●. And that invocation is the peculiar worship and honour due to God, S. Paul declareth evidently in these words, Rom. 10. v. 1●▪ for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved: but how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Austen proveth this conclusion effectually in sundry places of his works; Non sit nobis religio inquit, cultus hominum mortuorum: Infra; honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem. August. de ver● religione, cap. 55. tom. 1. Let not saith S. Austen, the worship of dead men be our religion: they are to be worshipped for imitation, but not to be adored for religion. Again in another place, Nos autem martyribus nostris non templa sicut Diis sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis, quorum apud deum viwnt spiritus, fabricamus, August. de c●uit. lib. 22. cap. 106 tum. 50 nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus martyribus, sed uni Deo, & martyrum & nostro sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in eius confessione vicerunt, suo loco & ordine nominantur; non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat, invocantur. We build not churches to our Martyrs as to gods, but we make memories as to dead men, whose souls live with God, neither do we rear up altars there, in which we may offer sacrifice (of laud) to the martyrs, but we offer sacrifice (of thanksgiving) to one God, the God of martyrs and ours, at which sacrifice they are named in their place and order, as the men of God that have overcome the world in their confession, nevertheless they are not invocated or prayed unto, by the priest that offereth the sacrifice. Euseb hist. lib. 4. cap. 15. Of honour and reverence due to Saints, Eusebius Caesariensis maketh sufficient relation in these words, Neque Christum aliquando possumus derelinquere, qui mortem pro totius mundi salute sustinuit neque alium quenquam colere, quoniam verum Deum, & qui solus colendus sit noverimus, martyrs vero tanquam discipulos domini d●ligamus & veneremur, quasi integrè fidem magistro servants & domino, quorum nos quoque in fide & perseverantia charitatis optamus esse participes. We can neither forsake Christ at any time, who suffered death for the salvation of the whole world, neither can we worship any other but him, because we know him to be the true God, & him that only is to be worshipped; yet let us love and honour martyrs, as the disciples of our Lord, as those that keep their faith undefiled to their master & lord, with whom also ourselves desire to be partakers in faith and perseverance of charity. What need more? Christ himself saith; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Mat. 4.10. Apoc. 22.8, 9 & him only shalt thou serve. And saint john was forbidden to worship the angel. The first objection. God honoureth his saints, and reputeth them for his dear friends: Mat. 19.28. joh. 15.14, 15. Ergo, it is our duty also to honour them. The answer. We honour them with that honour which God hath appointed: we acknowledge their faith, their humility, their patience, their constancy, and all their gracious gifts, and we desire to imitate the same: and this is all the honour that saint Austen will afford them, as you have heard. The second objection. The saints in heaven pray for us, and therefore it is meet that we invocate and call upon them. For the angel said; O Lord of hosts, ●●char. 1.12. how long wilt thou be unmerciful to jerusalem, and to the cities of judah, with whom thou hast been displeased now these threescore and ten years? Baruc. 3.4. Baruch witnesseth that the dead prey for us, when he saith; O Lord almighty, hear now the prayer of the dead Israelites, and of their children, which have sinned before thee. judas Machabeus had a vision, 2. Mach. 15.12. in which he saw Onias holding up his hands toward heaven, and praying for the whole people of the jews. And saint john saw 24. Elders fall down before the lamb, Apoc. 5.8. having every one of them haps and golden vials full of odours which are the prayers of saints. The answer. I say first, that although we grant both angels and saints in heaven to pray for the living on earth, (as they do indeed in some cases for some respects,) yet doth it not follow that we must invocate and pray to them, as shortly shall be proved. I say secondly, that there is not the same reason in the saints and angels; for the charge and defence of the church in this life, is committed unto the angels. Besides this, the angel in Zacharie prayeth only for the particular calamities of juda, which were apparent aswell to men as to angels. I say thirdly, that Baruch speaketh of the prayers of the Israelites that were yet living, but as dead for their manifold sins I say four, that the book of Maccabees is not canonical, as I have proved in my Motives at large. I add, that albeit On●as prayed for the living, yet must not the living invocate or call upon him, as is already said. I say fifthly, that the 24. Elders whereof S. john speaketh, do represent the church militant here on earth, and consequently, the prayers there mentioned, are of the living on earth, not of the Saints reigning in heaven: which interpretation must needs be sound and authentical, because the holy ghost doth confirm the same in the tenth verse following. Apoc. 5.9, 10. Apoc. 8.4. Iren. libr. 4. ca 33 For among other thanks to God, one is this, that he hath made the elders to reign on earth. S. Irenaeus agreeth hereunto, neither is any ancient approved writer of the contrary opinion. The third objection. Ye bewray your ignorance not knowing the difference between Latria and Dulia, and so wrest the scriptures against the lawful worshipping of saints; Mat. 4. verse 10. Apoc. 19.10. for the worship prohibited in the gospel and in the Revelation, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that worship which is proper to God alone. The answer. I say first, that though Saint Augustine made difference between Latria and Dulia in ecclesiastical signification; August. de civit. lib. 10. cap. 1. (which was the cause of great superstition afterward in the Romish church) yet did he ascribe and give all religious worship to God alone, & no other than civil worship to any creature whatsoever. Which thing I have proved out of Saint Austen already, and shall more at large hereafter. I say secondly, that though saint Austen say that Latria is always or almost always taken in the scripture for divine worship; Ludou. in come. de civit. yet doth Lodovicus Vives a learned papist oppose himself against saint Austen therein, alleging sundry texts of the old testament for his probation. Yet the same Vives addeth, that he is content with the distinctions invented by the popish school men, so they will likewise allow him and others to use words in their proper and native significations. 〈◊〉 ubi sup. But here I can not omit the taunt which he by the way giveth to his scholastical masters: these are his words; Obiter tamen admonebo eos duliam & latriam penultimam habere longam, ne brevem faciant, sed has leges ipsi contemnere se dicunt, quia nesciunt. Yet must I (saith he) admonish them by the way, that Latria and Dulia have the last syllable save one long, lest they make it short. But they say they care not for these rules, because they know not what they mean. Which check doubtless were a bloody word, if any but a papist had given the same. I say thirdly; that Valla, Suidas, and Zenophon, all three very skilful in the greek tongue, affirm Latria and Dulia to have one and the self same signification, and that Latria is taken for that common service which one creature doth to another. Thus writeth Zenophon; 〈◊〉 Lud. Viu. ●bi sup. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But I (O Cyrus) would redeem even with my life, that she should not serve. Suidas also affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that Latria is service for hire. I say four, that if this distinction could serve the papists to prove their superstitious worship, Matth. 4.10. it might also have served the devil against Christ, and so Christ's reason had been of no force: for the devil might have said to Christ; albeit it be true as thou sayest, that Latria is only to be given to God; yet mayest thou give me Dulia, and not offend his law. I say fifthly, that the worship which S. john was prohibited to do in the Revelation, Apoc. 19.10. was not Latria, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for these are the words of the angel; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adore thou God: as if he had said; religious worship can be given to none, but to the everliving God alone. I say sixtly, Deut. 6.13. that the hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the old testament (from whence this scripture is alleged by Christ) signifieth service or servitude in common, without the difference of God or creatures. I say seventhly, that as Latria is given to creatures; so is Dulia applied to God, and that is very frequent, not only in profane writers, but even in the new testament: for S. Luke saith, ye cannot serve God and riches or mammon; Luke. 16. vers. 1● Rom. 16. verse. 8. where the greek word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Paul writing to the Rom. saith, for they that are such serve not the Lord jesus Christ, but their own bellies. In which place, the Greek word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the same apostle writing to the Thessalonians saith; how they turned to God from idols, to serve the living & true God; 1. Thes. 1. verse. ● in which place the greek is thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and Paul, though in many places he call himself the servant of God, yet useth he ever the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now then, since Latria and Dulia be in greek as ensis and gladius in latin, and since aswell the one as the other, is applied indifferently to God & his creatures, the gentle reader may clearly behold, how vain and ridiculous is popish dealing in this behalf. The first reply Ye protestants abuse the angel's prohibition, when he had S. john to adore God: for the angel never meant to deny religious worship to be due to angels; but to signify that Saint john did mistake him, and that he was not God; and consequently, that he was not worthy of that divine honour, which john thinking him to be God, did then give unto him. The answer. I say first, that if any religious worship had been due to any creature, the angel would not have said absolutely and simply, adore or worship God, but thus; Worship not me, but God, with this kind of worship. I say secondly, that S. john knew well enough that this angel was not God. For first, he knew that this angel was one of the seven angels that showed him these things, as appeareth by the 17 chap. Secondly, he willed S. john immediately before to write thus; Apoc. 17. v. 1 Blessed are they that are called to the supper of the Lamb: whom S. john knew right well to be Christ by the vision which himself reported in the fift chap. Thirdly, this was not him that said in the 1. chapter, Apoc. 5. I am alpha & omega; for it was Christ himself, Apoc. 1. verse. ●. that then appeared to S. john. I say thirdly, that this angel professed himself in express terms, not to be God, but the messenger of God; for he said unto S. john, these words of God are true, & not these words of mine are true, and yet S. john forthwith adored him, and the angel forthwith controlled him for the same. The second reply. S. john being an holy and worthy apostle, endued largely with the spirit of god, could not be ignorant what worship was unlawful and to be reprehended, and so he erred materially in knowledge of the person, not formally in the kind of adoration. The answer. I answer, that if any religious worship could have been given to any creature, the angel should have induced S. john into an error, bidding him worship God, and yielding the reason why he should not worship him; to wit, because he was a servant, not the Lord; a creature, not God: as if he had taught, that all religious worship ought to be given to God alone. S. john therefore stricken into an ecstasy of mind through the majesty of the angel that told these things, fell suddenly down before his feet to adore him, ●poc. 19 vers. 10 which yet he did not of ignorance for the reasons alleged, ●poc. 22. ver. 8.9. but of forgetfulness, as the iteration of the worship declared. For though he was forbidden before to adore any beside god, yet did he the second time adore the angel, forgetting himself suddenly, and what the angel had said unto him. Austen maketh so plain a recital of this adoration, august. de vera ●●ligione cap. vit. ●●m. 1. as more needeth not to a reasonable mind. These are his words; Quare honoramus eos charitate, non servitute, nec eis templa construimus, nolū● enim se sic honorari à nobis, quia nosipsos cum boni sumus, templa summi Dei esse noverunt: recte itaque scribitur hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se adoraret, sed unum Deum, sub quo ei esset & ille conseruus; qui autem nos invitant ut sibi seruiamus, & tanquam deos colamus, similes sunt superbis hominibus▪ quibus si liceat, similiter coli volunt Sed istos homines perpeti minus, illos vero colere magis periculosum est. Infra, religet ergo nos religio uni omnipotenti Deo, quia inter mentem nostram qua illum intelligimus patrem, & veritatem, id est, lucem in●eriorem, per quam illum intelligimus nulla interposita creatura est. We honour angels with charity, not with service, neither do we build temples unto them; for they will not be so honoured of us, because they know that we ourselves, when we are good, are the temples of the highest God: rightly therefore is it written, that a man was forbidden by the angel, that he should not worship him, but one God only, under whom he was a fellow servant with him. But they that invite us to serve them, and to worship them as gods, are like to proud men, who if they might, would be likewise worshipped: but to suffer these men is less perilous, and to worship the angel is more dangerous. Let religion therefore bind us to one God almighty, because between our mind by which we understand him to be the father & the truth, that is, the inward light, through which we understand him, no creature is interposed. The reply. The angel prophesied, that the jews should fall down before the bishop of Philadelphia, & adore him. Apoc. 3.9. Heb. 11.21. Gen. 18.2. Num. 22.31. joshua. 5.14. Dan. 2.46. jacob adored the top of his rod. Abraham adored the angels that appeared to him: Balaam adored the angel that stood before him with a drawn sword: joshua adored the angel falling flat down before his feet, and calling him Lord, and the angel refused not that worship, but required yet more of him: Nabuchodonosor adored Daniel, and did great offices of religion, which the prophet r●sed not. Achior the Ammonite fell at judeths' feet, judith. 14.7. & reverenced her: the Sunamite whose child Elizeus raised to life, fell down before his feet & adored him, & he reproved her not: 4. Reg. 4.37. the prophets at jericho, 4 Reg. 2. verse. 1 perceiving the double grace of Elias to be in Elizeus, fell down before him and adored him, which he rejected not. The answer. I answer to all these in general, that for the greater part they speak of civil worship, which I grant may be done to angels, prophets, magistrates & holy men. To the several objections, thus in particular. I say first, that the jews gave such civil reverence as was due to a godly pastor or Bishop, Apoc. 3. verse. ●▪ but yielded no religious worship unto him. I say secondly, that your popish vulgar latin translation, is false & idolatricall, albeit your late disholy synod of Trent anathematized all that will not reverence the same. For you read thus; jacob adored the top of his rod; Heb. 11. vers. 2 which if jacob had done indeed, as your guileful edition saith, he should have committed flat idolatry, because as I have proved out of your own Pope Gregory, Gregor epist. lib. 9 cap. 9 it is not lawful to worship images, much less a naked piece of wood religiously. But the text indeed is thus, as your own dear doctor Arias Montanus granteth; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He adored on the top of his rod or staff: which is nothing else, but staying himself upon his staff adored God. So doth Saint Augustine expound it, ●●gust. q. 162. ●p. genes. tom. 4. whose express words are these; Nam facile intelligeretur senem, qui virgam fereba● eo more quo illa aetas baculum solet, ut se inclinavit ad Deum adorandum, id utique fecerit super cacumen virgae suae, quam sic ferebat, ut super eam caput inclinando adoraret Deum. For we might easily understand that the old man, ●opish paltry ●doration is fond 〈◊〉 imagined. who carried a rod in such manner as that age used to bear a staff, as he bowed himself to worship God, he did it on the end of his staff, which he carrie● so, as he might adore God by bowing his head upon it. In which words S. Austen showeth plainly, that jacob when he worshipped god, leaned on his staff by reason of his age & weakness. Behold here gentle reader, how our late papists do wrest the holy scriptures, to build thereupon their superstitious and idololatrical adoration of stocks & stones. I say thirdly, that it was Christ himself that appeared to joshua in the likeness of a man, & therefore he both rightly required worship, and joshua of duty adored him religiously. This is evident in the very beginning of the next chap. with the last end of the former. ●ofue. 5. vers. 14. ●ap. 6. vers. 2. I say four, that albeit the worship which Nabuchadonosor yielded seemed to deserve commendation, yet was it indeed very reprehensible, ●an. 2.46. because he joined God's honour with the Prophets. And if Daniel did not admonish him of his fault, (as it is very probable he did) he sinned grievously. That which Abraham, Achior, the Sunamite, & the rest did, was mere civil adoration. The reply. ●sal. 89. verse. 5. It is lawful to adore holy things, as the temple, the ark, the bread of proposition, and the like: for the Psalmograph saith, adore ye his footstool, because it is holy. The answer. I say first, that it is not lawful to adore religiously any saint in heaven, no not the blessed virgin Marie the mother of God & man; much less is it lawful to adore stocks and stones, and other like senseless creatures, as the papists would guilefully, enforce us to do. Neither do I barely say this of mine own head, but with the uniform consent of the holy fathers. Thus writeth S. Epiphanius, Sed neque Helias adorandus est, Epiphan. haer. 79. cont. Collyti. etiamsi in vivis sit, neque joannes adorandus, quanquam per proprias preces suas dormitionem suam admirandam effecerit, imò potius ex deo gratiam acceperit: sed neque Thecla, neque quisquam sanctus adoratur. Non enim dominabitur nobis antiquus error, ut relinquamus viventem, & adoremus ●a quae ab ipso facta sunt. Infra, sit in honore Maria●pater, & filius, & spiritus sanctus adoretur. Mariam nemo adoret, non dico mulierem, imò neque virum. Deo debetur hoc mysterium, neque angeli capiunt talem glorificationem: deleantur quae male scripta sunt in cord deceptorun: tollatur ex oculis cupiditasligni: convertatur rursus figmentum ad dominum: revereatur eva cum Adam, ut deum colat solum, ne ducatur serpentis voce, sed permaneat in dei praecepto; ne comedes de ligno: & erat lignum non error, sed per ipsum lignum facta est inobedientia erroris: ne comedat quis de errore, qui est propter S. Mariam: nam etsi pulchrum est lignum, sed tamen non ad cibum: & si pulcherrima est Maria, & sancta, & honorata, at non ad adorationem. Neither is Elias to be adored, though he be among the living: neither S. john must be adored, though by his prayers his death was wonderful; ●opish adoration confuted and confounded. yea he rather received grace from God: but neither Thecla, neither any saint is to be adored. For the old error may not overrule us, that we forsake the living god and adore the works of his hands. Let Mary be in honour; let the father, & the son, & the holy ghost be adored; let no man adore Marie, I do not say the woman, but neither the man. This mystery is due to god, neither are the angels capable of such glory: let such errors be blotted out, as are wickedly engraven in the hearts of deceived souls; let the concupiscence of the would be taken out of our sight; let the work return again to the workman; let Eve have reverence with Adam; let her worship only God; let her not be seduced with the voice of the serpent, but let her abide in God's commandment; thou shalt not eat of the wood: and it was wood indeed, not error, but by the wood came disobedience of error: let none eat of that error, which is for holy Mary. For though the would be fair, yet is it not for meat: although Marie be most beautiful and holy, and honoured, yet not for adoration. Out of these golden words I note first, Anno. Dom. 370. that in the time of S. Epiphanius, (who lived more than 370. years after Christ,) it was reputed great superstition and flat paganism to adore any Saint or angel in heaven; much more to adore men yet living on earth; and most of all to adore wood, stones, and senseless things. I note secondly, that religious honour or worship is due to God alone; and that neither saints nor images, nor the mother of God, is capable thereof. I note thirdly, that to think that Saints or Angels may be adored, is an old damnable error, received from the gentiles, wherewith some of the vulgar and common people were deceived, even in the days of Epiphanius. I note four, that by the judgement of this holy, learned, and ancient father, to teach us to adore saints religiously (for civilly I grant it may be done,) is to induce us to err with Eue. S. Ambrose is consonant to Epiphanius, as who hath these express words; Ambr. in cap. 1. ad Rom. prope finem tom. 5. Age, numquid tam demens est aliquis, aut salutis suae immemor, ut honorificentiam regis vindicet comiti, cum de hac re si qui etiam tractare fuerint inventi, iure ut rei damnentur maiestatis? & isti se non putant reos, qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae, & relicto domino conseruos adorant, quasi sit aliquid plus quod reseruetur Deo. Go to, is any man so mad, or so careless of his life, that he will give to a Lord, the honour of the king or sovereign? when such as are known to deal in such a matter, are justly condemned of treason? and yet these men do not think themselves guilty, who give the honour of God's name to a creature, and leaving God adore their felow-seruants, as though there were any thing else reserved for God. Out of these words I note first, that S. Ambrose, after he had sharply reproved such as worshipped images, affirmeth them to forsake God, that adore his saints their fellow-seruantes. I note secondly, that such as adore God's creatures, be no less guilty of treason against God, than they that rebel against their earthly prince. I note thirdly, that religious worship, is so proper to God, as if it be given to his creatures, nothing is reserved for himself. S. Augustine agreeth jump with S. Epiphanius and S. Ambrose, August. de vera religione. cap. 55. ●om. 1. and uttereth his mind plainly in these words; Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum; quia si pie vixerunt, non sic habentur ut tales quaerant honores, sed illum à nobis coli volunt, quo illuminante laetantur meriti sui nos esse consortes. Let not the worship of dead men be our religion: for if they lived well, they are not of that account that they seek such honour, but they would have us to worship him, by whose enlightening they rejoice that we be their fellow-servants in well doing. Hest. 3.5. cap. 13.15. The good jew Mardocheus would not adore Haman the king's lieutenant, and that not of pride, malice, or presumption; but lest he should give that to man which was due to God alone. I say secondly, that there is great disparity between the adoring of a footstool, and adoring before a footstool: for your own pope Gregory the great, sharply reproved, and bitterly condemned the worshipping of Images, and for all that allowed prayer and worship done before the same. I say thirdly, that the place truly translated is thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrew; Bow down yourselves at the footstool of his feet, Psal. 99 vers. 5. he is holy: so that the sense is not to adore the temple, (which is meant by the word Footstool) but to adore and worship God in his temple at jerusalem, the place which God had appointed for his worship: and therefore it is not said, It is holy, but, He is holy. Yea, so is it also in the greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he is holy. I say four, that Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome do expound this text of Christ's sacred humanity, which is as the footstool of his divinity. These are Saint Hieromes express words▪ August. & Hier. in hunc locum. Multae sunt de scabello opiniones, sed hic propheta corpus dominicum dicit, in quo maiestas divinitatis tanquam super scabellum stat. There are many opinions of the footstool, but the prophet here understandeth Christ's body or humanity, in which his divinity standeth as upon a stool. Yea, S. Austen was so far from the opinion of our late Papists and jesuits, that he was troubled how to understand this text; and that for this respect only, because it seemed to command him to adore some creature, which he durst not do: these are his own words; August. ubi supr. in Psal. 98. Terra scabellum pedum meorum; anceps factus sum, timeo adorareterram, ne damnet me qui fecit coelum & terram●rursum timeo non adorare scabellum pedum Domini mei, quia Psalmus mihi dicit, adorate scabellum pedum eius. The earth is my footstool. I am doubtful what to do, I fear to adore the earth, lest he condemn me that made both heaven and earth. On the other side, I fear not to adore his footstool, Esai▪ cap. 66. v. 1 because the Psalm saith, adore ye his footstool. Lo, S. Austen found in the prophet Esay, that the earth was God's footstool, and he knew well that it was not lawful to adore creatures, and consequently neither the earth, (lest he should be damned in so doing, as himself here saith;) and therefore was he sore troubled, what to understand by the word (footstool) in the Psalm. But if he had been a Romish jesuite, he would never have stumbled at any such thing. Whether therefore we interpret the word (footstool) by the literal Hebrew phrase, or with S. Austen and S. Hierome; it will not follow thereupon, that any pure creature may be adored. I say (any pure creature) because Christ's body or humanity is a creature, but not a pure creature. For the unspeakable hypostatical union, maketh it to subsist in the person of God; by which Christ is aswell God as man. The fift conclusion. The invocation this day common in the Romish Church, is the self same which the Gentiles in old time did use, The Romish manner of invocation when they did invocate their false Gods. I prove it, because they have peculiar saints for their several necessities; to wit, S. Loy, for their horses. S. Anthony for their pigs, S. Roch for the pestilence, S. Stephen for the night, S. john for the day, S. Nicholas for their studies, S. George for their wars, S. Cosma and Damiais for their sores, S. Apolonia for their teeth, S. Agnes for their virginity, and others innumerable for the like end. They erect churches to their saints, they frame images to them, they carry their images about in procession, they consecrated altars to them, they dedicate holy days to them, they make vows in their honour, The multitude of Romish patrons. they offer presents to their altars and images, they bestow more that way in one hour, then on poor folks in a whole year; they place lamps, tapers, torches, and lights before their images, and think them the most happy, that so bestow the most. They kneel down before their images, they touch them, they embrace them, they kiss them, they speak unto them, they entreat them as if they were yet living. Yea, they seem to pass the folly and impiety of the Gentiles: They ascribe their salvation to their saints, and to such saints, as of whose sainthood we may well stand in doubt. They invocate Campion, Sherwin, Ballard, nn, Nelson, and the rest of that seditious faction. Alphonsus the jesuite, and late rector of the English College in Rome, caused the organs to be sounded, and all the Students to come to the Chapel, and himself having on his back the white Surplice and the stole about his neck; sang a collect of martyrs; so after his manner, canonizing a rebellious subject for a saint. Such is the seditious impudency, of newly hatched Romish jesuits. And lest any other jesuite or papist shall deny, that they ascribe their salvation to saints (for they use to say, The saints are made mediators of redemption and salvation. that they make them but mediators of intercession, and not of salvation and redemption,) I will prove it flatly out of their own books, and church service, which I wish the reader to mark attentively. In the prayer which the church of Rome readeth publicly, upon Thomas Beckets' day, sometime the Bishop of Canturburie, I find these words; Deus, pro cuius ecclesia gloriosus pontifex Thomas gladiis impiorum occubuit, praesia quaesumus, In Rom. breni●●. in festo Tho. B●cket. ut omnes qui eius implorant auxilium, petitionis suae salutarem consequantur effectum. O God, for whose church the glorious bishop Thomas was put to death, by the sword of the wicked; grant we beseech thee, that all which desire his help, may attain the effect of their petition to salvation. Out of these words, I note first, that Thomas Becket is pronounced a glorious martyr, albeit the disobedience of his lawful prince, was the cause of his death. I note secondly, that the Romish church seeketh for salvation, even through his merits. I note thirdly, that the papists make him a Saviour, yea such a Saviour as is equal with Christ; and consequently, that they make him another Christ. For as S. Paul truly recordeth, Christ redeemed the church with his own blood. And yet doth the Romish church teach, (as ye see) that Thomas Becket shed his blood for the church of God. Since therefore the proper and only badge of Christ's mediatorship, is given to Thomas Becket; what remaineth for him to be, if not another Christ? And lest we should not fully understand how our redemption is wrought in the blood of Thomas, they deliver this mystery more clearly in another place, in these words; Tuper Tho. sanguinem quem pro te impendit▪ In hymno Tho. Cant. fac nos christ scandere quò Thomas ascendit. Thou O Christ cause us to come thither where Thomas is, even by the blood which he shed for thy sake. Lo Thomas Becket died for us, and shed his blood to bring us to heaven, as the papists teach us; therefore by their doctrine he is our redeemer, and mediator, not only of intercession, but also of redemption. In their prayer books, delivered to the vulgar people (which God wot they understood not, Oratio ad angel. prop●ium. ) they teach the people thus to invocate their proper Angels; angel Dei quicustos es mei pietate superna, me tibi commissum salva, defend, guberna. O Angel of God, who art my keeper by supernal piety, defend me, govern me, and save my soul. Oratio ad S. Paul▪ doct. gent. To S. Paul they teach us to pray in this manner, O beat Paul apostole, te deprecor ut ab angelo Sathanae me eripias, & à ventura ira liberes, & in coelum introducas. O blessed Apostle Paul, I pray thee that thou wilt take me from the angel of Satan, and deliver me from wrath to come, and bring me into heaven. Oratio ad S. I●c. To Saint james in this manner; O foelix Apostole magne martyr jacobe, te colentes adiwa, peregrinos undique tuos clemens protege, ducens ad coelestia. O happy Apostle and mighty martyr james, help thy worshippers, defend courteously thy pilgrims on every side, and bring them to heavenly joys. In translat. S. Mart. To Saint Martin thus; Caecis das viam, mutisque loquelam; tu nos adiwa, mundans immunda; qui fugas daem●nia, nos hic libera. O Martin, thou causest the blind to see, and the dumb to speak; Help us and purge the unclean; thou that castest out devils, deliver us here. But for brevitis sake, I will wittingly and willingly superseade many particular prayers made to meaner saints, and come to the blessed Virgin. The Papists teach us to invocate the holy virgin Mary thus; O Maria gloriosa, in delitiis delitiosa, In antiph. B. Virg. praepara nobis gloriam. O Marry glorious, in dainties delicious, prepare thou glory for us. Again in another place thus; In natiu B. Virg. Maria matter Domini aeterni patris filii, far opem nobis omnibus ad teconfugientibus. O Mary, the mother of our Lord the son of the eternal God, help us all that fly for help unto thee. Again, in another place thus; Maria matter gratiae, In concept. B. Virg. matter misericordiae, tu nos ab host besiege, & hora mortis suscipe. O Marry the mother of grace, the mother of mercy, defend thou us from our (ghostly) enemy, and receive us at the hour of death. Again, in another place thus; Solve vincla reis, In annuntiar, B. Virg. proffer lumen caecis, mala nostra pelle, bona cunctae posce. Monstra te esse matrem, sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus. Lose the bands of the guilty, bring light to the blind, drive away our evils, require all good things for us: show thyself to be a mother, let him receive thy prayers that was borne for us and suffered to be thine. Again in another place thus; Veni regina gentium, In visitat. B. Virg. deal flammas reatuum, deal quod cunque devium, da vitam innocentium. Come O Queen of the Gentiles, extinguish the fiery heat of our sins, blot out whatsoever is amiss, and cause us to lead an innocent life. Again, in their old Latin primers, Deuotissim● oratio ad B. Vir Mariam. fol. 118. the people are thus taught to pray; In extremis diebus meis esto mihi auxiliatrix & saluatrix, & animam meam, & animam patris mei, & matris meae, fratrum, sororum, parentum, amicorum, benefactorum meorum, & omnium fidelium defunctorum ac vivorum ab aeterna mortis caligine libera; ipso auxiliante quem portasti Domino nostro jesu Christo filio tuo. O glorious Virgin Mary, be thou my helper and Saviour in my last days, and deliver from the mist of eternal death, both mine own soul and my father's soul, and the souls of my mother, brethren, sisters, parents, friends, benefactors, and of all the faithful living and dead; by his help whom thou didst bear, our Lord jesus Christ thy son. Again, after two or three leaves in this manner; Vt in tuo sancto tremendo ac terribili judicio in conspectu, unigeniti filii tui, Ibid. fol. 111. cui pater dedit omne judicium, me liberes & protegas a paenis inferni, & participem me facias coelestium gaudiorum. I beseech thee most merciful and chaste virgin Mary, that in thine holy, fearful, and terrible judgement in the sight of thine only son, thou wilt deliver and defend me from the pains of hell, and make me partaker of heavenly joys. These prayers if they be well marked, will prove my conclusion effectually; as which contain every jot, of power, right, majesty, glory, and sovereignty whatsoever, is, or aught to be yielded unto our Lord jesus Christ. Yea, these two last prayers make the virgin Mary, not only equal with Christ, but far above him. For first, the virgin Mary, is desired to defend us from the tortures of hell. Secondly, to bring us to the joys of heaven. Thirdly, the last judgement is called her judgement. Fourthly, she is called our saviour. Fiftly, she is requested to save father, mother, brother, sister, friends, benefactors, the quick and the dead, by the help of Christ her son. Now by the first four, she is made equal with Christ; and by the last, far above him. For she is the saviour, and he the intercessor: which I gather out of these words, (ipso auxiliante, etc. By the help of our Lord jesus Christ) For by these words and the rest afore going, the virgin Mary doth save us, & Christ is but the instrument that helpeth her, in the work of our salvation: which how intolerable blasphemy it is, let the reader judge; I have said. The sixth conclusion. To invocate Saints as the papists do, and to believe that they hear their prayers, is to make a plurality of Gods. I say (as the papists do) because to invocate saints at certain times, in certain places, and for certain respects, doth not make them gods. I prove this conclusion, because to hear all prayers at all times in all places, for all things; is a thing so proper to God, as it can not possibly agree to any, Note well what is here said▪ but to God alone. For his knowledge is infinite, and so not communicable to any creature; mark well gentle reader, what I say; for this reason is such, as few seem to have conceived the same. But certs, no learned papist can indeed deny it to be true. For which cause their great learned D. Aquinas tells us two truths, the one, Aqu. p. 1. q. 45. ●. 5. that God can not communicate the power of creation, to any creature living, either on earth or in heaven: and he proveth it out of Saint Augustine, who saith that neither the good nor the bad angels can be the creators of any thing. And why so? because that kind of work requireth power infinite, whereof no creature is or can be capable. The other, Aq. p. 1. q. 7. 〈…〉 that none but God is or can be infinite; and his reason is evident, because to be infinite, is against the nature of that which is made. The first objection. The Saints in heaven may hear & understand our prayers on earth, and yet have limited & not infinite knowledge, ergo the proof of your conclusion is not good. The answer. I say first, that God hath revealed to his servants on earth, the secret cogitations and external facts of others far distant from them. 3. Reg. 14.5. For he revealed to Ahias that jeroboams wife would come disguised to him, and told him what he should say unto her. He revealed to Elizeus all the secret dealing of Giezi, which he had with Naaman the Syrian: 4. Reg. 5.26. he disclosed to Peter the falsehood of Ananias and Saphyra his wife: and so may he at his holy pleasure reveal to his saints in heaven, Act. 5.3, 9 the prayers that on earth are made in some places at sometimes unto them. Every thing is proportionable, no contradiction is implied therein. I say secondly, that there be sundry things which God cannot do, as I have proved in my book of Motives, not for that there is any want in God, but because there is defect in the thing that should be done: and so is it in this present case, of popish invocation. I say thirdly, that God's apostles and prophets knew but some special things, which seemed good in God's wisdom to be so revealed. Neither did they know such things by any inherent quality, but by signification from above, and that only at such time, as the necessity of the church did require. Which I prove by these words of Elyzeus to Gihezi, Reg. 4.27. Let her alone, for her soul is vexed within her, and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told it me: as if the prophet had said, God revealeth not all things, to his dear and faithful servants at all times: but some things at some times, as seemeth best in his divine wisdom. I say four, that popish invocation requireth infinite knowledge, because they pray for all matters, at all times, in all places; so that the saints must perforce be sometime ignorant what they pray for, unless their knowledge be infinite. The first reply. As the saints cannot have infinite knowledge, because it is not communicable to any creature; so neither can any living of limited power, make any infinite request unto them. The answer. I say first, that there is exceeding great disparity, between the persons that pray, the things prayed for, and the saints prayed unto: for the things prayed for, are without end and measure. They that pray are innumerable & multiplicable into infinite in potentia, and yet must every saint severally for himself, have the distinct notice of all them that pray, and of all things that are prayed for: for otherwise, many shall pray at many times, and not be heard, which is the thing that I contend to prove. For example, all papists in all countries pray to the virgin Mary at all times for all things, and so her knowledge must extend to all persons all places, and all desires at all times, and so be infinite; or certes she must be sometime deceived, not knowing what is required of her. I say secondly, that it is proper to God alone, to know our hearts and cogitations; and consequently our prayers. Act. 1.24. Therefore is it said in the Acts, thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen. Act. 15.8. God saith S. Peter which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness. Solomon saith, thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men. ●. Par. 6. ver. 30. Rom▪ 8.27. He (saith S. Paul) that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the meaning of the spirit. Thou O Lord of hosts (saith jeremy) judgest righteously, jer. 21. ●0. & triest the reins and the heart. And yet must the saints know our hearts and thoughts, if they hear and know our prayers: for doubtless the sound of our words, can not reach up to heaven. The second reply. Both Angels & saints are present here on earth and know our affairs, and therefore it is a vain cavil, to say that the sound of our words cannot be heard to heaven. The answer. I say first, that neither angels nor saints can be in many places at once, but are definitively in one only place at one time. And this their own angelical doctor Aquinas, Aqu. p. 1. q. 52. ar. 2. Corp. doth witness with me in these words; Nam corpus est in loco circumscriptiuè, quia commensuratur loco: angelus autem non circumscriptiuè, cum non commensuretur loco, sed definitiuè, quia ita est in uno loco▪ quòd non alio Deus autem neque circumscriptiuè, neque definitiuè, quia est ubique: for a body is in a place circumscriptively, because it is measured with the place; but an angel is not in place by circumscription, for that he is not measured with the place, but definitively, because he is so in one place, that he is not in another: yet god is neither circumscriptively nor definitively in place, because he is every where. Damasc. l. 2. cap. ● And Damascenus agreeth with Aquinas, affirming that angels while they are in heaven, are not on earth. I say secondly, that the angels (as S. Paul saith) are indeed God's ministering spirits, sent forth for their sakes which shallbe heirs of salvation. Hebr. 1.14. And the angels (as Moses saith) went up and down by jacobs' ladder, which reached from earth to heaven; Gen. 28.12. & that the angels (as Daniel writeth) are defenders of the church under Christ; Da. 10.13, 20, 2● & for that purpose are sent unto us. But nevertheless, they are but in one only place at once; & while they see what is done in one place, they are ignorant what befalleth to another; for they pass to & fro, from affairs to affairs, from place to place, from person to person, from heaven to earth, and from earth to heaven again, according to their appointed service; so that no one angel doth or can know, the hundredth part of our petitions, much less the saints in heaven, who have no such appointed ministery. The third reply. Luc. 2●. 36. The saints are equal to the angels; and are the sons of god, since they are the children of the resurrection: therefore they are present and see our affairs, even as do the angels. The answer. I answer, that the time by Christ named is after the resurrection; neither is the equality he speaks of, general, but particular; to wit, in that the saints shall have no more need or use of marriage, then the angels. But that the saints shallbe sent as the angels, for the service of the church & the ministery of the faithful, it is neither recorded here, nor in any other place of the scripture. For Christ here only answered to the captious Saducees, who denying the resurrection asked whose wife she should be in the resurrection, that had been married to 7. brethren, all dying without issue. The 4. reply. Luc. 15.10. The angels in heaven rejoice, when sinners repent here on earth; which they could never do, if they did not understand our affairs, our prayers and our penitent hearts. The answer. I say first, that Saints in heaven do not know what we do on earth; for as the Prophet recordeth, Abraham was ignorant what the Israelites did, Esai. 63.16. and jacob knew them not. I say secondly, that the text doth not say, that the angels in heaven rejoice, but simply that the angels rejoice; and so the rejoicing which the text speaketh of, may be understood to be done on earth while the angels are present. I say thirdly, that the angels which are appointed for our service on earth, and thereby know our affairs on earth, may make relation thereof in heaven, and so the whole company of angels in heaven may rejoice thereat together; or it may please God sometime to reveal the conversion of some sinner, to the saints or angels in heaven. But hereupon will it never be concluded, that either the saints or the angels do know the secrets of our hearts, or our petitions universally, as is already said. The fift reply. To do miracles is as proper to God, as to know the secrets of our hearts, therefore since God hath communicated the one to his servants, so may he without contradiction do the other. The answer. I say first, that God himself did ever work the miracles, and did only use the ministery of his apostles and servants, in the external act. I say secondly, that God can & hath de facto revealed the secrets of men's hearts, even to his holy prophets, yet he never did that generally, but in measure, at certain times to special persons, for the good of his church. The sixth reply. Although God cannot give any inherent qualities to the saints in heaven, by which they may know all the desires and prayers of the living here on earth, because no creature is capable thereof; yet may God from time to time, reveal all such prayers to his Saints. The answer. I say first, that it is not impossible for God so to do, though God should be so driven without need to work innumerable miracles, & that almost every hour. I say secondly, that though god should bestow such revelations on his saints, yet would many absurdities follow thereupon. For first, these revelations must follow the prayers, and not go before them; and so my conclusion is still in force. Secondly, thus to require miracles at God's hands, were to tempt God grievously. Thirdly, such prayers should be a flat mockery in God's sight, because God must first reveal the prayers to his Saints, then must he give ear to the saints while they inculcate the same prayers: & lastly, he may grant them if he list. Fourthly, in this manner of praying they leave God, whom they should invocate, & they run to them at whom they should not come. Fiftly, they do all this of infidelity, because they have no warrant from God so to make their prayers. The 7. reply. Ye cannot deny but that the living may pray one for another, and also desire one an others prayer; Rom. 15. Colos. 4. jac. 5. 1. Tim. 2. job. 42. Gen. 20. verse. 7. therefore since the faithful departed love us as much as before, & are as mindful of us as before, and are as dear in God's sight as before; we do no more injury or dishonour to God in praying now to them, than when they were living here among us. The answer. I say first, that we have commandment, promise, & examples to pray one for another while we are yet living on earth, but we have no such thing in the holy scriptures, neither in the old nor in the new testament, concerning the invocation of saints departed. I say secondly, that if the saints departed could hear and understand our prayers as the living do; then might we without dishonour and injury to God, desire them to pray for us as we do the living; nevertheless such kind of praying should be in us great temerity and presumption, because we have neither commandment nor example in gods word so to do. I say thirdly, that if the living should desire the prayers one of another, as the papists desire the prayers of saints, they should not only derogate greatly from Christ's holy mediatorship, but withal commit flat idolatry. For the papists desire (as is already proved) to be saved by the merits and blood of saints, for the compliment whereof, I will here add a memorable testimony. The usual practice of the papists, especially of the jesuits, is to add in the end of their absolution these words; Passio D.N.I. Christi, merita B.U. Mariae, & omnium sanctorum & quicquid bonifeceris vel mali sustinueris, Polanchus de modo a●d. confess. sit tibi in remissionem peccatorum tuorum in augmentum gratiae, & praemium vitae aeternae. The passion of our Lord jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed virgin Mary, and of all saints, & all the good thou shalt do and punishment thou shalt suffer, be to thee for the remission of thy sins, for increase of grace, & for the reward of eternal life. I say four, that to invocate saints departed, believing that they can & do hear our prayers, is to make them gods. And even so should we make the living, gods, if we did in that manner call on them in their absence. I may therefore well conclude, that though the one kind of praying be godly and imitable; yet is the other damnable and flat idololatrical; for God is zealous, Esa. 42.8. and will not give his glory to another. The second objection. The soul of the rich man in hell, knew where Abraham was, as also the state of Lazarus, Luc. 16.25. and of his brethren then living: therefore much more do the saints in heaven, know our state on earth. The answer. I say first, that parables and allegories are not sufficient, to establish any new kind of doctrine; for by this parable (as Irenaeus recordeth) Christ meant nothing else, but to declare the cogitations, torments, & state of the wicked after this life. Iren. lib. 4. cap. ● just. q. 60. ad orthodox. justinus is of the same opinion, & hereupon flatly denieth purgatory▪ I say secondly, that if this were granted to be a true history, & no parable; yet would it not follow thereupon, that the saints in heaven knew our thoughts and prayers here on earth; for as S. Austen gravely writeth, though the dead know not what is done here on earth, while we do it; yet may they afterward know what is done, either by the dead that go from hence, August. de cura pro mort. cap. 14 15. tom. 4. or by the angels that are present when the things are done: and this knowledge had Abraham by the relation of the dead, and no otherwise, as witnesseth the same S. Austen in the same book. The third objection. S. Austen, Ambrose, Gregory, Cyprian, and the ancient fathers generally, used to invocate and to pray unto the saints, and therefore it is neither any new thing, nor any unlawful act. The answer. Better answer cannot be given to the fathers then that which is truly gathered out of the works of the same fathers. I therefore say first with Cyprian, that we must hear & attend what Christ alone saith, in whom God is well pleased. We must not regard what others think should be done, Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 3. Epist. 63. apud Pa. but what Christ who was before all, would have to be done: for we must not follow the custom of man, but the truth of god, so saith holy Cyprian. To which I may add with S. Jerome, Hier. in 9 c●. jer. Aug. de unit. eccles. cap. 3. that the multitude of them that err, bring no patronage to the error itself: & with Augustine, that neither what I say, nor what thou sayest, Tertull. adu. pra●. in initio. but what Christ saith, aught to be regarded: & with Tertullian that that is true, whatsoever was first; & that counterfeit, whatsoever came after. I say secondly, that though the papists glory greatly of the fathers in this point; yet when their sayings are duly considered, they will make little or nothing for their purpose. And that the reader may with perspicuity, behold the force of their doctrine in this point, which hath kept myself long in suspense; I purpose in God to deliver the sum thereof, by these plain and brief canons. The first Canon. The visible Church (as writeth Egesippus) remained a virgin, free from all heresies, and corruptions, Egesippus apud Euseb. hist. lib. 3 cap. 32. during the life of the Apostles, that is, about one hundred years after Christ, to which time S. john the evangelist was living. But after the death of the apostles, errors by little and little crept into the church, as into a void and desert house. Which assertion is doleful enough, but yet profitable against the papists; as who are not ashamed impudently to avouch that after so many hundred years from Christ's ascension, there hath been no error at all in their whorish Babylon. And a great cause of these errors is this, for that many without due examination, received the doctrine of him that went before them. So writeth Eusebius, that Papias a man of no sound judgement, ●usebius hist. lib. 3. cap. vlt. was the Author of the Chiliastes; as who first grossly invented, that there should be 1000 years after the resurrection. To which error though most palpable, Irenaeus and others, otherwise well learned, gave place, only for antiquity sake. This imitation without time or reason, was, is and will be, the cause of many errors, which sundry of the learned papists, have profoundly considered. For this cause did Canus oppose himself against all the Thomists & Scotists, Can. de locis lib. ●. c. 5. the old and latter papists: for this cause did Caietanus in his literal exposition of Genesis, and other books, condemn the multitude of former commentaries: Caieta. in Gen. 5. ● br. Mos. for this cause said their learned Victoria, that he reputed nothing certain, albeit all writers agreed thereunto, Victor. de Sacramen. unless he could find it in the holy scriptures: for this cause their sound canonist Navarre, did roundly reject the common opinion, Nau. in enchir. when it seemed not grounded upon right reason: for this cause gravely said Saint Austen, that he reputed no man's writings free from errors, but only the writers of the holy scriptures: August. epist. ad Hier. 19 for this cause said their own Roffensis, that it is lawful to appeal from Austen, Cyprian, Roffen. Ac. 32. advers. Luth August. count Crensc▪ lib. 2. cap. 32. Hierome, and all the rest; because they are men, and do not want their imperfections. I (saith S. Austen) do not repute S. Cyprians writings as canonical, but judge them by the canonical; and whatsoever doth not agree with the scriptures, that by his leave do I refuse. The second Canon. Many of the ancient fathers have not only many ways erred, but withal committed to the view of the world in printed books, that which this day is reputed and generally confessed of all, as well papists as good christians, to be a notorious heresy. The heresy is this, to wit, just. q. 60. Iren. lib. 5▪ cap. vlt. Orig. hom. in Le●uit. Chrys. in. 1. Cor. hom. 39 etc. that the souls of the faithful departed out of this life, do not see God clearly till the day of doom. This opinion held justinus Martyr, Irenaeus, Origenes, Chrysost. Theodoritus, Hilarius, Ambrose, Augustinus, Lactantius: yea, these latter writers were of the self-same resolution, Theophilactus, Oecumenius, Euthymius, Arethas, The margin can●not contain th● quotations of al● and others. And to the great comfort of our jesuits and other papists, their own sweet S. Barnard singeth the same song, these are his words; Bernard. in serm. 3. de omnibus sanctis Aduertistis ni fallor tres esse sanctarum status animarum, primum videlicet in corpore corruptibili, secundum sine corpore, tertium in beatitudine consummata; primum in tabernaculis, secundum inatriis tertium in domo dei. Infra▪ in illam beatissimam domum, nec sine nobis intrabunt, nec sine corporibus; id est, nec sancti fine plebe, nec spiritus sine carne; Ye understand I ween, that there be three states of holy souls; to wit, the first in the corruptible body; the second, without the body; the third, in perfect bliss: the first in tabernacles, the second in courts, the third in the house of God. Into that most blessed house, they shall neither enter without us, nor yet without their bodies: that is, neither the saints without the common multitude, nor the souls without the flesh. Serm. 4. ubi sup● Again in another place the same Bernard hath these words Interim sub Christi humanitate foeliciter sancti quiescunt, in quam nimirum desiderant etiam sancti angeli prospicere, donec veniat tempus quando, iam non sub altare collocentur, sed exaltentur super altar. In the mean season, the saints rest happily under Christ's humanity, which doubtless the holy angels desire to behold, until the time come, The old fathers show themselves to be men 〈◊〉 not Gods. when they shallbe no longer hid under the altar, but exalted above the altar. So then, not only the ancient fathers, but holy and devout Bernard with others of late years, were and continued in this gross error, to wit, that the souls of the faithful dying in the Lord, shall not be admitted to the vision and fruition of God, to the sight of his divine essence, clearly to behold his deity, until the general resurrection of our bodies. Further them this (which is a scourge to the papists,) Pope john the 22. of that name, professed this heretical doctrine, The heresy of Pope john. and commanded all the divines in Paris, to teach the same. His words with all the due circumstances thereof, are cited at large in my book of Motives These two Canons well marked, will serve for many good purposes; and especially at this time, to prove that the opinion of the fathers, are of no more force for the invocation of saints, them for these other important matters already in these Canons named. For as we overrule them in these points by Gods sacred word; so must we still overrule them by the same word; if at any time they serve from it, either for the invocation of saints, Every truth must be tried by the scripture. or for praying for the dead, or for marriage of priests, or for whatsoever else. And so to overrule them, is consonant to their own doctrine, as is already proved. The third Canon. The primitive church for the space of two hundredth & thirty years after Christ, 230. years after Christ. lived utterly destitute and unacquainted with the merits, suffrages, intercession, and invocation of the saints in heaven; after which time this cacozeale by degrees proceeded, till it became perfect and consummate idolatry, as this day is seen in the church of Rome. For before this time, the papists cannot allege any one authentical writer, for the invocation of saints in heaven. The first objection. Irenaeus, who lived within one hundredth and ninety years after Christ, Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 1 affirmeth expressly, that the virgin Mary was the advocate of the virgin Eue. The answer. I answer, that S. Irenaeus had a far other meaning, than such popish frivolous collection would enforce upon him: which I prove first indirectly, Irenae. lib. 5. c. 1. in fine. because the virgin Mary was not born or conceived; much less a saint in heaven, for the space almost of four thousand years, after the virginity of Eve; and so doubtless, Eve neither did nor possibly could, invocate the holy virgin Mary. Neither will it help to say, that though Eve could not then invocate the holy virgin Mary, yet did the holy virgin pray for her, and so became her advocate. For besides that the virgin Marie is there said, to be eves advocate when she was a virgin, at which time Marie the virgin was not born; the same Eve was either a Saint in heaven as soon as the virgin Mary, or a damned soul in hell. Again, I prove it directly, because Irenaeus compareth the virgin Mary with the virgin Eve, to insinuate unto us, that we receive no less good by the virgin Mary, in that she bore Christ; then evil by the virgin Eve, in that she transgressed Gods holy laws. For thus doth Irenaeus interpret himself, in another place in these words, Sicut Eva inobaudiens facta, et sibi & universo generi humano causa facta est mortis; Irenae. lib. 3. c. 33 sic & Maria habens praedestinatum virum, tamen virgo obaudiens; & sibi & universo generi humano causa facta est salutis. As Eve being disobedient, was the cause of deathed herself and to all mankind, so Mary having a predestinate husband, and withal an obedient virgin, was the cause of salvation both to herself and to all mankind, (in that she bore Christ, the true and only saviour of the world.) The second objection. S. james in his Mass (which the sixth general council holden at Constantinople admitteth) teacheth us to invocate the virgin Mary and all Saints, Concil. Constantinop. 6. Can 32 and to hope for mercy by their prayers and intercessions. The answer. I say first, that that council of Constantinople saith indeed, that S. james did de●iuer a certain form of the mass, in which he showed the custom of mingling water with the wine; but of praying to Peter or to Paul, it hath not one word at all. I say secondly, that pope Gregory (who lived well near an hundred years before that council,) either knew no such mass delivered by S. james, or at least reputed it for a counterfeit and forged thing. For the same Gregory avoucheth (as shallbe proved when I come to speak of the Mass, Carranza in annot. 6. conc. Constant. ) that the Apostles did celebrate the holy communion, only with the lords prayer: and their own dear friar Carranza witnesseth the same, while he confesseth that there is no such tradition extant, as that whereof the council speaketh. Whereby it well appeareth with what intolerable burdens and counterfeit books, the papists do this day oppress and seduce the simple people. For this disholy Mass is currant every where, and myself have one of the books. The fourth Canon. In the days of Origen, (who lived about the year of our Lord 233.) the first seed of the invocation of saints began to be sown. Anno Dom. 233 Which seed so sown by Origen, was but a step or degree to popish invocation. For beside that Origen only taught this, that saints in heaven do pray for us, and not that we on earth should pray to them; this his doctrine was not definitive and resolute, but doubtful, opinative, and disputable. This Canon Origen himself hath delivered to us, Orig hom. 16. in cap. 13. joshua. whose express words are these. Sed requiris qui sunt isti qui pugnant, & quae est illa pugna quam illi gerunt. Ego sic arbitror, quod omnes illi qui dormierunt ante nos patres, pugnent nobiscum, & adiwent nos orationibus suis. Ita namque etiam quendam de senioribus magistris audivi dicentem. But thou requirest who they are that fight, and what that battle is, which they fight. I am of this opinion, that all the fathers which are before us and are dead, do fight with us, and do help us with their prayers; for so I heard one of our old masters say. Again, in another place thus; Idem ●n cantic. hom. 3. circa med. Sed & omnes sancti qui de hac vita decesserunt, habentes adhuc charitatem erga eos qui in hoc mundo sunt, si dicantur curam gerere salutis eorum & iware eos precibus suis, atque interuentu suo apud deum, non erit inconueniens. But also all saints which are departed hence, and have still charity towards them which are in this world, if we say they have care of their salvation, and help them with their prayers and intercession before God, it shall not be a thing inconvenient. Out of which sayings of Origen I note first, that he speaketh only of the prayers which saints in heaven make for us, and not one word of our praying to them. I note secondly, that to hold that the saints in heaven do pray for us, is not a constant position in Origens' doctrine; but only an opinion and disputable question. I prove it, because he saith (arbitror, I think.) Again, because he saith; non erit inconueniens, it shall not be inconvenient. Thirdly, because he saith (audiu● ita dicentem; I heard one say so.) The fi●st objection. Origen in his book de paenitentia saith, that he will fall prostrate on his knees, and invocate all the saints in heaven, that they will help him, because he dare not pray to God for himself. The answer. I say first, that this assertion fathered upon Origen, will confute itself: for how could Origen or any faithful christian, be in fear humbly to invocate our most merciful God, Mat. 11. v. 28. Psal. 49. v. 15. joan. 14. v. 13.14 Hebr. 7.25. who willeth all to come to him that are in distress; who promiseth to hear all those that in their trouble call upon him. Who granteth to us whatsoever we ask in his sons name, who hath appointed his son, to make intercession for us. I say secondly, that this book alleged in the objection is not Origens', but a plain counterfeit. And I prove it effectually, Gelasiu● dist. 15. cap. sanct. Ro. because their own pope Gelasius hath so resolved. The 2. objection. Origen saith, Origen. hom. 3. in diue●sos. that the fathers of the church appointed the feast day of the holy Innocentes, and that by the will of God, that so their intercession might profit their parents. The answer. I say first, that if all this were granted, it could but at the most prove, that the saints pray for us, which in a good sense may be admitted. For I willingly grant that the saints in heaven do in general manner and terms pray for us; that is, that they wish us to persevere in the true faith and fear of God, The manner of praying of saints for us. and that in the end we may be partakers with them of eternal glory. I say secondly, that sundry learned men do think these homilies (from whence this objection is taken) not to be any part of Origens' works. I say thirdly, that if Origen do make that a constant doctrine in one place, which he granteth to be a disputable question in another place; what remaineth, but to think his opinion therein to be of no force. I say four, that the papists (as their Ruffinus recordeth, Ruffin in apolog. pro Orig. in fine. ) will admit nothing in Origen, which disliketh them; but reject all such stuff, as infarsed into his works by the heretics. Let them therefore give us leave also to reject in Origen, if in any place he seem to approve invocation of saints, as that which is infarsed by the heretics: specially because in other places, he teacheth the contrary doctrine. The fift Canon. Anno Dom. 250 About 20. years after that Origen had doubtfully disputed the praying of saints for us; S. Cyprian and S. Cornelius set down that point resolutely, as standing no longer in doubt thereof; to wit, that the saints in heaven do pray for the living here on earth. For they made this covenaut, that whether of them soever should die the first, should pray for his brethren and sisters yet living. Cypr. Epist. 