ad contractum matrimonialem inhabile transgressiones voti simplicis solemnis eiusdem speciei sunt etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet ratio est quia specifica differentia actuum est penes obiecta cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum nempe seruare continentiam erunt actus eiusdem speciei erit tamen voti solemnis transgressio grauior ratione perfectioris status The vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect because the subiect of the single vow is able to contract matrimonie albeit he sinne in so contracting but the subiect of a solemne vow is inabled to matrimoniall contract the transgressions of the vowe single and solemne are of the same nature or kind albeit hee that maketh the solemne vow sinneth more grieuously the reason is because the specificall difference of acts resteth in the obiects and since there is one obiect of both the vowes to wit to keepe chastitie the acts shall bee of the same nature or kinde neuerthelesse the transgression of the solemne vow shall be greater by reason of the perfecter state Thus reasoneth Frier Ioseph after the opinion of other popish doctours and his discourse is euident because euerie specificall difference morall ariseth of the obiects and consequently since the obiect of vow single is one and the same with the vowe solemne the difference betweene them can no way be essentiall The sixt building All secular Priests are so free from the solemne vow annexed by the church of Rome to ecclesiasticall orders as their marriage is perfect and of force notwithstanding the supposed dissoluing impediment thereof I proue it first because Scotus Nauarre Iosephus Angles and others doe grant that this vow is onely annexed by the ordinance of the church as shall appeare more at large in the ende of this chapter I prooue it secondly because if the secular priests â—â—e votaries their vowe must either be by the worde spoken or by the deede done not the first because no such word can be proued neither the second because if the art it selfe in taking orders shoulde be the vowe annexed it would follow thereupon necessarily that the Greekes likewise should become votaries as who doe the selfe same thing Who for all that were neuer votaries as Gratianus Syluester and other popish doctours do affirme I proue it thirdly because when two things are essentially and really distinguished the grant of the one doth necessarily include the graunt of the other and yet is the solemne vow of chastitie essentially and really distinct from sacred orders as I haue proued out of Iosephus in the fourth building and as is apparant by Nauarre in his Enchiridion Gratian their owne doctour maketh this case cleere see his assertion in the next chapter in the answere to the first obiection The seauenth building The solemne vowe of chastitie imposed onely by the power of man cannot alter the institution of God and take away the liberty by him granted vnto man For proofe hereof their own deare fryer Antoninus some time archbishoppe of Florence shall suffice who telleth our holy father the Pope that God is his superiour and that he therefore cannot alter any one iâ—te of his law these are his expresse words Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel diuino iurisdictio seu potestas papalis non se extendit sic verò quod ista possit mutare vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris Deus autem superior ad papam Concerning those things which are of the law of nature or law diuine iurisdiction or papall power doth not extend it self so to wit that the pope can change these things or giue power obligatiue vnto them and the reason is because an inferiour cannot change the laws of his superior and God is superiour to the Pope Franciscus a Victoria and other learned Papists hold the same opinion but Antoninus his testimonie is sufficient The proofe of the proposition This foundation and these seauen buildings onely considered my proposition afore rehearsed will be cleare and manifest for first if single life be only imposed by the law of man as the seauenth building proueth secondly if secular priests can no way be proued votaries as in the sixt building is shewed thirdly if the vow single be of one and the selfe same nature with the solemne differing only accidentally from it as the fift building affirmeth fourthly if the solemne vow hath not force of it selfe to dissolue marriage as the fourth building teacheth fiftly if the popes dispensation can make marriage of force after the solemn vow as the third building conuinceth sixtly if marriage made after the single vow be of force as the first building declareth euidently which single vow for all that is of the same essence and nature with the solemne vow as is already said I conclude with this ineuitable illacion that the marriage not only of secular priests but euen of Monks Fryers and all religious votaries is sound perfect and of force An important obiection against the sixt proposition Refuse the youger widowes for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ they will marrie hauing damnation because they haue broken the first faith This place of S. Paule sundrie of the fathers expound of the vow of chastitie neither can it possibly admit any other sence The answere I say first that though sundrie of the fathers thinke it sinne to marrie after the vow of chastitie and that by reason of this place yet doth the same fathers repute such marriages to be true and perfect matrimonie for saint Epiphanius writeth in this manner Melius est itaque vnum peccatum habere non plura melius est lapsum à cursu palam sibi vxorem sumere secundum legem à virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci velut qui mala operatus est velut lapsuâ— fractum obligatione opus habentem non quotidie occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitaete quae à Diabolo ipsi infertur It is better therfore to haue one sin not many it is better for one that is fallen from his course openly to marrie a wife according to the law and to repent a long time from his virginitie and so to be restored againe into the church as one tha hath done wickedly as one that is fallen and broken and hath need of binding vp and not to be daily wounded with the secret darts of that wickednes which the diuell putteth in him Thus writeth Epiphâ—nius shewing plainely to the reader that he condemneth not the marriage in vowed persons monkes or nunnes but the falling from their gudly purpose S. Cyprian hauing sharply inueyed against the licenâ—ious life of certaine deacons and vowed virgins exhorteth them at the length to marry that cannot or wil not
