NOw wée must speake something of the holie scriptures, whereby wée are both encouraged to studie them, and some­what also are holpen in the following of that stu­die: A diuision. and this shall be doon, if I touch first in few words the woorthines and profit of them; secondlie, if we shew by what cer­teine marks & tokens we may be able to iudge, and saie what is the sense or meaning of them: and lastlie, if we shall open the waie and means how to challenge them vnto our selues. Of the dig­nitie and v­tilitie of the holie scrip­tures. This diui­sion I mind to folowe, as being most conuenient for the vnderstanding of those things, which shall be spoken. And first of al, bicause we are to speake of the worthines and profit of the holie scriptures, A definiti­on of the holie scrip­tures. I will giue this plaine and homelie definition of them. For it is a hard matter for anie man, per­fectlie and exactlie to define those things which are of God. The holie scripture inspired by the spirit of God. Wherefore let vs define the holie scrip­tures, to be a certeine declaration of the wisdome of God, inspired by the holie Ghost into godlie men, and then set downe in monuments & wri­tings. That it is inspired by the inward motion of the holie Ghost, for the saluation and restoring of vs, Peter testifieth in the first chapter of his lat­ter epistle, when he saith, 2. Pet. 1, 21 that Prophesie came not in old time by the will of men, but holie men of GOD spake as they were mooued by the holie Ghost. And verie great honour hath come there­vnto, bicause as well Christ, as the apostles, The sute proofes of diuine things are takē out of the scrip­tures onlie. and sound councels haue vsed the testimonie of it, for the confirmation of those things which were de­créed: yea, we may not thinke that anie traditi­ons be necessarie to saluation, which are not sure­lie and stronglie grounded therevpon.

And we must alwaies beare in mind, Christ sent vs to the reading of the scrip­tures. Iohn. 5, 39. how wée are sent awaie by Christ, the best teacher of the church, to search out the scripture, when he saith in the fift of Iohns gospell: Search ye the scrip­tures. Moreouer, euerie facultie and learning borroweth his woorthines from the matter, about which it is occupied. For, according as that dooth excell, so is anie science accounted of more or lesse estimation. Wherefore, séeing this science of ours intreateth of nothing else but of Christ, The sum of all that is done in the scrip­ture is Christ. it is so much the more to be accounted the head of all other, as Christ is the most excellent aboue all other things. And as I suppose no man doubteth, but that the new testament speaketh chieflie of Christ. But bicause some man perhaps doubteth, whether the old testament doo so likewise, let him heare euen Paule writing to the Romans the 10. chapter; Christ is the end of the lawe. Rom. 10. And in the fift of Iohn, when the Lord had said (that which euen now I recited) Search the scriptures; Iohn. 5, 39. he ad­ded incontinent, For they beare witnes of me. And in the same chapter it is said of Moses; He hath written of me. Iohn. 5, 46. And manie other places may be brought, to confirme this selfe-same thing; but let vs content our selues with these for this time.

2 The holie scriptures also are highlie com­mended, The nota­ble proper­ties of the holie scrip­ture. They shine as a can­dle in the darknes. through those excellent properties wher­with God hath adorned them. For they are so glo­rious, that they séeme vnto vs, which walke as it were in darknes, to be like a candle lighted of God: whereof Peter hath admonished vs in the first chapter of the second epistle, And we haue a sure speech of prophesie, wherevnto if you giue heed, as vnto a light shining in a darke place, 2. Pet. 1, 19. ye doo well, till the daie appeare, and the daie star arise in your harts. The holie scriptures be sure and certeine. In which words thou shalt note this also, that they be verie sure. For godlie men are so assured of the truth of them, that for them they feare not to suffer anie cruell death: which thing hath seldome or neuer happened a­mong naturall philosophers, or mathematicians, To the god­lie they be cleere and perspicu­ous. that they confirmed the opinions of their know­ledge with their blood, and with the losse of their liues. And vnto faithfull and godlie harts, there is in the scriptures no want of cléerenes, which the [Page 40] Gréeks call [...], and the Latines perspi­cuitie. For whatsoeuer the sounder Diuines dispute, they alwaies finish their conclusion ac­cording to the testimonies of the scriptures; as rules commonlie knowne among christians, whereof it is not lawfull for any man to doubt. So that this ought to be estéemed as the chéefe principle, They are the cheefe principles of diuinitie. by the which all matters of true diui­nitie are to be resolued and examined: to wit, The Lord hath said.

But yet this perspicuitie is not to be sought at the light of mans sense & reason; but at the light of faith, The cleare­nes of them is discerned by the light of faith. Luke. 24, 45. whereby we ought to be most certain­lie persuaded of whatsoeuer is contained in the holie scriptures. For as we read in the last chap­ter of Luke, when Christ was about to send out his disciples to preach throughout the world, that they might increse the number of his disciples, he opened vnto them the meaning of the scrip­tures: which declareth, that otherwise they were not able by their owne industrie to vnderstand them. 1. Tim. 3, 15. And in the first of Timothie, the third chap­ter, the church is for no other cause said to be the piller and ground of truth, Why the church is called the piller and ground of truth. but bicause it hath the word of God, and vseth the same perpetual­lie in hir opinions and definitions: which when it doth not, it dealeth not as the church of Christ should doo.

Augustine. Augustine Contra epistolam Fundamenti; saith, that things defined in y ^e scriptures must be pre­ferred aboue all other. Besides this, the truth of them hath an euerlasting continuance. The truth of the scrip­ture is e­uerlasting. Matt. 24, 35. Which thing Christ taught vs, when he said in the 24. chapter of Matthew; Heauen and earth shall passe, but my word shall not passe. And it is commonlie spoken euerie where; The word of God endureth for euer. Esaie. 40, 8.

3 And although there be in a maner infinite things, which may stronglie prooue the woorthi­nesse of the scriptures; yet in this place I will measure my selfe, thinking it sufficient, that I haue after a sort shewed the springs or heads: the rest maie easilie be found out by anie that will take paines to search diligentlie. I will now likewise bréefelie declare the commodities which we receiue therby. The com­modities of the holie scriptures. 2. Tim. 3, 16. We read in the 3. chap­ter of the 2. to Timothie, that All scripture inspi­red by God, is profitable both to teach, and to improoue, (to wit as touching doctrine) and to correct and instruct in righteousnesse (which be­longeth vnto manners.) And least thou shoul­dest thinke that any thing doth want, he addeth streight waie: Ibidem. 17. That the man of God may be perfect and readie to euerie good worke. And in the 15 chapter to the Romans we reade; Roman. 15. For whatsoeuer things are now written, they be written before hand for our learning, that by pa­tience & consolation of the scriptures, we may haue hope. Which things séeing they are spo­ken of the old testament, (for while this was written, the new testament was not published) what shall we now thinke, hauing the monu­ments both of the Apostles and of the Euange­lists added therevnto?

Trulie we haue now euen these verie things more plentifullie in the holie scriptures. The power of sauing attributed to the scrip­tures. 1. Tim. 4, 13. And the holie Ghost feareth not to attribute the power of sauing vnto them. For in the first Epistle to Timothie, the fourth chapter, it is written; Take heed to thy selfe, and to thy doctrine; continue therein, for in so dooing thou shalt saue both thy selfe, and those that heare thee. Matt. 13, 19. And in the pa­rable of the gospel, where it is described, that the séede fell, some in the waie, some among stones and thornes, and some in good ground: We are borne anew by the word. 1. Cor. 4, 15. the gos­pell or word of God, by the interpretation of Christ, is vnderstood by the séede; bicause there­by we are borne anew. Wherefore Paule wrote boldlie vnto some; I haue begotten you by the gospel. And Augustine did then first arise out of his errors, wherewith he had béene captiuated, Augustine conuerted by reading of the scrip­tures. when he began to reade the scriptures. And at the reading of Paule (as we may perceiue in his confessions) the darkenesse was chased frō his eies. And vnto such reding he was dri­uen by an oracle of God. For he heard voices, as if children had soong, and said; Take and read, Take and read: which voice when he had obeied, & had lighted vpon that place in the holie scrip­tures; Put on the Lord Iesus Christ, Rom. 13, 14. &c. he was conuerted wholie vnto God, Decrees of faith must be confir­med only by the scrip­tures. Constan­tine bad that contro­uersies should be decided by them. who had so long before striuen (against the truth.) These be notable tokens of the word of God. Adde here­withall, that the decrées of the christian faith can be confirmed by no other meanes, than by au­thoritie of the holie scriptures. Therefore as the ecclesiasticall historie declareth: Constan­tine the great, in the councell of Nice, exhorted the fathers of the church, that by the oracles of the holie scriptures, they would appease the con­trouersies sproong vp in religion.

4 But he that will knowe more at large the properties of the holy scripture, The pro­perties of the scrip­ture out of the 19 psalme. Psal. 19, 8. let him read the 19 psalme; there they be described, both with maruelous breuitie, and great elegancie. First the lawe of the Lord is called Temima; that is, immaculate & perfect. Secondly it is affirmed, that it doth restore the soule; and that is not to be looked for in prophane learning. Thirdlie it is called a sure testimonie of the Lord; whereas mans counsels are euermore variable and in­constant. It teacheth the simple and ignorant; whereas other knowledges doo instruct only the prudent and sharpe witted hearers. Moreouer, the lawe of the Lord is right, and hath nothing crooked, awrie, or vniust; as in euerie part of mans lawe is espied. Also it reioiceth the hart, euen with such a gladnes as is chast and holie.

[Page 41]The Lords commandement is pure, but mans deuises are neuer sincerelie made; séeing they be fraited with many crafts and deceits. It lighteneth the eies; but contrariwise the tra­ditions of men darken them. The lawe of God is cleane, and is offered vndefiled vnto vs, being without any falshood or wrong; whereas mans ordinances are most fowlie infected with both the euils. The statutes of God indure for euer; but those things, which be ordained by men, are alwaies shifting, oftentimes chan­ged, and are neuer of long continuance. To con­clude, those things which the Lord hath prescri­bed, are both true and iust, which cannot be af­firmed of mans lawes. Moreouer, they are to be desired aboue gold and pretious stones; where as the best natures doo verie much mislike the precepts of mans lawe. Finallie, those things which God hath taught vs in the scriptures, be more swéet than the honie and the honie combe; where contrariwise, men are not accustomed to teach any other than hard, difficult, and often times cruell things. Besides these properties of the holie scriptures, I purpose not to ad anie more. For they that be studious, may easilie of themselues find out the other fruits and com­modities.

5 Now must I declare another point, which I promised; To what iudgement we must stand for the sense of the scrip­tures. to wit, by what iudgements and abitrers, we must assure our selues for vnder­standing of the scriptures. Two tokens I haue alwaies obserued, by which the truth of the di­uine scripture may be perceiued; namelie, the holie ghost, and the word of God it selfe. Con­cerning the spirit, Iohn writeth in the 8. chapter of his gospell, The truth is knowne by the spi­rit and the word. Iohn. 8, 47. that Christ thus said: If ye haue God to your father, why doo you not acknow­ledge my word? And séeing it is certaine, that we be not adopted to be the children of God, but by the comming of the holie ghost; Christ testi­fieth in this place, that when we haue once ob­teined the same spirit, we may so discerne be­twixt his word and a strange word, as the same will appeare verie euident and plaine vnto vs. According to which sense, he also said in another place; My sheepe knowe my voice, and followe not a stranger. Iohn. 10, 4. And there is no doubt, but that we, by the strength of the holie spirit are made the shéepe of Christ, which followe not falshood, errors and heresies (which be voices of stran­gers) but doo imitate onlie the voice of Christ: that is to wit, doo followe the true and naturall sense of the scriptures. Againe, we haue in the second chap. of the 1. epistle to the Corinthians; A naturall man doth not perceiue those things that be of God, 1. Cor. 2, 24. neither is he able to do it; bicause they be but foolishnesse vnto him. But the spiri­tuall man iudgeth all things. And againe in the same place, Ibidem. 10. The spirit searcheth out the deepe mysteries of God. And Christ himselfe said; The spirit of comfort shall declare all things that I haue said vnto you. Iohn. 14, 26. Also Iohn in his epistle saith, 1. Ioh. 2, 27. The spirituall vnction shall shew you of all things.

But some will saie; These things be true in­déede, but we be destitute of the spirit. To whom I answere saieng; If you haue not the spirit, Whether all men haue the spirit of Christ. Rom. 8, 9. how dare you call your selues christians, séeing Paul to the Rom. sheweth vs, that They be none of Christs, which haue not y ^e spirit of Christ. And yet I speake not this, as though I were igno­rant, that there must be degrées of this spirit geuen, séeing it is euident, that all men cannot haue a like vnderstanding of the scriptures. But yet this I affirme, Euerie one may gather out of the scriptures so much as is necessary to salua­tion. Chrysost. that there is no true christian man, to whom so small a portion of this spirit is giuen, but that he may gather & iudge out of the holie scriptures, such things as be necessarie to saluation, so as he neglect not to be conuersant in the reading of them both daie and night. Which thing Chrysostome vpon the pre­face to the epistle vnto the Romans hath plain­lie declared, when he saith; This thing com­meth not by ignorance, but bicause they will not haue this holie mans writings continual­lie in their hands. Neither doo those things, which we knowe (if we knowe any thing) come vnto vs by the goodnesse and pregnancie of our wit; but bicause we being alwaies throughlie affected to that man, we neuer cease reading of him. For they which loue, A simili­tude. doo knowe more than all other, the dooings of them whom they loue, as béeing carefull of them. Wherefore (saith he a litle after) if ye also will applie your minds, and trauell in the diligent reading herof, it shall not be néedefull to require anie other thing of you. True is that saieng of Christ: Seeke, Matth. 7, 7. and you shall find; knocke, and it shalbe opened vnto you. And there is no doubt but that Chrysostom spake these words to all men: for he spake them in a sermon to the people. And marke well what he affirmeth; namelie, that if they would but diligentlie reade saint Paules epistles, they should not néed of anie other teacher. The word is a sure to­ken to find the truth of the scrip­tures.

