Commentaries, Commentary on Judges · Chapter 13

Commentaries · Commentary on Judges · Chapter 13

¶The .xiii. Chapter.

1. BVt the Children of Iſrael continued to cōmit wickednes in the ſyght of the Lorde, and the Lorde deliuered them into the handes of the Philiſtines fourtye yeares.

2 And ther was a mā in Zorah, of the family of the Danites, named Manoah, whoſe wyfe was barren, and bare not.

3 And the Angel of the Lord appeared vntounto the woman, and ſayd vntounto her: Behold nowe thou art barren, and beareſt not. But thou ſhalt conceaue, and beare a ſonne.

4 And now therfore beware that thou drinke no wyne, nor ſtrong drinke, neyther eate any vncleane thyng.

5 Bicauſe lo thou ſhalt conceaue and beare a ſonne, and no raſor ſhall come on hys heade: for the Childe ſhalbe a Nazarite vntounto God from hys byrth, and he ſhall begyn to ſaue Iſrael out of the handes of the Philiſtines.

This affliction of the Iſraelits is longer then the other.GOd afflicted the Iſraelites, and deliuered thē to their enemies, bycauſe they returned to their old nature, and forgetting the Lord their God, woorſhypped Idoles. And this affliction dured fourtye yeares. We reade of none longer then this. From the death of Abdon the laſt Iudge, euen almoſt vntounto Hely this affliction endured: bicauſe Samſon did not fully deliuer the people. He in deede ſmote the Philiſtines, but he did not vtterlye repell them from oppreſſing of the Hebrues. This woorde Zorah is a name of a place, and not of a famelye, as we ſhal afterward vnderſtand, towardes the ende of the chapter.

Of the Tribe of Dan. The learneder ſorte doo to this place referre thoſe thinges which are written in the booke of Geneſis the .49. chapter. There Iacob when he was ready to dye,The prophecie of Iacob as touching Samſō. foretolde what ſhould happen vntounto his children after long time. And when by order he came vntounto Dan: Dan (ſayth he) ſhall iudge hys people, and he ſhal be a Serpent in the way, and an Adder in the pathe, byting the horſes heeles, ſo that his ryder ſhall fall backward. For Samſon after a ſorte did byte the foote of the horſe, when he ouerthrew the pyller, that is, the foote of the parler, & laid the rider on the ground, that is, the company of the Philiſtines, with the fal of the wal. Theſe thinges I therfore make mencion of, that it might appeare, that they were no ſmall or vulgare things, when as Iacob ſo long time before prophecied of them. Samſon was of the Tribe of Dan, when as the nexte Iudge before him was of the tribe of Ephraim. God vſed not at y^e tyme any ordinary Magiſtrate,OnelyOnly Samſō appoynted a Iudge before hys byrth. neither dyd the Children ſucceede the Parentes in this kynde of gouernment. There was no Iudge vntounto this tyme of the Tribe of Dan. And there was none of all the Iudges, but onelye Samſon, whom God appoynted, and as it were publiſhed a Iudge, before he was borne.

And hys name was Manoah, whoſe wyfe was barren. When God decreed to ſende any notable and excellent man,Many excellēt mē borne of baren mothers. he verye often tymes ſtyrred hym vp out of a barren woman, whiche thing alſo wee ſee came to paſſe in Samſon, lykewiſe in Samuel, and in Iohn Baptiſt, and in very many other, that it myght manifeſtly appeare to be altogether the woorke of God. Barrennes among the Hebrues was a thyng ignominious: but God bycauſe he woulde declare, that of thynges moſt contemptible, he can bring foorth thinges excellent, hath very often tymes done after thys manner. And that faulte of barrennes was in thys place in the woman, and not in the man. For ſometymes it may be in both: but p. 201the ſcripture here pronounceth it of the woman, and not of the man.

He ſhall beginne (ſayth he) to ſaue Iſrael. Here is ſignified that Samſon ſhould not fully deliuer the people: for Iſraell did not vnderunder him fight in battayle againſt theyr enemies: he alone aſſailed thē, & ſomtimes greuouſly afflicted them. The Aungell appeared vntounto his mother a part, when her huſband was awaye, and ſhewed her of the ſonne which ſhe ſhould beare. Alſo the Aungell appeared vntounto Mary the mother of Chriſt when ſhe was a lone.

Ioſephus in his bookes of Antiquities addeth,Ioſephus. that thys Manoah ſomewhat ſuſpected his wife: and thought that it was not an aungell, but ſome man, & that his wifes chaſtity was aſſaulted, but eyther doubt was taken away, whē as at the laſt when he made ſacrifice, y^e angel vaniſhed away in the flame. So Ioſeph, whē he ſomwhat ſuſpected Mary, herd of the Aungel: Ioſeph, be not aferd to take Mary thy wife, for that which is conceiued in her, is of the holy ghoſt. God woulde hauehave his, not onelyonly borne lawfullye, but alſo cleared from all ſuſpicion. But in Samuel there could be no ſuch ſuſpicion: for when Hanna prayed ſoftely, Heli the prieſt rebuked her, and counted her for a dronkard, who yet when he vnderſtode how diligently and earneſtly ſhe prayed at the tabernacle of the Lorde, he promiſed vntounto her iſſue.

But here beſides the promiſe of the ſonne, is added alſo a precepte. For the Aungell commaundeth her to abſtaine from wine, and ſtronge drinke, Why ſuch an abſtinence was commaunded the moth…s.and all thinge that might make her dronke. There is alſo a reaſon added: Bicauſe he ſhal be a Nazarite vntounto the Lord. Wherfore the mother alſo is commaunded to abſtayne from wine, ſtronge drinke, and euerye vncleane thinge, that the childe ſhoulde not be nouriſhed with thynges vnlawefull, no not in the wombe of hys mother.

¶Of the vow of the Nazarites.

ANd as touching the vow of the Nazarits it is manifeſtly ſet forth in the .6. of Numb: But thoſe thinges whiche are there written,The ſumme of the vow of the Nazarites. maye all be reduced to three principall poyntes. The firſte was, that they ſhoulde drinke no wine nor ſtronge drinke, nor any thinge that might make them droonke. An other was, that they ſhould not pole theyr hed: but all that time the Nazarite ſhoulde let his heare grow. The third was, that they ſhould not defile themſelues with mourninge for buriales, no not at the death of theyr father or mother. Theſe thinges were to be obſerued, but not for euer, but onelye for ſome certayne time. For he vowed to bee a Nazarite, but for certayne number of dayes, or Monethes, or yeares.

But why did God inſtitute theſe thynges?Why god gaue the inſtitution of the Nazarites. There may be many cauſes geuen. Fyrſte, becauſe menne were ſo prone to chuſe vntounto themſelues certayne kindes of lyfe, whereby they mighte eaſely fall into ſuperſtition. Therfore God would after this maner bridle them, as though he ſhould hauehave ſayd: Foraſmuch as ye are ſo prone to your own ſtudies, and to inuent newe woorſhippings, yet ſhall ye not do what ye liſte your ſelues, but what I preſcribe vntounto you. And ſo geuinge vntounto them the lawe of a Nazarite, hee kepte them in doynge theyr dewtye.

But what mente theſe thinges? 1They ought to keepe theyr heare growinge till the ende of theyr vow. For then in offring ſacrifice, and burninge the fleſhe in fire, they did cut of the heare, and burned it in the ſame fire. And frō that time they were free and returned to theyr old manner of life, which was common alſo vntounto other.

Some referre theſe thinges vntounto an Allegorye, that when the heares were increaſed, the Nazarites ſhould conſider, that vertues alſo oughte to increaſe in the minde. But me thinketh there may be an other cauſe rendred, namelye that men ſhould abſtayne from to much trimming and deckinge of the body. For the clipping of the eare much adorneth the body. For Paule ſayth in his 1. Epiſtle to the Corrinthians the .11. Chapter, that to menne it is vncomelye if they let theyr heare growe. Althoughe other reaſons of other menne are not to bee contemned.

Cyrillus Procopius.Cirillus and alſo Procopius vponupon the booke of Numbers, ſay that theſe thinges were inſtituted of God, to reuoke men from the idolatrous worſhippinges and rites of the Ethnikes, that that which they gaue vntounto idols, y^e Iewes ſhould geue vntounto him. So alſo whereas they ſacrificed vntounto Idols, he would hauehave theſe men rather to ſacrifice vntounto himſelfe, not that god ſo much regardeth ſacrifices, but to wythdrawe them from idolatry. We reade that the Ethnikes ſometimes ſuffred theyr heare to growe, that they mighte afterward conſecrate it, ether vntounto the Nimphes, or to Apollo. Wherefore Apollo was by them called foreign that is a nouriſher of the heare. Yea and Theſeus (as it is written in Plutarche) went to Delphos there to dedicate his heare vntounto Apollo. Plutarche.And children at Rome when they were paſte childehode, offred theyr heare and beardes to ſome God. Sophocles writeth that Oreftes put his heare in the tombe of his father.Sophocles

There may alſo be an other cauſe rendred, and that not vayne. For the Nazarites ought alwayes to be pure, and although they were not of the tribe of Leui, yet they ſo behaued themſelues all that time, as if they had beene prieſtes of the tribe of Leui. And the Leuites and prieſtes were prohibited in the .21. chapt. of Leuiticus from polinge theyr head. Which thinge maye alſo be perceaued by the .6. chapter of Baruch. Ye ſhall ſee (ſayth he) prieſtes in Babilon with theyr heades ſhauen,The prieſts of the Hebrewes ſhaued not theyr heades. and theyr garmentes cutte. And they were prieſtes of idoles. Wherfore we ſee that by the commaundent of God, the prieſtes of the hebrewes had not theyr heades ſhauen.

In the booke of Numbers the 6. chapter, god calleth the heares of the heade a crowne, or as other tranſlate, it a ſeperatiion. But contrarilye the Papiſtes call theyr ſhauing of the head a crowne: ſo do they peruerte all thinges as they liſte themſelues. But what ſhoulde a man ſpeake of them? They care not what they doo. They will hauehave lights and cenſing in the temples. If thou aſke them why? Becauſe ſay they God vſed them in the olde teſtamente. But in the olde lawe prieſts had wyues: theſe wil hauehave none. They ſuffred the heares of their head or beard to grow: but theſe men ſhaue both theyr head and beard. Although at this day there is a great contention among thē about a long beard, bicauſe the counſell of Carthage in the .44.Concilium Carthaginenſe. chap. is ſondry waies alledged. For in exāplers it is writen Comam non nutriant nec barbā that is, They ſhal not ſuffer theyr heare to growe, nor theire beard, but in others it is red: Nec barbam tondeant, that is: They ſhall not clip theyr beardes: whether of theſe two ſentences will theſe men follow? For they wil not ſuffer to hauehave a long beard, leaſt any part (as they ſay) of the ſacrifice ſhould ſtick in it. O holy mē: they fel y^t theyr ſacrifice for thre halfe pens,Why the ſacrificing Papiſts will hauehave no beardes. & then leaſt it ſhould ſtick in the beard, they diligently prouide. Is not this to ſtreyne at a gnat, & to ſwalow down a Camel? Howbeit ſome of them, leaſte they ſhould ſeme to do not very wiſely nor with any reaſon: The cutting of (ſay they) of the heares, ſignifieth that a prieſt muſte cutte of all ſuperfluous thinges. This is the religion of theſe men, to hauehave the ſignes, when as they hauehave not the thinges ſignified. But I rather referre that ſhauinge of our papiſtes to ſoftnes or wantonnes.Suetonius. For Suetonius in the life of Otho ſayth that he was wont oftentimes to ſhaue his beard, and to behold his face in a glaſſe, whither it were trim inough. I wil not ſpeake of other which did not ſhaue the heares, but plucke thē p. 202out, to hauehave the ſofter ſkinne.

2The next thing was, that the Nazarites ſhould abſtayne from wyne, and not from wine onelyonly, but alſo from vineger, from grapes, and from ſtrong drinke, called Sicera. What Sicera is. Ierome.This Sicera (as Ierome writeth to Nepotianus) was a kind of drink much like vntounto wyne, which was made eyther of wheat, or of apples, or of dates, or els of other fruites. Farther they were prohibited to eat the huſkes of grapes or kernels, which are taken out of the wine preſſes. They wer alſo commaunded not to drinke Miſhereth, which was nothing els then the waſhing of the grapes. For the wine being preſſed out, there was water powred vponupon the grapes that were preſſed, which when it was purified, retained ſom ſauor of the wine. That we call the ſecond wine. But the Chaldey interpretation caleth Sicera old wine. And it is manifeſt inough, why the Nazarites wer forbidden to drinke both wine and ſtrong drinke: for theſe thinges trouble the heade, and ſtirre men vp to luſt, as Salomon in his 20. chapter of Prouerbs admoniſheth, wine maketh a mocker, and ſtrong drinke a troubleſome fellow, and whoſoeuer is deceaued therby, ſhal neuer be wiſe. Paule ſaythe alſo to the Epheſians the 5. chapter: Be not dronke with wine, wherin is exceſſe: but be filled with the ſprite. Farther the prieſtes in the old law were prohibited to drinke wine before they came to holy ſeruices. Wherefore the Nazarites, foraſmuch as they were like prieſtes, ought alſo to abſtayne from wyne.

