The Accomplishment of the Prophecies, Chapter 1 – Chapter 2

The Accomplishment of the Prophecies · Chapter 1 – Chapter 2

THE THIRD BOOKE OF THE accomplishment of the Prophecies.

THE PROPHECIE OF THE Apostle S. PAVL in the first to TIMOTHY, and fourth Chapter. CHAP. I.

1 Now the spirit speaketh evidently, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, and shall giuegive heed vntounto spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils.

2 Which speake lies through hypocrisie, & hauehave their cōsciences burned with an hot yrō.

3 Forbidding to marry, and commaunding to abstaine from meats, which God hath created to be received with giving thankes of them which belieue and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing ought to be refused, if it be received with thankesgiving, &c.

The accomplishment of this Prophecie.

THis prediction of the Apostle, being not wrapt in riddles, nor shadowed vnderunder figuratiue words, need no subtil explication, nor laborious coniectures to be vnderstood, we need not speake by guesse, p. 2when we feele the evill, & I would to God we saw it lesse cleere then we do.

The Apostle speaks of an evill that must happen in the last times; these last times be gunne from the Apostles times, as he himselfe tels vsus in the 10. Chap. of his first epistle to the Corinthians: whēce it followeth that these last times are now much neerer, and that this present age is more the last times, then that was wherein S. Paul lived.

In these last times therefore he foretels of a departing from the faith, of spirits of errour, which shall teach the doctrine of devils through hypocrisie against their owne conscience.

This being spoken in generall would hauehave a thousand faces, and bee subiect to divers interpretations, were it not that the Apostle himselfe did put his finger vponupon the evil, and specifie some examples thereof; not the worst but the most sensible, not the most wicked, but the most easie to bee knowne. These are the errors. 1. A forbidding to marry. 2. A commanding to abstaine from meats. Both which are the errors of Papistry, and the ordinances of the church of Rome, more religiously observed then the commandements of God: Wee will p. 3speake of each of them severally.

Of the single life of the Clergie, and Monks in the Church of Rome.

MArriage is an holy bond betweene mā & womā, whereby they are made one body, & one flesh. If antiquitie giuegive authoritie to things? it was from the beginning of the creation? If the author, God did first institute it; If the place where it began? it was established in Paradise; If the witnesses? Iesus Christ himselfe did authorize it by his presence; If sanctity? God cō pares it to his holy covenant, promising in **Hosea. 2.19.20.Hos 2:19Hos 2:20O see, that he will marry vsus vntounto himselfe for ever in righteousnesse and mercy; It is an assistance given vntounto man; a lenitiue of all afflictions, a remedy against in cōtinency; and amongst faithfull persons it is a spirituall harmonie, to ioine their praiers, to comfort them vp in their miseries, to encourage them on to good workes, and in slipperie places to reach out their helping hands to each other. This is that which preserues mankind from perishing, it is the seed-plot of the Church, the fountaine and originall of al kinred and affinitie that p. 4is in the world; without this men would liue dispersed like savage beastes, without making vp families, which are the first and principall parts of a Common wealth.

Where is the man this day living, whose virginitie may be compared with Abrahams marriage, in whome all the nations of the world were blest? Wherevpon **Lib. de bono coniugali cap. 21.S. Austin also opposeth it to the virginity of S. Iohn. But there is nothing that doth add more authoritie vntounto marriage, then that comparison so often **Ephes. 5. Psal. 45. Rev. 19.Eph 5Ps 45Rev 19reiterated in the holy Scripture, whereby the vnion of Iesus Christ with his Church is compared vntounto marriage. The bond whereof is the holy Ghost, the contract the Gospell, the Apostles were the Registers of this contract, and Iesus Christ himselfe sealed it with his bloud: the betrothing is here below in the Church, but the wedding it selfe shall bee solemnized in heaven. God clothing this spiritual vnion with these borrowed terms to the end that no man might condemne marriage, but he should withal despise his covenant. The Prophets, Levits, yea and the High Priests entered this holy course of life, which before the division made by David, were to serue every day at morning p. 5and evening sacrifice. But if God had thought that there had beene any pollution in marriage, hee would hauehave found some other meanes to continue the succession of his Priests, then by the hereditary succession of childrē after their fathers. Especially seeing that then in outward things, and bodily cleannesse, God required a great deale more puritie vnderunder the law then he doth now adaies. The Apostles also were married: for in the first of S. Mark there is mention made of the mother of S. Peters wife. And S. Ambrose vpō the 11. Chap. of the 2. to the Corinthians, All the Apostles, saith hee, except Iohn and Paule had wiues. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, doth not except Saint Paul; but saith, that Peter and Paule, & the other Apostles were married. And Clemens Alexandrinus in the 3. booke of his Stromes, after a long reprehension of those which despise marriage vnderunder the shew of a more strict sanctititie, addeth. Doe they reiect the Apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children. Philip married his daughters to husbandes, and Paule sticks not to speake vntounto his wife in one of his Epistles. Now it is to be noted that in these places, p. 6the Fathers speak of marriage as it is a remedy against incontinencie, and as it was thought by some to be lesse holy then virginitie; to the end that none should thinke that they thought the Apostles had wiues, but never lay with them. They tell Christ truly in the 9. Chap. of S. Matthew, Behold we hauehave forsaken all and followed thee, And Iesus answers them; Whosoever shall forsake houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my names sake, hee shall receiue an hundreth fold more, and shall inherit everlasting life. But we must knowe that this promise is made vntounto all the faithfull, and not only to the Pastours of the Church. For he saith Whosoever shal leaue &c. and yet neuerthelesse no man would infer out of this place that all the faithfull must abstaine from their wiues, or forsake their children for Christs sake; only our Saviour would that all the faithful should leaue all that is most neare and deare vntounto them, when it shall hinder them from following him, & when it cannot stand together with the profession of the Gospell. Moreover Christ here placeth the wife, and the children, & the lands, and the houses in the same rank. p. 7If a Bishop therefore may bee suffered to enioy his lands, or houses, in the same fashion that hee did enioy them before hee was a Bishop or Priest, what reason is there but that he should enioy his wife in the same manner that hee did before hee was a Priest? And if a father that is afterwards made a Priest shal not for all this be less a father thē he was before, why should hee become lesse an husband? Especially seeing that there is an expresse commaundement of our Lord in the 19. of S. Matt. which doth not permit a man to leaue his wife for any other cause but adulterie. And which saieth, that they are no more two but one flesh, Let no man therefore put that asunder which God hath coupled together; Now it is manifest that the separation which he speakes of, is a separation of the bed, seeing that he opposeth it against that coniunction by which man and woman are made one body.

This doctrine being sound divinity, and built vponupon the worde of God, as we will shew it yet more manifestly; it is not without iust cause that the contrary doctrine is called the doctrine of Devils. The first that ever spake against marriage were the Tatians, p. 8Marcionites, & Manichees, after whō Papistrie succeeded, a religion patched vp togither out of the divers shrids of ancient heresies. For the Popes hauehave set themselues directly to contradict the Apostles St **1. Tim. 3.2.4.1 Tim 3:21 Tim 3:4Paul who saith, that a Bishop should be vnreprouable, the husbād of one wife, having his children vnderunder obedience with all honesty. On the cōtrary Pope Pelagius in the 61. Distinction commandes, that there should be no bishop chosen, but such a one that hath neither wife, nor children, nor any other crime contrary to the canons. There is nothing more opposite. But yet in this contrariety there is no question to be made, but of the two the Pope must rather bee believed, since that in his **Tit. 80 de concessione praebendarū.Canons he vaunts that hee can dispense aboue the law. And that the glosses of the Church of Rome tel vsus herevpon, that he can dispense against the Apostle, & that he doth dispense with the gospell in giving it what interpretation he please, and that the Apostle had nothing else but certaine Revelations; marry his holinesse **Can. licet Tit. 2. de cō stit. in Sexto.Titus 2brags that hee hath all the law close lockt vp within the clozet of his brest. We hauehave therefore plainely seene the accomplishment of this prophecie.

p. 9It is true that our adversaries to obscure this truth, say that S. Paul speakes of heretickes which forbad marriage not onlie to Clarckes and Ministers, but to the lay people too, and that as a wicked and vncleane thing in its owne nature; That the Church of Rome forbids marriage only to Clarckes, and Monkes, and such as hauehave made a vow of continency, and forbids it them not as an vncleane thing, but as a coū sell of perfection, and as a more strict & sanctified profession.

1 I answere that they delude themselues in seeking to delude vsus. For the Apostle calleth those false teachers in general that forbid marriage without specifying anie cause for which they forbid it: the rule being general, it is not for vsus to put in I know not what exceptions which the worde of God shall not put in. By diverse lines wee may well come to the same point, and by diverse waies runne to the same precipice. The selfe same errour is formed in the spirit of men by diverse reasons, yet all the causes of error, and contrary to the holie Scriptures.