6 The second note, and sure token, by which we may throughlie search out the truth of the holie scriptures, is the verie scriptures them­selues. For it is requisite, that we should deter­mine that péece of scripture which is hard and darke, We must iudge of an obscure place by a more clere place. by another part which is more plaine and easie. Christ hath giuen vnto his church, the old testament; the authoritie whereof (let the Ma­nichies, the Martionits, and such other pestilent heretikes fret thereat neuer so much) is most stable and sure: insomuch as by it, The old testament proueth the new. Acts. 17, 11. the old chri­stians also haue iudged of the new testament. It is written in the 17 of the Acts, that the Thes­salonians hauing heard Paule, repaired to the [Page 42] scriptures, to sée whether things were as Paule had declared, or otherwise. And Augustine De doctrina christiana, teaching what manner of man a preacher should be, willeth him to con­ferre the places of the scripture together, and dooth not send him to search out the opinions of the fathers, or to séeke out the determinations of the church, or the canons, or the traditions of men.

A third ar­bitter, but no high cen­sor is the consent of the church. 7 To these two arbitrers, which I haue decla­red to be the faithfull interpretors of the holie scriptures, we willinglie ioine the firme consent and authoritie of the catholike church: yet not in such sort, that (as our aduersaries indeuour to prooue) all the iudgement of the scriptures should depend thereon. For it is not lawfull, either for a councell, or for the church, to interpret the scrip­tures, as séemeth good vnto them. For that were to haue dominion ouer the faith of godlie men. Therefore when they interpret the word of God, it is their part to prooue, that they haue expoun­ded such things, according to the consent and proportiō of other places of the scripture. Wher­fore the most dangerous error of the antichrists must be auoided with great circumspection, It is not the church that giueth au­thoritie to the word. which presume to saie, that it is the church, which hath woone authoritie to the books of God, where it is far otherwise. For whatsoeuer esti­mation or authoritie hath happened vnto the church, all that hath come from the word of God. It is detestable to heare, that the holie oracles & woords of God, should purchase their credit of men, which otherwise are but liers. Yet neuer­theles such things they imagine and deuise, that when they be found to decrée & constitute in ma­nie places of the sacraments, and other points of doctrine, far otherwise than Gods word doth permit, they will maintaine, that it is lawfull for them so to doo: Looke part 4, chap. 4, art. 12, and chap. 6, art. 11. bicause the church (saie they) which hath brought credit and authoritie to the word of God, may change & alter therein, what­soeuer shall séeme good vnto hir. Wherefore, that which they ground vpon, must by all maner of meanes be resisted.

Let vs not be brought to thinke, that the holy scriptures haue gotten their credit and authori­tie by the church. And yet I vrge not this much, as though I despised or contemned the dignitie of the church. Three func­tions of the church a­bout the word of God. For I attribute vnto it thrée good­lie functions about the word of God: The first is that I grant she doth, as it were a witnesse, pre­serue the holie bookes; but it cannot be gathered thereby, that it is lawfull for the church, either to alter or peruert anie thing in the holie scrip­tures. A simili­tude. The church as a witnes preserueth the holie bookes. Experience teacheth vs, that both priuate and publike euidences are committed to regi­sters & notaries, to be safelie kept and preserued: and yet no man in his right mind will saie, that it is lawfull for them to change any thing in them. Neither may we thinke, that the power of those registers can be greater, than their wils which appointed them to be put in record. And here it shall not be vnprofitable, if we consider of the difference betwéene the word of God, The word of God first reuealed, & then writ­ten. as it was reuealed vnto the prophets at the first, & that which was preached afterward, or publi­shed in writting; wherein we shall only sée a dif­ference in the time, and not in the strength and authoritie. For we grant that the word vnwrit­ten was of more antiquitie, than that which was afterward put in writing; and that aswell both the one as the other was bestowed vpon the church: but yet (as we said before) it was not lawfull for the church by any meanes to wrest or alter the same. Secondlie, we doubt not, The duty of the church is to preach & publish the word. but that the churches part is, to preach and set foorth the word of God committed vnto it: wherein it is likened to a crier, who notwithstanding he proclame the statutes of a prince or magistrate, A simili­tude. yet is he not either of more or of equall authori­tie with them. But all his labour is faithfullie to proclame all things, euen as he receiued them from the princes and magistrates. For if hée should so doo, he might be counted a traitour. Wherefore, it behooueth the ministers of the church, that they prouide and indeuour nothing more than to be found faithfull.

8 Thirdlie, we also acknowledge it to be the function of the church, The church discerneth the true scriptures from not canonicall. that séeing it is indu­ed with the holie ghost, it should descipher & dis­cerne the true and proper books of the heauenlie word, from them that be not canonicall. Which office doubtlesse is not to beare a higher autho­ritie than the scriptures, as many doo foolishlie dreame. For thus they saie. Forsomuch as the church hath accepted and allowed some scrip­tures, and hath refused other some to be no scrip­ture; therefore it hath authoritie to determine of them as it listeth. But this is a verie weake kind of argument. We will grant, in verie déede, that the ancient church had such an abun­dance of the spirit, as thereby they easilie knew, which of those that were presented vnto them, were the true & proper words of God: and these as canons and rules of Gods word, they disseue­red by a spiritual vnderstanding from the other books, called Apocrypha, which being once done it was not lawfull for the church to make what interpretation it would: but both the spirit of Christ must be harkened vnto, and also the con­sent of all the places of scripture, must be dili­gentlie considered. The verie which thing we sée dailie to be done.

When a kings letters are brought to a citie or prouince, A simili­tude. the lieutenants and gouernours of those places, by verie vse and morall skill, knowe well inough whether the letters, which be deliuered in the name of the king, be true or [Page 43] counterfeit: but when they shall perceiue them that they be neither fained, nor depraued, it is not lawfull to alter, transforme, and wrest them af­ter their owne will. Euen so must we thinke of the church. For it is not onlie a faithfull wit­nesse, but also a sure kéeper of Gods books: and yet it is not lawfull for the church, to appoint a­nie thing in them, otherwise than God himselfe hath prescribed. There be a great many that can iudge, which be the right works of Aristotle, and of P [...]ato, and which be not; who neuerthe­lesse are not straight way to be thought compa­rable to either of them in learning. And a­mongst vs christians, euerie one can easilie es­pie the difference betwéene God and the deuill, and yet must we not be compared with God, and much lesse be thought to excell him. Euen so the church must not for this cause preferre hir credit or authoritie aboue the scriptures.

Augustine. 9 But they alledge, that Augustine saith; I would not beléeue the gospell, vnlesse the autho­ritie of the church should mooue me. But that place of Augustine hath this latine word Com­mouéret; that is to saie, To mooue with the help of another thing, and not simplie To mooue of it selfe. Faith is powred in by the holy ghost, and the mini­sters work togither by him. For vndoubtedlie it is the holie ghost which powreth in faith to the hearers of Gods word. And the ministers of the church, being his instruments, are rather to be said to mooue togither by him, than absolutelie by themselues. The same Augustine against Faustus, in the 28. booke and second chapter writeth, that the here­tikes called Manichei, should aswell beléeue that the first chapter of Matthew was written by him, as he beléeued that the epistle called the foundation of their religion was written by Manicheus; bicause it was so preserued among the elders of their religion; and so came from hand to hand at that time. And therefore it must on this sort be vnderstood, that the church moo­ueth vs to beléeue the gospell, bicause it faithful­lie kéepeth the holie scriptures, preacheth them, and discerneth them from other writings.

The same father, in his sixt booke of confessi­ons, the fourth & fift chapters, dooth plainlie wit­nes, that God himselfe doubtles giueth authori­tie to the holie scriptures. Tertullian. Irenaeus. Tertullian & Irenaeus standing in disputation with the heretikes, did therefore send them vnto the apostolike chur­ches; bicause they allowed not full and wholie of the scriptures: wherefore they would that they should vnderstand the sense and meaning of them, by such churches as were certeinelie knowne to be apostolike. For méete it was, that such churches should be continuall witnes­ses and preseruers of the bookes of God. And yet did they not by this meanes affirme, that the authoritie of the church is to be preferred aboue the scriptures.

10 But our aduersaries saie, that they are led by a common rule vaunted by the Logicians; namelie, That thing is to be iudged the more so, A rule in Logicke. for the which another thing is so. Wherevpon they gather this reason; If the scripture haue authoritie, by iudgement of the church, then it followeth, that there is a more authoritie in the church than in the scripture. But they consider not, how that sentence of the Logicians taketh place onelie in such causes, as are called finall; but that in efficient causes it is not firme. For although this inferiour world of ours, be war­med by meanes of the sunne and planets: it fol­loweth not, Simili­tudes. that the sunne and planets be there­fore more hot (than the things which they haue warmed.) Likewise surfetters, and intempe­rate men are droonke by reason of wine; but we cannot conclude thereby, that wine is more in­temperate than they. Yea & the Logicians teach, that the foresaid rule is then firme and true in efficient causes, when they be brought whole and perfect, not when they be mangled and vn­perfect. Which point doubtles is smallie obser­ued by our aduersaries in this argument. For the church is no efficient cause of that authoritie and credit, which the scriptures haue with the faithfull. For if it were so, it might easilie per­suade the Turks & Infidels to beléeue the scrip­tures; and the Iewes to imbrace the new testa­ment. And how true this is, the thing it selfe te­stifieth.

11 Furthermore, these men should be deman­ded, What church it is, to whom they appoint so great a iudgement and authoritie ouer the scrip­tures? If they will answere, that they attribute the same vnto bishops; these be verie oftentimes but shadowes or vizards, neither doo they vnder­stand what the holie scriptures doo containe: and commonlie their life is such, as it is not lawfull to eate and drinke with them. And séeing they are perceiued to be such sensuall men, who will allow them to be the chéefe iudges of spirituall things? Of the fa­thers. But if our aduersaries had rather flie from them, to the godlie fathers of euerie age, to learne the truth of the scriptures; I denie not, but that true iudgment hath manie times béene found among them; and yet not alwaies. For they disagrée manie times among themselues: they change, they make retractations, and di­uers times some one contendeth and disputeth against another. I knowe, they will saie at the last, Of the councels. that we must haue recourse to the generall councels, as though they neuer erred.

The generall councell of Ariminum, Looke part 4, place 4, art. 10. made al­togither for the Arrians. The second councell of Ephesus, fauoured the heresie of Eutyches. The councell of Chalcedon so erred, as it intituled Leo bishop of Rome, to be the vniuersall bishop of Christ his church. But the holie man, which [Page 44] was not present there, hearing of it, did vtterlie renounce such preeminence. And in a councell, which Cyprian held, a great errour was commit­ted, when it was there decréed, that heretikes bap­tised out of the faith of the catholike church, if they returned vnto it, should be baptised againe. Also the synod of Constance did wickedly condescend, that the halfe communion should be ministred to the laie people: and manie other errors commit­ted by generall councels might be alledged. For since they be but men, which determine matters propounded in generall councels, they intermin­gle much carnall and humane sense: and therfore we must not subscribe to the opinion of them, vn­lesse it shall appéere, that the same dooth verie well agrée with the scriptures. Had not Peter erred, Galat. 2, 14. vnles that Paule had openlie resisted him? Wherefore, If Peter er­red, much more the fa­thers and councels may erre. if so great an apostle was not frée from falling into error, what shall we thinke of other miserable and fraile men, whom we sée ve­rie often to be turned to & fro into manie minds and affections?

Let all things therefore, without anie further delaie, be reduced and brought home to a iust exa­mination of the scriptures: and so shall we iudge vncerteine matters by certeine, and doubtfull by those things which be out of all doubt. For euen as the word of God is sure, and continueth for euer; so mans ordinances are euer doubtfull, wauering, and inconstant. These things must not bée so construed, as though wée would that godlie brethren should haue no audience in god­lie assemblies: or as though wée sought altogi­ther to take awaie the authoritie from fathers and councels: we speake not these things to anie such purpose; we couet to attribute to euerie one his iust commendation, so that there be not attri­buted vnto men, that which is méete for God one­lie. And let that saieng of Paule to the Galathi­ans be alwaies sounded in our eares, that If an angel from heauen shall shew vs of anie other Gospel, Galat. 1, 8. than is contained in the holie scriptures, let him be accursed. And thus much shall suffice on this behalfe, to declare by what notes & marks the truth of the holie scriptures may be perceiued.

How one may ob­taine the meanes to vnderstand the scrip­tures. 12 Now let vs reason, by what meanes eue­rie man may obtaine to himselfe that power of vnderstanding the word of God, which we spake of before. As touching the first interpretor, which we said to be the holie Ghost; the meanes to haue accesse vnto him is by praier. And therefore Da­uid praied on this wise; Psalm. 119, 12. and 18. Open thou mine eies, ô Lord, that I may see the woonderfull things of thy lawe. And againe; Teach me thy iustificati­ons. Giue me vnderstanding, & I shall diligent­lie search thy commandements. And well néere innumerable of these saiengs there be in the 119. psalme. Further, Paule prateth in his epistles, that wisedome, Phil. 1, 8. spirituall vnderstanding, and the eies of discretion to knowe the wil of God, might be giuen to those holie men, to whom he wrote. But as touching the other meanes, whereby wée may discerne of the holie scriptures (the word of God I meane) we must vse no small industrie, Diligence must be v­sed in cōpa­ring scrip­ture with scripture. whereby we may be able to confer places with places, and by those which be most plaine to iudge of them which be most obscure. And herof it came, that Paule warned his scholer Timothie, 1. Tim. 13. that he should be diligent in reading. And hée himselfe, when he laie bound at Rome, 2. Tim. 4, 13. desired that Troas might be sent vnto him, with his booke & parch­ments, which he had left behind.

By these things we may gather, that they which in the interpreting of the holie scriptures doo fall into error, may impute it to themselues: for that they haue not béene earnest inough in praier, nor yet vsed sufficient studie about them. Neither ought anie to be discouraged from this excellent exercise, No man must be dis­couraged with the homelie stile of the scriptures. A simili­tude. bicause of the plaine & home­lie phrase of the holie scriptures. For euen as within a simple shell, is found a pretious stone; and out of sorie chaffe, is shaken out most profi­table corne: so out of the plaine and vnpolished spéech of the holie scriptures, is brought to light the most sincere and manifest knowledge of the truth. But aboue all things take héed, that thou approch not to the reading of the scriptures, if thy mind be hardened with a preiudicate opinion. Laie aside all affectations, let thy comming bée wholie to learne, and not (as is the vse of here­tikes) violentlie to drawe them to thine opinion.