57 lib. 1. ep. 1. These are S. Cyprians own words; Et si quis istinc nostrum prior divinae dignationis celeritate praecesserit, perseveret apud dominum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororib apud misericordiam patris noncesset oratio. And if either of us shall through God's mercy die before the other, let our love continue still in God's sight; let us not cease to desire the favour of God for our brethren and sisters yet living. Thus saith S. Cyprian. Out of whose words, I note first, that to be established in his time, which was but in opinion and doubtful case, in the days of Origen. To wit, that the saints in heaven pray for us here on earth. I note secondly, that the invocation of saints in heaven, was neither established in saint Cyprians time, neither once called into question. I note thirdly, that popish invocation of saints, sprung up by little and little, from one degree to another. The sixth Canon. Anno Dom. 350 About an hundredth years after S. Cyprian, (which was about 350. years after Christ) some of the fathers by rhetorical apostrophees, did apply their orations to the dead, as if they had been living. Of which sort were S. Basill and saint Gregory Nazianzene, Na●ianz. orat. 1. ●n julian, in initio, tom. 2. who though they did but invocate the saints figuratively, and of a certain excessive zeal, yet did such their invocations minister occasion to the papists, of all their superstition in that behalf. These are the words of S. Gregory Nazianzene; Audite populi, tribus linguae, homines omnes cu●usuis generis & aetaetis, quicunque & nunc estis, & existetis Infra, audiat quoque Constantini magni anima, si quis mortuis sensus est, omnesque eorum qui ante eum imperium tenuerunt, piae Christique amantes animae. Hear O people, kindreds, tongues, Nazianz. orat. 2. in Pascha, in ipso ●●ne. nations, ages, whosoever are now living, or shallbe borne hereafter. Let also the soul of Constantine the Great hear, & all the christian godly souls of the Emperors before him, if the dead perceive any thing at all. And again in another place, he thus writeth; At o pascha, magnum inquam & sacro sanctum pascha, totiusque mundi piaculum! te enim quasi vita praeditum alloquor. But O Passeover, the great I say, and sacred Passeover, and the purgation of the whole world. For I call upon thee, as if thou hadst life. Thus writeth Nazianzene, by whose words we may measure both the rest of his sayings, and of the other fathers. First therefore I note, that he doth invocate aswell senseless things, as reasonable souls. Secondly, he calleth upon the souls of all the people in the world, whereof some were damned in the bottom of hell, and so could not hear, as every learned papist will admit. Thirdly, he invocateth those that are yet unborn. Upon these sandy foundations, are built all popish superstitious invocations. The 7. Canon. Catholic doctrine is that, (as Vincentius Lyrinensis, Vincent. Lyrin. advers. haeres. who lived above a thousand years ago, defineth it;) which hath been received constantly, of all the faithful, at all times, and in all places. Which Vincentius is, and ever was of great reputation, with and amongst all learned papists; and consequently, since popish invocation of saints, neither was constantly received of all the faithful, neither in all places, neither at all times, The Romish religion not catholic. (as which was not heard of for many hundredth years after Christ) it cannot be, deemed catholic doctrine, no not by popish proceeding. This Canon ought to be well remembered, as which of itself overthroweth all Romish religion. An objection. S Chrysostom's Mass, which was generally used in the Greek church, maketh express mention of the invocation of saints, and the same doctrine is taught in sundry places of his works. The answer. I say first, Anno. Dom. 400. that in S. Chrysostom's time (which was more than 400. years after Christ,) this superstitious invocation had gotten deep root in the hearts of the vulgar sort. For which cause S. Chrysostome did zealously in many sermons, induce them wholly and solely to invocate the living God. One or two places I will allege, for the better satisfaction of the Reader. thus therefore doth he write; Dic mihi mulier quemadinodum ausa es cum sis peccatrix & iniqua, Chrysost. hom. 16 ex var. in Mat. locis, tom. 2. col. 1181. accedere ad eum? ego, inquit, novi quid agam Vide prudentiam mulieris; non rogat jacobum, non obsecrat joannem, neque pergit ad Petrum, nec intendit Apostolorum chorum, non quaesivit mediatorem; sed pro omnibus illis paenitentiam accepit comitem, quae advocati locum implevit, & sic ad summum fontem perrexit. Propterea, inquit, descendit, propterea carnem assumpsit, & homo factus est, ut & ego ei aude●m loqui. Tell me O woman, how thou being a great sinner darest come unto God? I, saith she, know what I have to do. Behold the wisdom of the woman: she desires not james, she prays not john, she goes not to Peter: she neither respected the company of the Apostles, nor sought for a mediator; but in steed of them all she took true repentance for her fellow, which supplied the place of an advocate, and so she came to the chief fountain. For this end (saith she) did Christ descend; for this end did he take our nature upon him, and was made man, that I may boldly speak unto him. Chrysost. hom. 5. in cap. 1. Mat. tom. 2. col. 56. Again in another place, the same S. Chrysostome saith thus; Sin vero sobrie agemus, etiam per nosmetipsos istud valeamus efficere & multo magis per nos quam per alios. Name & Deus gratiam non tam aliis rogantibus pro nobis▪ quam nobis vult donare; quo & fruamur libertate Deum compellandi, & emendemur, dum ipsi studemus deum reconciliare sic Chananaeam illam aliquando miseratus est, sic etiam meretrici donavit salutem, sic latronem nullo patrono, nullo mediatore intercedente. But if we will deal soberly, we may dispatch that by our own selves, and a great deal better by ourselves, then by others. For God will give us his grace, not so much for the prayers of others, as for our own sake; that so we may have liberty to call upon God, and to amend our lives, while we seek to be reconciled to him. So had he mercy on the woman of Chanaan, so gave he remission of sins to the adulteress, so did he save the thief without any patron, without any mediator. Thus saith Saint Chrysostome. Out of whose words I note first, that he greatly commendeth those, who will immediately call upon God, and neither seek to Peter, nor to Paul, nor to any mediator but Christ jesus. I note secondly, that he greatly reproveth all such, as are afraid to call upon God by reason of their sins, te●l●●g them that a penitent heart, is the chief patron before God. Thirdly, that Christ jesus took our nature upon him for this end, that sinners may boldly call upon him. I note four, that God will sooner hear ourselves than other for us. I note fifthly, that when we call upon god immediately, we confirm our christian liberty. I say secondly, that the mass which goeth abroad under the name of S. Chrysostome, is a mere counterfeit: for first there be divers copies and diverse translations, whereof never one agreeth with another. Again, if S. Chrysostome had written any such mass, he should be contrary to himself in sundry places of his works. Thirdly, because if S. james, S. Basil, & S. Chrysostome, should every one of them have made a mass, I have these three masse● i● print. as popish printed books tell us, it must needs follow, (which the papists will not well like of,) that the bishop of Rome had in those days small authority. For now a days nothing may be done without the pope's consent, but then bishops made masses at their pleasure, and the pope made none at all. Fourthly, because in this supposed S. Chrysost. mass, there is often repeated this blasphemous prayer: Save us by the prayers of thy saints. Fiftly, because prayer is there made for pope Nicholas and for the Empereur Alexius, who both lived long after S. Chrysostom's death; the one 500 years: the other 800. years. I say thirdly, that the other places of S. Chrysostom are even like to his mass; and whosoever thinketh otherwise, must say that he is contrary to himself, as is already proved. CHAP. VIII. Of Popish Pilgrimage. GOds people of late years have been wonderfully seduced, and that by the sinister and false persuasion of the papists; who taught them to merit their salvation by gadding on pilgrimage, to visit stocks, stones, and dead men's bones. The whole sum whereof for perspicuity sake, I shall reduce to certain brief conclusions. The first conclusion. Anno Dom. 420 The common people about the year of our Lord, 420. were so addicted to sundry kinds of superstition, partly by the instinct of Satan, partly by the negligence of some Bishops, and partly by the undiscreet doctrine of othersome, that S. Austen was at his wit's end, not knowing which way to turn him, or what to do, because he utterly condemned many things in his heart, which he durst not freely reprove & speak against. This conclusion will seem strange to many a one, August. epist. 119 ad Ianu●●. in fine tom, 2. but S. Austen doth himself deliver it to us, whose express words are these: Quod autem instituitur praeter consuetudinem, ut quasi obseruatto sacramenti sit, approbare non possum, etiamsi multa huiusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala vitanda, liberius improbare non audeo. Sed hoc nimis doleo, quòd multa quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt, minus curantur, & tam multis praesumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia, ut gravius corripiatur qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit, quam qui mentem vinolentia sepelierit. Omnia itaque talia, quae neque sanctarum scripturarum authoritatibus continentur, nec in concilijs episcoporum statuta inveniuntur, nec consuetudine universae ecclesiae roborata sunt, sed diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur, ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam inveniri possint causae, quas in eyes instituendis homines secuti sunt; ubi facultas tribuitur, sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo. Quamuis enim neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem fint, ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis & manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis misericordia dei esse liberam voluit, seruilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio judaeorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur. I can not approve that, which beside custom is ordained to be observed as an holy thing, albeit to avoid the scandal of some persons that are either holy or troublous, I dare not freely reprehend many such things. But I am very sorry for this, that many wholesome precepts in God's books are little regarded, Saint Austen for fear dissembled many things and that all things are so full of presumptions, that he is more sharply reproved, which toucheth the ground in his octaves with his bare foot, than he that shall lie drunken in the street. All things therefore which neither are contained in the holy scriptures, neither in the decrees of bishops, neither established by the custom of the universal church, but are infinitely varied by the diversity of manners in diverse places, so that seldom or never the causes can be known, which men respected in the ordinance thereof, This is a grave saying worthy to be written in golden letters▪ I think they are to be taken away without any stop, where power and authority is at hand. For although it cannot be found, how they make against the catholic faith, yet do they clog the religion with servile bondage, which our merciful God would have freely celebrated with very few and manifest sacraments, so that now the condition of the jews is more tolerable, who though they have not acknowledged the time of liberty, yet are they subject to legal burdens, not to humane presumptions. Thus saith holy and learned Austen. Out of whose words I note first, that S. Austen for fear of scandal and other humane respects, durst not speak all he thought, nor freely reprove every abuse as he wished in his heart. I note secondly, that all the bishops & learned fathers of the church, did not at all times like and approve all things, which were publicly done in the church, though they spoke not flatly and openly against the same. Which point if it be well noted, doth more than a little gall our papists. I note thirdly, that God's word was little regarded even in Saint Austin's time, and that superstition in steed thereof reigned every where; and therefore no marvel if so much Romish trumpery, did after Saint Austin's time abound in their visible church. I note four, that even in Saint Austin's days odd conceits of superstitious trumpery, were more regarded than the chiefest points of religion. I note fifthly, that many superstitious errors, have crept into the church, the causes whereof neither are nor can be known, and therefore by Saint Austin's judgement all such trumpery ought to be cut off by the authority of the Magistrate. I note sixtly, that the church was brought into servile bondagt, by reason of beggarly ceremonies, & other superstition; so as in S. Austin's time the state of the jews was more tolerable, than the condition of faithful christians. I note Seventhly, that the christian liberty of the new testament, may not be charged with superfluous ceremonies. The second conclusion. The bodies, bones, and relics of God's Saints and martyrs, are not to be contemned, rejected, or disdainfully cast away, but to be buried honourably and esteemed reverently, as well to give a sign of our hope in the resurrection of our bodies and theirs, as to signify their true faith in the everliving God. This conclusion may evidently be proved, by many texts of holy writ; Psal. 115.15. Precious in the sight of the Lord (saith David) is the death of his saints. Again in another place; Great are the troubles of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth him out of them all; Psal. 33.19. he keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken. Again in another place; Blessed are the dead, which die in the Lord: & in another place the Psalmograph yieldeth the reason why the bodies & relics of the dead be honourable, Apoc. 14.13. to wit, for the hope of the resurrection, & that they shall once be glorified: for my flesh (saith he) shall rest in hope; Psal. 15.9. and in the Hebrew more significantly (shall dwell in hope,) to express the full assurance of the resurrection. Gen. 50.2, 7, 8. In this hope did S. joseph cause his father's body be enbalmed, & being accompanied with all the servants of R. Pharaoh both the elders of his house, & all the elders of the land of Egypt, and with his brethren, and others of his father's house, he went up into the land of Canaan, there to bury his father with great honour and solemnity. Epiphan. in vitis prophetarum. The prophet Daniel when he died, was buried with great honour; so was Micheas, joel, & many others, the prophets, apostles, & servants of the living god. Ecclesiast. cap. ●6. vers. 12. In regard whereof prudently said Syrach; Let their bones flourish out of their place, and their names by succession remain to them that are most famous of their children. All which Saint Austen comprised briefly in these golden words; August. de civit. libr. 1. cap. 13. Nec tamen contemnenda & abiicienda sunt corpora defunctorum, maximèque justorum atque fidelium, quibus tanquam organis & vasis ad omnia bona opera sanctus usus est spiritus. Si enim paterna vestis, & annulus, ac si quid huiusmodi tanto charius est posteris, quanto erga parentes maior extitit affectus, nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora, quae utique multo familiarius atque coniunctius, quam quaelibet indumenta gestamus. Haec enim non ad ornamentum vel adiutorium quod adhibetur extrinsecus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. Neither are the bodies of the dead to be despised and cast away, specially the bodies of the just and of the faithful, whom the holy ghost hath used as instruments and vessels to all good works. For if the father's garment, and ring, and the like, be so much the dearer to the posterity, by how much our affection was greater to our parents; then doubtless their bodies are no way to be contemned, which are more familiar and nearer to us, than any garment; for they pertain not to the ornament or help which we use externally, but even to the nature of man itself. The third conclusion. To go from place to place, on pilgrimage, to learn experience, civil manners, customs and laws of other countries, or christianly to profit others thereby, is a godly act & highly to be commended. The painful & godly peregrinations of Christ himself, and of his chosen vessels, The pilgrimage of Christ jesus. Mat. 2.1, 13, 23 Mat. 3.13. Mat. 4.1, 5. will make this conclusion evident. For Christ was conceived in Nazareth, borne in Bethlehem, the eight day presented in Jerusalem. He fled into Egypt, he returned and dwelled in Nazareth. Being twelve years of age he disputed in the temple at Jerusalem, from whence he returned with his parents, and came to Nazareth. Being thirty years old, he was baptised in Iorden, tempted of the Devil in the wilderness, placed on a Pinnacle of the temple, joan. 2.2, 9 〈◊〉 4. vers. 13. Luc. 4.31. joan. 6.1, 2. and after that carried into an exceeding high mountain. In Cana of Galilee he was present at a marriage, where he changed water into wine. He abode a while at Capernaum, with his mother and his friends. He went throughout Galilee teaching in the synagogues. Besides the sea of Galilee, he calleth Simon, Andrew, james and john. From thence he came to the region of the Gerasenes where the swine were drowned in the sea by the devils. Mar. 5.1, 13, 14, 17. He came to Jerusalem at the feast of Easter, joan. 5.1. Mat. 13. vers. 2. Mat. 10.5. Luc. 10.1. he entered into a ship to avoid the press of the people; and sent his apostles two by two to preach the gospel. He went into the mountain when the people would have made him king: he sailed into Magedan & Dalmanutha, he returned to Bethsaida, Mat. 15. verse 39 Mat 16. verse 13 Mar. 9 verse 3. ●. Pet. 1.18. Luc. 17.12. Mar. 6.7. joan. 12.2. joan. 10.22, 23. joan. 11.43, 44. Lu. 19.29.30.45 Matth 26.6, 18. joan. 18. verse 1. Mat. 26.36. Luc. 22. ver. 44, 47, 48, 54. Mat. 26.57. Mar, 15. v. 18, 15 joan. 19 vers. 1, 6 16, 30. & came into the coasts of Cesaria Philippi. He was transfigured in the mount Thabor, he returned to Capernaum, and passed through the mids of Samaria: he sent his twelve disciples to Jerusalem to the feast of Tabernacles, and secretly followed after them. He sent his messengers to Samaria, the Samaritaines would not receive them; he came to Jerusalem and taught openly in the temple. He sent 72. disciples two by two into every place, whither he would come. In Bethania Martha did entertain him. In the feast of the dedication he walked in the temple in salomon's porch, even in the winter season. He passed into the coasts of jewrie beyond Iorden, where john did first baptise: in Bethania he raised up Lazarus from death to life: thence he went to Ephraim beside the desert where he fasted: he came to Bethphage beside the mount Olivet, he entered into Jerusalem riding on an asse-colt, whereon never man sat before: he went up into the temple, and did cast out them that bought and sold therein; he returned to Bethania, and went again to Jerusalem, where he ate the Paschal lamb. After supper he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, into the Garden of Gethsemani, where he prayed while drops of blood trickled down his cheeks: after his prayer he returned to his disciples, was apprehended by judas and his complices, was led away to Anna's first, then to Caiphas, then to Pilate, then to Herode, then to Pilate again; after whipped, and scourged, crowned with a crown of thorn, condemned and crucified. And all this long, tedious, painful, and bitter pilgrimage, Christ jesus the son of God, suffered for the sins and love of man. Saint Paul likewise the chosen vessel of God, had a long and painful pilgrimage for the Gospel sake. For being miraculously converted, from a raging Wolf to be a meek sheep, from a mortal foe to be a dear friend, from a cruel persecutor to become an holy Apostle; he forthwith preached the gospel at Damascus. From thence he went to Arabia, Act. 9 ver. 1, 2, 20, 22. Galat. 1.17, 18 from Arabia he turned again to Damascus, and after three years came to jerusalem. Before which time the jews at Damascus took counsel to kill S. Paul, Act. 9 ver. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Act. 21. ve. 15, 27 Act. 23. vers. 24. and for that end they watched the gates day and night. But the disciples took him by night, put him through the wall, and let him down by a rope in a basket. The jews laid hands on him, while he was in the temple at Jerusalem. They lay in wait to kill him, but the chief captain commanded to bind him with two chains, & to lead him into the castle: he caused him also to be scourged and examined, and sent him away to Felix the governor: he came to Antiochia by the means of Barnabas, where they twain taught the people a whole year, Act. 11. vers. 26. Act. 11. vers. 28, 29, 30 Act. 13. ver. 4, 5, 6, 7. insomuch that the disciples were first called christians in that place. From Antioch he went with Barnabas to carry their charitable alms, which the Antiochians sent to the faithful in judea: he passed from Antioch to Seleucus, and from thence he sailed to Cyprus, from Cyprus to Salamis, and thence to Paphus where he found a jew named Bariesus, who was with the deputy Sergius Paulus: from Paphus he went to Perga, from Perga to Antioch not in Syria but in Pisidia, Act. 13. ve. 13.14 Act. 14. verse 5, 6 and afterward to Iconium. But being stoned at Iconium he fled to Lystra and Derbe the cities of Lycania, and to the regions round about. He returned to visit the brethren in every city where he had preached, stablishing the churches of Syria and Cilicia. And when he had gone throughout Phrygia, Act. 15.36, 41. Act. 16. v. 6, 5, 11 1● and the region of Galatia, he was forbidden of the holy ghost to preach in Asia. And being admonished in a vision to go into Macedonia, he went to Troas, from Troas to Samothracia, from Samothracia to Neapolis, from Neapolis to Philippi, the chief City in the parts of Macedonia. After this he returned to jerusalem, Act. 24. vers. 24. Act. 25. vers. 9, 1● Act 26. vers. 1. Act. 28. v. 16, 19 and being cast in prison, he pleaded his cause before Felix and Drusilla his wife; before Agrippa, Festus and Bernice, and appealing to Cesar he was sent to Rome, where afterward he was beheaded, as approved histories make relation. So Lycurgus (as authentical histories record) profited much by his pilgrimage into foreign countries. So did also the Decemuiri of the Romans, while by their pilgrimage into Greece, they learned their prudent politic laws, and trained up their own people accordingly. More commendable than all these, was the pilgrimage of the three wise men that came from far, to adore the sweet babe that was newly borne, Christ the Saviour of the world. Mat 2.1, 2. ●. Reg. 10.1, 2. ●. Par. 9.1, 2, 3. Mat. 12. vers. 42. ●uc. 11.31. Neither for all that was the pilgrimage of the queen of Saba to be reproved, when she came so many hundred miles to hear and try King salomon's wisdom. The fourth conclusion. Popish invocation, adoration, visitation, translation, elevation, asportation, and reservation, is superstitious, blasphemous, and idololatrical. This conclusion is evidently proved, by that which is already said of the invocation and adoration of saints. For if no religious worship nor adoration can be given to the living saints, as is already proved; much less may that which is contained in this conclusion, be yielded to the dead bodies & relics of the same. And doubtless the faithless Gentiles have not committed more gross and palpable idolatry in adoring their idols, than our late Papists in adoring their relics. For first, when the relic which they term (Vultus sanctus) is elevated as solemnly as their breadgod in the mass, though not over the priest's head, but publicly in both his hands; the people of Rome are taught to cry aloud; misericordi, misericordi, mercy, mercy, for our sins. Which, as every child knoweth, is the proper invocation of God himself. Again, they do ascribe so much Religion in handling, and in touching the tabernacles or coffers, wherein the relics are put, that the lay people may scarcely touch them with their bare hands, or yet the priests elevate the same, unless they first adore them upon their knees, and in their surplice with stoles about their necks. Thirdly, they think, that if their beads do but once touch those coffers, they receive a great holiness from thence. Fourthly, they think that to come on pilgrimage to Rome especially, is a great part of satisfaction for their sins. Fiftly, they think it a far greater holiness to pray in one place, then in another; greater at one altar then at another; more blessed in one church then in an other; and that it is the next step to heaven, to say mass, or cause mass to be said, at the church of the blessed virgin in Lauretto. Sixtly, they repute such holiness in external rites, and corruptible relics; that the bone of a dead dog, In all superstitious adoration, one imitateth an other without time or reason. (if it be said by any to be a relic of a saint) will draw them with facility to touch it, to kiss it, and to adore it, as if it were God almighty. For which cause saint Austen saith truly, that many bodies are adored upon earth, whose souls are damned in hell. Yea, the dead corpse of Hermannus was adored for a saint twenty years at Ferrara; who yet was an heretic, Platina in 8. Bonifac. as writeth their own Platina. The first objection. They are undoubtedly the true relics of true saints, which the church appointeth to be adored every where. And saint Austen speaketh only against private abuses of certain private persons, not against the general practice of the universal church. For the use of the church is, first to canonize the saint, and after to propose his relics to be adored. Which church being therein directed by the holy ghost, cannot err as you imagine. The answer. I say first, that how your church both may err and hath erred de facto▪ is already proved. I say secondly, that your abuses are as general as your relics. For you all teach to adore all your relics religiously, in all places wheresoever: insomuch as your own Ludovicus Vives granteth, Ludou. in comm. de civit. that many christians do sin no less in adoring their images and relics, then do the Gentiles in adoring their false gods. I say thirdly, that your worshipping of relics is flatly reproved by S. Paul, in what manner soever ye do it. Coloss. 2.23. The apostle of Christ yieldeth this reason, because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary worship's, not contained in God's word. I say four, that if Christ's cross must therefore be adored, because it touched Christ's body (which is the reason of popish adoration) even so ought the lips of judas to be adored, because they touched Christ's sacred mouth. This reason is invincible, if it be well urged. I say fifthly, that the Pope may err in canonizing your Saints: Canus de locis, lib. 5. ca 5. p 17●▪ as your own Doctor Melchior Canus telleth you, neither can Aquinas indeed deny the same. And certes, as the pope may err in canonizing your saints, so may he much more err in determining such and such relics, to be the bodies, bones, or ashes of such and such saints; and consequently, so may all papists adoring them commit idolatry, yea though it were granted that true relics might be adored; because as S. Austen gravely said, their relics are adored on earth, whose souls are broiling in hell fire. I say sixtly, that when the pope taketh upon him not only to canonize saints, but withal not to err in so doing; he doubtless challengeth to himself the authority of God omnipotent. and may therefore fitly be called Antichrist: howsoever the jesuits and his other vassals, labour to defend him in this. The second objection. Gen▪ 50 v. 25. Exod. 13. v. 19 If it were not a godly act to adore holy relics, & to translate them from place to place, as the church hath a long time used; holy Moses who had God's spirit largely, would never have so reverenced the dead body of S. joseph, nor yet have carried it so many miles. The answer. I say first, that the flesh of joseph's body was wholly consumed, and nothing left but bones and ashes. For the Israelites abode in Egypt about 215. years, after the death of holy joseph. I say secondly, that as the wicked gain nothing, by being buried in temples after the christian manner; even so neither are the godly worse, for being buried in places profane. For they who die in the wars for the service of their Sovereign, and defence of their native country, are doubtless in as good case, notwithstanding their base kind of funeral, as if they had died at home, and been buried with all pomp and solemnity. I say thirdly, that the translation of S. josephes' bones out of Egypt, was not for religion sake, whereof holy Writ maketh no mention; but to show his hope and confidence in God's promise, and to confirm the faith of his brethren. For these are the words; God will surely visit you, and ye shall take my bones away hence with you. As if he had said; Have full trust in God's promise for your deliverance: for undoubtedly God will bring you into the land of Chanaan, as he hath said; and for the better confirmation thereof, Heb. 11. v. 22. I appoint my bones to be taken with you thither: and for this end doth the Apostle ascribe this charge given to josephes' brethren, to the great commendation of his faith. The third objection. The scripture telleth us that Helcana and Anna his wife, went thrice in the year on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 1. Sam. 1. v. 3. joan. 12. v. 20. Act. 8. verse. 27. Act 20. v. 16. Sundry of the Greeks' left their own country, and came to adore in Jerusalem. The Eunuch came from far, to adore in the same place. S. Paul himself made haste in his journey, that he might keep Pentecost at Jerusalem. Christ likewise with his mother Mary, and S. joseph her husband, came on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The answer. I say first, that God appointed his temple at Jerusalem, Deut. 16. v. 1.10.13. to be the peculiar place of his external worship; and that all his people should repair thither, at three several times in the year. To wit, at Easter, Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles. Pilgrimage appointed by God, is to be approved. So that S. joseph, S. Marry, S. Anna, and Helcana went to Jerusalem at that day; even as we do now to the Church, to hear divine service and sermons. And therefore their pilgrimage was honourable, and highly to be commended. I say secondly, that Christ himself went not of any necessity, but for our sake, Matth. 5.17. and to give us an example of obedience and humility. For he came to fulfil the law, not to dissolve the same. I say thirdly, that saint Paul hasted thither for the gospel sake, because then there would be great concourse of people, whom he desired to instruct with godly sermons. I say four, that as josephus writeth, sundry of the converted gentiles, as the Eunuch, Cornelius, and others, used to resort to jerusalem with the dispersed jews, where they adored the living God then, as we do now in the church near at home. But they went not to adore stocks and stones as the papists do, nor to put religion in dead creatures. The fourth objection. Going on pilgrimage is a very ancient custom, and that for religion sake: for S. Alexander a most holy martyr, (who lived above a thousand and two hundredth years ago, Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap 9 ) went for that end to Jerusalem, as writeth Eusebius in his history. The answer. I say first, that to go on pilgrimage is an holy and ancient thing indeed; as which both Christ himself, S. Paul, and other holy men have practised, as I have already granted. I say secondly, that though Saint Alexander had a great affection, to see those places where Christ had been present, and wrought his miracles; Pilgrimage is no satisfaction for sin. yet did he neither think his prayers more acceptable in the place then in an other: nor yet thought his journey to be any part of satisfaction for his sins. For he knew right well, joan. 4. v 23. that whosoever will worship God truly, must worship him neither in the mountains, neither in Jerusalem, but in spirit and verity. I say thirdly, that as going on pilgrimage is commendable in some, Bernard. Epist. 5. ad Adam monach. tom. 2. and tolerable in other some; so is it necessary to salvation in none, and very unfit for many. Which thing their own S. Bernard can tell them, whose judgement I am well assured, no papist will refuse. I say four, that popish pilgrimage was not known in Christ's church, for the space of many hundredth years after Christ's sacred incarnation. Neither shall the papists ever be able, to cite any authentical writer for the contrary. The fift objection. Ambr. serm, 91. Aug. de civit. De● lib. 22. c. 8. S. Ambrose telleth great miracles done by the bodies of S. Geruasius and Protasius, while they were touched lying on the coffin. S Austen reciteth like miracles, which were wrought by the relics of S. Steven. S. Chrysostome, Eusebius, Palladius, and divers others, make mention of the like miracles: Yea, the holy scripture itself telleth us, that miracles were done even by touching the relics of Elizaeus. Why therefore may not the people this day resort to such places, 4. Reg. 13. v. 20. where such wonderful miracles have been done? for to get help either of corporal diseases, or spiritual, is the cause of their going thither. And for corporal helps, yourselves this day go to S. Anne of Buxton, and to other like places. The answer. I say first, that the scripture telleth us of the death of Saint Steven, of S. joseph, of Moses, and others, as also of their funerals▪ but not one word of invocation or adoration done unto their relics. I say secondly, that the fathers which tell us of the miracles done by the relics of saints, do neither will us to invocate, nor to adore them. I say thirdly, that miracles, (as S. Austen and S. Gregory do truly write,) are for infidels and not for the faithful. For which respect they were frequent in the primitive Church, & as rare as a white crow, or black swan in latter days. I say four, that God wrought miracles by the relics of his chosen servants, aswell to prove his own divine sovereignty, as their true faith in him. But not that we should adore dumb bones, and dead ashes; or seek to merit by such pilgrimage. I say fifthly, that God confirmed the authority of Elizaeus, by the miracle wrought at the contact of his dead bones; that at the sight thereof, the people might embrace his doctrine, which they contemned in his life time; or at least be thereby confounded, to their greater condemnation. And the same I say of other miracles, done by other relics. I say sixtly, that if the good king Ezechias was highly commended in the holy scripture, 4. Reg. 18. v. 4. because he pulled down the brazen serpent set up by God's appointment, so soon as the people committed idolatry by adoring the same; worthily are those christian princes commended, who prohibit their people from gadding on pilgrimage, in popish idolatricall manner; albeit the original thereof was tolerable, and a long time free from popish godless superstition. I say seventhly, that waters have natural curative qualities in sundry places, as have also certain herbs, stones, and metals. Which effects some ascribe to the water of Burton, though myself have long doubted thereof. How soever that be, to go thither for merit, or in way of such satisfaction for our sins, is flat idolatry. The sixth objection. S. justine, (who lived shortly after the apostles,) telleth of great honour done unto relics; justin. q. 2●▪ as that the bodies of martyrs defended men from the devils, & cured many incurable diseases. The answer. I say first, that justinus lived more than one hundredth and fifty years after Christ, and speaketh nothing at all of adoration. Only this he saith, that great miracles have been done at the Sepulchres of martyrs, which no learned man can or will deny. I say secondly, that the questions from whence your objection came, are counterfeit, and not S. justins' indeed. I prove it, because in the 82. and in the 86. questions, I find mention made of Origen, who was borne long after the death of S. justinus. So likewise in the 127. question, mention is made of the Manichees, who yet followed long after S. justines' death. CHAP. IX. Of Christian righteousness or justification. THe Papists do not only dishonour God, while they seek to establish their own righteousness; but withal they slander good and true christians, avouching them to be contemners of good works: but how blasphemous they be on the one side, and how malicious on the other, shall sufficiently appear, by these brief conclusions. The first conclusion. Man albeit he was so created as he might sin and die, (which thing the event itself declared;) yet was he so adorned and beautified, with supernatural gifts and graces, aswell external as internal, that he might have lived eternally, and have eschewed all sin world without end. This conclusion I thus prove. That man might have lived ever if he had not sinned, is evident by Gods own words, when he saith; Thou shalt eat freely of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, Gen. 2. v. 17. thou shalt die the death. And again in another place, after that he had pronounced the earth cursed for Adam's sin, he uttered these words; For out of it wast thou taken, because thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou return. By which words it appeareth, Gen. 3. v. 19 that if he had not transgressed, he should not have died. August. de civit. dei, lib. 13. cap. 3. S. Austen confirmeth the same in these words; Quapropter fatendum est primos homines ita fuisse institutos, ut si non peccassent, nullum mortis experirentur genus. Wherefore we must confess that our first parents were so created, that unless they had sinned, Bernard serm. ad milit. cap. 11. de caena domini ser. 10. Chrysos. hom. 16. in Gen. they should have felt no kind of death, (neither of soul nor of body.) Death (saith S. Bernard) should never have followed, if sin had not gone before. S. Chrysostome gathereth this conclusion, out of the express text of Genesis. These are his words; Factus enim est mortalis propter praevaricationem, ut ex hoc mandato & his quae secuta sunt, claret. Sequitur, itaque ante praevaricationem immortales erant, alioqui post cibum non hoc sup●licij loco imposuisset. For he became mortal, by reason of transgression, as is evident by this commandment, and that which followeth after. Therefore they were immortal before the transgression; otherwise after the eating thereof, this punishment should not have been imposed upon them. He confirmeth the same in another place, where he writeth thus; Cum Adam peccasset, corpus illius confestim mortale ac passibile factum est, plurimosque recepit naturales defectus. So soon as Adam had sinned, Chryso. hom. 12. ad Rom. his body forthwith became mortal and passable, and received many natural defects. That Adam might have lived without all kind of sin, is likewise manifest by the scripture, Ecclesiast. 7. v. 31 which saith that God made man righteous, or right. His rectitude consisted in this, that his reason was subject to God, his inferior powers to his superior, his body to his soul. There was no rebellion to be found, in any part of the whole man. For otherwise it would follow hereupon, that God were unjust; which yet to avouch, were the greatest blasphemy in the world. The reason is evident, Aug. de lib. arbit. lib. 2. cap. 1. because if it had not been in Adam's power to have avoided all sin▪ God should have charged him with an impossibility, and withal have condemned him for not performing the same. 2. Tim. 4. v. ●. But our Lord is a just judge, as witnesseth his apostle. This whole process▪ August. de civit. libr▪ 13. cap. 13. S. Austen showeth both pithily & briefly, in these right golden words; Posteaquam praecepti facta est transgressio, confestim gratia deserente divina, de corporum suorum nuditate confusi sunt. Senserunt enim nowm mot●m inobedientis carnis suae, tanquam reciprocam poenam inobedientiae suae; & quia superiorem Dominum suo arbitrio deseruerat, inferiorem famulum ad suum arbitrium non tenebat: non omnino habebat subditam carnem sicut semper habere potuisset▪ si Deo subdita ipsa mansisset. After that God's law was transgressed, God's grace did incontinently forsake them, and they beholding their own nakedness were confounded. For they felt a new motion in their disobedient flesh, a punishment correspondent to their disobedient hearts. And because he voluntarily disobeyed his superior Lord, he could not have his inferior servant, subject to his word. Neither was his flesh in subjection, as he might have had it for ever, if it had remained obedient to God's laws. The condition of man's free will, from the creation of the protoplast Adam, until our regeneration; Christ himself seemeth to set down most lively, Luc. 10. v. 30. in that parable which he propounded to the lawyer. A certain man (saith Christ) went down from Jerusalem to jericho, and fell among thieves, who rob him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Which is to say allegorically (as the fathers writ,) that mankind went out from the paradise of peace, to the mutability of misery, & fell among the powers of darkness, who rob him of his supernatural gifts of innocency and immortality, wounded him in his natural gifts, of will and reason, and departed leaving him half dead; that is, dead in respect of God's favour, though living to the eyes of the world. Semiviws (inquit Augustinus) habet vitalem motum, id est, liberum arbitrium vulneratum, Aug. ap. Ludolp. quod ad aeternam quam perdiderat vitam non sufficiebat. Et ideo iacebat, quia vires ei propriae ad surgendum non sufficiebant, ut ad sanandum medicum i deum requireret. In that he was half alive, (saith S. Austen) he had vital motion; that is, free will so wounded, as it could not return to eternal life, which it had lost. And therefore did he lie; because he wanted proper strength to seek God, the physician that could cure his malady. Ludolphus alluding to man's creation, Ludolph. de vita Christi. setteth down this matter very finely in these words; Fecerat Deus hominem ad imaginem suam secundum rationem, ad similitudinem secundum dilectionem, ut per utrumque Deo adhaereret, & in haerendo beatus esset. Sed diabolus humanae beatitudini invidens, contra duo bona praedicta duo homini in originali intulit praecipua mala. In eo namque quod factus erat ad imaginem Dei secundum rationem, vulneravit eum per ignorantiam boni; in eo verò quod factus est ad similitudinem Dei secundum dilectionem, vulneravit eum per concupiscentiam mali. God made man after his own image according to reason, after his own similitude according to love; that by them both he might adhere to God, and by adhering to him attain eternal beatitude. But the devil envying man's felicity, The double evil of ignorance an● concupiscence. bestowed on him in steed of these two blessings, the double mischief of original sin. For in that man was made after God's image in reason, he wounded him with the ignorance of good▪ and in that he was made after his similitude in love, he wounded him with the concupiscence of evil. All this is lively comprehended in the essence, nature and definition of free will, which after Saint Austen is this, Aug. apud Lu●●● Liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis & voluntatis, qua bonum eligitur gratia assistente; malum eâ desistente: Free will is the faculty of reason and will, by which good is chosen, when grace is present; and evil, when grace is wanting. 2. Cor. 3.5. For this cause saith the apostle, that we are not able to think any good thought of ourselves, as of ourselves; 1. Cor. 12. ●. neither yet to say that jesus is the Lord, but in the holy ghost. Philip. 2.13. For it is God (saith he) that worketh in us, both to do well, and to will well. This verity was defined above a thousand and one hundred years ago, by the ancient, holy, and learned council of Aransica, in these words, Haeretico fallitur spiritu non intelligens vocem Dei, Con● Ara●. can. 7. dicentis in evangelio; Sine me nihil potestis facere; whosoever (saith the holy synod) thinketh he can do any act which pleaseth god, or pertaineth to eternal life▪ by force of his free will, that man is deceived with an heretical spirit, not understanding the voice of god when he saith in his gospel, joan. 155. Without me ye can do nothing (that is good.) Out of this discourse, two things are clear & evident; the one, that our first parent Adam before his fall, might by force of his free-will helped with supernatural grace, make free election aswell of good as of evil, & withal put that his free choice in execution: tother, that the posterity of Adam hath free will to nothing save to sin only, until the time of regeneration. The first objection. There is no consultation, as saith the Philosopher, Ethi●. 3. cap. 5. but of things which are in our own power; and yet doth every one use consultations, in those things which he goeth about. Again, there must be some immediate cause of every act, and that can not be God, because God is not the cause of any evil. Neither can the cause thereof be ascribed either to nature, or to destiny, or to fortune, because human actions are variable, and with the intention of the doer. Therefore the best course that can be taken with him that denieth man's free-will after the fall of Adam, is this; to wit, to beat him like a stockfish, until he confess those that beat him to have free will, either still to beat him, or to cease from beating. For if one should deny the fire to be hot, the best reason against him, were to cast him into an hot oven or burning furnace. ●eg●e●. de vo●●●●tate human●, cap. 3. ●. 1. 〈◊〉 ●. Thus reasoneth Veguerius. The answer. I say first, that I willingly grant, both Papists and other reasonable creatures to have free will, in moral or civil acts; neither do I think him unworthy of strokes, that will obstinately deny the same. I say secondly, that man's will is so brought into bondage and thraldom of sin by the fall of Adam, as man before his regeneration, can neither do nor once will any one act, which is acceptable in God's fight. Note well the second objection, with the answer to the same. The second objection. If free will after the fall of Adam, can not make election as well of good as of evil, then doth free will utterly lose it own nature: for where sin must needs be chosen of necessity, there can be no true liberty. The answer. I answer, that there be three kinds of liberty, as S. Bernard proveth learnedly, in a peculiar treatise of free will; the first is called, Bernard. de 〈◊〉 lib. 〈◊〉. Libertas à coactione, vi, vel necessitate; Liberty from coaction, violence, or necessity; for all these three are one & the same with him, as every one that readeth him seriously will perceive. The second is called, Libertas à peccato; liberty from sin. The third is called, Libertas à miseria; liberty from misery. The two latter liberties, from sin & misery, can not be had in this life: the first was from the creation, is at this present, and shallbe in all Adam's posterity world without end. For such is the essence, nature, & formal reason of will, that it cannot be coacted, or enforced. The reason is evident, The formality of free-will. because it implieth contradiction, that Will do any thing, which it is coacted, or enforced to do. For when we do any thing violently, we do it against our will, & not with our wil If this were not so, the angels in heaven should have no free will, contrary to the uniform consent of all learned men. For they have no more freedom in heaven to sin, than the unregenerate have freedom on earth to do well. Further than this, it would follow hereupon, that the angels in heaven should not be happy. For what happiness can it be to will & do by coaction, that which they will & do? and yet it is certain, that they have freedom only to do well: if any will hold the contrary, he must likewise hold that angels in heaven may sin; and consequently, that they may be damned into hell fire. The third objection. If there be no free-will to do good before regeneration, then must all the moral good deeds of infidels be sin; which to hold is most absurd. For, to serve our sovereign, to die in the defence of our country, to honour our parents, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and such like, which the infidels do, cannot but be good acts. The answer. I answer, that albeit these & like moral deeds be indifferent in their own nature, glorious in the eyes of the world, and right profitable to others; yet are they mere sins in the doers, & displeasant in God's sight. And I prove it, Heb. 11. ● Rom. 1●. 2. because that without faith God cannot be pleased, as the apostle witnesseth. Again, the same apostle saith, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and so every act of the infidel must needs be sin, because it is not of faith. Neither will it help to say, that if the said acts of infidels be not good, yet are they not evil. For as their great popish canonist Navarre, & their Romish cardinal Caietan avouch; Na●arr. i● 〈◊〉 Caietan ib●● every act in individuo, must perforce be good or evil: & the reason thereof is evident. For every act must either be referred to some end, or to no end at all: if to no end, than it is an idle act, and we must render an account for the same: if it be referred to any other end then to God, it is flat sin; because as the apostle saith, 1. Cor. 10. ●●. Colo●. 3. whatsoever we do, we ought to do it for God's glory. S. Austen in his forth book against julianus the Pelagian handleth this question so learnedly, and in so ample and perspicuous manner, as none that shall read the book with judgement, can stand any longer in doubt thereof. I will cite one only period, for brevity sake. Thus doth he write; Si gentilis, inquis, August. contr. Iu●ian. lib. 4. cap. 3. ●om. 7. p. 705. nudum operuerit, numquid, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est? prorsus in quantum non est ex fide, peccatum est; non quòd per se ipsum factum quod est nudum operire, peccatum est, sed de tali opere non in domino gloriari, solus impius negat esse peccatum. If an infidel, sayst thou, shall cloth the naked, is such an act sin, because it is not of faith? it is doubtless sin, in that it is not of faith; not for that the work itself is sin of it own nature, (for to cloth the naked of it own self is not sin,) but to cloth the naked for any other end then for God's glory, is sin indeed. And it is so manifest a sin, as none but the wicked can deny it to be sin. Thus did Saint Austen answer the Pelagians then, and thus do I answer the papists now, telling them that they are become Semipelagians herein. The reply. If this be so indeed, then may an infidel aswell rebel against his prince, as truly serve his prince, aswell betray his country, as die in defence thereof, as well rob his neighbour, as relieve him, and so in the rest. The answer. I answer, that it is far otherwise, because although they sin in so doing for want of faith in Christ jesus, yet shall their punishment be so much more tolerable, by how much their sins are the less. Neither is this answer invented of mine own brain, but long sithence framed by S. Augustine, whose words are these; August. contr. 〈…〉. 4. cap. 〈…〉 poop 〈◊〉 Sed ad hoc eos in die judicij cogitationes suae, defendant, ut tolerabilius puniantur; quia naturaliter qua legis sunt utcunque fecerunt, scriptum habentes in cordibus opus legis hactenus, ut alijs non facerent quod perpeti nollent. Hoc tamen peccantes, quòd homines sine fide non ad eum finem ista opera retulerunt, ad quem referre debuerunt. Minus enim Fabritius quam Catilina punietur; non quia iste bonus, sed quia ille magis malus; & minus impius quam Catilina Fabritius, non veras virtutes habendo, sed à veris virtutibus non plurimùm deviando. But in this their cogitations shall defend them in the day of judgement, that their punishment may be more tolerable, because they have done naturally in some sort, those things that pertained to the law; All in hell have not the same torments. having the work of the law so deeply written in their hearts, that they did so to others, as they wished to be done unto themselves. Yet they committed this sin, that they being men without faith, did not refer these works to that end, to which they should have done. For Fabritius shall be more gently punished then Catiline; not because he is good, but for that he is not so bad as Catiline; neither because he hath true virtues, but for that he is not so far from true virtues as Catiline. The fourth objection. It is clear by the testimony of Moses, that Cain had free will aswell to good as to evil; Genes. 4.7. and that both after the fall of Adam, and before his regeneration: for there is it expressly said, that he shall rule over his sin. Therefore though free-will were wounded by the fall of Adam, yet did it abide still in his posterity. The answer. I say first, that the text in the original speaketh of that rule, which Cain had over his brother, not over sin. For these are the words in the Hebrew text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and thou shalt bear rule over him, (not over sin:) for in the Hebrew the word sin (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is the feminine gender, and the pronouns which should be answerable thereunto, are the masculine, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I say secondly, that their famous linguist Arias Montpunc; translateth it, (in eum, not in illud; over him, not over it) because the variety of the gender in the Hebrew would not bear it. I say thirdly, that S. Chrysostome interpreteth this portion of scripture, not of free-will, but of that dominion which Cain being the elder brother and first begotten, had over his younger brother Abel in respect of his birthright: these are his words; Nam hoc de fratris subiectione accipiendum est. Infra; Mihi enim videtur de fratre esse dictum. Chrysost. in 4. cap. Goe hom. 1 For this must be understood of the subjection of his brother: for I judge it to be spoken of his brother. I say four, that howsoever this place of scripture be understood, it will no way make for the papists. For first, the wicked have free-will from coaction. Secondly, they have free-will in moral and civil acts. Thirdly, among many sins, they may make free choice of one; only this freedom wanteth, that they can never make election of good, until they be regenerate by God's holy spirit. The fift objection. If we have not free-will to do well, then do we sin of necessity; and consequently God is unjust, who punisheth us for that which we cannot avoid. The answer. I say first, that God is not unjust, though he punish us for that which we cannot avoid: for infants cannot avoid original sin; and yet may they justly be damned for the same. No Papist can or will this deny. I say secondly with saint Austen, that every sin (which is not poena peccati) is so voluntary, as if it be not voluntary, it is no sin at all. I say thirdly, that it is our own fault and not Gods, that we can do no good, but sin. And because the necessity of sinning c●me by ourselves, who all sinned voluntarily in our first parent Adam, we are justly punished in him, and for his disobedience: for he received grace upon this condition, that if he kept it and sinned not, we should all be partakers thereof; but if he lost it by disobedience, all his posterity should lose it with him, and be justly punished for the same. The reply. If this be so, our will may rather be called bond-will then free-will; because all the freedom we have, is to go to the devil. The answer. I say first, that our will before our regeneration, may rightly be termed the will of bondage, and not the will of freedom. I say secondly, that it is still free in sundry respects, & that I will not contend for the name, so the truth be granted in the thing. The second conclusion. There is nothing in man by which he may be justified, or which can any way further his justification. The ancient council of Aransica proveth this conclusion effectually. These are the words; Conc. 〈…〉 19 Natura humana, etiamsi in illa integritate in qua est condita permaneret, nullo modo seipsam creatore suo non adiwante seruaret. unde, cùm sine gratia Dei salutem non possit custod●re quam accepit, quomodo sine Dei gratia poterit reparare quod perdidit? Man, although he had continued in that integrity in which he was created, yet could he not have attained salvation, without the help of his creator. Wherefore since man without grace, could not retain that felicity which he had once received; how can he without grace, repair that which he hath lost? In these words we see clearly, that this holy council condemns moral preparatives, & merits de congruo, to which the papists trust so much. The whole scope of the council is nothing else, but only and solely to persuade man, that he cannot so much as to think one good thought, much less do any good act, which may any way further his justification. Can. 7. ubi sup. And in the 7. canon, it doth precisely condemn that active concurrence of free-will, which our papists in the late council of Trent, require of necessity to man's justification. S. Austen as in all other things, so in this matter useth a large & learned discourse in his epistle against Vitalis: Aug. epist. 1ST. in which among many other excellent sentences, I find these finely contrived words; Quapropter ut in Deum credamus, & piè vivamꝰ, non volentis neque currentis▪ sed miserentis est Dei; non quia velle non debemus & currere, sed quia ipse in nobis & velle operatur & currere unde & ipse D. jesus credentes à non credentibus i ab irae vasis vasa misericordiae discernens, nemo inquit, venit ad me, nisi ei datum fuerit à patre meo. Wherefore that we believe in him and live godly, it is neither in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in god that showeth mercy; not because we are not bound to will & run, but because he worketh in us both to will & to run. Whereupon our Lord jesus severing believers from infidels, that is, the vessels of mercy from the vessels of wrath, saith that none can come to him, Luc. 17.10. but he to whom it is given of his father. Christ himself tells us, that we are unprofitable servants, even when we have done the best we can. And yet doubtless we should be right profitable, if we could yield any help at all to our justification. And holy Moses saith, Gen. 6. ●. that the imaginations of our hearts are evil continually: But sin and corruption can be no mean to work man's justification. Wisely therefore saith the Apostle, that it is God which worketh in us, both the will and the deed, ●●ilip. 2.13. even of his good pleasure (not for any merit or disposition which he findeth in ourselves.) Again in another place; Cor. 3.5. not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Again; the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God, Cor. 2.14. for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ●om. 8.7. Again; the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. And Christ himself saith; No man can come to me, except my father draw him. Again in an other place; Without me can ye do nothing. ●an. 6.44. By which testimonies it is clear, ●an. 15.5. that man before he be regenerate, hath not power, force, efficacy, or faculty to do good, or once to consent to any spiritual act. The third conclusion. The meritorious cause as well of salvation as of justification, is Christ jesus and none else. This conclusion willbe manifest, if we seriously revolve in our minds the wonderful mystery of man's redemption. In which kind of holy meditation, whosoever shall devoutly exercise himself; that man doubtless will espy with facility, these four most excellent attributes of our most sweet redeemer; to wit, his justice, his mercy, his wisdom, his love. For first, as the worthiness of the person increaseth, so doth also the offence against the said person committed. Whereupon it cometh, that a reproachful word spoken against a mean private person, is in respect a small offence; when it is spoken against a magistrate, The attribute of God's justice. it is greater; when against our sovereign, the greatest of all: and consequently, when we offend God, whose person is of infinite worthienes, our offence must needs be infinite, howsoever our late papists flatter themselves in their venials; and so man uncapable of every infinite action, cannot possibly yield any condign compensation: and yet god of his justice cannot pardon sin, without condign compensation for the same. Behold here God's justice. Secondly, in rigour of justice the party that offendeth, is bound to make satisfaction for the fault, The attribute of God's mercy. neither is the party offended bound to accept the satisfaction of any other: and conseqently God was not bound to accept his sons satisfaction for our sins, though it were most sufficient, and of infinite dignity. In this God's mercy showed itself. Thirdly, on the one side pure God could not satisfy, The attribute of God's wisdom. though he were of infinite dignity, because pure God is impassable; on the other side, pure man was not able, because every his action was insufficient, as of which no one amongst all could be infinite; God therefore appointed his only son to be incarnate, to join humanity with divinity in hypostatical union, and so to make atonement for our sins. For as man he was passable, and as God he was able to give infinite dignity to his passion. Wherein we may behold Gods divine wisdom. Fourthly, God seeing man in the chains, and bondage, The attribute of God's love. and thraldom of the devil through sin, and having tender compassion of him in such his distress, sent his own dear son to set him at liberty again; and this he did of mere love, without all merits and deserts of man. joan. 3.16. For (as Christ himself saith) God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have life everlasting. All (saith the apostle) have sinned, Rom 3.23, 24. and are deprived of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ jesus. Again in another place, Rom. 5.18, 19 As by the offence of one, the fault came on all men to condemnation, so by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded toward all men to the justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous. This is the stone (saith Saint Peter) which the builders refused, Act. 4.11. which is become the head of the corner; neither is there salvation in any other: for among men there is given none other name under heaven, whereby we must be saved. We have an advocate with the father (saith Saint john) even jesus Christ the just, 1. Io. 2.1, 2. and he is the reconciliation for our sins. Christ redeemed us (saith Saint Paul,) from the curse of the law, Gal. 3.13. while he was made a curse for us. Again in another place, In whom we have redemption through his blood, that is, Col. 1.14. the forgiveness of our sins. Again, Who did by himself purge our sins, Heb. 1.2, 3. and sitteth on the right hand of majesty on high. Again, For he hath made him to be sin for us, that knew no sin, 2. Cor. 5.21 that we should be made the righteousness of God in him. Apoc. 7.14. These (saith S. john) are they which came from great tribulation, & washed their stoales, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Again in another place; The blood of jesus Christ doth purge us from all sin. ●. Io. 1.8. I, even I am he (saith God by his Prophet) that blotteth out thine infirmities (not for thy deserts, ●sa. 43.55. ●sa. 53.5. but) for mine own sake. Again in another place; He was wounded for our iniquities, he was torn in pieces for our offences. S. Austen shall conclude this point, who writeth in this manner. Dominus noster jesus Christus mori venit, August. serm. 141 de temp. tom. 10. peccare non venit, communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam, & culpam soluit & poenam. Our Lord came to die, he came not to sin; communicating pain with us without sin, he loosed both sin, and the pain of sin. The fourth conclusion. The mercy of God is the efficient cause of man's justification, and God's glory the final cause of the same. Of the former speaketh S. Paul when he saith; 〈◊〉 3.5. Not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy hath he saved us, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy ghost. Again in another place, the same Apostle saith; Rom. 2.23, 24. that all have sinned, & are freely justified by his grace. Again he saith; Which believe in him that raised up jesus our Lord from the dead. Rom. 4.24. joan. 3.16. And S. john saith, that God of his mere mercy and love gave his only son for the redemption of the world. Eph. 1. ●, ●. Cor. 10.31. Of the latter speaketh the apostle when he saith, that God hath made us accepted in his beloved, to the praise of his glory. Again in another place; whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God; As if he had said, ye must refer all your thoughts, words, and works, to God's glory, because ye were created to that end. The prophet also saith; Esa. 43.25. Esa. 48.11. I, even I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake, & will not remember thy sins. Again in an other place; Surely I will not give my glory to any other. But doubtless if God should justify man for any other end then for his own glory, it would follow thereupon that his glory were given to another. Prou. 16. ●. Yet as Solomon saith, God hath made all things for his own sake, yea even the wicked for the day of evil. The formal cause of man's justification, is not man's own inherent justice, but the justice & righteousness of Christ jesus. This conclusion containeth the main point of a mighty controversy between the papists & us: for which respect, I wish the reader to mark attentively my discourse. The late council holden at Trent, setteth down the opinion of the papists, in these words; Demun unica formalis causa est iustiti● dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit. To conclude, Conc. Trid. se●●. 