2 Besides I say that they deceiue themselues if they think that the Manichees for p. 10bad marriage vntounto all, they forbad it them only whom they called their chosen or elect; For so did they name their pastours, & such as made profession of a more exact & sanctified kinde of life amongst them. S. Austin is a witnesse fit to bee believed for this, because himselfe was a Manichee at first for a long time: who in the second book, of the manners of the Church, and the Manichees, & 18. Chapt. brings in the Manichees speaking as our adversaries doe at this day. Here, saith he, I knowe that you wil exclaime for to make vsus odious, that you doe not forbid marriage at all, since that is not forbidden to your hearers (which are in the 2 rancke amongst you) to marry, and to hauehave wiues. And in his 74. Epist. They which are called the hearers amongst them, eate flesh, plough their fields, and hauehave wiues too if they will, none of which are done by those whome they call their elect. Whence it also appears that they did not take marriage to be simply bad, since they did permit it to their people. No more true is that which our aduersaries say that the Church of Rome doth not maintain that marriage is a wicked and vncleane thing in its own nature. For see how the Popes speake of it. Pope p. 11Innocent in his 82. Distinction, doth forbid **Can. Proposuit.that they which dwell with their wiues should be receaued to any holy charge, because it is written, Be yee holy as I am holy, saith the Lord. This Pope it seems thought that marriage could not stand together with sanctity. And by consequence that it was a prophane thing. And note the abuse; For when God saith, Be yee holy, hee speakes to all men: but if by this commandement God did require that men should abstaine from their wiues, what remaines there more but that there should no man bee married? To the same purpose doth he produce the passage of the Apostle to Titus Chap. 1. VntoUnto the pure al things are pure, but to them that are defiled and vnbeleeuing, is nothing pure. VponUpon this place doth hee ground the single life of Priests to the end they may bee pure, otherwise hee thinkes them defiled and vnbeleiuing. Also wickedly wresting that saying of the Apostle Rom. 8. v 8.9. against married persons. Hee speakes thus to the Clarks. They which are in the flesh cannot please God; Now yee are not in the flesh but in the spirit. Could hee more disgrace married men then to saie they cannot please God. For note that the p. 12Apostle in this place speaks to al the faithfull in generall.

Pope Syricius in the same Distinction speakes yet more disgracefully of marriage; for first he ranckes the Priestes which beget children vponupon their owne wiues, with those that commit adulterie. We hauehave vnderstood, saith he, that many Priests and Deacons, hauehave a long time after their consecration, gotten children both in marriage, as also by fornicatiō ; A little after he speaks vntounto them both equally; Let them which are giuen to fornicatiō, & which teach these sinnes tel me &c. And we hauehave heard aboue how Pope Pelagius accounts the marriage of Clarkes for a sinne. So in the 31. Cause, 1. Quest. Canon. Hac ratione, the Romish decree saith, that howbeit the Apostle S. Paul hauehave commanded second marriages, yet according to truth, and in reason it is fornication. And the vow of single life is by them called the vow of chastity, as though there were no chastitie in marriage. Bellarmine in his 34. Ch. of the book of Monkes, stiles the marriage of Clarkes and Monkes by the name of sacrilege, and affirmes that they sinne lesse which cōmit fornicatiō, after they hauehave once taken a vow, then they doe p. 13which marry. And in the 19. Chap. of the 1. booke of Clarkes, he saith that the marriage of Saints is not without some pollution & vncleanesse. And indeed should this people hold their peace, yet experience would tel as much. For who is there but knows, that to see a Priest keepe a pretty wench in his house, or to goe into a Stewes, is thought but a laughing matter, and held to be a veniall slip? But if a Priest should be married in the sight of the Church, this would bee held for a prodigie; They would say that this were the cause of the plague or the dearth that lay vponupon them; that the eclipse of the sunne did prognosticate this: & out of question it should bee recorded in their Chronicles. The former is but simple fornication, but the other is sacrilege. For 500. publicke brothell▪ houses to be in the citty of Rome is thought nothing so hainous a crime, as that one of the Cordiliers should be seene to be married. Moyses, Samuel, the Prophet Esay, and the Apostle S. Peter, which were all married, would be thought monsters now a daies; & a man might get mony by leading them about to bee seene for strange sightes. By this therefore wee see that this prophecy is fulfilled every p. 14kinde of way.

They excuse it by their vow, and say that the marriage of clarks and monks is therefore sacrilege because in beeing married they breake their vow. To which I answere that if the marriage of clarcks were therfore only to be condēned, they should call it by the name of faithlesnesse only, or infidelitie, and not of pollution as Pope Syricius doth; nor yet of sacrilege as Bellarmine. And in trueth why is it that before they receiue any to be clarckes they exact this vow of them so severely without anie exception, but that they thinke that marriage in it selfe is not lawfull for them although they tooke no vow.

As for the necessity of keeping vowes, I say, that the first vowes whē they are good and necessarie, may not be brokē by those we take after, & I am perswaded they will grant me this. But a clarcke before ever he were a clarcke did he not make a vow and promise to God to keepe his commaundements? This is that which we all promise at our first entrance into the Church, and although we did not promise it, yet for all that were we bound to keepe it. Now amongst the commandements of God this p. 15is one.**Hieron. ad Eustochium. To avoid fornication, let every man hauehave his wife, & every woman her husband. If therefore any Monke be lustfull, and it fare with him as it did with S. Ierome, who after all his prayers and fastings, did yet still dreame of women and burne with incontinencie, I demand to which vow he is most bound, either to that which hee made to obay God, who commands all such to marry, or to that which he made to the Church that hee would never marry? Can they without impietie affirme that he must rather keepe the vowe made to the Church wherevnto he is not tied by God, then that which he made to God, & which he were bound to keepe although hee had not made it? Especially seeing that **Tho. in 22. qu. 88. art. 2.Tho. Aquinas, and Cardinal **Bell. lib. de Clericis. c. 18Bellarmine confesse that the single life of Priests is but by the law of man, but to abstaine from fornication, is inioined by the lawe of God, why then is the law of man observed more religiously then the law of God? Why are humane institutions more strictly kept thē Gods commandements? insomuch that a Priest which shall commit fornication against the law of God, is thought to hauehave sinned a great deale lesse then if hee were p. 16married against the promise made to the Church without the commaundement of God? the one being called but fornicatiō, but the other held to be sacrilege. To abstaine from fornication is nothing but to obay the law of God, but never to marry is a counsell of perfection, and a worke of supererogation ▪ which sets the Monkes in Paradice in a far higher degree of glory, then Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets that were married could euer attaine vntounto.

But I would yet further be informed, if when a man take vponupon him to be a Monk and promise to liue chastly, whether by this promise he doe not withall promise to abstain from fornicatiō: they would blush to deny this. It followes therefore that hee sinnes far more in committing fornication then in marrying, seeing that by fornication (besides the violating of the generall vow which all men are bound to make to God, he also breaketh his very monasticall vow which hee tooke vponupon him over and aboue the commandement of God. To all these things our adversaries never answer directly, nor speak they ought to the purpose. They make digressions in the praise of Virginitie; But this concernes not vsus, p. 17who acknowledge that virginitie is the most cōmodious state of life to serue God in without straying, that marriage hath its discommodities, and as the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 7. troubles in the flesh, especially in time of persecutiō. But these praises agree only to chast virginitie, which doth not consist only in keeping the body from vncleannesse, but in withholding the minde too from lust. Whosoever hath this perfection, & besides hath discretion enough to guid his familie, that man doth wisely to liue single. But if he be set vponupon by wicked desires, and yet notwithstanding doth still affect a single life, he provoketh God, exposeth himselfe to temptatiōs, ensnares his conscience, and digs a pit for himselfe to fall in. Chast marriage will never be liable to so many discommodities as incontinent virginitie, for what doe they which liue in this state, but chew the bit it secret, thinking that condition of life most sweet and happy which they are denyed to liue, desiring that which they fly, hauing their thoughts defiled with vnchast imaginations, and yet notwithstanding all this resolued not to follow the counsell of God, and to abstaine from vsing the remedies p. 18which hee hath prescribed. This is a vice for which Philosophie could never finde a name, to burne with lust, and whilst wee are in this taking, to vow to God that wee will flie from the remedies that hee hath ordained against it; which is all one as if a man were sicke, and should promise God that he would take no Phisicke, there is rashnesse in this mixed together with obdurat superstition.