An exhortation to the reading of the scriptures.

13 Wherefore the surest reléefe that is brought vnto vs by God, and which is euer ready at hand, Out of the epistle to maister Cooke set before the epistle to the Rom. Consolati­on by the scriptures. is the holie scriptures: which we must haue al­waies readie about vs, as our herbe of comfort. For, if ignorance and blindnes be our disease, there light is, by which it may be shaken off. If we be disquieted with manie troubles and vexa­tions of the mind; or else, if our conscience bée ouercharged with the heauie burden of our sins, there we shall méete with mild and spéedie re­medies. If the lacke and care of these temporall things molest vs, and doo not vtterlie ouerpresse vs, there we may find sound and sure consolati­on. If we stand somtimes in doubt and perplexi­tie, not knowing whither to turne our selues, we shall no where better than there, find good and faithfull counsell. If we be tempted, and put in danger of saluation, as oftentimes it happeneth; we haue there a most strong and inuincible bul­worke. And assuredlie, out of that poake, and no where else, A simili­tude. Matth. 4, 4. 7, and 10. did our latter Dauid take most fine and smooth stones; wherewith he smote the head of Goliah, and ouerthrew Satan which tempted [Page 45] him in the desart. Psal. 119. 18 11, & 15. Wherefore Dauid the king, not without cause, sang, that he considered the maruellous things of the lawe, that is, of the ho­lie scriptures, and laid vp the word of God in his hart, that he might not offend him. He confessed that to be his comfort in time of trouble, in that the word of God did quicken him.

What will you more? From hence flowe the fountaines of our sauiour, where euerie one is willed to drawe franke and frée, whereby our intollerable thirst may be slaked, & the excéeding desire of obtaining felicitie is satisfied. Here the store-house of God most throughlie fraughted with abundance of all good things, is opened and laid abroad; where it is frée for all sorts to pro­uide for their want in necessitie. Here the boord is furnished with all kind of deinties; where the wisedome of God hath mixed for vs most swéet wine, wherewith euerie one may most liberal­lie refresh himselfe. Here is offered vnto all com­mers a more pleasant garden and paradise, than euer had Alcinous and Salomon: wherefore, let vs gather therein profitable things: and not per­nicious. Let vs rather followe the bées than the spiders, sucking thereout most swéet iuice, and not deadlie poison. We are accustomed with in­credible desire, to imploie our zeale and diligence to peruse bookes set foorth by the indeuour of mor­tall men, wherein we learne nothing else, but ei­ther the meanes to maintaine bodilie health, or the waie to augment our substance, or precepts to gouerne the common-weale, or else rules of husbandrie, and other occupations, or else some intisement of pleasures: how much more requi­sit were it for vs, to applie all our hart and mind to the studie of diuine doctrine? For therein we heare not the wisedome of man, but haue God himselfe speaking before vs, to whom if we giue eare; we shall conceiue a singular ioie, we shall chase awaie pensiue cogitations, and be lighte­ned with most swéet comfort; we shall be streng­thened beyond the condition of man, nothing shall be thought hard and painefull vnto vs; we shall thinke the yoke of the Lord and his crosse to be easie things, and we shall offer our selues to be most readie to suffer any thing for his name. Yea and béeing thus instructed with hea­uenlie eloquence, we shall talke with men, not like sensuall men; but as if our speach procéeded from God himselfe.

14 I knowe verelie, that there be manie, which will not giue credit to these saiengs; yea, and some which will scorne them, and suppose vs to be mad. But I would desire these men, that it should not gréeue them sometime to read and make proofe. If they would be contented so to doo, let me suffer shame (for so dare I saie in so great a matter) if they themselues be not caught at the length, and that they will at the length perceiue how much the words of God differ from the words of men. Yea (I saie) they shall by earnest and faithfull reading féele, that the scourge of feare and shame, is sometime by the mercie of GOD redoubled vnto them in their hart: they shall féele themselues effectuallie persuaded, to die to death, and liue to life: at the length they shall féele themselues shaken with the horror of their sinnes, and voluptuous life which they led; whereas before time they thought themselues happie therein: they shall thinke they sée heaped before their eies, the whole wretchednesse of their fleshly life, through the bitter lust wherof, they be­ing in heauie languish of mind, there shall arise a great storme, and plentifull showers of teares. For while as the words of the scripture are ear­nestlie read, and déeplie considered, they doo not lightly pull the mind; but with sharpe pricks they déepelie pierse the bottome of the hart, pa­ring as it were & pruning from thence the loth­somnesse of sinne and wickednesse; planting in the stead thereof peace of conscience, and spiritu­all gladnesse. Lastlie they shall féele themselues to be kindled with the most pleasant and woon­derfull loue of Gods fauour and goodnesse. Wher­fore they being cléerelie changed, and become new men, shall be constrained to saie: Psal. 119, 3. How sweet are thy words become vnto my iawes! they were like honie vnto my mouth.

But those men, which either will not read Gods bookes at all, or else read them with con­tempt, disdaine, or lothsomnesse, whereby they are nothing the better for the word of God, but are still led aside with deuises of their owne hed, are wholie depriued of this comfort: than the which nothing can be found more godlie, or more profitable to saluation. Of which wickednesse and impietie, God by his prophet Ose the eight chapter doth sharpelie accuse Israel, saieng; Ose. 8, 1 [...], I haue written vnto them the mightie things of my law, but they haue counted them as a strange thing. Trulie those children are greatlie dege­nerate, which account that voice, wherewith their father gentlie calleth them to goodnes and happie state, to be but a strange voice: and con­trariwise imbrace that which is méere strange, in stéede of their fathers naturall speach. Wherein they shew the propertie of the béetle, which wil re­fuse the odoriferous ointment, to créepe vpon the lothsome and vnsauourie smell. Wherefore it is no maruell, if they waxe rotten in the puddle of worldlie pleasures, if they be inwardlie burnt with dishonest and shamefull thoughts, if they despaire in aduersities; & finallie, if they perish on euerie side in their sinnes and contaminated life. To conclude, we may saie of the scriptures (though not so properlie) as Demosthenes once said of monie: Without that, nothing can be doone as it should be.

[Page 46] Out of the preface vp­on the first epistle to the Corin­thians. 2. Pet. 3, 16. How to helpe the difficult places of the scrip­ture. 15 They which are more busie against vs, than they ought to be, are woont alwaies to saie, that There be manie darke places in the scriptures; and that Peter gaue testimonie of Pauls epistles, that they were hard to be vnderstood: and by this reason they labor to drawe the simpler sort from the reading of scriptures. We therfore to answer such, doo saie, that Those hard places, which Peter mentioneth, may béecome easie inough by stu­die and continuall search: especiallie, if we con­fer those places with others, in which the verie same matters, although after a much plainer sort, are intreated of. And if perhaps some places be so hard, as they cannot be reached vnto; wée must thinke, that such are not much necessarie vnto our saluation. For the holie Ghost is not so without care of our saluation, as of set purpose he would that to be hid from vs, which we ought to knowe: naie rather, the difficultie of vnder­standing of the scriptures, is oftentimes verie profitable vnto the faithfull. For by that meanes, a more honest indeuour is stirred vp in them, the desire of vnderstanding is increast, and they be­come more feruent in praier, wherein they labour ernestlie with God, that he will giue them grace to knowe that, which as yet is hidden from them. Moreouer, Out of the preface In Rom. Looke In Rom. 4, 13. by such meanes they are become wil­ling to aske the aduise of others, better learned than themselues: whereby the hautines of mind, which perhaps might arise, is suppressed; humili­tie and mutuall loue among the members of Christ is restored.

Neither dooth the difficultie of the scriptures, which somtimes happeneth, harme vnto anie, ex­cept such as be peruerse men. Chrysost. Chrysostome (as we touched before) in his preface to the epistle to the Romans taught, that This darknes is molli­fied by often & diligent reading; and so mollified, as he dare speake it, that we of our selues, with­out anie maister, may vnderstand whatsoeuer is taught in them, so that we meditate our selues therein both daie and night. For I my selfe (saith he) did not attaine to this skill, by the sharpenes of mine owne wit; but by earnest indeuour. For euen the dullest wits, by diligent labor, doo com­passe hard and obscure things. And he bringeth a verie apt similitude. A simili­tude. The thoughts & meanings of a man are most secret; yet oftentimes are the thoughts and meanings of our fréend, whom we earnestlie loue, and with whom we are alwaies conuersant, perceiued of vs by a becke or nod, without a signe of words or spéeches, which he vt­tereth. Euen so (saith he) it commeth to passe in the epistles of Paule, so that a man loue them, and be dailie occupied in them. He that asketh, shall receiue; he that seeketh shall find; and he that knocketh, it shall be opened vnto him. This he spake to the common people, exhorting them to the studie of the scriptures.

16 But there bée some others woont also to iangle, that the holie scriptures, In 1. Cor. 13, ver. 12. for their doubt­fulnes and obscuritie, may be called glasses, and as it were riddles; and therefore would conclude, that they are in no wise sufficient for our saluati­on, but that we must refer our selues to the iudg­ment of fathers and councels. For the principles or rules (they saie) whereby our life is directed, must be most plaine and euident vnto vs. But these men are alreadie answered; In things necessarie to saluation the scrip­tures are not ambi­guous. that in such things as are incident to saluation, the scriptures want no plainnesse nor perspicuitie: and those things, which in one place are somewhat darklie intreated of, are plainlie taught in another. And who vnderstandeth not, that the apostle in that place speaketh not absolutelie, but by a compari­son? What a grosse kind of reasoning is this? A grosse kind of rea­soning. Those things, which be taught in the holie scrip­tures, and in the sacraments, be glasses and rid­dles of diuine things; if they be compared to the knowlege that we shall haue in the life to come: therefore simplie, and of themselues they be so obscure, as they are not sufficient for our salua­tion. But those things, which we now beléeue, are not so euident vnto mans reason, as that they can be shewed by causes: though in the life to come all things shall be so perfectlie knowne vn­to vs, that we shall be able to reduce all things to their owne causes, and from cause to cause, till we come to the highest. And what can the fathers themselues, or the councels teach vs more, than they themselues learned in the holie scriptures? * For whatsoeuer they adde ouer and aboue these, must be reiected as mans deuise.

17 Those words, which we haue in the latter epistle to the Corinthians, the third chapter, doo fitlie serue to the expounding of this matter; But we behold, as in a mirror, verse. 18. the glorie of the Lord with open face, and are changed into the same image from glorie to glorie, as by the spirit of the Lord. For the apostle in these words, laieth togither two kinds of knowleges, which we haue of heauenlie things; Two maner of compari­sons of our knowledge. and compareth the one with that, which was vnder the lawe; and the other with that, which we expect in the life to come. And in the first comparison he saith, that The know­ledge vnder the lawe was secret and hidden, and was signified by the vaile, which Moses cast ouer his face, when he spake to the people. And against this obscure knowledge, he opposeth the know­ledge, which wée haue after Christs comming, wherwith we behold heauenlie things with open face, the vaile being put awaie. But least thou shouldest thinke, that our knowledge is yet per­fect, he vseth this participle, [...], that is, Beholding through a glasse. For the fruition of the things themselues is reserued, til we come vnto the eternall rest; whereby we be changed, & transformed euerie daie into the image of God, [Page 47] euen from lesser to greater glorie. Augustine handleth this place verie properly, in his 15. book De trinitate, the third chapter. We must not take offense (saith he) that God hath so instructed vs in the knowledge of him, as it were through a glasse, and in darke saiengs; bicause so our na­ture hath required it. For we be framed in such sort, as we are led vnto the knowledge of cau­ses by their effects, and are trained by simili­tudes vnto certeine truths.

In 1. Cor. 2, vers. 7. How the holie scrip­tures shuld be read of all men. 18 No more are they to be heard, which would persuade, that the holie scriptures should be ta­ken from laie men; bicause the mysteries which are in them, ought not to be committed to al per­sons. For that is as much (saie they) as to cast holie things vnto dogs. But the people of Christ must not be counted as dogs. For they that haue beléeued, be baptised; and be partakers of the sa­craments. They haue the spirit of GOD, and therefore must not be defrauded of his word. And although within the whole flocke of christians, there may be found some, which be contemners, and perhaps some blasphemers and mockers; shall therefore the greatest number of the faith­full be depriued of the commoditie of the scrip­tures for their sakes? No verelie. Which thing is euidentlie prooued by the example of the apo­stles, which were not ignorant, that among such a number, as came to the hearing of their ser­uice, there were many present oftentimes, which like vnto dogs or swine, contemned and trod vnder their féete the doctrine that was set foorth vnto them. And yet did they not for these mens sakes, withdrawe their sermons from the people. Yea, & Christ verie often preached to the people, when the Scribes & Pharisies stood by, whom he knew verie well to haue committed sin against the holie Ghost; yet did he not for their cause cease from dooing his office. Euen so at this day, bicause some blasphemers and despisers cannot be let from the vse of the holie scriptures, but that in a manner the whole flocke of christians must receiue damage thereby, therefore it is better to licence them vnto all men one with another.

The rising of heresies must not hinder the reading of the scrip­tures. But they saie, that many heresies be sproong vp in these daies, which should be an occasion to forbid this thing. But they that so saie, should consider, that before Augustines time, there were both Arrians, and Manichies; yea and that while he himselfe liued, the heresie of the Pelagi­ans and Donatists, and manie other pestiferous sects were spred abroad; and yet neuertheles he gaue counsell to read the scriptures, as appea­reth by his epistle Ad Volusianum, and in his ser­mon of fasting: where he prooueth, that among the faithfull sort, the reading of Gods word, euen in the time of feasts & bankets, ought to be as an exercise, in stéed of plaies & games. And all the fathers, in a maner besides, doo manie times ex­hort the people of Christ vnto this studie. And it is a verie slender reason, that good things should be quite taken awaie, bicause they be abused of some. For then the Eucharist it selfe should be taken awaie, bicause (as Paule testifieth) manie abuse the same to their owne destruction. To conclude, what discommodities soeuer they ob­iect, God knoweth them better than they; who not onlie permitted the lawe, but also the pro­phets to be common amongst the people; yea, & that the same should be deliuered vnto strange nations to be read. The Eunuch of the Quéene of Candace read the prophet in his chariot, Acts. 8, 28. when Philip stood by him. What I beséech you, wil they be wiser than God? For whatsoeuer is necessa­rie to saluation, as we haue often said, is plaine and easie in the scriptures. Wherefore, in that the scriptures were predestinate to our glorie, and that from the beginning, we must giue in­finite thanks vnto God, which so timelie thought vpon our saluation.