3The third thing was, that they ſhoulde not defile themſelues with any mourninge for the deade. For as we are with ioy to muche lifted vp, ſo ſometimes are we greuouſly troubled with heauines and mourninge. But God woulde hauehave his miniſters to be voyde of affections, eſpeciallye of the vehementer affections, when as by them men are more greuouſly moued then is mete. Neyther yet wer theſe obſeruations merites, wherin they conſtituted righteouſnes, but they were rites onelyonly and excerciſes, whereby they ſhould after a ſorte be kepte in doinge theyr deuty. For the vow of a Nazarite was a certayne ſeperacion from other mē. But what they did in the meane time, it is not preſcribed: howbeit many thinke that they were commaunded, to endeuour themſelues to the contemplacion and knoweledge of the lawe, and to worſhyppe and call vponupon God purelye and ſincerely.

We ſe that god by this kind of vowe would inſtruct the people with ſinguler wiſedome. The Philoſophers write that a manne muſte contende, to be able to beholde highe thinges, and wyth his knowledge to embrace whole nature. And that they ſaye canne neuer be done, vnles the affections in vsus be tempered, otherwiſe we are verye often caried awaye by anger and luſte. Wherefore God would hauehave his to be voyd of theſe affections, namely of mourninge, pleaſure, to much care and vexation about the decking of the bodye. For theſe do not a little hinder the tranquility of the mind, and ſpirituall cogitations therof. Wherfore in the olde lawe he inſtituted in a manner to prepare his, that they ſhoulde not come vnapte and vnmete to higher thinges. Vndoubtedly they which are indewed with the knowledge of God, oughte to frame and prepare themſelues, before that they come to heare the woorde of God, or to receaue the Sacramentes. Ieremy in his 4. Chapter hath very wel admoniſhed vsus: Breake vp your fallow ground, and ſow not among the thornes. And they vowed this kind of vowe (as we hauehave ſayd) for a certayne time, either for a yeare or for a monethmonth, or as eueryevery man thought it moſt profitable for himſelfe: for the natures of menne are oftentimes chaunged, and the ſtudies of piety do waxe feable. Therfore they oughte by ſome meanes to be reſtored. Hereof ſprange the departures of the Elders, into ſolitary places for a time. So they whyche gouerned the publike wealth, when they were wery with matters, kept themſelues cloſe oftentimes in fieldes or manors, not to ſleepe, or to geue themſelues to ſluggiſhnes and idlenes, but to refreſh theyr mindes, and that they might returne the more prompte and better inſtructed to accompliſh thinges. And the moſt noble Rhethoricians being wearied with pleading cauſes of the law, went ſometimes into the country, to heare, to talke, to reade ſomwhat, to peruſe ouer the oracions before herd, and ſo by that meanes to returne more learned and readye to the place of iudgement: So the Nazarites for a certayne time departed from the companye and felloweſhippe of other menne, that they mighte be the better and holier afterwarde to execute the duties of life. Chryſte alſo in the nyghte tyme departed to the mountayne: But in the daye tyme he returned vntounto the people. And when the Apoſtles returned, whom he hadde ſente foorth to preache, he led them a way for a little while into a deſerte, that they mighte there be quiet, and refreſh themſelues.

The inſtituciō of Lent.For this cauſe peraduenture was Lent firſt inſtituted, that men which had al the yeare bene occupied with ciuill buſineſſe, might at the leaſte at that time renew piety. This is the pretence of the Papiſts.

But graunt that the thinge was at the firſt inſtitued for this cauſe, let them conſider what it is now fallen to at the lengthe, vndoubtedlye into mere ſuperſtition, whereby nothing els is obtruded vntounto the people, then choiſe of meates, olde wyues fables, vngodly ſongs, and pilgrimages (whych they commonly call ſtations) very prophane and idolatrous. In the meane time there is no mencion made for the aboliſhinge of couetouſneſſe, luſte, lecherye, and other wicked actes. Farther, menne oughte by ſo longe a faſt to hauehave beene made better, but they are made much worſe after Eaſter.

Paul tooke vponupon him y^e vowe of a Nazarite.But to returne to the vowe of a Nazarite, Paule ſeemeth to hauehave vowed it, when as in the .18. chapter of the Actes of the Apoſtles, he poled his heade in Cenchre. And in the .21. chapter he was perſwaded of the Elders to doo it. There are here (ſay they) foure menne, whyche hauehave a vowe: Thou ſhalte bee with them. There the ſhauinge of the head declareth, that that vowe pertained vntounto a Nazarite. For as it is wrytten in the lawe, if it had happened that the Nazarite in the time of the vowe whyche he hadde taken vponupon hym, hadde defyled hymſelfe vponupon the deade, or by anye other meanes, then the vowe was violate. And the Nazarite oughte to come vntounto the Tabernacle, and to declare vntounto the prieſtes what hadde happened, and to cutte of hys heare, to offer ſacrifice, and ſo to begynne the vowe of a Nazarite a newe agayne. For what ſoeuer he hadde before obſerued, it was counted as defyled and of no force. So Paule, as thoughe ſome thynge hadde happened vntounto hym amonge the Gentiles where he had beene conuerſant, woulde be purified in the Temple, as thoughe he ſhoulde hauehave begonne the obſeruation of hys vow agayne.

A fayned tale of the Moonkes.The Papyſtes crye that by this vowe of the Nazarites, there was a certeyne ſhadowe at that tyme of theyr religious Moonkery, neyther conſider they that the vowes of the Nazarites were inſtituted by the woorde of God. Let them ſhew on theyr ſide the commaundement of God for moonkry, which thing if they cannot do, then reſteth there nothinge but that we may ſay, that the inſtitutions of Moonkes are not the vowes of Nazarites, but of ſuperſtitious men, and a certayne ridiculous imitation or an euill zele of the olde vowe of the Nazarites. So alſo in the olde tyme ſuperſtitious men, when they ſawe that Abraham would hauehave offred his ſonne,Whereof began drawing of children throughe the fyre. and that for the ſame cauſe he pleaſed God very well: They alſo would nedes offer their ſonnes, and draw them thorough the fire. By whiche moſt wicked inſtitution they greuouſly offended God. But our worſhipping ought to leane vntounto the worde of God. In dede ciuill inſtitutions, yea euen without the expreſſe word of God, may be receaued, ſo that they be not p. 203agaynſt the worde of God:Agaynſt the vowe of religious men. but worſhipping and religion ought not to come frō any other thyng, but onelyonly out of the word of God. But I pray you, let them tel, whence they hauehave that vowe of perpetuall ſole life, or how can it agree with the Nazarites? Firſt it is contrary to the creation of man, when as it was ſayd vntounto the firſt parentes: Increaſe and multiply. Farther, it is agaynſt the oracle, which Paul wrote: He whiche contayneth not, let him mary.

They vowe pouerty alſo. But what manner of pouerty? forſoth to lyue of beggyng. A trimme vow, to be maintayned with the labours of other men. Vndoutedly that is agaynſte charitye, when as Paul ſayeth vntounto the Epheſians: He whiche ſtole, let him ſteale no more, but let him labor rather with his handes, that he maye hauehave wherewithall to geue vntounto hym that ſuffereth neceſſitye. But thou wilte ſay that of the Monkes ther are ſome which are riche. I graunt that, but they alſo do contrary to the word of god, wherin it is commaunded: He whiche laboreth not, let him not eate. Farther, they vowe obedience. But to whom? To certayne men, when as Paul expreſſedly writeth: Be not ye made ſeruauntes of men. But they ſay: I am of Frances, I am of Dominike, I am of Benedict, where as Paul would not ſuffer that Chriſtians ſhould ſaye: I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, and I of Cephas. They agr… not but are contrarye to the Nazarites.Why then do they cry that they agree with the Nazarites? Let vsus diligently examine eueryevery thyng. The Nazarites ſhaued not the heare: but theſe men do ſhaue it. The Nazarites did drinke no wyne: but theſe mē glot themſelues with wyne. The Nazarites came not to funerals: but theſe men deſire nothyng ſo much as the funerals and obſequies of the dead. But I will ouerpaſſe theſe things. One thing only wil I adde: Although in the Iewiſh religion the vowe of the Nazarites was the principall vow,Origene. yet were they not forbidden to mary. In other vowes (ſayth Origene) they gaue either a ſhepe, or a a gote, or an oxe, or ſome other thing. But in this kynde of vow, they offred thē ſelues, and yet their ſtate agreed well ynough with matrimony.

But let vsus returne vntounto Samſon. He proued a moſt ſtrong young man. Who would hauehave thought that this could hauehave come to paſſe? The parentes were not cōmaunded to inſtruct hym in the arte of warfare, or to ſend him forth to warre. A mā would thinke much rather that he ſhould be brought vp as a Monke, & not as a ſouldier. But God would ſhewe, that all the ſtrength whiche ſhould be in Samſon, ſhould be deriued from his ſpirite. But that he ſhould be a Nazarite all his life tyme, as Samuel alſo was, it was peculiar, and aboue the common inſtitution of others, by the deede I ſay and not by the ryght or vowe of the parentes. Samſon ought to hauehave obeyed, althoughe he had not vowed,Whether it was lawful for Hanna …o vow for her ſonne. bicauſe it was done by the word of god. Howbeit of Hanna the mother of Samuel it may be doubted, how it was lawfull for her to vow for her ſonne. For it may ſcarſe ſeme iuſt that the ſonne ſhould be bound by the vowe of the parent. It was demaunded in the tyme of Benedict, whether the children offred by the parentes vntounto monaſteries, when they came vntounto mans ſtate, might mary.Gregorius. Gregorius Magnus to Auguſtine a Byſhop of England, aunſwereth, that it is vtterly vnlawful. Whiche is a verye hard ſaying, and agaynſt the word of god. For Paul ſayth, it is better to mary then to burne. And he whiche can not conteyne, let him mary.Conciliū Carthaginenſe. In the counſell of Carthage the .3. wherat Auguſtine alſo was preſent, it was decreed, that childrē offred vntounto y^e Church, when they came to mans eſtate, ſhould either mary, or els vow chaſtity. This alſo was rough ynough. For who ſhuld require this at y^t age, being vnſkilfull of thinges, & not certayne of his own ſtrēgth? But theſe things I ſpeake, that we might knowe that decrees are contrary to decrees. But to returne to the matter, I ſaye that Hanna mought vowe for her ſonne: for as touching the performyng of the vow, as longe as he was brought vp by his parētes, ſhe might eaſely prouide, that he ſhould not drinke any wyne, nor cut of hys heare, nor be at any funerals. But after he came to lawfull age, it was Samuels duty to obſerue theſe things, not in dede in reſpect of the vow, but bycauſe of the obedience whiche he ought vntounto his parentes. For children ought to obey theyr parentes in all thoſe thinges which are not agaynſt piety & the word of God. So the Rechabites (as it is in Ieremy) whē they obeyed their father Ionadab, The Rechabites.who cō maunded them to drinke no wine all their lyfe tyme, or to dwel in Cityes, were for the ſame cauſe prayſed of God. Howbeit Hanna vnles ſhe had had a peculiar inſpiration from God, ſhe could not hauehave vowed, that Samuel ſhould all his lyfe tyme hauehave miniſtred at the tabernacle of the Lord: for as much as the law of god abſolued mē frō the miniſtery at a certaine ſpace of yeares, namely in y^e .50. yere.

Magiſter ſententiarum.But that which I hauehave ſayd, that it was lawful for Hanna to vowe the vow of a Nazarite for her ſonne, it ſemeth not to be firme with y^e definition of a vow, whiche is thus brought of the Maſter of the Sentences: A vowe is a teſtificatiō of a willing promiſe made vntounto God,The definition of a vowe. of things which pertayne vntounto God. But a vowe which is vowed by the parent for the ſonne, can not ſeme willing. Yea but it is: bycauſe the parentes vowed not being compelled, but of their owne fre will: farther, it is mete for the children to obey the will of their parentes freely & of their owne accorde, eſpecially when they commaunde no vngodly thyng, or contrary to the worde of God.