6. can. 7. the only formal cause is the justice of God, not that with which himself is just, but with which he maketh us just. This decree is quite contrary to my conclusion, & they learned it of Aquinas their angelical doctor, whose direction they follow in all theological questions. Thus doth Aquinas write; Aquinas 12. q. 111. ar. 1. ad primum. Gratia non dicitur facere gratum effectiuè, sed formaliter; quia per hanc homo iustificatur, & dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus secundum illud Colos. 1. vers. 12. dignos nos fecit in partem sortis fanctorum in lumine. Grace doth not make one acceptable effectively, but formally, because man is justified by grace, and is made worthy to be accepted of god, according to that which the apostle saith, He hath made us worthy of the fellowship of saints in light. Thus writeth Aquinas; whose opinion being once confuted, all other papists shallbe confuted in him. I therefore say first, that Aquinas was deceived with the popish vulgar latin translation called vulgata editio, which for all that, Vulgata editio. the late disholy synod of Trent hath wonderfully magnified, & extolled above the starry skies. For where their vulgata editio hath (worthy) there the greek and original hath (meet or fit) these are the very words of the original; Coloss. 1.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Giving thanks to god even the father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. I say secondly, that since his foundation was a false translation, his conclusion inferred thereupon, must of necessity be false also. And therefore we may not read as Aquinas did, (who hath made us worthy, Their own linguist is against them. but) who hath made us meet or fit for the fellowship of Saints;) and so their own linquist Arias Montanus doth interpret it, to their confusion. And because the very life of this question standeth wholly in this, if there be any form or quality inherent in man, by which he is worthy of glory and eternal life; I will prove pithily and succinctly, that man neither hath in him, nor can have any such quality at all; but that the formal cause of man's justification is in Christ jesus, not in himself. The first argument. The 1. argument. No infinite accident can be in any finite subject; but the grace of justification is infinite, Ergo it cannot be in man a finite subject. The argument is in form, the proposition is granted of all, as well Philosophers as Divines; and the assumption is manifest, because the transgression was infinite, as is proved in the third conclusion. The second argument. The 2. argument. Being justified freely by his grace (saith the Apostle;) through redemption which is in Christ jesus. Where we must observe first, Rom. 3. v. 24. that when the apostle saith (freely,) he doth exclude all works, and all qualities in man. We must observe secondly, that when he saith (by his grace,) he giveth us to understand, that the grace of justification is in Christ, and not in ourselves. For otherwise he would have termed it our grace, and not his grace; because that which is inherent in ourselves, is properly ours. We must observe thirdly, that when he concludeth the period thus; (which is in Christ jesus,) the word (which) hath no less relation to grace then to redemption, and so th'one must be in Christ aswell as the other. The 3. argument. The 3. argument. Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord jesus Christ, Rom. 5. v. 1. through whom we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand. In which words of the Apostle, we are taught three things. First, that our justification is by faith. Secondly, that our justification giveth us peace with God. Thirdly, that by faith we have access to the grace of justification; and consequently, that this grace of justification is not in ourselves. For unproperly are we said to have access, to a thing inherent in ourselves. The 4. argument. Not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, The 4. argument Phil. 3. v. 9 even the righteousness which is of God through faith. In which words the Apostle teacheth us two things; First, that the formal cause of our justification is not our own, in these words, (not having mine own righteousness;) for if our justice or righteousness were inherent in ourselves, it should be our own. Secondly, that our justice is through faith, and in faith; and consequently, that the formal justice of the papists, is not that true christian justice whereof Saint Paul speaketh: for they say, that charity which is the chiefest part of their formal inherent justice, is neither through faith, nor in faith, but above faith, and the form of faith. The fift argument. He that knew no sin, suffered the pain due for sin for our sakes, that we might be made the justice of God in him. The 5 argument. In which words the apostle teacheth us two things; First, 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. that Christ died for our justification. Secondly, that this justification is the application of the justice of God in Christ. But doubtless the justice of God, cannot be our inherent justice. For first, God's justice is infinite, but ours is finite. Secondly, God's justice is perfit, but ours is unperfit. Thirdly, God's justice is absolute, but ours is relative. The 6. argument. For they being ignorant of the righteousness of God, The 6. argument. and going about to stablish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. Rom. 10. v. 3.4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, unto every one that believeth. In these words of the apostle, we are taught two things; First, that to ascribe any righteousness to ourselves, is flatly to fall from the justice of God. Which certes could not be so, if that justice by which we are justified, were inherent in ourselves. Again, that Christ's righteousness is applied to every one by faith. Which thing shallbe yet more plain, by the next conclusion. The 5. conclusion. Man is justified by sole and only faith; that is to say, faith only is the instrument, by which man apply to himself, the righteousness of God in Christ jesus. The true meaning of this sentence, sole faith doth justify. This conclusion containeth three things; First, that God's righteousness is that justice which we present for our justification. Secondly, that it is ours for the merits of Christ jesus. Thirdly, that we apprehend and take hold upon it, by faith only; and so we have the explication, how sole faith doth justify. Which because the papists so bitterly impugn, I will prove it both by the scriptures and the fathers. If Abraham (saith S. Paul) were justified by works, ●om. 4. v. ●. ●. he hath wherein to rejoice, but not with God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Thus saith the Apostle. Out of which words I note first, that works did not justify Abraham before God. I note secondly, that that justice by which man standeth clear before God, is only imputative, and not really inherent in himself. Which imputative justice, the Apostle doth often inculcate in this chapter, the fourth to the Romans'. I note thirdly, that faith is counted our righteousness. Which the apostle expresseth more lively in the fift verse; But to him that worketh not (saith he) but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, 〈◊〉. 4. v. 3. his faith is counted for righteousness. Lo, not the worker, but the believer is justified, and that by imputation. The same apostle after a long discourse, to prove that a man is justified by faith only, Rom. 3. v. 28. in another place addeth these words; We therefore think that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. Lo, the holy apostle, after a long disputation, which is implied in the word (therefore,) concludeth, that we are justified by faith without works. As if he had said; sole faith, only faith, or faith without works doth justify, albeit the papists cannot, or will not it see. This whole process is confirmed, by the uniform testimonies of the ancient fathers, who all ascribe our justification to sole faith. S. Ambrose hath these words, justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicena reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. Ambros. in 3. cap. ad Rom. paulo ante finem. cap. 4. cap. 9 ad Rom, ● They are justified freely, because they neither doing any work, nor making any compensation, are justified by sole faith through the grace of God. The like sayings he hath in sundry other places. S. Chrysostome hath these words; unum hoc tantummodo donum Deo obtulimus, Chrysost. hom. 1● ad Rom. 〈◊〉 med. quod futura nobis promittenti credimus, atque hac solum via seruati sumus. This one only gift do we present to God, that we believe him when he promiseth us future gifts, and by this only way are we saved. Again in another place he writeth thus; Aut fidem dicit, decretum illam vocans. Ex sola quip fide nos saluavit. Chrysost. hom. 5. ad Ephes, Or he meaneth faith, calling it the decree. For by only faith hath he saved us. S. Hilary hath these words; Movet scribas remissum ab homine peccatum; Hilarius in Ma●●▪ Can. 8. hominem enim tantum in jesu Christo contuebantur, & remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poterat. Fides enim sola justificat. It vexeth the Scribes, that man forgiveth sins, for they only considered Christ jesus to be man, and that he forgave that which the law could not do. For sole faith doth justify. S. Basill hath these words; Basiliu● de hu●● tom. 1. Nam ea demum perfecta & omnimodae gloriatio est in Deo, quando neque propter suam ipsius quis extollitur justitiam, sed agnoscit se quidem verae destitui justitia, verùm sola in Christum fide justificatum esse. For that is the perfit joy & all manner of comfort we have in God, when no man is puffed up by reason of his own righteousness, but acknowledgeth himself to be destitute of true justice in deed, and seeketh to be justified by sole faith in Christ. Origen writeth in this manner; Dicit sufficere solius fidei justificationem, ita ut credens quis tantummodo iustificetur, Orig. ad Rom. cap. 3. non proc. a fine. etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum. He saith, that the justification of sole faith is sufficient, so as a man may be justified, if he only believe, although he do no works at all. And the same Origen proveth in the same place, by a long and learned discourse; that we are justified by sole faith, and not by works. S. Austen is plain in this point, who writeth in this manner, Opus autem fidei ipsa dilectio est: And charity itself is the work of faith. What plainer testimony can be had? what papist can invent any solution for the same? who but mad men will not yield thereunto? August. in Epist. joann. tract. 10. in initio. The 6. conclusion. The good works of the regenerate, do neither merit grace in this life, nor glory in the world to come. This conclusion is against a grand and mighty article in popish doctrine, but I will prove it by strong and irrefragable reasons. S. Paul writeth to the Romans', in these words; the afflictions of this present time are not worthy of the glory, The first reason. Rom. 8.18. which shallbe showed unto us. The works of the regenerate (saith S. Paul, as ye see) are not worthy of heaven. They cannot therefore (say I) merit heaven, because (as the papists themselves do grant) to merit heaven, and to be worthy of heaven, is all one; the difference is only in words, not in sense. The papists perceiving the force of this argument, use this silly evasion: A frivolous distinction of the Papists. although (say they) the actions of man be not worthy of heaven, neither merit grace, as they proceed from man's free-will; yet are they worthy of heaven and meritorious, as they proceed from the holy ghost. But this is a frivolous, childish, and miserable shift, only invented by the suggestion of Satan, to seduce simple souls. For first, our works are only ours, as they proceed of, and from ourselves. Secondly, when the holy ghost and man work both one and the same work, that which the holy Ghost doth, can no more be deemed man's act, then that which man doth, can be deemed God's act; & yet so it is, that that which man doth cannot be deemed Gods; Ergo, neither that which God doth, can be deemed man's. The assumption, wherein resteth the difficulty if there be any at all, is manifest by man's sinful actions. For the most cruel act that can be imagined, is not done without the concourse of the holy ghost, as all learned papists do, and must confess. Nevertheless man's sinful acts are so far from being God's acts, as the deformities and irregularities thereof be only man's, and never God; and yet doth God concur more effectually to those wicked acts, in that he is the principal agent of the real and positive entities thereof, then man doth or can concur to any act of Gods, that is, to any good act himself doth. Note well, for God is the creator of the devil, as he is an angel, but not as he is such an angel: and even so is God the author of man's acts, as they be acts, but not as such acts. This place of the Apostle is handled more at large, in my book of Motives. I myself (saith the Apostle) in my mind serve the law of god, The second reso● Rom. 7.25. but in my flesh the law of sin. Out of which words I note first, that Saint Paul speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter, because he nameth himself, who was Gods chosen and elect vessel. For which respect and the like expressed in this seventh chapter to the Romans', S. Austen changed his opinion, Aug. li. 1. retract. cap. 22. p. 23. and granted the apostle to speak here of the regenerate. I note secondly, that the elect & regenerate do serve the law of sin. I note thirdly, that the best livers are so far from meriting grace of glory; that they deserve (in rigour of justice) eternal death, because death is the reward of sin. Which for that Saint Augustine could not well digest at the first, Rom. 6. v. 23. he thought that S. Paul's words in this chapter, were to be understood of the reprobate, and not of the elect and godly sort; but after he had pondered the text deeply, he altered his opinion. This is confirmed in these words of the self same chapter, Rom. 7.23. The first conf●●●mation. but I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, leading me captive unto the law of sin, which is in my members. By these words of Paul it is evident, that albeit he were the child of God, yet could he not merit any thing in God's sight, but rather in rigour of justice provoke his heavy displeasure against him. For where or what could be his merit, who was prisoner to the law of sin? Again it is confirmed in these words; Rom. 7.19. The second confirmation. Rom. 6.23. For I do not the good thing which I would, but the evil which I would not, that do I. Thus says saint Paul, and doubtless since he did the evil which he would not, he sinned though he were regenerate; and because he sinned he was worthy of condemnation, for that death is the stipend of sin. Again it is confirmed in these words; For the law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin. Rom. 7.14. The third confirmation. Thus saith S. Paul of himself, and yet is it true, that one under sin can merit nothing, save hell fire and eternal pain. Again it is confirmed in these words; Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me. Rom. 7. ●0. Thus saith Saint Paul of himself, and yet because sin abode in him, and did that that was offensive in gods sight, he could neither merit grace nor eternal life, as is already proved. The fourth confirmation. Further than this, no man liveth without sin, (as the papists grant) and yet is every sin mortal, as I have proved elsewhere. The first objection. Saint Paul speaketh of original concupiscence, which remaineth even in the regenerate after baptism, but is no sin at all. For he only calleth it sin, because it provoketh a man to sin, as a man's writing is called his hand, for that it is written with his hand: which exposition S. Austen approveth in sundry places of his works. The answer. I say first, that to say against the flat text of scripture without scripture, is no reason at all. I say secondly, that S. Paul doth not only call concupiscence sin, but he proveth it by many reasons. For first, it striveth against the law of the mind. Again, it leadeth one captive into the law of sin: thirdly, it doth that which is not good, but evil. I say thirdly, that Saint Austen doth undoubtedly judge it to be sin; neither shall any papist in the world, ever be able to prove the contrary, howsoever they bore the world in hand. I will only allege a few places out of S. Austen, & make effectual application of the same; to which when any either Rhemist or Romist shall answer sufficiently, I promise to become his bondman. The first place of Austen. Concupiscentia carnis adversus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus, Aug. contr. Iuli●n. lib. 5. cap. 3. tom. 7. & peccatum est▪ quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis; & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis inobedientis; & causa peccata est, defectione consentientis, vel contagione nascentis. The concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit striveth, is sin, because it is disobedient against the dominion of the mind; and it is the punishment of sin, because it is inflicted for the deserts of disobedient (Adam;) and it is the cause of sin either by the default of him that consenteth, or by the contagion of the child that is borne. Thus saith S. Austen. In which words he expresseth three things precisely; first, that concupiscence in the regenerate is the pain or punishment of sin; secondly, that it is the cause of sin; thirdly, that it is sin itself: which three he doth not only distinguish, but withal he yieldeth several reasons for the same. And therefore most impudent are the papists, who avouch with open mouths that saint Austen only calleth it sin, because it is the cause of sin. The second place of Saint Austen Neque enim nulla est iniquitas, Aug. con●. julian. lib. 6. ca 8. tom. 7 cum in uno homine vel superiora inferioribus tur piter serviunt; vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur, etiamsi vincere non sinantur. For it is some iniquity, when in one man either the superior parts shamefully serve the inferior; or the inferior parts stubbornly strive against the superior, although they be not suffered to prevail. Thus saith S. Austen: whose words are so plain, as the papists can not possibly invent any evasion at all. For he saith in express terms, that the rebellion, which is between the flesh and the spirit is sin, even when it is resisted and cannot prevail: at which time and in which respect, the papists will have it to be merit and no sin at all. The third place of Saint Austen. Virtus est charitas, qua id quod diligendum est diligitur; August. epist. 29. ad Hier. tom. 2. haec in alijs maior, in alijs minor, in alijs nulla est, plenissima vero quae iam non possit augeri, quamdiu hic homo vivit, est in nemine; quamdiu autem augeri potest, profecto illud quod minus est quam debet, ex vitio est. Ex quo vitio non est justus in terra qui faciat bonum, & non peccet. 3. Reg. 8. Psalm. 142. 1. joan. 1. Matth. 6, Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens. Propter quod vitium▪ si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, & veretas in nobis non est. Propter quodetiam quantumlibet profecerimus, necessarium est nobis dicere; dimit nobis debita nostra, cum iam omnia in baptismo dicta, facta, cogitata, dimissa sint. Charity is a virtue, with which we love that that aught to be loved. This in some is more, in other less, in others none at all; but the perfect charity which can not be increased while a man here liveth, is found in none; so long as it can be increased, that doubtless which is less than it should be, proceedeth of sin, by reason of which sin, there is not one just upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not; by reason of which vice, none living can be justified in God's sight; by reason of which vice, if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; Concupiscence is sin in the regenerate. by reason of which sin, how much soever we profit, yet must we say of necessity, Forgive us our trespasses, even after that all our thoughts, words and works, are forgiven in baptism. Thus saith saint Austen. Out of whose most golden words, I note sundry things, to the everlasting confusion of all impenitent papists. For first, Saint Austen saith, that no man can have charity in that perfit degree, which the law requireth. Secondly, that the want thereof proceedeth of this concupiscence. Thirdly, that by reason of this concupiscence, every man is a sinner. Fourthly, that by reason thereof, none living can be justified in God's sight. Fiftly that by reason thereof, whosoever saith he hath no sin, is a flat liar. Sixtly, that how virtuously soever we live, yet must we desire God to forgive us our sins, by reason of this concupiscence. seven, that we must thus pray, even after all sins be forgiven us in our baptism. The fourth place of Saint Austen. August. de nupt. & concupisc. lib. 1 cap. 25. tom. 7. Si in parent baptizato potest & esse, & peccatum non esse, cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est? Adhaec respondetur, dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur. If it be demanded, how concupiscence can be without sin in the parent that is baptized, and yet be sin in the child; I answer that concupiscence is forgiven in baptism, yet not so that it remaineth not still, but that it be not imputed for sin. Thus saith Saint Austen, in which words he showeth plainly, that concupiscence remaineth as well in the baptized parent, as in the unbaptised child; yet with this difference, that it is sin in the parent, though not for sin imputed; but in the child it is both sin, and so reputed. The fift place of Saint Austen. August. de nupt. 〈◊〉 concupisc. lib. 1 cap. 29. tom 7. Ideo apostolus non ait facere bonum sibi non adiacere sed perficere. Multum●n, boni facit, qui facit quod scriptum est, postconcupiscentias tuas non eas; sed non perficit, quia non implet quod scriptum est, non concupisces. The Apostle therefore saith not, that he hath not power to do good, but that he can not perfect that which is good. For he doth great good, Ecclesiast. cap. 18 30. Exod. 20.17. who doth that which is written, follow not thy lusts; but he doth not perfect his well doing, because he fulfilleth not that which is written, Thou shalt not lust. Thus saith S. Austen. Out of whose words I note first, that S. Austen speaketh these words of the regenerate, for they only can do good, as is already proved. I note secondly, that though the regenerate can do good, and strive against lust; yet can they not do that good so perfectly, but it is always annexed to sin, and chained with it, as with an heavy yoke-fellow. I note thirdly, (and I wish the reader to mark well my words) that the tenth commandment (which is, Mark well this illation: for it striketh the papists dead. thou shalt not lust) prohibiteth not only actual lust done with consent, but also original lust without consent; and consequently, that concupiscence remaining in the regenerate, is sin properly and formally. I prove it, because S. Paul could not perform this precept, as S. Austen truly and learnedly observed: and yet concerning actual consent, S. Paul was free and innocent, as who fought mightily against his concupiscence, and would in no wise yield unto the same. He was therefore guilty by reason of original concupiscence, which abode in him against his will. Rom. 7.18, ●●, 20. To will is present with me (saith S. Paul) but I find no means to perform that which is good, for I do not the good thing which I would, but the evil which I would not, that do I. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me. Lo, the holy Apostle confesseth plainly, that he sinneth against his will, and that by reason of original concupiscence, which remained in him after Baptism. S. Austen singeth the same song, and yet our Papists will not have it sin: and why? because forsooth, it overthroweth their holy justifications, their inherent purities, their condign merits, their mutual satisfactions, and their pharisaical supererogations. And yet Petrus Lombardus their worthy master of Sentences (whose book to this day is publicly read in their schools of Divinity) utterly condemneth their heretical doctrine in this point: Lombard. lib. 3. ●nt. dist. 19 these are his express words. Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus ex part, non ex toto, àculpa, non à poena; nec omninò à culpa: non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus ut non sit, sed ut non dominetur. But touching our souls we are redeemed in part, not wholly, from the fault, not from the pain, Now ye papists, either recant your doctrine, or else cry fire and ●agot for your master. neither wholly from the (sin or) fault. For we are not so redeemed from it, that it be not (in us,) but that it rule not (over us.) Thus writeth the venerable popish master, our reverend father Lombarde: out of whose words we may gather with facility, so much as will serve our turn against all papists. For first, he saith that we are redeemed in part, but not in al. Peruse the 8. conclusion in the answer to the last reply of the fift objection. Secondly, that we are not wholly redeemed from sin. Thirdly, he telleth us how and in what manner we be redeemed from sin; to wit, that albeit sin still remain in us, yet hath it not such dominion over us, as it can enforce us to consent thereunto. The second objection. Rom. 8.1. If concupiscence were sin in the regenerate, it would make them guilty of eternal death, and yet are they free from all condemnation, as witnesseth the Apostle. The answer. I answer that concupiscence as well as other sins, is apt of it own nature to condemn us, but God of his mercy doth neither impute it nor other sins of human frailty unto the faithful, for the merits of Christ jesus. The first reply. Forma dat esse ●●i. Every thing (as the Philosophers truly say) hath the denomination of the formality thereof; but doubtless the formality of original sin is taken away in baptism; other else in vain were infants baptized, and so there only remaineth the materiality, as the schools term it, that is, a certain rebellion and inclination to sinne-ward. The answer. I answer, that the formality of original sin is of two sorts, or double; Ratio formalis originalis peccati to wit, the guilt and the deordination. The former by which the party that sinneth is bound to pain temporal & eternal, is remitted by grace and baptism in this life. The latter, which is a certain disorder and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the mind, will, and actions of man▪ continueth still, even to the last hour. The second reply. Natural things neither make us worthy of praise nor of dispraise, as the Philosophers all grant; but certes concupiscence in man is natural, and so can it not be sin. The answer. I answer that concupiscence as it is natural indeed, and given to man as man in the state of innocency, is ordinate, agreeable to reason, and altogether without sin: but concupiscence as it is connatural to corrupt man, is inordinate, rebellious, against the spirit, and altogether sinful in God's sight. The third reply. S. Austen in one place saith plainly, August. de 〈◊〉 lib. 1. cap. 25. that original concupiscence is no sin, unless we consent unto it. These are the words, Quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis? How much more is it without sin, in the body of him that consenteth not; if it be without sin, in his body that is a sleep? The answer. I answer, that S. Austen meaneth nothing less, then to deny concupiscence to be sin, for otherwise he should be contrary to himself, who affirmeth it to be sin in many places of his works, as is already proved; but he only laboureth to persuade the reader, that it is never imputed to the faithful, that stoutly strive against it. And that this is the true meaning of S. Austen, I prove it by the judgement of S. Ambrose, Amb. libr. 10. epist. 84. tom. 3. concerning the self same matter. Thus doth he write. Caro contra spiritum, & contra carnem spiritus concupiscit: ●ec invenitur in ullo hominum tanta concordia, 1. joan. 1. ut legi mentis lex quae membris est insita non repugnet. Propter quod ex omnium sanctorum persona accipitur quod joannes apostolus ait; si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, nosipsos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est: cum tamen idem ipse dicat; qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, qoniam semen ipsius in eo manet, & non potest peccare, quoniam ex Deo natus est. Vtrumque ergo verum est, quia & nemo sine peccato est, in eo quod nemo est fine lege peccati; & qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, quia per legem mentis, id est, per charitatem quae Dei semen est, peccatum non facit. Charitas enim operit multitudinem peccatorum. the flesh lusteth against the spirit, & the spirit against the flesh; neither is there found in any man such concord, but that the law (of concupiscence) which is engrafted in the members, fighteth against the law of the mind. And for that cause Saint john's words are taken, Note here against the papists, ●hat the faithful ●oth are sinners ●nd just at once. as spoken in the person of all saints, If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, when for all that; the same apostle saith, He that is borne of God, sinneth not, because his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin because he is of God. Therefore both are true, because no man is without sin, for that no man is without the law of sin, (that is, concupiscence) and he that is borne of God sinneth not, because he sinneth not by the law of his mind, that is, by charity, which is God's seed; for charity covereth the multitude of sins. Out of these words I note first, that concupiscence moveth rebellion against the spirit, in the holiest man upon earth. I note secondly, that this rebellion of concupiscence, is sin in every one, because S. john speaketh of sin indeed, whose words saint Ambrose apply here to concupiscence. I note thirdly, that he speaketh of original concupiscence, because he speaketh of that concupiscence, which is in the saints, that is, in those that are borne of God. I note four, that the faithful sin not, because charity covereth their sins. So then S. Austen meaneth as S. Ambrose doth, that they are without sin, to whom sin is not imputed. Yea, Aquinas himself granteth, (which is to be admired) that the inordinate motion of sensuality, even which goeth before the deliberation of reason, is sin though in a low degree. These are his express words: Dicendum, quòd illud quod homo facit sine deliberatione rationis, ●q. 12. q. 74. ar. ●. contr. & add 3. non perfectè ipse facit, quia nihil operatur ibi id quod est principale in homine; unde non est perfectè actus humanus, & per consequens non potestesse perfectè actus virtutis vel peccati, sed aliquid imperfectum in genere horum. unde talis motus sensualitatis rationem praeveniens est peccatum veniale, quod est quiddam imperfectum in genere peccati. I answer, that that which man doth without the deliberation of reason, he doth it not perfectly, because that which is the chief in man worketh nothing there; wherefore it is not perfectly man's act, and consequently it cannot be perfectly the act of virtue or of sin, but some imperfect thing in this kind. Whereupon such a motion of sensuality preventing reason is a venial sin, which is a certain imperfect thing in the nature of sin. The fourth reply. Concupiscence at the most is but a little venial sin, as S. Thomas Aquinas truly saith; therefore it cannot bring a man to hell, neither debar him of heaven. The answer. I answer, that every sin is mortal undoubtedly, as which is flatly against God's holy commandments. For that the transgression of God's commandments, is a grievous mortal sin, no man ever did or will deny; Galat. 3.10. Cursed is every one (saith the apostle) that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Again in another place, Rom. 6.23. The reward or wage of sin is death. And S. james saith, Whosoever shall keep the whole law, jac. 2.10. and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all. Now that every sin aswell great as small is against God's holy law, I prove sundry ways. First because the Apostle saith, that all our thoughts, words, and works, aught to be referred to the glory of God; 1. Cor. 10.31. for most certain it is, that no sin at all is referred to God's glory. For no sin, no, not the least of all is referrible to god; Rom. 3.8. 2. Cor. 5.21. but is of it own nature, repugnant to his glory. Secondly, because we must yield an account to God, for every idle word, Mat. 1●. 36. as Christ himself telleth us; and yet (as every child can perceive) God most merciful and most just, will never lay that to our charge, which is not against his holy law. Thirdly, because the apostle saith of sin generally that the punishment thereof is death. Rom. 6.23. Fourthly, because sin in general is defined by the fathers, to be the transgression of God's law; Amb. de Par. ca ● Aug. contr. ●aust. 22. cap. 27. which definition could not be true, if any little sin could stand with his commandment. Fiftly, because famous popish writers, as joannes Gerson, Michael Baius, Almayn, and our own Bishop of Rochester, In the seventh chapter▪ and fif● conclusion of purgatory. do all freely grant, that every sin is mortal of it own nature, and deserveth eternal death: their words I have alleged in my book of Motives. Sixtly, because Durandus and josephus Angles, Vide joseph. Angles in 2. s. d. 37. diffic. 6. (to whom the Schools of the papists this day accord,) do sharply impugn Aquinas his doctrine; in that he teacheth Venials, not to be against God's law. The 7. conclusion. Although good works do not justify, yet are they precious in God's sight, Mat. 10. v▪ 42. and never want their reward. Christ himself proveth this conclusion, when he promiseth that not so much as a cup of cold water given in his name, shall pass without reward. Mat. 19 v. 29. Luc. 18. v. 29. And in another place he saith, That whosoever shall leave house, parents, brethren, wife, or children for his sake, shall receive much more in this world, and in the world to come, life everlasting. And in another place Christ telleth us, that when the son of man cometh in his glory, and all his holy angels with him, Mat. 25. v. 34.35 Rom. 2.6. then will he pronounce them blessed, that have done the works of charity to their poor neighbours. God (saith S. Paul,) will reward every man according to his works. The Lord rewarded me (saith holy David) according to my righteousness; Psal. 17. v. 20. and according to the pureness of mine hands, he recompensed me. Yea, it is a thing so certain with God, to reward the good deeds of his faithful servants, that the best livers give great respect thereunto. Hebr. 11. v. 26. Moses (saith S. Paul) esteemed the rebuke of Christ, greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he had respect to the recompense of the reward. Which reward nevertheless proceedeth of God's mere mercy & bountiful benignity, without all deserts of man. Which the great papist friar john de Combis well observed, joan. de Combis in comp. theol. veritatis. when in his theological Sum, he wrote in this manner; Deus nos punit citra condignum, remunerat ultra condignum. God punisheth us less than we be worthy, and rewardeth us far above our deserts. The first objection. 2. joan. 3. v. 7. S. john saith, Qui facit justitiam justus est. He that doth justice, he is just. Therefore a man becometh just, even by doing of good works. The answer. I say first, that the contrary illation, is more fitly gathered out of Saint john's assertion; albeit the papists think this a bulwark, for their justification by good works. For when he saith, he that doth justice, is just, it is all one as if he had said, when one doth good works, it is a sign that he is just, because none can do good works, unless he be just. For as a tree cannot bring forth good fruit, unless it first be good; even so cannot any man do good works unless he first be the child of god. The reason is evident, because the effect must follow, & not go before the cause. For as saint Austen gravely saith; August. de fid. & open. ca 14. tom. 4 Opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. Works follow him that is already justified, but they go not before him that is to be justified. I say secondly, that he that doth justice, is just by inherent justice, but imperfectly, as is already proved. The second objection. Saint james saith, that a man is justified by good works, jac. 2.21, 24. and not by faith only; and he proveth it because Abraham was justified by offering up his son Isaac. The answer. I say first, that Abraham was justified indeed, before he did any good work; and I prove it by Saint Paul, Rom. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. whose words are these; For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherein to rejoice, but not with God; for what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh, the wages is not counted by favour, but by debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness: even as David declareth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Out of these words of the apostle I note first, that whosoever ascribeth his justification to works, can have no joy with God. I note secondly, that righteousness was imputed to Abraham by reason of his faith, not by reason of his works. I note thirdly, that if Abraham's works could have justified him, his justification should have been of duty, and not by favour or grace. I note four, that the ungodly is freely justified by faith in jesus Christ without works. I say secondly, that Abraham offered his son Isaac, not to work his justification by that fact, but to give a testimony of his faith, and that he was already the child of God. For as S. Paul saith, that oblation was for the trial of Abraham's faith. These are the words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By faith Abraham offered up Isaac when he was tried, Heb. 1●▪ ●. 17. or proved (for so the Greek word doth significantly express. Gen. 22. v. 1. ) And Moses maketh the matter more plain, in these words; And after these things, God did prove or try Abraham: (where the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make trial.) And the proof followeth in these words; Gen. 22. v. 2. Take now thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee to the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering, upon one of the mountains, which I will show thee. Out of which words, with the circumstances before and after recorded in the scripture; I gather that Abraham was perfectly justified, before he offered his son Isaac. For first, God had promised to bless all nations in his son Isaac, Gen. 17. v. 19 as it is written; Sara thy wife shall bear thee a son in deed, and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Again, God appointed that son to be slain, in whom the promise was made. Thirdly, the sacrifice was the only son of Abraham, even the son which he loved most tenderly. Fourthly, Abraham himself was designed to be the butcher to his own sweet child. Fiftly, it passed man's reason, how all nations could be blessed in the child, that was presently to be slain. All this notwithstanding, Abraham never once doubted of God's promise, but promptly prepared himself to execute Gods will. Whereupon I conclude, that Abraham was holy and just in God's sight, before the oblation of his son; Gen. 22. v. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7▪ 8, 9, 10. otherwise he could never have yielded thereunto, in such manner and with such alacrity of mind as he did. I say thirdly, that S. james speaketh of justification before men, which was nothing else but the testification of Abraham's righteousness to the world. Which exposition came from heaven to Abraham, in these words; Lay not thine hand upon the child, neither do any thing unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing for my sake thou hast not spared thine only son. Out of these words I note first, that this offering up of Abraham's son, was to try Abraham's faith, and obedience, as I said before; which I gather out of these words, (for now I know that thou fearest God.) I note secondly, that it was also to make known unto the world, that great faith, fear, and love, which Abraham had towards God. As if God had said; I knew before, thy faith and love towards me; but now I have made the same known unto the world. The third objection. S. james saith plainly, jac. 1. v. 25. that a man may keep the law perfectly, and be justified for so doing. These are the words; Whos● looketh in the perfit law of liberty, and continueth therein, he not being a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, shallbe blessed in his deed. The answer. I say first, that no man can keep the law perfectly in this life, as I have already proved copiously. I say secondly, that though the regenerate do not fulfil the law exactly, yet do they continue therein, so long as they strive against sin, and suffer not sin to reign in them. For (as S. Paul saith,) When we do that which we would not, it is no more we that do it, Rom. 7. v. 20. but the sin that dwelleth in us. Whereupon S. Austen saith very finely; Ecce quemadmodum qui ambulant in vijs, domini, August. in Psal. 118. conc▪ 2. in fine. non operantur peccatum▪ & tamen non sunt sine peccato quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem, sed quod habitat in eyes peccatum. Behold how they that walk in the ways of the Lord do not sin, and yet are they not without sin; because now not they work iniquity, but the sin that dwelleth in them. I say thirdly, that it is one thing to be blessed in the work; another thing to be blessed for the work. And so when the regenerate become not vain hearers of God's word, but bring forth the worthy fruits thereof in holy life; they shall doubtless be blessed in so doing, yet not for the worthiness of their works, but of God's mere mercy for his promise sake. Thus doth S. james expound himself in the same chapter, when he saith; jac. 1. v. 12. Blessed is the man, that endureth temptation; for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. The 4. objection. S. Luke saith, that Zacharias and Elizabeth were just before God, Luc. 1. v. 5. not only before men; and that they walked in all the commandments of the Lord, without reproof. The answer. I say first, that if Zacharias and Elizabeth had kept the law exactly in all points, Rom. 4. v. 25. Math. 19 v. 17. Luc. 10. v. ●9. than Christ needed not to have died for them, or to have risen again for their justification. For the perfit fulling of the law, giveth life to the doer thereof. I say secondly, that they were of that number, of whom S. john saith; if we say we have no sin, joan. 1. verse 8. Rom. 3. v. 10.12. we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us. And of whom S. Paul saith; There is none righteous, Psal. 143. v. 2. no not one, they have all gone out of the way, there is none that doth good, no not one. And of whom the Psalm●graphe saith; for in thy sight shall none that liveth be justified. And of whom S. Austen saith; August. lib. 9 confess. cap. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam. Woe even to the best livers on earth, if thou extend not thy mercy towards them. I say thirdly, that they were just before God, as were David, Peter, Paul, and others; not for that they were perfectly just and without sin, 2. Reg. 12. v. 7. Mat. 26. v. 74. Act. 9 v. 1.2. but because God reputed them so perfectly just, as if they had never sinned; and of his great mercy through the merits of Christ jesus, did not impute the breach of his law unto them; according to this saying of the scripture. Blessed are they, Rom. 4 v. 7●. whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. The fift objection. Gen. 6. v. 9 4. Reg. 20. v. 3. The regenerate live without sin, and so may they justly merit heaven. For we read that Noah was just, and perfit, and upright, and walked with God. Remember (saith David) how I have walked before thee in truth, 1. Cor. 2. v. 6. and with a perfit heart, 2. Par. 15. v. 17. Psal. 118. and have done that which is good in thy sight. We speak wisdom (saith the apostle,) among them that are perfit: and it is written of king Asa, that his heart was perfit all his days. In another place the prophet saith, that he hath not swerved from God's law. In another place, he requireth God to judge him according to his righteousness. Psal. 7.8. The answer. I say first, that as the Prophet David in one place, required God to judge him according to his righteousness; Psal. 7. v. 8. Psal. 142. v. 2. Psal. 118. v. 120. so did he desire God in another place not to enter into judgement with him, because none living could be justified in his ●●ght. So then his meaning is not, to oppose his own righteousness to the just judgement of God, (at which he ever trembled and never durst abide it, as he saith in another place, Dionysius, Carthus. in Psal. 7. ) but only to show his own innocent dealing, in respect of the malicious and wicked practices of his enemies: although the papists to establish their pharisaical justice, would have it to be understood of David's own merits. I say secondly, that the perfitness which the scripture ascribeth to God's children, is not absolute but relative; that is to say, it is not perfit in respect of God's law, but by reason of imputation of Christ's justice unto them, (who hath simply and perfectly answered the law,) or in respect of the weaker sort, who want many degrees of their though imperfect justice. For S. Paul denied himself to be perfit. Not as though I had already attained to it (saith he,) either were already perfect. Philip. 3. v. 12. To which purpose holy Bernard writeth excellently, in these words; Bernard. de ve●b● Esaiae, serm. 5. Nostra enim (si qua est) humilis justitia, recta for●itan▪ sed non pura. Nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros, qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiebant; omnes justitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris. For our base justice (if we have any) is perchance right, 1. Cor. 1.30. Coloss. 2.10. but not pure or perfect unless perhaps we believe, that we are better than our fathers were, who spoke as truly as humbly; All our righteousness is as filthy clouts. But Christ (as the apostle saith) is our justice, in him we are perfect and consummate. I say thirdly, that the regenerate are said to live perfectly and without sin, in that they strive against sin, and do not suffer sin to reign in them, though they cannot be without it. And this hath the same Bernard well observed and uttered in this manner; Quomodo enim pura justitia, ubi adhuc non potest culpa dress? recta proinde interim videri potest justitiae hominum, Bern. ubi sup●. ●. si tamen peccato non consentiant, ut non regnet in eorum mortali corpore: For how can their justice be pure, who cannot be without sin? yet may the justice of men be right, if they consent not to sin, nor suffer it to reign in their mortal bodies. In which respect S. john saith, 1. joan. 3. v. 9 that the faithful sin not, because they suffer not sin to reign in them. The reply. If the regenerate cannot fulfil and keep the law exactly, then is it given in vain, and without cause are we charged with the obedience thereof. The answer. I say first, that Adam might have kept the law perfectly, and in him all his posterity might have done the same. I say secondly, that we may yet keep the law in a certain measure, and therefore must we strive against sin, and study to increase our sanctification from day to day. I say thirdly, that by the law we know our own nakedness, 1. Cor. 1. v. 30. Colos. 2. v. 10. sins, and misery, and are thereby excited to seek for remission of our sins, and to be clad with the righteousness of Christ jesus. The reply. The apostle saith in one place, that the just are not under the law, Rom. 6. v. 14. 1. Tim. 1. v. 9 but under grace. And in another place he saith, that there is no law for the just man: but where there is no law, there can be no transgression, and consequently no sin at all. The answer. Rom. 1.8.1. Rom. 8.13. joan. 14.15. 1. joan. 2. v. 3, 4.5 Rom. 6.12. I answer, that the just are free from the coaction, curse, and condemnation of the law, as the apostle witnesseth in another place; but yet are they under the obedience of the law, & bound to frame their lives according to the prescript rule thereof, as other scripture maketh mention. The reply. How can any man frame his life after the prescription of the law, if none living can keep the law as you defend? The answer. I answer, that if ye were well studied in your own doctors, and should mark well what they writ, ye could not be ignorant of this point. hearken therefore what your own Bernard saith, and after you have heard him, remember well his words and never forget his holy instruction. Thus writeth he in one place; Cupiebat dissolui, Bernard. de advent. Dom. serm▪ 6. tom. 1. & cum Christo esse sciens quòd peccatum separans inter nos & deum penitùs auferri non poterit, donec liberemur à corpore. Sequitur; itaque dico vobis genus illud peccati quod toties conturbat nos (concupiscentias loquor & desideria mala) reprimi quidem debet & potest per gratiam dei, ut non regnet in nobis, nec demus membra nostra arma iniquitatis peccato, & sic nulla damnatio esthis qui sunt in Christo jesu; sed non eiicitur nisi in morte, quando sic discerpimur, ut anima sepaietur à corpore. The Apostle did covet to be dissolved and to be with Christ, knowing that sin which maketh a division between God and us, Lo, concupiscence in the regenerate is properly sin▪ cannot wholly be taken away while we remain in this body. I therefore say unto you, this kind of sin, which so often troubleth us, (I speak of concupiscence and evil desires) ought & may be repressed by the grace of God, so as it reign n●t in us, nor we give our members to be weapons of iniquity unto sin, and so there is no damnation to those that are in Christ jesus; but it is not cast out save only in death, when we are so torn, that the soul is divided from the body. Thus he saith in another place, Sit ergo in cord justitia, & justitia quae ex fide est. Bernard. in vig●. not▪ dom. serm. 1. Haec enim sola habet gloriam apud deum. Sit etiam in ore confessio ad salutem, & securus iam suscipe eum qui in Bethlehem judae nascitur, jesum Christum filium Dei. Let righteousness therefore be in thine heart, even that justice which is of faith; for only that righteousness or justice hath glory with God, (howsoever righteousness be esteemed among men.) Have also confession in thy mouth unto salvation and then receive him with security, that is borne in Bethlehem of juda, jesus Christ the son of God. Thus he saith in the third place; Omne quod natum est ex Deo, non peccat; Bernard. de great. & lib. arbi. pag. 1189. sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam: non quòd omnino non peccent, sed quòd peccatum ipsis non imputetur. All that is borne of god sinneth not, but this is spoken of the predestinate to life, not because they sin not at all, but for that sin is not imputed to them. Thus doth he say in the fourth place, Vtique quod factum est, Bernard. serm. 1. in annu●●ia●. non potest non fieri; ipso tamen non imputante, erit quasi non fuerit. Quod propheta quoque considerans ait; Beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum. The sin doubtless that is done, can not be undone; yet for that God doth not impute sin unto us, we shall be as if we had not sinned: which the prophet considering saith; Blessed is the man to whom God shall not impute sin. Out of these four places containing most comfortable and christian doctrine: I note first, that concupiscence remaineth in the regenerate, even unto death. I note secondly, that it is properly sin, even in the regenerate; which being uttered by their own dear Bernard, giveth a deadly wound to the papists. For he saith, that that concupiscence which remaineth to death, doth separate us from God. Which effect, nothing but that which is properly sin, can possibly work in man. I note thirdly, that although this concupiscence, can not be taken away from the regenerate until death; yet may it be so repressed by God's spirit, as it shall not reign in them, or have dominion over them. I note four, that it bringeth not damnation to the regenerate, who strive against it; and that, because God doth not impute it to sin. I note fifthly, that the regenerate are said not to sin, not because they sin not, or have no sin indeed; but because God of his mere mercy▪ accepting their faith through the merits of Christ jesus doth not impute sin unto them. I note sixtly, that no justice but that which is of faith, is or can be acceptable in God's sight. join these sayings of saint Bernard to the testimony of saint Austen, Popery is stricken dead. cited in the answer to the first objection, in the seventh conclusion: and that done, a mighty article of popish doctrine, will be utterly overthrown. The sixth objection. ●. Pet. 1. ver●▪ 10. Wherefore (saith S. Peter,) labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election? Therefore good works are a mean for us to attain to the effect of God's predestination; that is, to life everlasting: as whose certainty (if the apostle say truly) is procured by man's free-will and good works. The answer. I say first, that God did elect and predestinate us, without regard of our works. For (as the apostle saith,) he chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world: (not because we were holy, but) that we should be holy. I say secondly, that the words (by good works) are not in the original & Greek text, but only in the popish latin vulgata editio. For which & like respects your late Tridentine council hath so magnified the same. I say thirdly, that good works are the proper effects of predestination & election, and therefore are a sure testificaton thereof in the sight & judgement of man. And if your translation be admitted (wherein I will not contend, because the sense is not much different) yet can there no more be inferred upon the words, unless some will say that the effect can go before the cause, & that which followeth, be the cause of that that went before. But both their own doctor Aquinas and their double glossa interlinialis and ordinaria do give the same exposition with me; to wit, Good worke● yield moral certitude of our justification. that the apostle willeth us, to make known our election by doing of good works, as which yield to man a moral certitude thereof. The seventh objection. Saint Paul willeth the Philippians to work their salvation, with fear and trembling: but doubtless, Phil. 2. verse. 12. he that can work his salvation, may by his works merit heaven. The answer. I say first, with the self-same apostle in the next verse following, that we are so far from meriting heaven by our works, that it is God which worketh in us both the will and the deed, Philip. 2.13. Ephes. 2▪ 8. even of his good pleasure. Yea, as he saith in another place; we are saved by grace through faith, & that neither of ourselves, nor yet of works, lest any man should boast himself. And therefore the apostle meaneth nothing less, then that we should purchase and merit heaven by our good works. I say secondly with devout Bernard, that the ready way to attain salvation, is to believe the contrary doctrine. These are his express words; Necesse est primò omnium credere, Bernard. serm. 1. in annuntiat▪ 〈◊〉 Mariae▪ quòd remissionem peccatorum habere non possis, nisi per indulgentiam Dei: deinde, quòd nihil prorsus habere queas operis boni, nisi & hoc dederit ipse; postremò, quòd aeternam vitam nullis potes operibus promereri, nisi gratis detur & illa. First of all, thou must believe of necessity, that thou canst not have remission of thy sins unless God will give thee a pardon for the same. Again thou must believe, that thou canst not have any good works at all, unless thou receive it at God's hand; Last of all, thou must believe that thou canst not merit eternal life by any works, unless it be freely given (of mercy.) I say thirdly, that the apostle meaneth nothing else, but that as god hath called us, and offered salvation to us, and withal given us power to will and to do well; so we ought by faith to embrace his gracious gifts, and to show ourselves thankful by the obedience of his holy laws. For to this end hath God chosen us, called us, and justified us, not that we should live idly and dissolutely, but that we should exercise ourselves in faith and good works, and in obedience be answerable to his holy vocation. For this respect doth the same apostle say in another place; ●phes. 4.24. For we are his workmanship created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained, that we should walk in them. The eight objection. Redeem thy sins with righteousness (saith the prophet,) and thine iniquities with mercy towards the poor. 〈◊〉. 4.24. Therefore with good works we may satisfy for our sins, and procure God's favour towards us. The answer. I say first with the apostle, that no man is able to make satisfaction for his sins. And I add Bernard's gloss unto the same, Rom. 8.18. Bernard. serm. 1. in annu●. B.M.U. who writeth thus; jam verò de aeterna vita scimus, quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, nec si unus omnes sustineat. Neque enim talia sunt hominum merita, ut propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure, aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi eam donaret. Nam ut taceam quòd merita omnia Dei dona sunt▪ & ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est, quàm Deus homini; quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam? denique quis melior est prophetâ▪ cui dominus ipse tam ensign testimonium perhibet, dicens, virum inveni secundum cor meum? veruntamen & ipse necesse habuit dicere deo, non intres in judicium cum servo tuo Domine. Now touching eternal life, we know that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come, no not if one man abide al. For the merits of men are not such, that for them eternal life is due by right, or that god should do some injury, if he gave it not. For to let pass that all merits are the gifts of God, The papists are c●●●ounded in their L. Abbot. and so man is rather debtor to God for them, than God to man; what are all merits to so great glory? In fine, who is better than the prophet, to whom our Lord giveth so worthy testimony, saying; I have found a man according to my heart? for all that, he had need to say to god; Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord. In which words the papists are utterly condemned, by their own approved doctor. For first, S. Bernard saith, that nothing which man can do or suffer in this life, is worthy of the joys of heaven. Secondly, he saith, that heaven is not due to any man for his own deserts. Thirdly, he saith, that god should do no man wrong, if he should debar him of heaven. Fourthly, he saith that man is more in debt to God, than God to man; and he yieldeth this reason, because it is the free gift of God, what good soever be in man. Fifitly, he allegeth holy scripture, for the ground of his assertion. I say secondly, that the Hebrew word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) doth properly signify to break or dissolve; in which signification the prophet seemeth to use it here, although it also signify to save or deliver: as if the prophet had said; O king, thou hast lived wickedly, and dealt cruelly with God's people: now therefore make an end of sin, and begin a new course of life; change thy cruelty into clemency, Theodor. orat. ● in Danielem. and thy tyranny into mercy and conpassion toward the poor. Thus doth Theodoretus expound this text. I say thirdly, that albeit we cannot redeem our sins in God's sight, or make satisfaction for the same in the court of his justice, as is proved exactly out of holy Bernard; yet may we redeem them before men, while we reconcile ourselves to those whom we have offended, and make restitution where we have done wrong. And of this kind of redemption, may the Prophet not unfitly be understood. The reply. Not only S. Bernard in the words by you alleged, but the other fathers usually and▪ generally do acknowledge the merit of good works, which you and your solifidians cannot abide. The answer. I say first, that though the fathers do often use the word Merit, when they speak of good works, yet do they never take it in your popish manner, nor expect heaven for the worthiness of their works. Which I wish the reader to observe diligently, because the papists ever wrest the word (Merit) to the wrong sense. This is clear by the words of Bernard already cited, to which for better confirmation, I add these his words in another place; ●●●nard. in Cant. ●. 67. Dost gratiae quicquid meritis deputas. Nolo meritum quod gratiam excludat: horrid quicquid de me● est ut ●im meus, nisi quòd illud magis forsitan meum est, quod me meum facit. Gratia reddit me mihi justificatum gratis, & sic liberatum à servitute peccati. It derogateth from grace whatsoever thou ascribest to merit. I will no merit, that excludeth grace. I abhor whatsoever is of mine own, that I may be mine own, unless perchance that is more mine own, which maketh me mine own. Grace justifieth me to myself freely, and so delivereth me from the bondage of sin. I say secondly, that the father's term works meritorious, not for the worthinèsse thereof, 〈◊〉 well, how 〈◊〉 Father's 〈◊〉 be merit to 〈◊〉 works. but for God's acceptation and promise sake. That is to say, they term good works meritorious, because God hath promised to accept the works of the faithful as worthy, for the worthiness of his son; and for his merits to reward them with heaven, as if they had merited the same. For which respect either ever or almost ever, they join merit and grace together. This verity will be manifest, if we ponder deeply, what famous popish doctors have written herein. Bernard hath these express words; Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona, ●●rnard. super 〈◊〉. serm. 68 praesertim cum audias apud prophetam; non propter vos, sed propter me ego faciam, dicit dominus: sufficit ad meritum, scire quod non sufficiant merita. So there is no cause, that thou shouldest now ask by what merits we hope for glory, especially since thou hearest the prophet say; I will do it saith the Lord, not for your sake, but for mine own. It is sufficient to merit, to know that our merits are not sufficient. Thus saith devout Bernard, who though he lived in the greatest mist of popery, and so was carried away with some errors of his time; yet did he teach most christian doctrine, almost in all his works: and because he was reputed a great papist with the papists, his testimony is ever most forcible against them and their proceed. Aquinas hath these express words: Manifestum est autem, Aquin. 