To vrge this yet further we aske if this continent virginitie be the gift of God, or whether it be in our owne power, Bellarmine answers that it is truely the gift of God and yet neverthelesse that it is in our owne power. Lib. 2. de Mon. cap. 31Which is a plaine contradiction; for if God giuegive it vsus then is it not in our power, seeing that wee doe not carry the key of his gifts, and that his goods are not at our disposall. It is true indeed that wee aske the grace of God freely; & vse it with out constraint, but it is God that maketh vsus disposed to aske it, and giues vsus the will to vse it.**Phil. 2.13.Phil 2:13 It is hee which worketh both the will and deed in vsus, even of his good pleasure. Seeing then it is the gift of God, when any man doth aske the gift of continuing in a single life without desire of marying, doth p. 19God stil heare him? And where is then the promise that God will heare him as concerning this. For cōfidence of prayer must bee grounded on some promise of God. Bellarmine cannot produce any promise, only he brings vsus, as his fashion is, a ridiculous distinctiō; **Cap. 34. lib. 2. de Mon.saying, that God giues all men a possibility of containing themselues, but that hee giues not vntounto all men actually to containe themselues, but only to such as he thinkes good. As who should say, that God gaue one power to be an Emperor, but yet did not grant that he should be an Emperour; that God gaue a man power to bee wise, but yet did not graunt that he should be wise. But to what ende serues that power, that is neuer reduced in to act? For our question was not, whether God gaue the power or the act; but whether he gaue the act of being continent to all men? Hee confesseth therefore that hee giues not this but to some particulars; and that to be actually continent is a guift of god that is not given to all. If then there be a Monke, to whom God hath not givē the gift of continency, and which burnes with inward lust, who shall tell you himselfe, that after so many Pater Nosters said, p. 20and often fastings, hee is yet still tempted with the spirit of fornication; I woulde knowe whether such a one bee to followe the Apostles counsell, that is to marry, or else to continue in his former incontinencie? But it ill befits these fellowes to talke of such things. For as it ill beseems a slaue to discourse of liberty, or a man with his belly ful to preach fasting & pennance: so also is it ill beseeming these squires that liue so vnchastly, to dispute of chastitie. For their liues speak against them, & their rules are refuted by their actions. Hardly would a man beleeue them since they doe not beleeue themselues, and since they make a vow of chastity, that so they may liue the more dissolutely. They speake against nature, whilst they are most giuen to nature; (to say nothing of their pleasures contrary to nature.) Let them therefore first learne to liue, before they goe about to dispute; and let the Covent go no more to the Stewes, nor the Stewes bee kept any more in the Covēt, if they would not hauehave vsus beleeue that continency is a gift, which God giues not to such as correct his word. Or if every one may hauehave it that will, the more to blame they for refusing p. 21it, since it was in their power to hauehave had it.

Nor let them speake any more to vsus of these vowes, which are a yoke of yron, and a snare to intangle weake soules. For they omit the first point, which is, that they should knowe before they take any vowe, whether it be good and lawful; seeing that if it be not lawfull to make, it is vnlawfull to keep. Things which are bad to promise, are worse yet to performe. Virginity is a good thing, & honest, but for a man to tie himselfe thereto, is a token of rashnesse & ignorance of his owne infirmity.

For vowes are thē good whē they hauehave these 3 conditions, 1. If the things vowed be good. 2. If they bee such as we know to be in our owne power. 3. If we vow them willingly and wittingly. None of al which are found in the vowes of chastity which the Monckes and Clarckes take; For to liue single is good, but not for all, but only for such as hauehave the gift of continency: it is good, but not in that degree of goodnes as they would hauehave it, making it a kinde of perfection aboue the law, and a worke of supererogation whereby we render God more then we owe him. It is hard that that p. 22which is the occasion of so much vncleannesse should be a work of more worth thē to louelove God with all our hearts. Or that that should be a worke of supererogation, which if every one kept, the church would ere long bee abolisht from the face of the earth, 2. That it is not in our power we hauehave shewed already, & their liues which make this vow, shew their vnablenesse to perform it. 3. The monastical vow is not alwaies made wittingly, and willingly. Many there be that enter into it through choler, some through despaire, and others out of ignorance, and in their tender age when they doe not knowe what the motions of lust meane. A father will say, how shall I marry all my daughters, how shal I devide my goods amongst so many sonnes? I must needs place my lame sonne in a monastery, & since he is fit for no other calling, make him a man of the church. It is a rare thing and seldome seene to offer a lamb without spot to God. And these poore children being come to yeares they finde themselues taken in the net, into which they entred at first as it were reioicing, but liue therein sorrowing, seeing themselues caught, with out all hope of ever being set at liberty.

p. 23Seeing then it is better for the governement of our life to follow sacred and sure rules, then rash and indiscreet vowes; and not so much to keepe that to which wee hauehave bound our selues, as that to which we are bound by God, we will conclude this discourse, with the rule of the Apostle. 1. Tim. chap. 3. Let a bishop therefore be vnreproueable, the husband of one wife, ruling his owne house honestly, having his children vnderunder obedience with all reverence.

The common evasion is, that S. Paule meanes only that a Bishop must not hauehave had but one wife before his election into that charge, but that after his election he is to hauehave none. Hierome a professed enemie of marriage vnderstandes it thus. They interpret these words therefore, Let a Bishop be, by these, Let a Bishop hauehave beene. By their reckoning the Apostle should speak thus. Let such a one be chosen to bee a Bishop that hath beene irreproueable, the husbvnde of one wife, watching, temperate, modest; or, but let him now be so no longer; so doe they make the Apostle the teacher of vices, and the entrance into a Bishoprick to be a ceasing from vertue. But though it were harde for S. Paul to foresee that any should wrest p. 24his words so strangely, yet, as it seemes, he meant purposely to put the matter out of controversie, by that which he annexeth in the 12 verse. Let the deacons be the husbāds of one wife, and such as can rule their childrē well, and their owne housholds; where these words Let them be, go immediatly before, and are ioined only to the word, husbands. And, which is more, in the 11. verse, he ordaineth that their wiues be honest, not evill speakers, but sober, and faithfull in al things. Who would thinke that S. Paule did instruct the women that had been the wiues of Bishops, but not such as were▪ His meaning therefore is that Bishops, and Deacons should not be Digamists, & that they should neither in former times hauehave had, nor at the present hauehave but one wife at once; because then it was the custome that man and wife were often separated by divorce for other causes besides adulterie, & vponupon light occasions, and afterward marryed againe as they thought best, which the Apostle S. Paule doth forbid, not onlie to Bishops and Deacons, but to such **1. Tim. 5 91 Tim 5:9widdowes also as served in the church, to the end no man might say that they had two husbands, the one with them, and the other p. 25divorced.

Wherein the truth is so cleere, and the liberty of expounding being, by having beene, so intolerable, that Bellarmine himselfe, (howsoever he threaten as though he would contest) is faine to yeeld vntounto it, in the 21. chap. of his 1. booke of Clerckes, in these words, Chrysostome and the other fathers vponupon this place teach that Paule made no law that bishops should hauehave wiues, but only that they should not hauehave, nor hauehave had but one. Agreeable to Pope Leos expositiō in his 85. Epistle. The Apostle bids vsus t… choose a bishop that is knowne to hauehave beene marryed, or to be marryed but to one wife.

This so manifest a truth, and so forcible an evidence, hath by force extorted confessions frō our adversaries which are inserted in the Romish decrees. In the 23. Distinction about the governement of Clerckes, it is said, Let them labour to preserue the chastitie of their bodies inviolable, or at the most let them marry but once; and in the 26. cause quaest. 2. The marriage of Priests, and of cousens, is forbidden neither by the Legall, nor Evangelical, nor Apostocall authority, neverthelesse it is absolutelie forbidden by the authority of the Church. p. 26Where by the Church he vnderstands the Romish church. For in the Aethiopian Church, which containes 17. realmes, the Monckes are married, and are labouring and handy crafts men; and in the Greeke Church the Priests and Deacons are married once. Witnesse the Canon Aliter in the 32. Distinction. The tradition of the East church is divers frō this of the church of Rome. For their Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacōs are marryed: But in this church no priest frō a subdeacon to a bishop hath any liberty to marry. In the very same Distinction is the iudgement of the councell of Nice set downe in these words, concerning the resistance made by Paphnutius bishop of Thebais. Now Paphnutius the confessor withstood this, shewing that marriage was honorable, and saying that it was chastitie for a man to liue with his owne wife. Wherfore hee advised the councell not to establish such a law; affirming that it was a matter of importance, and that it would bee an occasion either to them or their wiues of fornication. And this was Paphnutius his opinion although himselfe were not married, whose advise was approved of by the Synod. The like is reported by Socrates in his 1. booke p. 27and 8. Chap. & by Sozomene in his 1. book 23. Chap. & by Nicephorus Callistus in the 8. book of his history, Chap. 19. and by the actes of the councell of Nice written by Gelasius Cysicensus, all which do not onlie speake of suffering Priests to hauehave wiues, but graunt them the enioining of the marriage bed, as honest and lawfull. Which I hauehave therefore the longer insisted vponupon, because there be some that hauehave mard this history, and that tell it otherwise. In the 56. Distinction, in the Canon Osius, there is a greate bedroll of bishops reckoned vp, which were the sonnes of bishops, Priests, or Deacons; And least a man should think that they were begotten before their fathers had taken holy orders, a little after in the same Distinction, the exposition is annexed in these wordes. When we reade aboue that Priests children hauehave beene made Popes, we must not thinke that they were begot by fornication, but by lawfull marriage, which, before this prohibition, was permitted vntounto all, and is at this day (as all know) suffered in the East Church.

Hence come these Canons of the auncient Councels. The 4 Canon of the counsell of Gangres is this. If any one shall put a p. 28difference betweene a Priest that is married, as though it were not lawfull to receaue the sacrament at his hands when he shal serue it, Let him be an Anathema. A Canon which Bellarmine hath falsified in the 21. Chap. of his first book of Clerkes, having turned foreign, by Qui vxorem habuit, which had a wife, whereas it signifieth, Qui vxorem duxit, which hath married a wife, that is as much to say, which is marryed. Witnesse the vulgar translation allowed of by the Councell of Trent, which translates the 10. verse of the 7. Chap. of the 1 to the Corinthians; foreign, ijs autem qui matrionio iuncti sunt, to those which are marryed, and not as Bellarmine, Iis qui vxorem habuerunt, to those which hauehave beene marryed.

