The suruey of popery vvherein the reader may cleerely behold, not onely the originall and daily incrementes of papistrie, with an euident confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of Gods Church from Adam vntill Christs ascension, contained in the first and second part thereof: and throughout the third part poperie is turned vp-side downe.

CHAP. V. Of popish pardons, and the originall thereof.

I Haue spoken so copiously of popish pardons, in my booke of Motiues; as much more shall not be needfull, in this place. There I prooued by the testimonie of Roffensis, Syluester, and other popish doctors, that popish pardons are not grounded in or vpon the word of god; as also that they crept into the church, long after Christes ascension into heauen.

* 1.1Bonifacius the eight of that name, (who began his pope∣dome as a foxe, continued in it, as a wolf, and ended it as a dog, their owne writers Platina and Carranza so affirming) was the first bishop of Rome, that euer tooke vpon him to pardon sinne by publique bulles. He appointed a Iubilee, and graun∣ted full remission of al sinnes,* 1.2 to such as would come in pilgri∣mage to Rome. Their owne Platina hath these expresse wordes: Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo, quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat, qui limina apostolorum visitassent, ad exemplum veteris testa∣menti. (Pope Boniface) brought againe the Iubilee, after 1300. yeares, and gaue full pardon of all sinnes to those that did visite S. Peters Church (in Vaticano at Rome,) after

the example of the olde lawe. Out of these words I note first, that the old iubilee was neuer heard of in Christs church til the [ 1] time of Bonifacius our Iewish pope. I proue it by the word (retulit) he brought again (from the Iewes.) I note secondly, that the church was free frō popish pardons, the space of 1300 [ 2] yeares, so as popish pardons are not yet 300. yeares old, albe∣it sillie people do so magnifie the same. I note thirdly, that this pope pardoned not only the paine, but euen the sin it selfe, yea [ 3] all sinnes whatsoeuer. Though our latter papists to hide their shame if it could be, do violently interpret him of the pain. I note fourthly, that this good father Maliface brought again the Iewish ceremonial law. I note fiftly, that the remission of [ 4] the olde law (which they pretend apishly to imitate) was not of sins, but of debts, lands, bondage, & such like, which the pope [ 5] vseth not to pardon:* 1.3 and yet forsooth he would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe.

Two hundreth yeares after this, that is, 1500. yeares after Christ, pope Alexander the sixt appointed his Iubilee,* 1.4 and like pardons, not onely for comming to Rome, but to all persons in all places wheresoeuer. So writeth their own Polydore, and Platina accordeth therunto: for the rest see my Motiues in this point.

The first obiection.

The church of God vsed to giue pardons,* 1.5 aboue a thousand and two hundred yeares sithence, as appeareth by the great councell of Nice, and by other ancient synods. Yea S. Grego∣rie gaue pardon, to al those that did visit the churches at Rome

The answere.

I say first, that Emperors, kings, absolute princes, & com∣mon [ 1] weales independent, may lawfully pardon malefactours, the due circumstances of times, places and persons wel consi∣dered: and so may one neighbour pardon an other, for trespas∣ses done vnto him. I say secondly, that in the primitiue church, [ 2] such as were notorius offenders, & had giuen publike scandall to y^e church, were inioyned by the church, to do publike penance for their publike faults, before they could be admitted into the church again. Which thing is this day obserued in all reformed churches abroad, and in all particular churches (God be than∣ked for it) throughout the Realme of England.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that in the ancient churches, many yeares of penance (or publike exercises of humiliation) were ordained for euerie publike grieuous offence. Whereupon it followed, that when many penitent persons gaue euident tokens of tru inter∣nal remorse, for their former scandalous conuersation; then the church thought good to giue to such persons, some relaxatiō of their so inioyned publike penance: which maner of pardoning is plainely acknowledged in the holy councel of Nice. These are the expresse words. De his qui praeter necessitatem praeuari∣cati sunt,* 1.6 aut propter ablationem facultatum, aut propter peri∣culum, aut aliquid huiusmodi, quod factum est sub tyrannide Li∣cini••; placuit sanctae synodo licet sint indigni misericordia, tamē aliquid circa e••s humanitatis ostendi. Concerning those that haue voluntarily transgressed, or for feare to lose their worldely goods, or for danger, or anie such like occasion, as chanced in time of Licinius his persecution; to such although they be vn∣worthie of mercie, yet is it the holy councels mind, to graunt them some pardon or relaxation in that behalfe.

In the councel of Arles, and in the councell of Ancyra, the like pardon is granted to penitent offenders:* 1.7 of which kind of pardons, the ancient fathers Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Eusebius, Sozomenus, and others, do often make relation. Yea, of this sort were the pardons that Saint Gregorie gaue: but of late popish pardons, that is, of applying to whom they list, & when they list, as well to the liuing as to the dead, the merites of Christ and of his saints, as condigne satisfaction for their sins: for of such pardons no councell, no father, no ancient approued Historiographer, maketh any mention at all. Which thing I haue plainely proued, in the third conclusion of the second chap∣ter of my Motiues.

The second obiection.

The keyes of heauen were giuen to Saint Peter, and conse∣quently to his successours the bishops of Rome,* 1.8 and withall promise was made vnto him, that whatsoeuer hee should binde on earth, the same should be bound in heauen, & whatsoeuer hee should loose on earth, should be loosed in heauen: nowe to loose sins is nothing else, but to giue a pardon or indulgence for the same.

The answere. [ 1]

I say first, that vpon the grosse interpretation of these words, many popish priests haue arrogantly & presumptuously taken vpon them like the proude pharises, to condemne the innocents and to loose the guiltie persons; whereas before God, not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the persons charged is enquired of. Thus writeth S. Hierome, adding that priests can bind and loose sinners no otherwise now in the new testament, then they did binde and loose the Leapers in the old law:* 1.9 that is, not to forgiue sinnes perfitly and indeede, but to declare by Gods word, the sinnes of penitent persons to be forgiuen in Gods sight; euen as the priests in Moses law did not purge the Leapers,* 1.10 but onely declared those whom God had purged alreadie, to be cleane and free from the leprosie: for as the go∣spel witnesseth, none but God can forgiue sinne.

I say secondly,* 1.11 that all the rest of the Apostles had the selfe same power granted to them all, which is here promised to S. [ 2] Peter: for so saith Christ himselfe in another place, where hee performeth his promise nowe made to Peter, in the person of thē al: & consequently, if the Pope could pardon, as fondly is i∣magined;* 1.12 yet might al other bishops do the same euen aswel as he. So S. Austen, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Hylary, O∣rigen, Theophilacte, and others do confesse.

I say thirdly, that S. Peter and the other Apostles haue not power granted by the scripture to forgiue sin, but onely to de∣clare and pronounce according to the scripture, that God hath forgiuen to truely penitent persons all their sins. For they can [ 3] but onely declare the sinnes to be forgiuen, which are by Christ forgiuen already, as the priests in the olde law could not purge any from the leprosie indeede, but only make declaration of the truth; as ye haue heard out of S. Hierome. The learned po∣pish Cardinal Hugo, (to the euerlasting confusion of all impe∣nitent and obstinate papists) confirmeth S. Hieromes opini∣on in these expresse words: Vinculo culpae & poenae debitae non potest••um sacerdos ligare vel soluere,* 1.13 sed tantum ligatū vel absolutū ostēdere; sicut sacerdos Leuiticus non faciebat vel mun∣dabat leprosum, sed tantum infectum vel mundū ostendebat. The priest cannot bind him with the bond of sin and due punishment,

either loose him frō the same, but only declare him to be bound or absolued (in Gods sight) euen as the Leuitical priest did not make or clense him that had the leprosie, but onely shewed him to be infected or clensed.