19 Moreouer, Out of the preface vp­on the Iud­ges. some diuide the holie scrip­tures into foure parts; and some bookes, aswell in the old testament, as in the new, they ascribe vnto lawes, some vnto histories, some vnto pro­phesies, and some vnto wisedome. Of the diui­sion of the holie scrip­tures. But it is not lawfull so to diuide the holie bookes one from a­nother; séeing that in Exodus, Leuiticus, Num­bers, and Deuteronomium, wherein they ap­point lawes to be contained, are found almost as manie histories as lawes. Moreouer, in the books which they haue assigned to the prophets, are oftentimes taught and plainelie expounded lawes of vpright liuing: neither can we proper­lie separate the bookes of Salomon, and others like (which they would haue proper vnto wise­dome) from lawes or prophesies. For in them are manie sentences, which perteine to the in­struction of a good life, and without doubt haue the nature of lawes. Againe, séeing that in these very many secret mysteries are opened vnto the church by instinction of the spirit, doubtlesse the attentiue readers of them may marke therein o­racles of things to come; but yet so neuerthe­lesse, as well néere in euerie booke, they be set foorth vnto vs dispersedlie; and yet the holie books are not seuered one from another by such bounds or limits.

I would rather thinke, as hath séemed good vnto the learned sort, that whatsoeuer is contai­ned in the holie scriptures, All things in the scrip­tures refer­red vnto two princi­pall points. should be referred vnto two chéefe points; I meane the lawe, and the gospell. For euerie-where, either Gods com­mandements to liue well are set foorth vnto vs; or else when we are found to swarue from them either of weakenesse, or of some certeine malici­ousnes, the gospell is shewed, whereby through Christ we are pardoned of our trespasses, and are promised the power and strength of the holie [Page 48] spirit, to restore vs againe to the image of Christ, which we had lost. These two things may be séene in all the bookes of Moses, in the histories, in the prophets, and books of wisedome, and throughout the whole testament, old and new. Surelie they be not separated one from another by bookes and leaues; but by that waie, which we haue now de­clared. And thus much is said of the matter of the holie scripture in generall.

Of Historie.

Ibidem. Looke the epistle vp­on the booke of Sam. and [...], and the pre­face vpon the second booke of Sam. A defini­tion of hi­storie. The diffe­rence be­tweene chronicles and histo­ries. 20 Let vs now declare somwhat of the histo­ricall scriptures. An historie (as Quintilian defi­neth it, in the second booke, and fourth chapter of his institutions) is a declaration of a thing that hath béene doone. From whom Augustine dooth not much varie; saieng, that Historie is the de­claration of anie thing doone, either by God or by man; comprehending within the compasse of this definition, as well prophane histories, as those of the Bible. Howbeit, all narrations of things doone, are not of one sort. For some are called Chronicles, or Annales, shewing the suc­cesse of things from yéere to yéere, and time to time; but others are properlie called histories. Howbeit we cannot well doo this, vnlesse we di­stinguish these two one from the other. Cicero in his second booke De oratore, when he touched these matters, writeth on this wise: The Gréeks them­selues wrote so in the beginning, as our Cato, Pictor, and Piso did. For historie was nothing else, but a gathering togither of things doon from yéere to yéere: and for the preseruation of such things in publike memorie, the chéefe prelate did put euerie yéere in writing, whatsoeuer was doon woorth the registring within that yéere; and so continued from the originall of the Romane state, euen vnto Publius Mutius, who bare the same office. Which being doone, he not onelie did publish it abroad, but also did set it foorth in a ta­ble at home, that the people might haue the per­fect knowledge thereof. Yea, and manie of them (saith he) which are counted the chéefe historiogra­phers at this daie, followe much of their trade; who without anie curiousnes or eloquence, leaue the monuments of times, persons, places and things, euen simplie as they were doone. Where­fore as Pherecydes, Hellanicus, Acusilaus, and manie other among the Gréekes, such were our Cato, Pictor, and Piso among vs, who haue small regard to set foorth their matter with good­lie words: and so it may be vnderstood what they saie, they account breuitie a speciall praise of speaking.

And a little after, it followeth thus; The name of things doone, requireth order of time to be ob­serued, & will also haue the description of coun­tries. For in matters which be great and woor­thie of memorie; we first looke what counsell was taken; secondlie the acts that were doone; and lastlie, what end and successe came thereof. And in counsels is signified what the writer allow­eth; and in the acts is declared, not onelie what was doone and said, but also in what maner they were executed, &c. By these things we may per­ceiue what is the nature of Annales, or of histo­rie. And it séemeth we may affirme, The narra­tions of the scriptures be rather histories, than chro­nicles. that the nar­rations of the holie scriptures be rather like hi­stories, than Annales. For not onelie acts are there set foorth, as they were doone, but also the verie causes, counsels, and meanes are shewed. Also the orations, admonitions, and reprehensi­ons are otherwise set foorth with som ornaments. All which rather belong vnto histories, than vn­to bare Chronicles.

21 But since we haue heard the opinion of Cicero, let vs sée also, what Aulus Gellius saith, Aulus Gel­lius opinion of chroni­cles and histories. who in his fift booke, and fift chapter writeth on this sort. Some doo thinke that a historie differeth from a Chronicle in this, that whereas both of them are a declaration of things that be doone, yet that a historie is properlie of such things, as the writer himselfe is present at the execution of those things, which he intreateth of, &c. This di­stinction he himselfe dooth not followe, and that for some certeine cause. Which distinction neuer­theles Seruius the Grammarian vsed; and after him Isidorus, in his first booke of Etymologies: which is a maruell, bicause he is not only against Tullie, who said; that An historie is a gathering of things doone from yéere to yéere; but also con­trarie to Virgil, whose verse is in the first of Ae­neidos: And if it please you to heare the Chroni­cles of our labours. Wherein he declareth, that Chronicles also belong to such things, as the wri­ter was present at.

But I will speake againe of Gellius. He re­porteth that there were others, which thought histories to be either the exposition or demon­stration of things that haue béene doon: and they be Annales or Chronicles, when the acts of ma­nie yéeres are afterward compiled, an order of euery yéere being kept. According to which iudg­ment, the historie of the scriptures cannot be na­med among Chronicles: séeing in the declarati­ons of things doone in them, the course of yéeres manie times is not obserued. Afterward the same Gellius, according to the mind of Sempro­nius Asellio added this much; But the difference betwéene those which would leaue Chronicles behind them, and others which indeuoured to dis­course of the worthie acts of the Romans was this: In their Chronicles they onlie shewed what déeds were doon euerie yéere, but the histories not [Page 49] onelie shewed what was doone, but also how, by what order, deuise, and counsell the same was at­chéeued. And a little after, the same Asellio in the same booke; Chronicles can neither mooue the more couragious sort to defend the Common­weale, nor yet the more cowardlie to doo amisse. Wherefore, since by the knowledge of the scrip­ture, men be admonished and stirred vp to the right worshipping of God, to repentance of their life, to put their whole confidence in God: and fi­nallie, to take in hand all offices which apper­taine to good life and conuersation, they rather containe historie than chronicle. I haue vsed manie words touching this matter, but I trust not without some f [...]uit.

God is the authour of historie. 22 But it must not be thought, that historie was deuised by man, séeing God himselfe is the author thereof; who would, that the forefathers should declare vnto their children and posteritie, the maruellous things that he did in Aegypt, in the red sea, and in the wildernesse: yea, and he bad (as we read in Exodus) that the warre a­gainst Abimelech, Exod. 17, 14 & the victorie which the Israe­lites had of him, should be recorded in writing: but this kind of writing began before Moses. For euen he maketh mention, Histories before Mo­ses time. Num. 21, 15 Ios. 10, 13. 2. Sam. 1, 18. aswell of a booke of the wars of the Lord, as also of an other booke of iust men. The prophets also oftentimes ming­led histories with their prophesies. I omit Dauid who manie times garnished his psalmes, which he soong, with histories of the scriptures. I passe ouer our euangelists in the new testament, and the Acts written by Luke, wherin are large and most profitable histories. Of these bookes if God be authour, as we must beléeue he is, euen God himselfe shalbe counted the authour of historie. And this is not vnbeséeming for him, séeing historie is an excellent thing: for as Cicero wri­teth in his booke De oratore, it is a testimonie of times, The praise of historie. a light of the truth, the life of memorie, the maister of life, and the messenger of antiqui­tie, &c.

Verie singular are these commendations, and not fit for euerie historie; but for such onelie, wherein those rules are obserued, which this au­thour hath in the same place set downe; that is to wit, The rules of a true historie. that there be no false thing told, that there be no bashfulnes in telling the truth, & that there be giuen no suspicion of fauour or hatred. Wher­in, although the Latine Historiographers were better than the Gréekes; The Latine histories of more credit than the Greeke. which (as Quintillian saith) were in these matters almost as lewd as the poets; yet Augustine in his 131 epistle to one Memorius a bishop, giuing no small praise to historie, among other liberall disciplines, and writing of the truth saith; that he could not per­ceiue how those stories, which are compiled by men, can be well able to kéepe the truth: séeing that writers are constrained to giue credit vnto men, and oftentimes to gather rumors and re­ports of the multitude; who neuerthelesse are to be excused, if they kéepe the course that is requi­red in a historie, and write nothing of affection or set purpose to beguile men. The histo­ries of the scriptures most true. But there is no­thing more true than the histories reuealed and written by the inspiration of God, as these histo­ries of ours be.

23 Besides the commoditie of the truth, The com­modities comming by histo­ries. the knowledge whereof is without doubt most ex­cellent, we obtaine other commodities also, and those not small, by the reading of histories. By them we may gather great and abundant store and matter of most profitable arguments. For (as Quintillian saith) histories and examples be iudgements and testimonies. And the vse of ex­amples is of two sorts at the least; Two maner of vses of examples. one is that we should imitate and vse them: also that we should allow and commend those things which we perceiue haue béene doone by excellent men. We know out of the diuine historie, that Abra­ham was a holie man, and in the fauour of God; Gen. 18, 2. and that he was a kéeper of hospitalitie: whereof we may gather, that hospitalitie is a verie good vertue, and is acceptable to God: and so we may conclude of the contrarie; that such things as godly men haue eschewed, we also are to take héed of. For when we consider of Dauid, that might two times haue killed Saule his chéefest enimie, and yet would not; 1. Sam. 24, 7. 1. Sam. 26, 7. we may gather ther­by, that priuate persons (although they may) yet must not reuenge their owne proper iniuries. Out of the preface vp­on the 2. booke of Samuel, pag, 2. Gen. 19. The other vse of examples is this, that out of ma­nie things seuerallie told, we vnderstanding them to be alike, may gather thereby some pro­fitable rule, to applie them to things generallie. As by the storie of the Sodomites, we note that intollerable lusts were gréeuouslie punished: wée knowe that for the same cause the whole tribe of Beniamin was almost extinguished: Iudg. 19, 20. Gen. 49, 4. we read, that for incest, Ruben the eldest sonne of Ia­cob was put besides the inheritance: that for cō ­mitting of adulterie, Dauid suffered the indig­nation of the Lord: that for fornication, 2. Sa. 13, 29. 2. Sam. 19, 9. Ammon and Absolom were destroied: that Troie (as the Ethniks report) was subuerted for adulterie. Thus by the marking of these things seuerallie doone, we saie it is manifest, that all vnlawfull and wanton lusts of men, are surelie punished by the hand of God. To which proposition, if we adde the next; to wit, that now also in these daies, throughout all christendome, there reigneth the like incest, abhomination, and wanton life, we may make a certeine conclusion, that most bit­ter punishments hang ouer our age for these horrible sinnes.

24 But yet in this kind of argument we must take very great héed of a fault which might easilie arise: and this commeth two waies. [Page 50] First, What faults we must be­ware of, when we reason by examples. that we take not in hand to imitate such dooings of holie men, as they sometimes enter­prised naughtilie. For as they were men, so they did manie times amisse; yea and that shameful­lie. Wherefore the things which they did, must be first examined with great iudgement, before we make them our examples to followe. Augustine. Augustine in his second booke against the second epistle of Gaudentius writeth in this maner: The falles of saints must not be imitated. We must not (saith he) alwaie imitate & allow whatsoeuer thing honest men haue doone: but it is necessarie to compare the iudgement of the scriptures ther­with, and to marke whether they allow of those acts or no. This godlie father giues vs a good warning, that as godlie men, although they plea­sed God many waies, and haue great credit gi­uen them, through the testimonie of the scrip­tures; yet that all their dooings must not be iud­ged sound and blamelesse: for euerie man is a lier, and sinneth manie times. For who will folowe the abhominable adulterie of Dauid, and the vngodlie betraieng of his faithfull souldier? Or who will imitate the forswearing of Peter, or his fained dissimulation? None I hope, that hath anie sparke of godlinesse in him.