The 6. Generall councell assembled at Trulla to make Canons hath an expresse ordinaunce herevpon in the 13. Canon in these words. For as much as we hauehave vnderstood, that it hath beene ordained for a rule in the Church of Rome, that whosoever will bee a Deacon or Priect, must first protest that he will never any more after that hauehave to doe with his wife: we, following the Apostolicall order & discipline, will that the lawfull marriages p. 29of Clergy men be for ever availeable, by no means separating them frō their wiues, nor forbidding them to come togither at convenient times. Wherefore if any one shall be thought worthy to be chosen a subdeacon, deacon, or a Priest, let him not be hindred from mounting to this degree because he dwels togither with his lawfull wife, and let it not bee exacted of him in the day of his election to renounce the cōpany of his lawfull spowse. Least by this we be constrained to disgrace marriage, which was first instituted by God, and blessed by his presence, seeing that the Gospel cries out that no man shoulde separate that which God hath ioined togither; This, vnderunder the paine of excommunication & deposition: and all against the Church of Rome, expresly named in the Canon. It is true indeede that Bellarmine incensed against the Councel, cals it profane, in his 1. booke of Clarkes 19. Chap. so defaming and disgracing these ancient coūcels as often as they shall speake against the Church of Rome. But he did not marke how withall he condemned Pope Adrian, which allowes of this 6. Councell togither with all the Canons thereof: which approbation is inserted in the Decretals in the third Distinction p. 30of Consecration.

To this councell doth Iustinians constitutiō agree in the Code, & 2. law De Episcopis & Clericis: the wordes whereof are these. Let not clergie men be cōpelled to finde post horses, nor carts for common carriages, and let not their goods and substance be taxed for this purpose. Let all Clarcks enioy this priviledge, so that neither their wiues nor their children be subiect to this burden.

Wee hauehave heard a multitude of ancient authors herevpon, which teach that the Apostles were marryed. If we beleeue Platina in the life of Cletus the 1. S. Luke was marryed, and had his wife in Bythynia. Athanasius towards the end of his epistle to Dracōtius, shews the custome in his daies. Many bishops, saith he, are not marryed, on the contrary there bee Monckes that are the fathers of childrē; as on the other side we hauehave knowne bishops that hauehave had children, and Moncks that hauehave had none: as who should say, that in this there was no law nor necessitie imposed.

Socrates in the 22. chap. of his 5. booke. Many (saith hee) whilst they were bishops hauehave had children of their lawfull wiues. St. Gregorie of Nysse, brother to Basilius, was p. 31married; of whom Nicephorus speaks thus in the 11. Chap. of his 11. booke. Although he had a wife, in other things he was not inferiour to his brother. Sozomene in the 11. Chap. of his 1. booke speakes thus of Saint Spiridion. Hee was a plaine man hauing wife and children, but this made him never the worse for his divine function. Mantuan speakes after this manner of S. Hilarie in the first booke of his Fasti.

Non nocuit tibi progenies, non obstitit vxor

Legitimo coniuncta thoro, non horruit illa

Tempestate Deus thalamos, cunabula, taedas

Thy children did not marre thy course of life,

Nor wast thou made the worser for thy wife,

God likt the marriage bed well till of late,

But what he thē did like, he now doth hate

And Synesius Bishop of Cyrene, was admitted Bishop, although hee tolde them plainely that hee would not therefore depart from his wife, and would hauehave as many children by her as he could. S. Hierome himselfe a mortall enimie of marriage, yet neverthelesse (when hee is out of coller against Iovinian) allowes of the marriage of Bishops. For in his Epistle to Oceanus, p. 32he defendes Carterius a Bishop of Spaine which had a second wife, against a certain lewd fellowe, which being a fornicator spoke il of Carterius his marriage. He saith therefore. Carterius hath desired to hauehave children by his wife; but thou by giuing thy body to a queane hast destroyed thy race. He hid himselfe in the secret corners of his chā ber, whilst he served nature, and the blessing of God, saying, encrease and multiply, & fill the earth; but thou serving thy beastly lust in open places wert detested by the beholders. Hee concealed a lawfull action by an honest modesty; but thou hast exposed thy vnlawfull actions to the sight of all men. For him it is written, that marriage is honorable, and the bed vndefiled; but for thee, that God shall iudge fornicators and adulterers. And the same Hierome against Iovinian, where hee speaketh so disgracefully of marriage, doth yet acknowledge that in his time Priestes were married. If it be said (saith he) that Samuel, which was brought vp at the Tabernacle, had a wife, how doth this preiudice virginitie? As if there were not at this day many Priests that are married: seeing that the Apostle describes a Bishop to be the husband of one wife, &c. Leo the 1. Bishop of Rome in p. 33his 85. Epistle speaking of the Apostles Commandement of choosing a Bishop, which either is, or hath beene the husband but of one wife, saith that this Commandemēt was alwaies observed so religiously that the same condition was held fit to bee kept in choosing the wife of a Priest.

Yet (notwithstanding al this) I doe not deny, but that many holy men in times past, hauehave devoted themselues to a single life; thinking marriage a state of life not so agreeable with a Bishops calling as virginity. Wee may see many examples for this in Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Hierome, and Ambrose. And which is more, Origen that hee might liue chastly did vtterly disable himselfe for being fit for the act of generation; whether it were that he did geld himselfe, or vse some other means to mortifie his members. And indeed, as the Coū cels before mentioned doe permit a Priest to take a wife, and to enioy her as hee did before he was a Priest; so I confesse it was the most vsual custome for Priests to marry before they tooke orders, it being the common fashion at this day in Greece for their Priests to take wiues some few daies before their ordination, and those once p. 34dead, never to marry againe; but to bee married after their ordination this was vnvsuall. Vntill at last the Councell of Neocaesarea which is but provinciall, did in the 1. Canon forbid Priests ever to marry after their admission. These were yet but the seeds of error; to which, that they might not encrease, the Councels held in the East, hauehave made Canons cleane contrary. But in the West, that is to say, in the Latin Church, which is called the Roman, the Romish Bishops hauing found by experience, that virginitie was the fittest state for the preserving of Church goods, & of maintaining their authority ouer the Clergie, did willingly admit of it, and by all meanes seeke to vphold it. And this evill, being increast amongst the Gaules, Salvian a Bishop of Marsilia, which lived in the time of Clowis as then an heathen, cō plaineth much of it, towards the later ende of his 5. booke of providence; where hee speakes after this wise vntounto such as did refraine from marriage that they might enter into some holy order of religion. This is a new kinde of change. They doe not that which they may, and doe that which they may not. They abstaine from marrying, but doe p. 35not abstaine from rapine. O foolish perswasiō! what dost thou? God hath forbidden sinnes, & not marriages.

Gregory the 1. bishop of Rome did maintaine this errour to the vtmost of his power, about the yeare of our Lord, 600. and yet notwithstanding in Boniface his questions, and 4 booke of dialogues, 11. chap. he speakes of Priests wiues whom hee calleth Presbyteras, and makes mention of a Priest of Narsia, that did abstaine from lying with his wife, For (saith Gregory) holie men hauehave this property, sometimes to abstaine from lawfull things, that so they may alwaies estrange themselues from the things that are vnlawfull. In his iudgement therefore, if this priest had dwelt with his wife, hee had done no more then what he might do lawfully.

To be short, what care and diligence so ever the bishops of Rome and their substitutes did vse, they coulde not effect what they intended, but slowly: there being not as yet aboue 500. yeares past, since that Priests were married in France, England & Germanie. For the proofe whereof I could produce many good witnesses, which report of the great oppositiōs that the Popes p. 36hauehave had in this matter, and the generall outcries of the whole clergie.

It remaines that wee make good this clause of the Apostles prophecy, wherein hee foretelleth vsus that lying spirites shall teach this errour through hypocrisie, having cauterized consciences, that is to say, having lost all sense and feeling of conscience, as a tooth or other part of the bodie that is seared with an hot yron to dead it.

Nowe that this doctrine was first planted by the Doctours of the Romish church even against their owne consciences it is easie to prooue by vnanswerable arguments.

1 For they call marriage a sacrament, and yet they say that in Monks & Priests it is sacriledge. Can they possibly imagine that one and the selfesame action shoulde be a sacrament in one, and sacriledge in an other? Or that any one may be said to commit sacriledge in vsing a sacrament?

2 Againe, this is against their conscience, when they faine that they establish this decree of virginity for no other ende but that Clerkes should be the more holy, when the true cause thereof indeede, is the preservation of church goods, for feare a p. 37bishop or Priest should pare awaie some thing from them, and imploy it to the vse of his wife and children; as Pope Gregorie witnesseth in the 28. Distinction, & Canon De Syracusanis, where he saith that the reason why he did refuse to admit of a certain bishop, was, because he had a wife, & children, by whom the church goods doe vse to be endangered. And yet notwithstanding, at the vrgent request of the people of Syracusa he did receiue him, on condition that his wife and children should not meddle at all with the church revenewes.