Their own schoole doctour Durandus singeth the same song, in these expresse words; Claues nihil operantur ad dimissionem culpae vel maculae,* 1.14 quia deordinatio actus tollitur per eius ordi∣nationem, dum bene displicet, quod malè placuit. The keyes work nothing to the remission of the fault or blemish, because the deordination of the act is taken away by well ordering the same, while that displeaseth well, which pleased euil.

Thus we see by popish grant and doctrine, that the metapho∣rical keyes (whereof the papists boast so much) can neuer put a∣way sinne, neither can any priest absolue any person from sin, or from the paine due for sinne, saue onely by declaring his sins to be forgiuen, as is said.

The replie.

* 1.15It is euident in the holy gospel, that not onely God can for∣giue sin by his own power, but men also by authority & com∣mission receiued from him: for when Christ had forgiuen the sicke man his sinnes the people maruailed, and glorified God, which had giuen such power vnto men.

The answere.

I answere, that our sauior Christ in forgiuing the sicke mans sins,* 1.16 shewed himselfe to be tru God: which maner of proofe had bin none indeed, if any but god could haue done the same, which point I wish the gentle reader to obserue attentiuely. For the Pharises charged him with blasphemy, as who not being god, yet toke vpon him the office of God, in forgiuing sins. Whose opinion for all that, Christ himselfe approued, & for ratificati∣on thereof, shewed by an euident external miracle, that he was god indeed, so as they could no longer be in suspence of y^e mat∣ter,* 1.17 but that yee may know (saith Christ) that the son of man hath power to forgiue sins (then said he to the sick of the palsie) arise, take vp thy bed, and goe into thy house; as if he had said, I confesse that I am God, and that yee may knowe the same euidently, I make the sicke man whole with mine onelie worde, which if I were not God indeede, I could neuer doe.

This case S. Chrysostome maketh so plaine, as none that once reade or heare his wordes, can stand any longer in doubt ther∣of. Thus doth he write in expresse termes. Videamus quid ip∣se ait, vtrum opinionem eorum improbauerit,* 1.18 an potius compro∣bauerit: nisi enim aequalis esset patri, dixisset; quid mihi tribui∣tis non competentem opinionem? procul ego absum à tanta pote∣state. Nunc verò nihil horum dixit, sed contra, tam verbo quam signo affirmauit. Ita quoniam solet esse audientibus molestum, vt aliquis de seipso apertius dicat, aliorum verbis & signo deum se patri{que} aequalem esse ostendit; & quod mirabilius est, non per amicos solum, verum etiam per inimicos hoc peragit, vt & vir∣tutis & sapientiae suae pelagus pateat. Let vs see what he saith, whether hee reprooued their opinion, or rather approoued the same. For if he had not been equall with his father, he woulde haue said; why doe ye ascribe to me that incompetent opinion? I am farre off from that so great power: yet now hee saith no such thing, but contrariwise affirmeth it both by word and mi∣racle. So because it is woont to bee greeuous to the hearers, that any man should speake openly of himselfe; he sheweth both by the testimonie of others and by myracle, that he is God, and equall with his father; and which is more wonderfull, this he doth not only by his friendes, but euen by his enemies, that so aswell his power as his wisdom may be known aboundantly.

Out of which words I note first, y^t Christ approued the opi∣niō of the Pharisies, who held that only God could forgiue sin. [ 1]

I note secondly, that if Christ had not been equall with God [ 2] the father, he would neuer haue taken vpon him to pardon sin; and consequently,* 1.19 that the pope who will giue a generall par∣don of al sinnes, must by S. Chrysostomes iudgement, be either as good as God, or worse then the diuell. I note thirdly, that it was needfull for Christ to shew himselfe to be God; because [ 3] otherwise he might iustly haue been charged with blasphemie, because he did pardon sin. And consequently, y^t our pope and his popish vassals, our Iesuites, moonkes, and friers, must ei∣ther prooue themselues Gods, by signes and myracles; or else confesse themselues to blaspheme God, while they remit and pardon sinne. For they all chalenge this power of remitting sinne, in their (so termed) sacrament of penance.

S. Ambrose and S. Hilary both are of the very same iudge∣ment, S. Ambrose writeth in this maner. Cognosce interioris homines sanitatem;* 1.20 cui peccata donantur: quae cum Iudaei asse∣runt à solo Deo posse concedi, Deum vtique confitentur suóque iu∣dicio perfidiam suam produnt; qui vt opus astruant, personam negant. Sequitur; magna itaque infidae plebis amentia, vt cum confessa fuerit solius dei esse donare peccata, nō credat deo pecca ta donanti. Acknowledge the curing of the inward man, whose sins are forgiuen: which when the Iewes confesse that onely God can forgiue, they doubtlesse confesse him to be God, & by their owne iudgement bewray their false faith, who to establish the work, denie the person. Great therfore is the incredulitie of faithles people, who confessing that only God can forgiue sins, doth not for all that beleeue in God that forgiueth sins.

S. Hilary hath these words; Mouet Scribas remissum ab ho∣mine peccatam;* 1.21 hominem enim tantum in Iesu Christo contueban∣tur, & remissum ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat: fides enim sola iustificat. Deinde murmurationem eorum dominus introspi∣cit, dicitque facile esse filio hominis in terra peccata dimittere: verum enim nemo potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus; ergo qui remittit, Deus est, quia nemo remittit nisi Deus. It stirreth the Scribes that a man should forgiue sin, because they beheld in Iesu Christ onely a man, (not God) and that to be forgiuen by him, which the law could not release: For faith onely iusti∣fieth. Afterward the Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith that it is easie for the son of man to forgiue sins on earth, for it is true, that no man can forgiue sinnes, but onely God, therefore he that remitteth sinnes, is God, because no man re∣mitteth sinnes but God. By these testimonies it is euident, that God, and onely God can forgiue sins, & that our sauiour Christ did effectually, proue himselfe to be God, in that he could for∣giue sin. Which kind of reasoning had been of no force at all, if others beside god, as monks & Iesuits could haue remitted sin.

The replie.

The text saith, that the faithfull people did glorifie God, for that he gaue such power to men, as to remit sins and to do mi∣racles; knowing that so to doe by commission from God, was not against his glory.

The answere.

I answer, that although sundry of the people were reuerent∣ly affected towards Christ, by reason of his miracles; yet did they not behold or confesse God manifested in the flesh, but still thought Christ to be a pure man, though a great and holy pro∣phet. And the reason hereof is euident, because they did not ac∣knowledge Christ to be God, but to haue receiued that power from God, as an holy man: for as the text saith, the multitudes seeing it, were afraid and glorified God, that gaue such power vnto men. Out of which words I note first, that they beleeued not Christ to be God, because they were afraid. For as Saint Iohn saith, he that confesseth Iesus to be the sonne of God,* 1.22 wil loue him and be without feare. I note secondly, that they gaue glorie to god, but not to the Sauior of the world: for albeit that no man but Christ wrought the miracles, yet did they glorifie God for giuing such power to men, whereby it is cleare, that they esteemed of him, as of a pure man; and that god had giuen that power to others as well as to him, otherwise they would haue spoken in the singular number, and not in the plu∣rall; of onely Christ whom they saw, and not of moe, whome they neither saw, nor could see, working in that diuine maner. I note thirdly, that it is a bluntish kinde of disputation, when the conceit of the vulgar sort, is alleaged to refute Christs di∣uine reasoning.