1●. q. ar. 1. in co●p. quòd inter Deum & hominem est maxima inaequalitas, (in infinitum enim distant) totum quod est hominis bonum, est à Deo: unde non potest hominis à Deo esse justitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem▪ sed secundum proportionem quandam, in quantum scilicet uterque operatur secundum modum suum. Modus autem & mensura humanae virtutis homini est à Deo, & ideo meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest, nisi secundum praesuppositionem divinae ordinationis; ita scilicet, ut id homo consequatur à Deo per suam operationem, quasi mercedem, ad quod Deus ei virtutem operandi destinavit. And it is manifest, that between God & man there is exceeding great inequality (for they differ in infinite;) all the good that man hath, is of God. Wherefore man's justice received of God, cannot be according to absolute equality, but after a certain proportion, to wit, in as much as either worketh according to his condition. Now man hath the measure and condition of his virtue from God, and therefore man's merit cannot be with God, save only according to the supposal of God's holy ordinance: so to wit, that man may attain that at God's hand by his working, as reward, to which God hath appointed his power of working. Thus writeth the master papist Aquinas; who utterly overthroweth all popish merit, as it is this day defended in the church of Rome. Note well 〈◊〉 doctrine. For first, (mark well gentle Reader, for this is a weighty point,) Aquinas telleth us, that where there is not perfert equality, there can be no merit properly. Secondly, he granteth that there is infinite inequality between God and man. Thirdly, he confesseth that man's justice is not absolute, but imperfect. Fourthly, he granteth, that man doth merit nothing in God's sight, save only by way of his free acceptation. Fiftly, he confesseth that eternal life is not properly hire, but as it were hire, by reason of the same acceptation. Durandus their own schoolman denieth every man's works how just or holy soever he be, ●eritum largo ●●do. to be simply and properly meritorious; but only to merit in an unproper and large kind of speech; Meritum (inquit) propriè de condigno est, cui simpliciter debetur aequale virtute operis: ●urand. in 2. 〈◊〉. d. 28. apud 〈◊〉. de just. & 〈◊〉. nullum autem opus nostrum aequale potest esse vitae aeternae, neque illam largitur nobis Deus ex justitia, sed ex quadam liberalitate sane quia gratìs acceptat nostra opera. Merit (saith Durand) is properly of the worthy, to which that is simply due which is equal by the virtue of the work: but no work of ours can be equal to eternal life, neither doth God give it us of justice, but of mere liberality, in that he freely accepteth our works. Gregorius Ariminensis, Marsilius, Thomas Waldensis, Paulus Burgensis, ●pud jos. Angl. ● 2. s. d. 27. ar. 2. ●●ffic. 5. and Io. Eckius, all being zealous papists, do for all that deny man's works to be meritorious of eternal life, how holy soever the man be. And (gentle Reader) that thou mayest fully know, how the papists have of late years bewitched the world, and under pretence of holy zeal seduced simple souls; call to mind that they use to wrest the scriptures (as I have already proved out of their own doctors) and to come new no distinctions to make their false doctrine good. Which for thy better satisfaction, I will prove concerning this present controversy of the merit of works, out of josephus Angles a grey friar and learned popish bishop, who even in that book which he dedicated to the pope himself (so mighty is the truth) writeth in these express words: ●osephus Angles ● 2. s. dist. 27. ●. 2. diffic 4. Diws Chrysostomus ait; Etsi millies moriamur, etsi omnes virtutes animae expleamus, nihil dignum ger●mus ad ea, quae ipsi à Deo percipimus. Eodem etiam modo considerantes omnes alij doctores sancti naturalem solummodo bonorum operum valorem, & illum à valour & justa vitae aeternae aestimatione longissime distare perpendentes, prudenter dixerunt, opera nostra non esse meritoria aut digna vita aterna. Ex lege tamen sive conventione, siue promissione facta nobiscum, opera bona hominis cum adiutorio gratiae Dei fiunt aeternae vitae digna, & illi aequalia; quae seclusa illa dei promissione quae passim in sacris literis repetitur, fuissent tanto praemio prorsus indigna. Saint Chrysostome sayeth, Chrysost. in lib. 2. de compunct. cord●●, tom. 5▪ though we die a thousand times, and accomplish all virtue of the mind, yet do we nothing worthy of those things which we receive of God. And all other holy doctors, considering after the same manner the natural valour only of good words, and perceiving that it is exceeding far distant from the valour and just estimation of eternal life, said wisely, that our works are not meritorious nor worthy of eternal life. Yet for the covenant and promise made with us, the good works of man with the help of God's grace, are worthy of eternal life, and equal with it; which for all that, that promise of God which is frequent in the scriptures set aside, were altogether unworthy of so great reward. Thus saith our Popish Bishop and holy Friar, who though he bestir himself more than a little, to establish the condign merit of works, yet doth he in his own kind of reasoning, utterly confute and confound himself. For first, he granteth that not only S. Chrysostome, but all the rest of the holy Fathers with him, affirm good works neither to be meritorious, nor worthy of eternal life. Again, he granteth that works considered in their natural kind, are unworthy of eternal life. Thirdly, he granteth that good works even as they proceed of grace and assistance of the holy Ghost, are for all that unworthy of eternal life, if God's promise and free acceptation be set apart. Which three points doubtless are all that we desire to be granted, concerning the doctrine of good works. And so, (though the Papists never cease to impeach, accuse, slander, and condemn us in this behalf) yet do we defend nothing herein, but that which their own best Doctors and printed books do teach us; yea, even such books as are dedicated to the Pope's holiness himself. The conceits which this Bishop allegeth to make good his intended purpose, are childish and too too frivolous. For first, where he saith that the Fathers speak of good works only in respect of their natural valour (as he termeth it;) I answer, The Bishop's reasons confuted▪ that that gloss and exposition is only invented by him and his fellows, to salve their beggarly doctrine if it would be. For beside that no father saith so; they repute all works before grace mere sin, as I have proved out of Austen. And our Bishop unwittingly confuteth himself (of such force is the truth,) when he granteth that good works done in grace are unworthy of heaven, if Gods promise be set apart. For if they merit ex condigno, as he avoucheth; then doubtless promise, covenant, and mercy, is altogether needless. Secondly, where the bishop fleeth to distributive justice, so to establish the merit of works; I answer, that both the fathers and his fellows are against him, Aquinas 12. q. 114. ar. 1. yea even Aquinas himself. For they understand justice commutative, and require arithmetical equality. And if Geometrical proportion were to be admitted; yet should greater equality be required, then can be found between our works and eternal life. The 9 objection. Ye brag that the merit of good works, cannot be found in all the Scripture: Ecclesiast. cap. 1● v.▪ 15. But therein you bely both us and the holy scripture. For in the book of Ecclesiasticus, I find these express words; Omnis misericordia faciet locum unicuique secundum meritum operum suorum. All mercy shall make place to every one, according to the merit of his works. Lo, here is made express mention, of the merit of his good works. The answer. I say first, that the book of Ecclesiasticus is not canonical Scripture, as which was not found written in the holy tongue. I say secondly, that it is not for nothing, that your late council of Trent hath so magnified your Latin vulgata editio. For such stuff as this, it doth afford you in time of need. I say thirdly, that in the original and Greek text, your word (merit) may long seek for lodging, before it find any. For these are the express words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Make place to all alms, for every one shall find according to his works. The 10. objection. One Scripture saith, that if we give alms, all things are pure unto us. Another scripture saith, that charity covereth the multitude of sins. Luc. 1●▪ v 41. 1. Pet. 4. v. 8. And it is frequent with the holy fathers, that good works deliver us from hell. The answer. I say first, that S. Luke reproveth the extortions of the pharisees, & exhorteth them to works of charity. As if he had said; not unwashed hands make you eat uncleanly, but your wicked extortions. Use therefore charity, and give alms to the poor, and then your souls shallbe clean, though the platter be unwashed. This sense is gathered out of the verses aforegoing. I say secondly, that almsdeeds▪ and other good works proceeding of faith, do neither merit nor justify as is proved; but yet they are testimonies before men, that we be justified by faith through the merits of Christ jesus. For which respect, justification is often ascribed unto them; as to the effects thereof. I say thirdly, that the fathers in many places do speak of temporal remission, which often is granted for alms deeds and the like. The reply. If good works can neither justify nor merit, then is it but a vain thing to exercise ourselves therein. The answer. I say first, that thus to say and think is a probable sign of the reprobate, who hath no feeling of God's holy spirit, but is become senseless in all spiritual contemplation. I say secondly, that albeit good works do neither justify nor merit, in proper kind of speech; yet be there many good and necessary causes, why we should do good works. First, because God is glorified therein. Therefore saith Christ; let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven. Secondly, because by good works we show our gratitude & love towards God. Therefore saith Christ; If ye love me, keep my commandments. Thirdly, Mat. 5. v 1●. Luke 1.75. joan. 14. v. 15. because it is the end for which we were created. Therefore saith the apostle; For we are his workmanship, created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them. Fourthly, Ephes. 2. v. 10. 1. Thess. 4. v. 7. 1. Pet. ●. v. 24. Rom. 8. v. 1. Rom 6. v. 4. 1. joan. 2. v. 6. because they are necessary effects of our predestination, and consequently yield and evident moral certitude both to ourselves & to our neighbours, that we are the children of God. Therefore saith the apostle; There is no condemnation to them, that are in Christ jesus, which walk not after the flesh but after the spirit: as if he had said, Who soever are the children of God, cannot but live after God's holy laws. Which is the self same doctrine, that Christ himself taught us, saying; If ye shall keep my commandments, joan. 15. v. 10. ye shall abide in my love; as I have kept my father's commandment, and abide in his love. 1. joan. 5. v. 2.3. And S. john confirmeth the same in these words: In this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandements. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandements. So than if we keep Gods commandements, it is an evident sign, that we love God, and that by faith we are of his free mercy made his children, for the merits and righteousness of Christ jesus. See more hereof in the eleventh preamble, in my first book of Motives. The 8 conclusion. Although good works do neither merit grace in this life, nor glory in the life to come, as which are imperfect, polluted with sin, and in rigour of justice worthy of condemnation, as is already proved; yet because God hath decreed in his eternal counsel to bring us to heaven by them, as by ordinary means and right fruits of a sound christian faith; they may in a godly sense be termed, The secondary instrumental cause of eternal life; but in no sense the cause of man's justification. Explico: I say (of man's justification,) because the latter can never be the cause of the former; and consequently good works following our justification as the immediate fruits thereof, can by no means possible be the cause of the same. In regard whereof S. Austen as in many other things, August. de fide & operib. cap. 14. tom. 4. so in this point said very learnedly; Quòd opera non praecedunt iustificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum. That works do not go before justification, but follow him that is justified; I say (of eternal life) because when there be many gradual effects of one and the same cause, than the former may fitly be termed the material cause of the latter; that is, as the schools term it, Causa sine qua non, The cause without which the latter shall not have effect. For as vocation, Rom. 8. v. 30. Rom. 10. v. 17. justification, regeneration, and glorification are the effects of predestination; even so by God's holy ordinance, being predestinate, we are called by the hearing of his word unto ●aith, Rom. 5. v. 1. 1. Cor. 1. v. 30. 2. Cor. 4.16. Gal. 6. v. 15. Mat. 7. v. 17. which faith is the cause of our justification by apprehending the righteousness of Christ jesus; after we be justified of our justification proceeds regeneration, as who having remission of our sins, and being engraffed in Christ by faith, are endued with more abundant grace of his holy spirit, through which we are daily more and more regenerate, and made new creatures; after we be regenerate, out of our regeneration spring good works aswell internal, as external; as who being made good trees, begin to bring forth good fruits; and so continuing are brought at the length of God's free mercy, to the possession of eternal life. For as the apostle saith, Ephes. 2. v. 10. we are created unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them: and continuing in them, we shall at the dreadful day of doom hear this joyful sentence, pronounced to our unspeakable comfort; Come ye blessed of my father, take the inheritance of the kingdom, prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, Math. 25. v. 34. and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in unto you; I was naked and ye clothed me, I I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came to me. And with this, it is true yet that the apostle saith; Tit. 3. v. 5.6, 7, 8. Not by the works of righteousness which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of the new birth, and by renewing of the holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through jesus Christ our saviour, that we being justified by his grace, should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a true saying, and these things I will thou shouldest affirm, that they which have believed God, might be careful to show forth good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. Thus saith S. Paul, and therefore I think this a profitable conclusion. By it rightly understood, many places of holy Scripture may easily be answered, which seem to ascribe justification or glorification to good works. The 10. conclusion. This popish assertion, Anno Dom. 1080. that works do justify and merit eternal life de condigno, was for the space of a thousand and eighty years unknown to the church of God. About which time Petrus Lombardus and his fellows began their scholastical theology, Anno Dom. 1545. and disputed such matters doubtfully. About the year of our Lord 1545. the late council of Trent defined the same for an article of christian belief, solemnly accursing all such as hold the contrary opinion. This is the original and antiquity of this impudently defended heresy. It is sufficiently confuted throughout the whole chapter. CHAP. X. Of the popish idololatrical mass. The 1. conclusion. TO withhold from the vulgar and laycall sort of people, the one part of the holy communion, is a diabolical, heretical, and sacrilegious fact. I prove it sundry ways: First, because it is flatly against the express scripture, Math. 26. v. 27. Mar. 1●▪ v. 23. and Christ's holy institution. For Christ himself instituted and ministered the Sacrament in both kinds, saying; drink ye all of it, as Saint Matthew recordeth: and they all drank of it, as witnesseth Saint Mark. Saint Paul also taught all the Corinthians to communicate in both kinds, protesting that he delivered the form and manner of the holy communion, even as he had in spirit received it from the Lord. 1. Cor. 11. v. ●3. 25. Secondly, because the ancient fathers show evidently, that in their time it was the general practice of the church, to deliver the holy communion to the lay people under both kinds. Neither was the cup taken from the vulgar sort by any settled law, Anno. dom. 1414 until the late council of Constance, which was in the year of our Lord God, 1414. Origen. hom. 16. in number. prope finem. Origen hath these words; Quis est iste populus, qui in usu habet sanguinem bibere? haec erant quae in evangelio audientes ij qui ex judaeis dominum sequebantur, scandalizati sunt, & dixerunt; Quis potest manducare carnem, & sanguinem bibere? sed populus Christianus, populus fidelis audit haec, & amplectitur, & sequitur eum qui dicit: nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis, quia caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè potus est. Who is that people, that hath in custom to drink blood? these were the things which the jews that followed Christ heard in the gospel, and were scandalised, and said; Who can eat flesh and drink blood? but the christian people, the faithful people, hear these things, and embrace them, and follow him that saith; unless ye shall eat my flesh & drink my blood, ye shall have no life in yourselves, because my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood drink indeed? S. Hierome hath these words; Sacerdotes quoque qui eucharistiae serviunt, & sanguinem domini populis eius dividunt, Hieron. in 3. cap. Sophon. impiè agunt in legem Christi. The Priests also that administer the eucharist, and divide the lords blood to his people, transgress the law of Christ heinously. Saint Cyprian with forty learned bishops, in their joint Epistle to Cornelius, writ in this express manner; Cypr. lib. 1. epis. 2. Quo modo docemus aut provocamus eos in confession nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? aut quo modo ad martyrij poculum ido●●os facimus, si non eis priùs ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus? How do we teach 〈◊〉 them to shed their blood for the name of Christ, if we deny them the blood of Christ, when they go to war? or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink the lords cup in the Church, and that by the right of communion? The Romish Church taketh from us our christ●●n right. where I wish the reader to note well that the lay people have right to both kinds; and consequently, that the Romish church is become the whore of Babylon, in that she robbeth us of our christian right, which we have de iure divino. Saint Chrysostome hath these words: Chrysost. in ●. Corinth. hom. 1● in mor. Est ubi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito, ut quando fruendum est honorandis mysteriis. Similiter enim omnes ut illa percipiamus digni habemur. Non sicut in veteri lege, partem quidem sacerdos comedebat, partem autem populus; & non licebat populo participem esse eorum quorum particeps erat sacerdos. Sed nunc non sic: verum omnibus unum corpus proponitur & poculum unum. There is a place, where there is no difference between the priest & the lay person, as when we are to communicate in the holy mysteries; for we are all in like worthy, for that communion; not as it was in the old law, where the priest ate one part and the people another; neither could the people be permitted to take part of that that the priest ate. For now it is not so, but to all is proposed one body and one cup. Out of these golden words I note first, that the difference in communion, is a judaical ceremony from which Christ's death delivered us. I note secondly, that in the christian communion, the common people ought to be as free as the minister. I note thirdly, that it was so in Saint Chrysostom's time, when the people received under both kinds. Ignat. in epist ad Philadelp. prope 〈◊〉. I note four, that the pope hath brought us into greater bondage than ever were the jews. S. Ignatius hath these words; una est caro domini jesu▪ & unus eius sanguis qui pro nobis effusus est, unus etiam panis pro omnibus confractus, & unus calix totius ecclesiae. There is one flesh of our Lord jesus, & one blood which was shed for us, one bread also broken for all, and one cup of the whole church. ●ustinus mar●yr apolog. 2. pa. 76. Saint justine hath these words; Praesidens vero, postquam gratiarum actionem perfecit, & populus universus apprecatione laeta eum comprobavit, qui apud nos vocantur diaconi atquo ministri, distribuunt unicuique praesentium, ut participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem, vinum, & aquam. After the chief pastor hath finished the giving of thanks, and all the people have with joyful prayer approved the same, they that we call Deacons and Ministers, do distribute to every one that is present, the sanctified bread, wine, and water, to be partaker thereof. Yea the said justinus a little after addeth these important words; Nam apostoli in commentarijs à se scriptis quae evangelia vocantur, ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi jesum. For the apostles in their commentaries, that is, in the gospels, have taught us, that jesus so commanded them (to minister the holy communion.) Where note by the way, that Christ did not only ordain both kinds, but he also gave commandment to retain the same in the church. For which cause saint Paul teaching the Corinthians to communicate under both kinds, said that he received that form & manner from the lord 1. Cor. 11.23▪ 25. S. Austen hath these words: Cum Dom. dicat, August. q. 57 〈◊〉 Leuit. tom. 4▪ nisi manducaveritis carnem meam & biberitis meum sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis: quid sibi vult, quod à sanguine sacrificiorum quae pro peccatis offerebantur, tantopere populus prohibetur, si illis sacrificijs unum hoc sacrificium significabatur, in quo vera sit remissio peccatorum? à cuius tamen sacrificij sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam. When our Lord saith, unless ye shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall have no life in you: what meaneth it that the people is so greatly forbidden the blood of sacrifices which was offered for sins, if in those sacrifices this only sacrifice was signified, in which there is true remission of sins? From the blood of which sacrifice for all that to be taken for nourishment, not only none is prohibited, but all rather are exhorted to drink it, that desire to have life. S. Ambrose, at such time as the emperor Theodosius after his great slaughter of men at Thessalonica desired to enter into the church at Milan, and there to be partaker of the holy eucharist, spoke these words unto him; Quî quaeso, Ambr. apud Th●odor. lib. 5. hist●●. cap. 17. manus iniusta caede & sanguine respersas extendere audes, & eisdem sacrosanctum corpus domini accipere? aut quomodo venerandum eius sanguinem ori admovebis, qui furore irae iubente tantum sanguinis tam iniquè effudisti? How I pray thee darest thou stretch out thy hands sprinkled with unjust slaughter and blood, and to take the holy body of our Lord in the same? Or how wilt thou touch thy mouth with his venerable blood, who to satisfy thy fury, hast shed so much blood so unworthily? Gregorius magnus their own bishop of Rome, confirmeth this verity in these words: Eius quip ibi corpus sumitur, Gregor. lib. 4. dialogor. cap. 5●. eius caro in populi salutem partitur, eius sanguis non iam in manus infidelium, sed in ora fidelium funditur. For his body is there received, his flesh is divided for the salvation of the people, his blood is now powered, not into the hands of infidels, but into the mouths of the faithful. What need many words? Their own Gelasius in their own canon law, condemneth their fact as flat sacrilege. These be his words: De consecr. dist. 2. cap. compe●. Aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: quia divisio unius eiusdenque mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire Either let them participate the whole sacraments, or else let them abstain from the whole; because the division of one and the same sacrament, cannot be done without great sacrilege. The first objection. Matth. 26. Mar. 14. The commandment to receive in both kinds, was only given to the twelve apostles, and in them to all priests: for they only were present, when Christ sp●ke these words; Drink ye all of this. The answer. I say first, that if the commandment pertained only to the apostles, then are priests aswell as clerks free from the same. I say secondly, that the commandment was given of both kinds in one and the self same manner, and therefore the lay people are as free from the one as the from the other. I say thirdly, that by the common opinion of the papists, they were lay people that received the communion at Christ's hands in his supper. joseph. Angles in 4. s. q. de clau. For the apostles were unpriested until after his resurrection, when he said; Receive ye the holy ghost. I say four with S. Bernard that the participation of both kinds was commanded by Christ, Bernard. serm. 3. in ramis palmar. in the first institution thereof: for thus doth he write: Nam de sacramento quidem corporis & sanguinis sui, nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam & tam singularem alimoniam eâ primùm die exhibitam, eâ die commendatam & mandatam deinceps frequentari. For concerning the sacrament of his body and blood, every one knoweth that this such and so singular nourishment was exhibited that day the first, that day commended, and commanded afterward to be frequented. This commandment S. Cyprian and saint justine urge for both kinds; their words already are set down. I say fifthly, that S. Paul who knew Christ's mind aswell as any papist, did communicate the unpriested Corinthians under both kinds, and told them that Christ had so appointed. The reply. S. Paul only recited Christ's institution, (saith our jesuite Bellarmine) but gave no commandment for both kinds, but left it as he found it, indifferent, and in the free choice of the Corinthians, to communicate in both or in one only kind. The answer. I say first, that howsoever sundry of you admire your jesuits (whom I willingly confess to be learned, wishing they would use their learning to God's glory) yet cannot wise men be carried away with ipse dixit, as if they were become disciples of Pythagoras. I say secondly, that S. Paul's own words confute your jesuite sufficiently. For first, he saith that he delivered even that which he received. Again, he reciteth the precept aswell after the cup as after the bread, which must be well observed. For hereupon doth it follow that both kinds be of like force, the one not more commanded then the other. Thirdly, he apply aswell the drinking of the cup as the eating of the bread, to all the faithful in general. Fourthly, he apply the examination to every one of the faithful. Fiftly, he willeth the examination to be made, aswell in drinking of the cup, as in eating of the bread. Sixtly, he wrote & spoke aswell to the lay people as to the priests, as the beginning of the epistle declareth. And in this sense doth their own Haymo (so reputed) expound S. Paul: for these are his words; Ego▪ n● accepi à domino, Haymo in 1. Co● cap. 11. quod et tradidi vobis i myster●um corporis & sanguinis Dom. quomodo debeatis sumere. Sicut mihi revelavit, ita tradidi vobis. For I have received of the Lord, that which I delivered to you, that is, the mystery of our Lord's body and blood, in what manner ye ought to receive it. Even as he revealed it to me, so have I delivered it to you. The reply. S. Mark maketh it plain, Mar. 14. 2●. that it was only spoken to the apostles; Drink ye all of it. For he addeth; And they all drank of it. For it is clear, that all they drank thereof, who were commanded to drink. The answer. I say first, that it was spoken to all the faithful, aswell as to the apostles. For Paul exhorted the whole church at Corinth, to use both the kinds, saying, that God had so appointed. As if he had said; not I, but the Lord commandeth you thus to do, for he revealed to me, even as I have delivered unto you. Therefore if ye do it not, you transgress his holy commandment. Yea S. Paul declared expressly in the very beginning of his epistle, that commandment of receiving the holy Eucharist in both kinds concerned all the faithful in the world, as well to come, as then living. For these words (Ye shall show the Lords death till he come, 1. Cor. 11.26. ) do evidently prove, that the form prescribed by the apostle must continue after the death of the Corinthians, even till the day of doom. I say secondly, that since Christ himself instituted both kinds; since the apostle delivered both kinds even to the lay people; since the church communicated to the faithful laycall people in both kinds every where, for many hundred years together, as the papists themselves cannot deny; since they confess that both kinds may lawfully be used; since no scripture teacheth us, that one kind is sufficient; since no father did ever exhort to use one only kind; since no council till the late synod of Constance, did ever command one only kind; in fine, since the church for more than a thousand years together did ever use both kinds: how impudent, how unchristian, nay, how tyrannical and blood-thirsty is the Pope of Rome, and his jesuits that incense and excite him thereunto; who labour this day with fire and faggot, to enforce the faithful to the contrary. I say thirdly, that this objection maketh against the papists: for in that they all drank thereof, it cannot follow that none else may drink thereof; (otherwise the practice of the church hitherto should have been wicked, and the apostles themselves have sinned grievously) but that all present aught to drink thereof. De consecr. dist. 2 cap. peracta. For which cause their own canon-law commandeth all to be put out of the church, that will not communicate when the consecration is ended. Yea, their own Pope julius doth condemn their gross illation, as who understood Christ's words of all the faithful. Thus doth he write; De consecr. dist. 2 cap. cum omne. Illud vero quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi apostolis corpus suum commendavit & sanguinem: seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicit commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctum panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus, excepto illo discipulo tantum quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet. Lo, to receive the one only kind is against the gospel. But where they give the dipped eucharist to the people for the complement of the communion, they found not this witnessed in the gospel, where Christ commended his body and blood to his disciples. For the bread is commended apart, and the cup also apart. For we read not that Christ gave dipped bread to any others, save only to the disciple, whom the dipped morsel declared to be the betrayer of his master. The reply. The council of Constance commanded no new thing, but only made a law for the continual performance of that, which the church had practised long before. The answer. I say first, that though it were so practised before in some places: yet was that practice neither general, nor approved by any settled law, until the late council of Constance. I say secondly, that the great pillar of the popish church Thomas Aquinas honestly confesseth so much in this behalf, as is enough for the everlasting confusion of all Romish hypocrites. And because I covet to deal faithfully in this point, as in all other; I will allege the express words of Aquinas, as himself hath delivered them: thus doth he write: Aquin. p. 3. q. 80 ar. 12. in corpor● Ex part quidem ipsius sacramenti convenit, quòd utrumque sumatur, scilicet & corpus & sanguis, quia in utroque consistit perfectio sacramenti. Et ideo quia ad sacerdotem pertinet hoc sacramentum consecrare & perficere, nullo modo debet corpus Christi sumere sine sanguine: ex part autem sumentium requiritur summa reverentia & cautela, ne aliquid accidat quod vergat ad iniuriam tanti mysterij: quod praecipuè posset accidere in sanguinis sumptione, qui quidem si incautè sumeretur, de facili posset effundi. Et quia crevit multitudo populi christiani, in quâ continentur senes▪ & iwenes, & paruuli, quorum quid●m non sunt tantae discretionis, ut cautelam debitam circa usum huius sacramenti adhibeant; ideo providè in quibusdam ecclesiis obseruatur, ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solûm à sacerdote sumatur. In the behalf of the sacrament it is meet that both be received; to wit, both the body and the blood, because in both consisteth the perfection of the sacrament: and therefore, because it belongeth to the priest to consecrate and to perfit this sacrament, he may in no case receive the body of Christ without the blood. In the behalf of the receivers great reverence and circumspection is required, left any thing chance that may tend to the injury of so worthy a mystery: which might chance especially in the receiving of the blood; which if it were unwarily received, might easily be shed. And because the multitude of christian people is increased wherein are contained old men, & young men, and little ones, whereof some are not of so great discretion, to use due wariness about the use of this sacrament: therefore there is a good proviso made in some churches, that the lay people shall not receive the blood, but only the priest. Out of these words of Aquinas I note first, that he lived a thousand two hundred seventy, Anno. Dom. 1275 and five years after Christ. I note secondly, that the perfection of the sacrament consisteth in both kinds; and consequently, that the communion of the lay people, is this day unperfect in the church of Rome. I note thirdly, that both kinds were usually given to the lay people in Aquinas his time, & that the contrary was practised only in some few odd churches apart. I note four, that in his time young children received the holy communion. To this I add fifthly, that the papists can never show any other alteration, between the days of Aquinas and their late synod of Constance. The second objection. 〈◊〉. ●4. 36. Christ ministered the holy Eucharist in one only kind, to his two disciples in Emaus: for saint Luke maketh mention of bread only, and not of wine. The answer. I say first, that your own jansenius granteth that this place is not meant of the eucharist, ●●nel. jansen. comment. 〈◊〉 loci. but was only a figure thereof: & he proveth his opinion out of saint Austen, S. Bede & Theophilacte. I say secondly, that it is the usual phrase of the hebrew tongue, to term all kind of meat by the name of bread; and so howsoever the place be understood, drink can no way be excluded. I say thirdly, that if this place be understood of the holy communion, 〈◊〉. 26.27. yet will it not confirm the popish practice by any means. For a singular act of Christ, who was above his law and not bound thereunto; Cor. 11.24.25. cannot discharge us from his holy institution, which he commanded us to observe. The third objection. S. Luke saith, that the faithful continued in the apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers: Act. 20. verse. ●. where by the breaking of bread must needs be understood the blessed eucharist; and yet is there no mention made of wine. The answer. I say first, that as it is true, that these Texts are to be understood of the holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood: so is it true also that both kinds were ministered therein. I prove it, because otherwise the Apostles should have ministered the sacrament in one only kind; which yet no learned paipst will avouch. I say secondly, that the whole sacrament is figuratively signified by the breaking of bread; by the figure Synecdoche, which is frequent in the holy scripture, when a part is named for the whole. Whosoever rejects this gloss, must charge the apostle with flat sacrilege. Yea, it is common with the fathers to understand both the kinds, whensoever they speak of the holy eucharist, although they make but express mention of the one. Therefore Saint justine, after he had made express mention of both the kinds, addeth these words; Alimentum hoc apud nos appellatur eucharistia. justinus martyr apolog. 2. in fi● This food or nourishment we call the eucharist. S. Irenaeus hath these words: Quando mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, Irenaeus libr. 5. prope initium. fit eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Christi. When the cup mingled and the bread broken receiveth the word of God, it is made the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ. So S. Cyprian naming the cup only, calleth it the eucharist. Cypr. in tract. de lapsis. Which cup being given to an infant, proveth evidently, that in the primitive church both kinds were thought most necessary. The fourth objection. It was the use in the primitive church to bear the eucharist in one kind to the sick, Euseb. hist. lib. ● cap. 34. because there was great danger in carrying the consecrated wine. A sufficient testimony hereof is the story of Serapion. The answer. I say first, that most ancient approved antiquity beareth witness of both kinds sent and carried to the sick and to such as were absent. S. justine the martyr hath these words: Diaconi distribuunt unicuique praesentium, ut participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem, ●ustinus apolog. 2▪ ●ag. 76. vinum, & aquam, & ad absentes perferunt. The deacons distribute to every one that is present a portion of the consecrated bread, wine, and water, and they also carry thereof to those that be absent. Again he writeth thus; Distributio communicatióque fit eorum in quibus gratiae actae sunt, ●dem ibid. pa. 77. cuique praesenti, absentibus autem per diaconos mittitur. A distribution and communication is made of those things that are blessed, to every one that is present: and the same is carried by the deacons, to those that be absent▪ Saint Hierome greatly commendeth saint Exuperius, for his singular zeal in this behalf: 〈◊〉. ad Rustic. ●●onach. tom. 1. 〈◊〉. 23. these are his words; Sanctus Exuperius Tolosae episcopus viduae Sarep●ensis imitator, esuriens pascit alios: & o'er pallente ●eiunijs, fame torquetur alienâ omnémque substantiam Christi visceribus erogavit. Nihil illo ditius▪ qui corpus domini canistro vimin●o, sanguinem portat in vitro▪ Saint Exuperius the bishop of Tolose imitating the widow of Sarepta, feedeth others even when himself is hungry: his own mouth is pale with fasting, & yet it grieveth him to behold others famine: all his substance he bestoweth on Christ's members. None more rich than he; he carrieth our Lord's body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass. I say secondly, that Serapion received both kinds, ●eephorus confesses that he ●eceiued the eucharist. lib. 9 ca 6 though in some thing different from Christ's institution. For the bread was first infused into the consecrated wine, and so received: which manner of receiving was a little corruption, though far different from the popish practice, which altogether abandoneth the perfection of the holy sacrament. This their own Durand telleth them: and if they will not hear me, yet must I request them to hearken to his words. Durand. lib. 4. ca ●4. in ration. ●iuinorum. Thus doth he write; Etsi in hostiâ consecratâ Christi sanguis sit, non tamen est ibi sacramentaliter eò quòd panis corpus▪ non sanguinem; & vinum, sanguinem significat & non corpus▪ Quia ergo, sub alterá tantum specie non est completum sacramentum, qu● ad sacramentum vel signum▪ debet hoc sacramentum compleri prius, quâm presbiter eo utatur. Although in the consecrate host there be the blood of Christ, yet is it not there sacramentally: ●ee Durands ●ordes in the conclusion 〈◊〉. because the bread doth signify the body not the blood; and the wine doth signify the blood, not the body. Therefore because the sacrament is not complete under one only kind in respect of the sacrament or sign; this sacrament must be first complete, before the priest use it. Thus saith our popish Durand. Out of whose words I note to the great comfort of good christians, The Laical communion unperfit. that the adversaries unwittingly are beaten with their own swords. For though their doctor Durand, only intent to make good the priests receiving; yet is his reason general, forcible, christian, insoluble, & utterly overthroweth all communicating under one kind. Which he proveth unwittingly and unwillingly, (such is the force of truth) by three reasons: first, because the blood is not in the consecrate host sacramentally: secondly because the bread cannot signify the blood: thirdly, because the sacrament is not perfect under one kind. Now that to use dipped bread in stead of the blessed wine, is a corruption; I have already proved by pope julius, De consecr. dist. 2 cap. cum omne. who telleth us that none received dipped bread, but only judas the traitor. The fift objection. In the primitive church, the faithful used to carry the bread home with them, that they might receive it when they thought good, which is an evident sign, that then they received it in one kind at home. The answer. I say first that the custom the objection speaketh of, was as well of the wine as of the bread. Nazianz. orat. in Gorg●. post med. For S. Gregory Nazianzene writeth of his sister Gorgonia, that she reserved for devotion sake, some part of the signs of the body & blood of our Lord, which she brought home from the church. Tertull. lib. 2. ad uxorem. Tertullian writing to his wife of this use, maketh mention of the wine as well as the bread. And Saint Exuperius (as ye have heard already) carried both the kinds about with him to relieve the sick and absent; which he would never have done, if the lay people had not received in both kinds. I say secondly, that this custom was not general, but only used in some places of some persons rather of zeal than discretion; and therefore justly abrogated by sundry holy councils, Toletain and Cesaraugustain. Conc. Tolet. ●. can. 14. Conc. Caesaraug. can. 2. These are the express words of these holy counsels; Si quis acceptam à sacerdote eucharistiam non consumpserit, velut sacrilegus propellatur, anathema sit. If any shall not eat up all the eucharist which he receiveth of the priest; let him be excommunicated, let him be accursed. Out of which words I gather that the lay people received both kinds in the church; but of a certain zeal reserved some part thereof, which they carried home, to eat in time convenient, as they thought. Which use these grave synods utterly disliking, condemned as sacrilegious. The sixth objection. Many counsels make mention of the laical communion, by which the lay people were distinguished from the clerks. Which distinction could never have been, if both had received under both kinds. The answer. I answer briefly, that both sorts received the holy eucharist in both kinds: but the difference was this: the priest received before the altar, the clerks in the chancel, the lay people without; so that the meaning of the counsels is this and no other, to 〈◊〉, that when the laical communion was enjoined to the clergy for penance, than they were to receive in both kinds as before, but after the other clergy, and in a lower place with the vulgar and lay people. This my solution is grounded in these words of the Toletain council: Conc. Tolet. ●. can. 17. Sacerdotes & Levitae ante altare communicent, in choro clericus, extra chorum populus. Let the priests and the deacons communicate before the altar, the clerks in the chancel, the people without the chancel. In which words is insinuated the distinction of communions by the local distinction where the communion was received. The second conclusion. The private communicating in the popish mass, where the priest devoureth up all alone, is wicked, profane and execrable, as which is repugnant to Christ's sacred institution, controlled by apostolical tradition, and unknown to the ancient church following. Matt. 26.27. Luc 22.19. Ma●. 14.23. I prove it briefly: First, because Christ instituted both kinds, & commanded all to receive both kinds, and withal, because all present accomplished his precept. For as Saint Mark saith, they all drank thereof. Secondly, because S. Paul delivered to all the Corinthians as well the lay sort as the clergy, not only the form of bread, but of wine also; protesting that he had so received the same from the Lord, 1. Cor. 11.24, 25. and consequently that they ought in like manner to frequent that holy sacrament. And that all without exception used thus to do, is most evident by the course of holy scripture. For Luke writeth; Act. 2. 4●. Act. 20.7. The faithful continued in the apostles doctrine, & fellowship, & breaking of bread, & prayers: yea, it is so evident in the very canons of the apostles (so highly magnified of the papists) that private mass was reputed an execrable thing in their time, as none living perusing their canons seriously, can without the note of impudency deny the same. These are the express words of the tenth canon: Can. 10. Apostol. Omnes fideles qui conveniunt in solennibus sacris ad ecclesiam, scripturas apostolorum & evangelium audiant. Qui autem non perseveraverint in oratione usque dum missa peragitur, nec sanctam communionem percipiunt velut inquietudines ecclesiae moventes, convenit communione privari. Let all the faithful that come to the church in time of the holy mysteries, hear the scriptures of the apostles and the gospel. And if any shall not continue in prayer till the mass be done, or shall not receive the holy communion; Popish private mass condemned even by the apostles. let them be excommunicate, as those that disquiet the congregation. Thus did the apostles decree. In whose constitution we see plainly, that the apostles are so far from approving the private mass of the papists; as they would not permit any to be in the church, but such as did communicate with the priest. De consecr. dist. ● cap. omnes. This is confirmed even by the pope's canon law. Thirdly, because all the fathers of approved antiquity, do teach us the same doctrine. S. Chrysostome hath these words: Ista videlicet & nunc ad omnes nos dicit, Chrysost. hom. 3▪ add Ephes. qui impudenter hic & improbè adstamus. Quisquis enim mysteriorum consors non est, impudens & impr●bus adstat. These things verily he now saith to us all, which stand by impudently and wickedly. For whosoever standeth by and doth not communicate, he is impudent & wicked. Oh what would this holy father say, if he were this day in Rome▪ and should see many hundreds standing by gazing, and the priest only devouring all? he would doubtless term them, most impudent and ungracious people. Clemens in Epistol 2. Saint Clement, whose Epistles the papists have in great reverence, writeth in these words: Certè tanta in altario holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debeant. Quòdsi remanserint, in crastinum non reseruentur. Let so many breads be offered at the altar, as may suffice the people, (not only the ministers.) And if any thing shall remain, let it not be reserved till the morrow. Ambr. in 1. Cor. cap. 11. S. Ambrose is consonant, and confirmeth Saint Clement's assertion in these words: Munus enim oblatum totius populi fit, quia in uno pane omnes significantur. Per id enim quod unum sumus, de uno pane omnes sumere oportet. For the oblation offered belongeth to the whole people, because all are signified in one bread. For in that we are all one, we must all receive of one bread. Durand. in ration. lib. 4. cap. 53. Durand, though he favour the papists all that he may, yet could he find no place for private mass. Thus doth he write; In primitiuâ ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererant, singulis diebus communicare solebant, eò quòd apostoli omnes de calice biberunt, Dom▪ dicente, bibite ex hoc omnes. In the primitive church all that were present at the mass did every day receive the communion, because all the apostles drank of the cup, according to our lords commandment. Out of whose words I note first, that in the primitive Church none could be permitted to be at mass, but such as would receive the communion. I note secondly, that Christ's commandment tied all the people thereunto. A plainer testimony doubtless, cannot be given. Aquinas p. 3. q. ●0. ar. 10. ad ●uintum. Their angelical doctor Aquinas hath these express words: Name in primitiuâ ecclesiâ quando magna vigebat devotio fidei Christianae, statutum fuit, ut quotidie fideles communicarent. unde Anacletus papa dicit peractâ consecratione omnes communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus: sic enim & apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Rom. tenet ecclesia. In the primitive church when the faithful were fervent in devotion, it was decreed that the people should receive the communion daily. Whereupon the pope Anacletus saith: when the consecration is ended, let all communicate, that will not be driven out of the church doors: for so both the apostles ordained, and the holy Roman Church observeth. Out of these words I note first, that all were driven out of the church that would not receive. I note secondly, that it was the ordinance of the Apostles so to do. I note thirdly, that as the same Aquinas saith a little after, want of charity and abundance of iniquity, made this holy ordinance to cease. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that christian zeal is decayed in the Romish church. The 3. conclusion. The popish oblation of Christ's natural body in their mass, by which they ascribe remission of sins to the quick and the dead, is blasphemous and injurious to Christ's holy passion. I prove it first, because the apostle saith, that we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of jesus Christ once. For if it be true that S. Paul saith, that it is but once offered; Heb. 10. v. 10. it must needs be false that the papists say, that it is offered in their masses, ten thousand times in one hour. I prove it secondly, because the apostle saith, that Christ hath with one oblation made perfect for ever, them that are sanctified. For doubtless where one oblation doth make us perfit and consummate; there need neither more oblations, Heb. 10. v. 14▪ nor often iteration of the same. Therefore the popish oblation of Christ to his father in their mass is blasphemous against Christ, as which maketh his oblation upon the cross unperfect, and insuffcicient for our sins. I prove it thirdly, because the apostle proveth Christ's priesthood to excel the priesthood of the old law, Heb. 10. v. 10.11, 12, 13. for that Christ did take away sins by one only oblation, which the priests of the law could not do with many. But doubtless this reason of S. Paul is frivolous and to no purpose, if Christ must still be offered in the mass to put away sin. I prove it four, because the apostle saith, that as it is appointed to men, that they shall once die, Heb. 9 v. ●●. 2●. and after that cometh the judgement; even so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many, and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Lo, Christ is no more offered before his second advent, than men die before the judgement, and yet every child knoweth, that men die but once by ordinary course. I prove it fifthly, because S. Paul saith that if he should often offer himself, Heb. 9 v. 25.26▪ as the high priest entered into the holy place every year, then must he have often suffered since the foundation of the world; as if he had said, he can but suffer once, and therefore he is but once only offered▪ Note this reason well, for doubtless it doth convince. I prove it sixtly, because there is now no other thing in the holy Eucharist, then that which Christ gave to his apostles at his last supper. Mark well my words (gentle Reader) and thou shalt with facility espy the blasphemous treachery of the papists. For, if that which Christ gave to his apostles in his supper, were his natural body sacrificed for the sins of mankind: Note well this reason. then was man's redemption twice accomplished, then was Christ sacrificed before he died, then was man's redemption really done before it really began, then was he dead before his passion, than was his body in one place and his blood in another, than was he both living and dead at once, then was his death in vain: for all these absurdities do follow perforce, upon the forged propitiatory sacrifice in the popish mass. I prove it seventhly, because Christ himself said of his holy and bitter passion, joan. 19.30. that it was the consummation of every thing needful for man's salvation. But doubtless where one oblation once made, maketh man's salvation perfect and consummate, there not only more oblations, but also the iteration of the same oblation, is mere frustrate and needless. I prove it eightly, because the Apostle saith flattely, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hebr. 10.18. There is not henceforth any oblation for sin. For if Saint Paul say truly, that there is no oblation for sin after Christ's death on the cross; then doubtless the papists must needs say falsely, that they have a daily propitiatory sacrifice in their mass. I prove it ninthly, because if the sacrifice of the mass, were the self same sacrifice of the cross, but unbloody, as the papists dream: then should their mass sacrifice be of infinite valour, which yet no papist dareth avouch. This reason doth confound the papists, & therefore I will prove effectually every part thereof. First, that it is the same sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross, all papists grant being enforced with S. Paul's words when he saith: With one oblation he made perfect for ever, those that are sanctified. Secondly, that it is not of infinite valour, our jesuite granteth in these words; Hebr. 10.14. Valour sacrificii missae finitus est. The valour of the sacrifice of the mass is finite. Now I prove the consecution of my proposition, which is the third thing remaining; wherein resteth all the difficulty, if there be any at all. First therefore the sacrifice supposed to be in the mass, is the natural body and blood of the son of God▪ For otherwise it could not be the same, that was offered upon the cross. Again, he that is supposed to offer the sacrifice daily in the mass, is Christ himself the son of God. Who (as the papists teach blasphemously) held in his hands at his last supper, that self same body that was borne of the virgin Mary, and suffered the next day after. And yet if the valour of the sacrifice of the m●sse be finite, then doubtless that sacrifice can not be the son of God: for he is of infinite power, of infinite glory, of infinite majesty, of infinite valour. Yea, whosoever denieth Christ's body & blood, subsisting in the person of God by hypostatical union, to be of infinite valour; he is become a flat Arrian, believing Christ to be pure man, and not God. And consequently, howsoever the papists think or speak of their mass, yet in making it a sacrifice they are blasphemous: and that must needs follow, though it were freely granted them, that Christ's body were present really in the Sacrament. I prove it tenthly, because our jesuite cannot deny, but that a real destruction is necessarily required, Bellarmine de missa lib. 1. c. 2●▪ in every true & real sacrifice. Wherefore, since Christ dieth not in the popish mass, it cannot be that he is truly sacrificed in the same. For as Bellarmine truly saith, Abraham did not truly sacrifice his son Isaac, because he was not really slain. Now that this discourse may be made more manifest, I will propound the strongest objections for the adverse part, and add brief solutions to the same. The first objection. S. Paul saith, that Christ is a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech; and Melchisedech offered bread and wine, Heb. 6. v. 20. Gen 14.18. Heb. 10. ●. as he was God's priest, saith holy Moses. To which we must add that the thing figured is more excellent than the figure, & that Christ truly offered sacrifice in bread and wine: otherwise, he should not have exactly fulfilled the figure of Melchisedech. For all the father's grant, that he was a true figure of Christ, even as he was a priest. The answer. I say first, that Melchisedech did not sacrifice bread & wine, but as the Hebrew text saith, brought forth bread & wine; that is, sufficient victuals for the refection of Abraham and his soldiers, after their return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and the other kings. For the whole course of the scripture telleth us, that bread by Synecdoche signifieth, meat. So Moses saith, that the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, Gen. 43. v. 32. that is, ●sa●. 4. v. 1. meat. In Esay 7. women say; we will eat our own bread▪ ●. Reg. 9.7. that is, our own meat. King David promised Mephibosheth, that he should eat bread always at his own table: which had been a very small reward of a king, if by bread were not signified all kind of meat. Ier 52.31. & deinceps. King jehoiachim ate bread at the table of Euil-merodach the king of Babel: that is, all delicate fare. So it is called bread, job▪ 42.11. that jobs friends ate in his house, when it is certain that they had right sumptuous cheer. The like examples are in S. Matthew, & sundry other places of scripture. This I note against the papists, who fond use to answer, that bread was a slender refection for all Abraham's company. I say secondly, that Christ's priesthood is after the order of Melchisedech, not in any sacrifice of bread and wine, which Melchisedech can never be proved to have offered; but in that as man he was without father wonderfully conceived; as God, without beginning & without ending, & without mother wonderfully begotten: ●s. 53. v. 8. for which cause the prophet demandeth, who shall declare his generation? in these points Christ's priesthood differeth not from Melchisedech, Heb. 7.3 who as S. Paul saith, was without father, without mother, without kindred, without beginning of his days, without end of his life, likened to the son of God, and a priest for ever. Yet in the oblation of bread and wine, Exod. 29. v. 23. the priesthood of Melchisedech was not perfectly distinguished from the priesthood of Aaron, Num. 28. v. 2.9▪ 12. as the scripture witnesseth. S. Paul therefore describeth the priesthood of Melchisedech without the mention of bread and wine, in such sort as it is perfectly distinguished from the priesthood of Aaron. So Eusebius Caesariensis comparing the priesthood of Christ with the priesthood of Melchisedech, doth not say that it consisteth in the sacrifice of bread and wine; but in the unction, the divine similitude, the eternity, and want of succession. These are his express words: Euseb. apud Ruff. hist. libr. 1. cap 1. Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Hic autem Melchisedech in divinis voluminib. sacerdos fuisse Dei summi refertur, sed qui non oleo communi perunctus sit, neque qui ex successione generis suscepit sacerdotium, sicut apud Hebraeos fieri mos erat: & ideo secundum ordinem ipsius sacerdos futurus dicitur Christus, qui non olei liquore, sed virtute coelestis spiritus consecretur. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. And this Melchisedech is called in the holy scriptures, the priest of God most high: but one which was not anointed with common oil, neither yet received his priesthood by the succession of kindred, as the manner was among the Hebrews; and therefore Christ is called a priest after his order, who is consecrate, not with the liquor of oil, but with the virtue of the holy ghost. I say thirdly, that Melchisedech in his action towards Abraham, showed himself both to be a priest and a king: a priest, in that he blessed Abraham: a king, in that he relieved Abraham and his soldiers with bread & wine, that is, with all competent corporal sustenance. I say four, that if there had been any force in the oblation of Melchisedech touching Christ's priesthood; S. Paul, who handled every least thing exactly in that comparison, would never have omitted his sacrifice in bread and wine: and yet he passed it over as a thing of no importance. I say fifthly, that Christ offering himself upon the cross for the sins of the world; Observe this well. was not a priest after the order of Aaron, but properly and truly after the order of Melchisedech. I prove the former part: First, because perfection could not come by the priesthood of the Levites, as the apostle beareth witness. Again, Hebr. 7.11 because our Lord jesus was of the tribe of juda; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing at all touching the priesthood. Thirdly, Ibid. verse 14. because the sacrifice of the cross was the most perfect sacrifice of all other, Hebr. 10.14. as which did consummate them that are sanctified for ever. I prove the latter part; first, because it must be after some order, but not after the order of Aaron as is proved: ergo after the order of Melchisedech. Secondly because the apostle doth in express terms call Christ a priest, even after the order of Melchisedech. These are his words; Hebr. 5.9, 10. And being consummate, was made the cause of eternal life to all them that obey him, and is called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchisedech. Lo, Saint Paul joineth the order of Melchisedech, with the sacrifice of the cross offered for man's redemption: as if he had said; Christ is therefore called a priest after the order of Melchisedech, because he hath offered a most perfect sacrifice on the cross. And indeed, as all priests were types of Christ the eternal priest, in whom they were accomplished; so all sacrifices were figures of the sacrifice of the cross, and exactly accomplished in the same; & consequently, wherein soever the sacrifice of Melchisedech did consist, it was accomplished in the sacrifice on the cross. The first reply. Gen. 14. 1●. Moses after he had said, that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, added forthwith these words; Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi, for he was the priest of God most high. In which words he yieldeth the reason of his sacrifice, because as Saint Paul saith, every Priest must offer sacrifice. Wherefore he that denieth Melchisedech to have offered bread & wine, Heb. 5.1. must tell us of some other oblation that he made; for in the scriptures we find none else. The answer. I say first, that your latin vulgata editio doth afford you some pleasure now & then, as by means whereof ye make some show of truth; but the fountain, the original, & Hebrew text is otherwise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was the priest. And the reason alleged in your latin translation, Argumentum ad hominem. is void of all reason; for if Melchisedech must therefore offer bread and wine, because he is a priest; then must it follow perforce, that every priest shall do the same; which yet no scripture doth avouch. Neither can any papist prove the same of Abraham, Cain, Esau, and others, who all were priests as themselves confess. I say secondly, that we grant him to have offered sacrifice, because Moses saith he was a priest. But hereupon doth it not follow, that we can disclose his sacrifice in precise manner. Every truth is not expressed in ●he scripture. For though the scripture contain every thing necessary to our salvation, yet concealeth it many truths, as nothing needful for us. I say thirdly, that if it be granted, that Melchisedech offered bread & wine; yet will it not follow, Mark well, O papist, and thou not but be satisfied. that Christ must do the same. For if Christ should offer bread and wine indeed, we should still continue in figures, & remain without the verity. But because the thing figured is more excellent than the figure, as the papists in this present controversy truly do object; Christ who was to accomplish all types, all figures, all prophecies concerning his most sacred advent, presented to God his father omnipotent, a most pure, holy, sufficient, independent, & absolute sacrifice upon the cross, and then truly said consummatum est: joan. 19 verse 30. I have fulfilled every thing that was written of me in the law & the prophets: and this he did after the order of Melchisedech, while he did the night before sacramentally signify the same, at his last supper in bread & wine. This my solution (if it be well marked) is doubtless firmly grounded in these words of S. Cyprian: Cyprian. ad Caecilium epist. 