3 It is also against their owne conscience, that having once confessed, that the single life of priests and monkes, is not by the commandement of God, but only by the law of man; yet they labour to proue it out of the scripture. For if their proofes be good, then is it by the law of God.

4 It is likewise against their conscience, that after they hauehave acknowledged that fornication is vnlawfull by the law of God, and that the single life of priests is established only by the law of man, yet notwithstanding they mainetaine that it is a lesse sinne for a Priest to commit fornication, then to marry.

p. 385 It is not with a good cōscience that whilest they exact a vowe of chastitie of their priests, they should in the mean space excuse their lasciviousnesse, as the * Canonists do, which hauehave made this glosse on the Decree in the 11. cause quest. 3. But if a priest embrace a woman, it is to bee presumed that hee doth it to no other end, but to giuegive her a fatherly benediction.

6 They goe against their conscience, when they say, that they doe not forbidde marriage, and yet will not suffer a priest, that is a knowne fornicatour, to bee married.

7 They speake against their conscience, when they say that they are no enemies of such marriages as are approved of in the Scripture, and yet never the lesse in their Decrees (which are the lawes of the church of Rome) they suffer **Can. hac ratione caus. 31. quaest. 1^a.Canons to be, which say that S. Paule commaunding such as are widdowes to marry againe, spake against truth and reason, seeing that such marriage is fornication.

8 With the like dissimulation they speak of chastity, and yet for all this, suffer vnchast laws and Canons in their decrees. As in the Canon. Is qui, in the 34. Distinction. p. 39Where of behold the inscription. He that hath no wife, let him in steede of a wife hauehave a concubine. The Canon following is not much better. It is not lawful for a Christian to hauehave. I do not say many wiues, but not so much as two wiues, but only one wife, or in defect therof a Cōcubine. Likewise the Canō, Dilectissimis in the 12. cause, & 1 quest. which doth commend and approue Platoes opinion the wisest amongst the Greekes▪ which saith that all things should be common amongst friends, now vnderunder this name of all things (saith this Canon) questionlesse mens, wiues too are comprehended.

9 It cannot bee with a good conscience that they exact the vow of continency, and yet take away the remedy against incontinency: that they tie men to chastity and yet wincke at fornication: forbidding marriage, and opening the Stewes: whereby they say that they avoid a greater evil, contrary to the rule of the **Rom. 1.Rom 1Apostle, whoe bids vsus that we should not doe evill that good may come thereby. And yet let a man but note how this is a remedy against other evils. For there are many towns where true religion is established, where there are no Stewes, and yet fornication is not frequētly p. 40practised, nor the name of Sodomie scarse knowne. But the Pope by establishing Stews in Rome, hath he thereby extinguished the sinne of Sodomie, or diminished the number of adulterers?

10 This is also against their conscience that confessing many of the Apostles to hauehave beene married, they do yet call the forbidding of marriage an Apostolicall tradition.

11 Finally to know what subtile devises the Pope hath vsed in these matters of marriage, we are to vnderstand that he hath remoued all causes concerning matrimonie from the secular Courts of Princes, and taken order for them to bee decided at Rome. Nowe to the ende that hee might hereby tyrannize over mens consciences, he hath invēte… a thousand scruples. He hath found o… newe degrees of spiritual kindred: forbidding marriage betweene Godfathers, and Godmothers, or their children. Also, the **Lev. 18.20Lev 18:20word of God not forbidding marriage any further then betweene the Vnckle and the neece, or the Nephew and the Aunt, which are in the first or secōd degree, the Pope going lower hath forbidden it betweene Cosen germans, p. 41and their children, and those which are remote even to the fourth degree. Hee hath likewise made it vnlawfull to marry in Lent. For looke howe many the more prohibitions there are, so many the more dispensations must there bee, which are bought at a deare rate, and by so much the more is he repaired vntounto. And note that he doth not only dispense with prohibitions of his owne making, but with those which God hath made too; suffering Vnkles to marry their Neeces, especially in the families of Princes: to the end that the childrē borne of such that are thus married, should for their owne ease bee glad to vphold his authoritie. The counting booke of the fees belonging to the Romish court of Chauncerie, imprinted at Paris by Tousains Denis, in S. Iames his street, neere S. Yuoes. in the yeare 1520. hath these words. The penitentiarie may dispense with the first degree of affinity in the Court of conscience, & such a dispensation is sold for 9 Ducats and six groats. That is to say, that the Pope may giuegive permission to a woman to marry the brother of her dead husband, or to a man to marry his dead wiues sister, a thing forbidden by the word of God. Levit. 18. p. 4216. and 20.21.

Wee hauehave therefore in this point also plainely seene the Apostles prophecie fulfilled.

The second part of this prophecie, concerning the forbidding of meates.

THe Apostle S. Peter commaunding vsus to watch, and be sober presupposeth that sobriety is a helpe to vigilancie. For it is hard to watch with a full belly: one that is drunke is no fit mā to be a sentinell. This watchfulnesse is requisite to foresee the assaults of Satan, and to avoide his temptations, and to make vsus lift vp our harts directly vntounto God. For as a man cannot well study in the kitchin, so neither can one easilie meditate of heavenly things whilst his delight is set vponupon meat. The belly must hold his peace, when the spirit speakes to God, and the desire of eating be as it were mortified by this spirituall hunger, wherof our Saviour speakes in the 4. of Iohn, saying, My meate is to do the will of my father that sent me; hardly can the louelove of God liue togither with the pāpring of the body. Hardly can a mā ever imprint any mark of godlines p. 43in his hart, whose palate is more skilfull then his vnderstanding: or which enthralleth his minde to his belly, nourishing this not so much for necessity, as curiosity: but if this evill be pernicious at all times, it followes that sobriety is alwaies necessary, and that a Christians life ought to be a continuall fast; yea, I dare affirme, that in this, piety may learne of superstition: For if the superstitious do fast the evēs of holy daies, why should not wee fast all our life long, since it is nothing els but the vigill of that great holyday which is the everlasting sabbaoth?

Fasting therefore is an holy exercise, & in the worde of God ordinarily ioined togither with praier. So our Lord Iesus in the 17. chap. of S. Matthew and 21 verse, speakes of certaine stubborne spirits, that could not be cast out but by praier & fasting. And S. Paul in the 1. to the Corinthians, & 7. chap. Defraud not one an other, except it be with consent for a time, that yee may giuegive your selues to fasting and praier. For they knew that there was a mutuall accord between praier and fasting. Fasting enflames praier, and praier sanctifies fasting; Fasting remoues negligence from praier, and praier p. 44remoues pride and superstition from fasting. For as prayer without fasting is but slow, so fasting without praier is but a bodily diet, and no spirituall exercise. God is more angry then pleased with this service, if that whilst a mā hath an empty stomack, he be drūken with wrath, or glutted with lewd lusts. For he reckons of both alike, both of the surfets of the wicked, and the fasts of hypocrits, which change vertue into foolery, and christian sobriety into a distinction of meats, and into scrupulous observations, with (I know not) what opinion of merit, and satisfaction. As though fasting could satisfie God, or as though hee were bounde more to pleasure him which hath lost his dinner. For true fasting is to make vsus more fit for to serue God, but not for to merit any thing at his hands, or for to lay downe a payment for our sinnes, for which Iesus Christ hath already fully satisfied.

But it is not so now a daies; so hath superstition overrun true devotion, and marred this holy exercise. This abuse began in the Apostles time; and is reprehended by the Apostle S. Paul in the 2. chap. of his Epistle to the Colossians, where he rebukes p. 45those which said, tast not, touch not, handle not, doing this, not because they thought any kinde of meate more vncleane then other, but (saith he) by a voluntary religion, and humblenes of minde, that they might not spare their bodies, nor hauehave any regard to pampring of their flesh. Some 150 years after came the Tatians and Montanists, thē the Manichees, and after them Eustacius bishop of Sebastia (whom Sozomen takes to be the author of the Asceticks of Basil) taught certaine superstitious fasts and distinctions of meates; all which were condemned for hereticall by the ancient Church.

Last of all came the Church of Rome, which now is so far transported with this errour, that the greatest part of their religion consisteth in these petty observatiōs of daies, and distinctions of meats, which are so many in number, that the bondage of the legall Ceremonies might be called liberty in respect of these; For whosoever will reckon vp all their fasting daies in a yeare, shall finde that they come to more then 5 months yearely. In some of these daies flesh only is forbidden; in others butter also and egges. In Spaine they are suffered p. 44duplicate page p. 45duplicate page p. 46on fasting daies to eate the inwardes of calues, and sheepe, which they call morsillos and menudillos. A good and religious christian is now a daies discerned by this, to wit, if he keepe Lent, and the fowre Ember weeks, and the vigils of Festival daies; that which was craftily imposed at first. For in taking away the holy scripture frō the people, and giving them divine service in an vnknowne tongue, he must needes thinke on some think to busie their bodies withall, whilst he did blind their minds, & giuegive them some corporall exercise, whilst hee robbed them of spirituall instruction. Hence comes it that the poore people doe to a day know all the fasting daies exactly, and how many holy day evens there be to be fasted; but knowe nothing at all in the scripture. Hence also comes it that the priest in confession doth carefully enquire of the sinner, whether he hath kept Lent or no, and the 4 fasts: but never asketh if hee hauehave confirmed his faith in the promises of the gospell, if he be instructed in the holie scripture, if he vnderstand the misteries of our redemption: if he louelove God with all his hart, and his neighbor as himselfe: But if it be found that the sinner hauehave broken p. 47the ordinance of the Church by eating flesh in Lent, especially in the week which they call, the holy weeke; the Priest then hath no power to absolue him, but sendes him to the penitentiarie. As for murder, & adulterie, and other lesse sinnes which are but against the law of God, the Priest can easily absolue him from such crimes; On the contrary, if hee hauehave fulfilled the commandement of the Church, and fasted according to the lawes thereof, why, this is a meritorious worke, not only for his sins that shall thus hauehave fasted, but for the sins of others too. And this fasting is not measured by the quātitie of meat, but he is said to keepe Lent, that eateth no flesh, nor egges, although hee drinke that which is better, and feed on the best fish that can be got: for as for their after-suppers of comfits, and drie suckats, they are not reckoned, because they take these as Physick, & for to follow the Apostles counsell whoe advised Timothie to comforte himselfe by drinking wine against the weaknes of the stomacke. So hauehave they beene more carefull to fulfill the Apostles prophecie then the commandement of God.