The third obiection.

S. Paul himselfe gaue pardon to the incestuous Corinthian,* 1.23 who had committed fornication with his fathers wife.

The answere

I say first, that if popish pardons should be grounded vpon this place, it would follow by a necessarie consecution, that the [ 1] Pope himselfe could pardon no more, then euerie simple priest; which sequele I coniecture cannot well stand with the Popes liking. I proue it, because the other ministers in Corinth gaue the selfe same pardon with S. Paul: and therfore doth the A∣postle say; To whom ye pardon anie thing, I also pardon.* 1.24

I say secondly, that popish confession must of necessity go be∣fore popish pardoning, in al such as sin mortally; and therefore [ 2] since the apostle doth not once name popish confession, it fol∣loweth

perforce, that he neither speaketh of popish pardoning.

I say thirdly, that the pardoning whereof S. Paul speak∣keth, is nothing else, but that he who was excommunicate for his publique trespas, may, after signes of true remorce, be re∣stored to the church againe; and after their sharpe censure of correction,* 1.25 find pardon and mercie at their hands. This much I prooue out of saint Paules owne words, which are these; It is sufficient to the same man, that he was rebuked of many; so now contrariwise ye ought rather to forgiue him and comfort him, lest he should be swallowed vp with ouermuch heauines. Wherefore I pray you, that ye would confirme your loue to∣wards him. After this graue and godly exhortation, he adioy∣neth these words; To whom ye forgiue any thing, I forgiue al∣so: as if hee had saide; if yee be content to receiue him into the church againe, I am therewith well pleased. For he yeeldeth two reasons why the church of Corinth ought to pardon the excommunicate person: the one is, for that hee seemed to haue giuen sufficient signes of his vnfained repentance: the other is, lest too much rigour of correction should bring him to despera∣tion. For which cause S. Paul requesteth them to declare the consent of the whole congregation, that hee was taken againe for a brother and pardoned for his offence. So then S. Paul and the church of Corinth did pardon no otherwise indeede, but euen as we our selues are taught to pardon in the Lords prai∣er, saying; and pardon vs our trespasses, as we pardon or for∣giue [ 4] them that offend against vs.

I say fourthly, that the renowmed popish Thomist Syluester Prierias, sometime maister of their so termed sacred pallace, confesseth plainely according to right and reason, that popish pardons were neither knowne to vs by this place of S. Paul, neither yet by any other place of the whole scripture: these are his expresse words:* 1.26

Indulgentia nobis per scripturam minimè innotuit▪ licet in∣ducatur illud, 2. Corin. 2. si quid donaui vobis; sed nec per dicta antiquorum doctorum, sed modernorum. Dicitur enim Grego∣rius indulgentiam septennem in stationibus Romae posuisse, & quia ecclesia hoc facit & seruat, credendum est ita esse, quia re∣gitur spiritu sancto.

The popes pardons (saieth frier Syluester their surnamed absolutus theologus) were neuer knowne to vs by the Scrip∣tures, although some alledge S. Paul to the Corinthians for that purpose; neither were they knowne by the ancient fathers, but onely by late writers. For Gregorie is said to haue appoin∣ted seuen yeeres of indulgence, in his stations at Rome. And because the church (of Rome) this doth, and thus obserueth, we must beleeue it to be so, for the church is gouerned by y^e holy ghost. Out of these words I note first, that this frier Syluester was a man of great fame among the papists, & for his singular [ 1] learning reputed an absolute diuine, and therefore that his te∣stimonie must needs be very authenticall among the papists.

I note secondly, that Antoninus a learned papist, who was the archbishop of Florence euen in the altitude of popedome, [ 2] holdeth the selfe same opinion, and hath the very same wordes now recited out of Syluester.

I note thirdly, that popish pardons can neither be proued by the scriptures, nor by the ancient fathers; and consequently, [ 3] that pope Boniface the eight of that name was the first foun∣der thereof, as is already proued. For albeit Syluester seemeth here to ascribe the originall of some kind of pardoning to Gre∣gorie yet doth he onely tel that by heare-say; and besides that, Gregorie either gaue no pardons in deede, (which is very pro∣bable) or at the most, he pardoned after saint Paules manner, some part of seuerity inioyned by the church.

I note fourthly, that the chiefest ground vppon which Po∣pish [ 4] pardoning is built, is the bare and naked commaunde∣ment of the pope. For whatsoeuer the church saith (that is to say the pope) that must be beleeued, because forsooth the pope cannot erre: but yet that he both may erre, and hath alreadie erred de facto; I haue prooued aboundantly in my Booke of Motiues, where the gentle Reader shall finde the opinions of other popish doctors, most fit for this end and purpose. Shame∣lesse and impudent therefore are the papists, when they blush not to father their Romish pardons vpon saint Paul.

The reply.

In the councell of Laterane (which was almost an hundred yeeres before pope Bonifacius) mention is made of pardons

with good liking of the same, yea S. Gregorie appointed sta∣tions and granted pardons for frequenting them.

The answere.

I say first, that in processe of time when sinne increased, and [ 1] the people waxed slow in accomplishing ecclesiasticall satisfac∣tion inioyned; redemptions, and commutations succeeded in the place thereof, and canonicall discipline began to decay, as their owne Burchardus writeth, about the yeere of Christ 1020.

I say secondly, that by little, and little after such redemptions [ 2] & commutations, superstitious opinions were instilled into the minds of the vulgar people, as that the fulfilling of the multe inioined by the church, was necessarie for saluatiō, & able to sa∣tisfie the iust iudgement of God; that god required much more satisfaction then was so inioyned, and that for the same they must either satisfie in this life, or afterward in purgatorie, if they were not pardoned by the pope.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that albeit penance, satisfaction, or canonicall discipline vsed in the olde church and auncient councels, (which was nothing else but a ciuill multe imposed to publike offen∣ders,* 1.27 not to satisfie Gods iudgement, but to bridle ill life, and to keepe 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 councel.* 1.28 I proue it, because that councel maketh men∣tion onely, de poenitentiis iniunctis, of penance inioyned, which was holden Anno Dom. 2215.

[ 4] I say fourthly, that the bishoppe of Rome (now called Pope 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, might haue released or pardoned in his owne chur∣ches and iurisdiction, (as Cornelius and other good bishoppes did) such ligaments, mults, or canonicall corrections as he had inioyned to publike offenders: and perhappes Gregorie the Great granted some such pardons indeede, but that hee gaue pardons for sinne and to satisfie Gods iustice, as Popes this day doe, it can neuer be proued out of his works.

The fourth obiection.

The blessed virgin Marie, holy Iob and manie others, haue

suffered much more then was needefull for their owne sinnes. And saint Paul saith of himselfe,* 1.29 that he supplied the wants of Christs passion for his church: which super abundant satisfac∣tions of S. Paul and others, bicause they were not determined by themselues to this or that particular person; it pertaineth to the supreme pastour the popes holines, to make application thereof as he seeth cause. Which application is termed par∣doning, for that when the pope applieth twentie degrees of the satisfaction of Christ, or of S. Paul, or some other saint, to one of his nunnes, monkes, or iesuites; then so many degrees of satisfaction are pardoned to such a nunne, monke, or iesuite, which the saide nunne, monke, or iesuite should otherwise haue done, either in this life or else in purgatorie.