repraesentet totam ecclesiam vniuersalem tamen in veritate ibi non est vera ecclesia vniuersalis sed repraesentatiue quia vniuersalis ecclesia coÌ„stituitur ex collectione omnium fidelium Vnde omnes fideles orbis constituunt istam ecclesiam vniuersalem cuius caput sponsus est ipse Christus Papa auteÌ„ est vicarius Christi non verè caput ecclesiae vt 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 Vnde possibile est quòd vera fides Christi remaneret in vno solo ita quod verum est dicere quod fides non deficit in ecclesia Sequitur Christus ante passionem orauerat pro Perro vt noÌ„ deficeret fides sua ergo non dicitur deficere nec etiam errare si remanet vera fides in vno solo For concerning matters of faith euen the iudgement of one that is a meere lay man ought to be preferred before the sentence of the pope if that lay person could bring better reasons out of the old and new testament then did the pope And it skilleth not if one say that a councel cannot erre because Christ praied for his church that it should not faile For I say that although a general councel represent the whole vniuersall church yet in trueth there is not truely the vniuersall Church but representatiuely For the vniuersall church consisteth of the collection of all the faithful Whereupon all the faithfull in the world make this church vniuersall wherof Christ himself is the head The pope is the vicar of Christ but not truely the head of the church as noteth the glosse vpon the Clementines which saith notably that when the pope is dead the Church wanteth not an head and this is that Church which cannot erre Whereupon it is possible that the true faith of Christ might remaine in one alone and so it may truely be said y t the faith faileth not in the church Christ before his passion praied for Peter that his faith should not faile therefore the church is not said to faile neither to erre so long as the true faith abideth in one onely Out of these wordes I note first that by the opinion of the great Papist Panormitan a meere lay mans iudgement euen in matters of faith ought to be accepted and receiued before the popes constitution if the lay man bring better reasons out of the scriptures then the pope doth Which saying doubtlesse is the foundation of the doctrine this day established in the church of England in all other reformed churches throughout the world Neither doe we craue more of the papistes then their owne doctors will affoord vs. I note secondly that a generall councell may erre because it is not the catholike or vniuersall church indeed I note thirdly that that church which cannot erre is not the visible companie of pastors and doctors but the inuisible societie of all the faithfull in the worlde Where by inuisible I meane not that any of the elect is inuisible in his corporal consistence but that the vniuersall congregation of the faithfull as vniuersall is inuisible that is to say that no one mortall man seeth or knoweth all true beleeuers in the church In which sense is truely verified the saying of Elias when hee cried out that he only was left alone For albeit it be true that there was a visible church in Iudea vnder the good kinges Asa and Iosaphat euen when Elias made his complaint that he was left alone and although also that Abdias had told Elias that hee had hid an C. prophets by L. in a caue so as Elias could not be ignoraunt of a visible church in the worlde yet is it most true with all this that the vniuersall church as vniuersall was inuisible to Elias and that there were many thousandes of true beleeuers euen then in Samaria whom â—lias neither saw nor knew And therefore did God answere him saying I haue reserued to my selfe seuen thousand men which haue not bowed the knee to Baall I note fourthly that howsoeuer the visible bishops and pastors erre yet doth not the vniuersal church erre so long as the faith remaineth in any one whosoeuer I note fiftly that as in the time of Elias there were seuen thousand faithfull persons whom he knew not euen so were there in those daies when Martin Luther began his reformation many thousandes among the papists that sincerely beleeued the gospel whom hee neither saw nor knew The 6 replie The scripture telleth vs that the church cannot erre For as the Apostle saith it is the house of the liuing God the pillar and ground of trueth Therefore either Gods apostle teacheth false doctrine or els doubtlesse the trueth must euer be in the church The answere I answere that the true church of God which is the mysticall body of Christ doth neuer erre wholly and generally in the fundamentall pointes of religion and such as are necessary for our saluation I say first the true church of God because the societie of the visible pastors are not euer the mysticall members of Christ. I say secondly wholly and generally because albeit the trueth may faile for a time in the pastors of the church yet shall it neuer perish in the elect and true members thereof For though particular churches may erre in particular pointes yet shall the whole church neuer erre in the articles of necessary doctrine Though the elect may erre in part and at sometime yet shal they neuer erre either all generally or any one finally For whom and in respect of whom the church is rightly called the pillar of trueth This my exposition is made good by the testimonie of S. Austen whose words be these SecundaÌ„ ergo Sabbathi non debemus intelligere nisi ecclesiaÌ„ Christi sed ecclesiaÌ„ Christi in sanctis ecclesiam Christi in his qui scripti sunt in coelo ecclesiaÌ„ Christi in â—is qui mundi huius tentationibus non cedunt Ipsi enim digni sunt nomine firmameÌ„ti ergo ecclesia Christi in his qui firmi sunt appellata est firmamentum quae est in quit ecclesia dei viui columna firmamentum veritatis Therefore we may not vnderstand the second of the sabboth to bee any other then the church of Christ yet the church of Christ in the saints the church of Christ in those which are not ouercome with the tentations 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 firme which is saith hee the church of the liuing God the piller 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 veritie it selfe