Moreouer it happeneth diuers times, that the worke which some haue doone well and iustlie, is neuertheles forbidden in others. Sometimes God will haue some men to doo things re­pugnant to the generall lawe. Exod. 11, 2. For God, which made the lawe for man, is not so tied thereby, as it should not be lawfull for him, when he thinketh good, to exempt some from the generall bond. It is not lawfull for anie man to steale; and yet it was permitted, yea commanded vnto the He­brues, to carrie awaie the goods, which they had borowed of the Aegyptians, vnknowne to them and against their wils. What is best therefore for vs to doo in such cases? Trulie this; when we sée anie thing set foorth in the scriptures, The doings of godlie men must be weighed by the gene­rall rules of the lawe of God. to weigh it well and diligentlie with the generall rules of Gods commandements: wherevnto if we per­ceiue that they be consonant, let vs then boldlie vse them; but if they disagrée with them, let vs as­sure our selues that they were certaine misdéeds, or else speciall prerogatiues permitted to some: & let vs refraine from following of such examples. These cautions being vsed, there is great profit to be reaped of histories; especiallie those histo­ries which be in the scriptures. And this did Chry­sostome so well perceiue, Chrysost. as in his preface vpon the exposition of the epistle to Philemon, he wi­sheth, that all those things had béene committed to writing, which were either said or doone by the apostles, when they sate, when they did eate, when they wrote, and such like. And the same father in his 57. homilie vpon Genesis writeth, that histories were giuen of the holie ghost to be followed. Augustine. Augustine also in his second booke De doctrina christiana, the 28. chapter sheweth, that Manie darke and hard places may be resolued by the knowledge of histories. Moreouer, who­soeuer shall exercise themselues much in peru­sing of the scriptures, may the more fruitfullie consider the examples and dooings of our times. There happened once a man to be somewhat de­formed, A pleasant historie. who neuerthelesse was desirous of god­lie children, but yet he maried a foule wife: and therefore euerie man laughed him to scorne. A simili­tude. But he went into the citie, and bought himselfe verie faire & curious pictures, brought them home, and placed them in his chamber; and gaue his wife commandement, that euerie daie for a certaine space of time, she should fixe hir sight vpon those pictures: which commandement she obserued, & therefore bare vnto him goodlie children. Euen so shall it happen to vs, which although for our sinnes naturallie ingraffed in vs, we are most foule and vglie to behold, and are led aswell by the power of the diuell, as by ill conuersation of men, vnto lewd and licentious life: yet notwith­standing, if we will earnestlie and diligentlie make a choise of examples of the godlie, descri­bed and plainelie set foorth to vs in the holie scrip­tures, & will well consider of them in our minds; verelie we shall yéeld foorth excellent works, and such as be acceptable vnto the Lord.

25 But those things that be written, In Gen. 38. Why cer­taine disho­nest things are rehersed in scriptur [...]. séeme vn­to men to be so vnpure and foule, as they doo thinke them vnwoorthie to be read in the holie scriptures. But vnderstand thou, that the sum of those things which he had in the holie scripture, are so distributed, as some perteine onelie to be knowne, others to be imitated: wherefore such things as be set foorth after this maner, put thou among that sort which belong vnto know­ledge onelie, not that thou doo expresse them by imitation. I grant that they haue mysteries in them, yet are they not for that cause to be follow­ed. For the mysterie and excellent signification, which was peculiar to the dooings of the fathers, causeth not, but that those things are otherwise to be counted sinnes. The Manicheis which re­fuse the old testament, haue speciallie this foolish­nesse, to thinke that in receiuing of the scripture, whatsoeuer things are taught, if they be not disa­lowed or condemned in that place, they ought to be allowed and commended of vs. Wherefore (saie they) séeing these things be not condemned, if the old testament be receiued, it shalbe lawfull to imitate them. These things doth Augustine answere in his 22. booke against Faustus, the 62. chapter. We read of the fact of Herod, which is handled in the gospell, when he killed an infinit sort of children at Bethleem; neither dooth the E­uangelist there ad an execration of so great a cru­eltie: shall we therefore saie, that we ought to expresse so horrible an act by imitation?

They make a great stir that Iuda was in the number of the patriarchs: as though it be of ne­cessitie, [Page 51] that they which are carried into some high calling, should streightway be counted good men. Matt. 10, 4. Was not Iudas Iscariot among the num­ber of the twelue apostles? Perhaps they will saie, he continued not. I grant; but Peter, which committed the crime of denieng (Christ) was al­waies reckoned the first of that order. Matt. 26, 69. Why then (saie they) was it requisite that Iuda should be so commended in the last prophesie of his father? Gen. 49, 8. To the end (answereth Augustine) that whilest thou thinkest this Iuda, by reason of his facts, to be vnméete for so great a praise and commenda­tion, thou shouldest séeke for another of his stock, to whom so great a renowme may iustlie be ap­plied: and this shall be Christ. Wherefore those things that be taught in the holie scripture one­lie; that some thing may be discerned or percei­ued of vs, it skilleth but a little how those be as touching maners, whether honest or dishonest: euen as in a historie, it maketh no matter, whe­ther some letters be blacke; so thou reade them, and discerne what they signifie vnto thée. But those things which so teach, as that we our selues should worke, and doo that which is there decla­red, then vndoubtedlie it forceth verie much how they be. God would that in them we should chéef­lie haue regard vnto his cunning; to wit, that he is able to vse euill things well.

Who will denie, but that adulterie is an euill thing? And yet thereby God would, that a child should be begotten, who may be planted in his church, and among his people. Againe, whereas Caiphas, being an ill man, said with an ill hart; It is expedient that one should die for the peo­ple: Iohn. 11, 49. God would most effectuallie expresse vnto vs an holie prophesie, touching the redemption & saluation of the people of God. The selfe-same thing may be said of Iudas the traitour, whose act without all doubt was to be detested: and yet ne­uertheles, God thereby procure [...] our saluation. Assuredlie it was not the mind of Iudas Isca­riot to bring anie good thing to passe. Neither ment the same Iuda to signifie anie thing by his fact, but by the prouidence and cunning of God it was brought to passe, that good things should be deriued from thence: from the one, the redem­ption through Christ; and from the other, the flesh of Christ, and an excellent signification of our saluation. But in verie déed, the Manicheis doo therefore chéeflie among other things take hold of that fact of Iuda, to defame the genealogie of Christ according to the flesh; and exclame that hée was vnwoorthilie borne of such ancestours. Howbeit, as Christ hath borne vpon him our sinnes, & hath refused no humane kind, although it were wicked, so that they will beléeue him: so hath he not refused to deriue his stocke from an­cestours which haue sinned.

26 But we must note well, that in the Gréeke translation, In Gen. 5. at the be­ginning. the seuentie interpretours doo differ from our numbers, or from the numbers that are had in the Hebrue veritie: which thing (saith Augustine in his 15. booke De ciuitate Dei) wée should not iudge to be doon bicause the Hebrues be liers, or that they corrupted their bookes: sée­ing he thinketh it may not be granted, that all the Iewes, so manie as wrote, could conspire in such sort togither, as all their copies were falsifi­ed. Which reason let them note, which so greatlie blame the Hebrue bookes of falshood, lieng, and corruption. But Augustine affirmeth, that this was not doone by the fault of the interpretours, as if they had ment to kéepe the truth secret from the nations, but that it came by the ouersight of the writers of their translation, which may soone be deceiued in describing of numbers, as we sée by dailie experience. For since that numbers ap­péere to be a thing of no great importance, they are not carefullie; naie rather they are negli­gentlie lookt vnto. But in other things, where the seuentie interpretours either séeme to translate otherwise, than is in the Hebrue, or doo adde anie thing for exposition sake; that he thinketh was doone by the power of prophesie, which directed them. Wherof sée what Ierom saith; But to come to our computation of yéeres, thou maiest per­ceiue, that hereof it coms to passe, that there is a difference betwéene the Hebrues account and ours, as touching the yéeres since the beginning of the world: bicause they of old time followed also the description of the seuentie interpretours. And the Hebrues followed the whole historie, There Pe­ter Martyr sheweth by proo [...]e, that either it is not that translation, or else that it is in ma­nie places corrupted. as they themselues haue it, with whom we may a­grée in all those things, which are not preiudici­all at all vnto Christ, and the true worshipping of him. But that the Greeke translation, which now taketh place, is not that which the seuentie interpre­tours made; it is noted vpon the epistle to the Ro­mans, the 11. chapter, and 26, verse, in these words: There shall come out of Sion.

Further, there be manie excellent writings lost; but yet as God would, In 1. King. 4, 22. Looke In Gen. 5, 21. there be manie also preserued: and especiallie those which bring grea­test profit, and are most auailable for the instru­ction of men. Neither must we imagine, Why manie old bookes perished. Matt. 10, 29, and 30. that it came by chance, that so manie & so great works perished. For There is not a sparowe that ligh­teth vpon the ground by chance; as the sonne of God testifieth. And it is euident, that All the haires of our head are certeinlie numbered of God. But wherefore (saith some man) were they written, séeing they should afterward perish? There is no doubt, but they serued for that age: & euerie thing is not alike conuenient for all pla­ces, times, & persons. Wherfore we answere, that so it séemed good vnto God; and thereby wée ga­ther, that those bookes had not béene profitable for vs. Howbeit they are iustlie and greatlie bla­med, [Page 52] which make much adoo about the losse of manie bookes, when as they in the meane time haue not perused ouer those, which be now extant of the holie scriptures. And I am certeinlie per­suaded, that it tendeth to the profit of the elect, that there haue so manie miscarried. Also there be certeine monuments extant of ecclesiasticall writers, not verie whole, but as it were frag­ments of them; by the taste whereof wée may knowe, that the rest which be lost were not of such value, as the losse of them should be much la­mented.

Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus reporteth, that a Daemon, who (as I take it) was a wise man, cam to Thamus king of Aegypt, & offered him foure of his deuises; namelie, number, geometrie, lots, and letters: and when he came to the commen­dation of letters, hée declared that they were a great helpe to memorie, and a singular furthe­rance to wisedome. The king examining his sai­engs, some part he allowed, and some he did not. And when he had considered of letters, hée pro­nounced the contrarie of them: A kings o­pinion as touching written monu­ments. For letters (saith he) helpe not the memorie, as thou bearest mée in hand; but they rather confound the same. For when men haue once put in writing those things which they haue heard, or found out, they are no longer carefull to ponder them in their mind, and to repeate them often to themselues: and if letters were not, they would often meditate those things which are found out and knowne, and would be dailie more and more ripe in them. Further, as touching the increase of wisedome, men will herafter (saith he) despise their teachers, by turning themselues vnto written books; which being often red, doo tell but one tale. This was the opinion of a king of Aegypt; which in verie déed, I allow not. For I affirme, that books are of sin­gular great profit, for else God would not haue bestowed the scriptures vpon men; yet that king seemed to saie somewhat. For if there be not a mean and in reding of books, they may doo hurt.

It is said of Socrates and Pythagoras, that they wrote nothing themselues; Socrates & Pythago­ras wrote nothing themselues. but that their schol­lers after them set foorth some bookes in their names. No nor our Sauiour Christ did not leaue behind him anie writing of his owne doo­ings; but his apostles did register his sermons, acts, and miracles. Yea and it is not said in the historie, that Salomon wrote these things, but that he spoke and disputed. Wherefore it should séeme, that those things which be extant, and written in his name, were receiued from his mouth: which may well bée perceiued by the booke of the Prouerbs. The cause why so manie of his saiengs haue béene omitted, perchance is; for that they which tooke the words from his mouth, did not thoroughlie marke all things. Besides this, so manie were the exiles of the Hebrues, as it is a maruell that these scriptures, which we haue, were preserued; and these by Esdras were restored and amended. Wherefore we must well and thankfullie vse them, as a hea­uenlie and diuine gift. And I am out of doubt, that the apostles gaue more epistles vnto the churches, than we haue in these daies. And I am thoroughlie persuaded, that those which are lost, be lost by the appointment of God. Of Paule, and his epistles and stile, looke the preface vpon the epistle to the Romans.

AN olde expositor of the scriptures, called Kimhi, Out of the booke of Iudges, 20, 27. The maner of giuing out oracles by Drim and Thu­mim. Looke In Iudg. 1, verse. 1. vpon the twentie chapter of the booke of Iudges, verse the 26, noted ma­nie things, not vnprofi­table for the vnderstan­ding of other places of the scripture by questions and oracles. He saith, that It was the maner among the Hebrues, to aske questions of God: and he that would de­mand anie thing, touching either publike or weightie matters, he came to the préest, who be­ing apparelled with his Ephod garment, stood before the arke of the Lord. And vpon his Ephod were set twelue pretious stones, wherein the names of the twelue tribes were ingrauen, to­gither with the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob; and also all the letters of the Hebrue al­phabet. It behooued him that asked a question, to turne his face towards the préest; and his spéech should neither be so lowd, as hée might plainlie [Page 59] be heard; nor yet so lowe, as if he had onlie prai­ed with his inward cogitations: but euen in such wise, as Anna praied in the first booke of Samuel, where it is said, 1. Sam. 1, 13 that She onelie mooued hir lips, & said nothing that might be heard. After this, the oracle was shewed to the préest in this ma­ner. By the power of the holie Ghost, certeine letters appéered foorth, or shined vpon the breast, wherin the préest did read the oracle or wil of God. And this was that Vrim and Thumim, which is spoken of. These be the words of Kimhi. But what credit should be giuen vnto him, I knowe not. For it might be, that the spirit of God gaue out his pleasure by the mouth of the préest, with­out those letters.

In 1. Sam. 10, vers. 19. 2 Touching lots, we haue an example in the first of Samuel, the 10. verse; for there Samuel willeth that all the people should stand by tribes. He himselfe would pronounce nothing, least the thing should séeme to be doone by his owne ap­pointment: therefore God pronounced Saule to be king, doubtlesse not through his owne merit, but for the people sake, least they should striue among themselues for the choosing of him. Saule was chosen by lots. The cause of lotting. The matter was permitted vnto lots, to the intent that dissention might be auoided. For if Samuel had chosen the king vpon his owne liking, they might haue thought him to be led by fauour & af­fection. Againe, if the voices of the people should haue taken place; no doubt but euerie one would haue fauoured his owne tribe: and béeing so ma­nie tribes as there were, they would hardlie haue agréed all vpon one man. And wheras Saule was of the least tribe, of lowe degrée, & of base paren­tage; if he should haue béene chosen by anie other means, the matter might haue béen greatlie sto­mached of all sorts. Num. 16, 2. Core, Dathan, Abiram, and o­thers of their felowes; stirred vp sedition against Moses and Aaron; bicause they supposed them to haue vsurped the principalitie and preesthood by fraud and collusion.