The answer.

I say first that no saint did or can suffer so much as is suffici∣ent [ 1] for his sinnes. And I prooue it euidently, because the best learned papists graunt freely and truely, that euery mortall sin hath in it infinite deformitie, as which is an auersion from God of infinite maiestie, and consequently that God requireth infinite satisfaction for the same: yet so it is that pure man is vncapable of euery infinit action (for otherwise he should be an other God;) and consequently, mans actions of which no one among all can be infinite, can not yeeld condigne compensation for one only mortall sin: and yet is euery sin mortall indeed, as I haue prooued in my Motiues, euen by popish doctrine. Per∣vse the eight article of Dissention in the second Booke of the said Motiues, and thou shalt see euidently, that not only Ger∣son, Durand, Baius, Roffensis, and Almayn (who al were renow∣med papists) but euen the common schooles of late dayes doe holde the same opinion.

I say secondly, that God hath alreadie rewarded euerie saint [ 2] in heauen, (as he will also in time rewarde euerie saint nowe on earth) f••r aboue their deserts. Which I prooue briefly by these two reasons: first, because S. Paul so teacheth vs, when he saith that the sufferings of this life,* 1.30 are not worthy of the glory to come. Which saying I haue answered at large in

my Motiues, there answering all replies that can be made a∣gainst [ 2] the same. Secondly, because it is the popes owne doc∣trine, if papistes were constant to their owne writing. For thus writeth their owne deere frier,* 1.31 M. Iohn de Combis; Hoc patet, qui•• deus semper remunerat supra meritum, sicut punit citra condignum: This is euident (saith our holy frier Iohn) because God euermore rewardeth vs aboue our desertes, and puni∣sheth vs lesse then we be worthie. So then the popes holinesse may apply to himselfe, all the superaboundant merites of his holy nunnes, moonkes, and Iesuites, and flee to heauen as a bird without fethers. I say thirdly, that the want whereof the [ 3] apostle speaketh, is not in the proper passion of Christ, which was of infinite vertue, of infinite worthinesse, of infinite digni∣tie; yea, of such force and efficacie, as the least drop of his most pretious bloud (being the bloud both of God and man, by reason of hypostaticall vnion,) was sufficient for the sinnes of the whole world, and of ten thousand thousand worldes mo, if so many had been.

[ 4] I say fourthly, that God in his eternall decree appointed a certaine measure of afflictions, which not onely Christ shoulde suffer in his owne naturall bodie, but also which his mystical body should suffer the congregation of the faithfull, before the full accomplishment of their glory. Which thing is very eui∣dent by the answere made to the holy martyrs concerning their complaintes presented before the maiestie of God. For thus is it written in Gods booke: How long Lord which art holy and true, doest not thou iudge and auenge our bloud, on them that dwell on the earth? and it was said vnto them, that they should rest for a little season,* 1.32 vntill their fellowe seruauntes and their brethren who should be killed as they were, were fulfilled. Thus saith holy writ.

Out of these wordes of the holy scripture, I note first, that God in his secret counsell hath decreed, aswell the number as [ 1] the persons that shall suffer in his church.

I note secondly, that the afflictions of Gods children shall [ 2] not wholly cease, vntill the generall day of doome.

[ 3] I note thirdly, that God will auenge at that dreadfull day, all iniuries done vnto his saintes.

These annotations well obserued, this illation will ma∣nifestly result out of the same; to wit,* 1.33 that the afflictions wher∣of S. Paule speaketh to the Colossians, were not satisfactions for the sinnes of the church: (for so to suffer was the peculiar office of Christ our only sauiour,) but they were testimonies of y^e zeale and patience which ought to be in the church, and of that conformitie which is required betweene the members of the mysticall body and the head. Which sense may easily be ga∣thered out of Anselmus his golden glosse, vpon the apostles wordes in this place. Thus doth he write;

Adimpleo inquit, ea quae desunt. Cui desunt? in carne mea. Nam in carne Christi quam virgo peperit nihil passionum deest,* 1.34 sed omnes in illa passiones sunt impletae; sed adhuc restat pars passionum eius in mea carne, quas quotidie tolero pro vniuersali corpore eius quod est ecclesia. Si enim ab eruditione fidelium ces∣sarem, has passiones ab infidelibus non sustinerem. Sed quia sem∣per ecclesiae studeo prodesse, semper aduersa cogor tolerare.

I fulfill saith he, those thinges that want. To whom doe they want? in my flesh. For in Christes flesh which the virgine bore, no passion at all wanted, but all passions were fulfilled in it; neuerthelesse some part of his passions yet remaineth in my flesh, which I dayly suffer for his vniuersall body which is the church. For if I should leaue off from instructing the faithful, I might be free frō these persecutions of Infidels. But because I euer desire to profite the church, I am alway enforced to a∣bide persecution.

Out of this graue, vertuous, and learned commentarie, I [ 1] note first, that Christes passion was most absolute and perfect in it selfe.

I note secondly, that some passions of Christ yet remained, [ 2] which S. Paule ought to suffer in his flesh. Where obserue by the way, that the afflictions of the faithful, are reputed Christes own passions: for when Paul persecuted his disciples, he cried aloud; Saule, Saule, why persecutest thou me?* 1.35 I am Iesus whom thou persecutest, it is hard for thee to kicke against the pricke.

I note thirdly, that the afflictions which S. Paul susteined, were for the good of the whole church: yet not by the way of [ 3]

satisfaction, but by the ordinary meanes of christian instruction. For as Anselmus truely saith; afflictions came to the apostle, because he preached the gospel. From preaching whereof if he would haue ceased,* 1.36 he might haue been free from his passions here mentioned. Where we must diligently obserue, that God appointed when, where, and how long S. Paul should preach the gospel, for the good of the whole church. In regard wher∣of S. Paule pronounced woe vnto himselfe, if hee shoulde not preach the gospel.* 1.37 To which preaching of the gospel these pas∣sions were annexed, as the complement of Christes passions: not of his passions in himselfe, but in the church his mysticall body. For as hee suffered once for all in himselfe, for the re∣demption of the world, so doth he still suffer daily in his mem∣bers. For he hath appointed his elect to suffer much tribulati∣on, before they shall possesse eternall rest. Notwithstanding that the glory which we expect doth a thousand fold surmount the miserie of our afflictions. First therefore, since the afflic∣tions [ 1] of Gods saints be reputed Christes owne passions: Se∣condly, [ 2] since S. Paule was appointed when, where, and how [ 3] long he should preach the Gospel: Thirdly, since S. Paule, when he wrote to the Colossians, had not preached the gospel [ 4] so simply and so largely as he was appointed: Fourthly, since he coulde not possibly preach the gospel, but perforce hee must [ 5] suffer persecution for the same: Fiftly, since the taske of prea∣ching was inioyned him, for the benefite of the church, which is Christes mysticall body: I conclude, that when S. Paule said he in his flesh supplied y^e wants of Christes passions for his body the church; he meant nothing els thereby, but that he suffered affliction while hee preached the gospel, as God had appointed for the good of his church. And so there is no place in S. Paule for popish pardons, though the papistes glorie a∣boue measure in this text.