seculi consummationem futura est quis non intelligaâ— sicut eis 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 ianuâ—â— 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 shalbe my witnesses in Hierusalem and in al Iurie and in Samaria euen to the vtmost parts of the world as if they onely to whom he then spoke should haue accomplished so great a matter but as he seemeth to haue said onely to them that which hee said in these words behold I am with you to the worlds end Which thing neuerthelesse euery one perceiueth that he spoke it to the vniuersal church which by the death of some and by the birth of other some shall continue to the worlds end euen as hee saith that to them which doth nothing at all pertaine to them and yet is it so spoken as if it onely pertained to them to wit when yâ—â— shall see these things come to passe knowe that it is neare 〈◊〉 the doores For to whome doth this pertaine but to those who shall then bee liuing when all thinges shall bee accomplished In these words Saint Austen proueth plainly that this obiection wherin the papists glory so greatly make th◠〈◊〉 for them for saith hee these words alreadie recited one spoken to the whole congregation of the faithfull which are or shall be to the worlds end and this Saint Austen sheweth by two reasons First because not onely the Apostles but others together with them should be his witnesses in Hierusalem and Samaria albeit Christ spoke that of them touching the bearing witnesse of him as he spoke this to them concerning his spiritual presence And therefore as hee spoke the other to all the faithful so did he also this that is promised his inuisible presence not onely to the Apostles or pastors of the church but euen to all the faithful in the world Secondly because Christ spoke that to his Apostles as pertaining onely to them which for al that did nothing at al concerne them as if he had saide it is not a good reason to denie Christs presence to the whole church because hee vttered the words onely to the Apostles For since hee spoke that to the Apostles which pertained nothing to them but onely to others much more might he speake that to them which belonged to them with others The eight replie Christ himselfe saith that the holy ghost shal teach the Apostles al trueth euen many things whereof they were not capable then and therefore did he be serue those things till the comming of the holy ghost The answere I answere that the holy ghost after Christs ascension taught the Apostles al truth euen such things as Christ had reserued and that by reason of their â—uditie and imperfection in conceiâ—â—â—g heauenly doctrine yet those things so reserued and the truth so taught was nothing else but a manifest explication of the selfe same veritie which they in briefe before had heard For the holy ghost did coyne no new doctrine nor reueale anie new articles of faith but onely taught the Apostles the true sâ—nse of Christs words which before for their dulnesse they were not able to perceiue which sense they being directed by the instinct of the holy ghost deliuered to the whole world first by word and afterward by writing Al this I proue by two euident demonstrations first because Christ himself doth so expouÌ„d himself in these words folowing He shal teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you which saying must bee wel noted because the latter words are a plaine declaration of the former as if Christ had said all things which the holy ghost shall teach the apostles after my departure are no newe doctrine but the very same things which they heard before of me and they differ onely in this that the Apostles doe more plainely vnderstand them by the assistance of the holy ghost Secondly because the best learned popish doctors do holde the same opinion For Melchior Canus hath these words Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes ecclesia habet for the church hath no new reuelations in matters of faith Thus saith Christ himselfe and thus teacheth their owne doctour and yet would the papists enforce vs daily to admit new doctrines from the church of Rome The ninth replie Peter is the rocke of the church against which hell-gates shall neuer preuaile therfore Saint Peters successors can neuer erre The answere I answere that not Saint Peter but the confession which he made is that rocke of the church against which hell gates shal not preuaile And this is not my opinion onely but Saint Beda Saint Austen Saint Chrysostome Saint Hylarie and sundrie verie learned papists doe teach the same doctrine constantly These are Saint Austens wordes Tu es Petrus super hanc petram quam confessus es super hanc petram quam cognouisti dicens tu es Christus filius Dei viui aedificabo ecclesiam meam Id est super meipsum filium Dei viui aedificabo ecclesiam meam super me edificabo te non me super te thou art Peter saith Christ and vppon this rocke which thou hast confessed vpon this rocke which thou hast acknowledged saying thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God will I build my church that is vpon my selfe the sonne of the liuing God will I build my church vppon my selfe will I build thee not my selfe vpon thee Saint Chrysostome writeth thus Columnae quidem quoniam virtute sua ecclesiae robur sunt fundamentum quòd in confessione insorum fundata est ecclesia dicente domino Tu es Petrus super hanc petram fundabo ecclesiam meam The Apostles are the pillers because by their vertue they are the strength of the Church they are the foundation because the Church is built in their confession when the Lorde saieth thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my church Loe this text vpon which the Papists build their popish primacie is vnderstood of all the Apostles not of Peter alone neither is the church built vpon any of their persons but vpon the ioynt confession of them all for Peter made the confession in the name of them all as Saint Chrysostome truely saith which confoundeth the Papists vtterly S. Hylarie hath these words Haec fides ecclesiae fundamentum est per hanc fidem infirmae aduersus eam sunt portae inferorum haec fides regni caelestis habet claues this faith is the foundation of the church by this faith hell gates shall not preuaile against it this faith hath the keyes of heauen The receiued popish glosse vpon this text doth