63. Nam quis magis sacerdos dei summi quàm D●noster jesus Christus? qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat i panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem. For who is more the priest of god most high, than our Lord jesus Christ? who offered sacrifice to God the father, & offered the self same thing that Melchisedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood. Thus saith the ancient, holy, & learned father S. Cyprian, whose words the papists ever allege for their purpose: and yet do I think to confound the papists even by the self same words. I therefore beseech thee (gentle reader) to mark attentively what I say. I note first out of S. Cyprians words, The Papists are confounded by their own allegation. y● as Melchisedech was the priest of god most high, so was Christ also. I note secondly, that Christ offered sacrifice to god the father. I note thirdly, that Christ offered the self-same thing that Melchisedech offered. I note four, that that which Christ offered was both bread & wine, and also his own body & blood. Now out of these observations I infer first, that the accidents and external forms of bread and wine (which only the papists will have to remain in their eucharist,) are not the self same thing that Melchisedech offered. For that which he offered (as all papists grant, The first corollary. & evident reason enforceth them,) was really & substantially bread and wine. I infer secondly, that that which Christ offered was his real body & blood sacrificed really on the cross, The second corollary. and in the eucharist sacramentally the self-same that Melchisedech offered. For the natural bread and wine in the eucharist, is a mystery & sacrament of Christ's body & blood offered on the cross. Thus is every thing consonant that S. Cyprian writeth, and no otherwise can all that he saith be verified. And in this sense do other Fathers speak of this theme; who affirm bread and wine in the eucharist, to be the mystery of Christ's body and blood offered on the cross, but not to be the real and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead. Arnobius in Psal. 109. Arnobius hath these words; hic qui per mysterium panis ac vini sacerdos factus est in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech qui panem & vinum solus obtulit in sacerdotibus dum Abraham victor reverteretur de p●aelio. He that by the mystery of bread and wine, was made a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, who only among priests offered bread & wine, while Abraham returned from the battle with v●ctorie. Theodoret in Psal. 109. Theodoretus hath these words, offered verò ecclesia corporis eius & sanguinis symbola, omne fermentum per primitias sanctificans But the Church offereth the signs of his body & blood, Lo, this holy and ancient Father, telleth the case plainly. sanctifying all leaven by the first fruits. Mark this testimony O Papist, and yield unto the truth. Euseb. Caesar. de demonstr. euangel. lib. 5 cap. 3. Eusebius Caesa●iensis hath these words: quemadmodum ille qui sacerdos gentium erat, nusquam videtur sacrificijs corporalibus functus, sed vino solo & pane, dum ipsi Abraham benedicit: ita sanè primus ipse salvator ac dominus noster, deinde qui ab ipso profecti sunt sacerdotes, in omnibus gentibus spirituale secundum ecclesiasticas sanctiones sacerdotij munus obeuntes, vino ac pane & corporis illius, & salutaris sanguinis mysteria repraesentant. Quae sanè mysteria Melchisedech tanto antè spiritu divino cognoverat, & rerum futurarum imaginibus usus fuerat. As he that was the priest of the Gentiles, seemeth no where to have used corporal sacrifices, but only wine & bread while he blessed Abraham: even so our Lord and Saviour Christ, than the priests that came from him, executing the spiritual function of priesthood among all nations, according to the decrees of the Church, do represent the mysteries of his body and blood in bread & wine: which mysteries truly Melchisedech knew long before by God's inspiration, & used the figures of things to come. Thus we see by the testimonies of these ancient Fathers, that the oblation of Melchisedech was accomplished in the sacrifice of the cross, which Christ before did signify sacramentally, by bread and wine in his last supper. The second reply. The Fathers by you alleged, do prove constantly, that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God most high; and not only brought it forth to refresh Abraham and his company, as you defend. The answer. I say first, that out of the text can no more be provided, but that he brought forth bread and wine, for the relief of Abraham & his soldiers. I say secondly, that so much is confessed by holy, ancient, & very learned writers. joseph. antiq. Iu● lib. ●. cap. 10. For josephus writeth in this manner: hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit▪ nihil eis ad victum deesse passus; simulque ipsum adhibitum mensae meritis laudibus extulit, & deo, cuius favore victoria contigerat, debitos hymnos, ut sua pietate dignum erat, cecinit. Abrahamus contrà de manubijs decimas ei dono dedit. This Melchisedech entertained Abraham's soldiers, suffering them to want no competent food; he also placed Abraham himself at his own table, giving him his condign gratulation, & praised God religiously, as became his piety, by whose favour the victory was had. Abraham on the other side gave him tithes of all that was gotten in the spoil. S. Austen is of the same mind, Aug. in q▪ ex utroque t●st. q. 109. and hath these words: obuiavit Melchisedech sacerdos dei summi Abrahae revertenti à caede regum, & protulit panes & vinum, & obtulit ei, & benedixit eum. Melchisedech the priest of God most high, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and brought forth bread and wine, and offered them to him, and blessed him. In these words of S. Austen, I note two things: the one, that the oblation of Melchisedech was not made to God, as the Papists affirm, but to Abraham himself in the way of refection. The other, that S. Austen nameth breads in the plural number: as if he had said; Melchisedech brought good store of meat for Abraham and his soldiers. Tertull. aduersu● judaeos prope initium. Tertullianus hath these words: denique, sequentes patriarchae incircumcisi fuerunt, ut Melchisedech, qui ipsi Abrahae iam circumciso revertenti de praelio, panem & vinum obtulit incircumcisus. In fine, the partiarks that followed were uncircumcised, as Melchisedech, who being uncircumcised offered bread and wine to Abraham, that was now circumcised, when he returned from the battle. Saint Ambrose teacheth the same doctrine, by the tradition of the Hebrews. These are his words: nec esse nowm, Ambr. in 7. cap. ●d Hebr. si Melchisedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit, & in refectionem tam ipsius quam pugnatorum eius panem vinumque p●otulerit, & benedixerit ei. Neither ought it to seem strange, if Melchisedech went to meet Abraham the conqueror, and brought forth bread and wine for the refection of him and his soldiers, and blessed him. Canus de Ioel● lib. 12. cap. 12. p. 415. Yea, your own bishop Canus granteth all this. I say thirdly, that the fathers do indeed confess Melchisedech to have offered bread & wine; neither do I deny the thing itself▪ in the sense of the fathers. But I deny, that either it can be proved out of the scriptures, or that the fathers admit your popish application thereof. And so have I yielded a sufficient answer, The Papists labour ●o establish their mass, in the oblation of Melchisedech. to all that is or can be said in this intricate matter, whereon you seek to ground your popish mass. The second objection. Hebr. 5.1. Every priest (saith S. Paul) is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin: therefore doubtless we must have some sacrifice in the new testament, and priests to execute the same; for without priests, gifts, oblations, and sacrifices to God for the sins of the people, no person, no people, no common wealth can appertain to God, neither can such sovereign duties be done by any in the world, but by a priest chosen for the purpose. For divers princes (as the scripture recordeth,) were punished by God; jeroboams hand dried up, ●. Reg. ●3. 1, 4. ●. Para. 26.16, 20 ●. Reg. 1.3.9, 13. Ozias smitten with the leprosy, and king Saul deposed from his kingdom, specially for attempting such things. The answer. I say first, that S. Paul speaketh not generally of all the ministers of Gods holy word & sacraments, but of the priesthood of the old law; yea, he speaketh especially and expressly of the high priests only, who was a type and figure of Christ jesus, the true, perfect, and eternal priest of God most high. I say secondly, that the people of the new testament, want neither priesthood, nor yet external sacrifice; Psal 109.4. for Christ's eternal priesthood fulfilled and abolished the legal priesthood together with the law; Heb. 7.25. Act. 4.12. joh. 19 verse. 3●. and all legal sacrifices which were but figures of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, were exactly accomplished in the same; so that Christ being our eternal priest, and his sacrifice once offered being so perfect, as the virtue thereof endureth for ever; Hebr. 5.9. cap. 6.20. cap. 7.11, 26, 27. cap. 9.26. cap.▪ 10.14. we people of the new testament have neither need of legal priests, nor yet of popish massing priests, who can never put away their own sins, much less the sins of others. For if we expect any other priest, or appease to any other sacrifice in the new testament; we deceive ourselves, make frustrate Christ's only sacrifice, and do great villainy to his eternal priesthood. I say thirdly, that though in the reformed christian churches, there be no external propitiatory sacrifice acknowledged, save only the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross; yet is there in the same the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments according to gods holy ordinance, Hebr. 5.4. which no man takes on him to execute, but he that is lawfully called thereunto. I say four, that albeit in the preaching of the word & the administration of the sacraments, the chosen minister hath only the charge and authority to execute them; nevertheless, The prince doth neither preach the word, nor minister the sacraments, but commandeth the execution of them both. God's anointed prince hath the supreme charge and authority, to command the execution thereof, as also to punish the minister for neglecting his duty in that behalf. Of which point I have spoken sufficiently, in my book of Motives. I say fifthly, that Ozias, jeroboam, and Saul, were not punished for correcting the abuses or negligence of the priests, wherein Go●s word giveth them supreme and sovereign authority, but because they intruded themseleus, 3. Reg. 13. 2. Paral. 26. 1. Reg. 13. and insolently executed priestly function, which God did flatly porhibite in his sacred word. The third objection. S. Austen, S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose, & all the fathers generally, do usually term the mass or eucharist (the sacrifice of the mediator, the sacrament of the altar, the unbloody sacrifice, & the price of our redemption) whosoever denieth this must either be condemned of malice, as speaking against his own knowledge, or of mere ignorance, as not knowing what the fathers write. The answer. I say first, that it were a vain contention to strive for the name, so we could agree in the thing. For as it is not material if we call the ministers of the new testament (priests,) so we understand rightly the thing itself; so is it not of importance, if we term the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, (either the Lords supper▪ or the Eucharist, or the communion, or the liturgy, or the blessed sacrament, or the mass) if we understand rightly, the thing signified by the same. For all these words (I know) are rightly used, by the ancient, holy & learned fathers. Where I note this by the way, that whether the word Mass be latin or hebrew, or what it doth properly signify, the papists cannot yet agree among themselves. I say secondly, that the fathers indeed do often call the Eucharist (Christ's body and blood, the sacrifice of the mediator; the unbloody sacrifice, and whatsoever else is due to the sacrifice of the cross,) nevertheless, they have always a godly sense and meaning in such kind of appollations; that is to say, they ascribe such names to the Eucharist, not because it is properly the self same thing that the word importeth; but for that it is the sacrament, the sign, & the memorial thereof; or else because it is spiritually the sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving; for the proof hereof, it were enough to call to mind, that sacraments in the scripture have the names of those things, whereof they ●e the sacraments. For Moses saith of the paschal lamb, Exod. 12.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is the Lords passover, & yet most certain it is by the very text itself, that the lamb was not the passover itself, but only the sign and signification thereof; like as all sacraments be signs of the things which they do represent, but not the things which are signified by the same. And this I hope to make so plain, even by the express testimonies of the holy fathers, (wherein the papists use to glory beyond all measure,) as no papist in that the christian world shall ever be able to answer me therein. S, Austen hath these express words; Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, i sacrum signum est. Therefore the visible sacrifice is the sacrament of the invisible sacrifice, that is, an holy sign. And a little after, he addeth these words: Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium, Aug. de civit. 〈◊〉 lib. 10. cap. 5. signum est veri sacrificij: that which men call a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice. In another place he hath these words, with many other to the like effect; Ibidem cap. 20. Cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium. Whereof he would have the sacrifice of the church to be a daily sacrament. In another place he hath these words; Contr. Faust. libr. 20. cap. 21. tom. ● huius sacrificij caro et sanguis ante adventum Christi, per victimas similitudinum prrmittebatur: in passione Christi, per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensum Christi, per sacramentum memoriae celebratur. Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised by the sacrifices of similitudes; in the passion of Christ, it was restored by the verity: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the sacrament of memory. In all these places S. Austen saith expressly, that though the Eucharist be called a sacrifice, yet is it not a sacrifice properly and indeed, but only a sacrament, sign, and representation of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross. For first he saith it is a sign of the true sacrifice: as if he had said, it is not the true sacrifice, but a representation thereof. Secondly; he saith it is a daily sacrament of the true sacrifice: as if he had said, it is not the thing, but a sign of the thing. Thirdly, he saith it is the sacrament of memory; as if he had said, it is but a commemoration of the true sacrifice indeed. Fourthly, he saith that that which men call a sacrifice, is nothing else but a sign of the true sacrifice; as if he had said, though many use to term the Eucharist a sacrifice, yet is it but the sign of the true sacrifice indeed. Greg. Nazianz. who was Hieromes schoolmaster, & for his singular knowledge in the holy scriptures surnamed Theologus, expresseth this matter very lively, Nazianz. orat. 21 tom. 2. p. 413. in these brief & pithy words Quo tandem modo externum illud sacrificium, illud magnorum mystery orun exemplar praefidenti animo ipsi offerrem? How should I offer to him with a confident mind that external sacrifice, which is the example (or sign) of the great mystery? Lo, so soon as he hath termed it a sacrifice; by and by he interpreteth himself, & calleth it the sign and representation of the sacrifice; as if he had said: we use to term it by the name of sacrifice, because it is the image, sign, sacrament, and representation of the true and only sacrifice. Areopagia. de eccles. hierarch. c. 5. S. Dionysius Areopagita S. Paul's disciple, in his ecclesiastical Hierarchy (which work the Papists will needs have to be his) hath these words: Ad eorundem sacrificium quod signis continetur, venit, atque id quod à deo proditum sit, facit The B. cometh to the sacrifice of those things, which is contained in signs, & doth that which God hath appointed to be done. Lo, he calleth the eucharist a sacrifice, as the other fathers do: and yet for a plain testimony of his right meaning, he addeth, that it only consisteth in signs. As if he had said: it is nothing else, but a significative or commemorative sacrifice. Chrysost. hom. 27. ad Hebr. Saint Chrysostome hath these words: Offerimus quidem▪ sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius. Sequitur: hoc autem quod facimus, in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est. Hoc enim facite inquit, in meam commemorationem. Non aliud sacrificium, sicut pontifex; sed idipsum semper facimus: magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. We offer I grant, but we do it for the remembrance of Christ's death. And that which we do, we do it for the commemoration of that which is already done. For he saith, Do ye this in the remembrance of me. There is not another sacrifice, as there is an other Bishop; but we do always the same thing: yea rather we work the remembrance of the sacrifice. Out of these words I note first, that the Eucharist or christian mass (if any list so to call it) is nothing else but a commemoration of Christ's death upon the cross. I note secondly, and it is a point of importance) that the sacrifice is ever the same, Observe this carefully. though the priest or bishop be changed. I note thirdly, that where the priest is changed, there can not be that real sacrifice, which was offered upon the cross: the reason is evident, because wheresoever that sacrifice is, there the priest is not changed, but is one and the same, even with the sacrifice itself. Basil. in missa p. 39 S. Basil hath these express words: Fac nos idoneos, ut tibi offeramus sacrificium laudis, tu es enim operans omnia in omnibus. Make us meet to offer to thee the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, thou that workest all in all. To these and the like testimonies the Papists can not possibly frame any true answer. The reply. True it is, that the sacrifice of the holy mass, is a sign and commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross: but withal, we tell you, that as it is the sign, so is it the thing signified also. Neither is that with us any absurdity, Hebr. 1.3. as ye grossly & fond imagine. For Christ is the figure of his father's substance, as the apostle witnesseth: and yet if ye deny him to be the same substance with his father, ye prove yourself an Arrian: so a loaf of bread in the bakers window, is both a sign of bread to be sold, and also the bread itself. But your dull heads, cannot conceive these scholastical distinctions. The answer. I say first, that how dull soever our wits be, yet do we well perceive your opinative divinity. I say secondly, which is a received maxim in the schools, that nullum simile est idem; no similitude is the self same thing whereof it is a similitude. For to be a relative and the correlative of the same, at the same time, and in the same respect, is flat contradiction. I say thirdly, that though Christ be the same substance with his father, as he is God: yet is he termed the figure of his substance, as he is man; because the divinity is hid in the humanity, as under a figure or vail. Coloss. ●. ●. So saith the apostle in another place; For in him dwelleth the fullness of the godhead corporally. And the same answer serveth to your loaf. For it is neither idem numero with the other loaves, Idem n●me●● sacrifici●●▪ as you imagine and affirm of your putative sacrifice; neither doth the loaf of itself so signify: but the people by the modification of the loaf, are brought into the notice of the sale of bread. I say four, (and this confoundeth you all, & your sottish imagination) that the verity is more excellent than the figure; the body, than the shadow: the thing signified, than the sign. For your own selves labour by this means, De eucharist. lib. 1 ●. 3. col. 474. to prove the sacrifice of your idolatrous mass. These are the words of your jesuite Bellarmine: Figurae necessariò inferiores esse debent rebus figuratis. Figures of necessity must be of less value, than the things that are figured by the same. The 4. conclusion. The Eucharist or holy communion (which the papists term the sacrament of the altar) is a commemoration, representation, sign, or sacrament of Christ's body & blood, offered and shed upon the cross for man's redemption; but not the real, substantial, and natural body of Christ jesus, which was crucified for our sins. This conclusion, that it may be exactly understood of the vulgar sort, and every popish conceit therein plainly discovered, and effectually confuted, shallbe proved by way of certain brief paragraffes. The first paragraph, of the form of consecration. The papists defending the bread to be made Christ's natural body, by virtue of consecration; are at variance among themselves, and cannot tell in the world, which are the precise words of that their putative consecratien. Opinio communis papistar. ex Aquin. p. 3. q. 78. Innocent. de office missae. p. 3. c. 6 For the common opinion among the papists, (to which their practice agreeth) holdeth the consecration to consist in these words: This is my body. But their learned pope Innocentius, telleth them another tale; to wit, that Christ consecrated by the power of excellency, which is not tied to the Sacraments: and consequently, that he first consecrated it, and afterward pronounced the words, which the other papists will have to be essential to the consecration. ●os. Angl. de es●●nt. Euch. c. 4. josephus Angles telleth us very gravely, that this opinion of Innocentius is not heretical, although it cannot be defended without great temerity. But by our friars good favour, if the words of the consecration be as they defend; Math. ●6. v. 26. then must the bread perforce be broken, before it be Christ's body; then did Christ break bread, and not his body; then did Christ deliver bread, and not his body. For Christ first blessed the bread, then broke it, than gave it to his apostles, and after said, This is my body. So that against their wills they grant unwittingly; that that which Christ gave to his disciples, was substantially bread and not his body. This point is handled more at large, in the 12. preamble in the book of my Motives. The 2. paragraph. Of the validity of consecration. The papists teach, that these words, (this is my body) do change and transelementate the substance of bread, Conc. Trid. sess. 13. cap. 1. into the substance of Christ's real, substantial, and natural body: and that the bare forms of bread and wine, do after consecration exist without any subject. But this doctrine doth confute itself. For first, if the words of supposed consecration, do work transubstantiation; then must every word have his due operation in that kind of work. For otherwise, some of the words should be frustrate and needless, as which could have no proper effect. And yet dareth no papist assign any effect to every word, because it would follow thereupon, that Christ's body should be made by divisible parts. Secondly, if the fourth word (meum) concur essentially to the consecration: then is Christ's body either made by successive operation, which Aquinas and all learned papists deny: or the whole effect proceedeth totally of the fourth word, without the activity of the other three. The sequel is evident, Aquinas p. 3. ●▪ 75. ar. 7. because the prolation of the words is with succession, and not in an instant. Thirdly, if the words of consecration, be of such force as the papists teach; then must both Christ's body and bread be under the form of bread at once; or else the form of bread must for a certain time, be aswell without the substance of bread as without the body of Christ. I prove it, because as Christ's body is made present under the form of bread in an instant, so doth the substance of bread cease to be in instant: Mark this reason well. and consequently, since two instantes cannot be immediate, they must both either be together in the same instant, or both absent for the time mediate. Fourthly, the popish supposed transubstantiation, is very ridiculous and absurd. I prove it, because when the priest saith, (this my bo) he then either holdeth in his hands substantially bread, or corporally Christ's body: if substantially bread, then are their words of consecration not of force: if corporally Christ's body, these three absurdities do ensue. First, Christ's body is made by succession: Secondly, the syllable (bo) which by itself signifieth nothing, is made significant. Thirdly, the last syllable (die) which is commonly deemed to accomplish their consecration, is become officiperda, redundant, and superfluous. Fiftly, if the words of consecration be operative as the papists hold, then if the priest chance to die in the midst of the prolation, Christ's body shallbe left mangled and unperfect: for otherwise, half of the consecratory words shall stand for ciphers, and have no effect at all. The 3. Paragraph. Of the impossibility of transubstantiation. The first reason. When two unequal dimensive quantities are placed together, it is unpossible for the contained to be bigger than the conteiner; but Christ's body in the eucharist retaineth still the natural dimensive quantity, Ergo it is impossible, that it be contained under the form of a little round cake. Bellarm. de eucharist. lib. 3. c. 6. For the manifestation of this argument, I note first, that all learned men aswell papists as others, agree in this: that God by his absolute power cannot do those things, which imply contradiction in the doing: the reason whereof I have yielded in my book of Motives, Aristot. lib. 3. Metaph. Text. 9 in the 12. preamble. I note secondly, that it is essential to quantity, to have one part without another, as the great philosopher Aristotle doth avouch. See the 2. part, book 2. chap 6. and note it well. I note thirdly, that the whole demensive quantity of Christ's natural body, which he had here visibly on earth, and still retaineth in heaven, is together with his body in the eucharist, Aquinas p. 3. q. 76. ar. 4. as all learned papists grant. And so by popish doctrine, a body being four cubits long and two cubits broad, remaining still so long & broad, must perforce be contained under another body, which is neither two cubits long, nor one cubit broad: but it is impossible, as implying flat contradiction. The 2. reason. When occupation of place is taken away from a body, it than ceaseth to be, and is no body at all. But Christ's body occupieth no place in the Eucharist, as learned papists grant: Ergo, Christ's body is not corporally there. Aquinas p. 3. q. 76. ar. 5. And lest any man distrust the proposition, Saint Augustine hath these express words: Cum ergò sit corpus aliqua substantia, August. epist. 57 ad Dardan. quantitas eius est in magnitudine molis eius; sanitas vero eius non quantitas sed qualitas eius est. Non ergo potuit obtinere quantitas corporis, quod potuit qualitas. Nam ita distantibus partibus quae simul esse non possunt, quoniam sua quaeque spatia locorum tenent, minores, minora, & maiores maiora, non potuit esse in singulis quibusque partibus tota vel tanta; sed amplior est quantitas in amplioribus partibus, brevior in brevioribus, & in nulla part tanta quanta per totum. Infra: Nam spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt▪ nec erunt. When therefore any substance is a body, the quantity thereof is in the magnitude of the bigness, but the health is not the quantity, but the quality thereof. Therefore the quantity of the body could not attain that, which the quality could. For the parts being so distant, which could not be together, because all severally keep their spaces of places, the less lesser places; and the greater greater, there could not be in all the places severally the whole or so much; See the 3. Paragraph in the end of the first reason, and note it well. but there is a larger quantity in the larger parts, a shorter in shorter parts, and in no part so much as in the whole. For if spaces of places be taken from bodies, they shallbe in no place; and because they shallbe in no place, neither shall they have any being at all. Out of these words I note first, that every quantitative body, hath one part distant from another. I note secondly, that the same parts occupy distinct places. I note thirdly, that two quantities cannot be in the same place at one and the same time. I note four, that a greater quantity must have a greater place, and that it cannot be contained in the lesser. I note fifthly, that no one part can contain so much as the whole. I note sixtly, that when bodies are without places, they lose their natures, and beings. Guilielmus Okamus in 4. s. q. 4. ad 4. I therefore conclude, that it is impossible for Christ's natural body to be contained in a little round cake, and his whole body in every little part thereof: all which the papists impudently and blasphemously do avouch. Guiliel. Ocham and Durandus, two popish doctors, do both subscribe to S. Austin's reason. If it were possible for Christ's body to be in divers places at once; The third reason. the angel of God should have made a foolish reason to the women, that came to see Christ in the sepulchre: for the angel proved Christ not to be there, because he was risen. These are the words: Matt. 28.9. (He is not here, for he is risen as he said.) But if Christ's body could be in many places at once, as the papists would have us believe; then doubtless did the angel reason childishly. For the women might have said: though he be risen, yet may he be here also. Yet the angel (who was not to be instructed of the papists, but from heaven,) affirmed that he could not be there, because he was risen. For he said not, Christ is risen, and is not here: but, he is not here, because he is risen. Lo, his rising, is the cause, that he could not be there. Mark this reason well, for it doth convince. Peruse the twelfth preamble, in my first book of Motives, and the first reply of the seventh objection in the first paragraph. The fourth Paragraph. Of the original of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is not only repugnant to all philosophy; but so absurd also in all christian speculation, as it was unknown to the church of God, and to all approved writers the space of one thousand & two hundred years, after Christ's sacred incarnation. For it was first hatched by pope Innocentius the third of that name, in the council of Lateran, which was holden 1215. years after Christ. Anno. Dom. 1215 Yea, the determination of this synod was reputed of so little force, that the zealous papist and famous schooledoctour Durandus boldly published the contrary doctrine, even after the flat resolution of the same council. Whose doctrine doth so gall the papists, that the jesuite Bellarmine, unwilling on the one side to oppose himself against Durand rigorously: and on the other side, not knowing what to say in defence of the Romish synod, maketh as it were this mitigation between them; Bellarm. de Euchar. libr. 3. cap. 13. Itaque sententia Durandi haeretica est, licet ipse non sit dicendus haereticus, cum paratus fuerit ecclesiae judicio acquiescere. Therefore the opinion of Durand is heretical, though himself may not be called an heretic, because he was ready to give place to the decree of the Church: thus writeth our jesuite. Out of whose words I note first, that a man may steal an ox, proclaim the same to the world without any remorse, and yet be no thief at all: for Durand held an heretical opinion, published the same in print constantly, and yet (as the jesuite telleth us) was no heretic for so doing. I note secondly, that Durand lived more than threescore years after the popish Council of Lateran. I note thirdly, that he never retracted his opinion, notwithstanding the decree and censure of the popish Synod: and therefore vainly and without reason saith our jesuite, that Durand was willing to obey the decree of their Church: for if he were willing to obey their church herein, how came it to pass, that he living so long after he knew their Church's mind, did commit that to print wittingly and willingly, which is altogether against the same? for no man doubtless impugneth that by writing, which he doth approve at least so far forth, as man's judgement can have place. The fift Paragraph. That the holy Eucharist is a figure and sign of Christ's body and blood, not the thing itself (that is thereby signified) corporally, but in a divine and spiritual sort. FOr the perspicuous explication of this Paragraph, I will use certain effectual and distinct proofs; and that done, I will succinctly answer to such objections, as may be made against the same. My first proof is grounded in the analogy of our christian faith: for first, Christ took our nature upon him, The first proof. and that so really and truly, as it was like unto ours in every thing, sin only excepted. The former part saint Paul proveth in these words: Philip. ●. v. 6.7. who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man. The latter part S. Peter proveth in these words: 1. Pet. 2. v. 21.22. for Christ suffered for you, leaving you an ensample that ye should follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth. And S. Paul saith: 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. for he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God in him. Now our bodies are such, as they can not with one act be made to be in two places at one time, ergo the priests words can not make Christ's body in a thousand places at once: for if he could so do, Christ's body should be of an other nature than ours, contrary to the holy scripture. Secondly, Christ saith: Ye worship that which ye know not. joan. 4. v. 22.24. God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and truth. Thus doth our faith tell us, but the Papists say, that we must worship God in a round cake: that we must worship for God, that which neither we nor they know to be God: for if the priest either want intention to consecrate, (which often chanceth by reason of wandering imaginations) or of purpose meaneth not to consecrate, The Papists worship they know not what. or of negligence omitteth any one word of consecration; then by popish religion the thing adored is but pure bread, and yet do they worship it for the everliving God. It is therefore truly said to them, that they worship they know not what. Thirdly, Christ must so be eaten of us, as he abideth in us, (for to that end do we eat him, that he may dwell in us) and yet is it certain, that he dwelleth not in us corporally, but spiritualy by faith. The former part is not only evident in itself, but verified by Christ himself in these words, I●an. 6. v. 56. he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him: the latter part S. Paul proveth in these words, Ephes. 3. v. 17. that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith. Fourthly, Christ ascended up visibly into heaven, and there must remain till the day of general doom, as our faith telleth us: Act. 3. v. 21. therefore we must feed on him in heaven by faith, and not on earth with our teeth. For which cause, the ancient Church exhorted the people before the communion, to lift up their hearts unto the Lord, as if it had been said, 1. Cor. 10. v. 16.17. ye must not affix your minds to these visible creatures, but meditate on heavenly things, which are promised by the reverent & faithful use thereof. Fiftly, S. Paul saith plainly, that the faithful in the old testament did all eat & drink Christ's body & blood, 1. Cor. 10. v. 3.4. which they could not do but by faith, because Christ was not then incarnate: and even so do we eat Christ spiritually by faith, not corporally with our teeth. To which effect gravely said S. Austen, ut quid paras ventrem & dentem? crede & manducasti. De consec. dist. 2. Cap. ut quid. Credere enim in eum, hoc est panem & vinum manducare, qui credit in eum, manducat eum. Wherefore preparest thou a belly and a tooth? believe, & thou hast eaten; for to believe in him, is to eat bread & wine: he that believeth in him, eateth him. Thus saith S Austen, even as their own Gratian hath alleged him. Sixtly, S. Paul saith, that so often as we eat and drink of Christ's cup, so often do we show his death till he come; 1. Cor. 10. v. 26. but doubtless if he be corporally present under the accidents of bread and wine, then is he already come: nay, more truly is it said, that he was never gone. For as S. Austen saith, De consecr. dist. 2 cap. prima. donec seculum finiatur, sursum est dominus, sed tamen etiam hic nobiscum est veritas domini; corpus enim in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet: veritas autem eius ubique diff●sa est. Our Lord is above until the world's end, but yet his truth is with us here, for the body of our Lord▪ wherein he rose again, must needs be in one place: but his truth is diffused every where. Again, the same S. Austen writing against Faustus the Manichee, hath these express words, August. contr. Faust. libr. ●0. cap. 11. tom. 6. Secundum praesentiam quip spiritualem nullo modo illa pati posset▪ secundum praesentiam vero corporalem simul & in sole, & in luna, & in cruse esse non posset, For his flesh could no way suffer according to his spiritual presence; and according to his corporal presence, it was not possible for him to be both in the sun, and in the moon, and on the cross, at one and the same time. Again, he saith in another place after this manner, Videte ascendentem, August. in Psal. 46. circamed. credit in absentem, sperate venientem, sed tamen per misericordiam occultam etiam sentite praesentem. Ille enim qui ascendit in coelum ut tolleretur ab oculis vestris, promisit vobis dicens, ecce ego vovestris, promisit vobis dicens; ecce ego vobiscum sum usque in consummationem seculi. Behold Christ ascending, believe in him absent, trust in him that is coming; and for all that feel him also present, by his secret mercy. Thus ye see the flat opinion of this grave writer, of this ancient father, of this holy learned doctor; his resolution is so evident, and so free from all obscurity, as none can pretend ignorance that once read his words. For first, he telleth us that Christ's natural body must needs be in one only place at one time. Secondly, he telleth us that Christ's natural body can not be at one and the same time, both in the Sun and in the Moon, and on the cross. Thirdly, he maketh the same assertion plain, by comparing his corporal presence with his spiritual. For he saith, that the one may be in many places, but the other cannot; as if he had said: Christ's body may be spiritually in the sacrament, but corporally it cannot be there. Fourthly, he proveth Christ's corporal absence by the verity of his ascension, exhorting us to believe in him that is corporally absent, Lo, Christ's body cannot be corporally in two places at once: ●nd so it cannot ●oth be in hea●en and on earth. and withal to feel his virtue, as he is spiritually present. How can he tell us more plainly, that Christ's body is spiritually in the Eucharist, but not corporally? It is not possible for any man, to yield a more sensible declaration: which if the gentle reader will observe attentively, it will minister to him a great light, for the perfect understanding of the whole mystery. The second proof. My second proof is grounded in the figures of the old testament; for first, circumcision was called God's covenant, and yet was it not the covenant indeed, but a sign and signification thereof. For it is common to all sacraments, to have the name of the thing that they signify. That it was called the covenant, Genes. 17, 10. it is clear in these words, (This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: Let every man child among you be circumcised.) And nevertheless that it was not the covenant, but the sign of the covenant, ●bidem 1●. it is evident by these words: (Ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. ●●idem 7▪ ) The covenant indeed was this. To be Abraham's God, and the God of his seed after him; so saith the text. Secondly, the Lamb was called the Lords passover, and yet was it not the passover indeed, but the sign and representation thereof. That it was called the passover, Exod. 1●. 1●. it is clear by these words of Moses: (For it is the Lords passover.) And also by these words of the Evangelist: Matth. 26.17. (Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover;) that is, the Lamb, which was the sign of the passover. Again in these words; Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19 (I will keep the passover at thine house.) Again in these words, (And they made ready the passover.) In all which places the scripture speaketh only of the sign, that is, of the lamb, and ● giveth it the name of the thing, that is, of the passing over. Now that it was not the passover indeed, Exod. 12. 1●. but the sign or figure thereof, it is evident by these words of holy Writ: (And the blood shall be a token for you upon the houses where ye are: so when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destruction, when I smite the land of Egypt.) Lo, the lamb was but a token and sign of the angels passing over them. And this lamb was a figure of our passover jesus Christ, as he was really sacrificed upon the cross, so saith the holy apostle: 1▪ Cor. 5.7. (For Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.) This S. john confirmed, when he willed the Pharisees to behold the Lamb of God, joan. 1.29. that taketh away the sins of the world. And in the Revelation, Apoc. 13.8. this lamb is said to be slain from the beginning of the world. Since therefore the scripture telleth us so plainly, that the paschal Lamb was the type and figure of the true Messiah, who was sacrificed to his father for the sins of the world: it shall not be unprofitable to the Reader, to consider the allegory of the rites which God appointed to be observed therein. The Type, Exod. 12 The thing signified. 1 The lamb was a memorial of the deliverance out of Egypt. That is to say: 1 Christ delivered us from hell, sin, death, and satan, Gal. 3.13 2 The lamb was a sacrifice distinguishing the Israelites from other nations. 2 Christ is the eternal sacrifice, who being eaten spiritually by faith, distingu●sheth gods faith full people from infidels, joh. 6.56. 3 The lamb was a true lamb of the flock. 3 Christ was a true man, borne of the blessed virgin, joh. 1.14 4 The lamb was truly slain. 4 Christ was truly crucified, 1. Corinth. 5.7. john 19.30. 5 The lamb was not boiled in water, but roasted dry. 5 Christ's body was enclosed in a new tomb, that had no water in it, Matth. 27.60. 6 The lamb was killed at even. 6 Christ was killed in the end of the world, Hebr. 1.2. 7 The Angel beholding the doors sprinkled with the lambs blood, passed over the Israelites. 7 God beholding our souls sprinkled with the blood of Christ, doth not impute our sins to us, Rom. 3.34. 8 The lambs blood saved the Israelites from common death. 8 The blood of Christ delivered us from eternal death, Herald 2.9 9 All the Israelites did eat of the lamb. 9 All the faithful shall eat of Christ spiritually, john 6. 10 Every part of the lamb was eaten. 10 Every mystery of Christ's incarnation must be believed, 2. Timoth. 3. 11 The lamb was eaten without leaven. 11 Christ is eaten by faith with out hypocrisy, 1. Corint. 5.8. 12 The lamb was eaten with sour herbs. 12 We must eat Christ in bearing his cross, Matth. 10.38. 13 The lamb was appointed to be eaten with speed. 13 We must embrace Christ's Gospel, with all expedition, Matth. 6.33. 14 The lamb was eaten of the circumcised only. 14 Christ is only eaten by faith of the regenerate, 1. Cor. 11.29 15 The lamb was without blemish. 15 Christ was free from sin, 1. Pet. 2.22. THis passover of the old law with other sacrifices and figures, which were but shadows of the Messiah to come; are all wholly abolished by Christ's sacred advent. For Christ now ready to die, Hebr. 10.14. and to offer up himself as the true passover and verity of all figures: made an end of the old passover with a solemn banquet, and instituting the Eucharist in stead thereof, Luc. 22.15. commanded the faithful to observe the same for a memory of his death and passion, until his second advent, 1. Cor. 11.26. which shall be in majesty and glory. My third proof is grounded, The third proofs Luc. 22.18. 1. Cor. 11. in the phrases of the new testament. For Christ himself said, that he would not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine, until he rose again. S. Paul in like manner calleth it bread very often, even after the consecration. But if it had been Christ's natural blood, and his natural body, neither would he have called it the fruit of the vine, nor Saint Paul have termed it bread. Which Saint Paul maketh plain in another place, 1. Cor. 10.16, 17 where he hath these words: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for we that are many, are one bread and one body, because we all are partakers of one bread. Out of which words I note first, Mark 〈◊〉▪ that Saint Paul termeth it bread after the consecration; or Christ's blessing; or after the words of Christ's institution, (which is all one in a right and godly sense.) I note secondly, that he calleth it not Christ's body, but the participation of his body. I note thirdly, that the bread he speaketh of is broken. I note four, that we are all one bread and one body; which annotations being joined together, I infer first, that the bread is Christ's body spiritually, and by faith, but not corporally as the papists say. For Christ's natural body cannot be broken, as their own learned Canus granteth, and as very reason teacheth. I infer secondly, that we are no otherwise partakers of Christ's body: then we are all one body and one bread. And yet is it certain, yea, no Papist can deny it, that we are but one body, and one bread mystically and sacramentally; Ergo we are no otherwise partakers of Christ's body then mystically and sacramentally: that is to say, while we eat the sacrament of Christ's body, we are united spiritually to Christ by faith, and mystically one to another. The fourth proof. My fourth proof is grounded in the uniform consent of the ancient doctors of the church. For first, S. Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words: Nam ipse quoque homo, & vinum benedixit, cum dixit: accipite, bibite, hoc est sanguis meus, sanguis vitis: verbum quod pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum, sanctum laetitiae fluentum allegorice significat. Sequitur: quod autem vinum esset quod benedictum est, ostendit rursus dicens discipulis: non bibam ex fructu vitis huius, donec bibero ipsum vobiscum in regno patris mei. For our Lord being also man blessed wine, when he said: Take, drink, this is my blood, the blood of the vine: the word, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, doth signify allegorically the holy river of gladness. And that it was wine which is blessed, he showeth again when he saith thus to his disciples: I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, until I drink it with you in the kingdom of my father. Out of these words of this holy and ancient father (who lived above one thousand, three hundred, and eighty years ago) I note first, that that which Christ called his blood at his supper, was naturally wine, though his blood sacramentally: for it was sanguis vitis, such blood as the vine doth afford. I note secondly, that these words (which is shed for many) are allegorical, that is, they sound one thing in bare words, and signify another thing indeed: as if he had said: The wine or liquor in the cup is not shed indeed for many, but is a sacrament or figure of Christ's natural blood, which is indeed shed for our sins. I note thirdly, that these words of Christ (I will not drink of the fruit of the vine) were spoken after the consecration of the wine, and are to be understood literally: and consequently, that that which the Apostles drank, was natural wine, & not natural blood. Although I admit willingly, that it was blood in a sacrament and mystery: or to use S. Clement's phrase, Christ's blood sacramentally, but ●ot naturally. allegorically, which I wish the reader ever to observe, as a general rule. Secondly, S. Hilary writeth thus: Secundo princ●paliter. Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc unum erimus, quia pater in eo est, & ille in nobis, Hilar. de Trinit. libr. 8. p. 140. We truly receive the flesh of Christ's body in a mystery, and by it we shall be one, because the Father is in him, and he in us. Out of these words I note first, that to receive Christ's body in a sacrament or mystery, is to receive it truly, which I wish the reader to observe carefully: for we do not term the holy Eucharist, or Lords Supper (bare bakers bread) as the Papists slander us: but we affirm it to be sanctified bread, to be sacramental bread, to be divine bread; yea, to be Christ's true body in deed, but sacramentally, but spiritually, but mystically, as S. Hilary truly saith. And this answer will solve a thousand captious cavilles, which the Papists use to make. I note secondly, that such as is our union by eating this bread, such is the eating thereof. And consequently, since every child knoweth that we are but mystically united, as we are the mystical members of one body: it followeth that we do but mystically eat Christ's body. And S. Hilaries reason maketh it plain, when he addeth (because the father is in him, and he in us) for neither doth the father dwell in him corporally (who is corpslesse,) neither corporally in us. Thirdly, S. Irenaeus hath these words: Qui est è terra panis percipi●ns vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 3● sed eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. The bread which is of the earth, after it hath received gods blessing, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist. And it consisteth of two things; the one earthly, the other heavenly. Out of which words I note first, that our communion bread is still bread after consecration, though it be not common bread, but sacramental and heavenly bread: for otherwise he would have said, (it is not bread but the eucharist.) He would (I say) have rejected the name of bread, and not have kept it still. I note secondly, that Christ is not present corporally in the Eucharist, because his natural body is but one thing; which yet should be the whole eucharist, if it were present, as the Papists grossly dream. Besides this, his body henceforth is not terrestrial, but celestial, glorious, immortal, spiritual: 1. Corinth. 1●. yet withal, 1. Cor. 15. it still retaineth all essential properties of a true body, even as our bodies shall do after the resurrection. It is still circumscriptible, sensible, visible, tangible, quantitative, dimensive, local; none of which can possibly be found, in popish carnal real presence. Fourthly, Saint Chrysostome hath these words: Nam quando dicunt, Chrysost. hom. 83 in Matth. tom. 2. Vide Hilar. can. 30. in Matt. unde patet immolatum Christum fuisse, & alia multa mysteria: haec afferentes ora ipsorum consuimus. Si enim mortuus jesus non est, cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Infra: ita per sacratissimam istam mensam & saluat & docet: hoc enim caput bonorum omnium est: quare hoc Paulus voluit ac repetit: sed tradito iam mysterio, non bibam ait, de hoc genimine vitis usque in illam diem, cum illud bibam nowm vobiscum in regno patris mei. Sequitur: ex genimine autem ait vitis, quae certe vinum non aquam producit. For when they say, how do we know that Christ suffered, and many other mysteries; we bringing these things ●owe up their mouths. For if jesus were not dead, of whom is this sacrifice a mark and sign? So he both saveth and teacheth by this most sacred table; for this is the head of all good things: wherefore Saint Paul meant this, and he repeateth it. But after he had delivered the mystery, I will not drink saith he, of this fruit of the vine, until that day, when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father. And he saith, of the fruit of the vine, which doubtless bringeth forth wine and not water. Out of these words I note first, that the Eucharist is but a symbol, sign or figure of Christ's body. I note secondly, that that which Christ gave to his disciples, and which he called his blood, was true wine, the natural fruit of the vine. I note thirdly, that Christ first had delivered the mystery, and then uttered the words of drinking the fruit of the vine. For the papists would gladly have Saint Luke to tell the story out of order, and that Christ spoke these words before the delivery of the sacrament, that is, before the consecration of the cup; which Saint Crysostome and other fathers do deny. Saint Cyprian hath these words; Dico vobis, non bibam amodò ex ista creatura vitis, usque in diem illum, quo vobiscum bibam nowm vinum in regno patris mei. Cyprian lib●. 2. epist. 3. circ. med▪ Qua in part invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit▪ & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. I say to you, I will not drink henceforth of this creature of the vine, until that day, in which I will drink new wine with you, in the kingdom of my father. Wherein we find that the cup was mingled with our Lord offered, and that it was wine which he called his body. Out of these words I note first, that Saint Luke spoke of the consecrate cup, when he termed it the fruit of the vine: as is proved already, out of Saint Clement and S. Chrysostome. I note secondly, that the consecrate cup contained natural wine, and not Christ's corporal blood indeed. This testimony doth convince, and so effectually confuteth transubstantiation and the popish real presence; as if S. Cyprian were this day living, and knew the blasphemous doctrine of the papists, A general rule to expound all the Fathers. yet could he not decide more plainly, the controversy between them and us. Yea, this testimony of saint Cyprian may be a general rule for us, as well to expound himself in other places, as also the rest of the holy fathers. For when they term the holy communion or Eucharist, Christ's body and blood, the blood that issued out of his side, the body that was nailed on the cross, the flesh that was borne of the virgin, the price of our redemption; all this is truly said in their godly meaning: that is to say, all this is truly verified sacramentally, mystically, spiritually, but not corporally as the Papists teach. For all the Fathers admit this doctrine of Saint Cyprian; that even after consecration, remaineth still the true nature of bread and wine. Sixtly, Tertullian being consonant to the other fathers, hath these words: Tertull. advers. Marcionem lib. 4 p. 306. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest. He made that bread which he took and gave to his disciples to be his body, saying this is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body, and there should not have been a figure, unless there had been a true body indeed: for a vain thing which is but a fal●● imagination, cannot receive a figure. Out of these words I note first, that y● which Christ gave to his disciples was bread. I note secondly, that it was the figure of his body. I note thirdly, that to be Christ's body (as Christ himself and the fathers speak;) is nothing else, but to be the figure or sign of his body. For so doth this learned father declare the very phrase. I note four, that the thing figured is much different from the figure: and consequently, that Christ's body cannot be the figure of itself. Seventhly, S. Theodoret hath these words: Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura. Theodor. dialog. 2. p. 128. Manent enim in priore substantia, & figura, & forma, & videri, & tangi possunt sicut & prius. The mystical signs after the sanctification depart not from their nature: but they abide in their former substance, and figure, and form, and may be seen and touched, even as before. Out of these most golden words of this ancient and learned father, I note first, that he writeth against certain heretics, who held that Christ's body was changed into his deity after his ascension. And they proved it, because as the bread and wine after consecration, were changed into the body and blood of Christ: even so was his body changed into his deity after his ascension. This note is plainly set down in the words aforegoing. I note secondly, that S. Theodoret confuteth the heretics, even by their own reason. For the mystical signs (saith he) remain still in their former substance and nature, even after the sanctification thereof. As if he had said: ye lay not a good foundation, your supposal is false, ye take that as granted, which is flatly denied. For although the creatures of bread and wine be sanctified by God's word, and accidentally changed into the mystical signs of his body and blood; yet do they still retain their former nature and substance, yet do they still remain, truly bread and truly wine. I note thirdly, that though the bread and wine have gotten by sanctification, a new divine quality; yet have they lost nothing that they had before: for they have the same nature, the same substance, the same figure, the same form: they may be seen, tasted, and touched, even as they might before. All the papists in Europe cannot answer this reason. For Theodoret proveth against the heretics, that as bread and wine are as truly bread and truly wine after consecration, as they were before consecration; even so is Christ's body as truly a body now after his ascension, Whom will not this reason persuade? as it was afore here on earth. So as the papists cannot now say, that the bread and wine have lost their true natures in the eucharist; unless they will also say, that Christ hath lost the nature of a true body now in heaven. Eightly, S. Austen a worthy pillar of Christ's Church, (as the papists themselves do grant;) hath these words: Nisi manducaveritis inquit, carnem filii hominis & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Aug. de doctrine. Christiana, lib. 3. cap. 16. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. Unless saith Christ, ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. He seemeth by these words to command to do an heinous offence. It is therefore a figure commanding us to be partakers of Christ's passion, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our minds, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes. In another place he hath these words: Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius, certe vel tunc videbitis, August in evang▪ joan. tract. 27. tom. 9 quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum; certe vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus. When ye shall see the son of man ascending thither, where he was before; then doubtless shall ye see, that he giveth not his body in such sort as ye imagine: then shall ye truly understand, that his grace is not consumed with the bit of the mouth. Again thus: In principio cavendum est, ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias. Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait apostolus: litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. ca 5. Cum enim figuratè dictum sic accipitur, tanquam propriè dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. Sequitur: ea demum est miserabilis animae servitus, signa pro rebus accipere: & supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum aeternum lumen levare non posse. Before all things thou must take heed, lest thou understand that literally, which is spoken by a figure. For to this end is that which the apostle saith: The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. For our wisdom is then carnal, when we understand that properly, which is spoken figuratively. To conclude, that is a miserable bondage of the soul, to take signs for the things signified: and not to lift up the eye of our mind above the corporal creature, so to behold eternal light. Again thus: Possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum. August. count Adimant. cap. 12. tom 6. Non enim dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui. I may also interpret this precept to be figurative. For our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign or figure of his body. Again thus, Cum adhibuit ad conuivium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit. August. in Psal. 3. in initio▪ When he admitted (judas) to the banquet, in which he commended and delivered to his disciples, the figure of his body and his blood. Again thus, Illi manducabant panem dominum, ille panem domini contra dominum. They ate the bread that was our Lord, August. in joan. Tract. 59 he ate (not our Lord, but) the bread of our Lord against the Lord. Again thus: Quomodo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem ten●am? fidem mitte & tenuisti: parents tui tenuerunt carne, tu tene cord, quoniam Christus abs●ns etiam praesens est: nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset: sed quoniam verum est quod ait, Ibid. tract. 50. (Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi: Math. 28. v. vlt. ) & abijt & hic est, & redijt, & nos non deseruit. Corpus enim suum intulit coelo, maiestatem non abstulit mundo. How shall I reach up my hand to heaven, that I may take hold on him sitting there? Reach thither thy faith, and thou hast hold on him. Thy fathers held him in the flesh, hold thou him in thine heart, because Christ being absent is also present: for if he were not present he could not be holden of us; but because it is true that he saith: (Behold I am with you till the end of the world,) both he is gone and he is here, he is returned and hath not forsaken us. For he carried his body up into heaven, August. in joan. tract. 50. in fine. yet he took not his majesty out of the world. Again, in another place thus: Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum, secundum praesentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis, me autem non semper habebitis: Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus, modo fide tenet, oculis non videt. According to the presence of his majesty we have Christ always, but according to the presence of the flesh it was rightly said to his Disciples; but ye shall not have me always. For the Church had him in the flesh a few days, but now she holdeth him by faith, she doth not see him with her eyes. Again thus: August. epist. 23. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christ● corpus Christi est: sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est: As therefore in a certain sort the Sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ's body; & the sacrament of Christ's blood is the blood of Christ: even so the sacrament of faith is faith. In these manifold testimonies Saint Austen proveth abundantly, that the popish carnal imagined presence in the Eucharist, is blasphemous and most execrable. For first, he telleth us that these words of Christ, (This is my body, This is my blood,) must needs be understood figuratively. That is to say, that the bread and wine are but the sacraments, or figures and signs of Christ's body and blood. Secondly, he telleth us that Christ is ascended, and that therefore his body cannot be eaten with the bit of mouth, as the papists teach blasphemously. Thirdly, he saith that the soul is never in greater bondage, then when she grossly and carnally taketh the figures and signs for the things signified by the same. Fourthly, he telleth us, that since the signs of things be usually termed by the names of the things signified, our Lord doubted not to say (This is my body) when he gave but the sign of his body. Fiftly, he saith that the bread which the other Disciples received, was our Lord, yet that which judas received was but the bread of the Lord. Which assertion is wonderful, if it be well noted. For, if our Lord and maker be present carnally, in flesh, blood, and bone, under the accidents of bread; and that so long as the same accidents remain uncorrupt, as the Popish detestable Faith avoucheth▪ Then doubtless, judas should have received his Redeemer; The papists are confounded▪ Then perforce judas should also have received, Panem Dominum: Then judas could not by any possibility, have barely received panem Domini: which yet S. Augustine affirmeth most constantly. For first, if it were true, that after consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christ's natural body, as it consisteth of flesh, blood, and bone: and again if it were also true, that the self same body remained under the form of bread until it were corrupted: then let all the papists in England or else where in Europe, tell me how judas could receive (panem Domini,) but not (panem Dominum) as S. Austen saith: that is, how judas could receive the form of bread, with the flesh, blood, and bones of Christ's organical and natural body h●dden under the same, and for all that not receive Christ himself, and panem Dominum, as the other apostles did. Let them I I say, tell me this, and I promise to subscribe. If they will not this do, because they cannot, (for if they can do it, all the world must think they will do it;) then if the fear of God be before their eyes, they will acknowledge the truth that I now defend; which God grant they may do, Amen. Sixtly, he telleth us, that albeit we cannot reach with our hands, to Christ's body which is now in heaven: yet may we by faith take hold upon the same. Which is the flat doctrine, that the church of England this day teacheth of the eucharist. For we teach, that the eucharist is Christ's true body spiritually and sacramentally, and that it is truly received by faith and spirit; joan. 6. v. 63. according to this doctrine of our master Christ. The words that I spoke unto you, are spirit and life. Seventhly, he telleth us, that as Christ is on earth still, according to his deity: so is he in heaven till the day of doom, according to his humanity. And that as he is present in his godhead till that time, so is he absent in his manhood. For (saith S. Austen,) touching the presence of his flesh, he was but a few days on earth. Yea, (say the papists,) S. Austen lieth; and when he thus wrote, he was a sleep, and so were the rest of the fathers, that hold as he doth. We affirm without scriptures, fathers, rhyme, and reason, that he is carnally present at the priests appointment, in ten thousand pixes at once. More absurdly than this we say, that a mouse can catch Christ's carnal body, carry it away into an hole, and there devour it with her teeth. Of which blasphemous doctrine, the great papist Petrus Lombard▪ surnamed their master of sentences, knoweth not what to say or think; but being at his wits end what answer to make, thus answereth the question without answer: for his answer is answerless, in these words: Lombard. in 4. s. dist. 13. ●●. Quid ergo sumit mus, vel quid manducat? Deus novit hoc. What therefore doth a mouse take, when she catcheth the reserved host, or what doth she eat? God knoweth this. Lo, is not this a grave answer, of the gravest father amongst our popish doctors? He is termed the master of sentences, and his books are publicly read in their schools of divinity, and so of the next authority to the holy scriptures. And for all this, so doubtful and uncertain is their faith; that when a mouse catcheth their accidents without subjects, he knoweth not in the world, what is become of their carnal real presence. Eeightly, he telleth us, that the sacrament of Christ's body is not his body properly, but after a sort: and that sort he affirmeth to be this, to wit, as the sacrament of faith is faith. Now every child knoweth, that baptism, or the sacrament of faith, is not faith properly, but improperly, figuratively, and by way of signification only. Ninthly, Nono principaliter. Saint Ambrose (whom ●he papists think to make wholly for their side,) hath these express words: Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini jesu, ut inciperent esse quae non erant: Ambr. libr. 4. de sacram. cap. 4. quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant▪ & in aliud commutentur? If there be so great power in the word of our Lord jesus, that things began to be which were not: how much more is it workefull, that things be which were, and be changed into another thing? In these words, Saint Ambrose declareth the creatures of bread and wine, to remain still in their proper nature and substance; and withal to be changed into another thing, that is to say, De euchar. libr. 2▪ cap. 14. into the sacraments of Christ's true body and blood. To this our jesuite Bellarmine answereth in these words: Non dixit ut sint id quod erant, tunc enim panis manner deberet; sed ut sint quae erant, id est, n●n annihilentur, sed maneant, quamuis mutata. He said not, that they may be that which they were, for then the bread ought to remain indeed; but that they may still be which were before, that is, that they be not annihilated, but abide still, though changed. To this answer of our jesuite I say first, that Saint Ambrose meaneth no other thing, than did Saint Aust●n, when he called baptism the sacrament of faith. For the omnipotency of Christ's word, is required of them both in both sacraments. And as the water is changed into another thing, that is, to be a sacrament and ●ea●e of God's favour, which before was but common water: even so bread is changed into another thing, that is, to be the sacrament of Christ's body, which was before but common bread. I say secondly, that as a married man is by matrimony cha●ged into another thing, Argumentum ad hominem. and yet keepeth still the nature of a man: and as a Bishop by orders is altered into another thing, and yet keepeth still his former substance: even so the bread in the Eucharist is changed mystically, and still remaineth true bread. This is a good argument against the papists, who defend matrimony and orders to be two holy sacraments. I say thirdly, that if (aliud) must needs signify an essential change, (as master Harding our jesuite, and the rest will have it to do,) then either married men have gotten nothing by their matrimonial contracts, nor Bishops by their consecrations: or at least all married men and Bishops have lost the natures of men, and are changed into another substance. But as the Logicians tell us, these three transcendents, ens, res, aliquid, may be affirmed of whatsoever is: and for the order of Bishops, the papists tell us, that it imprinteth an indelible character: Matth. 19 6. touching matrimony, Christ himself telleth us, that it is an indissoluble band. Touching the persons themselves, experience telleth us, that they are still as tru●ly men as they were before; and consequently, the word (aliud) may as well signify an accidental alteration, as an essential transmutation. I say four, that every thing is truly denominate of it essential form; and therefore if the substance and essential parts of bread and wine be clean gone, and the external accidents thereof only remain, (as Bellarmine would gladly gloss Saint Ambrose; then doubtless may we truly say, that they are gone which were before, not that they still remain; unless perhaps the papists will say, that the horse remaineth, when nothing is left but his skin: and that a man liveth after he be dead. For in both more remaineth, then of their wine and bread. I say fifthly, that by Bellarmine's answer, if himself were changed into the essential nature of an ass, and kept still the external figure of a man; yet should he still be as truly Bellarmine, as he was before; A rare prerogative of jesuits. and so jesuits may be both Asses and men at once: a privilege granted to all others of their crew. The first objection S. Austen alluding to the facts and words of David, August. in Psa. 3●▪ conc. 1. by which Christ was prefigured, writeth in this manner: Manibus aliorum potest portar● homo, manibus suis nemo portatur: quomodo intelligatur in ipso david secundum literam non invenimus, in Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manib●su●s, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait. Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis; ipsa est humilitas Dom. nostri jesu Christi. A man may be carried in the hands of others; but no man is carried in his own hands. How this may be understood in David literally we do not find, but in Christ we do it find. For Christ was borne in his own hands, when he commended his own body, and said: This is my body. For he held that body in his hands; such is the humility of our Lord jesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen. By whose words it is evident, that that which Christ at his last supper gave to his disciples, was his true, real, & natural body, even that which was borne of the virgin Mary. For first, he telleth us that Christ did that which David could not do; to wit, that he did bear himself in his own hands. Secondly he saith, that this was done literally, even as the words do sound. Thirdly, he commendeth Christ's great humility in that fact. Now it is clear, that if this could be understood figuratively it might be well verified in David: for David might have born the picture, figure, or image, of his own body in his hands: yea, this he might have done literally, & have showed no humility therein. But Christ did so bear himself in his own hands (saith saint Austen,) as no man can do the like. This reason is invincible, all protestants in the world cannot answer the same. The answer. I say first, that this reason seemeth indeed to be invincible, and so myself have sometime thought. I say secondly, that if S. Austen should so mean, as you gather of these words; he should contradict himself in many other places, as is already proved; and consequently, his authority should be of no force in this behalf. I say thirdly, that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his own meaning, in these express words. Et ferebatur in manibus suis. August. in psal 33 conc. 2. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis? quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum & sanguinem suum▪ accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles, & ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret, hoc est corpus meum And he was borne in his hands. How was he borne in his hands? because when he commended his own body and his blood, he took into his hands that the faithful know, Note well the word Quodammodo. and he bore himself after a sort when he said, This is my body. Where I wish the Reader to mark well the word (quadammodo, after a sort:) for Christ had his true, real, and natural body, in his hands after a sort, that is, sacramentally; when he said, This is my body. He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands, but it was after a sort, not simply: but sacramentally, not naturally: but mystically, not carnally. I say four, that neither David, nor any other creature, could have borne himself after this sort in his own hands. For, (as Aquinas, Victoria, Antoninus, Covarrwias', Bellarminus, and all learned papists grant,) no mortal man can institute any sacrament, Note well what 〈◊〉 said. and so no mortal man being pure man, could sacramentally bear himself in his own hands. I say fifthly, that greater humility could not be, then that the Lord of glory should offer himself on the cross, so to appease God's wrath and to make atonement for our sins, and withal should give us the sacrament of his body & blood, as a seal of our reconciliation, and of his benevolence towards us. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place, where he hath these words: Aug. in psalm. 98. & habetur de consecr. dist. ●▪ lib. prim. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me ●rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificat vos. Ye shall not eat this body that ye see, and drink that blood which they shall shed, that will crucify me. I have commended a sacrament to you, which being understood spiritually doth quicken you. The second objection. S. Cyprian doth prove this verity, in most plain and manifest terms. Thus doth he write: Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigy, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples, being changed not in shape but in nature, became flesh by the omnipotency of the word. Lo, bread was changed not in shape or figure, which our sense telleth us to be so: but in nature or substance, as the catholic church teacheth us. And how is it changed? even into flesh; and yet will not you have Christ to be present, in flesh, blood, and bone. But if it were otherwise, the omnipotent power of God's word should be needless: which yet Saint Cyprian saith, Cypr. de 〈◊〉 Domini. is it that worketh this mighty change. If ye yield not to this testimony, ye show yourself to be obstinate. The answer I say first, that the gross and carnal sense of these words, did wonderfully seduce myself when the time was. I say secondly, that if Saint Cyprian meant as you would have him, he should be contrary to himself. For he affirmeth it to be true wine, which Christ gave to his Apostles. I have already alleged his express words, peruse them and mark them well. I say thirdly, that S. Cyprian can never be more truly expounded, then when his own meaning in one place, is gathered out of his own words in another place. That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another, we must join antecedent to consequent, former to latter, and one place to another. This done, we shall find with facility, that he speaketh only of sacramental alteration: and that by the word (nature) he meaneth natural properties. Yea even so do the papists interpret the same word in their Gelasius, concerning this question now in hand. Thus doth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other words: Cypr. de coena Domini. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & latebat divinitas; ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia. Infrà: Nostra vero & ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas, nec unit substantias; sed affectus consociat, & confoederat voluntates. Iterum: & sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus, vita est corporis: ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae, & sanitas mentis. Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in t●rris; eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis, non ministerio corporali. And as the humanity was seen in the person of Christ, and the divinity hidden; even so hath the divine essence powered out itself unspeakably, in the visible sacrament. For both ours and his conjunction neither mingleth persons, nor yet uniteth substances; but procureth fellowship in affection, and agreement in wills. And as the common bread which we eat daily, is the life of the body: so is this supersubstantial bread the life of the soul, and the health of the mind. We eat here on earth Angel-foode under the sacrament; but we shall eat the same more clearly without the sacrament in heaven, and that without help of the body. Out of these words I note first, that Christ's divinity is after an unspeakable manner in the sacrament, but so is no● his body or humanity: and consequently, that Christ is not there, in invisible carnal presence. I note secondly, that this sacramental union doth not unite substances, but affections and wills; and yet should our bodies be united, if we received Christ corporally into our bellies. But as the same Cyprian saith a 〈…〉; Recipitur non includitur, He is received, but not shut up in the sacrament▪ I note thirdly, that this bread is spiritual, not corporal; the bread of the soul, not of the body. I note four, that we eat Angell-foode here on earth, in the sacrament, and that we shall eat the very same in heaven without the sacrament. Which assertion uttered by holy Cyprian, showeth his catholic christian meaning so plainly, as all Papists may be ashamed henceforth to allege him, for their late invented carnal presence. In heaven there is neither accident without subject, nor sacrament administered, nor yet any corporal eating and drinking there used. Angel's food is spiritual, not carnal; celestial, not terrestrial; eternal, not corporal: Angels neither eat by dint of tooth, nor by morsels in the mouth. Their nature is not capable of any such actions. Since therefore our sacramental meat, is the same that Angels now eat, and the same that ourselves shall eat in heaven, where all corporal, carnal and fleshy eating ceaseth: it followeth of necessity, that it is mere spiritual; not corporal, fleshy or carnal. The reply. He saith, that the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of God's word, to show the unspeakable transmutation. Therefore so soon as God's word is spoken by the priest, it is no more bread, but flesh indeed. The answer. I say first, as I said not long before; that it passeth the force of any power upon earth, to make common bread a sacrament. I say secondly, that the alteration is unspeakable, when the divine power of Christ doth infuse itself into the hearts of the faithful by the visible sacrament, as by his ordinary organ and instrument, and then and there worketh the divine effects signified by the sacrament. I say thirdly, that whosoever will peruse the whole treatise of Saint Cyprian De coena Domini, and do it seriously with judgement and christian zeal, that man shall doubtless find his meaning, to be as I have said. For in an other place thereof he hath these words: Ideò ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aternae effectum, & non tam corporali quàm spirituali transitione Christo nos uniri. Therefore the infirmity of our faith being helped by the accustomed effect of things, is caught by a sensible argument, that the effect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments, and that we are united to Christ, not so by corporal as by spiritual transmutation. And in the very end of the tract he concludeth in this manner: Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sincerâ panem sanctum frangimus & partimur dum quod divinum & quod humanum est, distinguimus & separamus, itémque simul separata iungentes, unum deum & hominem fatemur. Sed & nos ipsi corpus eius effecti, sacramento & re sacramenti capiti nostro connectimur, & unimur singuli alter alterius membra, ministerium dilectionis pro invicem exhibentes, communicamus charitate, participamus solicitudine, eundem cibum manducantes, & eundem potum bibentes, qui depetra spiritali profluit & emanat, qui cibus & potus est dominus noster jesus Christus. So often as we do these things, we do not whet our teeth to eat, but we break and divide the sanctified bread with a sincere faith, while we distinguish and separate what is divine and what human; and also joining the same things separated together, confess one God and man. Ourselves also being made his body, are knit to our head by the sacrament and virtue thereof, and are united particularly one an others members, exhibiting the ministery of love one for another; we communicate in charity, we participate in solicitude, we eat the same meat and drink the same drink, which floweth and runneth out of the spiritual rock, which meat and drink is our Lord jesus Christ. Out of these words I note first, that Christ is truly present in the eucharist, but yet after a spiritual sort, and not corporal. I note secondly, that we are united to Christ spiritually by means of the sacrament, but not corporally. For as we receive Christ in the sacrament, so are we united to Christ i● the same, as by an ordinary instrument under him. I note thirdly, that after sanctification it is bread still as before, and is broken and divided: none of which can agree indeed with Christ's corporal presence. I note four, that we eat not Christ with mouth and tooth, but with a true christian faith. I note fifthly, that the true and sincere faith, by which we must eat the Eucharist, is to distinguish in Christ the humanity from the divinity, and to join the same again, confessing one Christ to be true God and true man. I note sixtly, that as we eat Christ in the Sacrament, so are we made one another's members: which can not be otherwise understood, then in a mystical manner. I note seventhly, that our sacramental meat and drink is spiritual, which floweth out from the spiritual rock Christ jesus. For if the rock be spiritual whereof we drink, then doubtless the drink itself can not be corporal, because as all Philosophers grant, and as right reason prescribeth, qualis causa talis effectus, the effect is of like condition with the cause: neither can a corporal cause bring forth a spiritual effect, nor a spiritual cause a corporal effect: whereupon ariseth a great question among the Schoolmen, how hell fire can be material, since a body can have no action into a spirit. The 3. objection. Saint Chrysostome hath these words; Quod est in chalice, Chrysost. in cap. 10. cor. 1. hom. 24. in initio. id est, quod à latere fluxit, & illius sumus participes. That which is in the cup, is the same that flowed out of his side, and we are partakers thereof. But doubtless no christian can or will deny, that to be Christ's true blood indeed, which issued out of his side upon the cross: therefore the same must be granted, to be under the form of wine in the mass. The answer. I say first, that I grant Christ's true body and his true blood to be in the eucharist, but not under accidents without subjects; nor corporally, and carnally, but in a divine, spiritual, and mystical sort. Neither doth saint Chrysostome, S. Cyprian, saint Austen, or any other ancient father, speak one word of your carnal real presence, or once name your accidents without subjects. No, they teach no other doctrine, then that which I willingly embrace. Now that Saint Chrysostome speaketh of a mystical presence, his own words following within a few lines, shall witness the same with me. Chrysost. ubi sup. Thus he saith: Et propter te frangi sustinet, ut omnes satiet; And he suffereth to be broken for thee, that he may satiate all. Thus saith this holy father. By whose words it is clear, that he meaneth Christ to be no otherwise present, than he affirmeth him to be broken. And if any papist will say, that Christ's bones are otherwise broken then in a mystery; then must the same papist tell me, how Christ's body can be glorious and not mortal: Rom. 6 9 1. Cor. 15. verse 53, 42. then must be tell me, how it chauceth, that I can not feel and see Christ's bones and flesh. For so Christ proved the verity of his body to his disciples; Handle me (saith Christ) and see: Luc. 24.39. for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Then must he tell me, to what end he sent the comforter in his steed, joan. 16.7. if himself be still on earth among us. For himself saith: If I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him to you. Matt. 26.11. Then must he tell me, how Christ is not always with us, since as they say, their round cakes do never want him. For himself saith: Ye have the poor always with you, but me shall ye not have always. Then must he tell me, how accidents can be without a subject, August. ad Da●d. epist. 57 since S. Austen saith, that if qualities be taken from the bodies, they lose their being. Then must he tell me what scripture saith, that Christ's body which was visible before his ascension, Act. 1.9, 11. Act. 3.21. visible in his ascension, and shall continue visible in heaven till his second advent; is for all that daily and hourly in infinite popish cakes; and after an invisible and insensible manner: then must he tell me, how Christ's body being like to ours in all things, Hebr. 2. 1●. Hebr. 4.15. 1. Pet. 2. sin excepted, can nevertheless be in many places at once: then must he tell me, how Christ's body is not a fantastical body, as Martion and the Manichees held: for Saint Austen saith, that Christ's true body can be but in some one place of heaven; August. epist. ad Dardan. in fine. Vbi (inquit) totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam deum, & in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum. Thou must not doubt (saith saint Austen) that Christ is wholly present every where as God, and in the same temple of God as God inhabiting it, and in some one place of heaven for the manner of a true body. Lo, this grave father telleth us, that Christ as god is every where; but in respect of his true body, he is only in heaven, and in some certain place of heaven: Only in heaven, Act. 3.21. A true body cannot be in many places at once. because the scripture saith, that he shall be there till the world's end: in some certain place of heaven, to declare the nature and verity of a true body. So then, if he were present as the papists would have him, his body should lose the nature & verity, of a true body indeed. I say secondly, that Saint Chrysostome expoundeth his own meaning most plainly, Chrysost. ubi sup. when he saith that Christ in his last supper, gave the fruit of the vine to his disciples. His words are before alleged, and are flat contrary to these other here objected, unless they be glossed as I say. The reply. Saint Chrysostome in an other place confuteth your sophistical answers, and delivereth his meaning in so plain terms, as no denial can be made thereof. These are his words; Chrysost. hom. 83. in Mat. Non enim sufficit ipsi hominem fieri flagellis interim caedi; sed nos secum in unam (ut ita dicam) massam reducit, neque id fide solum, sed reipsa nos corpus suum efficit. For it is not enough for him to become man, and in the mean time to be whipped & scourged: Note well the answer to this objection. but he doth as it were mould us into the same lump with himself; neither is this done by faith only, but he maketh us his own body indeed. Lo, there is a further kind of eating, then by faith only; we are made his body really, and not only by faith. And Saint Hilary saith the very same in effect. These are his words: Hilar. in 8. libr. de Trinit. p. 141. De veritate carnis & sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus: nunc enim & ipsius domini professione, & fide nostra verè caro est, & verè sanguis est. Concerning the verity of his flesh and blood, there is no place left to stand in doubt: for now as well by God's attestation, as by our own faith, he is flesh indeed and blood indeed. The answer. I say first, that I do not deny Christ's true and real flesh and blood to be in the Eucharist; but I deny it to be there in a fleshy, corporal, carnal, and sensible manner. In the latter of which twain, I only descent from you, and your late council of Trent. Concil. Trident. Sect. 13. cap. 1. I say secondly, that neither S. Hilary, nor yet S. Chrysostome affirmeth, Christ's flesh to be present otherwise then I grant. Touching S. Hilary, he hath these words a little before; Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc unum erimus. We truly receive the flesh of his body, (yet not really or corporally, but) in a mystery, and by this we shallbe one. Lo, though we receive Christ's flesh truly, as I grant; yet is it in a mystery, not carnally or corporally, as the papists hold. Again, S. Hilary saith, we are made one by it; and yet is it clear, that our unity is no other than mystical: the papists agree thereunto, it cannot be denied. I say thirdly, that to eat a thing really, is not to keep it a while in our mouth vnconsumed, and then to put it out again, as every child can discern; and yet is this your carnal and real eating of Christ's body, ye can it not deny. For ye say, that his body is hidden under the accidents of bread, and is only so long in your mouths, as the accidents be vnconsumed and not eaten up. That done, Christ is by and by gone from you. His body so loatheth your bellies; that it will by no means come in them, or tarry longer with you, than the accidents do remain. And when it is freed from those accidents, neither doth any see it come out, neither can yourselves tell whither it is gone. But the priest by speaking four words, can bring it again into his fist with a beck. Now I would learn of some skilful papist, to what end so many miracles are feigned in your consecration. Is it to possess Christ's body? But alas, it is no sooner come then gone again. Is it that Christ may dwell with you? but alas, he will not stay. Is it because you are delighted with his presence. Alas it seemeth not; for then the ordinary mean were this, to keep your accidents long undigested. And yet are ye so weary of keeping them, & so greedy of your dinners; joh. 6.56. as I never heard of any, that kept them in his mouth till supper. Christ saith, that he will dwell with him that eateth his flesh; but that guest cannot truly be said to dwell with one, that is gone before dinner. I say four, that it is true which S. Chrysostome saith; to wit, that we are indeed made Christ's body, yet that is not done really or corporally, but in a spiritual and divine sort. And because none can expound S. Chrysostome better than himself: let us seriously examine his own interpretation. These are his words a little before, from whence this objection is taken: Chrysost. hom 83 in Mat. Quontam ergo ille dixit, hoc est corpus meum, nullae teneamur ambiguitate, sed credamus & oculis intellectus id perspiciamus. Nihil enim, ensibile traditum nobis a Christo, sed rebus sensibilibus: omnia verò quae tradidit insensibilia sunt Sic & in baptismo, per aquam, quae re, sensib●lis est donum illud conceditur; quod autem in ea conficitur, regeneratio scilicet ac renovatio, intelligibile quiddam est Nam si tu incorporeus esses nudé ipse dona incorporea tradidisset tibi: quontam verò corpori coniuncta est anima tua in sensibilibus intelligenda tibi traduntur▪ o quot modò dicunt, veblem formam & speciem eius, vellem vestimenta ipsa vell●m calciamenta videre. Ipsum igitur vides, ipsum tangis ipsum comedis. Vestimenta eius desideras videre; ipse verò seipsam tibi tradidit non ut videas solum, verum etiam ut tangas, & in te habeas. Because therefore he said; this is my body, let us not stand in doubt, but let us believe and behold it with the eyes of our understanding. Behold, how finely and evidently. S. Chrysostome doth expound himself. For Christ gave us no sensible thing, but (spiritual things) with sensible things; and all things that he gave us, are insensible. So in baptism, by the water, which is a sensible thing, that gift is given; but that that is done in the water, to wit, regeneration and renovation, is a certain intelligible or spiritual thing. For if thou were incorporal, he would have given thee incorporal gifts barely, (and not hidden;) but because thy soul is coupled with thy body, intelligible things are given thee in things sensible. Oh how many now a days say? I would see his form & shape, I would see his garments, I would see his shoes. Thou therefore seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him. Thou desirest to see his garments, but he hath given himself to thee; not that thou mayest see him only, but also that thou mayest touch him, and have him within thee. These are the words of this ancient father and learned writer: which I have cited at large (though they be somewhat tedious,) because they are able to confound the papists, even in this argument which they deem insoluble, when due application shallbe made thereof. I therefore note first, that all gifts given us by Christ in his sacraments, are spiritual and to be received by faith. I note secondly, that though the things given us be insensible, yet are they given in such things as be sensible: and the reason hereof is, because ourselves are sensible. I note thirdly, that as the gift in baptism is incorporal, and spiritual, even so is the gift in the Eucharist. I note four, that Christ is so present, as he is seen, touched, and possessed: but the papists neither can see him, nor touch him, in their fond conceived real presence. S. Chrysostome therefore speaking of that kind of presence, by which Christ is seen and touched; must needs understand that spiritual kind of presence, which we defend according to the Scriptures. S. Chrysostome will yet tell us his meaning more plainly, if it possibly can be done. Chrysost. in 2. ad Tim hom. 2. in fine. Thus doth he write in another place; Quemadmodum enim verba quae locutus est Christus, eadem sunt que sacerdotes nunc quoque pronuntiant; ita & oblatio eadem est, eademque baptismi ratio est adeò omnia in fide consistunt. For as the words which Christ spoke, are the same which priests now pronounce, even so is it the same oblation, and there is the same reason of baptism, all things do so depend of faith. Again in another place thus; Haec omnia carnalia quae mysticè & spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. Chrysost. hom. 46. in joan. Infrà: quid est carniliter intelligere? simpliciter ut res dicuntur, neque aliud quippiam excogitare. Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur, sed mysteria omnia interioribus oculis consideranda, hoc est spirituali●er. All these things are carnal, which must be understood mystically and spiritually. What is it to understand carnally? simply, as the things are spoken, neither to think any other thing. For they must not so be judged which are seen, but all mysteries must be considered with the interior eyes, that is spiritually. S. Bernard though he were a monk and lived in the altitude of popery, yet is he sincere as in many other things, so in this point of doctrine. Bernard. in serm. de sancto Mar●ino. These are his words: Adest enim nobis etiam nunc carnis ipsius vera substantia, haud dubium sanè quin in sacramento. Adsunt revelationes, sed & spiritu & virtute. Infrà sed quomodo eum etiam nunc habet ecclesia, in fide & sacramentis. For the true substance of his flesh is even now present with us: there is no doubt, but it is in the sacrament. We have revelations present, but in spirit and verity. But as the church hath him even now in faith and sacraments. Lo, we have and receive the true flesh of Christ, but in spirit and verity, but in faith and sacraments. This assertion of their own beloved Bernard, is doubtless our constant doctrine. The popish approved gloss, teacheth us the same doctrine. De consecr. dist. 2 cap. ut quid. in glossa. For these are the express words thereof; Coelesie sacramentum quod est in altari impropriè dicitur corpus Christi, sicut baptismus improprie dicitur fides Infrà; coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè; unde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significati mysterio, ut sit sensus: vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significatur. The heavenly sacrament which is on the altar, is called unproperly the body of Christ, as baptism is unproperly called faith. The heavenly sacrament which truly representeth Christ's flesh, is called the body of Christ, but improperly. Whereupon he saith (suo modo, after it own manner,) but not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystery of that which is signified; that this be the sense: it is called Christ's body; that is to say, it is the sign of Christ's body. The 4. objection. Christ saith plainly, this is my body; and not, this is a sign, or this doth signify my body. He meant nothing less, then to use tropes and figures, in the institution of this holy sacrament. The answer. I say first, that the case is so plain, as no papist in Europe can deny, that Christ used a trope or figure in the institution of this sacrament. For these are the words of the institution; Luc. 22. v. 20. This cup is the new testament in my blood. In which words the trope or figure called Metonymia, doth twice occur. For first, the cup doth figuratively signify, the liquor in the cup. Again, the cup is called the testament; and yet it is but the figure or sign of the testament. I say secondly, that the figure (Metonymy,) is very frequent. in the holy scripture, aswell in the old as in the new testament. In the old testament we have these examples; this is the passover. Exod. 12.11. That is, this doth signify the passover. Again, this is my covenant; that is to say, this doth signify my covenant; or, this is a sign of my covenant. Gen. 17.10. Again, the 7. good kine are 7. years, and the seven good ears are seven years. Again, the the seven thin and evil favoured kine, Gen. 41. v. 26, 27. are seven years. Again, the seven empty ears, blasted with the Eastwind, are seven years of famine. In all which places, the figure (Metonymia) is used. For neither the kine nor the ears were the seeven years, as every child knoweth: but they did signify the years to come, they were a sign and figure thereof. In the new testament, we have these examples. I am the vine. joan. 15. v. 1. joan. 10. v. 9 Luc. 8.11. 1. Cor. 10. v. 17.10. Again, I am a door. Again, My father is an husbandman. Again, The seed is the word of God. Again, We that are many, are one bread. Again, The rock was Christ. Again, Apoc. 5.5. The lion which is of the tribe of juda, the root of David, hath obtained to open the book. In which places, Christ neither was the vine, nor the rock, nor the lion: neither was the seed the word of God, neither was God the father an husbandman, neither are the faithful one bread: but all these things are figuratively spoken, by the usual custom of the holy Scripture. I say thirdly, that not only the ancient fathers, but even the papists also have acknowledged this figure: their words and testimonies are already cited. I say four, that the very words of institution are figurative: which thing is so plain as every child may perceive the same. Luc. 22. v. 20. For thus saith S. Luke: This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Where, I am well assured, every papist small and great, will confess with me, that the cup by the figure (metonymia,) is taken for the liquor in the cup. And so against their will, they are enforced to acknowledge a figure, even there where they so obstinately deny a figure. The fift objection. Malac. 1. v. 11. The Prophet Malachi hath such a plain testimony for the real presence and sacrifice of the altar, as it can never be answered till the worlds end. These are the words: In every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering. These words of the Prophet being effectually applied, will confound the respondent whatsoever he shall answer. For first, the prophet speaketh of the oblation of the new testament, as yourselves cannot deny. Secondly, the prophet saith, that this oblation must be in every place, and so it cannot be understood of Christ's body offered upon the cross: for that oblation was but in one place, even without the walls of jerusalem. Thirdly, it cannot be understood of the sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving: because whatsoever proceedeth from us, is impure & polluted. Yea, as an other prophet saith; ●sai. 64.6. All our righteousness is as filthy clouts: and so no oblation that is ours, can be pure. Therefore he speaketh of Christ's body offered in the mass, which is a pure oblation indeed. The answer. I answer to this insoluble so supposed argument, that the prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving. And I prove it by the flat testimonies of the holy Fathers. Saint Irenaeus hath these words; Iren. li. 4. cap. ●● In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem joannes in Apocalypsi, orationes esse ait sanctorum. Incense is offered to my name in every place, and a pure sacrifice: and Saint john in the Revelation saith, that this incense is the prayers of the Saints. Saint Theodoretus doth expound this place after the same manner, in his Commentaries upon the same text. Theod. in 1. cap. Malach. Saint Hierome hath these words; Sed thymiama, hoc est, Hier. in hu●● locum. sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas: & non in una orbis provincia judaeâ, nec in una Iudaeae urbe Jerusalem, said in omni loco offerri oblationem. But incense, that is, the prayers of saints must be offered to the Lord: and that not in judea one only province of the world, neither in jerusalem one only city thereof, but in every place must an oblation be made. Now where it is said, that all our actions be impure and polluted: I answer, that that is true indeed, when our actions be examined in rigour of justice. But not so, when we are clad with the righteousness of Christ jesus, and have washed our sins in his blood, for whose sake God doth not impute our pollutions, and filth unto us. Not so, when God dealeth with us according to mercy. Not so, when God accepteth our sinful and imperfect acts, as pure, just, and innocent. For our own unworthienesse, Psal. 142.2. the Prophet desired God not to enter into judgement with his servants: Rom. 8.1. but for Christ's righteousness the Apostle pronounceth us free from condemnation. For though our sins be red as scarlet, Apoc. 21. Apoc. 7.14. yet so soon as they be washed in the blood of the immaculate Lamb, they become (by acceptation) as white as snow. Isa. 1.18. This whole discourse Saint Augustine handleth finely, in these golden words; August. confess. lib. 9 cap. 13. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam. Woe even to the laudable life of men, if thou examine it thy mercy set a part. And in this sense, the objection taketh place. Nevertheless, god of his great mercy, doth accept our works as just and pure, through faith in Christ jesus our sweet redeemer, Rom. 8.1. Rom. 5.12. Cap. 4 verse 7. Tit. 1.5. for whose sake he doth not impute our sins to us. So saith the Apostle; not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy hath he saved us, by the washing of the new birth, & the renewing of the holy Ghost. So saith S. john; These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their long robes, Apoc. 7.14. & have made them white in the blood of the lamb, through the merits of which lamb our prayers and works are reputed pure. Therefore saith Saint Paul, I will therefore that the men pray every where, lifting up pure hands without wrath or doubting. ●. Timoth. 2.8. The 6. objection. If the words of consecration be trophicall and figurative, so as there is but a bare sign of Christ's body and blood: then shall our sacraments of the new Testament, be no better than the sacraments of the old. Matth. ●. 17. Hebr. 20.1. joan. 19.30. The reason is evident, because they did signify Christ's death and passion, even as ours do, and yet is it clear by the scriptures, that we have the verity, whereof they had but the figure only. The answer. I say first, that our sacraments excel the old sundry ways: first, because they are immutable, and shall not be altered till the world's end. Again, because they represent the things done, How our sacraments do excel the old. which by the old were but prefigured to be done. Thirdly, because they are more manifest, and so do excite our faith the more. Fourthly, because they pertain to all nations, whereas the other belonged to the people of the jews only. I say secondly, that the Papists falsely accuse us, when they say, that we make the holy eucharist, a bare sign of Christ's body and blood. For we grant and teach, that together with the sacramental bread and wine, we receive Christ's real body and blood in a spiritual manner; that is to say, when we receive these sacraments by faith, than Christ's spirit dwelleth in us, and we are united to his body as members to the head, and branches to the vine, from which head, we continually draw nourishment, spirit, and life. For then, as the Apostle writeth, Rom. 8.11. Ephes. 3.17. Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith, which effect can never be had by popish doctrine; because by it, their accidents void of subjects, are no sooner devoured, but Christ's body forthwith departeth out of their mouths. And if thou ask, whither: they answer, they cannot tell. The seventh objection. He that eateth Christ's body unworthily (saith S. Paul) is made guilty of Christ's body: 1. Cor. 11.37. which punishment doubtless should never be imposed, for eating a piece of bakers bread. The answer. I say first, that it far surmounteth bakers bread, as is more than once concluded sufficiently. I say secondly, that it is no absurdity, to grant a man to be guilty of that even by eating, whereof he eateth not at all: at least whereof he eateth not in such manner, as he is guilty by his eating. For first, Gen. 3.6. Adam was guilty of disobeying Gods divine majesty, and that by reason of eating: Nevertheless he ate not God's majesty, Rom. 13.13. Gal. 5.21. but an apple. Secondly, every glutton is guilty of irreverence against God, and that by reason of his eating: and for all that he eateth not God's substance, but his creatures. The like may be said 〈◊〉 of every drunkard, and many other malefactors. I say thirdly, that the wicked eat Christ's body sacramentally, which is as sufficient a cause of condemnation, as the eating of an apple. The reply. 〈◊〉. 2.17. Adam was condemned not simply for eating, but for eating with disobedience. Ergo the case is not like. The answer. I answer, that even so are not the wicked condemned for eating the sacrament simply, 1. Cor. 11.28. but for eating it with disobedience. For the apostle commandeth every one to examine himself before he eat; 1. Cor. 10.31. and in another place he commandeth us to refer all our acts to God's glory. The seventh objection. It is not impossible for two bodies to be in one place at once, Ergo neither is it impossible for Christ's body to be in many places at once. I prove it, because there is the same difficulty in both. The answer. I grant, that one body may as well be in many places at once, as divers bodies in the same place at once. But withal, I affirm them both to be impossible. The first reply. The holy Scripture telleth us, that all things are possible to God: it also hath discovered the possibility of this particular case, by many fold examples. For first, Christ's own glorified body, joan. 20.19. Matth. 28.2. Matth. 19.24, 25 26 August. epist. 3. was at once in the same place with the doors. Secondly, Christ's body and the stone of the sepulchre, were both in the same place at one time. Thirdly, God can bring a camel through a needle's eye, even continuing in his natural figure & quantity stil. For as Christ himself saith, God can do both this and all other things. Fourthly, Christ came out of his mother's womb, the clausure being whole and not stirred; for so saith Saint Austen. The answer. I say first, that god can do much more than man's reason can conceive, because the dullness of man's understanding, is not able to penetrate the bottomless deepness of his heavenly wisdom, & power divine. I say secondly, that it is one thing to speak of things which God can do; another thing to speak of those things that he will do. For we are assured by his revealed will, that as God can do all things which he will; Things undouble by power divine so are there many things which he cannot do, or rather which he will not do, because they cannot indeed be done. And these things are of 2. sorts: the one sort containeth imperfection, the other implieth contradiction. In respect of the former, he cannot do these things. First, he cannot make another God: secondly, he cannot make himself corruptible: thirdly, he cannot sin. In respect of the latter, he cannot do these things. First, god cannot make time past, not to be passed: secondly, God cannot make a blind man remaining blind, to have his sight: thirdly, God can not make a dead man remaining dead, to have his life. Nevertheless most true it is, that the want of doing these and the like things▪ doth not argue any defect in god who is omnipotent, but imperfection or contradiction in the things that should be done. I say thirdly, that Christ's body was not in the same place with the wood; Tertio principaliter. which thing is proved at large in the chaper of Christ's resurrection; peruse mine answer there, and all obscurity will surcease. I say four, that the stone gave place to Christ's body, and that done returned again to the former place; Act. 12 7. Exod. 14.32. Act. 12.10. like as Peter's chains fell off from his hands, as the red sea gave place to the Israelites, and as the iron gate opened by it own accord. I say fifthly, that touching the passage of the Camel, many things may be said: First, Vide Theoph. in hunc locum▪ that by the word (Camel) is understood a cable rope, and not a beast; because the Greek word is indifferent to them both. Secondly, that it is but a proverb or phrase of speech, signifying how hardly rich men enter into heaven. Thirdly, that God can dilate the eye of a needle so, as a Camel may pass through the same, and that without prejudice to the natural quantity of his body. See the third Paragraph in the end. I say sixtly, that Christ's body came not out of his mother's womb, the clausure being whole & not stirred. For first, Luc. 2.23. exod. 13.2. num. 8.10 Christ was presented to the Lord according to the law, as the holy gospel doth record: yet the law required such presentation only of them, which opened their mother's womb. Secondly, Tertull. testifieth this opening of the blessed virgin's womb. These are his words: Terull. libr. de carn. Christ in sin. Haec vulua est, propter quam & de alijs scriptum est: Omne masculinum adaperiens vuluam sanctum vocabitur domino. Quis vere sanctus, quam Dei filius? Quis proprie vuluam adaperuit quam quiclausam patefecit: Caeterum omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt. Itaque magis patefacta est quia magis erat clausa. Sequitur: cum apostolus non ex virgine sed ex muliere editum filium Dei pronuntiavit, agnovit adapertae vuluae nuptialem passionem. Thi● is the womb, for which it is written of others: every man-child that openeth the womb, shall be called holy to the Lord. Who is truly holy, but the Son of God? who properly opened the womb, but he that opened it when it was shut? but marriages open it to all: therefore it was more opened, because it was more shut. When the Apostle saith, Gal. 4.4. not that Christ was borne of a virgin, but of a woman; he acknowledged the nuptial passion of an opened womb. Hieron. libr. 2. adu. Pelag. prope initium. Thirdly, Saint Hierome hath these words: Solu● enim Christus clausas portas vuluae virginalis aperuit quae tamen clausae iugiter permanserunt. Haec est porta orientalis clausa, per quam solus pontifex ingreditur & egreditur, & nihilominus semper clausa est. For Christ only opened the gates of the virgin's womb, Vide Ezech. cap. 44.2.3. that were shut, which for all that were shut continually. This is the east gate which is shut up, through which the Bishop goeth in and out, and for all that it is ever shut. Origen. hom. 14. in Luc. prop. sin. Fourthly, Origen hath these words: Quemcunque enim de utero effusum marem dixeris, non sic aperit vuluam matris suae, ut Dominus jesus: quia omnium mulierum non partus infantis, sed v●ri coitus vuluam reserat: matris vero dominico tempore vulua reserata est, quo & partus editus. For what man child soever thou shalt name, that is borne of a womb; he doth not so open the matrice of his mother, as doth our Lord jesus. For in all women, not the birth of the child, but the copulation of the man openeth the womb. Yet the womb of the mother of our Lord was opened even then when the child was borne. Fiftly, S. Ambrose hath these express and plain words: Non enim virilis coitus vuluae virginalis secreta reseravit, Ambros. li. 2. cap. 2. in Lucam. sed immaculatum semen inviolabili utero spiritus sanctus infudit. Sequitur: Hic ergo solus aperuit sibi vuluam. Nec mirum; hic enim dixerat ad prophetam: priusquam te formarem in utero, novi te, & in vulua matris sanctificavi te: qui ergo vuluam sanctificavit alienam, ut nasceretur propheta, hic est qui aperuit matris suae vuluam, ut immaculatus exiret. For the copulation of man opened not the secrets of the virgin's womb, but the holy ghost poured the immaculate seed into the inviolable womb. He therefore opened the womb to himself alone. And it is no marvel; for he said to the prophet: before I form thee in the womb, jerem. 1. ●. I knew thee, and in thy mother's womb I sanctified thee. He therefore that sanctified the womb of another for the birth of his prophet, is the very same that opened the womb of his mother, that he might come forth immaculate. The second reply. Holy Writ telleth us, that Christ was borne of a virgin, Luc. 1.27.31. Matt. 1.23. Esai. 7.14. to which all the ancient father's accord: yet should she have been corrupted and no virgin, if her womb had been opened in the birth of Christ. Pernel. de part. corp. libr. 1. cap. 7 For as the learned Physician Fernelius writeth, the loss of virginal integrity, consisteth in the sole dilatation of the conjunct parts. The answer. I say first, that not only the holy scriptures, but the ancient fathers also, and other learned divines, are to be heard before all physicians, in the mysteries of our faith. I say secondly, that Fernelius maketh nothing for the papists, as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the matrice; and that after the natural and ordinary course. I say thirdly, that though Christ's holy mother were a virgin both before his birth, in his birth, and after his birth, as all the ancient fathers with uniform consent do witness: yet was her womb opened in his birth, as is already proved. For as their own angelical Doctor Aquinas saith, Aqu. 22. q. 152. ar. 1. ad 3. whose doctrine sundry Popes one after another have confirmed: virginity is not lost by fraction of the signacle, but by corruption of the mind and purpose of the will. August. libr. 1. de civit. Dei cap. 18. Saint Austen hath a learned and large discourse concerning this only point of doctrine, wherein he showeth gravely, that the apertion of the matrice may be done sundry ways: to wit, either by art in the way of medicine, or by violence of the corrupter, or by other accidental means: and that virginity this notwithstanding, may be free from all corruption. Much more might Christ's own mother's womb, be opened by his divine power: and nevertheless her most holy womb, still remain inviolable. The fift conclusion. The popish idololatrical mass, is like unto a clouted beggars cloak. This conclusion will be manifest, so soon as I shall prove sundry Popes to have joined piece unto piece, as if it were clout upon clout. The first Section. Of consecration with the Lords prayer. IN the primitive and apostolical church, the mass or holy communion, was administered with the lords prayer only, all superstitious ceremonies set apart. This to be so doth witness Gregory surnamed the Great, sometime bishop of Rome himself: whose testimony no papist in the world can or will reject. Gregor. epist. ●●b. 7. cap. 63. These are his words; Orationem autem dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solu●modò orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent. And after other prayers we add the Lords prayer, for this end and purpose: because the manner of the apostles was this, to consecrate the oblation with that only prayer. The second Section. Of the Mass said in the vulgar tongue. IN the ancient church after the apostles time, the holy communion was celebrated in the vulgar tongue, which was known to all the people. justin. apolog. ●. prope ●●nem. justinus Martyr hath these words: Die solis omnium qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt, in eundem locum conventus fit, & commentaria apostolorum, aut scripta prophetarum, quoad tempus fert, leguntur. Deinde lectore quiescente, praesidens orationem qua populum instruit, & ad imitationem tam pulchrarum rerum cohortatur, habet. Sub haec consurgimus communiter omnes, & precationes profundimus, & sicuti retulimus, precibus peractis, panis offertur, & vinum & aqua●: & praepositus itidem quantum pro virili sua potest, preces & gr●tiarum actiones fundit & populus fausté acclamat▪ dicens, Amen. On the Sunday, all that live either in town or country, meet together in one place, and then the epistles of the Apostles, or writings of the Prophets are read, according as the time requireth. Afterward the reader ceaseth, and the chief minister maketh an oration, in which he instructeth the people, and exhorteth them to imitate that which is read unto them. These things being done, we all arise together and make our prayers; and after our prayers, the bread is offered, with wine and water, and the pastor as he is able, prayeth and giveth thanks, and the people with joyful acclamation say, Amen. Lo, in the old time the priest or minister said the communion together with the people, and consequently they understood one another, as also what was said; whereas this day in the popish church, the people neither answer the minister, nor yet understand what is said. Saint Ambrose hath these words: Ambros. libr. 3. hexamer. cap. 5. tom. 4. In oratione totius plebis tanquam undis refluentibus stridet, tum responsoriis psalmorum, cantu virorum, mulierum, virginum paruulorum, consonus undarum fragor resultat. When all the people pray together, there is a noise, as if the waves of the sea should beat one against another: then with the answering of Psalms, with the s●●ging together of men, women, maids, and little children, the consonant sound reboundeth as it were an echo with the surges of the sea. By this testimony we see evidently, that the practice of the ancient church agreeth with ours, and utterly confoundeth the antichristian popish mumbling. Pope Gregory himself confirmeth this doctrine, Gregor. epist. libr. 7. cap. 63. in these words; Sed & dominica oratio apud Graecos ab omni populo dicitur, apud nos autem à solo sacerdote. Furthermore, among the Greeks' all the people say the Lords prayer: but with us the priest alone saith it. Behold, Anno. Dom. 590 this Gregory lived 590. years after Christ's sacred incarnation, & yet in his days the people of Rome used to pray with the minister, even in time of the mass. Philo a very ancient and learned writer, Apud Euseb. lib. 2. cap. v●●. showeth this old practice of our christian church in these words; Et ut unus ex omnibus consurgens in medio psalmum honestis modulis concinat, utque praecinenti ei unum versiculum, omnis multitudo respondeat. And that one among all shall rise up in the midst, and sing a Psalm with tunable voice, and that so soon as he hath sung one verse, all the people answer him. Sozomen. hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 36 Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 24. Niceph. lib ●. cap. 24. Sozomenus showeth plainly in his history, that in his time, which was more than 400. years after Christ, the people and the ministers did sing psalms in the church together. These are the words, as Cassiodôrus in his Tripartite history reporteth them: Apud Antiochiam non concordabant in professione sua clerus & populus, sed per choros, ut est consuetudo, ad hymnos dicendos Deo, in fine psalmorum monstrabant propriam voluntatem. At Antioch there was variance in a certain point of religion, between the people & the clergy: but singing spalmes to God in companies, as the manner was, they declared their minds in the end of the Psalms. S. Chrysostome speaketh so plainly of the people's praying together with the priest, and that even in the time of mass; as none that hear his words, can stand any longer in doubt thereof. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 18. in mor. These are his express words; In ijsdem iterum horrendis mysterijs bene precatur sacerdos populo, & bene precatur populus sacerdoti, Nam (cum spiritu tuo,) nihil aliud est quam hoc. Ea quae sunt eucharistiae, id est, gratiarum actionis, communia sunt omnia: neque enim ille solus gratias agit, sed etiam omnis populus. Prius enim acceptâ illorum voce, deinde congregatis illis ut dign & just hoc faciat, incipit Eucharistiam. Et quid miraris si populus cum sacerdote loquitur? Again, in these reverend mysteries, the priest wisheth grace to the people, & the people desire grace for the priest. For these words (with thy spirit) have no other meaning. The things that pertain to the Eucharist, that is, to the giving of thanks, are common to them all; for he only giveth not thanks, but all the people also with him. For he first receiveth their voice; after that, they being gathered together that he may do this reverently and well, he beginneth the communion. And what marvel is it to thee, if thou see the people speaking with the priest? Hier. in praefat. libr. 2. in epist. ad Galat. S. Hierome giveth a constant testimony, of the practice of the church of Rome in his time, affirming that the people were heard sounding out (Amen) with an Echo, as if it had been with an heavenly thunder. Basil. epist. ad cler. ●●●c●sar. And Saint Basill saith, that in his time, all the people sang psalms together in the church. Yea, he addeth that it was the custom of all churches so to do. Saint Cyprian witnesseth the same thing, Cypr. in orat. dominica pag. 316. to have been the practice of the church in his time, alleging the very words that the common people answered to the priest. Thus doth he write; Ideo & sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissa, parat fratrum mentes dicendo, sursum corda, ut dum respondet plebs, habemus ad Dom▪ admoneatur nihil aliud se quam dominum cogitare debere. What can be more plainly said? Therefore the priest after the preface before the prayer, prepareth the minds of the brethren saying, Lift up your hearts, that while the common people answer, we lift them up unto the Lord, they may be instructed to think upon no other thing but the Lord. S. Augustine confirmeth that which the other fathers have said, in these golden words: Quid hoc sit intelligere debemus, August. in psal. 18 expos. 