The first replie.

Our blessed ladie the virgin Mary, was not onely borne and conceiued without sinne, but liued all her life without sin,

as Saint Austen and the church beleeueth. Therefore she at least, had good store of merites and satisfactions for others; for though she suffered intollerable anguish and griefe, yet had she being free from sinne, no need at all to suffer for her selfe.* 1.38

The answere.

I say first, that what the late churche of Rome beleeueth, is not much materiall; because it is become the whore of Ba∣bylon, [ 1] as I haue prooued copiously.

I say secondly, that though the blessed virgin had great grace and sanctification bestowed on her, as who was not onely the [ 2] mother of man, but of God also; yet was she conceiued in origi∣nall sinne vndoubtedly. For so the holy scripture doth conuince, so the auncient fathers affirme, so the best approoued popishe doctors graunt, and so right reason doth euidently conclude. As by one man (saith the apostles) sinne entered into the world, and death by sinne, and so death went ouer all men, in whom all men haue sinned. Againe, as by the offence of one,* 1.39 the fault came on all men to condemnation, so by the iustifying of one,* 1.40 the benefite abounded towarde all men to the iustification of life. And in another place, there is none righteous, no not one.Againe, in another place;* 1.41 the scripture hath concluded al vnder sin, y^t the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ, should be giuen to them that beleeue. And the holy Psalmographe saith▪ Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt,* 1.42 for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified. All which textes and such like are gene∣rally spoken of all, no one nor other is exempt.

S. Ambrose hath a long discourse, in which he prooueth that none but onely Iesus Christ is void of sinne.* 1.43 These among o∣thers are his wordes. Omnes intra retia erant, imò adhuc intra retia sumus; quia nemo sine peccato nisi solus Iesus, quem non cognoscentem peccatum peccatum pro nobis fecit pater. Infra; ve∣nit ad laqueos Iesus, vt Adam solueret; venit liberare quod peri∣erat Omnes retibus tenebamur; nullus alium eruere poterat, cum seipsum non possit eruere.

All were in the nettes, yea we are yet in the nets; because none is without sinne but onely Iesus, whom when hee

knewe no sinne, the father made him a sacrifice for sinne, in our behalfe. Iesus came to the snare, that hee might loose A∣dam; he came to deliuer, that which was lost. We were al ta∣ken in the net, we could not deliuer one another, when no man could deliuer himselfe.

S. Augustine teacheth the same veritie in many places of his workes, but I wil content my selfe with one or two. Thus therfore doth he write vpon the 34. Psalm; sic ergo peccatum domini quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato.* 1.44 Etenim vt cele∣rius dicam, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae, A∣dam mortuus est propter peccatum, & caro domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata.

Euen so therefore (is it called) the sinne of the Lord, which is made of sinne; because hee tooke flesh from thence, of that masse which had deserued death by reason of sin. For to speake more brieflie; Mary descending of Adam, is dead by reason of Adams sinne; Adam is dead for his owne sin; and our Lords flesh of Mary, is dead to put away sinne.

* 1.45S. Augustine in another place hath these wordes; 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 Christes body, although it were assumpted of the flesh of a woman, which was conceiued of the stocke of the flesh of sinne, yet because it was not so conceiued in it, as it was conceiued: therefore was it not the flesh of sinne, but (only) the similitude of the flesh of sinne.

The same S. Augustine in another place, writeth in this maner;* 1.46 Sine dubio caro Christi non est caro peccati, sed similis carni peccati; quid restat vt intelligamus, nisi ea excepta omnem reliquam humanam carnem esse peccati? & hinc apparet illam concupiscentiam per quam Christus concipi noluit, fecisse in ge∣nere humano propaginē mali; quia Mariae corpus quamuis inde venerit, tamen eam non traiecit in corpus, quod non inde con∣cepit.

Doubtlesse Christes flesh is not the flesh of sinne, but only

like to the flesh of sinne; what therefore must wee vnderstande, but that all other mens flesh besides it, is the flesh of sinne? And heereuppon it is cleare, that that concupiscence by which Christ would not be conceiued, dispersed sin throughout man∣kind, because the body of Marie though it came from thence, yet could it not conuey that into the bodie, which was not con∣ceiued thereupon, (but of the holy ghost.) These words of S. Austen and Saint Ambrose are so plaine and easie, as they neede no declaration,

Thomas Aquinas, albeit hee constantly defendeth, that the blessed virgin was neither borne in sinne, nor yet sinned actu∣ally after hir birth more or lesse, graunteth for all that, that shee was conceiued in originall sinne: and hee prooueth it by two euident reasons, whereof this is one.* 1.47 Sanctificatio de qua loquimur, non est nisi emundatio à peccato originali, culpa au∣tem non potest emundari nisi per gratiam, cuius subiec∣tum est sola creatura rationalis, & ideo ante infusionem ani∣mae rationalis B. virgo sanctificata non fuit.

Sanctification whereof we now speake (saith the cheefest popish doctour,) is nothing else but a clensing from origi∣nall sinne, but sinne cannot bee purged without grace, whose subiect can be nothing but a reasonable creature, and therefore the blessed virgin could not be sanctified from sin, before a rea∣sonable soule was infused into her bodie. This argument of Aquinas is so inuincible in popish manner of proceeding, as no Iesuite in the world (though they all hold the contrarie) can inuent a sufficient solution for the same.

Deuout and holy Bernarde (whose authoritie is great with all Papists) holdeth the same opinion with Aquinas.* 1.48 For al∣beit hee sharply reproue the practise of the cathedrall church of Lions for keeping the festiuitie of the conception of the blessed virgin, calling that practise the noueltie of presumption, the mother of temeritie, sister of superstition, and the daughter of leuitie: yet doth he hold that shee was borne without sinne, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 continued all her life.

All learned men that euer wrote before our seditious lately hatched Iesuites, confesse the conception of the blessed virgin, to haue beene polluted with sinne: and I prooue it by an irre∣fragable

demonstration. First, because the blessed virgin, if she had euer beene free from sinne,* 1.49 should haue needed no Sa∣uiour, nor had anie Sauior, and so Christ should not haue bin her Iesus: which to say, is both against the scripture, and a∣gainst the honour of that holy virgin. Bernardus and Aquinas saw the force of this reason, and grauely vrged the same. Yea, the holy virgin renounceth flatly their hereticall and hypocri∣ticall doctrine, in her humble thankes to God for her saluati∣on.* 1.50 My soule (saith she) doth magnifie the Lord, and my spi∣rit reioyceth in God my sauiour. For this cause Bernard cry∣eth out in these words;* 1.51 Non est hoc virginem honorare, sed ho∣nori detrahere. The virgin is not this way honored, but great∣ly dishonored. Secondly, because as Bernard saieth, Where lust is, there must needs be sinne: and therefore since the virgin was conceiued with lust, or else (as they dare not say) by the holy ghost; it followeth, that she was conceiued in sinne. O∣ther reasons the same Bernard hath, but these may suffice.

The second reply.

But saint Austen saith that hee will alway except the holy virgine Mary, when he disputeth or reasoneth of sinners or sinne.

The answer.