Peters sucâ—essor and I haue already prooued it effectually I say secondly that all Christs sheepe were committed to all the apostles in like manner For Christ gaue all his apostles charge and authoritie to go into all the worlde and to teach all nations Which answer saint Austen sheweth excellently in the person of saint Peter to be accomplished his owne words are these Ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus cùm ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur amas me pasce oues meas Peter representeth the person of the church catholique and when it is said to him it is said to all Louest thou me Feede my sheepe Loe the popish bulwarke is battered downe CHAP. III. Of the marriage of priests and ministers of the church The first Proposition AL Ministers which are not papists nor subiect to the lawes and rules of Poperie may lawfully marry euen by the doctrine of the Church of Rome albeit the vulgar sorte of Papists most bitterly exclaime against the same I proue it because all such ministers are meere lay men by the iudgement of the church of Rome which church for all that onely debarreth persons ecclesiasticall from the freedome of honourable wedlocke This probation is so euident as no learned papist can or will denie the same Peruse the end of the seauenth proposition following and it will satisfie thee in all respects The second Proposition Marriage was lawfull for all priests and other ministers of the church during all the time of the olde Testament This proposition is cleere to all such as diligently reuolue the holie Bibles neither doe I know any learned papist that by worde or writing denyeth the same For the holie prophet Ieremie was the son of Helkiah who was one of the priests that were at Anathoth Hophni and Phinehas were the sonnes of Heli the priest Sephora was the daughter of Iethro the priest of Midian and Saint Iohn Baptist was the sonne of Zacharias the priest to whome the angell of God was sent to bring him glad tidings The tidings were these that Elizabeth his wife should beare him a sonne albeit she was barren and well stricken in age And he receiued the message while he was occupied in prayer and in burning of incense at the right side of the alâ—are Whereby it clearely appeareth how acceptable the marriage of priests was then in Gods sight For first Saint Iohn was a very holie man and the precursor of our Sauiour Christ. Secondly Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both iust and walked in Gods commaundements without reproofe Thirdly the angell of God was sent to Zacharias to tell him that his wife should conceiue and beare him a sonne Fourthly this message was brought him euen then when he executed his priestly function All which circumstances well obserued do proue vndoubtedly that the marriages of priests are honourable in Gods sight The third Proposition Marriage is lawfull for priests and other ministers of the church euen now in the time of the new testament Where by the word priests I vnderstand all such as are admitted to preach Gods worde and to administer the holy sacraments This proposition may be prooued by many waightie and important reasons First because no text in the new Testament can be alleadged which debarreth the ministers thereof from the benefite of marriage graunted in the olde If any Papist will say that there is some such text in the new testament let him shew that text and wee will beleeue him In the meane season hee must pardon vs if wee giue not credite to his words Secondly because the apostle prooueth in two seuerall places that all priests may be married Where what I meane by priests is already shewed The first place is that reason which Saint Paule maketh to Timothie and is contained in these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop therefore must be vnreproueable the husband of one wife This text of holy scripture if it be throughly marked doeth plainely conuince that it is lawfull for a Bishop to marry Let vs therefore exactly examine the true meaning and sense thereof The Papists to maintaine their diabolicall doctrine of single life would rack this text to those wiues which bishops had before they were admitted to ecclesiasticall function but that is a forced and violent exposition contrary to the true meaning of the apostle For Saint Paule among other vertues conuenient for a Bishoppe requireth this for one that hee bee not coupled to more wiues then one at once Nneither is it possible to imagine any other true sense of this present text For first it is not of necessitie that a bishop haue a wife and yet doth the Apostle say that hee must be the husband of one wife For both they and wee agree in this that one may be a lawfull bishop and yet liue vnmarried Againe the apostle speaketh in the present tence must be the wife and not must haue been the wife so that the glosse of the papistes must needes be false who expound the wordes of the time already past Thirdly the Apostles wordes must needes be verified of mariage in some sense But first it cannot be meant of mariage already past because the verbe is of the time present Again it cannot be meant of the necessitie of marriage because a Bishop may lawfully liue vnmarried Therefore thirdly this must needes be the true meaning thereof to wit that a bishop may marry if he list but yet not haue many wiues at one and the same time as the Iewes and the Gentiles had And to this exposition doe accord not only S. Chrysostome and Theophilact but also their owne deere Cardinall Caietane S. Chrysostome hath these expresse wordes Non hoc veluti sanciens dicit quasi non liceat absque vxore episcopum fieri sed eius rei modum constituens Iudaeis quippe licitum erat etiam secundo matrimonio iungi duas itidem simul habere vxores honorabiles enim nuptiae 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 behalfe For the Iewes might not only be twise married but also haue two wiues at once For marriage is an honourable thing The apostle therefore speaketh against Polygamie Yea S. Hierome confesseth that sundry writers expound this place against the Polygamie of the Iewes The same S. Chrysostome in another place hath these golden words Obstruere prorsus intendit haereticorum ora qui nuptias damnant ostendens eam rem culpâ carere imo ita esse pretiosam vt cum ipsa etiam possit quispiam ad sanctum episcopatus solium sâ—buehi The Apostle intendeth to confound the heretiques that condemne marriage declaring that it is faultlesse and a thing so pretious as a man may with it be promoted to the holy function of a bishop Thus saith S. Chrysostome whose wordes are so