Sundrie waies were the lots in old time. Kim­hi thinketh, that all the people stood before the Lord; for in deliberation and counsell of great matters, it behooued the magistrate or prince to stand before the high préest. So we sée in the book of Numbers, Num. 27, 22 that when Iosua was appointed to be captaine of the people, he stood before Elea­zar, and the préest vsed to make answere through Vrim and Thumim. So dooth Kimhi thinke that Samuel stood before the high préest, and receiued the oracle of Vrim and Thumim; that is to saie, by those letters which were ingrauen in the preti­ous stones of the Ephod. He saith moreouer, that the arke perhaps was brought thither: howbeit these things be vncertaine. For there is here no mention made, either of the préest, or yet of the arke. Rab. Shelomo thinketh, that such was the maner of lots, as that the names of euerie of the tribes were written in seuerall scrols; which béeing throwne into a pot, were afterward drawne by the chéefe préest. It maketh for Kim­hi, that there is no mention made of lots. She­lomo followeth the common opinion, which is, that Saules election was doone by lots: which thing was not strange from the vse & custome of the Iewes. For of two hée goats, Looke in Iudg. 20, 8. Much vse of lots a­mong the Iewes. Leuit. 16, 8. Iosua. 13, 6. 1. Par. 24, 31 1 Sam. 14, 41 Ionas. 1, 7. Acts. 1, 26. it was chosen by lots, which of them should scape. By lots the land of Canaan was diuided among the tribes; by lots the préesthood was appointed; by lots Io­nas & Ionathas were found out; and by lots Mat­thias was taken into the apostleship; as we read in the first of the Acts. Wherfore séeing lots were in such sort vsed, commonlie among the Iewes, it should appeare that Shelomo did not thinke amisse, in saieng that Saule was chosen by lots.

And whereas Kimhi saith, that the high préest, the arke of the Lord, and the Ephod were pre­sent; me thinketh it is not agréeable to truth; For the arke at that time was in Kiriathiarim. And if so be that the Ephod were there, yet it fol­loweth not of necessitie, that therefore the arke was also there; for we may sée how often those things were a sunder. 1. Sam. 30 [...] For when Dauid fled and came to Ceila, he had Abiathar the préest to put on the Ephod, and yet the arke was not carried with him in that flight. The same thing was af­terward doone in Siceleg, when as yet the arke was present with him. But thou wilt saie that in the text, lots are not named: I grant, but yet there is another word there of the same significa­tion. For Lachad signifieth, To get, to laie hold on, and to attaine by coniecture.

3 But what lots those were I knowe not; for (as I said) there were manie kinds of lots. Ci­cero in his booke De diuinatione saith, Many kinds of lots. that When one Numerius Suffecius had cut in sunder a flint stone, the lots made in an oke leaped out; & that at the same time an Oliue trée bid sweat honie; and that therefore a little chest was made of the same trée, into which the lots were cast: these were called Praenestine lots, which were verie fa­mous in times past. In Plautus we read of lots made of firre and poplar trées, which were cast into a vessell of water; and according as euerie lot arose, first or last from the bottom, so the mat­ter was decréed. Pausanias saith, that lots were woont to be doone out of a pot made of claie; and that one Cresphon, in the diuision that was made of Peloponnesus, to handle the matter that the field of Missena might fall out to his share, he corrupted the préest Temenus; for he dried others lots by the sun, but Cresphons by the fier: and therefore Cresphons lots béeing longer, before they were made wet, he obtained the féeld of Missena. Darius the king of Persia, in stead of lots, vsed the neighing of a horsse. And some haue obserued the first arising of the sun. [Page 60] To vse lots is nothing else, What is to vse lots. but to doo something, through which we may come by the knowledge of a thing that we knowe not.

Three kinds of lots. But all kinds of lots may be reduced to thrée sorts. For either we doubt to whom a thing should be adiudged, as in the diuision that is made of féelds and possessions; (these lots are called lots of diuision:) either we doubt what is to be doone; and such be called consulting lots: or else we would faine knowe, what should come to passe; and this is called diuination by lots. But it behooueth verie much to knowe, Vpon what principle lots de­pend. vpon what principle lots doo depend. For, to saie that they be ordered by fortune; that were a vaine thing: by diuels, that is superstitious: by hea­uen, and the stars; that is plaine ridiculous: wherefore they are ruled by God. For (as saith Salomon) Lots are put into the bosome, Pro. 16, 33. but they are tempered by the Lord. And Augustine vpon the 30. psalme sheweth, that lots are nothing else but a signifieng of Gods will, when man standeth in doubt. And digressing from hence, he saith, Lots a to­ken of the will of God. that predestination and grace may be called lots; bicause they depend not vpon our merits, but vpon the mercies of God. For with God, predestination is eternall and certaine, though it séeme to come to passe by lots. And to Honoratus he saith, that In a great persecution, all ministers ought not to flie awaie; nor yet all abandon themselues vnto perill; but those must be retained, which shall be sufficient for the pre­sent vse; and the rest to be sent awaie, that they may be reserued till a better season. But here what maner of choosing shall be had? Those must be retained (saith he) whom we shall thinke to be the more profitable, and better for the people which remaine. But if all shall be alike, and all shall saie, that they would tarie and die; then saith he the matter must be committed vnto lots. And in his booke De doctrina christiana, he saith; If there happen to méet with thée two poore men, whose néed presentlie is alike, and thou hast not then wherewith to helpe them both; but one thou canst helpe, there is no better waie than to deale by lots.

How and when lots must be v­sed. 4 But we must beware, that we come not to the triall of lots too vnaduisedly. 1 For we must first vse other meanes and gifts of God; name­lie, the spirit, the word, reason, and discretion; and not to deale by lots, except when necessitie shall require. And it is to be counted necessitie, whensoeuer any thing happeneth, that may tend to the glorie of God, and to the edifieng of his church, which thou canst not reach vnto by mans wisedome: or if thou canst, yet not without in­curring of enuie and suspicion: and so doo bre­thren diuide betwéene them the inheritances. And the Romans, in times past, vsed to decide controuersies by casting of lots. 2 Secondlie, we must beware, that nothing be doone rashlie: for we must come vnto lots with great reue­rence and religion. 3 Thirdlie, we must auoid superstition. 4 Fourthlie, there must be no fraud nor deceit. 5 Fiftlie, about lots we must not vse the gospell, or word of God. But bicause we cannot easilie beware of all these things, Ierom vpon the prophet Ionas, denieth that it is lawfull in anie wise to vse lots. Howbeit, there be some which conster his meaning to be onlie of super­stitious lots: but he plainelie condemneth all, and saith, that Whatsoeuer is read in the holie scriptures as touching lots, must not be drawne to an example: and yet the opinion of Augu­stine was otherwise, (as I said before.) And there is no danger why wée should séeme to tempt God; for it is he that ordereth the lots. But thou wilt saie; The Israelites had an oracle and Ephod, therefore what néed had they of lots? In déede they had so; and so had they Samuel for their prophet, who willed them in the name of God to cast lots.

Beda vpon the Acts saith, Beda. Acts. 1, 26. The exam­ple of lots in Matthi­as must not be followed. that The election of Matthias into the apostleship by lots, must not be laid hold on for an example. For he saith, that as yet they had not receiued the holie ghost; which when they had receiued, they vsed no more lots in the choosing of deacons. Neuerthelesse, I doubt not, but that both sorts of election were approoued, and holie alike. And although they had not as yet receiued the gifts of the holie Ghost, yet in their harts they had him. Neither tooke they lots in hand, till they had first tried all other ordinarie meanes; for they sawe that there were two men of equall godlines, iudge­ment, and woorthines, wherby no danger might insue vpon the choise of anie of them. But in ap­pointing of deacons, there was no néed of lots; seuen were brought foorth, and they did choose them all. But if so be that some part onlie of that number should haue béene chosen, I doubt not but they might haue chosen them by lots. But this in the example of Samuel must be followed: In vsing lots they praied vn­to God. they, while lots were casting, praied the Lord. And Samuel saith, that the people stood before the Lord; that is, they reuerentlie expected what the Lord would appoint. And we must note, that in the text it is written; They still asked the Lord, when as yet they had not found Saule. He said, (still:) for they had first asked the Lord by way of lots, but were rebuked of Samuel, both to the intent they might repent, and that they might stand deuoutlie before the Lord: which to doo accordinglie, they asked the Lord by praier. But when they sought whether Saule was come, they tried not that by lots: for how could they haue found him out by lots, who was hidden among the cariages? But at the praier of Samuel, God shewed where he was. And here is to be noted [Page 61] the woonderfull faith of Samuel, who knowing assuredlie, that God had appointed Saule to be king, yet doubted not to commit the matter vn­to lots. An other perhaps would haue said; It shall not be so, perhaps the lots will fall out otherwise, and so will exclude this man.

Of forespeaking or foretel­ling; called Omen.

In 1. Sam. 14, 9. 5 Ionathas, in the first booke of Samuel the 14. chapter, verse the 19, desired to haue a signe or token to be shewed him of the Lord; Sometime a man may prescribe vnto him­selfe a signe. the He­brues interpret this signe or token to be on this sort. If they had said; Let vs come vnto you, that would haue béene a signe of mind, both vali­ant and readie to fight: but contrariwise, if they had said; Come ye vnto vs, that would haue béene a signe, that they were alreadie discoura­ged, and faint harted. And Ben Gerson saith, that The beginning of persecutions coms from con­querours. Howbeit this is onlie a coniecture: for sometime it happeneth otherwise. But this is no new kind of vnderstanding the will of God. For so in the booke of Genesis, Eleazar the seruant of Abraham made this to be his signe; The maid which shall saie to me; Gen. 24, 14. Drinke thou, and after­ward I will giue thy camels to drinke: the same is she, whom the Lord hath assigned to be the wife of my masters sonne. The Philistines also decréed with themselues, that If the arke should be carried by wild and vntamed cattle, directlie to the Iewes, 1. Sam. 6, 9. they would take that as a signe of euill sent by God: but if it happened otherwise, they would impute it but to fortune and chance. And this is to aske a signe, What ma­ner of faith is to be con­firmed by signes. euen that a mans faith may be confirmed. But what faith doo I meane? Not the faith of Moses lawe, or the truth of the prophets; for that hath béene sufficientlie confirmed before: but there is sometime a cer­teine particular faith of some thing not expressed in the word of God; and therein confirmation by signes is often requisite. This we sée happened in the historie of Gedeon; Iudg. 6, 15. for hée doubted not, but that GOD would deliuer his people from their enimies; but he knew not that he himselfe should be the deliuerer: wherefore he was to bée confirmed by miracle. That Messias would com, all men were sufficientlie persuaded; but that Marie the virgin should be his mother, that, God had not speciallie promised: herevpon a signe was requisite to be had; Behold Elizabeth thy cosin hath in hir old age conceiued. Luke. 1, 36. Wherefore miracles are otherwhile of force to confirme the faith, be it general or particular. And none ought to thinke, that Ionathas did tempt God, in ap­pointing such a signe vnto himself. To tempt God what it is. For to tempt God, is to make a triall of his power, wisedome, and will; and that, when there is no necessitie of the case. Wherein the offense is double; first, After chap. 8, art. 117, and part. 2, ch. 4, art. 54. bi­cause faith is wanting: secondlie, for that it is doone curiouslie; when as neither necessitie, nor anie profit dooth require.

Augustine in his booke of confessions, the 36. chapter, hath these words; When signes (saith he) are craued, not for saluation sake; but to make a proofe or triall, God is tempted. And in his book De vera religione, the 38. chapter, hée saith, that There was no cause, why Christ should cast him­selfe downe hedlong from the pinacle of the tem­ple, except for triall sake, which had béen to tempt God. But it fared not thus with Ionathas; for first, he wanted not faith; secondlie, he was led through necessitie, and great profit; namelie, that he might vnderstand the will of God: he belée­ued that all those things were ruled by his migh­tie power, and that the toongs euen of vngodlie men were stirred vp to speake by him. And ther­fore it followeth, How it hap­pened that God tooke the Phili­stines word for an ora­cle. that The Philistines voice was heard, as an oracle of God. For the gouernment of God is not restrained to the elect onelie; but the affections, saiengs, and dooings euen of wic­ked men, are directed by him, to serue his glorie. Doubtles the Aegyptians were naughtie peo­ple; Exod. 12, 3 [...] yet GOD wan their goodwill towards the Iewes, at their departure out of Aegypt; so as they were content to lend them both garments, plate, and iewels, as well gold as siluer. 1. Sa. 17, 14▪ God tur­ned the hart of Absolom, that he should not har­ken vnto the most craftie counsell of Achito­phel. God stirred vp Roboam, 1. Kin. 12, 15 that he should not hearken vnto the counsell of the wise and sage men. Prou. 21, 1. For (as Salomon saith) The harts of kings are in the hand of God. To conclude, all our af­fections, thoughts, and spéeches are directed by his power: wherein, if Ionathas had not persua­ded himselfe, how could he haue sought or taken a signe at the mouthes of wicked men? Certein­lie, others knowe not to what end God will direct the saiengs and dooings of men: Ionathas did vnderstand it by the inspiration of God.