By this place ſome gather that Samſon was ſanctified in the wombe of hys mother: whiche ſelfe ſame thyng is beleued both of Ieremy and alſo of Iohn Baptiſte. How ſome are ſayd to be ſanctified frō the wombe.And they will hauehave him ſo to be ſanctified, that afterwarde he committed no mortal ſinne, as they call it. But this is falſe and vayne. Neither to ſanctifye in this place is anye thyng els, then to appointe one to the execution of ſome certayn worke. Samſon therefore was ſanctified, that is, appoynted of God to deliuer his people. So was Ieremy ordeyned to Propheſie. And Iohn to be the voyce of a crier in the wildernes. Neither of this kinde of ſanctification doth it follow, that theſe holy men neuer ſinned. For eueryevery mā is a lyer, & alſo there is no mā ſayth Salomon whiche ſinneth not. Farther, what ſhal we ſay of Samſon: Did he neuer ſinne? He fel vndoubtedly, and that greuouſly. Paul alſo, who ſayth to the Galathians that he was himſelfe ſeparated from his mothers wombe, and yet he perſecuted the Churche of God. Moreouer the children alſo of Chriſtians are called holy, for as muche as God is not our God onelyonly, but alſo the God of our ſeede, according to that ſaying of Paul to the Corinthians: Your children are holy, who yet no man doubteth, but y^t they afterward fal and grieuouſly ſinne.

If the vow be againſt charity it is to be broken.One thinge remayneth to be ſpoken of, and afterwarde I will returne vntounto the hiſtory. When the father voweth, and the ſonne deſireth to performe y^e vowe of the father, what if the vow be a gaynſte the health of the ſonne? He ſhall peraduenture fal into ſome diſeaſe, and he muſt nedes drinke wine, or cut away his heare, what is to be done in this caſe? I hauehave in an other place admoniſhed that the preceptes of god ar of diuers ſortes, ſo that ſome ar greater, and ſome eaſier. As touching god whiche is the commaunder, all are equall and like one to an other. But as touching y^e thinges which are cōmaunded, there is ſome difference. Wherfore the leſſe precept muſt geue place vntounto the greater. For whiche cauſe Chriſt ſayth by the wordes of the Prophet, I will hauehave mercy and not Sacrifice: not as thoughe God vtterly contemned Sacrifices, which he had commaunded, but bycauſe he more eſtemed mercy. And Chriſt alſo admoniſheth in the Goſpell in the .5. chapter of Math. that if thou offer thy gift at the alter, and there remēbereſt that thy brother hath ſomewhat agaynſt thee, thou muſt go firſt and reconcile thy ſelfe vntounto thy brother, and then returne, and offer thy gifte. Whereby he declareth that he altogether wil hauehave the les precepte geue place vntounto the greater. Wherfore we muſt thus aunſwere vntounto the queſtion. God commaūdeth the Nazarites to abſteyne from wine: he alſo commaundeth eueryevery man to defend his life by good meanes. Here when as the ſicke man can not preſerue both the preceptes, it is neceſſary that he preferre the greater before the les. For ſo dyd the Rechabites the ſonnes of Ionadab behaue themſelues. For althoughe theyr father p. 204cōmaunded them, that they ſhould not dwel in Cities, neither drinke any wine, and were alſo commended of God, bycauſe they obeyed the preceptes of theyr father, yet at that tyme when Ieremy wrote theſe thinges of them, they dwelled at Ieruſalem, contrary to the precept of their father. For the Chaldeyans had waſted all the fieldes. Wherefore they perceaued that there was then no place for their fathers precept. But in monaſteryes they doo contraryly. For if the father be ſicke, the ſonne is ſo bound by religion, that he can by no meanes helpe him.

6 And the wife came, and tolde her huſband ſaying: A man of God came vntounto me, and the looke of hym was lyke the looke of an Aungell of God very terrible, and I aſked hym not whence he was: neither tolde he me his name.

7 And he ſayde vntounto me: Beholde thou ſhalt conceaue and beare a ſonne. Now therfore thou ſhalt drinke no wine nor ſtronge drinke, neyther eate any vncleane thyng: for the chylde ſhalbe a Nazarite to God from his birth, to the day of his death.

8 Then Manoah prayed vntounto the Lord, and ſayd: I praye thee my Lord let the man of God whom thou ſentteſt, come agayne vntounto vsus and teache vsus what we ſhall do vntounto the childe when he is borne.

9 And God hearde the voyce of Manoah. For the Aungell of the Lorde came agayne vntounto the wife, as ſhe ſat in the fielde, but Manoah her huſbande was not with her.

10 And the wife made haſt and ranne, and ſhewed her huſbande, ſaying vntounto hym: Beholde the man hath appeared vntounto me, that came vntounto me to daye.

11 And Manoah aroſe and went after hys wyfe, and came to the man, and ſayd vntounto him: Art thou the manne that ſpakeſt vntounto the woman? And he ſayd: Yea.

12 Then Manoah ſayd: Nowe let thy ſaying come to paſſe. But what ſhalbe the iudgement of the childe, and his worke?

13 The aungell of the Lord aunſwered vntounto Manoah: The womā muſt beware of all that I ſayd vntounto her.

14 She may eate of nothyng that commeth of the wine vine tree, that is, ſhe ſhall drinke no wine nor ſtronge drinke, nor eate any vncleane thing: let her obſerue all that I hauehave commaunded her.

The woman thought that it had bene ſome godly man whom ſhe had ſene, or a Prophete: for ſhe knew not that it was the aungell of God. His looke (ſaith ſhe) was terrible. The Hebrewe worde is ambiguous: for it may be turned both terrible and wonderfull. And vndoubtedly the thinges whiche are wonderful, eſpecially deuine things, doo ſtrike into men a feare. She faythfully ſheweth vntounto her huſband theſe thinges, and doth the dewty of a good wife.What matrimony is. For Matrimony is an vnſeperable ſociety, hauyng the communion both of thynges deuine & humane. And this matter pertayned partly to thinges deuine, bycauſe it was ſhewed in the name of God, and partly vntounto humane thynges, bycauſe it was a matter as touchyng the receauyng and education of a child.

She ſayth, ſhe aſked him not whence he was: bycauſe in ſuch viſions men are ſo amaſed, that they are attentiue onelyonly vntounto the thynges which are ſpoken, neither hauehave they any leaſure to enquire of more thinges. So the mother of y^e Lord, when the Aungell ſaluted her, aſked hym not what his name was, or from whence he came. Gideon alſo when he receaued the oracle of the Aungell, for the delyuering of the people, was altogether ſo aſtoniſhed, that he was nothyng inquiſitiue, what his name was. But the woman ſpeaketh theſe thynges by anticipation: for ſhe thought that her huſbande woulde heare, and inquire of hym the truth. Althoughe Ioſephus in hys booke de Antiquitatibus (as I hauehave before admoniſhed) ſayeth, that when he hearde the wordes of his wife, he ſomewhat ſuſpected her of euill.Ambroſe. Howit Ambroſe in hys .70. Epiſtle, where he very diligently entreateth of this Hyſtory, denieth that to be very lykely. For if (ſayeth he) he had ben gelious, God would not hauehave ſent an aungell vntounto hym. But me thinketh Ambroſes reaſon is not firme. For Manoah might otherwiſe be a good man, although he were touched with ſuſpition. Very good men alſo hauehave oftentymes ſome ſuſpition of ſuch things. For euen Ioſeph the huſband of Mary, whō the holy Scripture teſtifieth that he was a iuſt man, ſomewhat ſiniſterly ſuſpected hys Spouſe, to whom yet the Aungell appeared.

Wherefore I rather beleue that Manoah, was eyther altogether without gelouſy, or elles not very muche gelous. For he accuſed her not abroade, her repudiated her not, neither vſed he the publique remedy of the lawe: For then was in force that lawe whiche was geuen by GOD, that if a manne ſuſpected his wife of aduoutry, he ſhould bryng her to the doore of the tabernacle, where the Prieſt ſhould ſearche out the honeſty of the woman by ſolemne waters, and by a bitter curſe.The cauſe of the lawe of gelouſy. For God would that maryed folkes ſhould lyue together with a mery, quiet, and not ſuſpitious mynde. But Manoah dyd not onelyonly not vſe theſe remedyes: but alſo he by no meanes rebuked his wyfe. But ſtrayghtwaye prayed vntounto the Lorde, that that man of God would returne the ſeconde tyme, wherby he myght vnderſtand, how the child ſhould be brought vp. Neither dyd he tempt god by hys prayers. In deede no man ought to deſire a ſigne, y^t he may beleue the articles of fayth. For thoſe thynges whiche are contayned in them, are already before ſufficiently proued and confirmed by the worde of God, and by miracles. But if there happen any newe and ſingular reuelation, bycauſe there may bee deceates and guiles of deuilles, who tranſforme themſelues (yea euen into the aungelles of lyght) if we require a ſigne of the Lorde or inſtruction, we ſinne not. That a baren woman ſhoulde beare, or that a childe ſhoulde ſet the people at liberty, it was a certayne ſingular thyng. Wherefore Manoah prayeth for nothyng curiouſly, and therefore GOD hearde hym. He afterwarde demaunded the name of the aungel, but bycauſe he demaunded it curiouſly, he was not hearde.

The aungell came agayne vntounto the woman the ſelfe ſame daye, as all interpreters doo agree. And vndoubtedly it might be, that firſt he came in the mornyng, and the ſecond tyme, either at noone, or about the ſunne ſet. Manoah aſked, VVhether he were the manne whiche ſpake with hys wife: whiche thing whē he affirmed vntounto hym, he ſayde: Let thy ſayinge come to paſſe. It maye be an oration of one that wiſheth, as if he ſhoulde hauehave ſayde: I woulde to GOD it myght come to paſſe. Or it may by ſuppoſition, as if it ſhoulde hauehave bene ſayd: If it come to paſſe as thou haſte ſayde, VVhat then ſhalbe the iudgement of the child? When he ſaith iudgement, he aſketh not Counſel of Aſtronomers, which aunſwere by the ſtarres, what ſhall come to paſſe of a childe. He onelyonly demaundeth what GOD had decreed of the childe. Neither ought the decree of GOD wherof he inquireth, to be referred vntounto the merites of the child, but onelyonly vntounto the mercye of GOD. For Miſchpat is very well turned a decree, for a decree is of mercye and not of merite. The Aungell repeateth vntounto hym all thoſe thynges, whiche he had before commaunded the woman to take heede of. She maye not eate (ſayeth he) of any thynge that commeth of the wyne grape. Certaine wine …rees beare not wine.Theſe woordes declare, that there are alſo other kyndes of vynes, out of whiche is not gathered wyne. But when the Aungell ſayeth: Neyther ſhall ſhe drynke p. 205wine, nor ſtronge drinke, hys aunſwere ſeemeth not to make muche to the purpoſe. Manoah demaundeth of the childe, and the aungell aunſwereth of the mother. But it is all one, as if he had ſayd: That whiche I hauehave ſayd of the mother, I hauehave ſayd it bycauſe of the childe: Wherfore ſeyng god wyll hauehave the mother obſerue theſe thynges, muche more ought the childe to keepe the ſelfe ſame things. Howbeit the cōmon trāſlation (I cā not tell how) referreth theſe things vntounto the childe, but yet not rightly: bycauſe in the Hebrewe the feminine gender is kepte ſtill. Auguſtine is his queſtions vponupon this booke demaundeth,Auguſtine. why the mother is commaunded to abſteyne from all vncleane thynges, when as that was already before ſufficiently forbidden by the lawe of God? He aunſwereth: After that the Philiſtines poſſeſſed that lande, Religion among the Iewes was feabled, and the people did without choyſe eate thyngs vncleane and forbydden by the lawe. By theſe wordes Manoah eaſely perceaued that his wife did rightly vnderſtande the wordes of the angell, and that the child ſhould be a Nazarite as longe as he lyued.

15 And Manoah ſayd vntounto the aungell of the Lorde: I praye thee let vsus retayne thee, and we will make ready a Kid for thee.

16 And the angell of the Lord aunſwered vntounto Manoah: Though thou make me abyde, I will not eate of thy bread: and if thou wilt make a burnt offring, offer it vntounto the Lorde: for Manoah knewe not that it was an aungell of the Lorde.