I say first, that saint Austen confesseth flatly (as you haue [ 1] heard) that the blessed virgin was vndoubtedly conceiued in o∣riginal [ 2] sin. I say secondly, that originall sin is of infinite defor∣mitie (as is already proued;) and consequently, that the blessed virgin being polluted therewith, was neuer able to yeeld con∣digne compensation for the same, howe great soeuer her holi∣nesse was afterward: the reason is afore yeelded, for that the infinit malice of sin, surmounteth the value of the finite actions of all creatures. And if she were not able to satisfie for her own sinnes, much lesse had shee any surplussage of satisfaction left, which may serue to binde vp the popes pardons, for the sins of others. I say thirdly, that albeit S. Austen would not for the [ 3] honor of our Sauior, as he saith, call the blessed virgin into que¦stion touching sin; yet doth he not affirm her to haue bin void of

all actual sinne, but seemeth rather to hold the contrary. For he addeth these words, Vnde enim scimus, quod ei plus gratiae colla tum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum,* 1.52 quae concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum. For how know we that she had more grace giuen her to ouercome all sinne, who did conceiue and beare him, that certainely was free from al sin? In which words S. Austen sheweth plainly, that he can not tell, whether the blessed virgin was voide of all actuall sinne or no: yet is he vnwilling to call her into question, for the honour of our Lord Iesus, whose mother she was ac∣cording to the flesh. Yea, Saint Austen in his questions vp∣on the new testament, (if it be his worke,) confesseth freely, that she sinned for want of faith. These are his expresse words; Hoc vtique significauit,* 1.53 quia etiam Maria per quam gestum est mysterium incarnationis saluatoris, in morte domini dubitaret, ita tamen vt in resurrectione firmaretur. This verily is signifi∣ed, that Marie by whome was accomplished the misterie of the incarnation of our Sauiour, doubted in the death of our Lord, yet so as she was confirmed in his resurrection. Thus hee writeth, and yet knoweth euerie child, that to doubt in matters of faith is no little sinne.

S. Basil dissenteth nothing from Saint Augustine,* 1.54 when hee telleth vs, that the blessed virgin standing by the crosse, wauered and was doubtfull in her minde, while shee behelde on one side, what miserie hee suffered, on the other side, what wonders he had done.

Saint Chrysostome affirmeth so expressely that the blessed virgin sinned,* 1.55 that their angelicall doctour Aquinas is enfor∣ced to vse this sillie shift, for a colorable answere to his words; to wit, that hee was excessiue in his words. But who wil not rather thinke, that hee was presumptuous in his answere. These are S. Chrysostomes expresse words, Quae estmater mea, & fratres mei aiebat;* 1.56 siquidem nō adhuc debitam de ipso opini∣onem habebant, sed more matrum Maria iure omnia filio se prae∣cepturam censebat, cum tanquam dominum colere & reuereri licebat; ideo in hunc modum respondit: who is my mother, & my brethren said Christ, for they had not yet a right opiniō of him; but Mary after the maner of mothers, thought she might com∣mand

her sonne to do all things, albeit she might well haue honored him as her Lord; therfore did he answer in this maner. Againe he saith thus:* 1.57 Optabat enim vt tam hominum gratiam concilia∣ret, & ipsa clarior filij gratia efficeretur, & fortasse aliquo hu∣mano afficiebatur affectu For she wished, that now he would win the fauor of men, & that she might be more famous for his sake; and perhappes she was touched with some humane affec∣tion. Againe, in another place he saith thus: Ambitione qua∣dam ac ostentatione commoti, foris eum in praesentia omnium e∣uocarunt, vt viderentur facile ac magna cum potestate Christo imperare.* 1.58 Infra; vnde patet inani quadam gloria illos commo∣tos fuisse, nihil adhuc magni de ipso cogitantes, quod apertius Ioannes significauit, dicens; quia neque fratres eius credebant in eum. They being tickled with ambition and vaine glorie, called him out in the presence of all, that they might seeme to command Christ at their pleasure, and with authoritie. Wher∣vpon it is cleare that they were tickled with vaine glorie, ha∣uing no great opinion on him as yet, which Iohn signified e∣uidently, when he saide; For neither did his brethren beleeue in him.

Saint Hierome shall conclude this point, (which I haue handled more at large, because many stumble at it, and fewe seeme to vnderstand it well) these are his expresse words; Con∣clusit Deus omnes sub peccato, vt omnium misereatur, absque eo solo;* 1.59 qui peccatum non fecit, nec inuentus est dolus in ore eius. God hath shut vp all vnder sinne, that he may shew mercie vn∣to all, him onely excepting that sinned not, neither was there guile found in his mouth.

The third replie.

She was Christs mother, and therefore was more blessed then al other women.

The answere.

I confesse willingly, that shee was blessed aboue all wo∣men, and yet that shee was a sinner, and had Christ not one∣ly for her sonne, but euen for her Lorde and Sauiour; nei∣ther was it so great a grace simplie and barely to beare

Christ as the Papists faine it to be: but the holy fathers S. Austen and S. Chrysostome shal tel vs what they thinke ther∣of. S. Austen hath these expresse words. Hoc in ea magnificauit dominus, quia fecit voluntatem patris,* 1.60 non quia caro genuit carnē. Propterea cum dominus in turba admirabilis videretur faciens signa & prodigia, & ostendens quid lateret in carne, ad∣miratae quaedam animae dixerunt, foelix venter qui te portauit: & ille, imò foelices qui audiunt verbum Dei & custodiūt illud; hoc est dicere, & mater mea quam appellatis foelicem, inde foe∣lix quia verbum Dei custodit, non quia in illa verbum caro factum est, & habitauit in nobis; sed quia custodit ipsum ver∣bum Dei per quod facta est, & quod in illa caro factum est.

Our Lord magnified this in her, for that she did the will of his father, not because her flesh bare his flesh. Therfore when our Lord seemed admirable to the people, working signes and myracles, and shewing what was hidde in the flesh, the peo∣ple maruelling saide, happie is the bellie that bare thee, and hee answered; yea happie are they that heare the word of God and keepe it, that is to say, my mother whom ye cal happie, is therefore happie because she keepeth the word of God, not be∣cause the word was made flesh in her and dwelt in vs, but be∣cause shee keepeth Gods worde by which she was made, and which was made flesh in her. Againe, in another place he wri∣teth thus; Beatior ergo Maria percipiendo fidem Christi, quam concipiendo carnem Christi. Nam & dicenti cuidam, beatus ven∣ter qui te portauit, ipse respondit:* 1.61 imo beati quiaudiunt verbum Dei, & custodiunt: denique fratribus eius, id est, secundum carnē cognatis, qui non in eum crediderūt, quid profuit illa cognatio? Sic & materna propinquitas nihil Mariae pofuisset, nisi foelici∣us Christum corde quam carne gestasset. Therefore Marie was more blessed in receiuing the faith of Christ, then in conceiuing y^e flesh of Christ: for he answered to one that said, blessed is the wombe that bare thee: yea, blessed are they that heare the word of God and keepe it. Finally his brethren, that is, his kins∣men in y^e flesh, that beleeued not in him, what good had they by that kinred? And euen so motherly kinred had doone Marie no good, vnlesse shee had borne Christ more blessedly in her heart, then she bare him in her flesh.