6 This is not that kind of diuination, This kind of diuina­tion is not forbidden. Deut. 18, 10 which the scripture forbiddeth, when it is commanded; Let there be no soothsaiers among you. Ierom saith, that the word (diuination) in the holie scrip­ture, is alwaies taken in the woorser part. For whereas men be ouer gréedie to knowe things to come, therefore manie guiles and illusions are ministred vnto them. To diuine things com­ming of ne­cessary cau­ses, is not forbidden. But séeing that things to come doo depend vpon certeine and necessarie causes; therefore they appertaine not vnto that kind of diuination which is forbidden. For the eclipse of the moone and sunne; and the traiecti­on, opposition, and méeting togither of stars is knowne to learned men, how they shall be ma­nie yéeres to come, by reason of the certeintie of causes going before. Also things that common­lie [Page 62] change, may be foreséene by probable signes: as a disease or death may be perceiued by a phy­sician. Things contingent are fore­seene onlie of God. But things contingent, which are called [...], and which swaie equally as wel one waie as another, are not foreséene but of God on­lie. For he alone knoweth to what end and pur­pose euerie thing tendeth: wherefore they that professe such skill doo commit sacriledge. Manie such deuises did the diuell teach the heathen peo­ple; as to obserue matters, by the entrails of beasts, by the singing, looking, & féeding of birds. Wherefore they were charmers, soothsaiers, and obseruers of such things. Moreouer, they had among them from the same schoolmaster, diui­ning vpon dreames, lots, prophesies, and oracles. Cicero in his booke of diuination, Two prin­cipall sorts of supersti­tious diui­nation. reduceth all these to two sorts. For some he saith are natu­rall, and some artificiall: and that those be arti­ficiall, when as knowledge is gathered by the marking and obseruing of certeine things, as in entrails, and soothsaiengs, and such like: but that naturall be those, which happen as vnto soothsai­ers, furious persons, and dreamers. All these things are naught, bicause that part which belon­geth onlie vnto God, is ascribed onlie vnto men. But to come againe to the matter. This part of diuination, Looke in 1. Kin. 20, 31. which Ionathas followed, is called in Latine Omen, which (as Festus thinketh) is as it were Oremen. For it is a certeine foretelling, which slippeth out of a mans mouth with some furie. So the Romans, when they were minded to flie, and leaue their citie; and that the stan­derd-bearer had fixed their banner in the mar­ket place, and had said; Here will it be best for vs, that spéech was taken for a signe of good luck, and a forespeaking of that, which should be in­déed. So did Ionathas, by the Philistines words, which they spake vnaduisedlie, gather; that God would giue him the victorie, and deliuer them into his hands. And certeinlie the Ethnikes in vsing this meanes were to be condemned; but Ionathas not so: for he was stirred therevnto by God, but so were not they. So Gedeon follow­ed a forespéech, Iudg, 6, 36. when he fought against the Ma­dianites. When it may be lawfull to imitate Io­nathas. But wée must followe neither Iona­thas, nor Gedeon; vnlesse wée knowe for a cer­teintie, that we be mooued with the same spirit that they were. For if we will by the reasons and arts of men, foretell things contingent, or that may happen afterward; wée shall iustlie and dulie be blamed. If examples be agréeable with the common lawe, they should prouoke vs to followe them; but if they be not, we must rather woonder at them, than followe them. This cau­tion must be vsed in ex­amples.

In 1 Sam. 28. at the end. HEere I may not passe ouer certeine obscure places, which we find in the historie of Samuel. Looke In 1. Cor. 12, 2. But that they may bée the better vnderstood, wée will in the expoun­ding of them followe this order. First to inquire who it was that ap­péered at the call of the witch; secondlie, if it shall manifestlie fall out, that it was the diuell, whether he can so appéere, and knowe things to come; lastlie, if he can doo this, whether it be lawfull to aske counsell of him.

Who was that which appeered at the call of the witch? As concerning this first question, it is of necessitie, that either the same was Sa­muel [...] or the diuell: but if we affirme that it was Samuel, then will it be doubtfull, whether he came wholie both in bodie and soule, or in his bodie alone, or else in his soule alone. If he came wholie in bodie and soule, It was not whole Sa­muel in soule and bodie. then must it néeds be, that he rose from the dead. But this being an excellent great miracle, cannot be attributed either to the witch, or to the diuell; yea and there be some, which doo not attribute that, no not to God. But those pestilent opini­ons are easilie confuted by the verie historie of the holie scriptures. For we reade of thrée in the old testament, which were restored from death to life; 1. Kin. 17, 22▪ 2. Kin. 4, 34. one by Elias, another by Elizeus being yet aliue, 2. Kin. 13, 21 and the third by the bones of Elizeus, when he was dead. Matth. 9, 25 In the new testa­ment we read of the chéefe ruler of the syna­gog his daughter, of the widowes sonne, Luke. 7, 14▪ Iohn. 11, 43 Acts. 9, 46. Acts. 20, 10. of Lazarus, Eutyches, and Dorcas. Wherefore if we denie that Samuel returned vnto life, we doo not therefore denie, that GOD could not bring it to passe. For Christ prooued the resur­rection: and said, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the liuing: Luk. 20, 38. and Paule in the 15. of the first epistle to the Corinthians, by manie reasons of purpose confirmeth the resurrecti­on of the dead; and in the epistle to the He­brues he reckoneth it among the grounds of our religion. It is an article of our faith. Heb. 6, 2. And vndoubtedlie, neither the Turks nor Iewes denie, that the dead shall rise againe. But the Montanists, Originists, and such other furies, The Mon­tanists and the Origi­nists. which denie the resurrection, are plainlie con­futed out of Iob, out of the psalms, out of Esaie, out of Daniel, and euerie-where out of the new testament. We doo not (I saie) denie that it was doone, bicause it could not be doone; but bicause such miracles, whereas they ought to be testimonies of the truth, would here be testi­monies of lies, and magicall wickednes; and bicause it is not likelie, that God would per­mit it. For so notable a thing may not be at­tributed vnto the power of the diuell; bicause to be able to raise the dead, belongeth onlie vn­to God. But Apollonius Tyaneus raised a maid. Indéed so it is written in his life; how­beit the same in verie déed was but a phanta­sie, and not a thing doone; and that is also to be affirmed as touching Simon Magus. And now that it was the carcase of Samuel, It was not the dead carcase of Samuel. it is not likelie. Neither doo anie of the interpretours, sauing onelie Burgensis, saie that it was so. And vndoubtedlie a dead carcase is of it selfe sense­lesse, and void of life: neither could it haue an­swered anie thing, vnlesse the diuell had put on the same. But the diuell could doo these things euen without a dead carcase; for hée might haue taken vpon him the forme and fi­gure thereof.

2 Wherefore let vs sée, Whether it was the soule of Samuel. whether it were the soule of Samuel, or the diuell. For the interpre­tours séeme to write diuers [...]ie of that matter. Some say that it could not be his soule, bicause they thinke that the soules of men remaine not after death. But these be wicked, mad, and do­ting opinions. For out of all doubt, Vndoub­tedly soules remaine af­ter the deth of the bodie. Exod. 3, 6. the soules of the godlie are extant, and doo liue before God. For so God himselfe saith; I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isa [...], and the God of Iacob. And Christ addeth therevnto, He is not the GOD of the dead, but of the liuing. Matt. 22, 32. And Christ said to the théefe; To daie thou shalt be with me in paradise. Certeinlie, To daie, Luke. 23, 43 had [Page 73] béene a verie long time, if he had commanded him to wait till the generall resurrection. But A thousand yeeres (saie they) with the Lord are but as one daie. Psal. 90, 4. 1. Pet. 3, 8. I grant; howbeit that aduerbe Hodie (To daie) is not alwaies to be vnderstood after that sort. Yea, and Augustine in his epi­stle to Dardanus, vnderstanding that aduerbe properlie, saith; that The bodie of Christ was that daie in the sepulchre, and his soule in hell; and that therefore of necessitie the théefe was present with the Godhead of Christ in para­dise. For he granteth not, that either the soule or the bodie of the Lord could be in sundrie pla­ces at one time. And Paule saith to the Philippi­ans; I desire to be loosed from hence: he saith not, Phil. 1, 23. And to sleepe, and to be extinguished; but To be with Christ. And it had béene better to haue continued liuing, than to haue departed into sléepe; for here wée acknowledge and praise the Lord.

Luke. 16, 22. Moreouer, we read that Lazarus was caried into felicitie, and the rich glutton was cast into hell. And to that other rich man, which decréed with himselfe to inlarge his barnes, (and to laie vp for manie yéeres to come) it is said; Thou foole, Luke. 12, 20. this night shall they take thy soule from thee. Also Chrysostome in his second ho­milie of Lazarus, The soules of men (saith he) are not taken awaie al in one maner of estate: for some depart hence vnto paine, and others béeing garded with angels, are taken vp into heauen. Apoc. 7, 14. and 14, 4. In the Apocalypse, the soules of the blessed receiue long garments, they stand be­fore the throne, and followe the lambe where­soeuer he goeth. Acts. 7, 59. When Steeuen was dieng, he said, Lord Iesus receiue my spirit, If the soule should haue died vtterlie, why did he rather commend that than his bodie? doubtlesse it cannot be found in anie place, that the godlie commended their bodies vnto the Lord. And in the second to the Corinthians the 5. chap. For we knowe, verse, 9. that if the earthlie mansion of this our tabernacle be dissolued, we haue a building giuen of God; euen an house not made with hands, but eternall in the heauens. These words are not to be vnderstood of our state after the resurrection (for there we shall be clothed with our bodies also;) and therefore they are ment of the state betwéene our departure hence and the resurrection. Wherefore soules doo re­maine after this life. And in the same epistle Paule saith; Whether in the bodie, or out of the bodie, 2. Cor. 12, 3. I knowe not, &c. Which prooueth, that the soule may be seuered from the bodie. For he putteth a possibilitie both of the one waie & the other. In this place therefore the question is not, as touching the bodie, but as touching the soule of Samuel.

3 But the controuersie is, whether this were Samuel or the diuell? About which matter, not onlie the Rabbins, but also the christian fathers haue disagréeed among themselues. The opini­ons of the fathers and first of Iu­stinus. Yea and among the latter writers Burgensis thinketh one waie, and Lyra another. Iustinus Martyr against Triphon saith, that It was Samuel. In which place he hath certeine things which may not well be granted. For he saith, that all souls before Christ, euen of the godlie, were after a sort vnder the power of the diuell; so that he might bring them backe when he would. But Christ saith, Luke. 16, 22. that Lazarus was in the bosome of Abraham, and not in the power of the diuell. But that (thou wilt saie) is a parable. I grant it; yet is it drawne from things likelie to be true, and which might be. Yea and Tertullian so accounted that narration to be doone indéed, as he thinketh that Lazarus was Iohn Bap­tist, and the rich glutton was Herod; and that Christ would forbeare their names. verse, 23. In the 46. of Ecclesiasticus is set foorth the praise of Sa­muel; where among other things it is said, that he prophesied after that he was dead, and fore­shewed to the king the daie of his death.

Contrariwise Tertullian in his booke De a­nima, Tertullian. hath manie things most worthie to be marked. For he calleth the arts of magicke, a second idolatrie. For euen as in the former the diuell faineth himselfe to be God; so in the latter he faineth himselfe to be an angel, or a dead man, & séeketh both waies to be worship­ped. And it is no maruell, if he dazell the out­ward eies of men, when as he before occupi­ed the eies of the mind. For so (saith he) did the rods of Pharaos sorcerers séem to be serpents, Exod 7, 1 [...]. The rod of Pharao sorcerers. but yet afterward falshood was deuoured vp of the truth. And wheras the Symonians say that they can with their inchantments call vp the dead vnto life, that was onlie a méere imagi­nation and a mocke. And euen so the diuell in this place mocked both the witch and Saule, and deceiued both the eies of the one, and the eares of the other. In Lybia (saith he) there be Nasomons, which lie at the toombs of their pa­rents, and in Europe French men, which lie watching at the sepulchers of mightie men, to the intent they may receiue oracles frō them after they are dead: but he saith that in those things there is no certeintie or soundnes; and that they be onlie vaine lies and phantasies. Origin writeth nothing purposelie of this mat­ter; and yet in the historie of Balaam he saith, Origin. that good spirits doo not obeie magicall incan­tations. Contrariwise Ambrose vpon Luke, Ambrose held that it was Sa­muel. in the first booke and first chapter saith, that Sa­muel prophesied euen when he was dead. But without doubt he alludeth vnto that place of the 46. chapter of Ecclesiasticus. As touching Chrysostome and Ierom I will speake after­ward.

[Page 74] Augustine was doubt­ful whether it was Sa­muel or not. 4 Augustine did not alwaies write of this thing after one maner. In the second booke to Simplicianus the third question, he saith, that both may be defended; yet as touching the first opinion he séemeth to doubt, how Saule béeing a man now reiected by God, could talke with Samuel béeing a prophet and holie man. But he answereth, that this is no new thing; for in Iob, Iob. 1, 6. the euill spirits talked with God himselfe. And in the historie of Achab, the lieng spirit offered his seruice vnto the Lord: 1. Kings. 22. yea and that princes doo sometimes talke with théeues, (yet to the intent they may punish them) whereas in the meane time they speake not with honest men, The diuell can doo ma­nie things against the godlie. Iob. 1. 12, and 2, 6. Luk. 22, 31. Matth. 4, 5. whom they looue and meane to defend. But what power (saith he) had the diuell ouer Samuel, that he was able to bring him? He an­swereth, that he had power to torment Iob, and that he coueted to sift his disciples, that he set Christ vpon the pinacle; and furder, that if Christ without anie diminishing of his ho­nour might be hanged vpon the crosse, and af­flicted with torments; it is likelie that Samuel also might be raised againe without anie im­pairing of his felicitie: doubtlesse not by anie strength or power of the diuell, but by the per­mission of God, that he might terrifie Saule. So doo some vnderstand that which was doone in Balaam; Num. 22, 12 for he was a soothsaier, and tooke his iournie, to the intent that by magicall charms he might curse the Iewes: but God preuen­ted the cunning of the diuell. Howbeit of this matter I affirme nothing.

But Augustine demandeth further, how Sa­muel being so good a man, did come vnto an euill man? And he answereth, that in this life also good men doo come vnto euill men. But this is a weake argument; for men doo it in this life, either of dutie, or else of fréendship, or familiaritie. Now Samuel was out of this life, and was called by a witch, whom he ought not to haue obeied. But Augustine thinketh, that it may be more easilie answered, if we saie that it was not Samuel, but onelie a vaine imagi­nation and phantasie: A rule. howbeit he cannot but grant, that two things are against this opini­on; one is, that the scriptures doo alwaies so speake, as if it had béene verie Samuel. But he answereth, that it is the vsuall maner of the scriptures, to call similitudes by the names of those things which they represent. For so the woodden images were called cherubims; and Salomon made brasen oxen, 1. Kin. 6, 23. 1. Kin. 7, 25. 1. Sam. 6, 11. and the Philistines gaue siluer mice. Neither doo the holie scrip­tures lie, when they speake after that sort. For men are woont commonlie so to speake, and it pleased God to applie himselfe to the sense and capacitie of man. Another thing is, that he tru­lie fore-shewed what would come to passe; namelie, 1. Sa. 28, 19. The diuell sometime speaketh true things. that Saule with his sonnes should be slaine, and that the host of Israel should be o­uerthrowne. But he answereth, that this also is no new or woonderfull thing; for the diuels confessed Christ to be the sonne of God. Mark. 1, 24. And in the Acts of the apostles, they gaue a verie good­lie testimonie of Paules doctrine. Acts. 16, 17. Euen so in this place, God vseth the seruice of the diuell, to the intent he might terrifie Saule; that he, which had taken counsell of euill spirits, might be af­flicted with an euill answere. But he addeth; how might Saule be with Samuel; a wicked man with an holie prophet. A great di­stance of places be­tween bles­sed soules and lost soules. Luk. 16, 26. Such he saith is the subtiltie of the diuell, alwaies to mingle some truth with falshood. For assuredlie (saith he) there is great distance of place betwéene the blessed soules and the reprobate. And this he prooueth out of the historie of the rich man and Lazarus.