17 Agayne Manoah ſayde vntounto the Aungell of the Lord: What is thy name, that whē thy ſaying is come to paſſe we may honor thee?

18 And the aungell of the Lorde aunſwered hym: Why aſkeſt thou thus after my name, whiche is ſecret?

19 Then Manoah tooke a Kid and an oblation, and offred it vponupon a ſtone vntounto the Lord. And he wrought a miracle whileſt Manoah and hys wife looked on.

20 For when the flame came vp toward heauen from the alter, the aungell of the Lord aſcended vp in the flame of the alter. And Manoah and his wife beheld it, and fell on their faces to the ground.

21 So the aungell of the Lord did no more appeare vntounto Manoah and hys wyfe. Then Manoah knewe that it was an aungell of the Lorde.

Whē they had heard theſe wordes, they would hauehave retayned this mā of god, & hauehave made him a banquet. VntoUnto whom he aunſwereth: Although ye make me to abide, yet will I not eate of your bread. This Hebrew worde Lechē ſignifieth not onelyonly bread, but ſometymes meate in vniuerſall, yea & ſometymes fleſh alſo. Hereof was inuented y^e ſubtility of y^e Papiſtes: to whō when we ſay, y^t the bread remayneth in y^e Euchariſt, & proue it by y^e which Paul writeth: The bread which we breake, is it not y^e cōmunicating of y^e body of Chriſt? They anſwere: y^e bread in that place may ſignifie fleſhe, as it doth oftētymes in the holy ſcriptures. But they ought to remember y^t Paul wrote theſe words in Greke & not in Hebrew. But foreign y^t is, bread in Greke, cā not ſignify fleſh, as Lechem may in Hebrew. Farther in the holy ſupper the fleſh of Chriſt is not broken, but they ar ſimboles or ſignes whiche are broken.

VVe will make a Kid. So ſome reade it, and doo thynke that to make,Sondry readyng. is in this place nothyng els then to Sacrifice. Peraduenture Manoah thought that that aungell was a Prieſt. And in peace offringes one parte was burnt vntounto God, an other parte was geuen vntounto the Prieſt, the thirde parte they dyd eate which offred the ſacrifice, and ſo they banqueted together before the Lord. Wherfore they would entertayne the Aungell with a banquet. But other rede in this place, not to make, but ſimply to prepare.

If thou wilt make a burnt offring, offer it vntounto the Lord. He declared that he looked not for a banquet, bycauſe in burnt offrings, al things were conſumed with fire. But in y^t he ſaith: Sacrifice it vntounto the Lord, he putteth him in remēbraunce of the true God: bycauſe the people at that tyme woorſhypped the Gods of the gentiles.The wilynes of y^e Papiſtes, whereby they affirme that y^e Maſſe is a ſacrifice. The Papiſtes cry that to make, is to ſacrifice: & that this worde Facere, that is to do or to make, is properly applied vntounto ſacrifices. And therby they labour to proue, that their Maſſe is a ſacrifice, bycauſe Chriſt ſayd in the Supper, Hoc facite, that is, do or make this, which they thinke is nothyng els, thē ſacrifice this. Neither do they cite theſe places onelye, but alſo very many other, whiche are founde in the olde teſtament. They ſay alſo that the Latin Poetes vſed this word after this maner,Virgil. as Virgil when he ſayd: When I make a calfe for corne, come thou. Amitte it be ſo. But how ſhall we vnderſtand the certayne ſignification or ſtrength of this word as ofte as it cōmeth? And whē ſhal it ſignifie this, & when that?From whence ſignificatiōs of wordes ought to be gathered. For otherwiſe to make a garment, ſhalbe to ſacrifice a garment, and to make a fire, ſhalbe to ſacrifice a fire: if that word as oft as it cōmeth ſhal ſignify to ſacrifice, vndoubtedly what y^e worde ſignifieth may be eaſely be vnderſtād by the thyng it ſelfe, and circumſtances of the place, as that in Virgil which they hauehave alledged, where it is read: When I make a calfe, it is certayne that there is mention made of harueſt Sacrifices. And ſo it oftentymes happeneth in the olde Teſtament. But in the ſupper, what was it that Chriſte would Sacrifice? what oblation? what bloud? Take (ſaith he,) eate, drinke. Do this whiche I hauehave ſayd, namely to eate and drynke, for a remembraunce & monument of my death. But the Papiſtes bring forth theſe vayne & friuolous things, bycauſe they hauehave no better, as they whiche hauehave no wood vſe to burne ſtrawe.

Whether it were lawfull to ſacrifice in any other place, beſides the tabernacle.But to returne vntounto the Hyſtory, this ſemeth wonderful, when as the law cō maūdeth that ſacrifice ſhould be done but onelyonly in the place which the Lord had choſen, how it ſhould be lawful for Manoah to ſacrifice at his own houſe. Dauid Kimhi anſwereth, that this was done by the authority of the man of God, by a certayn extraordinary meane. For Elias alſo ſacrificed when he was among the ten tribes, y^t is, in the kingdome of Samaria. But thoſe things he ſaith were peculiar, neither might they be drawē into an exāple of others. But I thinke y^e whileſt the arke of the Lord was yet wandryng, & whileſt it had not yet founde any certayne place, y^e precept of the Lord had not yet his full ſtrength. For thus the Lorde had cōmaunded, after that I ſhall bring you into the lande whiche I hauehave promiſed you, ye ſhall not ſacrifice vntounto me, but in y^e place which I wil ſhew vntounto you. Wherfore although before it was permitted to ſacrifice any other wher, yet after y^e Salomon had built the tēple, it was not lawful to offer out of it: wherfore the highe places were to be takē away, & they ſhould ſacrifice no where but at Ieruſalē. But of al the kings, onelyonly Ioſias & Ezechias toke away y^e high places: ſo hard a thing was it to leade y^e people to y^e true obediēce of god. But Elias was moued by a certayne peculiar inſpiration of God to Sacrifice other where.

Manoah demaundeth after the name of the Aungell, neyther dyd he that ſo ſimply as hys wyfe dyd. But that he ſhould not be thought to demaund it curiouſly, or without a cauſe, he addeth a reaſon of hys requeſt. That if that come to paſſe whiche thou haſt ſayd, we may honour thee, that is w^t ſome reward. But I cā not recōpence thee, vnles I know who thou art, & where thou dwelleſt. This Hebrew worde Peli is ambiguous to the Hebrues,R. Salomon. Aungels ar named of thoſe things whiche they worke. & ſignifyeth both wonderful, and alſo ſecrete. R. Salomon ſayeth that the names of aungelles are ſecrete, ſo that they themſelues knowe not their owne names. And he addeth alſo that the Aungelles hauehave no names of their owne, but onelyonly hauehave ſurnames geuen p. 206them of thoſe thynges whiche they are ſent to take charge ouer. Whiche thyng alſo the Epiſtle to the Hebrues toucheth, when it calleth them miniſtryng ſpirites. R. Salomon bryngeth examples out of the holy Scriptures. An Aungell was ſent vntounto Eſaye, and bycauſe he dyd put a burnyng coale to his lyppes, he was called Seraphim, of this verbe Seraph, whiche ſignifieth to burne. So maye we ſaye of Raphaell, that he was ſo called, bycauſe he had healed Tobias, as thoughe he were the medicine of GOD. Gabriell alſo, after the ſame manner, was called the ſtrength of GOD. Alſo thys woorde Peli ſignifieth wonderfull: for therefore came the Aungell, to woorke a miracle. And vndoubtedly it was very wonderfull, to bryng fire out of a rocke, whiche ſhoulde conſume the Sacrifice. And it may bee y^t the Aungell would not open hys name, bycauſe menne at that tyme were prone vntounto Idolatrye, and they would eaſely, when they had hearde the name of an Aungell, peraduenture hauehave woorſhypped it to muche religiouſly.

That which we hauehave called an oblation, in Hebrew it is Minchah. But what manner of oblation that was, is vnderſtoode by the .2. chapter of Leuit. There wer diuers kindes therof, but it euer conſiſted of corne, but yet not alwayes prepared after one manner, & it was ſo offred, that ſome part of it was burnt vntounto the Lord, the other part was left for the Prieſtes. The Papiſts babble that Minchah was a ſhadowe of their bready Sacrifice, whiche thinge they hauehave fayned moſt impudently. But hereof we will intreate in an other place.

Manoah layd the Kid and Minchah vponupon the rocke. Manoah myght not Sacrifice vntounto the Lord by the lawe, bycauſe he came of the tribe of Dan, and not of the tribe of Leui. Wherefore he deliuered the fleſhe vntounto the aungell, whom he thought to be a Prophete, that he ſhould ſacrifice it. For Prophetes had an extraordinary vocation, that althoughe they were not of the famely of Aaron, yet it was lawfull for them to ſacrifice: as we rede of Helias and Helizeus. For whē religiō was decayed in y^e Prieſts, god ſuffred others to miniſter their office. But the aungell, when the fleſhe was put vponupon the rocke, wrought wonderfully. He rayſed vp fire out of the ſtone, whiche conſumed the offring. Whiche thing we rede alſo was done in Gideon. Althoughe it be not herein expreſſedly ſhewed that fire was drawen out of the rocke, as it was openly ſayd in Gideon, yet is no mention made of fire y^t was brought by Manoah, & at the laſt it is ſayd that the angell vaniſhed away in y^e flame, therfore it is credible y^t fire was ſtriken out of y^e ſtone. The angell aſcended into heauen, as though he vſed the flame for a chariot. He diſſolued the body whiche he bare, and vaniſhed away into the flambe: whiche was a notable miracle. They fell to the ground for feare: for they were wonderfully amaſed and aſtoniſhed, when they ſawe that it was an aungell, whom before they thought to hauehave ben a man.

22 And Manoah ſayd vntounto his wife: We ſhall ſurely dye, bycauſe we hauehave ſene God.

23 But hys wife ſayde vntounto hym: If the Lorde would kill vsus, he woulde not hauehave receaued a burnt offryng and an oblation of our handes, neither would he hauehave ſhewed vsus all theſe thinges, nor at this tyme told vsus ſuch thynges.

24 And the wife bare a ſonne, and called his name Samſon. And the childe grewe, and the Lord bleſſed hym.

25 And the ſpirite of the Lord began to ſtrengthen hym, in the hoſt of Dan, betwene Zora and Eſthaol.

In dyeng we ſhall dye. That is, we ſhall moſte aſſuredly dye. For the Hebrues in doublyng the woordes doo earneſtly affirme.

Bycauſe we hauehave ſene the Lord. Whereof this opinion ſprang, I hauehave tolde in the Hyſtory of Gideon, where alſo I hauehave declared, how God was ſene of the fathers.The opiniō of R. Leui ben Gerſon. Wherfore it nedeth not to repeate them in this place. But this will I not ouerpaſſe, that R. Leui ben Gerſon writeth, that this was not an aungell, but a man of god, and a Prophet, namely Pinhas the ſonne of Eleazar. But he was called angel bycauſe Manoah and his wife thought hym to be ſo. For after the ſame maner Ezras, although he was a man, yet was he called an aungell. And Chriſt whiche is very man, is called the aungell of the Teſtament. But how he being a man vaniſhed awaye in the flambe, Leui ben Gerſon declareth not. But I more ſimply doo iudge him to hauehave ben an aungell in dede. For Pinhas had not a ſecret name, but a name well knowen in his tyme, and the wordes of the texte do tend to this,Of the name of Elohim, to teache that it was an aungell. VVe hauehave ſene the Lord. In Hebrewe it is Elohim, which althoughe it be the name of GOD, yet is it communicated to aungelles, yea and alſo to prynces and Prophetes, accordyng to that ſaying: I hauehave ſayde, ye are Goddes. And Chriſte in the Goſpell ſayeth: If they are called Goddes, vntounto whome is come the woorde of GOD, why doo ye meruayle. &c?

This woman ſeemeth to be of a ſtouter courage them the man: for ſhe comforteth her huſband. Whoſe Oration is grounded vponupon two argumentes. The firſt is, I do not thinke we ſhall dye, bycauſe God would not hauehave accepted our ſacrifice, if he would hauehave deſtroyed vsus. Wherfore ſeyng our ſacrifice was acceptable vntounto him, he counteth not vsus as enemyes. But whereby knew ſhe that that ſacrifice was acceptable vntounto GOD. Firſte, bycauſe the Aungell had commaunded it to be done, which vndoubledly he would not hauehave don, vnles he had vnderſtoode that it ſhould be acceptable vntounto God. Farther, bycauſe the flambe had conſumed the Sacrifice, and the angel therewithall flewe away, as though he caried vp the ſacrifice with him into heauē. An other argument is: He would not hauehave taught vsus ſo many and ſuch thyngs, if we ſhould periſhe. He came vntounto vsus once or twiſe, and inſtructed vsus of thynges whiche we ſhould doo. Wherfore be of good comforte, we ſhall not dye.