intercession before God it shal not be a thing inconuenient Out of which sayinges of Origen I note first that he speaketh only of the praiers which saintes in heauen make for vs and not one word of our praying to them I note secondly that to holde that the saintes in heauen doe pray for vs is not a constant position in Origens doctrine but only an opinion and disputable question I proue it because he saith arbitror I think Again because he saith non erit inconueniens it shal not be incoÌ„uenient Thirdly because he saith audiuâ— ita dicentem I heard one say so The fiâ—st obiection Origen in his book de paenitentia saith y t he will fall prostrate on his knees and inuocate all the saintes in heauen that they will helpe him because he dare not pray to God for himselfe The answere I say first that this assertion fathered vpon Origen will confute it selfe for how could Origen or anie faithfull christian be in feare humbly to inuocate our most mercifull God who willeth all to come to him that are in distresse who promiseth to heare all those that in their trouble call vpon him Who graunteth to vs whatsoeuer we aske in his sonnes name who hath appointed his sonne to make intercession for vs. I say secondly that this booke alledged in the obiection is not Origens but a plaine counterfeit And I prooue it effectually because their owne pope Gelasius hath so resolued The 2. obiection Origen saith that the fathers of the churche appointed the feast day of the holy Innocentes and that by the will of God that so their intercession might profite their parentes The answere I say first that if all this were graunted it could but at the most proue that the saints pray for vs which in a good sense may be admitted For I willingly graunt that the saintes in heauen doe in generall maner and termes pray for vs that is that they wishe vs to perseuere in the true faith and feare of God and y t in the end we may be partakers with theÌ„ of eternal glory I say secondly that sundry learned men doe thinke these homilies from whence this obiection is taken not to be any part of Origens workes I say thirdly that if Origen doe make that a constant doctrine in one place which he graunteth to be a disputable question in another place what remaineth but to thinke his opinion therein to be of no force I say fourthly that the papistes as their Ruffinus recordeth will admit nothing in Origen which disliketh them but reiect all such stuffe as infarsed into his workes by the heretickes Let them therefore giue vs leaue also to reiect in Origen if in any place he seeme to approoue inuocation of saintes as that which is infarsed by the heretickes specially because in other places he teacheth the contrary doctrine The fift Canon About 20. yeares after that Origen had doubtfully disputed the praying of saintes for vs S. Cyprian and S. Cornelius set down that point resolutely as standing no longer in doubt therof to wit that the saintes in heauen doe pray for the liuing here on earth For they made this couenaut that whether of them soeuer should die the first should pray for his brethren and sisters yet liuing These are S. Cyprians owne wordes Et si quis istinc nostrum prior diuinae dignationis celeritate praecesserit perseueret apud dominum nostra dilectio pro fratribus sororib apud misericordiam patris noncesset oratio And if either of vs shall through Gods mercie die before the other let our loue continue still in Gods sight let vs not cease to desire the fauour of God for our brethren and sisters yet liuing Thus saith S. Cyprian Out of whose wordes I note first that to be established in his time which was but in opinion and doubtfull case in the daies of Origen To wit that the saintes in heauen pray for vs here on earth I note secondly that the inuocation of saintes in heauen was neither established in saint Cyprians time neither once called into question I note thirdly that popish inuocation of Saintes sprung vp by little and little from one degree to another The sixt Canon About an hundreth yeares after S. Cyprian which was about 350. yeares after Christ some of the fathers by rhetoricall apostrophees did applie their orations to the dead as if they had been liuing Of which sort were S. Basill and saint Gregory Nazianzene who though they did but inuocate the saints figuratiuely and of a certain excessiue zeale yet did such their inuocations minister occasion to the papistes of all their superstition in that behalfe These are the wordes of S. Gregory Nazianzene Audite populi tribus linguae homines omnes cuâ—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 Heare O people kinreds tongues nations ages whosoeuer are now liuing or shalbe borne hereafter Let also the soule of Constantine the Great heare all the christian godly soules of the Emperors before him if the dead perceiue any thing at all And againe in another place he thus writeth At ô pascha magnum inquam sacro sanctum pascha totiusque mundi piaculum te enim quasi vita praeditum alloquor But O Passeouer the great I say and sacred Passeouer and the purgation of the whole world For I call vpon thee as if thou hadst life Thus writeth Nazianzene by whose wordes we may measure both the rest of his sayings and of the other fathers First therefore I note that hee doth inuocate aswell senselesse thinges as reasonable soules Secondly hee calleth vpon the soules of all the people in the world whereof some were damned in the bottome of hell and so could not heare as euery learned papist will admit Thirdly he inuocateth those that are yet vnborne Vpon these sandie foundations are built all popish superstitious inuocations The 7. Canon Catholique doctrine is that as Vincentius Lyrinensis who liued aboue a thousand yeares agoe defineth it which hath been receiued constantly of al the faithful at al times and in all places Which Vincentius is and euer was of great reputation with and amongst al learned papists and consequently since popish inuocation of Saintes neither was constantly receiued of all the faithfull neither in all places neither at al times as which was not heard of for many hundreth yeares after Christ it cannot be deemed catholicke doctrine no not by popishe proceeding This Canon ought to be well remembred as which of it selfe ouerthroweth al Romish religion An obiection S Chrysostomes Masse which was generally vsed in the Greeke church maketh expresse mention of the inuocation of Saintes and the same doctrine is taught in sundry places of his workes The