S. Chrysostome hath these expresse words. Ea sententia dic∣tum existima,* 1.62 non quod matrem negligeret, sed quod nihil vtili∣tatis ei matris nomē allaturū ostēderet▪ nisi bonitate & fide prae∣staret. Infra, Nam si id profuturum erat per se Mariae, profuisset etiam Iudaeis, quorum consanguineus erat Christus secundum carnem, profuisset ciuitati in qua natus est, profuisset fra••ribus. Atqui dum fratres verum suarum curam habuerunt, nihil eis propinquitatis nomen profuit, sed cum reliquo mundo dam∣nati erant. Thinke that Christ spoke that, not because he had no care of his mother, but because he woulde shew the name of a mother to profit her nothing, vnlesse she were better in pietie and faith. For if that could haue done Marie good of it selfe, it would also haue profited the Iewes, it would haue profited the citie in which he was borne, it would haue profited his bre∣thren: but while our Lords brethren set their hearts vpon their owne worldly matters, the name of kinred did them no good at all, they were damned with others in the world.

The fift obiection.

Nathan the Prophet brought word to Dauid, that God had forgiuen him his sinne, and that he should not die, neuerthelesse because Dauid caused Gods enimies to blaspheme by reason of that his sin, God punished him by the death of his child. So Dauid being penitent for his sinne in numbring the people,* 1.63 obtained remission of the fault, and yet suffered three daies pe∣stilence in his people. So God forgaue the Israelites their rebellious murmurings against him,* 1.64 & yet for that fault none of them coulde enter into the lande of promise: so in baptisme also our sinnes are freely forgiuen vs, and yet do we still suffer temporall paines for the same, al the daies of our life. Which texts of holy scripture, and others of like sort do plainely insi∣nuate,* 1.65 that after God hath forgiuen vs our sins, and remitted both the fault and the eternall paine, there still remaineth some temporall satisfaction to bee done for the same, either in this world or in purgatorie, which satisfaction is accomplished in the popes pardons, while he maketh application of the supera∣boundant passions of holy men and women, locked vp in the treasure of the church of Rome.

The answere.

I say first, that when God forgiueth vs any sin, he freeth vs as wel from the pain as frō the fault: which I proue by many rea∣sons. [ 1] First because otherwise Gods works should be impefect, though holy writ hold them most perfect, when it saith, Dei per∣fecta sunt opera, Gods works are perfect: which in the origi∣nall and Hebrew is vttered more significantly,* 1.66 where God is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a stone or rocke, noting vnto vs that his workes are done with power and might, and therefore with all exact perfection. And doubtles, if his act in forgiuing sin be perfect, as it is most perfect, then after God hath remitted the fault, there can remain no satisfactiō for the same. Secondly if mans act should bee a partiall satisfaction for sinne, then coulde not Christ be a perfect and absolute redeemer; but as it were a ioynt redeemer, together with man. Thirdly, the fault is ne∣uer truly & perfectly forgiuen, where payment is still required for the same. Fourthly, God (who is faithful in al his promi∣ses) hath promised to forget all our iniquities, when soeuer we truely become penitent for the same; & yet can be not possiblie forget that, for which he requireth our satisfaction. Fiftly,* 1.67 the papists grant with vniform consent generally, that in baptisme & martyrdome god remits sins wholly and perfectly, aswel in respect of the pain as of the fault, and yet can they neuer yeeld any sufficient disparitie, betweene the forgiuenes of our sins, be∣fore & after baptisme, whereupon they may build their fondly forged satisfaction. This is a mighty reason, as which troubled me al the while I was a papist, & because I could neuer reade or inuent anie sufficient solution to the same (though at that time I would most willingly haue done it,) it was one motiue to excite mee against their superstitious and idololatricall doc∣trine: in regard hereof, grauely, learnedly, and christianly saith S. Augustine,* 1.68 Christus communicando nobiscum sine culpa poe∣nam, & culpam soluit & poenam: Christ while hee tooke part with vs of our paine without sin, purged vs both from the sin and from the paine due for sin. I say secondly, that the punish∣ment [ 2] which God layeth on vs, after he hath remitted and for∣giuen vs our sins, are not satisfactions for our sins committed, but they are fatherly correctious to teach vs our duties to mi∣nister to vs fit matter of spiritual exercises, and to keep vs and

others from sinne to come; as also to ingraffe in our hearts, how odious a thing sin is in Gods sight. This to be so, Chry∣sostome rightly surnamed Os aureum,* 1.69 golden mouth, vttereth very perspicuously in these golden words; Nam ne peccantes & inulti manentes nos efficeremur deteriores non remisit nobis sup∣plicium, sed vidit hoc manifeste, quod peccatis ipsis non m••nus damnosum sit non puniri; propter hoc imponit poenam, non exi∣gens supplicium de peccatis, sed ad futura nos corrigens. For lest we our selues should be made worse, if wee should not be punished when we offend; God forgaue vs not the punishment, for that he saw euidently, that it was no lesse hurtfull to sinne it selfe, if it should not be punished. For which cause he impo∣seth paine vpon vs, not requiring satisfaction for the sinnes, but correcting vs for that which is to come. Out of these wordes I note first, that if we should escape vnpunished when we sin, we would be more prone to sin again. I note secondly, that the punishment which God la••eth on vs, is not any part of satisfac∣tion for our sinne committed, but a fatherly correction to keepe vs from sinning so againe. I note thirdly, that saint Chryso∣stome was not acquainted with popish pardons, wherewith the world is this day so pestered. I note fourthly, that whosoeuer disliketh this my answer, must reprooue saint Chrysostome for the same, as from whom I receiued it. And yet indeede, hee saith nothing which holy writ hath not taught vs long before. For as wise Salomon saith,* 1.70 He that spareth the rodde, hateth the childe; but he that loueth him, chasteneth him betime. I blesse thee (saith Tobie) O Lord God of Israel;* 1.71 because thou hast scourged me:* 1.72 Thou hast corrected me (saith Ephraim) and I was chastised as an vntamed heiffer. Whom the Lord lo∣ueth (saith saint Paul) him he chasteneth;* 1.73 and he scourgeth e∣uery sonne that he receiueth. As many as I loue (saith God) I rebuke and chasten,* 1.74 be zealous therefore and amend. Marke these wordes well, gentle Reader. God correcteth vs not in way of satisfaction, which we are neuer able to performe (as I haue prooued more at large in my booke of Motiues;) but that we may repent, turne to him, and amend our sinfull liues. For this cause saieth the Psalmograph; Blessed is the man whom thou chastisest (O Lord) and teachest him in thy lawe;* 1.75

that thou mayest giue him rest from the dayes of euill, while the pit is digged for the wicked. For as saint Paul saieth, If we would iudge our selues (by true faith and repentance) wee should not be iudged. But when we are iudged,* 1.76 we are chaste∣ned of the Lord, that wee should not be condemned with the world: which Christ himselfe confirmed, when he willed the adultresse to goe and to sinne no more.* 1.77

The sixt obiection.

S. Paul exhorted the Corinthians, who abounded in goods,* 1.78 but wanted merites, to bestow money largely on the saints at Ierusalem, that so they might be partakers of their merites. Therefore it is very lawful to procure pardon with our mony, by the application of godly mens merites vnto vs.

The answere.