Their ordinarie excuse is, that S. Paule p. 48in this prophecie speaketh of the Montanists and Manichees, which held some meats to be vncleane & profane: But that the Church of Rome thinkes no meat vncleane, but only forbids certaine kindes thereof for some few daies, to take downe the flesh by using it the more coursly, and by withholding such meates from the body, as doe most provoke lust.

1 But against this, wee hauehave seene aboue, how the Apostle S. Paule in his Epistle to the Colosians, condemneth those by name which by refraining from set kindes of meate (being led therevnto by a voluntary religion and humblenesse of minde, thought to vse their bodies hardly, & had no regard to the pampring of their flesh. And hee speakes not to the Iewes, for the Iewes did not abstain from certaine kinds of meats for to subdue their bodies, but to obay Moyses law. Besides S. Paul calleth these observations the commandements of men, but the Iewes kept theirs as the commandements of God. Herevnto adde that the Apostle speaketh of such who besides the errour of distinguishing of meats did worship Angels withall. An errour wherewith as then the Iewes were not branded.

p. 492 Moreover the Apostle speakes generally, and reckons the forbidding of meat, amongst the errors and doctrines of Devils, without specifying any reason for which it is done; The Church of Rome doth doe that which heretickes doe, although it be for another reason.

3 But what matter is it whether wee knowe for what cause they of the Church of Rome do abstaine from certaine meats, since in effect they make a conscience to eate of them, & that the Apostle doth forbid vsus to make a conscience of this; For behold his words in the 10. of the 1. to the Corinthians. If any of them which belieue not, call you to a feast, and if you will goe, what soever is set before you, eate, asking no question for conscience sake. This rule likes not the Church of Rome, the people whereof are instructed, when they shall bee invited by such as they call hereticks and infidels, to make a conscience of not eating all things indifferently that are set before thē. Behold therefore a forbidding of meates condemned by the Apostle, and by consequence the fulfilling of this prophecie.

But what if wee shewe that the Church of Rome doth count flesh and the like p. 50meats to be vncleane in their own nature? For if it forbid the eating of flesh for no other reason but onelyonly because it provokes to lust, it should far rather hauehave forbidden, wine, and sauce, and sweet meates, which enflame the bloud, and doe far more provoke lust then any thing else whatsoever. 2 But what meanes that custome of carrying their meat after Lent to the Priest for him to say his exorcismes over it, and blesse it, if they did not thinke that some wicked spirits lay lurking in it al the Lent long, and that it had some pollutiō whereof it had need to be purged? For if it were otherwise, and if that the intent of the Priest were only to blesse the meate, as we doe ours vsually at meales before we feede vponupon it, this blessing would bee as good at any other times, as after Lent, and there would need no coniuration. This is likewise confirmed by this, that the religious which make profession of a greater sanctitie then others, as the Benedictins, and Chartrians, doe altogether abstaine from flesh all their life long, and eschewe the touching or tasting of it, as of a profane thing: Doing in this worse then they whō the Apostle condemnes in the 2. to the p. 51Colosians which say, tast not, touch not, being moued therevnto onelyonly with a voluntarie religion, for to humble themselues & bring downe the flesh. But if you read the disputations of our schoole Doctors, as of Durandus, and Alensis, & others, you shall find that the reasons which they giuegive, why flesh is forbidden and not fish, do presuppose some vncleannesse in flesh. For there be some of them say, that the reason is, because the creatures of flesh were curst and drowned in the generall deluge, & not the fish: by which reason it should follow, that neither duckes, nor any other water fowle should be forbidden to bee eaten in Lent. Others of them there be that say that the reason is, because Iesus Christ never did eate any thing but fish after his resurrection. They cannot deny but that he did eate his part of the paschall lambe the last week in Lent before Easter: but I imagine these Masters will presuppose that he did dispēse with his owne sanctitie in this. Finally if of two impure actions committed by any one, the one be more grievously punished then the other, is it not because it is more impure? When therefore the Church of Rome doth inflict a greater punishment p. 52on him that doth eate flesh in Lent, then on him that hath committed fornication; doth it not thereby shew that it takes flesh in Lent to bee more vncleane then fornication?

Neverthelesse, for to pleasure them, let vsus suppose that the forbidding of certaine meats in the Church of Rome, be not built vponupon any impuritie conceited to be in the meat; and hauing granted them this, let vsus see, if herein our adversaries differ frō ancient hereticks. Sozomene in his 3. booke, and 31. Chapter. witnesseth that Eustacius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, was the first that ever brought the monastical profession into Armenia, Pontus, and Paphlagonia, putting a difference between meats, and inventing a strange kinde of habits, & other absurd things contrary to the ordinance of the Church. Hee tels vsus also how that many women being ruled by the Disciples of that sect, shaved their heades vnderunder the shewe of religion: that the Councell of Gangres declared them to be cut of from the Church, if they did not renounce their opinions. In this Councell Sozomene saith that Eustacius protested how hee did not bring vp this as a necessary doctrine, p. 53but only for discipline sake, or as a devout exercise and acceptable vntounto God. This at that time was the excuse of heretickes, whereby they did excuse their forbidding of meats, iust after the same manner that the Church of Rome doth now adaies.

The Montanists likewise were generally condemned by the auncient church because they forbad flesh to be eaten. Whether they did this out of an opinion they had, that flesh was defiled and polluted, or for exercise sake, to beate downe the flesh, and curbe in their lust, no man can better resolue vsus then Tertullian, the captaine of that band; who himselfe was stained with this heresie, and hath purposely written a booke of this matter, intituled, Adversus Psychicos, against fleshly men: For so is it his pleasure to stile the catholicks. Whose obiections against the Montanists, he produceth in the second chapter, which are al one with ours against the church of Rome. For in the 2. chap. the Catholickes tell the Montanists. That the lawe and the prophets lasted but till Iohn, after what time mē fasted as they thought best, not for that they were so commanded by the imposition of a new discipline, but accordingly as every man saw his p. 54occasion. That the Apostles vsed to do thus, imposing no other burden of solemne and set fasts. They do yet farther alleadge the saying of the Apostle rebuking the **Gal 4. v. 10Gal 4:10Galathians, because they observed daies and moneths. They do also obiect that God himselfe in the 58 of Esay approues not of that fast that is an abstaining from meate, but of that which is an exercise of the workes of righteousnes. And that Iesus Christ hath in a worde answered all these scrupulous observations of eating and drinking, by saying, That which goeth into the mouth defileth not the man, Mat. 15. v. 11Matt 15:11but that which commeth out of the mouth, that defileth the mā. Wherfore he himselfe made no scruple to eate & drinke, till at last hee was reprehended for it, and called a glutton. That the Apostle teacheth that it is not meate that maketh vsus the more acceptable vntounto God, &c. To be briefe, the faithfull in times past did dispute against the Montanists as we do now a daies against the church of Rome, & the Montanists likewise did defend themselus by the same shiftes and excuses that the Church of Rome now doth. For see how they answere in the 15. chap. of the same booke. The Apostle, say they, condemneth p. 55such, as did commaunde men to refraine from meate; But the holy Ghost by his prescience, condemned such hereticks, before they came, as should enioine a perpetuall fast, for to destroy and vilifie the workes of the Creatour. Herevnto adde, that this errour of refusing Gods creatures, may wel be foūd amongst the Marcionits, Talians, and Pythagoreans but not in the schoole of Montanus, which he calleth the Paraclet. And a little after; we abstaine from meates, which we do not reiect, but only forbeare to vse them for a time. And a few lines aboue. The Apostles intent was, to reprehend such as did abstaine from meate, out of a kinde of loathing disdainefulnesse, and not out of duty, that is to say, out of a voluntary devotion. So did these hereticks excuse themselues, whose forbearing of meate; was not yet left vnreckoned amongst their heresies, what protestations soever they made, that they did not thinke them to bee vncleane or vnlawfull in their owne nature. Whence it also appeares that **Ep. 1. Her.Epiphanius knewe not their tenent, when he accuseth them for mainetaining, that certaine meates were vncleane and profane.