neuer cease to impeach accuse slaunder and condemne vs in this behalfe yet do we defend nothing heerein but that which their owne best Doctors and printed bookes doe teach vs yea euen such bookes as are dedicate to the Popes holinesse himselfe The conceites which this Bishop alledgeth to make good his intended purpose are childish and too too friuolous For first where hee sayth that the Fathers speake of good workes onely in respect of their naturall valure as hee tearmeth it I aâ—nswere that that glosse and exposition is onely inuented by him and his fellowes to salue their beggerly doctrine if it wold be For besides y t no father saith so they repute al works before grace meere sin as I haue prooued out of Austen And our Bishop vnwittingly confuteth himselfe of such force is the trueth when he graunteth that good works done in grace are vnworthy of heauen if Gods promise be set apart For if they merite ex condigno as he auoucheth then doubtlesse promise couenant and mercie is altogither needlesse Secondly where the bishop fleeth to distributiue iustice so to establishe the merite of workes I answere that both the fathers and his fellowes are against him yea euen Aquinas himselfe For they vnderstand iustice commutatiue and require arithmetical equalitie And if Geometricall proportion were to be admitted yet should greater equalitie be required then can be found between our workes and eternall life The 9 obiection Ye brag that the merite of good workes cannot be found in all the Scripture But therein you belie both vs and the holy scripture For in the booke of Ecclesiasticus I finde these expresse wordes Omnis misericordia faciet locum vnicuique secundum meritum operum suorum All mercie shall make place to euerie one according to the merite of his workes Loe here is made expresse mention of the merite of his good workes The answere I say first that the booke of Ecclesiasticus is not canonicall Scripture as which was not found written in the holy tongue I say secondly that it is not for nothing that your late councel of Trent hath so magnified your Latine vulgata editio For such stuffe as this it doth affoord you in time of neede I say thirdly that in the originall and Greeke text your worde merite may long seeke for lodging before it finde any For these are the expresse wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Make place to all almes for euerie one shall find according to his workes The 10. obiection One Scripture saith that if we giue almes all things are pure vnto vs. Another scripture saith that charitie couereth the multitude of sinnes And it is frequent with the holy fathers that good workes deliuer vs from hell The answere I say first that S. Luke reprooueth y e extortions of the Pharisies exhorteth them to works of charitie As if he had said not vnwashed handes make you eate vncleanly but your wicked extortions Vse therefore charitie and giue almes to the poore and then your soules shalbe cleane though the platter be vnwashed This sense is gathered out of the verses aforegoing I say secondly that almesdeedes and other good works proceeding of faith do neither merite nor iustifie as is prooued but yet they are testimonies before men that wee be iustified by faith through the merites of Christ Iesus For which respect iustification is often ascribed vnto them as to the effects therof I say thirdly that the fathers in many places doe speake of temporal remission which often is graunted for almes deeds and the like The replie If good workes can neither iustifie nor merite then is it but a vaine thing to exercise our selues therein The answere I say first that thus to say and thinke is a probable signe of the reprobate who hath no feeling of Gods holy spirite but is become senselesse in all spirituall contemplation I say secondly that albeit good workes doe neither iustifie nor merite in proper kinde of speech yet be there many good and necessary causes why we should doe good workes First because God is glorified therein Therefore saith Christ let your light so shine before men that they may see your good workes and glorifie your father which is in heauen Secondly because by good workes we shew our gratitude loue towards God Therfore saith Christ If ye loue me keep my coÌ„mandements Thirdly because it is the end for which we were created Therfore saith the apostle For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath ordained that we should walke in them Fourthly because they are necessary effectes of our predestination and consequently yeeld and euident morall certitude both to our selues to our neighbours that we are y e childreÌ„ of God Therfore saith the apostle There is no coÌ„demnation to theÌ„ y t are in Christ Iesus which walk not after y e flesh but after the spirite as if hee had said Who soeuer are the childreÌ„ of God cannot but liue after Gods holy lawes Which is the selfe same doctrine that Christ himselfe taught vs saying If ye shall keepe my commaundementes yee shall abide in my loue as I haue kept my fathers commandement and abide in his loue And S. Iohn confirmeth the same in these wordes In this wee know that we loue the children of God when we loue God and keepe his commandementes For this is the loue of God that we keep his commandementes So then if we keep Gods commandementes it is an euident signe that we loue God and that by faith wee are of his free mercie made his children for the merites and righteousnesse of Christ Iesus See more hereof in the eleuenth preamble in my first booke of Motiues The 8 conclusion Although good workes doe neither merite grace in this life nor glorie in the life to come as which are imperfect polluted with sinne and in rigour of iustice worthy of condemnation as is alreadie prooued yet because God hath decreed in his eternal counsel to bring vs to heauen by them as by ordinary meanes and right fruites of a sound christian faith they may in a godly sense be termed The secundary instrumentall cause of eternall life but in no sense the cause of mans iustification Explico I say of mans iustification because the latter can neuer be the cause of the former and consequently good workes following our iustification as the immediate fruites thereof can by no meanes possible be the cause of the same In regard whereof S. Austen as in many other thinges so in this point saide very learnedly Quòd opera non praecedunt iustificandum sed sequuÌ„tur iustificatum That workes doe not go before iustification but followe him that is iustified I say of eternall life because when there be many gradual effectes of one and the same cause then the former may fitly be termed the materiall cause of the latter that is as the schooles terme it Causa sine qua non