2. See S. Austen in psal 44 prope finem. ut humana ratione, non quasi autum voce cantemus Nam & meruli, & psittaci, & corui, & picae, & huiusmodi volucres, s●pe ab hominibus docentur sonare, quod nesc●unt. Scienter autem cantare non avi sed homini divina voluntate concessum est. Infra: Nos autem qui in ecclesia divina eloquia cantare didicimus, simul etiam instare debemus esse quod scriptum est: beatus populus qui intelligit iubilationem. Proinde charissimi, quod consona voce cantavimus, sereno etiam cord nosse ac videre debemus. We must understand what this is, that we may sing with reason as men, and not chirp in voice like birds. For Owsels, The Papists are like to owsels, pagets, erowes and pies. and Parrots, and crows, and Pies, and other birds, are often taught by men, to sound they know not what: but to sing with knowledge God hath granted to man, not to birds. We therefore that have learned to sing in the church gods heavenly words, must also endeavour to be that, that is written: Blessed are the people, that understand what they sing. Therefore my dearest, we ought to know and see with a pure heart, that which we have sung with tunable voice. In fine, S. Paul doth bitterly exclaim against this detestable practice in celebrating the holy mysteries in a strange and unknown tongue. He commandeth straightly, that every thing in the church be done to edification: ● Cor. 14. v. 16. and consequently, that the communion be not ministered in an unknown tongue, because no man can be edified thereby. These things being so, it may be demanded, what moved our disholy father the pope, to command the church-service of late years, to be done in the Latin tongue? To which question the ancient and learned writer Lactantius, seemeth to answer pithily in these words: Lactantius, lib. 5 cap. 20. Hinc fida silentia sacris instituta sunt ab hominibus callidis, ut nesciat populus quid colat. Hereupon trusty silence was appointed to the mysteries, by subtle and crafty men: that the people (still remaining in ignorance,) should never know what they worshipped. The 3. Section, Of the canon of the Mass. THe papists of late days, ascribe such sanctimony to the canon of their Mass, as far surpasseth all sense and reason. So soon as they come to the beginning thereof, they spread abroad both the arms, they look up to heaven, they join their hands in solemn manner, they kiss the altar, they multiply the signs of the cross, Man's invention esteemed as a thing divine. they quake, they tremble, as if heaven and hell should go together, they mumble to themselves, no by slander knoweth what but by conjecture, although (as they prate) even then be in hand the chiefest mystery of their redemption. And yet for all these solemn magical dispositions, this their canon was invented by one Scholasticus of latter days. Pope Gregory, a man of sufficient credit, doth witness the same, to the confusion of all the Papists. These are his express words: Gregor. epist. lib. 7. cap. 63. Et valde mihi inconueniens visum est, ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat, seu per oblationem diceremus, & ipsam traditionem quam redemptor noster composuit, super eius corpus & sanguinem non diceremus. And it seemed to me very unfit, that we should say that prayer over the oblation, which Scholasticus composed; and let that tradition pass, which our Lord himself delivered. To the novelty may fitly be annexed, the manifold variety of their mangled irreligious canon. For they have one of Basilius, another of Chrysostomus, another of Ambrose, Great alteration in popish service. another of Gelasius, another of Scholasticus, another of Isidorus: and as they bear the world in hand, another of S. Peter, and another of S. james. To which I add the late reformation of their Missals, and of their Breviaries, in which was found so much beggarly stuff infarsed, as their late council of Trent could not for shame bear any longer therewith. The 4. Section, Of other pieces of the popish Mass. PLatina their own dear friend and Abbreviator apostolicus, Platina, in vita Sixti. hath these express words: Nuda haec primò erant, & omnia simplicer tractabantur. Petrus enim ubi consecraverat, oratione, Pater noster, usus est. Auxit haec mysteria jacobus episcopus Hierosolymitanus, auxit & Basilius, auxêre & alij. Nam Caelestinus missae introitum dedit, Gregorius Kyrie eleyson▪ gloria in excelsis deo Telesphorus, collationes Gelasius primus, epistolam & evangelium Hieronymus: hallelu-ia vero sumptum est ex ecclesia Hierosolymitanâ, symbolum in concilio Niceno, mortuorum autem commemorationem Pelagius invenit: Thus Leo tertius, osculum pacis Innocentius primus: ut caneretur agnus Dei, Sergius pontifex instituit. These things were bare in the beginning, and were all handled simply. For where Peter did consecrate, he used the Lords prayer. james the bishop of Jerusalem increased these mysteries, Basill augmented them, other also added thereunto. For pope Celestine made the introite, pope Gregory added Kyrie eleyson▪ Behold here the rags of the mass. Telesphorus added gloria in excelsis, pope Gelasius made the collects, Hierome added the Epistle and the Gospel. Hallelu-ia was set from Jerusalem, the Creed was made in the council of Nice, Pope Pelagius invented the memory of the dead, pope Leo incense, and Innocentius the pax. But pope Sergius caused agnus Dei to be sung. And as Sigebertus saith, pope Gregory added these words: Sigebert. in ●hro▪ Diesque nostros in tua pace disponas. Here only I will admonish the reader, that among popish ceremonies which are so mystical, one solemn mystery is this: to wit, that the pax may not be given, in Masses for the dead. Now if we ask, why they deprive the dead of their peace, more than the living: Durandus answereth gravely for them, in these express words: In missa pro defunctis pax non datur, quia fideles animae iam non sunt, Duran. in ration. ●iu. lib. 4. cap. 53. nec ulterius erunt in turbatione huius mundi, sed quiescunt iam in domino. unde non est eis necessarium pacis osculum, quod est pacis & concordiae signum. In the mass for the dead the pax is not given, because the faithful souls are not now, nor shallbe any longer in the troubles of this world, but rest henceforth in the Lord. Wherefore the kiss of peace is not needful for them, which is the sign of peace and concord. Thus gentle Reader, thou beholdest their ceremonies, Mark this well. and thus thou hearest their doctrine for the same: mark therewith, this my brief application: This their ceremony, of withholding the pax in the masses for dead, doth utterly confound their massing sacrifice for the same. For if the withholding of the pax, doth signify their rest in the Lord: then is the mass itself idololatrical, which is offered for their purgation. On the other side, if the souls be in purgatory, and therefore stand in need of the mass: then is their ceremony false and fantastical, Note the Dilemma. which signifieth them to be in heavenly rest. Durandus ubi supper. To these I must add as a merriment, that our popish monks do never receive the pax, because forsooth they are dead to the world. So saith Durand. Hinc est, quod etiam inter monachos pax non datur, quoniam mundo mortui reputantur. Hereupon it cometh that among the monks, the pax is not given, because they are thought dead unto the world. How they be dead unto the world, let the world judge. They have goodly houses, pleasant gardens, fine celles; they are seated in the most wholesome air, planted upon the most fertile soil, environed with most desired prospects. Their diet is readily provided, their table is ever well furnished, they want no dainty fare. This only may be the proof. S. Thomas Bedle the monk, was imprisoned in York sundry years, he is now dead, I will report no untruth of the man. This only will I say, for instruction sake. He used ordinarily to send every day for one quart or one pint of wine, which was very chargeable to him, being but a prisoner. His friends sometime wished him to abstain, adding sundry reasons why it seemed convenient. But he answered, Our monks kill themselves with sparing di●t. that in their abbey he had been so long used to drink wine at his pleasure, that he could not now live without it. O mortified monks? Nay, O hypocritical deceivers of the world? for that more fitly is your name. The 5. Section, Of the mystical kissing in the popish mass. The mysteries in the popish mass are so fit for edification, (which is the end pretended by the same,) as if one Priest among ten hundred can expound them, let me have the shame. For if you ask this priest or that priest, what is meant by such a ceremony, he must either observe monkish silence, or answer with the collier. That is, he that invented them, can tell what they mean. But because I will deal sincerely, and in such manner as no papist shallbe able to charge me: I will now as ever, set down their own words for their better confutation. Thus therefore doth their own Durandus write: Duran. in ration. divinor. cap. 53. Sacerdos ter osculatur altar, ad designandum triplicem pacem scilicet temporalum, spiritualem, & aeternam Sequitur: rursum, ad notandam duorum testamentorum concordiam, Episcopus duabus vicibus codicem osculatur. Infra: illud quoque vacare non creditur mysterio, quod summus pontifex septem modis accipit osculum: videlicet ad os, ad pectus, ad humerum, ad manus, ad brachia, ad genu, & ad pedes. O most wonderful edification▪ The Priest kisseth the altar thrice, to signify (I know not to whom) the triple peace; that is to say, peace temporal, peace spiritual, and peace eternal. Again, the Bishop kisseth the book twice, to signify the concord between the old and the new testament. Furthermore, we believe this to be a great mystery, that the pope's holiness receiveth a kiss seven maner-wise: to wit, to his mouth, to his breast, to his shoulder, to his hands, to his arms, to his knee, and to his feet. Thus gentle reader, thou mayest behold their irreligious ceremonies, with their fond interpretation of the same. For they had need to put many of their Priests to the School all their life, before they will perfectly understand such obscure and unsavoury significations. Yet such is the blindness of the silly people, that they were brought into the admiration of the mass, by these and other like beggarly ceremonies. For the less they understood, the more magnificence and majesty they ascribed to the thing. ●●rand. ubi supr. I must needs add hereunto, the kissing of the patine. Ad notandum (inquit Durandus) charitatem, sacerdos osculatur patinam, quae designat cor patens in latitudine charitatis. The priest saith Durandus, kisseth the Patine, to give a sign of charity, which signifieth an open heart in the latitude of charity. I ween this is a sufficient Sermon, for the whole auditory. But alas, could the people no way be taught what charity was, unless the priest kissed the Patine? doubtless they were so far from learning any thing thereby, as neither they nor the priest himself commonly, knew what was meant by the same. The 6. Section. Of the triple breaking of the Sacrament. THe papists break their supposed Christ's body into three parts, thereby to express this high mystery. Christ's body risen again, walking on earth, and lying in the grave. So saith pope Sergius in their own canon-law. These are the words: Triforme est corpus Domini. De consecr. dist. 2 cap. triforme. Pars oblata in calicem missa, corpus Christi quod iam resurrexit, monstrat. Pars comesta, ambulantem adhuc super terram. Pars in altari usque ad missae finem remanens, corpus in sepulchro, quia usque ad finem seculi corpora sanctorum in sepulchris erunt. The body of our Lord is threefold. The part that is put into the chalice, signifieth Christ's body risen again. The part eaten, signifieth Christ yet walking on earth. ●alse and ●ond mysteries. The part remaining to the end of the mass, signifieth Christ's body in the grave, because the bodies of saints shallbe in the graves till the worlds end. We see here their doctrine, we behold their practice; Let us now duly examine their mysteries. First therefore the piece dipped into the cup, is Christ's body (say they) after his resurrection; but it may more fitly represent Christ's body crucified, because drowning of the body, is most like to the crucifying of the same. Secondly, the part that is eaten, may more fitly represent Christ's dying, then walking: for as I ween, a devoured thing is passed walking▪ Thirdly, Christ doth not now walk on earth; and so it is a false figure or signification. Fourthly, this practice of reserving some part to the end of the mass, The ceremoni●● in the popish mass are mutable. is now changed; for the priest this day eateth up all, even in the church of Rome. Here it shall not be amiss, to set down the manner of the Pope's receiving; because although the act be done very seldom, yet is it not then without a mystery: and lest credit be not given to my words, their own Durand shall tell the story for them. Thus doth he write: Romanus pontifex ideò non communicat ubi frangit, quoniam ad altare frangit, Durand. in●●tion▪ lib. 4. cap. 54. & ad sedem communicate: quia Christus in Emaus coram duobus discipulis fregit, & in Jerusalem coram discipulis duodecim manducavit. In Emaus enim fregisse legitur, sed non comedisse legitur. Ascendens igitur sedem ibi communicate: siquidem secundum apostolum Christus caput est ecclesiae; caput autem in corpore sublimius & excellentius ob sui perfectionem caeteris membris collocatur. The Pope doth not receive the sacrament where he breaketh it, because he breaketh it at the altar, but he receiveth it in his chair. Behold the pop●● humility, who must needs be fellow with Christ jesus. Coloss. 1.18. For Christ broke it in Emaus before his two Disciples, and he ate it in Jerusalem before his twelve apostles. For we read that he broke it in Emaus, but not that he ate it. He therefore ascends up to his seat & receiveth it there. For as the apostle saith: Christ is the head of the church, and the head must be set in an higher and more excellent place, than the other members in the body, for the perfection thereof. In these words I note first, the fond reasons of popish mysteries. I note secondly, that the Pope is nothing inferior to Lucifer in pride. I note thirdly, that the Pope advanceth himself above Saint Peter, whose successor he sometime claimeth to be. For herein he cannot be content to imitate Peter, who received with the other apostles his brethren; but he must have a more excellent and higher seat, even while he eateth the eucharist, that so he may be as another Christ. What is this my dearest, if it be not to show himself Antichrist indeed. The seventh Section. Of the Popish Mitre. WHen Moses that holy servant of God, came down from the mount Sinai having the 2. tables of the law in his hands, Exod. 34.29. Exod. 24.12. his face shined bright, & was as if it had had two horns, as their vulgar latin text saith. For the resemblance whereof si dijs placet, the Pope and his bishops must have mitres on at mass: hearken to their own gloss, and then give your censure for the mystery thereof. Thus writeth Durand. Mitra scientiam utriusque testamenti designat. Duran. in ration. lib. 3. cap. 13. Duo namque illius cornua, duo sunt testamenta: anterius, nowm: posterius, vetus: quae duo episcopus memoriter debet scire, & illis tanquam duplici cornu fidei inimicosferire. Videri debet quidem subaitis episcop cornutus, sicut & Moses de monte Sinai descendens. The mitre signifieth the knowledge of both testaments; for his two horns are the two testaments: that before, is the new testament; and that behind, All popish ceremonies are fond lying signs. is the old: which two the bishop must have by heart and without the book, and must smite the enemies of the faith with them, as with a double horn. The bishop must be horned to his subjects even as Moses was, when he came down from the mount Sinai. By this every child may see, how fond the popish mysteries and ceremonies be. This one thing I will add, that if the Romish bishops shall never wear miters, until they can the old and new testament, as is here mentioned; the most of them doubtless, if not all, shallbe without mitres all the days of their life. In these and like false signs and sottish ceremonies, with which they have a long time bewitched God's people, doth wholly consist their antichristian religion. CHAP. XI. Of the original of certain odd Popish superstitions. The first division. Of changing the Pope's name. POpe Sergius the second being somewhat ashamed of his ancient name, because it sounded not pleasantly in men's ears (for he was called Os Porci Swine-mouth) changed his old name and termed himself Sergius. This Sergius lived more than 840. years after Christ; Ann. Dom. 840 from which time the manner of Popes hath been, to change their names so soon as they aspired to the popedom. So writeth their own dear friends Platina and Carranza. These are Carranzaes' words; Platina in Sergio secundo. Carranz. pag. 33● Sergius, 2. sub Lothario primo Germano Caesare, 3. primus mutavit suum nomen. Nam antea Os Porci fuit appellatus. Sergius the second in the reign of Lotharius the first, the third emperor of the Germans, changed his name. For before that time he was called swine-mouth; a name very unfit for his holiness, and therefore with great reason did he change it: and with the like spirit of pride, (I would say of humility) other Popes since do imitate the same manner. The second division. Of kissing the Pope's feet. IVstinianus the Emperor, justin. 2. imper. Constant. PP. after he had sent for the Pope Constantinus to come to him at Nicomedia, received him very honourably, and sent him back again: but first of a certain fond conceived humility, he fell down and kissed the Pope's feet. Ann. Dom. 708 This justinianus reigned more than 700. years after Christ; and here began the kissing of the Pope's feet, which as it was done then by the emperor upon a fond zeal, Ar. Pontac. ●urdeg. so is it this day continued with intolerable superstition. The third division. Of praying upon Beads. AFter that the people of God had lived above a thousand years, using altogether godly books of prayer, one Peter an eremite a Frenchman borne, Ann. Dom. 1089 perceiving the nature of men to be desirous of novelties, was the first that invented praying upon beads. Thus writeth Polydorus Virgilius, a Papist by profession. From hence sprang Rosaries, Polydor. lib. ●▪ cap. 9 Corones, Lady psalters; and a thousand superstitious kinds of prayers. Whereof to rehearse the original, is a sufficient confutation. The 4. division. Of wearing a Cardinal's hat. Anno. dom. 1243 INnocentius the fourth of that name, who lived more than one thousand, two hundred and forty years after Christ, first ordained that Cardinals should ride on horses in the streets, and have a red hat carried before them: by which hat they ought to remember that they should be ready to shed their blood for the gospel sake; Plati. in Inno●. 4. so saith their own Platina. The 5. division. Of the paschal Torch. Sigebert. in chro. Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 7. THe papists use upon Easter eeve (which they term sabbathum sanctum,) to hollow a torch or taper of wax, which they call caerea paschalis, in which they instill crosswise five hallowed greines. To this taper they ascribe great holiness, and reserve it till the ascension, or Pentecost. Nevertheless it was first invented by Pope Sozimus, Anno. Dom. 417 four hundred years after Christ. This Sozimus falsified the decrees of the Nicene council, as I have proved afore, so to maintain the usurped primacy of the church of Rome. The 6. division. Of the number of Popish prayers at their mass. Intolerable superstition. The superstition used in popery, is to too gross and ridiculous. For either they must have but one prayer, one secret, and one postcommunion, (which three are always in number equal;) or else the same must be, three, five, or seven; but in no case two. And why I pray you? Because forsooth God is not pleased with an even number. So writeth their great Master of ceremonies in these express words: Durand. libr. 4. cap. 1●. Quia vero numero Deus gaudet impari, quidam observant ut impares dicant in missa orationes, videlicet, vel unamitantum, vel tres, vel quinque, vel septem▪ unam ad designandum fidei unitatem. Tres, ad significandum mysterium trinitatis, & quia Christus ter in passione oravit dicens: Pater, si fieri potest, transeat à me calix iste. Quinque, ad designandum quinque plagas Christi: septem, ad designandum spiritum gratiae septi formis, seu septem dona spiritus sancti. Deus enim divisionem & discordiam detestatur. unde cùm caeterorum dierum operibus benediceret▪ operibus tamen secundae diei benedixisse non legitur: Eo quod binarius numerus primò ab unitate reeedebat, & ab eo caeteri divisibiles numeri originem sortiuntur, & impar numerus est mundus Because god taketh pleasure in an odd number, some observe always to say odd prayers at mass: to wit, either one only, or else three, or else five, or seven. One, to signify the unity of faith: three, to signify the mystery of the Trinity, & that Christ prayed thrice in his passion, saying: Father, if it be possible, Fond superstitious observations let this cup pass from me. Five, to signify the five wounds of Christ. Seven, to signify the spirit of sevenfold grace, or the seven gifts of the holy ghost; for God detesteth division & discord. Wherefore when he blessed the works of the other days, we do not read that he blessed the works of the second day: and that because the number of two departeth first from unity; and the other divisible numbers take their original of it; and the odd number is pure and clean. Out of these words I note first, that where our master Durand saith, that some observe to say odd prayers, Rubrica Trid. conc. we must not think that he would except any: for their Tridentine rubric appointeth all in general to observe that order. I note secondly, that as their Pighius affirmed the scripture to be like a nose of wax; so do they all at their pleasures appite it to every trifle, as if it were a nose of wax indeed. For I pray thee (gentle Reader) what sottish applications are these here mentioned? nay, how bold are our papists, to wrest the scriptures as they list? and yet do they never cease to impute that to others, which is their own peculiar fault. I note thirdly, that God is delighted with odd numbers, but not with even; for so saith master Durand, 33. q. 2. c. nuptial. and he proveth it out of their canon law. Whereupon I infer first, that God is not pleased with the ten commandments, which he gave himself. Secondly, that he is not pleased with the 12. articles of our faith, which the apostles left by tradition as they say. Thirdly, that he was not pleased with the number of the 12. apostles, & perhaps therefore judas betrayed him to make the number odd. Yet, to say so cannot serve the turn because the apostles shortly after elected Mathias in his room. Act. ●. 26. Fourthly, that the words omitted in the works of the second day, do not argue either liking in the odd number, or disliking in the even. For the same words are added, both in the fourth and in the sixth day; & in the end of all, the works of every day are jointly commended for very good. The seventh division. Of mystical whispering in the Mass. THe Papists think the cannon of their mass as it were profaned, if the lay people should but hear one word thereof: for which respect and other mystical consideration, the priest is commanded to whisper all to himself. Of this secrecy, thus writeth their Durandus: Durand. libr. 4. ●●p. 27. Instant memoria dominicae passionis silentium observat, usquedum alta voce dicit, per omnia secula seculorum: illud insinuans, quod jesus post suscitationem Lazari non palam ambulabat apud judaeos. When the memory of the passion draweth near, he keepeth silence, until he speak a loud, per omnia secula seculorum, giving us to understand thereby, that jesus after he had raised up Lazarus, walked not openly among the jews. Behold this learned sermon, consider the edification. joan. 11.54. The eight division. Of the colours of the habits used in the Mass. THe papists use four special colours in their mass, and this they do to signify to the people four special mysteries, as if it were by the way of Sermons. For their chiefest preaching consisteth in odd mystical dreaming. The first colour is white: the second, red: the third, black: the fourth, green. They use white colours, Durandus lib. 3. cap. 18. to signify innocency: red colours, to signify martyrdom: black colours, to signify sorrow and mourning: green, to signify whatsoever else. The red they use in the festivities of the apostles, Red colours. evangelists, and martyrs; so to declare to the world, that they shed their blood for Christ's sake; also in the feast of the cross, and of the innocents stain by K. Herod. Black colours. The black they use upon good Friday, in the Rogations and upon all fasting days: at which time their bellies mourn for lack of meat, at the least among the simple sort. The green they use upon worky days, Green colours. and at other times not proper to the rest. The white they use in the feasts of all confessors, White colours. and virgins which were not martyrs, in all the feasts of the blessed virgin, in the feast of all saints, in the chair of S. Peter, in the conversion of Saint Paul, in the feasts of our Lord throughout the Octaves, and in the nativity of saint john the baptist. And why? forsooth to signify, A point of importance. that the persons in whose memories such feasts are celebrated, were free from all, actual and original sin. This is the point of importance, mark it well. That this is their doctrine, Durand affirmeth it for them. These are his words: In nativitate salvatoris & etiam Praecursoris, quoniam uterque natus est mundus, id est, Durand. ubi sup. lib. 3. cap. 18. carens originali peccato. In the nativity of our saviour and also of his precursor, because either of them was borne pure, that is, free from original sin. This is the mystery of Popish colours; in which they are not content vainly to flourish like Robin-hood in green, but they must also blaspheme god, making the creature equal with the creator. For only the son of God was free from sin, as is proved in the chapter of man's justification. The 9 division. Of Candelmas-day. THe old Pagan-Romanes, in the Calends of February honoured Februa the mother of Mars, whom they supposed to be the God of battle. The honour that they did exhibit was this: they went up and down the streets, with candles and torches burning in their hands. In regard hereof, Durand. li. 7. ca 7 Pope Sergius invented another like ethnical superstition: to wit, that the christian Romans' should go in procession with burning candles in their hands, and that in the day of the purification of the blessed virgin, the second of February. By which feast and burning candles, the Pope giveth us to understand, that the virgin Mary was pure from sin, and stood no need of purgation. Of which point I have spoken sufficiently, in the chapter of man's justification. The 10. division. Of the Popish Agnus Dei. THe Popes of late time have used every seventh year, and the first year that every one is made Pope, to consecrate solemnly with prayers, chrism, and manifold ceremonimonies, In libello insti●●●. sodalit. jesu. certain round pieces of wax having the print of a Lamb, and for that cause so termed. With this kind of paltry stuff this world is so bewitched, that infinite numbers do ascribe a great part of their salvation thereunto. He that hath an Agnus Dei about him, believeth that he shallbe delivered by sea and land, from all tempests, thunder, earthquakes, fire, hail, thunderbolts, sudden death, and from all evil. If any man will not believe me, let him read a little book printed at Colonia, containing the order sodalitatis B. Mariae virgins; which is every where to be sold; in which book he shall find, much more than I have said. The 11. division. Of the Pope's Bulls. POpe Adrian the first of that name, caused his pardons, privileges, and grants to be sealed with lead, which they called the pope's bulls. These bulls were unknown to Christ's church, Anno Dom. 772. for the space of 772. years after Christ: and if it had been still so till these our days, no detriment should we have sustained thereby. Polydore will have them to be called bulls of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by corruption of speech. The 12. division. Of the Popish carnival, or Shrovetide. THe devout Romans', who whip themselves in Lent for their sins, till they seem as pure as Christ all, use a long time before Lent, to gad up and down in the streets and from house to house in vizards; neither can men be discerned from women, nor women from men, they are all so disguised: by means whereof all iniquity is committed, as their own dear friend Polydore hath witnessed. ●●lyd●r. l●. 5. c. 2 But what skilleth it? a little whipping in Lent, will make condign satisfaction for the fault. Yea, if the rich do hire the poor to be scourged for them, the satisfaction is deemed sufficient. Polydore saith, that in his time they used this irreligious madding, for the space of two months; but of late years the Pope hath abbridged the time. Nevertheless the practice is even this day, most execrable, heathenish, and intolerable. CHAP. 12. Of Popish auricular confession. COncerning auricular confession, I have spoken sufficiently in my book of Motives. It shall now be enough to answer to such objections, as the papists do or may frame against the same. The first objection. Christ commanded to confess our sins, Matth. 18.18. when he gave his priest's authority to lose them: for they cannot loose any man, unless they first know him to be bound. The answer. I say first, that Christ speaketh in that place, not of confession, but of excommunication and discipline of the church; which Christ promiseth to ratify and approve in heaven, so often as his ministers shall execute the same upon earth, according to his word. 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. 2. Thess. 3.14. Which sense may be gathered out of Saint Paul's discourse, as well to the Corinthians, as to the Thessalonians. I say secondly, that God's ministers bind and loose sins, by preaching his sacred word; of which kind of binding and losing, Christ speaketh in Saint Matthew and in Saint john. Matth. 16▪ 18. joan. 20.23. Rom. 10.10, 1● For when the people of God believe in their hearts his word sincerely preached, and in their conversation show the lively fruits thereof: then doubtless are their sins loosed on earth. and then is that losing also ratified in heaven: then are the words of the Apostle verified, Rom. 1.16. who saith that the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth it: then are Christ's ministers (as the Apostle saith, 2. Cor. 2. 1●▪ ) become in them, the savour of life unto life. On the contrary side, when the people will not hear and believe God's word sincerely preached, but contemn it, and the ministers thereof: then doubtless are their sins bound on earth, and then is that binding also approved in heaven. Then are the apostles words verified, who saith that vengeance is ready against all disobedience. Then are Christ's ministers (as the apostle saith,) made unto them, 2. Cor. 10. v. 6. the savour of death unto death. What can be a more joyful losing? what can be a more terrible binding? See the answer to the third objection following, Vid Hier. in Esaia. cap. 14. and there mark S. Hieromes words. I say thirdly, that our people confess their sins generally before the minister, & in the face of the whole congregation, according to the holy scriptures. 2. Esdr. 8. & 9 Yea, in the reformed churches abroad, the people use to confess to the ministers, such special sins as most grieve & clog their consciences, and for which they need grave advise and godly council. Which christian liberty is granted also, in our churches of England. For such as list may confess their sins to the minister privately, and have both his godly advise and absolution, if he deem them penitent for their sins. The reply. Your confessions are nothing else, but a mere mockery: for ye confess yourselves generally to be sinners, but ye name no sins at all. Again, as in Germany they confess some sins, so do they leave unconfessed what pleaseth them. And this is the scornful liberty, which ye grant to your churches of England. The answer. I say first, that we confess our sins this day, as the Israelites of old confessed their sins, Nehem. 8. & 9 Luc. 18. v. 13. Levit. 16. before Ezra and the Levites. As the humble publican confessed his sins, when he said: O God, be merciful to me a sinner. As the prophet David confessed his sins, when he said: I know mine iniquities, and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, against thee only have I sinned, and done evil in thy sight: that thou mayst be just when thou speakest, Psal. 50.3.4. and pure when thou judgest. As the prodigal son confessed his sins, Luc. 15. when he said: Father, I have sinned against heaven & before thee, & am no more worthy to be called thy son. And as yourselves confess your sins, in the beginning of every mass. I say secondly, that yourselves grant, that Venials need no confession at al. And yet as I have already proved, Navar. in Enchir. cap. 21. n. 34. the least sin of all deserveth eternal death. For thus doth your own famous Canonist write: Quibus consequens est, posse quem, si velit, confesso uno peccato veniali alterum tacere. Upon which it followeth, that one may if he list, confess one venial sin and conceal another. Maior and other Schooledoctors, are of the same opinion. I say thirdly, that by the scriptures upon which ye would gladly ground your confession, we are no less bound to confess one sin then another. The text speaketh of all indifferently. For your trivolous distinction of mortal and venial sins, can be found in no text of holy scripture. And consequently, since the scripture itself by your grant, freeth us from confessing Venials: it followeth directly, that we are bound to confess none at all. I say four, that your confession is ridiculous indeed, as which urgeth the penitent to confess those sins to sinful men, which God of his mercy hath forgiven already. I prove it, because your best approved writers hold, that contrition only reconcileth sinners to God, and taketh away both the fault and the pain. But after that we are reconciled to God by only contrition, and have both our sins and the satisfaction remitted: I ween it is a vain and a ridiculous thing, Navar. cap. 1. ●4. joan. Lud. vivald. de veritat. contrite. fol. 141. p. ●. to afflict ourselves for popish absolution. This that I say, is witnessed by Martinus Navarrus, by your learned friar joan. Lud. Vivaldus, and divers others. I say fifthly, that your confessions are never able to bring peace to any troubled conscience, but to drive them headlong into desperation. For first, none living is able to make a true confession of all his sins: Psal. ●8. Prou. 20. Caiet. in summu. pag. vlt. which thing is so clear by the Scriptures, that your Cardinal Caietane cannot deny it. Secondly, thousands are so turmoiled therewith, that daily they come to confess the sins which they had forgotten, condemning themselves of their former negligence. Thirdly, none of you all can prescribe how much time, or what diligence is enough, that ones confession may be perfect. The consideration whereof, bringeth many thousand souls to perplexity. For you bear them in hand, that they must confess all mortal sins, and all specifical differences of the same. And yet will I gauge my life, that ye have ten thousand priests in Europe, yea perhaps in Italy, that cannot perceive the aforesaid difference; and much less can the lay people perform it. See more hereof, in my book of Motives. The 2. objection. Mat. 3. v. 6. S. john the baptist induced the people to the confession of their sins: which doubtless was not to confess themselves in general to be sinners, but to utter every man his sins. So is it said in the acts of the apostles, that many of them which believed, Acts. 19 v. 18. came confessing and declaring their deeds. And therefore saith S. Hierome, that priests bind and loose, Auditâ peccatorum varietate, Hier. in 16. Mat. having heard the variety of sins. The answer. I say first, that S. john the baptist cannot mean of your sacramental confession, because it was not instituted before his decollation. Mat. 14. Luk. 9 v. 7.22. But you make small account to wrest the holy scripture, if by any means it could so serve your turn. For as your grand doctor Pighius resembled it to a nose of wax, even so in good sooth ye seem to use it. The truth is this: S. john exhorting the people to repentance, and to amendment of their former lives evil spent, found so good success in his preaching, that Jerusalem, Math. 3 v. 1.2, 3. jordan was two floods joined in one. Eucherius. and all jury, and all the country about jordan, were desirous to be baptised; and in sign of their true repentance, they publicly acknowledged their sins. But that they this did in general terms, and not in popish manner, I prove it by two reasons. First, because popish auricular confession was not yet invented, but after Christ's resurrection, as all papists grant. Again, because one man could not possibly hear severally, Secundo principaliter. the general confessions of so many multitudes▪ specially, in so short a time. I say secondly, that with you papists, auricular confession is an holy sacrament, and to be made of such sins only, as are committed after baptism. Hysteron proteron proper to the papists. And yet doth S. john speak, as is evident by the text, only of those sins that were done before baptism. This is your Hysteron proteron, to whom an horsemil and a mill-horse, is all one. I say thirdly, Act. 19 v. 1●. that the confession which these Ephesians made, whereof S. Luke speaketh; is an evident external sign of true inward remorse, and of sincere faith in Christ jesus: but doubtless it doth nothing at all resemble, the blasphemous popish auricular confession. For first, they confessed their sins verbally, as they burned their books really; but of absolution S. Luke speaketh not one word, which for all that in popery is essential. Secondly, this confession was voluntary, but popish confession is by compulsion. Thirdly, Vide joshua cap. 7 v. 20. this confession was done in the face of the congregation, but popish confession is made in the priest's ear. Fourthly, as some of the faithful made this confession, so other some did not: but amongst the papists it must be made of all, under pain of damnation. Fiftly, as Matthew confessed himself to have been a publican, and as Paul confessed that he had persecuted Christ's Church; Mat. 10. v 3. 1. Tim. 1. v. 13. but neither of them confessed any other sin. So the faithful at Ephesus of zeal confessed their notorious deeds, but not all their particular sins, Nay, they only confessed how Satan had seduced them, and for that end they burnt their books. Which public attestation done to the glory of God, can never establish secret popish whispering in the priests ear. I say four, Quarto principaliter. that S. Hierome maketh altogether against popish confession; as who affirmeth the priest or bishop to have no other power in binding and losing, The priests do only declare sins to be bound or loosed. than the priest of the old testament had in making clean or unclean: That is to say, as the priests of the old testament, did declare who were clean, or unclean: so the ministers of the Church knowing some sinners to be penitent, and other some to be unpenitent, pronounce according to God's word, that the sins of the one sort are bound, and of the other sort loosed. And here note by the way, that the word (peccatorum) in S. Hierome, doth as aptly signify sinners as sins: and therefore these words (Auditâ peccatorum varietate,) I thus translate: having heard the variety of the sinners. This I say, because the papists seek to make advantage of the indifferency of the word. And yet howsoever they take it, it cannot serve their turn. The 2. objection. Christ commanded him that was cleansed from his leprosy, Math. 8. v. 4. to go unto the priest. And he likewise commanded his apostles to lose Lazarus that was bound, thereby signifying that they should lose our sins. joan. 11. v. 44. The answer. I say first, that this text of Scripture proveth plainly, that the priest cannot forgive sin, The leper is cleansed, before he be sent to the priest. or make the sinner clean; but only pronounce and declare him to be clean, whom God hath already cleansed. For otherwise, God would have sent him to the priest that had the lepry, before he was cleansed from the same; that so he might have found remedy, at the priests hands. I say secondly, that as yet the ceremonies of the law were not abrogate, Levit. 14. v. 22. and therefore Christ would not have them contemned or omitted. Now the law was as we read in Leviticus, that whosoever was cleansed from the leprosy, should present himself before the priest, and offer up the sacrifice of thanksgiving. This is the mystery, wherein the papists would 'stablish their popish absolution. The end of the law was, that God's goodness should be publicly approved, and that the party cleansed should give a sign of gratitude. Therefore doth it follow in the text: Go and show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded for a witness to them. Mat. 8. v. 4. For he could not be received into the congregation, but by the judgement of the priest. I say thirdly, that Christ commanded not only his disciples to lose Lazarus, Math. 8. v. 42.43 44, 4●. but all the jews also, and the very women that were present. And consequently, not priests only but even lay men, and women also may give absolution. Which thing I ween, the wiser sort of papists will never grant. Yet the end of this losing was not to establish popish absolution, but to make the miracle manifest to the incredulous jews. I prove it by these words next afore going: I know that thou hearest me always, but because of the people that stand by, I said it; that they may believe, that thou hast sent me. Yea, it cannot be proved by the text, that the disciples were appointed to lose Lazarus, save only in general terms, as also were the women that stood by. And indeed Christ seemeth to have committed that office principally to the jews, that so all occasion of incredulity might be taken from them. The 3. objection. S. james saith: confess your sins one to another, jam. 5. v. 16. joan. 20. v. 22.23 and pray one for another, that he may be healed. And Christ himself saith: receive ye the holy Ghost. Whose sins so ever ye remit, they are remitted to them: and whose sins so ever ye retain, they are retained. And a little before he saith thus: As my father sent me, so do I send you. Now it is certain that Christ was sent with all power, even to bind and loose men's sins: and therefore his apostles being sent in the same manner, must needs have power to forgive sins as he had. Yea, the church hath ever thus understood these Scriptures. The answer. I say first, that in these words Christ gave authority to preach the gospel; which whosoever believe, have their sins remitted, and whosoever believe it not, See the answer to the first objection. are subject to damnation. Other binding and losing we find none in the scriptures; neither yet that Christ heard any confessions. This sense of binding and losing by preaching the word of God, S. Hierom, whom the papists boast to be their patron herein, maketh so evident, as more to a reasonable man cannot be wished. Hier. in Esaia●▪ c 14. These are his words: Funibus peccatorum suorum unusquisque constringitur: quos funes atque vincula solvere possunt & apostoli, imitantes magistrum suum qui eis dixerat: quaecunque solueritis super terram, erunt soluta & in coelo. Mat. 18. v. 18. Soluunt autem eos apostoli sermone Dei, & testimonijs scripturarum, & exhortatione virtutum. Every one is bound with the cords of his sins: which cords and bands the Apostles can lose, while they imitate their master, that said (these words) unto them: The preaching of the word, bindeth and looseth our sins. what things soever ye shall lose on earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. And the apostles lose them by the word of God, & by the testimonies of the scriptures, & by the exhortation of virtues. Behold here these golden words. The papists bitterly exclaim against us, when we teach that God's ministers do bind & lose men's sins, by the true preaching of his sacred word: and yet the holy and most learned father S. Hierome, In breu●ar. Triden. in ips. fest. whom the papists in their church-service, term (doctorem maximum) the greatest doctor of all the rest; teacheth the self same doctrine, in most plain, flat, and express terms. To which exposition of S. Hierome, when any papist shall answer sufficiently, I promise to become his bondman. For S. Hierome allegeth the very same scripture, upon which the papists would ground their new no absolution, and affirmeth that the apostles imitate and fulfil Christ's commandment, when they preach his word, declare the scriptures, and exhort to godly life. Oh sweet jesus, who but papists can deny such plain testimonies? Nay, nay, who but senseless men, who but arrogant men, who but impudent men, who but men careless of their salvation; will desperately impugn so manifest and comfortable doctrine, so exactly and so sweetly agreeing with the holy scriptures? God grant that they may once espy their gross errors, and with humility acknowledge the same. I say secondly, that the practice of the ancient church, and all approved antiquity is against you. Hereof none can stand in doubt that seriously peruseth my book of Motives. I say thirdly, that to be sent as Christ was sent, doth argue a similitude, but not an identity or equality: as when Christ commandeth us to love our neighbour as ourself; he chargeth us not, Mat. 22. v. 39 to love him in the same degree. For we may lawfully have more care of our own soul, then of our neighbours: and also prefer our own necessity before our neighbours. I say four, that the giving of the holy ghost to the Apostles was very necessary; Mat. 28.19. Luc. 10.3. joan. 16.2.3. Mat. 10.19. yet not to forgive sins in popish sense, but for the effectual preaching of God's word. For otherwise, they being of themselves poor and simple men, and sent to all nations as lambs among wolves, could never have accomplished their commission, with authority, fruit and effect. I say fifthly, that S. james speaketh of mutual reconciliation, which ought to be between neighbour and neighbour: and therefore doth he command mutual prayer, aswell as he doth mutual confession. Neither are his words restrained either to priests or to lay men, but uttered indifferently to all: yea, Torquet hoc papistas. if the apostle should mean as the Papists would have him, it would follow of necessity that the priests should aswell confess in the ears of the lay men, as the lay men in the ears of the priest. I prove it, because the apostle saith indifferently (confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another.) And if any will be so absurd, as to interpret praying, for absolution; then do I answer that the lay man must as well absolve the priest, as be absolved of him. This case is so plain, that their own Scotus (whom for his sharp wit & subtle distinctions, they surnamed Doctor Subtilis) freely granteth that their auricular confession is neither grounded in this place, nor in any other text of holy scripture: these are his own words: Scotus in 4. fen●. dist. 17. q. 1. Sed nec per hoc videtur mihi quod jacob, praeceptum hoc dedit, nec praeceptum à Christo promulgavit. Primum non: unde enim fuit sibi authoritas obligandi totam ecclesiam cum esset tantum episcopus ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae? nisi dicas illam ecclesiam in principio fuisse principalem & per consequens eius episcopum principalem fuisse Patriarcham, quod non concedent Romani; nec quod illa authoritas proprie pro tempore illo erat sibi subtracta. N●c secundum videtur; quia apostoli publicantes praceptum Domini in scriptures suis, utebantur modo loquendi per quem potuit innotescere quod erant praecones Christi Sequitur dicendo enim confitemini alterutrum, non magis dicit confessionem faciendam esse sacerdoti quam alij. Subdit enim statim: & orate pro inulcem ut saluemint: ubi nullus diceret ipsum instituisse, nec promulgasse praeceptum divinum, sed intellectus eius est sicut in illo verbo: confitemin● alterutrum persuasio ad humilitatem; ut scilicet generaliter nos confiteamur apud proximos peccatores juxta illud: si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus & vertias in nobis non est. Ita per secundum persuadet ad charitatem fraternam ut scilicet per charitatem fraternam subveniamus nobis invicem. Neither doth this persuade me, that james gave this commandment; neither that he published it as commanded by Christ: the first seemeth not: for from whence could he have authority to bind the whole church, being but only the B. of jerusalem? unless thou wilt say, that that church in the beginning was the principal, and consequently, that the B. thereof was the principal patriarch, which the Romans will not grant: neither, that that authority was properly for that time taken from them. Neither is the second probable, because the apostles, when they published the Lord's commandment in their writings, used that manner of phrase. By which it may appear, that they were the publishers of Christ's institution. For in saying (these words) confess one to another, he commandeth no more to make confession to a priest, then to a lay man: for he addeth forthwith; and pray one for an other, that ye may be saved. Where none will say that he ordained, neither that he published gods commandment, but the understanding is as in the other place, a persuasion to humility, to wit, that we generally confess ourselves sinners to our neighbours. Even so doth he by the second persuade to brotherly love: to wit, that of charity we will help one another. Thus writeth their subtle schooledoctour Scotus, who not able to 'stablish auricular confession in the scriptures, fleeth to their last refuge, to wit, to unwritten traditions: for in the end of all he addeth these words: Scotus ubi supr. Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure divino promulgato per scripturam apostolicam Vel ergo tenendum est primum membrum, scilicet quod sit de iure divino promulgato per evangelium: vel si illud non sufficiat, dicendum est tertium; scilicet quod est de iure divino positivo promulgato à Christi apostolis sed ecclesiae promulgato per apostolos absque omni scriptura. Vide joseph. Angles in 4. l. pag. prim. Of this opinion is Beatus Rhenanus, Richardus, Durandus, Bonaventura Hugo, Panormitanus, and the popish Canonists generally. Of Beatus Rhenanus his opinion more shall be said shortly: of Richardus, Durandus, Bonaventura, and Hugo, josephus Angles may satisfy the Reader: and what popish canonists hold, ●a●ar. & Covar. Navarre and Covarrwias' do not conceal: of whom with others read in my book of Motives. I say sixtly, that by the opinion of their famous cardinal Caietane, Caiet. ea. 20. in joann. secret confession is against Christ's institution, as also the precept that urgeth us to the same. I say seventhly, that auricular confession was not an article of faith in the church of Rome until the council of Lateran, Anno Dom. 1215 which council was celebrated under pope Innocentius the third of that name, more than 1200. years after Christ. So saith friar joseph in his narration to the pope: yea, joseph. Angl. in 4. sent. de con●●●▪ which is more to be admired, the necessity of auricular confession was not established by popish decree, before the said Innocent▪ was pope of Rome: so writes their own historiographer Platina. Platina in vit● Zeph●ri●●▪ The fourth objection. Tertullian and Cyprian who lived above 1300. years ago, do both make mention of secret confession made closely to the priests: yea, of such sins as the people never did, Cypr. de lapsi●. save only that they thought of them in their hearts. Which words can never be racked to public confession, Tertull. de poenit, but must perforce be understood of that auricular confession, which is this day used in the church of Rome. The answer. I say first, that Cyprian and Tertullian speak of public confession, which the fathers of the ancient church appointed to be done for public crimes: which practice in some measure is this day observed in our church of England. I say secondly, that albeit in the ancient church, some devout people of great zeal confessed to the priests their secret faults, desiring their counsel, prayers, and instruction in that behalf: yet were such confessions voluntary until Innocentius, neither were they made by all the people, Confession was voluntary for 1215. years after Christ. neither did they recite all their sins, but such only as seemed good unto them. This answer is sufficiently proved already; yet for better satisfaction of the Reader, I will confute papists by papists in express terms. Beatus Rhenanus a popish divine, Primo principal and a man of great learning, though carried away with the errors of his time, hath testified this verity so sincerely and so copiously, as more need not be said herein. First therefore he hath these words: De publica confessione sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facit mentionem, Beatus Rhenanus in annot. ad libr. Tertull. de penitent. (cuius etiam Leo papa meminit de poenitentia, dist. 1.) qua maiores nostros apparet aliquandiu usos fuisse priusquam ista secreta nasceretur, qua hody conscientiam nostram sacerdoti detegimus, usque ad circumstantiarum omnium minutias; quam tamen saluberrimam esse nemo potest inficiari. Sane sunt etiam inter juris pontificij interprete, qui institutam ab ecclesia tradant confessionem: igitur quantum conijcere datur, illa sumpsit originem ex veteri instrumento: haec autem hinc nata videtur, quod constitutis quibusdam poenitentiae legibus, quib & tempus & modus singulis peccatis expiandis praestituebatur, (Canon's poenitentiales vocant▪) opus▪ fuit sacerdotem in consilium adhiberi, praesertim à laicis. He maketh mention (he speaketh of Tertullian,) of public confession, whereof Leo also maketh mention; which it is clear that our ancestors used some space of time, before this secret confession was hatched, with which we this day disclose our conscience to the priest, till we have told the least circumstance of all, which nevertheless no man can deny to be very good. Yea, there be even among them that interpret the pope's law, who acknowledge confession to be ordained by the church. Therefore as I can conjecture, This testimony is worthy of consideration. the public confession began of the old Testament; this auricular came up thus, because so soon as certain laws were made, in which the time and the manner were appointed for the punishment of every sin (which they term the penitential canons;) it was needful to have a priest for counsel, especially to the lay people. Out of these words I note first, that Tertullian, Cyprian, Leo, and all the ancient writers, do always understand public, when they speak of confession; although some of them, as Leo were bishops of Rome themselves. I note secondly, that the ancient church knew not this late Popish auricular confession, as which was hatched but of late years. I note thirdly, that this Beatus Rhenanus is a great papist, as who acknowledgeth this confession auricular to be good; & consequently, that his answer is most forcible against the papists I note four, that this auricular confession was ordained by the law of man, and neither by Christ nor by his apostles. I note fifthly, that the confession whereof the ancient fathers speak, was of some special sins, but not of all: I prove it, because Rhenanus saith that it began of the old testament; Levit. 16.21. ●. Esdr. 9.2. in which it is clear, that all sins were not particularly confessed. Let this be well marked. I note sixtly, that after the constitution of the penitential canons, priests were ordained purposely to give counsel and instruction to the simple Lay people, which in process of time, is brought to a further matter. Secondly, Rhenanus hath these express words: Secundo principaliter. Vides igitur necessarium fuisse sacerdotis uti consilio, quatenus institutis poenitentiae legibus fieret satis: quae laicis non perinde cognitae erant. Sequitur: caeterum soli Deo confitendum esse, diws Chrysostomus author est. Thou seest therefore that it was necessary to use the counsel of a priest, Rhenanus ubi supr. that so the penitential canons might be observed, which the lay people understood not. But for all that, that we must confess ourselves only to God, S. Chrysost. is our author. Out of these words I note first, that the ancient church appointed priests over the penitents, only for this end and purpose; that they might give them counsel how to make satisfaction according to the canons, which themselves did not understand. I note secondly, that we are bound to confess all our sins, only to God alone. Which Rhenanus (though a Papist) granteth constantly, Behold the confusion of popery, for better proof cannot be had. being thereto enforced by the authority of the scripture, of S. Chrysostome, S. Cyprian, S. Basil, S. Bede, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, Tertullian, Hesychius, Theodulphus, Theodorus, Bertramus, Rabanus, and Nectarius; all which he allegeth for his opinion. Who can wish further proof? Thirdly, Rhenanus writeth thus: Tertio. principal. Non aliam ob causam complurium hîc testimonijs usi sumus, quam ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clancularia illa admissorum confessione nihil locutum, quae quantum conijcimus, penitus id temporis ignorabatur. For no other cause have I used here the testimonies of so many writers, but lest any should marvel, The pure primitive church knew not auricular confession. that Tertullian spoke nothing of that secret confession, which (as I think) was altogether unknown at that time. Lo, Tertullian spoke not one word of auricular confession, as which was not heard of in his time. So then, the holy fathers are wholly against the papists, even by the judgement of a famous papist. Fourthly, Rhenanus saith thus; Thomas Aquinas & Scotus, homines nimium arguti, confessionem hody talem reddiderunt, ut joannes ille Geilerius gravis ac sanctus theologus, qui tot annis argentorati concionatus est, apud amicos suos saepe testatus sit, juxta corum deuteroseis impossibile esse confiteri. But Th. Aquinas & Scotus, men too much delighted with subtleties, have brought confession this day to such a pass, Popish confession is unpossible, even by the grant of the Papists. that joannes Geilerius a grave and reverend divine, and a preacher a long time at Argentoratum, said many a time unto his friends, that it was impossible for a man to make his confession, according to their traditions. Mark well for Christ's sake. Out of these words I note first, that the vain curious distinctions of the school doctors, have brought much mischief into the church of god: which if a papist had not spoken it, would seem incredible to the world. I note secondly, that it is impossible for a papist to make his confession according to the popish law; & consequently, that all papists by popish doctrine, must perish everlastingly. Who will not defy popery that deeply considereth these things? Mark well my words, gentle reader. The papists teach us to hold for an article of our belief, that we are bound to make our confessions as the popish law prescribeth; that is, as Aquinas and Scotus have set town the same. And for all that, Ge●lerius a papist himself and a great divine, complained often to his friends, that no man could possibly perform the same. Fi● on popery, and God of his mercy convert all papists to the truth. Now then, since on the one side, the popish confession must be made under pain of damnation, and since on the other side, none possibly can make the same as is required; it followeth of necessity by popish doctrine, that all papists must be damned eternally. O miserable popery, confounded by thyself! Thine own doctors O popery, (such force hath the truth) have bewrayed thy treachery to the world. It is to us his great mercy, for the merits of Christ jesus, and to you papists his just judgement, for the punishment of your sins. If you will in time repent and embrace his holy gospel, his mercy is open towards you: if you will still continue in your wilful obstinacy, God doubtless will revenge the blood of his innocents at your hands. For with your beggarly unwritten traditions, you devour the souls of many thousands. I note thirdly, that many living among the papists, do externally obey the popish law; who in their hearts detest a great part of their late hatched Romish religion. Many among the papists dare not utter their minds This is evident by the secret complaint of this learned man Geilerius, who told that to his trusty friends, which he durst not disclose to others. Tertio principaliter. I say thirdly, that in S Cyprians time, some were so zealous and so esteemed the sacred ministery, that although they did not deny the faith publicly in time of persecution: yet because they had some doubts therein, & were troubled in their minds, they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefs to God's ministers humbly desired their godly advise, and submitted themselves to do what they thought expedient: by reason whereof, they sometime had public penance enjoined them, and confessed that in the face of the congregation, which they before disclosed secretly to the ministers: which thing was appointed for edification sake by the ministers, and of devotion voluntarily performed by the penitents. This my answer is fully contained, as well in the words of Origen, as of Saint Cyprian. Saint Cyprian hath these words; Cypr. de lapsis, pag. 284. Quanto & fide maiores & timore meliores sunt, qui quamuis nullo sacrificij aut libelli facinore constricti, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes dei dolenter & simpliciter confitentes exomologesin conscientiae faciunt, animi sui pondus exponunt, salutarem medelam parvis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirunt. How much sounder in faith and better in holy fear are they, who neither having offended by sacrificing to the Idols, nor by exhibiting libels to the magistrates, yet because they sometime thought of these matters, do simply & penitently confess the same to God's ministers, do lay open their conscience, and do disclose the grief of their minds, and seek for wholesome medicine, though their wounds be small and easy to be cured. Out of these words I note first, that all generally made not their confessions of secret faults, but only certain zealous & devout persons. I note secondly, that as all people did not confess their secret faults, so neither did these devout penitents confess all their secret faults; but only their secret cogitations, concerning the denial of their faith in persecution. I note thirdly, that these devout people perceuing them that did the facts openly, to be enjoined to confess the same in the face of the congregation, & withal doubting what themselves were bound to do for their secret thoughts of the same matters; came voluntarily to God's ministers, confessed the grief of their mind unto them, and desired their godly counsel. All which may be gathered out of S. Cyprians words, and more plainly out of Origens' words following. Origen hath these express words, Tantumodo circumspice diligentius, cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum. Proba prius medicum▪ cui debeas causam languoris exponere; qui sciat infirmari cum infirmante, flerecum flente▪ qui condolendi & compatiendi noverit disciplinam, ut ita demum si quid ille dixerit, qui se prius & eruditum medicum ostenderit & misericordem; si quid consilii dederit facias & sequaris: si intellexerit & praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum, qui in conventu totius ecclesiae exponi debeat, & curari, ex quo fortassis & caeteri aedificari poterunt & tu ipse facilè sanari, multa hoc deliberatione, & satis perito medici illius consilio procur andum est. Only look about thee diligently, to whom thou mayst confess thy sin. Try first the Physician to whom thou must disclose the cause of thy disease; such a one as knoweth to be infirm with him that is imfirme, to weep with him that weary, and hath learned to sorrow and take compassion; that so at the length, if he shall say any thing, who before hath showed himself to be a skilful & merciful Physician; if he shall give thee any counsel, thou mayest do and follow the same. If he shall perceive and foresee thy disease to be such, that it must be disclosed in the assembly of the whole congregation, & so be cured, whereby perhaps both others may be edified, & thyself made whole; then this must be done with great deliberation, & by the skilful counsel of the said physician. Out of these words I note first, that the penitents made election both of that they did confess, and of the priest also to whom they did confess. Where this day by the law of popery, we must confess every sin by compulsion, and also to our parish-priest only. I note secondly, that we must confess to none, but to such as we first know to be discreet and learned, & so by your favour, we must this day confess to few parish priests in Europe. For they are commonly sir john's lacke-latine, & as wise as none of them al. I note thirdly that when such things as were voluntarily confessed to the priest, seemed to be such as might edify the people; then the priests exhorted to confess the same again, before the whole congregation. Which point convinceth plainly, that such their confessions were voluntary, and not by constraint of law. I prove it, because the priest may not for the safeguard of his life, nor for to save the whole world, reveal any one sin of auricular confession, or once urge the penitent to do the same. For so much the self same popish law teacheth, no learned papist can deny. The reply. That confession which Nectarius did abrogate at Constantinople, was private and not public, as Rhenanus thinketh. For Sozomenus, Cassiodorus, and Nicephorus, do all three affirm jointly, that that priest was designed over the penitents in every church, who was known to be a discreet person, and a keeper of secrecy. But doubtless in vain was a keeper of secrecy chosen, where every thing was to be published. The answer. The true intelligence of this story, will bring great light to the whole matter of confession. For which respect, I will proceed so methodically in answering this objection, as possibly I can. I therefore say first, Primo principal. that Nectarius the B. of Constantinople, utterly abolished the law made for confession, & that to avoid the great vices, which ensued thereupon. Which being so, it must follow of necessity; that confession was not commanded by the law of God. For otherwise it should be in man's power (which no wise man will grant, The story of Nectarius must be well marked. ) to disannul the law of God. Again, neither the holy B. Nectarius, would ever have attempted so to abolish gods ordinance; neither would so many famous bishops, have imitated his fact. And yet is it certain, that all the bishops of the east church did follow his opinion; yea, even S. Chrysostome, Nicep. li. 12. c. 2● who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople, that goodly patriarchal seat of the world. So saith Nicephorus. Now for the proof of the principal point, to wit, that Nectarius abandoned confession simply and wholly, The first probation. (which is the point that the papists do and must deny, or else forsake their popery:) I prove the same first, by Thomas Waldensis a papist highly renowned among them; who affirmeth the story so absolutely, as our jesuite Bellarmine cannot deny the same; & his reasons to the contrary, are ridiculous and childish. For first, Bellarm. de penitent. lib. 3. c. 15 he saith, that pope Nicholas calleth Nectarius the mighty adversary of heretics, and the defender of the church. Secondly he saith, that saint Chrysostome and many other bishops approved Nectarius his opinion. Ergo, saith our jesuite, he could never take away auricular confession. S. Chrysostome and all the bishops of the East, practised the same that Nectarius appointed, and Thomas Waldensis a zealous papist understandeth it of confession generally; and yet Nectarius because he was a godly man, could not abolish popish confession, saith our jesuite. But I ween, I may better conclude; that because Nectarius was an holy man, Our jesuite is driven to use petitio principii. and saw great knavery used by reason of confession; to wit, whoredom between the deacon and the confessionist; therefore he justly abolished that law, which was only made by the power of man. For our jesuite taketh that as granted, that is in controversy; which is a great fault in the Schools, called Petitio principij. For I am so far from granting his auricular confession to be of God, that I have copiously disproved the same already. I prove it secondly, by the manifold testimony of S. Chrysostome, The second probation. who was the next successor to this holy Nectarius. In one place he hath these words; Peccata tua dicito, Chrysost. hom. 2. ●n Psal. 50. tom. 1. ut deleas illa. Si confunderis alicui dicere, quia peccasti; dicito quotidie in anima tua. Non dico ut confitearis conseruo tuo, ut exprobret. Dicito Deo, qui curat ea. Tell thy sins, that thou mayest blot them out. If thou be ashamed to confess them to any man, because thou hast sinned; confess them daily in thy mind. I say not this, to cause thee to confess them to thy fellow servant; that he may upbraid thee. Confess them to God, Chrys. de Lazar. ●ac Din. hom. 4. ●om. 2. pag. 1359. that cureth them. Again, in another place he saith thus: Condemnasti peccatum tuum? deposuisti