S. Paul meaneth nothing lesse, then that the Hierosolymi∣tains should sell spirituall things for money. For when Sy∣mon the sorcerer euen after his baptisme,* 1.79 would haue bought the distribution of holy things with money: then saide saint Peter to him, Thy money perish with thee; because thou thin∣kest, that the gift of God may be gotten with money. But the apostle exhorteth the richer sort at Corinth, to minister compe∣tently to the faithfull at Ierusalem, for their necessarie releefe and sustentation: and this to do the rather, for that heretofore they receiued the gospel from thence, so that there may bee an analogicall or proportionable equalitie betweene them. For liberalitie ought to be mutuall among christians: and as the a∣postle saith in another place,* 1.80 It is no great thing for them that haue sowen to vs spirituall things, to reape part of our carnall things. Thus seemeth Chrysostome to vnderstand this place, whose wordes are these;* 1.81 Haec autem dicebat etiam diuitum su∣perbiam deprimens, ostendens quod post hanc vitam in maiori dignitate spirituales futuri sint: He spake these things to abate the pride of rich men, shewing that after this life the godly shal be in greater dignitie: as if he had saide, esteeme not better of

your selues, because ye haue more worldly wealth; but distri∣bute such things liberally, and seeke to abound in spirituall things, that so there may be an equalitie.

The seuenth obiection.

The article of our creed (I beleeue the communiō of saints) doth plainely shew, that ones satisfaction may be applied to an other, which is that application that the pope maketh, when he giues pardons.

The answer.

I answer, that the duties of charitie, are & ought to be com∣mon among the faithfull, in that they are the mysticall mem∣bers of one mysticall body;* 1.82 which saint Paul proueth to be so, by the example of the members in mans body. And this is that communion of saints, whereof mention is made in the Creede apostolike. But of popish pardons and merits of supererroga∣tion, this article maketh no relation at all. Yea, as the apostle saith,* 1.83 al righteousnes, remission of sins, and eternall life, is mi∣nistred to the members of the church by Christ the head. Of whose fulnes we haue all receiued,* 1.84 euen grace for grace.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Anno. Dom. 1300
• * 1.2

  Platina in Boni∣fac. 8, in med.
• * 1.3

  Leu. 25. vers. 10. & ••
• * 1.4

  An, Dom. 1500
• * 1.5

  Polidor. lib. ••. cap. 1.
• * 1.6

  Conc. 1. Nicen. ••an. 11.
• * 1.7

  Conc. 2. Arelat can. 10. conc. Ancyr. can. 2.
• * 1.8

  Mat. 16.19.
• * 1.9

  D. Hierom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cap 16. Matt.
• * 1.10

  Luc. 5. Mat. 8. Mat. 1.44. Leuit▪ 13. per totum.
• * 1.11

  Luc. 5.21.
• * 1.12

  Mut. 18. v. 18. Ioan. 20. vers. 22.23.
• * 1.13

  Hugo in. 16. Mat
• * 1.14

  Durand. in. 4. s. d. 18. q. 2.
• * 1.15

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 9. vers. 2.8
• * 1.16

  L••t this point be well marked.
• * 1.17

  Mat 9. vers. ••.
• * 1.18

  Chrysost. in ca. 9. Mat. hom 30. tom. 2. p. 275.
• * 1.19

  The pope is worse then the diuell.
• * 1.20

  Ambros. lib. 5. in ••ucam. cap. 5. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.21

  ••il•••• can ••. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.22

  1. Iohn. 4.15. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.23

  1. Cor. 5. vers. 1· 2. Cor. 2. vers. 10
• * 1.24

  2. Cor. 2. ve. 10.
• * 1.25

  2. Cor. 2. vers. 6, 7, 8.
• * 1.26

  Syluest. de indul∣gent. §. 1.
• * 1.27

  Penance satisfac∣tion and cano∣nical discipline is al one to the old writers.
• * 1.28

  Concill. 1. later. can. 62.
• * 1.29

  Coloss. 1.24.
• * 1.30

  Rom. ••.1••▪
• * 1.31

  Io. de Combis libr. 5. Tholog. ver. cap. 11.
• * 1.32

  Apocalip. 6. v. 10 11.
• * 1.33

  1. Cor. 5. v. 7. 1. Ioan. 2. Heb. 10. v. 14. Osee, 13.4. Esai. 43.25.53.5. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5.
• * 1.34

  Anselm. in 2. cap. Colost.
• * 1.35

  Act. 9. v. ••.
• * 1.36

  Anselm. vbi sup. S. Ambrose ex∣poundeth this text in the selfe same maner.
• * 1.37

  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.
• * 1.38

  Luc. 2. v. 3••.
• * 1.39

  Rom. 5. v. 12.
• * 1.40

  verse 18.
• * 1.41

  Rom. 3. v. 1••. Gal. 3. v. 22.
• * 1.42

  Psal 143. v. 2.
• * 1.43

  Ambro. in Psal. 118. circa med.
• * 1.44

  Aug. in Psal. 34. conc. 2. tom. 8.
• * 1.45

  Aug. de Genes. ad literam, libr. 10. c. ••8. tom. 3.
• * 1.46

  Aug. cont. Iul. Pelag. libr. 5. c. 9. tom. 7.
• * 1.47

  Aquina p. 3 q. 27 ar. 2. in. corpore
• * 1.48

  Bernard. epist. 174. ad Canon. Ludg.
• * 1.49

  Mat. 1.21. 1. Tim. 4.10.
• * 1.50

  Luc. 1.46.
• * 1.51

  Bernard. vbi sup.
• * 1.52

  Aug. de Nat. & Grat. c. 36. tom▪ ••
• * 1.53

  Aug. in q. nou. test. q. 73. tom. 4.
• * 1.54

  Basil. apud Aqu. p. 3. q. 27. ar. 4. ad 2.
• * 1.55

  Aquin. 3. p. q. 27▪ ar. 4. ad 3.
• * 1.56

  Chrysost. hom••. 20. in Ioan. 10.
• * 1.57

  ••aulo superius
• * 1.58

  Chrys. hom. 45. in mat▪ to, 2.
• * 1.59

  Hier. ad Algas. q. 8. tom. 4. in fine
• * 1.60

  August. tract. 10 in Ioan tom. 9.
• * 1.61

  August. de sanc, virgin. cap. 3 tom. 6.
• * 1.62

  Chrysos. hom. 20 •• Ioan. tom. 3.
• * 1.63

  2 Reg. 12. v 13. ••. Reg. 4. v. 10.11, 12, 1••.
• * 1.64

  Numer. 14. v. 20.23.
• * 1.65

  Rom. 8. vers. 1.
• * 1.66

  Deut. ••2.4.
• * 1.67

  Ezech. 18. v. 22•• God absolueth in baptisme A culpa & paena▪ say the papists al
• * 1.68

  August. serm. 14.1· de tempore to. 10.
• * 1.69

  ••hrysost serm. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 poeni•• & con∣••••ss. to.▪ 5. p. 907.
• * 1.70

  Prou. 13.24.
• * 1.71

  Tob. 11. v. 14.
• * 1.72

  Ierem. 31.18.
• * 1.73

  Hebr. 12. vers. 6.
• * 1.74

  Apoc. 3. vers. 19.
• * 1.75

  Psal. 9 4. v. 12.
• * 1.76

  1. Cor. 11.31.
• * 1.77

  Ioh. 8.11.
• * 1.78

  2. Cor. 8.13, 14
• * 1.79

  Act. 8.19, 20.
• * 1.80

  1. Cor. 9.11.
• * 1.81

  Chrysost. sup. hunc loc. hom. 17. in fine.
• * 1.82

  1. Cor. 12.25, 26 27.
• * 1.83

  Rom. 3.24. c. 5.1.
• * 1.84

  Ioh. 1.10.