that body in his handes such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen By whose words it is euident that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples was his true reall naturall body euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary For first he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could not do to wit that he did beare himselfe in his own hands Secondly he saith that this was done literally euen as the words do sound Thirdly he coÌ„mendeth Christs great humility in that fact Now it is cleare y t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely it might be well verified in Dauid for Dauid might haue born the picture figure or image of his owne body in his hands yea this he might haue done literally haue shewed no humilitie therin But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands saith saint Austen as no man can do the like This reason is inuincible all protestants in the world cannot answere the same The answere I say first that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible and so my selfe haue sometime thought I say secondly that if S. Austen should so meane as you gather of these words he should contradict himself in many other places as is already proued and consequently his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth a little after expound his owne meaning in these expresse words Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod 〈◊〉 fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est corpus meuÌ„ And he was borne in his hands How was he borne in his hands because when he commended his owne body and his blood hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide This is my body Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde quadammodo after a sorte for Christ had his true reall and natural bodie in his handes after a sort that is sacramentally when he said This is my body He had his 〈◊〉 body in his hands but it was after a sort not simplie but sacramentally not naturally but mystically not carnally I say fourthly that neither Dauid nor any other creature coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands For as Aquinas Victoria Antoninus Couarruuias Bellarminus and all learned papists grant no mortall man can institute any sacrament and so no mortal man being pure man could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands I say fiftly that greater humilitie coulde not be then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body bloud as a seale of our reconciliation and of his beneuolence towards vs. All this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place where he hath these words Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me â—rucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and drinke that blood which they shal shed that will crucifie me I haue commended a sacrament to you which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you The second obiectâ—on S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie in most plaine and manifest tearmes Thus doeth he write Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples being chaÌ„ged not in shape but in nature became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word Lo bread was changed not in shape or figure which our sense telleth vs to be so but in nature or substance as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed euen into flesh and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present in flesh bloud and bone But if it were otherwise the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse which yet Saint Cyprian saieth is it that worketh this mightie change If yee yeeld not to this testimonie ye shew your selfe to be obstinate The answere I say first that the grosse and carnal sense of these words did wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was I say secondly that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde haue him hee should bee contrarie to himselfe For hee affirmeth it to be true wine which Christ gaue to his Apostles I haue already alleaged his expresse words peruse them and marke them well I say thirdly that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely expounded then when his owne meaning in one place is gathered out of his owne words in another place That therefore all his words may be consonant one to another we must ioine antecedent to consequent former to latter and one place to another This done wee shal finde with facilitie that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration and that by the word nature hee meaneth natural properties Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius concerning this question nowe in hand Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Infrà Nostra vero ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Iterum sicut panis communis quem quotidie edimus vita est corporis ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae sanitas mentis Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in tâ—rris eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis non ministerio corporali And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ and the diuinitie hidden euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably in the visible sacrament For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons nor yet vniteth substances but procureth fellowship in affection and agreement in willes And as the common bread which wee eate daily is the life of the body so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule and the health of the minde We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen and that without help of the body Out of these wordes I note first that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament but so is noâ— his bodie or humanitie and consequently that Christ is not there in inuisible carnall presence I note secondly that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances but affections and willes and yet should our bodies be