Now although the ancient church beganne p. 56to encrease the number of fasts, yet were they nothing like those which are nowe a daies practised in the church of Rome. For they did abstaine not only from flesh, but also from wine, and all other delicacies. Witnesse S. Austin in the 1. booke of the customes of the church 33. chap. Let those that can, abstaine from flesh and wine for two causes, either because of the weaknes of their brethren, or else for their owne liberties sake herein. And in the booke of Faith to Peter the Deacon. 42. chap. Hold this for certaine, that the servants of God, which abstaine from flesh and wine, do not reiect thē as vncleane things, but they refraine from stronger meats & drinks for to chastise their bodies. Chrysostome in the 4. of his Homilies made at Antioch vponupon the breaking downe of the Emperours statues. There bee some (saith he) that go two whole daies without eating a bit, and againe there bee some, which cutting of not only wine and oile from their table, but all sort of flesh & fish too, feed all the Lent vponupon nothing but bread and water.

Basill in his 1. sermon of fasting, would that in fasting there be nether flesh nor wine vsed, nor any thing else that they like, which p. 57serue their bellies; and that we should feede on nothing but bread only. And a little after. Thou dost eate no flesh, but thou dost eate thy brother; thou dost abstaine from wine but thou dost not abstain from doing outrage, and bearing thy selfe insolently, thou stayest for thy meate till night, but thou art all daie wrangling at the bar; Wo be vntounto those that are drunke, but not with wine.

Also the Fastes of the Auncient, were made partly by the wil of some particulars which fasted more or lesse, as they thought best: & partly by the directions of Bishops, and Pastours of every church, and not by the ordinance of the Bish: of Rome, which had no power in prescribing rules in these matters out of the precincts of his own bishopricke. This appeares by the divers customes in the Church. In the time of S. Ambrose they fasted at Rome vponupon Saturdaie, but at Millan they did not fast then, as S. Austin witnesseth in his 118. epist. to Ianuaries. The church of Millan herein did follow the custome of the Gre…ke church, which fasted neither saturday, nor sūday in Lent; and did for this very cause excommunicate the church of Rome, and denounce it Anathema in the 6. general coū cell, p. 58and the 55. Canon, in these words. Because we hauehave vnderstood that in the cittie of Rome they vse to fast on the Saturdaies in Lent, against the custome left to the Church: This holy Synod hath therefore decreed, that they shall likewise in the church of Rome keep that Canon, which saith; If a Clarke be found to fast on saturday or sunday, let him bee degraded; if a lay man, let him bee excommunicated. But this fell out a long time after, this Councell being not assembled before the 674. yeare of our Lord. But at the first these things were more free, and the rules for them, lesse strict. S. Austin in his 86. Epistle, saith, I see well, that fasting is commā ded, in the Evangelicall, & Apostolicall writings, and throughout all the new Testament, but vpō what daies we should fast or not fast, I see no commandement for this, neither of Christ, nor his Apostles: and a little before hee said that the diverse observations of Fasts, did not trouble the truth of Faith: & that these things are the plaits of the kings daughters Robe. So did hee call the different customes of the Church.

Eusebius in the 5. booke of his historie, recites an Epistles of Ireneus, to Victor Bishop of Rome, wherein hee speakes of p. 59the diverse manners of fastings before Easter. There be some, saith he, which think they must not fast but one day, others there be that fast 2, & some that fast more, some measure their fasting daies by 40. houres, day and night. And this diversitie betweene the observers of the Easter fast, began not from our time, but long before, from their time (as it is credible) which governing the Church without observing any exact rule, did, a little after, turne that into a custome, which was done in simplicitie, and by particular observation. Neverthelesse they had all peace amongst themselues, and we yet liue in peace together, Agreeably to this in the passage of Tertullian aboue alleaged, the Catholike Church maintaineth against the Montanists, that since Iohn Baptists time, fasts hauehave beene free, and that there is no rule which binds vsus to certaine fasts that wee must keepe in common. S. Basil in his two sermons of fasting, speaking of the fast before Easter, tels vsus, I knowe not how often, that this Fast lasted not aboue 5 daies. Let the belly, (saith he in his first Sermon) giuegive vsus some time of truce, and let that, which is ever a craving, bee at peace with vsus for fiue daies. And towarde the ende of the homily, hee p. 60sharply rebukes such, as did vse before the fiue daies came, to stuffe their guts with meate and wine, to the ende they might fast the more easilie, and hauehave their bellies filled with provision. And in the second Sermon. This is an ill mind, because we hear of a fast to come of 5 daies, therefore to make our selues drunke before hand.

We may not omit the history of Alcibiades, recited by Eusebius in the 3. chapt. and 5. booke of his historie. This Alcibiades did macerate his body by fasting, living onelyonly vponupon bread and water, even whilst he was in the prison: But it was told the Martyr Attalus by revelation, that Alcibiades did ill in abstaining frō Gods creatures, and did thereby scandalize his brethren; Alcibiades being told hereof, belieued it, and did ever after that time eate of all meats indifferently, and without feare, and gaue God thanks for it.

The historie of Spiridion, related by Sozomen, in the 1. booke, 11. chap. witneseth that S. Spiridion, and his houshold, did eate no bread vponupon fasting daies, and that commanding his daughter to cover the table for a stranger, which came suddenly vponupon him, shee answered him that p. 61there was no bread in the house, for (it being as then a time of fast) it would hauehave beene superfluous. Notwithstanding all this Spiridion made her serue in a peece of porcke that he had left. But the stranger (brought vp belike in some superstitious place) told him that hee would not eate of it, because he was a Christian. Then Spiridion replied, But for this very reason thou shouldst the rather eate of it, for God saith, al things are cleane to the cleane, and did eate thereof himselfe. He did not say, eate of it, for I hauehave nothing else in the house, necessity may excuse thee; But hee alleages the Apostles rule, which had not beene lesse true, although hee had had never▪ so much varietie of meate in the house: and he himselfe in eating thereof without any necessity, & only to giuegive him an example, shewes that there was no necessitie in this kinde of abstinencie.

S. Austin in his 33. chap. of the 1. booke of the customs of the Church (speaking of the fasts of Romish and Easterne Monkes. which were all artizans, every one getting his living by his trade) saith that none amongst them were put to any hard thing that they were not able to beare: There is p. 62no man which putteth a burden vponupon any one that he shall refuse to carry; and he is not cō demned by others because he confesseth himselfe too weake to follow them, for they hauehave not forgot, how that all things are cleane to the cleane, &c. And the whole Chapter is spent about this, to shewe that when a faithfull man well informed, doth refraine from certaine meats, hee doth doe this for feare of offending the weake, although he knowe well enough that it is a thing lawfull and indifferent in it selfe.

This diversity of customes in diverse countries, grounded vponupon Christian libertie, is set downe at large by Socrates in the 22. chap. of the 5 booke of his history. Hee saith that they did not fast at Rome but 3 weekes before Easter excepting Saturday and Sunday. That in Sclavonia, and Greece and Alexandria, they fasted 6. that in other places they fasted 3 times 5 daies, at 3 severall times, and yet that neverthelesse they did cal this Lent, every one alleaging a diverse reason. That there was the like differēce in their fasting from meat. Some of them abstaining from all living creatures, others feeding vponupon fish only, others eating fowle together with fish, as which p. 63(according to Moses testimonie) were made out of the water. There bee some (saith he) which abstaine from the fruits of trees, and from egges. And there bee some that tie rhemselues to eate nothing but bread. And againe, there be some, that eate no bread at all. Whence hee collects, that since no man can shew any expresse commandement as concerning this, it is evident that the Apostles did remit it to everie mans will and pleasure, to the end every one might doe good, but not through feare, or by constraint. Neither can it be said, that this which hee saith of Rome, is contrary to S. Austin. in his 86. and 11. Epistles. where he saith, that they fast at Rome vponupon Saturday. For Austin speakes of the Saturdaies all the yeare long, but Sozomene speakes only of the 3 last Saterdaies before Easter. And, say hee were mistaken in this, yet is it not likely, but that hee told the truth of other Churches, which he himselfe saw. Especially seeing that his testimonie is agreeable to so many witnesses aboue cited. To whom we will ioine S. Ambrose, in his 34. Sermon, saying that in his time there were some which made their Lent to last 20 daies, others 30. by interchangeable weeks. Now p. 64as touching the fast before Easter, the ancients doe not ranck it in the same degree, as they do the other fasts of the yeare. For the Catholicke Church disputing against the Montanists in the 10. Chapter of Tertullians booke of Fasts, saith, that those daies in the Gospell are markt out for fasting, in which the bridegroome was takē away, that is to say, the daies in which Iesus Christ suffered, and was in his graue; that all other daies are in a mans owne liberty. And S. Austin giues the selfesame reason for it in his 86. Epistle to Casulan. Because Iesus Christ said in the 9. of Saint Matthew, that the day would come wherein the bridegroome should be taken away, and then they should fast. This reason (ioined togither with the ancient custome, witnessed by Irenaeus concerning this, to wit, that many did fast 40 continuall howres before Easter) doth discover the very head spring and first beginning of Lent. That is, that they thought themselues bound to fast 40 howres, because Iesus Christ was for so long togither kept vnderunder death, and that this was the time wherin the bridegroome was wanting. Which is likewise confirmed, by that ancient custome of forbidding p. 65them to fast after Easter, till whitsontide were past: because this was the time wherein the bridegroome was restored, & did converse here on earth after his resurrection. But by little and little this fast began to be enlarged, & men vsed to fast many daies before Easter, some more, some lesse. Till at last those 40 howres, were turned into 40 daies.