¶Of Sacrifice.

The offerer is more acceptable vntounto God then the Sacrifice.VNdoubtedly the womans argumentes are good: out of whiche may ſome thynges be gathered, whiche are not vnprofitable. And firſte that God more accepteth hym that offreth, then he doth the Sacrifice: yea the oblations pleaſe not hym, but for the offerers ſake. This ſentence Irenaeus proueth by the ſcriptures in his fourth booke, and .34. chapter. For God had a regarde vntounto Abel, and to his giftes, but vntounto Cain and his giftes he looked not, bycauſe of the diſpoſition of them that offred. For looke what manner of will he that offreth hath towardes God, the lyke will hath God to the oblation. Chriſt alſo ſayth: If thou bryng thy gifte vntounto the aulter, and remembreſt that thy brother hath ſomwhat agaynſt thee, go and reconcile thee firſt vntounto thy brother: and then come and offer thy gifte. As thoughe he ſhould ſay: If whyleſt thou art euill, and enemy vntounto god, thou doeſt offer, thyne oblation ſhall not be acceptable vntounto God. Wherfore Irenaeus concludeth,Irenaeus. that they are not ſacrifices whiche ſanctify, but the conſcience of him that offreth. And he addeth a reaſon: bycauſe God nedeth not our Sacrifice. Among men, the euill may oftentymes be abſolued: bycauſe men are ſometimes couetous and nedy, and are eaſely wonne with money. But if it happen the Iudge to be both iuſte and good, he will reiecte the money, neither wyl he ſuffer his equity after that manner to be blotted. So God, bycauſe he can not be wonne by flattery, obſerueth the mindes of men, and not the Sacrifices. In Eſay the .66. chapter, he ſayth: He that ſacrificeth a ſhepe, is as if he ſlewe a dog: not that god hateth ſacrifices in vniuerſal, but bycauſe he alloweth not y^e oblations p. 207of euill men. I hauehave the largelier ſpoken thinges, bicauſe the papiſtes boaſt, that in maſſes they offer Chriſt vntounto God the father: which thinge if it ſhould be graūted, then muſt god the father more eſteme a noughty ſacrificer, then he doth his ſonne. But this woman reaſoneth moſt wittely. God hath receaued our ſacrifice, therfore he is not angry, neyther wil he deſtroy vsus.

We count the ſacrifices of chriſtians to be a contryte heart, prayers,The ſacrifices of Chriſtians. geuinge of thankes, almes, mortifienge the affections of the fleſhe, and ſuche like. Theſe are lefte vntounto vsus after the abrogation of the carnall ſacrifices, that wee ſhoulde offer them as the fruites of our faythe, and teſtimonies of a thankefull minde. But as touching the pacifieng of God, Chriſte offred himſelfe once vponupon the croſſe, neither is there any nede that any man ſhould offer him againe. For by an oblation he accōpliſhed al thinges. Now remayneth, that we embrace his ſacrifice with fayth, and we ſhall hauehave God mercifull vntounto vsus, who of his goodnes will by Chriſt accept thoſe ſacrifices which we hauehave now made mencion of. But Auguſtine contra literas Parmeniani, in his .2. booke and .8. chapter ſeemeth at the fyrſt ſight to make agaynſt vsus.Auguſtine. For the Donatiſtes woulde not communicate with the other Chriſtians, becauſe they counted them defiled and vnpure, and they cited a place out of Iohn: Wee knowe that God heareth not ſinners. Your men, ſayd they, hauehave betrayed the holye bookes, hauehave burnte incenſe vntounto Idoles, hauehave denied god, how then wil god heare them? Auguſtine aunſwereth, that it may be, that an euill miniſter, although he be not hearde for his owne cauſe, yet when he prayeth for the people, he maye be hearde. And he confirmeth his ſentēce by the example of Balaam: for he being a moſt wicked man, prayed vntounto god and was heard. But if a man diligentlye examine theſe thinges, he ſhall finde that Auguſtine is not againſt vsus, although at the firſt ſight he ſemeth a little to preſſe vsus.

When he had ſayde that the euill miniſters alſo are heard,The publike prayers of the miniſter are the prayers of the Church. hee ſtrayghteway addeth, that y^t is not done for their wickednes ſake, but bicauſe of the fayth and deuotion of the people, whereby wee gather, that althoughe the miniſter be the guide in woordes, yet are they not his prayers, but the prayers of the Churche. For there muſte bee one certayne manne, whiche maye conceaue the prayers for the reſte, leaſte in the multitude ſhoulde riſe a confuſion or tumulte, if euerye manne ſhoulde by his owne woordes poure out prayers aloude in the Church. Wherfore the miniſter is a certayn mouth of the church.The Myniſte… is the mouth of the church. Therefore if he bee euill, it is not he which is heard, but the faythfull people, which ſpeake by his woordes. This thinge taughte Auguſtine when he writeth that an euill miniſter is hearde, not for his wickednes, but for the fayth and deuotion of the people. Hereby are we admoniſhed, that whileſt we are preſente at publike prayers, wee muſte take verye diligente heede, and determine that thoſe prayers whyche are recited, are ours.How it is ſayd that Balaam was heard. But Balaam by a certayne forme of prayer propheſied, and therefore his woordes are called a bleſſinge, bycauſe he propheſied happye thinges vntounto the people of god. And hee was not moued vntounto theſe prayers of his owne will, but by the ſprite of god. Wherfore hee was not hearde, but the holye ghoſte was the true authour of hys woordes.

That whiche is alledged out of Iohn: God heareth not ſinners, Auguſtine ſayth that that was not the ſaying of Chriſt,Whyther God heareth ſinners but of the blind mā which was no… yet fully illuſtrate. Wherefore he affirmeth that ſentence not to be true in vniuerſal. For (as they define) the prayers of peruerſe miniſters ar ſomtimes hard, becauſe they are of the church. But as touching the oblation of Chriſt, I do not think that the papiſts wil graunt, y^t the whole church offreth it, whē as they wil hauehave that to be peculiar to the maſſemongers. And though they ſhould graunte that, yet is not the whole Churche greater or more acceptable vntounto god, then Chriſt: bicauſe he is not acceptable vntounto god for the churches ſake, but the church is acceptable vntounto god for Chriſtes ſake. But to returne to the ſaying of Iohn, that God heareth not ſinners, addinge a profitable diſtinction, we maye thus expound it.A diſtinction of ſinners. There are ſome ſinners whiche fall of weakenes, or ſinne of ignorance, which yet afterward acknowledge themſelues, are ſory, and repent faythfully. But there are other, which ſinne without conſcience, want fayth, neyther are they led with anye repentance. The fyrſte ſorte, bicauſe they hauehave fayth, are heard, the other, foraſmuch as they want fayth, do in vayne poure out theyr prayers.What manner of one the publicane was when he prayed. But if a man will obiecte the Publicane, who being a ſinner, prayed vntounto god and departed iuſtified. I aunſwere, that that publicane was in ſuche ſorte a ſinner, that yet when he prayed, he was not without fayth, yea rather he prayed with fayth, otherwiſe god would not hauehave heard his prayers. And vndoubtedly Iames doth right wel admoniſhe vsus, when he ſayth: Pray, hauing faith. In ſum, that ſentence is firme and perfecte wherin it is ſayde: whatſoeuer is offred vntounto God for a ſacrifice, the ſame is acceptable vntounto him, if faythe and iuſtification of him that offreth, go before.

A verye ſubtile cauilacion.Some do cauile of the fyrſt acte of fayth, whereby we begynne fyrſt to aſſente vntounto god, and they doubt, whither it be acceptable vntounto god or no. Vndoubtedly before it, he is an enemy, which now beginneth to beleue. Then ſay they, if that fyrſt conſente be acceptable vntounto God, then accepteth he the gifte of an enemye. But if it be not acceptable, then it iuſtifieth not. To this I aunſwer two wayes: Fyrſt that men are not iuſtified of the worthineſſe of the acte of fayth, but of the firme promiſe of god, which faith embraceth. Farther, when any man firſt aſſenteth, and beleueth, then is he firſt made of an enemy a friende, and although before he was an enemy, yet ſo ſone as he beleueth, he is made a friend, and ceaſeth to be an enemy.Plato. But that which we hauehave before concluded, that he which offreth is more acceptable vntounto God, then the gift, the Ethnikes alſo ſawe. For Plato in Alcibiade maketh mencion, that the Athenienſes vponupon a time made war againſte the Lacedemonians, and when they were ouercome, they ſente meſſengers vntounto Iupiter Ammon, by whom they ſayd that they marueiled for what cauſe, where as they hadde offred ſo greate giftes vntounto the Godes, and theyr enemies on the contrary ſide ſacrificed ſparingly and ſclenderly, and yet had they the victorye ouer them. Ammon aunſwered, that the gods more eſtemed the prayers of the Lacedemonians, then the moſte fatte ſacrifices of the Athenienſes. For when they burnt Oxen vntounto theyr Gods, in the meane time they thought nothinge of theyr ſoules. So in Homere Iupiter ſpeaketh, that the Gods are not moued with the ſmoke and ſmel of ſacrifices, when as they hated Priamus and the Troyanes. Wherfore the Ethnikes vnderſtoode, that which the Papiſts at this day ſee not, which thynke that theyr blinde ſacrificer, though he be neuer ſo vnpure and vngodly, doth yet with his hands, offer vp Chriſt vntounto god the father.

Now let vsus ſee the other argument of this woman. God would neuer hauehave ſhewed vsus theſe thinges, if he woulde hauehave killed vsus: Foraſmuche as hee is not wont to make hys enemies of his coūcel. Thus the wife of Manoah comforteth her fearefull huſband. But this argument ſeemeth ſomewhat obſcure, when as Balaam, althoughe he were vngodlye, was not ignorante of the Councelles of GOD. Chryſte alſo ſayth: Manye ſhall ſaye vntounto mee in that daye, hauehave wee not Propheſyed in thy name? To theſe thynges I aunſweare, that GOD didde not onelye foretell vntounto them thynges that ſhould p. 208come to paſſe for the deliuerye of the people, but alſo of the childe whiche they ſhould receaue, and of his education. Wherefore ſeying he vſed them as fellowe workemen, it was a certayne argument, that god had not appointed ſtrayghteway to kyll them. Neyther ſpeaketh ſhe here of eternall life, but of this earthlye and corruptible life.

And the childe grew, and his name was called Samſon. Hereby we know that Zorah was the name of the place where Samſons fathers was borne. Samſon. This Hebrew word Shemeſch ſignifieth the ſunne, being therefore ſo called, as though he wer of the ſunne: but for what cauſe he was ſo called it is not known. I meruaile that Ioſephus interpreteth Sampſon for ſtronge or mightye,Ioſephus. vndoubtedly ſuch an Etimology agreeth not with the Hebrew word. But he oftentims goeth from the hiſtorye. And in this place alſo he ſayth that the woman prayed, when as that is not founde in the text. God bleſſed Samſon. That is, beſtowed and heaped benefites vponupon hym.

The ſprite of God. That is the ſprite of ſtrength and mighte began to ſtrengthen him. In the hoſt of Dan. The hiſtory ſpeketh thus by reaſon of thoſe times. The tribe of Dan had not yet obteined poſſeſſion in the land of promes, but they wer in tents, and fought againſt theyr enemyes.R.D. Kimhi. R.D. Kimhi ſayth that they did thē beſiege the city of Lais. Wherefore he being a younge man, was together w^t thē in the hoſte. The Hebrew worde is Paam, and it ſignifieth to be moued, & to be ſtriken at certayne tymes, not perpetually, but by courſes. He being a yonge man was moued, and waxed hote, to fyght the more vehemently againſt his enemies. And his impulſions, bycauſe they were of God, therefore are they aſcribed vntounto the ſpyrite. But bicauſe wee are alreadye come vntounto the ende of thys chapter, before we enter into the next, there are certayne thinges whych are to be marked.