sarcinam. Quis haec dicit? ipse judex tuus. Dic tu peccata tua prior, ut iustificeris; cur igitur te quaeso pudescis & erubescis dicere peccata tua? cave enim homini dixeris, ne tibi opprobret. Neque enim conseruo confiteris, ut in publicum proferat, sed ei qui Dominus est, ei qui tui curam gerit, ei qui humanus est, ei qui medicus est ostendis vulnera. Neque enim ignorat, etiamsi tu non dixeris; qui sciebat etiam antequam perpetrares. Quidigitur causae est, quo m●nus dicas: non enim ex accusatione fit gravius peccatum, imò mitius magis ac levius: & ob hoc ipsum, Deus vult te dicere, non ut puniaris, sed ut relaxeris: non ut ipse sciat peccatum, cur enim id postulet, quum iam sciat? sed ut tuscias, quantum tibi debitum remittatur. Ideo verò vult te scire beneficii magnitudinem, ut perpetuò gratias agas, ut signor fias ad peccandum, ut ad virtutem promptior. Nisi dixeris debiti magnitudinem non agnosces donationis eminentiam. Non inquit, cogote in medium prodire theatrum, ac multos adhibere testes: Mihi soli dic peccatum privatim, ut sanem ulcus, teque dolore liberabo. Hast thou condemned thy sin? What can more plainly be said, against Romish confession? then hast thou discharged thyself of thy load. Who saith so? even thine own judge. Tell thou thy sins first, that thou mayest be justified. Why therefore I pray thee art thou bashful, and ashamed to tell thy sins? beware to tell them to man, lest he upbraid thee. For thou dost not confess them to thy fellow servant, that he may tell them abroad; but to him that is thy Lord, to him that hath care of thee, to him that is gentle, to him that is the physician dost thou show thy wounds. For neither is he ignorant of them, although thou tell them not, who knew them before thou didst them. What then is the cause, that thou mayest not tell them? For the sin is not made greater for confessing it, but rather more light and easy. And for this cause will God have thee to tell it: not for to punish thee, but for to acquit thee: not that he may know thy sin; for why should he require it, since he knoweth it already? but that thou mayest know how much debt is forgiven thee, & therefore will he have thee to know the greatness of the benefit, that thou mayest always give thanks, and be more slow to sin, and more propense to virtue. Unless thou tell the greatness of the debt, thou shalt not know the excellency of the gift. I do not (saith he) compel thee to come forth into the midst of the theatre, and to bring many witnesses. Tell thy sin to me alone privately, that I may heal thy disease, and I will deliver thee from thy grief. Again, in another place, he writeth thus; Non tibi dico ut te prodas in publicum neque apud alios te accuses: Chrysost in epis. ad Hebr. hom. 3●. tom. 4. sed obedire te volo prophetae dicenti, revela Domino viam tuam. Ante Deum ergo tua confitere peccata, apud verum judicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuntia, non linguâ sed conscientiae tuae memoria, & tunc demum spera te misericordiam posse consequi. I do not bid thee come forth in public, No confession made to the priests. neither to accuse thyself before others: but I would have thee to obey the prophet when he saith; reveal thy way to God. Before God therefore confess thy sins, before the true judge in prayer pronounce thine offences; not with thy tongue, but with the memory of thy conscience, and then hope to have mercy. Again in another place, he hath these words: Vos oro, fratres charissimi, Chrysost. de incompreh. dei not. contra Anomaeos hom. 5. tom. 5. crebrius deo immortali confiteamini, & enumeratis vestris delictis veniam petatis & numen propitium. Non te in theatrum conseruorum tuorum duco, non hominibus peccata tua detegere cogo: repeat coram deo conscientiam tuam, & explica: ostend Deo medico praestantissimo tua vulnera, & pete ab eo medicamentum: ostende ei qui nihil opprobret, sed humanissimè curet. Cur taces quae optimè ille novit? dicatque enumera, ut fructum maximum consequaris. I desire you my dear brethren, Confession to God, but not to man. to confess your sins often to God almighty: & when you have reckoned up your sins, then to crave his pardon and mercy. I do not lead thee into the theatre of thy fellow servants, I do not compel thee to disclose thy sins to men. Repeat before God thy conscience, and unfold it; show to God thy wounds, and ask him a medicine for the same: show them to him that never upbraideth, but cureth with all humanity. Why dost thou conceal those things, which he knoweth right well? tell and number them, that thou mayest reap the great fruit thereof. Again in another place, he writeth in this manner; Confunderis & erubescis peccata tua effari; Chrysost. de p●●nit. & confess. tom. 5. p. 905. atqui oportebat maximè apud homines eadicere & invulgare. Confusio enim est peccare, non est confusio confiteri peccata. Nunc autem neque necessarium praesentibus testibus confiteri: cogitation fiat delictorum exquisitio, absque teste sit hoc judicium. Solus te Deus confitentem videat. Thou art confounded & ashamed to utter thy sins, but sometime it behoved to tell and publish them, especially before men. For it is confusion to sin, but it is no confusion to confess our sins. And this day it is not necessary to have witnesses present, Confession was once made to man, but after that taken away. when we confess our sins. Let us examine our sins in thought and cogitation, let this judgement be without any witness, let God only see thee when thou confessest. Thus saith S. Chrysostome, whom I have alleged at large, the rather to confute the jesuite Bellarmine. Whom whether I have confuted, or no, let the indifferent reader give his censure, when he hath heard my discourse to the end. Our jesuite will needs save the life of his popish auricular confession, though himself spend the best blood in his body, in defence of the cause. In regard hereof, he imagineth that in the time of Nectarius, not only public confession; but also private romish enumeration was in use. This grave jesuitical consideration premised; he telleth us sagely, if we will believe him, that S. Nectarius abandoned only public confession, permitting romish auricular confession, still to remain in force. This is the whole scope of the jesuite, it cannot be denied. The scope of the jesuite must be marked. And because S. Chrysostome was the next bishop in Constantinople after this holy Nectarius, & consequently must needs best know his practice; the jesuite perforce will have S. Chrysostome only to speak against public confession, & not at all to disprove their private Romish mumbling. I therefore note first, out of S. Chrysostom's words; that he doth not indeed speak expressly of Romish private confession, (as which was not hatched in his time;) though virtually he do in manifest terms condemn the same. I note secondly, that he earnestly in every place exhorteth to confess our sins to God: and withal laboureth to persuade us; that that is enough to attain remission at God's hands. I note thirdly, that albeit he speak an hundredth times of confession to God, yet doth he not once will us to confess ourselves to man. I note four, that S. Chrysostome utterly dissuadeth from confessing our sins to men. For first, he willeth us not to confess to our fellow servants: Secondly, not to confess with our tongue. Thirdly, not to have any witness of our confession. Fourthly, to confess only within ourselves, and in our own secret cogitations. Fiftly, to confess in such manner, All confession is abandoned, none at all is excepted as only God heareth us. By all which ways and reasons, he opposeth that confession which is made to God; against that auricular confession, which our jesuite would have to be made to man. I note fifthly, that he saith, we are freed from confessing our sins to men; which sometime we were bound to do. Where no doubt he understandeth that time, in which Nectarius had not abandoned the law of confession. And consequently, that if we were still bound to popish auricular confession, he would have made some mention thereof; A man made free, is still in bondage with our jesuite. and not have said generally and without all exception, that we are made free from confessing to man. For no man doubtless is free from confession, that still remaineth bound unto the same. I note sixtly, that if Nectarius had abandoned but one kind of confession, and not another; S. Chrysostome being so wise and so learned, and speaking so often and so much of the one, would have spoken at the least some one word of the other; which yet he edid not, because there was no such thing in his time. I prove it thirdly, because Nectarius did not only displace, The third probation. and put out of office the penitentiarie-priest; but withal left it to the free judgement of every one to come to the holy communion without confession, as every man's conscience moved him. Which could no way be true; if the penitentes had been still bound to popish auricular confession. For (as I said before, Histor. trip. lib. 9 cap. 35. ) the late Romish confession at that time, was not heard of in the world. This determination of Nectarius is witnessed, not only by Socrates & Sozomenus, Socrat. lib. 5. c. 19 Sozo. lib. 7. c. 16. Niceph. lib. 12. cap. 28. but also by Cassiodorus and Nicephorus. I will only allege Nicephorus for all, whose words are these: Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis, ut cuique permitteretur, pro conscientiâ & fiduciâ suâ communicare, & de immaculatis mysterijs participare. Nectarius determined by their advise, (he meaneth Eudaemon of Alexandria and his complices, as writeth Socrates,) that every one might communicate & be partaker of the holy mysteries, as his own conscience and faith directed him. Ergo neither public nor yet private confession was required at that time. I prove it four, because both Sozomenus and Cassiodorus after him do say; The fourth probation. that sins did more abound, by reason that confession was taken away. For the confession of all sins, must needs bridle sin more than the confession of a few sins; specially of such sins as were known before. These are Sozomenus his own words: Siquidem anteà ut ego existimo, minora erant peccata, tum ob verecundiam eorum qui sua ipsorum delicta ipsi enuntiabant, Sozo. lib. 7. c. 16. Can. lib. 9 ca 35. tum ob severitatem eorum qui judices eius rei constituti erant. For before, as I deem, less sin was done, aswell for their bashfulness that confessed their sins, as for their severity that were the judges thereof. Lo, the bashfulness of confession was taken away by the determination of Nectarius, Ergo auricular confession, that of necessity discloseth all sin, could by no means remain. For small bashfulness, or rather none at all, proceedeth of confessing sins already known: but confession of secret sins though to one only priest, bringeth great bashfulness with it; yea, No place left to auricular confession. such intolerable bashfulness & fear also, as many have concealed many sins for many years together. This is so manifest to every popish confessary; as if any deny it, his own conscience will confound him. To this it is consectary: that many have done the same, all the days of their life. And yet is it certain by Bellarmine's own grant, that secret sins were never confessed publicly. I say secondly, that in the ancient church before the heresy of Novatus, as I have proved out of Tertullian, Origen, Secundo principaliter. and Cyprian; the penitentes both made election of their confessary, and of the sins which they did confess. The Canons only urged them to this, to confess public faults publicly. This was the practice of the primitive church, for the space of 250. years after Christ's ascension. I say thirdly, that after the heresy of Novatus, which began under the persecution of the Emperor Decius, Tertio principaliter. about the year of our Lord two hundredth and threescore: the godly bishops for discipline sake, made an addition to the ecclesiastical Canon, Ann. Dom. 260 as Socrates termeth it. That is to say, that in every church there should be one special priest designed, to whom the penitents should secretly confess their public and grievous sins; and after only to confess openly such faults, as that wise priest should think convenient, & fit for edification. For as Sozomenus saith, it seemed an odious thing to confess sins publicly: Sozom. & Orig. ubi supra. and as Origen writeth, the Ethincks did often deride such confessions: therefore the church appointed, that not all public sins should be confessed publicly, but such only as seemed good to the penitentiary priest. I say four, that Nectarius did abrogate this additament (whatsoever it was) wholly, even by Bellarmine's own grant, which is seriously to be observed. Quarto principaliter. For as Socrates recordeth, this appendix or addition contained all those sins, which the penitents did or were bound to confess: and consequently, Socr●. lib. 5. c. 19 it will follow of necessity, that Nectarius did abolish all confessions made to man, & the confessions of all sins totally. I prove it, A deadly blow to the jesuite. because both Socrates & our jesuite do say; that whatsoever the penitents did confess, the same was done to the penitentiary priest. I say fifthly, that this appendice to the old Canons, whereof Socrates speaketh, Qu●nto principal●ter. which contained all the sins great and small that the penitents did confess, was abrogated by Nectarius S. Chrysostom's predecessor, about the year of our Lord three hundredth ninety four, Anno Dom. 394 throughout the East Church. Nevertheless, the former constitution made in the time of Decius against the Novatians, was still of force in the Roman church. Which by degrees received superstitious augmentations, Nicephorus. Socrates, Sozomenus. until it got the Romish new no perfection, which this day is in use. The 1. objection. A man of great secrecy was chosen to be the penitentiary priest; which proveth, that other faults then public were confessed to him. For such sins as were publicly to be revealed, needed no secrecy at all. The answer. I answer, that the penitentes were not debarred from confessing any sin; although the canons of the church did not urge them to confess any faults, save the public only. And because the zealous people in the primitive times used to confess many other sins, for to have grave and godly advise therein; the superintendentes and overseers of the church (then and now commonly called Bishops,) appointed every where such a confessary over the penitentes, as was very discreet, and a keeper of secrecy. Which they did for this end and purpose, lest such secret faults as the penitentes voluntarily confessed for counsel sake, should be disclosed and known abroad. The reply. Socrates, Sozomenus, Nicephorus, ubi supra. Socrates, Sozomenus, and Nicephorus, do all three avouch, that the penitentes confessed all their sins done after baptism. Which was a flat platform and pattern of auricular confession, this day used in the church of Rome. Yea, Socrates addeth, that they confessed their sins particularly. The answer. I say first, that they all say indeed, that the penitentes confessed sins done after baptism: but no one of the three affirmeth, (as the objection saith,) that they confessed all their sins committed after baptism; the general sign (all) cannot be found annexed thereunto. I say secondly, that true it is, that they confessed their sins particularly; that is to say, sins the which they did confess, were confessed distinctly; for otherwise the penitents could not have received instructions according to the contentment of their minds. I say thirdly, that it is one thing to confess sins particularly, another thing to confess them totally. For they confess particularly, Note this against the papists▪ that confess their sins distinctly, although they conceal many a one: but they only confess totally, that confess all, both great and small without exceptition. And therefore said Socrates significantly, that they confessed sins done after baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in part, but he said not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wholly, or in all. The second objection. Socrates, Sozomenus, Vbi supra. and Nicephorus do all infer this upon the fact of Nectarius: to wit, that we cannot henceforth reprove one an others sins; which illation can connotate no other thing, but public confession only. Therefore secret confession, remained still in force. The answer. I say first, that as the fact argueth all public confession to be taken away, so can it not convince any secret to remain. I say secondly, that now and then by your favour, your secret confessions have been disclosed. I say thirdly with Nicephorus, that still they did confess their sins that would, Nicephorus ubi supra. although neither any priest was assigned for that purpose, neither did any constitution enforce them so to do. I say four, (and this answer confoundeth our jesuite) that Socrates calleth the confession of sins after baptism, that appendice which was added to the ecclesiastical canon, in the time of persecution. Socra. lib. 5. ca ●● These are his words: Ab illo tempore quo Nouatiani se ab ecclesia seiunxerant, recusaverantque cum his qui tempore persecutionis regnant Decio concitatae lapsi erant, communicare, ecclesiarum episcopi canoni adiunxerunt, ut in singulis ecclesiis presbyter quidam poenitentiae praesset: quò, qui post baptismum lapsi fuissent coram presbytero ad eam rem designato peccata sua confiterentur. From that time in which the Novatians severed themselves from the church, Ann. Dom. 254 and refused to communicate with them that were fallen, during the persecution of the Emperor Decius, the bishops of the churches added to the canon, that in every church a priest should be over the penitents, to the end, that whosoever were fallen after baptism, might confess their sins before the priest designed for that purpose. Thus writeth Socrates, by whose words it is clear, that to confess our sins committed after baptism, was the appendice to the canons: & yet cannot the jesuite Bellarmine deny, that Nectarius abolished that appendice or addition; and consequently, will he, nill he, he must likewise grant, that Nectarius disannulled the law for confessing sins after baptism. These are the express words of our jesuite. Bellarm. de penitent. lib. 3. ca 14. col. 1667. Non sustulit Nectarius, nisi appendicem ad veteres canon's, quae accesserat initio haeresis Novatianae. Nectarius took away nothing, save only that appendice which was added to the old canons, which was made in the beginning of the Novatian heresy. And thus (me think) the stornie of Nectarius though somewhat intricate, is discussed sufficiently. CHAP. XIII. Of the authority of summoning counsels. OF the force & validity of late popish councils, I have spoken sufficiently in my book of Motives, Now, where the papists challenge to their Pope, a great prerogative above the Emperor; because (as they say) he ever commanded general counsels to be holden every where; this doctrine in this place, I purpose briefly to disprove. The first conclusion. Vide Epiphan. contr. Andianos', libr. 3. tom 1. pa. ●67. haer. 70. The first general council of Nice, (in which Arrius denying the consubstantiality of the son of God, was condemned,) was not celebrated by the Pope's appointment, (who in those days was reputed but as other bishops;) but by the flat and express commandment of the Emperor Constantinus surnamed the Great, in the year 327. This I do not barely say, but I will prove the same after my wont manner, by the express testimonies of approved Historiographers. Ann. Dom. 327 Socrat. lib. 1. ca 6 All the fathers assembled in the sacred council of Nice, wrote to the church of Alexandria, and to the inhabitants of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, in this express manner: Quoniam dei gratia & mandato sanctissimi Imperatoris Constantini, qui nos ex varijs civitatibus & provincijs in unum congregavit, magnum & sanctum concilium Nicaenum coactum est necessarium videtur, etc. Because through the grace of God, and by the commandment of the most holy Emperor Constantine, who hath gathered us together out of diverse cities, and provinces, the great and holy council of Nice is assembled: it seemeth necessary, that the whole council send letters to you; by which ye may understand, aswell those things that were called into question, as the things that are decided & decreed in the same. Thus writeth Socrates. Out of these words I note first; that this testimony is of greatest credit without all exception, as which was not published by one or two, but by more than three hundred bishops as writeth Nicephorus, Niceph. li. 8. c. 1●. who were the most virtuous & learned priests in the christian world. I note secondly, these holy fathers, of this famous council, do not once name the Pope in their letters; so far were they in these days, from ascribing the chief prerogative in counsels, to the B. of Rome. I note thirdly, that all the council confesseth in their joint letters as we see, that the council was called by the emperor, and that they all were assembled together by his commandment. Where I wish the reader, to observe diligently the word (Commandment: The Emperor commandeth counsels to be holden. ) for if the emperor did not call counsels together by his own authority, but by the pope's, as the papists prate; then could not this holy council truly say, as all the fathers thereof constantly do say, to wit, that they came thither by the emperors commandment. I note four, that none in the world can better tell how the council was called, than the fathers of the council, who were the persons called; and yet do they join the emperor's commandment with the grace of God, and exclude the Pope altogether. Theodoret▪ hath these words: Verum ubi spes eum fefellerat, Theodoret. lib. ●▪ cap. 7. celebre illud Nicaenum concilium cogit, & publicos asinos, mulas, & mulos, quinetiam equos episcopis & comitibus suis ad iter faciendum utendos dat. Sozom. hath these words: Verun ubi contra quàm expectabat, Sozom. li. 1. c. 1● res succederet, & contentio reconciliationem concordiae, etc. But after the matter succeeded otherwise then he expected, & reconciliation was hindered with contention; and Hosius also sent to make peace, returned leaving the thing undone; the emperor appointeth a council at Nice a city in Bythinia, & writeth to the precedents of all churches to be present at a day appointed. Niceph. lib. 8. ca 14. Niceph. hath these words: Infectis reb. ad imperatorem rediit, qui ad pacem componendam missus fuerat, Hosius. Itaque imperator, etc. Hosius that was sent to make peace, returned to the Emperor, not having accomplished the matter. Therefore the Emperor perceiving the mischief to grow to a head, doth proclaim the famous council of Nice in Bythinia, and by his letters calleth all bishops thither at the day appointed. Thus we see evidently by the uniform testimony of four grave Historiographers, whereof three lived more than a 1100. years ago: that the bishop of Rome had no more to do in general counsels, than other bishops had. First, they tell us, that the Emperor sent Hosius the bishop of Corduba, The Bishop of Rome reputed as a common man. to bring the contentious to unity. Secondly, when that would not take place, that he proclaimed a council to be holden at Nice in Bythinia. Thirdly, that he commanded all bishops to come thither at a certain day appointed. But of the B. of Rome, never a word at al. The second Conclusion. The second general council of Constantinople, holden against Macedonius and his complices, for denying the divinity of the holy ghost, was called by the commandment of the emperor Theodosius the first, Ann. Dom. 389 about the year of our Lord 389. Socrates hath these words, Imperator nulla mora interposita; concilium episcoporum ipsius fidem amplectentium convocat; Socrat. li. 5. cap. 8 quo tum fides concilii Nicaeni corroboraretur, etc. (The emperor Theodosius) with all expedition calleth a council of bishops embracing the right faith, that aswell the faith of the Nicene council might be confirmed, as that a bishop might be appointed at Constantinople, & because he was in hope to make the Macedonians, to agree with the bishops that held the right faith, he sent forth bishops that were of the Macedonian sect. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 7. Sozomenus hath these words; Brevi deinde concilium episcoporum sibi consententium convocavit partim ut Nicaeni concilii decreta confirmarentur, patrim ut ordinaretur aliquis qui Constantinopolitanae sedis episcopatum administraret. Then shortly after (Theodosius) called a council of Bishops that agreed with him, partly that the decrees of the Nicene council might be confirmed, & partly that one might be appointed B. at Constantinople. Sigebertus writeth in this manner; Sigeb. in chron. anno 386. Secunda synodus universalis 150. patrum congregatur Constantinopoli, iubente Theosio & annuente Damaso papa, quae Macedonium negantem spiritum sanctum Deum esse condemnans, consubstantialem patri & filio spiritum sanctum esse docuit. The second general synod of an hundred and fifty bishops is assembled at Constannople, by the commandment of Theodosius, Damasus agreeing thereunto; in which council Macedonius, who denied that the holy ghost was God, was condemned, & the consubstantiality of the holy ghost with the father and the son was confirmed in the same. Nicephorus, Theodoretus and Prosper, Vide Niceph. lib. 12. ca 10. Tripart. hist. lib. 9 c. 12. teach the same doctrine, whose words for brevity sake I here omit. The third conclusion. The third general council, being the first Ephesine; of two hundred bishops, was proclaimed by the commandment of the Emperor Theodosius the younger, against Nestorius' denying the virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ann. Dom. 433 and affirming Christ to have two persons, proving that two natures did subsist in one only person of Christ jesus, in the year of our Lord 433. Euagrius hath these words; Euagrius li. 1. c. 3. Haec nefaria Nestorij dogmata cum Cyrillus episcopus Alexandria vir, etc. When Cyrillus the bishop of Alexander, a man of great renowned, had distinctly confuted the wicked opinions of Nestorius, and Nestorius for all that gave no place to his writings, neither obeyed Cyrillus nor the council of Caelestinus the bishop of old Rome, but licentiously powered out his poison against the church: Lo, the grave bishop Cyrillus made suit to the emperor, not to the pope, to have a Council called in his name. then Cyrillus made suit to Theodosius the younger, who at that time was Emperor in the East, that by his will and authority a council might be called at Ephesus. The Emperor upon this sent his letters to Cyrillus, and to the other precedents of the churches, appointing the assembly to be upon Whitsunday, at what time the holy Ghost came down unto us. Nicephorus hath these words; Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 34. Theodosius imperialibus literis suis in metropoli Ephesi locorum omnium episcopos convenire jussit, sacram▪ etc. Theodosius commanded by his imperial letters that all bishops should meet in the metropolitaine church of Ephesus, at the day of Pentecost (which we call Whitsunday;) for on that day, the holy ghost came upon the Apostles. He added this to his letters, that no man should excuse himself either before God or the world; but that every one should be there present at the day appointed. Cassiodor. in tripart. hist. lib. 12. cap. 5. Cassiodorus hath these words; Non multo post tempore, iussio principis episcopos undique Ephesum convenire praecepit. No long time after the commandment of the Emperor (Theodosius) charged the bishops to come from every place to Ephesus. Sigebert. in anno 4●3. Sigebertus hath these words, Tertia synodus universalis Ephesina prima, ducentorum episcoporum, jussu Theodosii iunioris Augusti aedita est, quae. Nestorium, etc. The third general council the first Ephesine of 200. bishops, was celebrated by the commandment of the emperor Theodosius the younger, which council justly condemned Nestorius affirming Christ to have two persons, showing that two natures in Christ did subsist in one person. The fourth conclusion. evagr. lib. 1. ca 9 The fourth general council of Chalcedon against Eutiches, who affirmed Christ to have but one only nature after the hypostatical union, although he granted him to have had two before the conjunction thereof; was called by the commandment of the emperor Martian, in the year of our Lord, 454. Socrates hath these words, Passimque in historia imperatorum mentionem propterea fecimus, Ann. Dom. 454 quod ex illo tempore quo Christiani esse coeperunt, ecclesiae negotia ex illorum nutu pendere visa sunt, atque adeo maxima concilia de eorundem sententia & convocata fuerunt & adhuc convocantur. I have therefore made mention of the emperors in every place of my history, because since that time in which they became Christians, the affairs of the church depended upon their good will and pleasures: in regard whereof, most famous counsels were then called by their appointment, and are so called even to this day. Out of these words I note first, that Socrates was a famous greek Historiographer. I note secondly, that he lived above 400. years after Christ's sacred incarnation. I note thirdly, that the end for which he made mention of the Emperors, was to declare that the chiefest matters of the church did depend on their good pleasures. I note four, that counsels were evermore appointed by authority of the Emperors, even to the days of Socrates, which was 400. years after Christ. These observations well marked, this Corollary followeth of necessity, that the usual practice of the ancient Christian Apostolic and Catholic church, doth flatly overthrow all Popery, and late Romish abomination. Nicephorus hath these words: Earum rerum gratia, Niceph. lib. 15. cap. 2. imperatorum literis, locorum omnium episcopis convocatis, synodus Chalcedone est coacta. In regard of these matters, a council was called at Chalcedon, and all bishops sent for thither, by force of the emperors letters. Sigebertus hath these words; Sigebert. in anno 452. Instantia Leonis papae iubent imperatore Martiano, congregata & habita est quarta universalis synodus sexcentorum & triginta episcoporum apud Chalcedonem. The fourth general council of six hundredth & thirty bishops, The pope requested, but the emperor commanded the thing to be done. was holden in Chalcedon by the commandment of the Emperor Martian, at the request of Pope Leo. Lo, the Pope could but request; to command was in the emperors power. Euagrius in the second book and second chapter of his history, teacheth the self same verity. The 5. conclusion. The Emperor evermore had the chiefest place in counsels, which thing is an evident confirmation of the former conclusions. Sozomenus hath these words; Vbi autem venit praestituta dies, Sozom. lib. 1. ●●. 18. in qua, etc. And when the day appointed came, that they should decide the controversies, the bishops come together into the palace, as the emperor had decreed, Lo, the emper●● had the highest place, and the bishops sat no● down till ha● commanded them. that he might consult with them of the matters. And when he came to the place where the priests were, he passed by to the highest room of the assembly, and sat down in a chair prepared for him, and commanded all that were present in the council to sit down. Out of these words I note first, that all the bishops came at the emperor's appointment, to attend his majesty at the time & place by him designed. I note secondly, that he consulted with them, for and concerning the controversies of religion; as who knew right well, that the unity and peace of Christ's church pertained to his charge. I note thirdly, that he had the highest place in the council. I note 4. that bishops did not sit down until the Emperor commanded them so to do. The famous popish archbishop and Cardinal Panormitanus, hath these golden words, to the great comfort of all true Christians, Panormit. de elect. cap. significasti, prope fin. & the confusion of all papists: Ipse autem Imperator repraesentat totum populum christianum, cum in eum translata sit iurisdictio & potestas universi orbis: loco ipsorum hoc ergo populorum▪ etc. But the emperor representeth all christian people, because the jurisdiction and power of all the world is imposed upon him. Therefore in steed of the people, the Emperor calleth counsels; and for this purpose is it, that the calling of counsels was ever done by the emperor, as is already said; but afterward it was reserved to the Pope. Out of these words I note first, that the testimony of this Panormitaine must needs be forcible against the papists, because he was their own popish Abbot, their Canonist, their archbishop, their Cardinal. I note secondly, that the Emperor hath the chiefest jurisdiction over all the christian world, even over the Pope of Rome. I note thirdly, that in respect of his universal and supreme jurisdiction, he hath authority to call counsels. I note four, that in the primitive church all counsels were called, by the authority of the Emperor. I note fifthly, that in process of time, the Emperor of Rome yielded up his authorittie of calling counsels, to his bishop of Rome: by which grant and the like, the Pope at length abused all the world. The verity and infallibility of this conclusion is so manifest and irrefragable, that the jesuite Bellarmine cannot deny the same. And therefore he is enforced to excuse the Pope's absence from counsels, because he could not sit above the Emperor: his words are alleged in my book of Motives. By this testimony, the Pope's humility doth sufficiently appear; and for affinity sake, I will adjoin the testimony of an other Monk, for his tyranny. Sigebertus a Monk, and therefore must be of good credit with monkish jesuits and other papists, after he hath discoursed largely of the pope's tyranny, and namely of the monk Odo alias Otto, who aspiring to the Popedom named himself Vrbanus the second, Sigebert. in anno 1088. addeth these words: Vt pace omnium bonorum dixerim, haec sola novitas, non dicam haeresis, nondum in mundo emerscrat, ut sacerdotes illius qui regnare facit hypocritam propter peccata populi, doceant populum quod malis regibus nullam debeant subiectionem, & licet ei sacramentum fidelitatis fecerint, nullam tamen debeant fidelitatem, nec periuri dicantur qui contra regem senserint: imò qui regi paruerit, pro excommunicato habeatur, qui contra regem fecerit noxâ iniustitiae & periurij absoluatur. To speak by the favour of all good men, this sole novelty, I will not say heresy, was not yet known in the world; that his priests, who causeth an hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people, should teach the people, that they own no subjection to wicked kings, and that although they have taken the oath of fidelity, yet do they own them no allegiance, neither are they perjured that think any thing against the king: Yea, he that obeyeth the king is reputed an excommunicate person, and he that taketh part against the king, is absolved from injustice and perjury. Thus we see popery to be heresy, and the Popes to be heretics and wicked men, as their own Monk Sigebertus teacheth us. CHAP. XIIII. Of the Bishops of Rome, after Pho●as had made it the head of all churches. THe bishops of Rome having obtained the supremacy, Ann. Dom. 607 by the imperial grant of Phocas that parricide and cruel tyrant; heaped mischief upon mischief, and never made an end thereof. And that which I do here report of them, shallbe truly and sincerely collected out of their own dear friends, Sigebertus Gemblacensis, Marianus Scotus, Bartholomaeus Carranza, & Martinus Polonus. Whereof the first 3. were popish monks, and the fourth a famous popish archbishop; so that whatsoever they say of the Popes, must needs be of credit with the papists. For doubtless they did not write any thing of any Pope, which the very truth did not enforce them unto: as who were most unwilling, to discover the trupitude of their disholy fathers. And Platina their renowned Abbreviator Apostolicus may be the fift witness, and Polydorus the sixth, if need shall so require. This general preface I make once for all, lest I be tedious to the reader, in the often repetition of my witnesses. Pope Bonifacius the third with much ado obtained of Phocas (after he had cruelly murdered the emperor Mauritius with his wife & children) that Rome should be the head of all churches: because before that time, the church of Constantinople had the chief prerogative of all patriarchal seats. Ann. Dom. 607 So that popish primacy (as we see) ensued upon most bloody tyranny: Anno. 607. Constanrinus. Pope Constantinus of a lay man was made a priest, and by tyrannical ambition invaded the Popedom, to the great scandal of Christ's church. But shortly after through the zeal of the faithful, Ann. Dom. 765 he was deprived of his pontifical magnificence, and both his eyes plucked out, Anno. 765. Pope john the eight of that name, be lying her sex; & clad in man's attire, Pope john. with great admiration of her sharp wit & singular learning, was chosen to be the pope of Rome. Shortly after by the familiar help of her beloved companion, she brought forth the homely fruits of her popedom, An 855. This history of Pope john is handled at large in the chapter of succession, Ann. Dom. 855 or rather of popish primacy: & if it be not true, then doubtless small credit can be given to any popish traditions: for approved popish writers, affirm it to be as I have said. Adrianus. Pope Adrian the third, made a law, that the Emperor should not deal with the election of the pope. Where we may behold the ambitious minds, & the tyrannical proceedings of the late bishops of Rome. This was done Anno 886. About this time, Italy revolted from the emperor. Ann. Dom. 886 Formosus. Pope Formosus was a perjured person. For pope john degraded him bringing him to laical state again, after he had been the B. of Portua. He further took him sworn, that he neither should be bishop, nor ever return to the city of Rome. Yet pope Martin absolved him from his oath; and after a few years he did not only come to the city, Ann. Dom. 892 but also was Pope, Anno. 892. Stephanus. Pope Stephanus the sixth, persecuteth pope Formosus after his death. He calleth a council, & disannulleth all the degrees of pope Formosus his predecessor. He causeth his body to be brought forth into his consistory; the papal induments to be taken away; a laical habit to be put on the dead corpse; two fingers of his right hand to be cut off; and that done, his body to be put into the grave. And what was the cause I pray you, of this great stomach against Formosus? Verily because this Stephanus sought to have been pope before him; and where his ambitious intent was prevented by Formosus, Ann. Dom. 898 he avenged him as a right Roman, upon his dead corpses: in the year 898. Pope john the ninth called a council of 74. bishops, Pope john. and disannulled the decrees of that Synod which pope Stephanus held against Formosus. Behold the sweet christian unity, Ann. Dom. 900 amongst the holy pope's of Rome. This was done, in the year 900. Pope Sergius the 3. caused Formosus, Sergius. (who now had been dead almost ten years,) to be taken out of his tomb, & to be set in a chair with pontifical attire upon his back: that done, he commanded his head to be cut off, & to be cast into Tiber. And what offence trow ye, had this Formosus done? doubtless, because Formosus had kept him from the Popedom. Ann. Dom. 907 This was done in the year of our Lord, 907. john the 10. the son of Sergius the third, joannes. sometime bishop of Ravennas, came to the popedom by violent means, and for that respect, the people shortly after deposed him, Ann. 917. Ann. Dom. 917 Pope john the 12. was made pope by violent means for his father Albericus being a man of great power & might, joannes. enforced the nobles to take an oath; that after the death of pope Agapitus, they would promote his son Octavianus to the popedom. Which oath was accomplished, and he was named john. He was a great hunter, and a man of licentious life. He kept women openly, to the notorious scandal of the church. Insomuch, that some of the cardinals wrote to Otto king of the Saxons, to come and besiege Rome. Which the pope perceiving, commanded that Cardinal's nose to be cut off that gave the counsel, and his hand that wrote the letters. This pope being often admonished by the Emperor and clergy, and never giving any sign of amendment; was deposed in the presence of the Emperor, and pope Leo chosen in his stead; in the year of our Lord, 968. The Romans chose another pope in the time of this Leo, Ann. Dom. 968 who named himself Benedictus the fift; for which cause when the Emperor Otto besieged Rome, Benedictus was delivered to him, whom he banished and restored Leo to the popedom. This Benedictus died in Saxony the place of his exile, and was buried in Hamburge. But Pope john delighted still with adultery, died without repentance suddenly. Ioann●●. Pope john the 13. was apprehended by Peter the Perfect of the city, & imprisoned in Pont-Angelo, and after that driven into exile into Campania: Ann. Dom. 970 10. months and eighteen days being expired, he returned to Rome by the assistance of the emperor, and avenged himself of his persecutors: whereof he slew some, hanged other some, and banished the rest into the confines of Saxony, in the year of our Lord, 970. Benedictus. Pope Benedictus the sixth, after he had been pope one year & 6. months was strangled with wormwood in Pont-angelo, in the year of our Lord, 978. 978. Pope Bonifacius the 7. was made pope by the Romans, after they had throttled Benedictus the sixth. Bonifacius. Who afterward not able to tarry in the city, rob S. Peter's church of all the treasure in it, and fled to Constantinople. At length he returned to Rome with a great sum of money, and when he could not prevail, he plucked out a Cardinal-deacons eyes, in the year of our Lord, Anno Dom. 980. 980. And here note by the way, that some Cardinals are deacons, some priests, some bishops: nevertheless, he that is but a deacon, is of greater authority, than any bishop or archbishop whosoever in the popish sect. Pope Sylvester the second was first a monk, a Frenchman borne, Sylvester. Gilbertus by name. He promised homage to the devil, so long as he did accomplish his desires. Who being very ambitious, did so often express his desire to the devil, as he made homage unto him. He was first made archbishop of Rheims, then at Ravennas, at the last pope of Rome. For the devil knowing his ambitious mind, brought him to honour by degrees. Being made pope, he must needs know of the devil, how long he should live in his pontifical glory. The devil answered him, The pope in pontificalib. forgetteth the names of his churches. so long as he did not say mass in Jerusalem. The pope receiving that answer, was very joyful within himself: hoping to be so far from dying, as he was far in mind from going to say mass in Jerusalem beyond the sea. It chanced that in Lent the pope said mass, in the church Sanctae crucis, which they call, in Jerusalem, myself know the place. It seemeth that the pope infatuated with pride and honour, had quite forgot the name. While he was at mass (O holy sacrifice!) he heard a great noise of devils, and so both remembered the place, and his death to be at hand. Wherefore he wept (although before most wicked,) disclosing his offence to all the company, and nothing doubting of God's mercy. Withal, he commanded to cut away from his body, all the members with which he had done sacrifice to the devil. He was buried in Lateran church, Anno. Dom 1007. in the year of our Lord, 1007. Pope Benedictus the 8. was seen after his death as it were corporally riding upon a black horse. The bishop that saw him spoke thus unto him. Art not thou pope Benedict, whom we know to be lately dead? I am saith he, that unfortunate Benedict. But how is it with thee father, saith the bishop? I am now in great torment saith the pope, and therefore would I have some money to be given to the poor, because all that I gave the poor aforetime, was gotten by robbery and extortion. Ann. Dom. 1032. This was done, in the year of our Lord, 1032. Pope Benedictus the 9 was deprived of his popedom, Benedictus. & one Sylvester placed in his room. This Sylvester was deposed, and Benedictus recovered the popedom again. Yet this Benedict was cast out again, and another put in his place. Which other was so ignorant, that he could not say mass, but as one did instruct him. For which cause he was put out, Ann. Dom. 1042. and another placed in his room, in the year of our Lord, 1042. Pope Clemens the second, Clemens. came to his popedom by violent means, in the year of our Lord, 1058. 1058. Pope Damasus the second invaded the popedom, Damasus. and had a sudden death, in the year of our Lord 1060. 1060. About the year of our Lord 1072. one Mathildis a most mighty and rich countess, gave all her lands, Ann. Dom. 1072. goods and possessions to S. Peter, which is by interpretation, to the pope; and it is this day called S. Peter's patrimony. Such oblations as these, made the pope so mighty as he is. Pope Anastasius the 4. made a new palace in Sancta Maria rotunda, Anastasius. and gave to the Lateran church a chalice of curious works, abbut the weight of twenty marks, Ann. Dom. 1162. in the year 1162. Thus pope's wickedness, mischief, and tyranny, I find every where, but that any one pope since Bonifacius claimed the primacy, (which is more than 900. years since,) made any one sermon in all his life, I cannot read. I might here speak of the vanity of Romish cardinals, as that one cardinal bestoweth yearly 4000 crowns for the keeping and upbolding of his most curious garden at Tyvola. It is fourteen English miles from Rome, myself have seen the same. Free access is granted to all sorts of people, such is his glory to have it seen. Bonifacius 8. Pope Bonifacius the 8. made a constitution, in which he called himself Lord spiritual and temporal of the whole world. Whereupon he required Philip the French king, to acknowledge that he held his kingdom of him: which when the king refused to do, he gave his kingdom to another. This was done Anno. 1302. Anno. Dom. 1302. This pope entered as a fox, reigned as a Wolf, and died as a dog: so do they write of him. CHAP. XV. Of certain popish sects, which they term the orders of religious men. Whatsoever I shall set down of these sects or religious orders, as the papists must needs have them termed; shall be truly and sincerely collected out of these popish historiographers: to wit, Martinus Polonus, Philippus Bergomensis, Polyd. Virgilius, Palmerius, Platina, and Ar. Pontacus Burdegalensis. Which I here for once admonish, lest the often repetition thereof should be tedious. Benedictus an Italian, the father of all monks, erected an Abbay in the mount Cassinum, The first Sect. and instituted the sect of the Benedictines; Ann. Dom. 527. about the year 527. These monks in a short time began to be dissolute, and were divided into many new sects; whereof same were called Cluniacenses, some Camalduenses, some Vallisumbrenses, some Montolivotenses, some Grandimontenses, some Cistertienses, some Syluestrenses. All which being most variable in life, The pope must needs be S. Peter's successor. manners, & observations, will for all that be right Benedictines. Even forsooth as our late pope's must needs be S. Peter's successors, though they be as like as York & foul Sutton. This sect of the Benedictines far altered from the first institution, Ann. Dom. 1335. was reform in the year 1335. For as Polydore gravely reporteth, monks do not long observe their monastical institution. The sect of the Carthusians, was ordained by one Bruno, in the year 1084. The second Sect. How this sect had the first original, it is worthy of due attention. 1084. This is the story. While Bruno was the reader of philosophy at Paris in France, it chanced that a friend of his being a man of good external life, died; who lying dead upon the coffin in the church, soundeth out these words in the ears of the said Bruno, I am damned by the just judgement of God. By which miracle Bruno was so terrified, that he knew no way how to be saved, but by inventing the sect of the Carthusians. Behold here the subtlety of the devil, who wanteth no means how to set up superstition & idolatry. For if the story be true, as I think it was in deed, then doubtless the voice came from the devil, as which brought forth the spirit of pride & not of humility. I prove it, because this Bruno could not be content to be a monk amongst the Benedictines, but he must be Lord Abbot of a new sect. For since the order of the Benedictines, was the ready way to heaven, as popery taught him: either he condemned his own religion, & consequently his own institution, or my consecution must be admitted. Let what papist as list reply▪ my reason can not be convinced. And here I note by the way, The abomination of sects in popery. the formal deformity of all the sects or orders in popery; to wit, that the papists ascribe merit and salvation to the same. Let therefore this story of our holy father Bruno never be forgotten. The order called ●raemonstratensis, The third Sect. began the year 1119. The first author thereof was one Norbertus by name. Ann. Dom. 1119. Who doubtless either con●emned the former orders, at the least of imperfection; or else was puffed up with the spirit of pride, as were his predecessors his fraterculi before him. The sect of the Carmelites began in the year 1170. & was instituted by one Almericus the bishop of Antioch. This sect, The fourth Sect. 1170. though it had the original in the time mentioned; yet was it not in full perfection, for the space of 40. years to come. The sect of Dominicans (whereof Tho. Aquinas, surnamed Angelicus was one,) began in the year 1198. The fift Sect. The author of this sect was one Dominicus Calaguritanus, a Spaniard borne. 1198. The sect itself was termed, Ordo fratrum praedicatorum. The sect of the Franciscans began in the year 1206. The sixth Sect. Of which sect was Io. Scotus, 1206. surnamed D. Subtilis The author of this sect was one Franciscuss Asisiates, an Italian born. The sect itself was termed, Ordo fratrum minorum. Thus we see that these Romish sects were multiplied, as if it were swarms of Bees. The sect of the jesuates, The seventh sect. began in the year of our Lord 1371. the author of this sect was one joannes Columbinus Senensis; the sect itself was termed, ordo jesuatorum. 1371. The sect of the jesuits, The eight Sect. began in the year of our Lord 1540 The author thereof was one Ignatius Loyola, 1540 a soldier and a Spaniard borne. The sect of our Romish jesuits, is not yet three-B●●ore years old. The moonkes of this sect, as they were hatched after all others, so do they in pontifical pride exceed all the rest. This sect is termed, ordo societatis jesu; the very name expressing their proud and haughty minds. For no name of so many sects before them, nor any other appellation could content them; unless they be termed fellows, and companions with jesus Christ. They are indeed so proud and stately, that where every other Romish sect hath some cardinal to be their protector; they only (to die for it) will have none at al. And why? because forsooth they will depend upon none, neither submit themselves to any, save to the pope alone: to whom I ween they will be subject, because they can no other do. They are not only proud, but very factious people. They are hated generally of all sorts of men: they cherish themselves, and seek to overrule all others. They employ some of their sect to no other end, but only to look into matters of state: that so by parasitical informations made to the pope, they may lead all the world in a string. The Perioch. First therefore, since popish primacy began in the year 607. Secondly, since priest's marriage was never prohibited, till the year 385. Thirdly, since pope's pardons were never heard of till the year 1300. Fourthly, since popish purgatory took no root in the Romish church, till the year 250. Fiftly, since invocation of saints & adoration was not known, till the year 370. Sixtly, since popish pilgrimage began in the year 420. Seventhly, since the merit of works de condigno, was disputable about the year 1081. Eightly, since the communion under both kinds was never thought unlawful, till the year 1414. Ninthly, since the pope's bulls were not authentical, till the year 772. Tenthly, since auricular confession was not established, till the year 254. eleventhly, since general counsels were ever summoned by the emperors, & many like matters of importance, as may appear by this small volume; I may reasonably conclude, that all men careful of their salvation, will detest from their hearts all popish faction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Table containing the texts of holy scripture which are handled in this Volume: Necessary at the least for the simple Reader; as by which he may readily find such places sound answered, as the Papists use to wrest against the truth. The Texts of the Old Testament. GEnesis chapter 3. verse 22. And now le●t he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever. Page 1 Goe 4.7. And thou shalt have power over thy sin 361 Goe 14.18 Melchisedech offered bread & wine. 419 Goe 48.16 And let my name be named upon them, & the name of my father's Abraham & Isaac. 311 2. Sam. 12.14. Howbeit because by this deed thou hast caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is borne to thee, shall surely die. 292 job 42.8. And my servant job shall pray for you, for I will accept him, lest I should put you to shame. 315 Psal 99.5. Adore ye his footstool, for it is holy▪ 326 Psal. 110.4. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. 419 Psal. 66.12. We went into fire and water and thou hast brought us into a place of comfort. 298 Psal. 107.13, 14 He b●ake their bonds asunder. ib jerem. 35.6 jonadab the son of Rech●b our father commanded us, saying: Ye● shall drink no wine, neither you nor your sons for ever. 59 Dan. 4.24. ●edeeme thy sins with righteousness 392 Dan. 9.24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people. 99 Dan. 8.14. Unto the evening and the morning, two thousand and three hundred: then shall the sanctuary be●●●ansed. 98 Zach. 9.11. I have loosed thy prisoners, etc. 297 Mal. 1.11. And a pure oblation shall be offered every where. 468 Mal. 3.3. He shall fine the sons of Levi. 299 Texts of the New Testament. MAtth. chap. 5 verse ●6. Thou shalt not departed thence until thou hast paid the utmost farthing 300 Mat 12.32 He that sinneth against the holy ghost shall neither be forgiven in this world, neither in the world to come. 299 Matt. 16 19 And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. 272 Matth. 28.20. And behold I am with you till the worlds end. 208 Luke 18.25. It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, then etc. 472 Luke 22.36. The sa●nts are equal to the angels in heaven. 338 Luke 22.31. I have prayed for thee that thy faith never fail. 212 john 16.13. He will lead you into all truth. 210 joh. 21.16. Feed my sheep. 215 joh. 21.26. Then came jesus when the doors were shut and stood in the mids. 270 Acts 2.24. Whom God hath ●a●●ed up, and loosed the sorrows of hell. 305 1. Cor. 3.12, 13. And the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 301 1. Cor. 15, 29. What shall they do that are baptised for the dead? 302 2. Cor. 2.10. To whom ye pardon any thing, I also pardon. 277 2. Cor. 8.13, 14. That also their abundance may be for your lack, that there may be equality. 295 Ephes. 4.11. He hath put pastors and doctors in his church until the world's end. 193 Philip. 2.10. That at the name of jesus every knee should bow 301 1. Corinth. 9 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister a wife? 220 Coloss. 1.24. And fulfil the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the church. 281 1. Timon 3.2. A bishop must be the husband of one wife. 217 1. Timot. 3.15. The church is the ground of truth. 207 1. Timot. 4.3. Forbidding to marry, and to abstain from meats. 226 1. Timot. 5.11, 12. Having damnation, because they have broken their first faith. 241 Hebr. 13 4. Marriage is honourable in all 225 1. joan. 5.16. If any man see his brother sin a sin not to death 310 Apoc. 5 13. And all the creatures which are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea▪ etc. 304 Apoc. 19.10. See thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant. 321 A Table Alphabetical. A Abel's death folio 46 Abra●●m● birth and acts 49 Popish Abstinence 59 Adam created on friday 46 Adam, though he were mortal, might have lived forever 1 Adam's age, death, and burial 46 Ages of the world 2 Agnus Dei and the superstition thereof 492 Agrippa king of the jews 137 Allegiance taken away by the Pope 528 Alexandra the wife of Alexander 137 Angels if they hear our prayers 337 Antichrist. See Supremacy and Priest's marriage Antichristian tyranny 200 Antiochus his lineage 147 The Apostles, when and where they preached 172 Aristobulus king Herod's son 139 Arrius and his heresy 178 Arrius thought to deceive Constantine 179 Augustus the name of every emperor 151 Auricular confession 493 B The tower of Babel 48 Babylon the place of the captivity 26 Praying upon beads 487 Bernard condemneth merit of works 389 Bernard affirmeth concupiscence to be sin ibid. Bernard affirmeth the virgin M. to be a sinner 287 The Books of the scripture burnt, and restored by Esdras 133 The Book of jeremy burnt by joachim, and written again 34 The Books of the Prophets 36, etc. Bread remaineth in the eucharist 335 Popish Bulls 492 The building of the Temple 28 All Bishops err by popish grant 204 C A Camel may pass through a needle's eye 472 Candlemas day 491 The Captivity of the ten tribes 29 The Captivity of the two tribes 2● The cardinals hat 488 The popish Carnival 492 Ceremonies of the Romish Church intolerable 486 Christ's resurrection 168 Christ's ascension and being in heaven 171 Christ's body cannot be in two places at once 436 and 169 Christ's body not carnally in the eucharist 466 Christ's body truly eaten in the eucharist 464 Christ's body not eaten by the wicked 452 Christ's passion, and the hour thereof 167 Christ's resurrection 168 The Church cannot err, and how it is to be understood 207 The Church invisible, and how 206 The Church visible, and how ibid. The visible Church among the Papists, & how ibi. church-service ought to be in the vulgar tongue 476 Circumcision a sign only of the covenant 52 Concupiscence sin in the regenerate 389 Confession in popish manner when it began 509, etc. Confession first instituted 515 Confession in popish manner impossible by grant of learned Papists 5●6 Confession not known in Tertullians' time 505 Confession abolished by Nectarius 509.510 The Communion of infants 186 Communion under one kind 402 Communion of priests alone 415 Consecration in the popish mass, and the form thereof 432 The sign of the Cross 157 Councils summoned by the Emperor 518 D Days 2300. expounded 140 Days of popish abstinence 59 Daniel preached in Babylon 36 Daniel expoundeth the seventy weeks 101 Darius king of the Medes 93 David and other kings of the Hebrews 24 The general Deluge 27 The Departure of Israel out of Egypt 56 The Disciples of Christ 172 The Duration of the world. 2 E Eli the priest judge of Israel 12 Elias at what time he lived 23 Elias the Cabalist his prophecy 2 Elias knew not the 7000. faithful reserved in Samaria 206 The elect cannot err, neither all generally, nor one finally 207 Emperors of Rome 86 Error may be in the church 206 Errors how they come 342 The Eucharist given to infants 186 The Eucharist expounded by Chrysostome 461 The Eucharist is not Christ's body 467 The Eucharist under one kind● 402 The Eucharist broken 484 Eutiches and his heresy 181 F Abraham's Faith did justify him 383 Sole Faith justifieth 370 Faith can not be without good works 399 The first Faith broken, how understood 241 A true Fast 72 Fasting and choice of meats 60 The Fathers do err very often 342 Festival days 116 Fidelity & allegiance condemned by the pope 528 Free-will how it remaineth 358 G Grace that justifieth is not inherent 370 The Grace of the Manichees 176 Saint Paul justified by Grace: yet a sinner still 374 Grace infused may stand with sin 350 The virgin Mary abounded with Grace, yet not fre● from sin 28 The Greeks' and their supputation 8● Gryphus at strife with his uncle 123 The Government of the jews 135 H The Heresy of Arrius 178 Of Nestorius' 180 Of Macedonius 181 Of Eutiches ibidem Of Mahomet 182 The History of Nectarius 509 Of Spiridion 64 Jerusalem besieged 153 Destroyed 25 Holy days and Sabbaths 116 I jesuits are humble 144 Dissemblers 145 Images 139 Indulgences 270 Invocation of Saints 319 joseph and his acts 57 joshua 58 Of the Israelites but seventy persons went into Egypt 53 Israelites 400. years in Egypt 54 justice inherent 383 justice of the regenerate unperfit 351 justification by faith 370 justification formal in Christ ibid. justification by works 383 and 384 julianus Apostata 175 K Kings of the Assyrians 74 Of Egypt 128 Of the jews 135 Of Israel 20 24 Of juda 24 Of Macedonia 116 Of the Medes 76 Of the Persians 94 Of the Romans 83 Of Syria 123 Kings are supreme governors in causes ecclesiastical 34 and 426 Kings that afflicted the jews 147 Kissing the altar 483 The pax 482 The patine 483 The Pope's feet 487 L The Law impossible after Adam 350, etc. The Law fulfilled by faith 370 Every transgression of the Law a mortal sin. 381 What time the Law was given 56 The Lie in the midwives 55 The Library of king Ptolemy 132 M Macedonius ●81 The Manichees 176 Marriage of Priests prohibited only by man's law 216 Gratian alloweth priests marriage 231 The Nicene council alloweth priest's marriage 233 The Mass how it is called a sacrifice 428 The canon of the popish Mass 480 Mass in one kind contrary to Christ's institution and antiquity 402 Popish Mass injurious to Christ's passion 417 Popish Mass is not a propitiatory sacrifice 432.433, etc. Popish Mass a clouted beggars cloak 476 Private Mass is diabolical 414, etc. Mass ought to be said in the vulgar tongue 476 Melchisedech what he offered 422, etc. No Merit in man's work 372, etc. The Merit which the fathers ascribe to good works 394, etc. The Meritorious cause of justification 345 The popish Mitre 486 A Monarchy contained not all power in it 129 The Monarchy of the Assyrians 74 Of the Greeks' 121 Of the Persians 92 Of the Romans 149 Moses and his acts 55 N The several Names of the ten tribes 43 Nectarius abolished confession 510 Nestorius 180 Nero and his wicked acts 150 Noah his flood 27 Novatus the cause and beginning of popish confession 512 Nuns may lawfully marry, even after vows 235 O Olympias 116 The Olympiads 81 The Original of confession 509, etc. Of kissing the Pope's feet 487 Of pardons 270 Of pilgrimage 341, etc. Of popish mass 480 Of changing Popes names 486 The Original of praying for the dead 296 Of praying to Saints 311 Of praying on beads 487 Of popish primacy 187 Of purgatory 296 Of single life 224 Of transubstantiation 436 P Pardons 270 Pax used in popery 481 Phocas author of primacy 188 Pilgrimage 341, etc. Popes and their wicked dealing 529 Of kissing the Pope's feet 487 Changing the Pope's name 486 Praying to Saints 311 For the dead 296 In the vulgar tongue 476 Upon beads 487 Prima●●● 187 Private mass 414 Purgatory 296 Ptolomaeus his library 232 R Relics of Saints not to be adored 349 Remus how slain 82 The Romish church hath erred 203, etc. The church of Rome holdeth many things whereof it can yield no reason 186 The church of Rome useth to wrest the scripture ib. Rome, how it had the name 82 Rome, when builded ibidem S The alteration of the Sabbath 108, etc. The Sacrifice of the mass 428 The Saracens 182 A Scribe what it signifieth 133 The Scripture must try every truth 342 The Sects of Romish religion, and when they began 530 The Septuagints and their celles 131 Succession of kings. See Kings. Succession in the Romish church 194, etc. Supremacy of the Romish church 187 T The Temple, when it was built 2● Transubstantiation, when it began 436 The destruction of Troy 81 All Truth to be tried by the scripture 342 V No sin Venial of it own nature 381 Vestments and their colour 490 The Virgin Mary a sinner 287 Virgins may marry after their vows 235 The Visible church clogged with superstitions. See Church Vows cannot dissolve lawful marriage 253, etc. Vows unlawful 265 W The Wearing of a cardinals hat 488 The seventy Weeks in Daniel are declared 101 The scripture must Witness truth 342 A Woman pope of Rome 191 A Woman clad in man's apparel 74 Good Works cannot justify before God 383, etc. Good Works do not merit 392 Widows damned for breaking their first faith. 241 FINIS. Among other faults escaped in the Printing, these especially are thus to be corrected: Pag. 2. for Cabatist read Cabalist Pag. 13. for 432 443 Pag. 19 for 428 443 Ibidem for 4082 4097 Pag 21. The first two lines as part of the sentence aforegoing. Pag. 37. for Achab Achaz Ibidem for eight seventh Pag. 74. for hadle handle Pa. 75. for Tantanes Tautanes Ibid. for Tantens Tantens Pag. 1ST dost made, with other literal faults, which the ingenious Reader may easily espy and amend.