that we are indeed made Christes body yet that is not done really or corporallie but in a spirituall and diuine sort And because none can expound S. Chrysostome better then himselfe let vs seriously examine his owne interpretation These are his wordes a little before from whence this obiection is taken 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 sensibâ—lis est donum illud conceditur quod autem in ea conficitur regeneratio scilicet ac renouatio 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 ô quot modò dicunt veblem formam speciem eius vellem vestimenta ipsa vellâ—m calciamenta videre Ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Vestimenta eius desideras videre ipse verò seipsam tibi tradidit non vt videas solum verum etiam vt tangas in te habeas Because therefore hee said this is my body let vs not stand in doubt but let vs beleeue and behold it with the eies of our vnderstanding For Christ gaue vs no sensible thing but spirituall things with sensible thinges and all thinges that he gaue vs are insensible So in baptisme by the water which is a sensible thing that gift is giuen but that that is done in the water to wit regeneration and renouation is a certaine intelligible or spirituall thing For if thou were incorporall hee would haue giuen thee incorporall giftes barely and not hidden but because thy soule is coupled with thy body intelligible thinges are giuen thee in things sensible Oh how many now a daies say I woulde see his forme shape I would see his garmentes I woulde see his shooes Thou therefore seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him Thou desirest to see his garments but he hath giuen himselfe to thee not that thou maiest see him onelie but also that thou maiest touch him and haue him within thee These are the wordes of this auncient father and learned writer which I haue cited at large though they be somewhat tedious because they are able to confound the papistes euen in this argument which they deeme insoluble when due application shalbe made thereof I therfore note first that all giftes giuen vs by Christ in his sacramentes are spirituall and to be receiued by faith I note secondly that though the thinges giuen vs bee insensible yet are they giuen in such things as be sensible and the reason hereof is because our selues are sensible I note thirdly that as the gift in baptisme is incorporall and spirituall euen so is the gift in the Eucharist I note fourthly y t Christ is so present as he is seen touched and possessed but the papistes neither can see him nor touche him in their fondly conceiued reall presence S. Chrysostome therefore speaking of that kinde of presence by which Christ is seene and touched must needes vnderstand that spirituall kinde of presence which we defend according to the Scriptures S. Chrysostome will yet tell vs his meaning more plainly if it possibly can be done Thus doth hee 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 wordes which Christ spake are the same which priests now pronounce euen so is it the same oblation and there is the same reason of baptisme all things doe so depend of faith Again in another place thus Haec omnia carnalia quae mysticè spiritualiter intelligenda sunt Infrà quid est carniliter intelligere simpliciter vt res dicuntur neque aliud quippiam excogitare Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur sed mysteria omnia interioribus oculis consideranda hoc est spiritualiâ—er Al these things are carnall which must be vnderstood mystically and spiritually What is it to vnderstand carnally simply as the things are spoken neither to thinke any other thing For they must not so be iudged which are seene but all mysteries must be considered with the interiour eyes that is spiritually S. Bernard though hee were a monke and liued in the altitude of popery yet is he sincere as in many other thinges so in this point of doctrine These are his wordes Adest enim nobis etiam nunc carnis ipsius vera substantia haud dubium sanè quin in sacramento Adsunt reuelationes sed spiritu virtute Infrà sed quomodo eum etiam nunc habet ecclesia in fide sacramentis For y e true substance of his flesh is euen now present with vs there is no doubt but it is in y e sacrament We haue reuelations present but in spirit and verity But as the church hath him euen now in faith and sacramentes Loe we haue and receiue the true flesh of Christ but in spirite and veritie but in faith and sacramentes This assertion of their owne beloued Bernard is doubtlesse our constant doctrine The popish approoued glosse teacheth vs the same doctrine For these are the expresse words therof 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 vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significati mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significatur The heauenly sacrament which is on the altar is called vnproperly the body of Christ as baptisme is vnproperly called faith The heauenly sacrament which truely representeth Christes fleshe is called the body of Christ but improperly Whereupon he saith suo modo after it owne maner but not in the trueth of the thing but in the mysterie of that which is signified that this be the sense it is called Christes body that is to say it is the signe of Christes body The 4. obiection Christ saith plainly this is my body and not this is a signe or this doth signifie my body Hee meant nothing lesse then to vse tropes and figures in the institution of this holy sacrament The answere I say first that the case is so plaine as no papist in Europe can deny that Christ vsed a trope or figure in the institution of this sacrament For these are the words of the institution This cup is the newe testament in my bloud In which wordes the trope or figure called Metonymia doth twise occurre