Fyrſt, hereby we gather a moſt ſure argumēt with how ſinguler a care god gouerneth his church. For although the Iewes had greuouſly ſinned, yet had god a regard to theyr health, & ſendeth thē a captain, which ſhould deliuer them, & foretelleth what things ſhould come to pas, leaſt they ſhould ſeme to hauehave happened by chaunce. Farther he woulde hauehave the childe to be a Nazarite, Outward thynges are not to be neglected.and to hauehave his heare to grow, and to abſtaine from wine and ſtronge drinke. Wherefore we are taught that theſe outward thinges are not vtterly vaine, but may be applied vntounto the glory of god. Men are wont ſometimes to ſay, when they are admoniſhed of outward thinges: What, doth god regard theſe thinges? In dede we know alſo that in thoſe thinges is no holineſſe to be put. Howebeit we muſte take heede that both in liuinge, and in apparell, and in going alſo in all geſture and in habite, we behaue our ſelues comely, both before God, and alſo before the churche, not ſuperſtitiouſly but holily, that our modeſty may aduaunce the kingdome of Chriſt and his holy Goſpel. Farthermore let vsus here conſider that the wife helpeth the huſband with her councell. For although by the ordinarye lawe it is not lawfull for women to preach and teache in an aſſembly: yet are they not ſo deſtitute of the gratious gifts of God, but that they may inſtruct theyr huſbands with good counſels.

¶Of the viſions of Aungels.

THe nexte thinge, is that I ſomewhat intreate of the viſions of Aungels. For as we hauehave now heard an Aungel appeared vntounto Manoah, and oftentimes in other places (as the ſcriptures declare) aungels hauehave bene ſene of men, But it may be demaunded, howe they appeared, whither with any bodye, or els onelyonly in phantaſye? And if it were with a bodye, whither it were with theyr owne body, or with a ſtraunge body? & if they toke a body, whither they were for a time or for euer?

The opinion of Platos ſecte.Of theſe things, there are diuerſe opinions of men Platos ſect do ſay that the mindes, that is, the intelligences are ſo framed, that certayne of them hauehave celeſtiall bodies, ſome hauehave fyry bodies, ſome ayry, ſome watry, and ſome earthlye. And ſome they affirm to be darke Demonia, which do continually abide in darknes and miſt. Of theſe thinges Marcilius Ficinius hath gathered many things in his.The Peripatetikes. The ſchole deuines men. 10. bookes de legibus, and in his argument of Epinomides. The Peripatetikes affirme that there are certaine intelligences which turne and moue the celeſtiall orbes, neyther make they mencion of any other. But the ſcholedeuines, do determine that thoſe mindes & intelligences are altogether ſpiritual, and y^t they hauehave no bodies. And this is the reaſon that leadeth thē thus to think, bycauſe theſe intelligences muſt nedes excell the ſoules of men, whoſe moſt perfect faculty conſiſteth in vnderſtanding. Wherefore as they thinke, in this acte of vnderſtanding it behoueth that theſe intelligences do much excede thē, and y^e commeth to paſſe for that theſe heauenly mindes hauehave no nede of images, or of ſenſes: and bicauſe the caſe ſo ſtandeth, they ſhoulde hauehave bodies in vayne.

The fathers Origene.But of the fathers there are ſome which affirme farre otherwiſe. Origene in his bokes foreign (as Ierome hath noted in his Epiſtle ad Pammachium, de erroribus Ioānis Heroſolymitani) ſaithe that thoſe ſpirituall mindes, as often as they do offend, ſlide and are thruſt into bodies, but yet not ſtraightway into the vileſt bodies, but fyrſt into ſtarry bodies, then into firy and ayry, afterward into watrye, and laſtlye into humayne and earthlye. And if then alſo they behaue not themſelues well, they are at the laſte made deuils. But if they will at leaſt wayes then repent, they may by the ſelfe ſame degrees come to theyr olde eſtate. And this we ought to vnderſtand (ſaith he) by that ladder, wheron Iacob ſaw aū gels aſcending & deſcending.Ierome. And Ierome alſo to make the thinge more plain, addeth a ſimilitude. A Tribune (ſayth hee) if hee gouerne not well, is deiected from his degree, and is made the princes chief Secretary, afterward a Senatour, a captayne ouer 200. men, a ruler ouer fewer, a watcheman, a horſeman, and afterward a ſouldier of the firſt degree. And although a Tribune were once a commō ſouldier, yet is he not made of a tribune a younge Souldier, but the Princes chief Secretary. But theſe thynges are abſurde, and very worthye to be laughed at. And vndoubtedly Origene in thoſe thinges ſpeaketh more like a Platonian, then a Chriſtian.Againſt the tranſlation of ſoules into bodies after Origines faining. That which he firſt taketh that ſoules are thruſte into bodies, as into puniſhmentes, is manifeſtly falſe, for as much as god hath adioyned the bodye vntounto the ſoule for a helpe, and not for a puniſhmente. Neither doth he well to geue hope of ſaluation to come vntounto the deuil, when as Chriſt hath contrarywiſe taught, ſaynge: Go ye curſed into euerlaſting fyre, which is prepared for the deuill and his Aungels. Neyther can we interpreate it that this word eternum is ther ſet for this word diuturnū, that is euerlaſting, for a long ſeaſō. For Chriſt moſt apertly expoundeth his ſentence, when he ſayth: Their worme ſhall not dye, and theyr fire ſhall not be quenched. Neither doth he truly affirme that the ſoules fyrſt offend before they come into bodies, when as Paule writeth of Iacob and Eſau, before they were borne, and had done neither good nor euil, it was ſaid, Iacob hauehave I loued, and Eſau hauehave I hated: The greater ſhall ſerue the leſſer. Wherefore thys ſentence of Origene is woorthely to be reiected of all menne.

p. 209Auguſtine ſeemeth in many places to attribute bodies vntounto Aungels,Auguſtine. namely in his ſecond booke De trinitate. chap. vii. and in the third booke, chap. 1. which thing the Schoolemen perceauing, hauehave excuſed him, ſaying that he ſpake not according to his own opinion, but after the opinion of other men. Which thing I alſo could well allow, for as muche as I ſee that that father (in his. viii. booke De ciuitate dei, the .xvi. chap.) after the opinion of Apuleius, Madaurenſis, & Porphyrius, defineth, that Demones are in kinde animalia, that is, hauing ſenſe, in ſoule paſſiue, in mynde reaſonable, in body ayry, in time eternal. Vndoubtedly, herein he followeth the doctrine of Platoes ſect. But in the places before alledged he ſemeth to ſpeake altogether of himſelfe. Yea,Bernhardus. and Bernhardus alſo vponupon Cantica Canticorum, as it appeareth, is of the ſame opiniō. Wherfore the ſchole men are compelled to inuent an other excuſe, and they ſay that Aungels, if they be compared with men, are ſpirites: but if with God, they hauehave bodies, bycauſe they fayle from the vnity and ſimplicity of God. Tertulian de carne Chriſti, Tertulian.affirmeth that Aungels hauehave bodies. But that is not ſo much to bee marueiled of him, for he attributeth a bodye alſo vntounto God him ſelfe. But he calleth a bodye whatſoeuer is. For he had to do with vnlearned and rude men, whych thynke y^t whatſoeuer is not a body, is nothing. But the ſchoolemen ſay that Aungels are in very deede ſpirites, but when they come vntounto men, they take vponupon them ayrye bodies, and thicken them and make them groſe, whereby they may be ſene, touched, and felt aboue the nature of ayre. Ther are ſome alſo which ſay, that ſome earthly or watriſhe thing is mixed with them: and yet wil they not that there is there a perfect mixture, that they ſhould not be compelled to put generaciō ther. There were ſome alſo, which thought that Angels ſometimes tooke vponupon them dead karcaſes. But this ſeemeth vntounto the greater parte a thing vnworthy, ſo to thinke of holy Angels.

Here ſome man wil ſay that it is abſurde,Whither it bee conuenient for Angels to take vponupon them the ſhape of man. to aſcribe vntounto Angels fayning & lying, as to faine thē ſelues to be men, when as in very deede they are not men. Yea and this ſeemeth alſo to weaken the argument of Chriſt, whiche he vſed after his reſurrection, to teache that he had a true body. Feele (ſaith he) and ſee, for a ſpirite hath not fleſhe and bones, as ye ſee me hauehave. For the Apoſtles being afrayde, thought that they had ſeene a ſpirite: wherfore Chriſt to put them out of doubt, bad them to handle and feele his body. But the Apoſtles might hauehave ſaid: That which we feele is a fanſye: it ſeemeth in deede to be Chriſt, but peraduenture it is not. For Angels alſo ſeeme to hauehave bodies, and to be touched and felt, when as yet in very deede they hauehave no bodies. Alſo this ſentence may debilitate the argument of the Fathers, as touching the fleſh of Chriſt, againſt Marcion. For he did eate (ſay they) he dranke, he was hūgry, he ſlept, he did ſweate. Wherfore he had a true and humane bodye. VntoUnto theſe thinges might be aunſwered: that theſe ſelfe ſame thinges hauehave happened vntounto Aungels, when as yet they had not bodyes.

I anſwer: That which they firſt ſay,Not whatſoeeuer is fayned, is a lye. that it is abſurde to attribute lyes vntounto Angels: they ought to conſider, that not whatſoeuer by anye meanes is fayned, is ſtraightway a lye. Chriſt appeared vntounto his Diſciples as a ſtraunger, and yet he lyed not: he appeared alſo vntounto Mary lyke a Gardiner, and for al that he lyed not. So Aungels, althoughe they ſemed men, when as they were not men, yet wer they not lyers. For they came not therfore, to proue them ſelues to be men, but onelyonly that they might come to men, and talke with them.

To the argument of Chriſt touching his own body, I thus anſwer.Aungels when they ſemed mē, lyed not. Firſt the apoſtles thought it had ben a goſt which had appeared. And Chriſt to refel that, ſaith: feele and ſee, bicauſe a ſpirite hath not fleſh & bones. By the feeling might be perceaued, that it was a true and perfect bodye which was preſent, and not a vayne fanſy. But thou wilt ſay, that it was a true body in deede, but yet taken for a tyme, and ſuche a bodye, as ſometimes Aungels are wont to put on. But how coulde it be taught, that that was the ſame body, which laye before in the ſepulcher? In this thing the authoritye of Chriſt and of the ſcriptures ought to be of force. For the ſcriptures teache manifeſtly inough that Chriſt ſhoulde dye, and afterwarde riſe againe the third daye:Tertulian. Thomas Aquinas. but nothing can riſe againe, but that which before fel, as Tertulian hath moſt learnedlye written. And this thing the ſchoolemen vnderſtoode: wherefore Thomas Aquinas ſayth, that vnles certayne other thinges were added, this is no firme argument. The ſame thing maye be anſwered vntounto the reaſons of the fathers againſt Marcion. Many in dede of the actions before alledged, may agree with Aungels, or with the bodies taken, but yet not all. For to be borne, to be nouriſhed, and to dye, and to feele, happen neither to Angels, neither to bodies that are taken. But the ſcripture moſt apertly teſtifieth that Chriſt was both borne, and that he grew till he came to age, that he was hungry, that he dyed, and was true man. But of theſe thinges I wyll ſpeake more largely afterwarde.

There are very many other thinges in the ſchoole deuines, as touching theſe matters:What maner of bodies the angels take vponupon them. but bicauſe they are not ſo profitable, therfore I ouerpaſſe them. But this thing I demaund, whither Angels may take vponupon thē true bodies, & that natural, which bodies alſo had their being before, & vſe them at their liberty, as the Deuyl did put on the Serpent, and by him deceaued Eue, the Angell alſo ſpake in the Aſſe of Bileam. Why then can not an Angel after the ſame maner, poſſeſſe an humane body, and ſpeake in it? Vndoubtedly it is written in Zachary the prophet: The Angel of the Lord which ſpake in me. Wherfore it ſemeth that Aungels may vſe the bodies of men and beaſtes.Auguſtine. Auguſtine in his .2. booke De Trinitate the .1. chapter, ſayth that this is a very hard queſtion, whether Angels vntounto their owne proper bodies ioyne other bodies, and chaunge them into ſundrye formes, as we are woont to doo garmentes, or alſo to chaunge them into verye nature, as we reade that Chriſt chaunged water into wyne. This thing he ſaith is not impoſſible. For thus he writeth: I confeſſe it paſſeth the ſtrengthes of my capacity, whither Angels retayning ſtil the ſpiritual quality of their own body, very ſecretely woorking by it, doo take of theſe more groſe inferiour elementes, any thing which being framed vntounto them they doo chaunge, as a garment, and turne it into al corporal formes or ſhapes, yea euen into the true thinges themſelues, as true water was turned by the Lord into wyne: or whether they tranſforme their own proper bodies into what they wyl, being framed to that which they hauehave in hand to doo. But whether ſoeuer of theſe it be, it pertayneth not to thys queſtion.