During this diversity of customes in divers countries, wee never read that the bishop of Rome did take vpō him to correct other churches, or ever laboured to bring the Greeke Church, or that of Millan, to the fashions of the church of Rome.

But I cannot deny but that some of the ancient were excessiue in the praise of fasting. As Ambrose and Basill, which killed himselfe with fasting, making his body, for a long time, feeble, and vnfit for his vocation by emulating Xerophagies a Monke of the desert. In their Homilies of Fasts, they say that Adam fell because he did not fast. That it was fasting that hardned the bodies of the three children throwne into the fornace, and made them not to bee burnt. That fasting gaue Daniels body a temper of steele so that the teeth of the Lyons p. 66could not bite him.

And in S. Austins time these and such like scrupulous observations taking place, this good servaunt of God complained of it. Behold what he saith in his 119. Epistle. That which is brought vp besides the commō custome, as though it were the observation of some sacrament, I cannot approue of it, although I dare not freely to reprehend it, for feare of offending some persons; either holy, or turbulent. But I am much grieved at this that we set little by many wholsome doctrines contained in holy writ, and all things are so full of presumption, that he shall be more grievously reprehēded, which during the Octaues shall touch the earth with his bare foote, then hee that shall hauehave buried his vnderstanding in drunkennesse. And a little after speaking of such as did charge the church, with many were observations, & particularly with that of abstaining from flesh, he saith. Although it cannot bee found that these things are contrary to the faith, neverthelesse they lade religion with servile burdens (which God would hauehave to be free, he himselfe laying nothing vponupon it, but the observations of the Sacraments, which are but few, neither yet obscure) in such sort, that the condition of p. 67the Iewes is more tollerable. For although they knewe not the time of libertie, so it is, that they were subiect onelyonly to the burdens of the law, and not to humane inv…ntions. But the Church of God, mingled with much chaff and many tares, suffereth many things. But she approues not of that which is against the faith, or a good life, neither doth she conceale it, nor yet doe it. Wherefore, that which thou wrotest vntounto mee, that there bee some which doe abstaine from flesh, thinking those to bee vncleane which eate of it, is manifestly against the faith, and sound doctrine. So did this good servant of God, suffer that with griefe, which hee coulde not amend. Although the slaverie and burdens of which he complaineth, were nothing in respect of ours now adaies. He himselfe in the 118 Epistle, telleth vsus that hee followeth the counsel of Ambrose, as of an oracle, which is this. When I am at Rome I fast the saturday, when I am here, I doe not fast. So thou, to what Church soever thou shalt come by chance, conforme thy selfe to the customes thereof, if thou wilt not bee a scandall to any body, nor hauehave any one to bee a scandall vntounto thee.

The abuses which followe, are more p. 68grosse yet, and farther remote from the ancient simplicitie. For the Ancients did not thinke that their fasts were payments to God, to satisfie for the paine due to our sinnes. This is a strange kind of fashion, for a man to pay his debts with fasting, as if a creditour should abate his debtour 10 crownes for every day he should fast. Hee that thinkes that God is contented with this, dreames of an easie composition, and payes him but in light mony. I cōfesse that God hath wrought many deliuerances for them that hauehave fasted: but our adversaries doe wrong to attribute that to the vertue of fasting, which was meant by God to faith and prayer, that doe sanctifie fasting. And they may doe well to remember the **Luk. 11.Luke 11Pharisee, who was sent away, although he fasted twice a weeke, and gaue God to vnderstand of his workes of supererogation.

Aboue all, they hauehave a good grace, to make one man fast for another, and they would hauehave me belieue, that God wil pardon my sinnes, because my neighbor hath fasted for me. There is no iudge so foolishly connivent, that will pardon a crime to any one, in consideration that his brother p. 69hath not dined. But that which we would iudge an intolerable sottishnesse in a man, shall we thinke this fitting for God? For the Pope would hauehave him to rest contented with this. And they that are not in the humour of fasting, louelove rather to borrowe it of others, & to change their bodily fast, into a pecuniarie mulct. They wil say therefore to some religious person, fast for mee, and I will content thee. And that which is thus given to Monkes shall bee called an almes, although they be never so rich. This pretty doctrine is taught in the Canon, Presbyter, in the 82 distinction. He may redeeme the moonday fast, if need be, by singing a Psalme, or giuing a penny to the poore. And the glosse of the Doctors herevpon. Hee may free himselfe from fast by giving a peny; wherefore by a greater reason he may bee freed by others fasting for him. Because also that the fasting of the living is availeable for the dead. Agreeable to the Canon. Animae, in the 13. Cause, & 2. Question. The soules of the dead are delivered by 4 means; either by the oblation of Priestes, or by the praiers of the Saints, or by the almes of their friends, or else by the fastings of their kindred and allies. It is Pope Gregorie which p. 70speakes this, who belieued that the soules were in Purgatory, some in hot houses, others vnderunder the leaues of trees, others in rivers, and hee was much troubled how to get them out thence. Now I say that if the fasting of the living doe refresh them, their feasting also must burne and torment thē. Track mee but any footing of al these opinions in the 3 or 4 first ages.

Or else of that proper custome, whereby the Prelates that enioine fasts doe dispense with them, giuing these dispensations not to the poore but to their friends, and such as are gracious with them. At Rome yee shall get letters of a perpetuall dispensation. In the booke of the Taxation of the Romish Chancerie, formerly alleaged, this article is found in the 6. leafe. For that a lay man is not tyed to fast on the daies which are enioyned him by the Church, and may eate cheese, this letter costs twentie groats. If a poore man pay it, he shall for al that fast after he hath payd it.

This being so, it is no wonder; if hee which giues dispensations to others, doe take one for himselfe, and if the Pope and Cardinals doe often dispense with themselues in these matters. For we are to know p. 71that in the 25 cause, 1. quest. in the Canon Ideo. vponupon a question which some made, whether the Church of Rome were subiect to the Statuts of Councells, Pope Leo the fourth, makes this answere. The holy Church of Rome giues all power, and authoritie to the holy Canons, but shee for her owne part is not bound, nor tied to keepe them. And a little after hee saith that as Iesus did submit himselfe vntounto the lawe, and sometimes withstand it, to shewe that hee was master of the law. So, saith he, the Bishops of the chiefe see, respect the Canons made by themselues, or others vnderunder their authoritie, and do yeeld to keepe them, that they might make them to be kept of others; but sometimes too, either in commanding or decreeing, or by oppugning them, they shew that they are Lords over the decrees, and the makers of them. And a little after he saith, that the Church of Rome giveth it selfe speciall privileges, against generall decrees.

Herevnto adde the custome, of making the people to go in procession to our Lady in the beginning of Lent, that they may hauehave leaue to eate butter. As also the trick, whereby they delude the ancient custome, of eating nothing in Lent before evening. p. 72For now a daies they make the evening service to bee song before noone, and afterwards eat, saying, that evening is past: And a thousand such like shifts, which betraie not only abuse, but mockery too; to the ende that the prophecy of the Apostle might be fulfilled, when he saith, that this error shall be taught thorough hypocrisie, and by such as hauehave their consciences seared with an hot yron. And doubt not, but, if that we had not opposed our selues against the tyranny of the Pope, which did daily encrease like a swelling torrent, there had beene worse things seene. After that he had once got the kitchins and shambles vnderunder his dominion; he tooke vponupon him to make other lawes for attire, and houshold stuffe, so that a man might not lie vponupon a matteresse, nor weare silke, nor presume to bath himselfe without some speciall dispē sation. And their booke of dispensation fees, made a hundred yeares since, doth sufficiently shew, that they did even then begin to encroach vponupon these things. For as then, letters of dispensatiō for a Nunne to bath her selfe, were prized at a certain rate And letters of dispensation for a lay man, to study in the schooles; and letters of dispensation p. 72for to bury a body in two sepulchres: and letters of dispensation for a mā to keep that which he had got vniustly. To conclude, they amongst this people which do most hate vsus, may know, that they are bound to vsus, for that little liberty which they do yet enioy.

THE SECOND PROPHEcie contained in the 2. Epistle of S. Paul to the Thessalonians. CHAP. 2.

3 Let no man deceiue you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that the man of sinne be disclosed, even the sonne of perdition.

4 Which is an adversary, and exalteth himselfe against all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that hee doth sit as God in the temple of God.

5 Remember yee not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6 And now yee know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mysterie of iniquity doth already p. 74worke, only he which now withholdeth, shall let till he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shal that wicked man be revealed, whom the Lorde shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall abolish with the brightnesse of his comming.

9 Euen him whose comming is by the effectuall working of Satan, with all power, and signes, and lying wonders.

10 And in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse among them that perish, because they received not the louelove of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And therefore God shall send them strong delusions, that they should belieue lies.