But I ſay, if the bodies of Angels were true bodies, then was Chriſtes argument firme, and I wil willinglier graunt to this, then to ſaye as ſome doo, that Aungels deceaued the ſenſes of men.A ſubtiltye of the Papiſts cō cerning trāſubſtantiacion. For after this ſorte they ſtriue agaynſt vsus, when we ſay that in the Euchariſt remayneth bread, which is both ſene and touched, they anſwer that it ſeemeth bread in dede, but it is not, as the Aungels ſemed men, when as they were no men. For I deny not, but that the ſenſes maye ſometimes be deceaued.A diſtinction of ſenſible things. When the ſenſes maye be deceaued, & when not. But I affirme in the meane time, that there are twoo kindes of thoſe thinges, which are perceaued by ſenſe. For there ar ſome things common vntounto many ſenſes, and other are proper to ſome one ſenſe. For figure, magnitude, and number, are perceaued of manye ſenſes. And vndoubtedlye in ſuch thinges the ſenſe may ſometimes be deceaued, as Carneades was woont to diſpute of an ore in the water appearing broken, and of the bygnes of the bodye of the Sunne. But in ſenſible things proper vntounto one ſenſe, the ſenſe is neuer deceaued, vnles there be ſome fault in the body, or ouer much diſtaunce, or ſome ſuche lyke let. Wherfore ſeyng in the Euchariſt the ſenſe iudgeth that the bread remayneth, there is no neede to fayne that the ſenſe is therein deceaued.

But to appoynt a certayne compendious way of this diſputacion, there are 1three maner of wayes, whereby Angels may ſeme to hauehave appeared. For either p. 210they were ſene in fantaſy, ſo that they were thought to hauehave bodies, when they had them not. Which reaſon cannot be firme, for they illuded not the ſenſes, neither were they ſene of any one onelyonly, but very often times of many, & they were ſo ſene, that Abraham waſhed their feete, and Iacob wraſtled with an Angel the whole night. Or els they appeared with a true body in dede, which yet was not 3ſuch a body, as it was thought to be. Either els they had the ſelf ſame body truly 2and in very deede, which they ſemed to hauehave.Tertulian Of this thirde kinde Tertulian hath written moſt learnedly in his booke De carne Chriſti. Thou haſt ſometyme red and beleued, ſaith he, that the Aungels of the creator were turned into the ſhape of man, and that they caryed ſuche a truth of a bodye, that both Abraham waſhed their feete, and alſo Lot was by their handes deliuered from the Sodomites: an angel alſo wraſtled with a mā, and deſired to be loſed from the wayght of the body, by whom he was holden. That therefore, which was lawfull vntounto Angels that are inferiours vntounto God, that they being turned into the body of a man, not withſtanding yet abode Angels, doeſt thou take away thus from God which is more mightie, as though Chriſt putting on man in very dede wer not able to remayne God? Thus Tertulian fighteth againſt the Marcionites: The errour of y^e Marcionitesfor they affirmed that Chriſt ſeemed to hauehave a humane bodye, but in verye deede hee had none. Tertulian obiecteth againſt them: and if ye graunt this (ſaith he) vntounto the Aungels, that they had true bodies, why doo ye not rather graunt it vntounto the ſonne of God? And he addeth: Or did thoſe Angels appeare in fanteſy of fleſhe? But thou dareſt not ſay ſo: for if it be ſo, that thou count the Angels of the creator as Chriſt, then ſhal Chriſt be of the ſame ſubſtance as the Aungels are, and the Angels ſhal be ſuche as Chriſt is. If thou diddeſt not ſometimes of purpoſe reiect, and ſometimes corrupt the ſcriptures which reſiſt thy opinion, the Goſpel of Iohn ſhoulde hauehave of this confounded thee,Of the Dooue wherin the holi goſt appeare… whiche declareth that the ſpirite comming downe in the bodye of a Dooue, ſat vponupon the Lorde, which ſpirite being that he was, was as truly a Dooue, as he was a ſpirit: neither the contrary ſubſtance taken, deſtroyed the proper ſubſtance.

I know there are ſome of the ſchoolemen which thinke that it was not a very Doue, which diſcended vponupon the head of Chriſt, but onelyonly that it was an ayry & thicke body, which appeared to be a Dooue.Auguſtine. Yet Auguſtine de Agone Chriſtiano writeth the contrary, namely that it was a very Doue: for to expreſſe the property of the holy ghoſt, a thing (ſayth he) ſerueth better then a ſigne, euen as Chriſtians alſo are better expreſſed in Sheepe and Lambes, then in the lykenes of Sheepe and Lambes. Alſo if Chriſt had a true bodye, and deceaued not, then t…e holy ghoſt had in very deede the body of a Dooue.

Tertulian addeth: Thou wilt demaund where the body of the Doue became,What beca… of the Doue wherin the holy go… appeared. when the ſpirite was taken againe into heauen, and likewiſe of the Aungels. It was by the ſame meanes taken awaye, whereby it was made. If thou haddeſt ſeene when it was broughte foorth of nothyng, thou ſhouldeſt alſo hauehave knowen when it was turned to nothing. If the beginning was not viſible, no more was the ende. Farther, he remitteth the reader to Iohn. Was he alſo (ſayth he) a fantaſy after his reſurrection, when he offred his handes and feete to be ſeene of his Diſciples? ſaying: behold that it is I, for a ſpirite hath not fleſh and bones as ye ſee me hauehave. Then Chriſte is brought in as a Iugler or Cuniurer. And in his third booke againſt Marcion. Wherefore his Chriſt, that is, Chriſte of the true God, bicauſe he ſhould not lye, neither deceaue, and by that meanes paraduenture ſhould be counted the Chriſt of the creator, was not that which hee appeared to be, and fayned to be that thing which he was, fleſh, and not fleſh, man and not man, wherefore Chriſt is alſo God, and not God. For why ſhoulde he not alſo cary the fantaſy of God? Shall I beleue him as touching this inwarde ſubſtance, that is ouerthrowen as touching his outward ſubſtance? Howe ſhall he be counted true in a ſecrete thing, that is found ſo falſe in an open thing? And afterwarde: It is inoughe for me to affirme that whiche is agreing vntounto God, namely the truth of that thing, which he obiecteth to three ſenſes, to ſight, touching, and hearing. Againe in the booke de carne Chriſti: The vertues (ſayth he) proue the ſpirite of God, the paſſions proue the fleſh of man. If vertues are not without ſpirite, neither ſhal paſſions alſo be without fleſh. If the fleſh with his paſſions be fayned, the ſpirite alſo with his vertues is falſe. Why doeſt thou by thy lye take but halfe Chriſt? He is al whole truth.

The opinion of Apelles.Apelles the heretike, being in maner ouercome with theſe reaſons, graunteth that Chriſt had in dede true fleſh, but he denieth that he was borne, but brought from heauen: and he obiecteth that the bodies, which were taken by Angels, wer true bodies, but they were not borne. Suche a body (ſayth he) had Chriſt. Tertulian anſwereth hereunto: They, ſayth he, which ſet foorth the fleſhe of Chriſt, after the example of the Aungels, ſaying that it was not borne, namelye a fleſhye ſubſtaunce, I would hauehave them to compare the cauſes alſo, as well of Chriſt as of the Aungels, for which they came into the fleſh. No Aungel did at anye tyme therefore diſcende to be crucified, to ſuffer death, and to riſe againe from death. If there was neuer any ſuch cauſe why angels ſhould be incorporate, then haſte thou a cauſe why they tooke fleſh, and yet wer not borne. They came not to die, therefore they came not to bee borne. But Chriſte beyng ſent to dye, it was neceſſarye that he ſhoulde bee borne, that he might dye: for none is woont to dye, but hee whiche is borne. He addeth moreouer: And euen then alſo the Lorde himſelfe appeared among thoſe angels vntounto Abraham without birth, namelye with fleſh, for the ſame diuerſity of cauſe. Afterward he addeth: That the Aungels hauehave their bodies rather from earth, then from heauen. Let them proue ſaith he, that thoſe angels receaued the ſubſtance of fleſh of the ſtars. If they proue it not, bicauſe it is not written, then was not the fleſh of Chriſt thereof, to whych Chriſt they apply the example of Angels. And in his third booke againſt Marciō: My God, ſaith he, which hath reformed it, taken of the ſlyme in this quality, not yet of ſeede by mariage, and yet fleſh, might as wel of anye matter hauehave framed fleſh alſo vntounto Angels, which alſo framed the world of nothing, into ſo manye and ſuche bodies. Againe in his booke de carne Chriſti, hee ſaith: It is manifeſt that angels cary not fleſh proper of their own, as ſubſtāces by nature ſpiritual, and if they hauehave any body, yet it is of their owne kinde, and are tranſfigurable for a time into the fleſh of man, that they may be ſene, and hauehave fellowſhip with men. Farther, in his third booke againſt Marcion: Know thou ſaith he, that this is not graunted vntounto thee, that the fleſh in Angels was putatiue, or by imaginacion, but of the very and ſound ſubſtance of man. For if it were not hard to geue vntounto that putatiue fleſh the true ſenſes and actes of fleſh, much more eaſyer was it to geue a true ſubſtance of fleſh, to true ſenſes and actes, euen for that he is the proper authour and woorker therof. For it is a harder thyng for God to make a lye, then to fayne a body. Laſt of al, thus he concludeth: Therfore are they truly humayne bodies, bicauſe of the truth of God, who is far from lying and deceate. And bicauſe they can not humanelye be handled of men,The ſumme of the opinion of Tertulian. but in the ſubſtaunce of men.

I could rehearſe mo thinges out of Tertulian, but theſe ſeeme ſufficient for this preſent purpoſe. In ſumme, he thinketh that Aungels hauehave bodies, but yet ſtraunge bodies, and not their own. For their proper bodies (as he thinketh) pertaine vntounto the ſpirituall kinde. Secondlye, he ſayth that thoſe ſtraunge bodies which they take, are created either of nothing, or els of ſome matter which ſhall ſeme good vntounto God. Thirdly he affirmeth that they were true, perfect, and humane bodies, and not vayne or fayned, but of a true fleſh, and not of a fleſh onelyonly appearing, ſo that of men they might be both touched and handled, to the end he might both remoue diſſimulation from God, and alſo confirme the veritye of humane fleſh in Chriſt. Wherby is concluded, that the humane ſenſes wer not p. 211deceaued concerning theſe thinges: as the Papiſtes contende that the ſenſes are deceaued concerning the bread and wyne of the Euchariſt.

But Origene in hys booke foreign (as he is cited of Ierome agaynſte Iohn byſhop of Ieruſalem) thought farre otherwiſe.Origene. For wher we ſay that the viſions of Aungels may be imagined three maner of wayes, namely either in fantaſye, or in body, but not humane, or laſtly in a true and humane body: he taketh a certaine meane, and ſayth that the bodies of Aungels wherein they offer them ſelues to be ſene, are neyther perfect nor humane, nor alſo fantaſticall, but onelye bodyes, and that he applyeth to them that ryſe agayne. For in the reſurrection ſayth he, we ſhall hauehave bodies, but yet onelyonly bodies, not bones, not ſynewes, not fleſhe. And in deede there is ſome difference betwene a bodye and fleſhe:Al fleſh is a body, but not eueryevery body is fleſh. for all fleſhe is a body, but not eueryevery body is fleſh. Suche a difference touched Paule to the Colloſsians, ſaying: Being reconciled in the body of hys fleſhe. And in the ſeconde chapter: In the ſpoyling of the body of the fleſh of ſynne. And in the Symbole alſo we ſay, that we beleue in the reſurrection of the fleſhe, and not of the bodye.

Origene ſayde that he ſawe twoo extreme errours. One was of them which ſayde there is no reſurrection, ſuche as were the Valentinians and Marcionites, ſuche alſo was Alexander, who as Paule teſtifieth, taught that the reſurrection was already done: and ſuche alſo as at this day the Libertines are ſayde to be, who babble I cannot tell what of that matter, both vngodl…ly and vnlearnedly. An other errour is of thoſe which thinke that the perfecte and true bodyes ſhall ryſe agayne with fleſhe, ſynewes, and bones, whych thing (as hee ſaythe) is not poſſible: bycauſe fleſhe and bloode ſhall not poſſeſſe the kyngdome of heauen. But Origene ought to hauehave conſidered what followeth afterward in Paul. For he addeth: Neyther ſhall corruption poſſeſſe incorruption. Wherefore hys ſentence is, that the corruptible body cannot poſſeſſe the kingdome of God. But Origene to retayne that hys meaning, confeſſed that the bodyes ſhoulde ryſe in deede, but not thycke and with bones, but ſpirituall, as Paule hath ſayde: The body ſhall ryſe ſpirituall.

But Origene in thoſe woordes marketh not that Paule calleth it a ſpiritual bodye, not bicauſe it ſhoulde vtterlye bee chaunged into a ſpirite, but bycauſe it ſhould hauehave ſpiritual condicions, namely incorruption, and moſt cleare brightnes. But bycauſe he perceaued that the body of Chriſt, which after his reſurrection he offered vntounto hys Diſciples to be touched and to be felt, was againſt hys doctrine, therefore he ſayth: Let not the bodye of Chriſte deceaue you, bycauſe it had manye ſynguler priuiledges, whiche are not graunted vntounto other bodyes. Farther, that by this diſpenſacion he might prooue that he verelye was ryſen, he would after hys reſurrection hauehave a true bodye, not that other bodies in the reſurrection ſhoulde be lyke. But he ſhewed the nature of his ſpirituall body in Emaus, when he vaniſhed awaye from the ſight of hys Diſciples. And an other tyme when he entred to his Diſciples, the doores being ſhut.

Ierome thus oppoſeth himſelfe agaynſt theſe thynges:Ierome. If Chriſte (ſayth he) after hys reſurrection dyd eate in verye deede, then had he alſo a true bodye: but if not, how prooued he by a falſe thyng the truth of hys body? But in that he vaniſhed awaye from the ſyght of the Diſciples, that was not by the nature of the body, but by the deuine power. For in Nazareth when the people woulde hauehave ſtoned him, he wythdrewe himſelfe from their eyes. And that whiche might bee done of a Cuniurer, ſhall we thynke that the Sonne of God cannot doo? For Apollonius Thianaeus, Apollonius Thianaeus.when hee was brought into the Counſell before Domitian, foorthwyth vaniſhed awaye. And that that thyng in Chriſte was not by the nature of the bodye, but by the power of GOD, it is declared by that whyche wente before in the ſame Hyſtorye. For when hee was in the way wyth hys Diſciples, their eyes wer holden that they coulde not know hym. But in that Origene ſayth, that the body of Chriſt was ſpirituall, bicauſe he entred in,Now the body of chriſt entred, the dores being ſhut. the doores being ſhut, Ierome aunſwereth that the creature gaue place vntounto the Creator. &c. Wherefore the bodye of Chriſte pearſed not throughe the myddeſt of the boordes and poſtes, ſo that twoo bodies were together in one, and the ſelfe ſame place, but herein happened the miracle, bicauſe the very boordes of the doore gaue way vntounto the body of Chriſt.The bodye of Chriſt wēt not out of the ſepulchre, it beyng ſhut. Leo. Farther, that which ſome obiect, that the body of Chriſt went out of the Sepulchre, it being ſhut, that alſo is not of neceſſitye to be beleued, but wee maye thinke that the ſtone was roled away before he went foorth. And leaſt a man ſhoulde thynke that I fayne thoſe thynges, lette hym reade the .lxxxiii. Epiſtle of Leo, ad Epiſcopos Palaeſthinos. The fleſhe, ſayth he, of Chriſt, whych went out of the Sepulchre, the ſtone being roled away.The bodyes of angels wherin they appeared, were true and humane. &c. Nowe to returne to the purpoſe, bycauſe I hauehave ſayde that the bodyes of Aungels may be thought to hauehave bene eyther fantaſticall or ſpirituall, or els perfect and in verye deede humane, & the twoo firſt partes are reiected: then reſteth that the bodies of Aungels wherein they appeare, are true and humane. Whiche thing I affirme onelye to bee true, for as muche as Aungels were ſo ſene,The viſions of Prophets wer ſomtime imaginatiue. that they wraſtled wyth men, and offered their feete to be waſhed. Neyther doo I iudge that it is lawfull there to ſaye, that the humane ſenſes were deceaued, when as the thinges were outwardlye done. But I doo not denye, but that there ſomtimes happened imaginatiue appearinges vntounto the prophetes, when as they ſayd that they ſawe God, or the Cherubin, or other ſuche lyke thinges. For that, for as muche as it was in their mynde or imaginatiue faculty, it might well be done by formes, images, and viſions.

Angels appearing in humane bodyes wer not men.Nowe remayne there twoo thynges to be diligently wayghed. One is, whither Aungels, when they after this ſorte put on humane bodyes, maye bee called men. I thynke not. For if we vnderſtande humane fleſhe, whiche is formed and borne of a reaſonable ſoule, vndoubtedlye Aungels after that maner cannot be ſayd to hauehave humane fleſhe. What then, wyll ſome man ſaye? Were the ſenſes deceaued when men ſawe them? Not ſo. For the ſenſes iudge onelye outwarde thinges, and ſuche thinges as appeare. But what inwardlye impelleth or moueth thoſe thinges which they ſee, they iudge not. That longeth to reaſon to ſeeke and ſearche out. Thys alſo is to be added, that Aungels dyd not continually retayne theſe bodies, bicauſe they were not ioyned vntounto them, in one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtaunce: So that an Aungell and a bodye were made one perſon.

The holy ghoſt was not the Dooue, nor the Doue the holye Ghoſt.The holy ghoſt alſo, although it was a true Dooue, where he deſcended, yet was not he together one ſubſtaunce with it. Wherefore the Dooue was not the holye ghoſt, nor the holy ghoſt the Dooue. Otherwyſe Aungels may (as we hauehave before taught) enter in deede into a bodye before made, and whiche before had hys being, as it is read of the Aungell whiche ſpake in the Aſſe of Baalam, and of the Deuyll, which by the Serpent talked wyth Eue. But at thys preſent we diſpute not of that kynde, but onelye ſaye, that Aungels woorking in thys manner in the bodies of creatures, are not ioyned vntounto them in one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtaunce. Wherefore the Aſſe coulde not be called an Aungell, neyther was the Aungell an Aſſe, euen as the ſerpent was not in very deede the Deuyl, neyther was the Deuyll the Serpent.

The ſonne of God, is God & man.But the Sonne of God, for as much as he tooke vponupon him humane nature, was man, and man was God, bycauſe of one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtaunce, wherein were twoo natures. But before when he appeared vntounto Abraham, and to the Fathers, although he had true fleſhe, yet bycauſe it was not ioyned vntounto hym in one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtaunce, he could not be called fleſhe, neither was fleſh, God. But afterwarde, when he tooke vponupon hym both fleſhe and p. 212ſoule, ſo that there was onelyonly one ſubſtance or perſon, then man was God, and God, man. Whereby it came to paſſe, that he ſhoulde trulye bee borne, that hee ſhould dye, and redeeme mankinde. Wherefore he dyd truely call hym ſelfe the ſonne of man: and in Iohn he ſayth, ye ſeeke to kyl me, a man, whiche hauehave tolde you the truth. And in the Scriptures it is ſayd: Made of the ſeede of Dauid. And Peter in the Actes: ye hauehave kylled, ſayth he, a man appoynted you of God. And Eſay: Behold, ſayth he, a virgin ſhall conceaue and beare a Sonne. Theſe words hauehave great force. For vnleſſe Chriſte had bene true man, a Virgin coulde not hauehave conceiued him, neither hauehave brought him foorth, nor called him her ſonne. This thing Tertulian prudently marked. If he had bene a ſtraunger, ſayth he,Tertulian. a Virgin coulde not either hauehave conceaued him, or borne him. The Aungell alſo ſaluted Mary after this maner: Be not afraid ſayd he, thou ſhalt conceaue. &c. Elizabeth ſayd: How happeneth this to me, that the mother of my Lorde ſhoulde come vntounto me? If ſhe had Chriſt onelyonly as a Straunger, ſhe coulde not be called hys Mother. The Aungell alſo ſayde: Bleſſed be the fruite of thy wombe. But how could it hauehave bene ſayde, the fruite of her wombe, if he had brought a body wyth hym from heauen? And in Eſay it is wrytten: A rod ſhall come oute of the roote of Ieſſe, and a floure ſhall aſcende out of his roote. Ieſſe was the ſtocke, Mary the braunch, but Chriſt is the floure which tooke his body of her. Mathew alſo thus beginneth his Goſpell: The booke of the generacion of Ieſus Chriſte, the ſonne of Dauid, the ſonne of Abraham. If Chriſt brought a bodye from heauen, how was he the ſonne of Abraham or Dauid? Farther, the promiſe made to Abraham of Chriſt, is in this ſorte: In thy ſeede ſhall all nacions be bleſſed. Paul intreating of theſe woordes to the Galathians: He ſayde not, ſayth he, in ſeedes, as though in many, but in thy ſeede, whych is Chriſte. And in the Epiſtle to the Romanes wee reade: Of whom is Chriſte according vntounto the fleſhe. All theſe thynges prooue moſt apeartly, that Chriſt was true man, and in hym was one ſubſtaunce of God and man. Theſe thinges cannot be ſayd of the Aungels, neither of the Sonne of God, before he was borne of the Virgin: although whyleſt he appeared, he had true fleſhe (as we hauehave before ſayde:) but yet not ioyned vntounto hym in one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtaunce: neither could it be ſayde of the holy ghoſt, that he was in very deede a Dooue, althoughe that wherein he once appeared, was a true Dooue. And in this ſenſe wrote Tertulian thoſe thynges whych we hauehave before cited, whych thinges being not wel vnderſtoode, might breede either error or offence vntounto the Readers.

Now reſteth the other queſtion:Whither Aungels did in very deede eate & drink whē they appeared. Scotus. Whyther Aungels clothed wyth bodyes taken, dyd in verye deede eate and drinke. Of the Schoolemen ſome thinke that they dyd eate in verye deede, and other denye it. Scotus thynketh that to eate is nothyng els, then to chawe meate, and to conueyghe it downe into the bellye. And thys thyng dyd the Aungels, wherefore he gathereth that they dyd eate in very deede.

Other thynke that to eate, is not onelyonly to chawe the meate, or to conueyghe it downe into the bellye, but moreouer to conuert it into the ſubſtaunce of hys bodye, by concoction thoroughe the power of vegitacion. Thys, for as muche as the Aungels dyd not, therefore they dyd not eate in very deede.The booke of Thobias. The booke of Tobias is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes, but yet it might be applyed vntounto our purpoſe, but that there is variaunce in the copyes. For in that booke which Munſter ſet foorth in Hebrue, in the .xii. chapter, Raphael the Aungell ſayth: I ſeemed to you to eate and to drinke, but I dyd not eate, neyther drynke. The common tranſlacion hath: I ſeemed to you to eate and to drinke. But I vſe inuiſible meate and drinke. Neyther text denyeth, but that the Aungell dyd after a certayne maner eate.

Auguſtine.But whatſoeuer may be gathered of thoſe woordes, me thinketh the interpretacion of Auguſtine is to be receaued, in his .iii. booke de Trinitate, the .22. chap. where he thus writeth: The Angels did eate in very dede, but not for neede, but to contract cuſtome and familiarity with men. Wherefore when in the one text it is ſaid that Raphael did not eate,What is the meate & drinke of Aungels. it muſt not ſo be vnderſtand, as thoughe he did not eate at al, but bicauſe he did not eate after the maner of men. But thys is there chiefly to be marked, when the Angel anſwereth that he vſeth ſpirituall meate and drinke, that ſpiritual nouriſhment was nothing els, then an apearte and manifeſt knowledge of the true God, and execution of his will, as Chriſt alſo ſayd, that that was his meate, to doo the will of his father. The ſame alſo is our meate, although it be not after the ſame maner. For they ſee God manifeſtly, but we ſee him by a glaſſe, and in a riddle. Whereunto thou maieſt adde that they which beleue in Chriſt,Who eate and drinke the body and bluode of Chriſt. The fleſhe and blood of Chriſt are neither included nor poured into the ſimboles or ſignes. Auguſtine and doo aſſuredly perſwade them ſelues, that he died for their ſake, they I ſay, doth both eate the fleſh of Chriſt, & drinke his blood, to which vſe the ſimboles or ſignes, for that they ſtyrre vp the ſenſes, are verye much profitable: not that the fleſh and blood of Chriſt are poured into the bread and wyne, or are by any meanes included in thoſe elementes, but bicauſe thoſe thinges are of the beleuers receaued with a true faith. For they are an inuiſible nooriſhment, which is receaued onelyonly in the mynde, as Auguſtine hath faithfully admoniſhed, ſaying: Why prepareſt thou the teethe and the belly? Beleue and thou haſt eaten.