This I make mention of, forsomuch as I sée, that they which affirme the bodie of Christ to be in euerie place, haue no reason so to saie. For if that were true, then the soules of the godlie should be in euerie place also. For Christ saith; Wheresoeuer I am, Iohn. 12, 26. there also my minister shall be. And by this meanes there should be no differences betwéene soules; Of vbi­quitie. for all should be in all places. But they saie, Ierom a­gainst Vi­gilantius. that Ierom wri­teth thus against Vigilantins. For Vigilantius denied, that we should call vpon dead men; for they are in the bosome of Abraham, and doo not wander about their sepulchres and ashes. Then are they not (saith Ierom) in anie stinking pri­son, but in a pleasant and large custodie, like certeine fathers of the order of senatours. But (saith he) They followe the Lambe wheresoeuer he goeth; now the Lambe is euerie-where. Apoc. 14, 4. Further (saith he) shall we grant this vnto di­uels, that they can wander vp and downe tho­roughout the whole world; & shall we denie the same vnto the blessed soules of godlie men? Here Ierom (by his good leaue may it be spo­ken) is somwhat out of the waie, Ierom mis­seth concer­ning the v­biquitie of soules. and yet he hath not spoken of that, whereof these men did meane. He erreth, in saieng that the soules of dead men are conuersant about their sepul­chres, and that they are to be inuocated; yet dooth he not saie, that they be euerie-where. He compareth them with spirits, which (he saith) doo wander euerie where; that is, they be some­times here, and sometimes there. But if they were euery-where, they could not wander héer and there, and change places: and therefore Ie­rom saith, that neither the lambe, nor the soules departed, nor diuels be in euerie place; but that they in such sort wander at large, as they may be wheresoeuer they list. These things I haue touched by the waie. But Augustine answe­reth, [Page 75] that that saieng of Samuel may be vnder­stood of the generall state of death, and not of the equalitie of happines. In the latter end he addeth; that whereas there be but these two waies onlie, the former may not be admitted, vnles it be prooued to be possible, that soules de­parted, may by magicall charms be called a­gaine, and beare the proportion of mens bo­dies. And therefore of necessitie the other waie remaineth; namelie, that it was doone by the counsell and will of God. But by the power of incantation that could not be doone; and yet by the purpose and commandement of God, it might be brought to passe. And to this opinion I willinglie agrée. For if God will, I sée not what should hinder it.

Augustins booke of questions of the new and old testament. 5 In the sixt question to Dulcitius, he hath in a maner the same that he hath to Simplicianus. But in the questions of the old and new testa­ment, (if that be Augustines booke) which I speake, bicause of the censure and iudgement of Erasmus, who hath separated that booke from the works of Augustine) he accounteth it de­testable for anie man to thinke, that it was Sa­muel whom the witch raised vp: for it was on­lie a delusion and an imagination. For the di­uell did this to bring himselfe vnto honour, and to persuade men, that the soules of the dead be in his power, and that they shall not escape from his hands after death. But if the historie be well discussed, we shall not find anie thing at all to prooue, that it was Samuel; but that Saule indéed, when he had heard the description of his apparell, and the fashion of his bodie, thought that it had béene so: that the scripture applied it selfe to his mind and opinion: that Saule fell downe and worshipped, and thereby the diuell had that which he sought for: that Sa­muel would neuer haue suffered it, but that he said Saule should be with him the next daie, bi­cause he was wicked, and should perish euerla­stinglie. But what shall we answere as tou­ching Ionathas, 1. Sa. 28, 19. who was well knowne to be a iust man? Wherefore this answere of Augu­stine séemeth to be féeble. In his second booke De doctrina christiana, Augustins booke De mirabilibus scriptura­rum. the 26. chapter, he saith, It was an image raised vp by sacriledge. In ano­ther booke De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae, (if the same be Augustines booke) he likewise denieth that it was Samuel indéed.

Also in his little booke De cura pro mortuis agenda, he hath manie excellent things; but in the end he concludeth, The dead knowe not what is doone in this life. that it séemeth vnto him, the soules of those which are departed, be igno­rant what is doone in this life. For wheras they oftentimes appéere, and present themselues to liuing men, somtimes waking, and somtimes sléeping: Looke In 2. Kings. 22, verse. 23. that may be doone by angels, either good or bad. And he saith that we our selues doo oftentimes present our selues to our fréends in our sléepe, when as we our selues thinke no­thing thereof. A place in Cicero ex­pounded by Augustine in his slepe. And that he himselfe being at Millan, expounded a hard place of Cicero to his scholler Eulogius being asléepe in Aphrica. And vpon the Acts of the apostles, he saith, that Saule being come néere vnto Damascus, Acts. 9, 12. God foreshewed vnto Ananias, that Saule in a dreme had séen him put his hands vpon him, and cure his eies; A reuelatiō by a dreme. and yet Ananias himselfe did not per­ceiue the same. In like maner he saith, that at Millan, when a certeine citizen was dead, there came a creditor, to whom he had some­time béene indebted, and demanded his mo­nie: and when the sonne knew the creditor to be satisfied by his father while he liued, but yet hauing no quittance or discharge to shew, his father afterward shewed him in his sléepe, in what place the acquittance was laid. This thing Augustine thinketh, not to be doone by his fa­ther being dead, but by some angel. For if so be that the dead might be present in our af­faires, they would not (saith he) forsake vs in this sort; especiallie (saith he) my mother Mo­nica, who in hir life time could neuer be with­out me, would not now being dead thus leaue me. Wherfore he concludeth at the length, that they knowe nothing of our dooings, more than it shall please God himselfe to reueale vnto them; or else that angels or soules departing hence shal shew vnto them: which notwithstan­ding (saith he) shew not vnto them all things, but onlie such things as God shal permit them.

But yet he saith, it may be that God some­times extraordinarilie sendeth some man a­gaine into this life. For he saith, A dead bi­shop appee­red aliue. that in the siege of the citie of Nola, Felix the bishop of No­la being dead, was by manie men séene defen­ding the citie: and that as Paule being taken vp into the third heauen, might be among the angels; so may soules likewise extraordinari­lie returne againe vnto men: and that euen so Moses and Elias were séene vpon the mount with Christ But if thou wilt say that Elias then liued, yet it is manifest that Moses was dead. Matt. 17, 3. This is therein the opinion of Augustine. In which place he by the waie toucheth in a maner the same things as concerning Samuel, which he did vnto Simplicianus; namelie, that it may be, that God either by an extraordinarie waie sendeth againe the soules of the dead vnto their sepulchres; or else that it pleaseth him to haue these things doone by angels. But he neuer said that soules are in manie places at one time.

6 Chrysostome (so far as I knowe) hath writ­ten nothing expreslie of Samuel; Chrysost. but yet in his 29. homilie vpon Matthew, he saith, that It must in no wise be beléeued, that the soules of dead men be conuersant vpon the earth. The [Page 76] rich man (saith he) desired that Lazarus might be sent backe; Luk. 16, 31. but he obtained it not. Herevn­to I ad; by what meanes then could the witch obtaine this concerning Samuel? For the con­sideration was alike on both sides. The soules (saith Chrysostome) be in a certeine place wai­ting for the iudgement, neither can they re­mooue themselues from thence. And in his se­cond homilie of Lazarus; If the diuell (saith he) haue no power ouer them that be aliue, how can he haue anie power ouer the soules of them that be dead? And in the fourth homilie he saith, If it should be so, there would be a great gap open for the diuell to beguile and deceiue. For vnder that shew, he would returne, and teach errors. Howbeit that séemeth not to be of anie force; for so God also, when he raised vp the dead, and called backe Elias and Moses, might séeme to haue opened a waie vnto errors. For vnder that shew also the diuell might insinu­ate himselfe, and deceiue men. But it séemeth, that Chrysostome restraineth this vnto secret things, and vnto the state of dead men. Cer­teinlie, they whom Christ and his apostles raised, neuer taught what was doone in the other life.

They that take holde of dreams run into deceit. Ierom. They (saith Chrysostome) that laie hold of dreames, run into deceit. The same thing (saith he) would come to passe, if vnder this co­lour of the dead, it should be lawfull to aske counsell of diuels. Ierom hath nothing of this matter; but that vpon the seuenth chapter of Esaie he saith, that Manie thought Saule to haue had receiued a signe out of the earth, and from the depth of hell, when it séemed that Sa­muel did rise vp. This he saith, is the opinion of others, not his. Further he saith, that it sée­med to be Samuel; but yet that it was not he. And vpon the 12. of Ieremie he writeth thus; God heareth them not in the time of necessitie & distresse, bicause they also would not heare the voice of the Lord. And this did Saule al­so suffer; for when as he béeing sore afraid of the Philistines armie, was not woorthie to re­ceiue the word of the Lord, he turned himselfe to the witch, to the intent he might learne that of idols, which by earnest praier and teares he should haue obtained of the Lord. By which words we learne, that although the Lord will not fauourablie heare vs; yet we must not leaue praieng, neither must we run to diuels, who cannot helpe the worshippers of them, but must craue the helpe of the Lord. But by these words he defineth not, whether the diuell by himselfe, or by the soule of Samuel brought againe, answered to the questions of inchant­ment. Lyra. Lyra thinketh that it was verie Samuel; which he gathered partlie by the text it selfe, and partlie by that place of Ecclesiasticus. And as when Balaam would haue raised the diuell, God intermedled his owne selfe: euen so when this witch called vnto hir an euill spirit, God sent Samuel. And by this meanes (saith he) we doo not confirme, but we doo quite ouerthrowe magicall arts.

Howbeit all these arguments be weake. First, bicause Ecclesiasticus is not of the ca­nonicall scriptures: secondly, it might be called Samuel; bicause it séemed to be Samuel. Now by this meanes art magike might haue got­ten authoritie. For albeit thou wilt saie, that Samuel obeied not the charmes, yet he might séeme to haue obeied them: but iniurie (he saith) had béene doone vnto Samuel, if the diuell had suborned himselfe vnder his person. But this maketh no matter; for the diuell dooth often­times put on the person of God: and the pro­phets of the diuell behaue themselues as if they were the apostles and prophets of God. Paulus Burgensis thinketh, Burgensis. by reason of that place in Ecclesiasticus, that the spirit of Samuel was not brought; but his carcase onlie, and yet that in anie wise it was Samuel: for thus it is writ­ten in Ecclesiasticus, And when he was fal­len asleepe: but the diuell he saith dooth not sléepe. And he saith also that he complained, bicause the woman had troubled him, séeing his bodie was now at rest: but neither is this indéed of anie great importance. For first it séemeth not credible, that a mang­led and rotten carcase could be brought into that place. Secondlie, if it had béene so, Saule himselfe might haue séene the same. Galatinus. Galati­nus thinketh that it was the verie spirit of Sa­muel. But in that he suffered himselfe to be worshipped, he saith, that either it was a ci­uill kind of worship onlie; or else that Saule worshipped God himselfe. Howbeit, these al­so are but weake and vaine arguments. For if Saule would haue worshipped God, why dooth he it then at the last, when he heard that Samuel was come? And as touching the ciuill worshipping, Saule was a king, and forsomuch as he had no superiour magistrate, he could ci­uilie worship no man. But he addeth, that such a like thing was doone vnder Ochosias the king. 4. King. 1, 3. For when he had sent a messenger, to aske counsell of Belzebub, the god of Acaron; God withstood it by Elias his prophet, & gaue answere (and one of the captains of Ochosias fell downe and worshipped Elias.) Howbeit this simili­tude is altogither vnlike; for Elias was then li­uing, and was séene of the messengers.

7 But to shew at the last, Peter Martyr concludeth that it was but an ima­gination. Deu. 18, 11. what mine opi­nion is, I am mooued by these reasons to think, that it was but an imagination. First, séeing God would not giue answere vnto Saule, nei­ther by prophets, nor by préests, nor by dreams; [Page 77] it is not credible, that he would answere him by the dead, and especiallie séeing he had ex­presselie forbidden that by the lawe. Further, it must néeds be doone, either by the will of God, or by the power of art. By the will of God it could not be doone, bicause he forbad it: neither by the power of art; for witches haue no po­wer ouer the godlie. Moreouer, Samuel must haue come, either willinglie, or constrained: willinglie he could not, for then he should haue consented vnto witchcraft: and to saie that he came against his will, that were not fit. I knowe, these reasons are not so strong, that they can persuade an obstinate man. But yet if we consider what belongeth vnto God, and what should reuoke vs from euill arts, they be effectuall inough. In the decretals, the 26. question, in the chapter, Nec mirum, it is writ­ten; that It was onlie a shew and a phantasie. These words be out of Isidorus, but in the end Augustine is added.

VVhether the diuell can appeare, and knowe things to come, and giue answers.

Demons be spirits good or euill. 8 Now we must sée, whether the diuell can appeare, and giue answeres. There hath béene alwais a great question as touching Daemons not onlie among the Ethniks; but also among the christians. They take their name of know­ledge, Wherof de­mons take their name. as though they were named [...], that is, skilfull; wherevpon excellent men haue béene called Daemonij. And we read, that this difference was put betwéene Plato and Aristo­tle, that the one was [...], that is, Diuine and the other [...], that is, Skilfull. The word is to be taken on both parts; for it signifieth spirits both euill and good. Yea, and God him­selfe is sometime by the Ethnikes called Dae­mon, There haue béene some, which thought that there were no such spirits at all. For the Peripatetiks thought, that betwéene the Intel­ligencies (which driue about the spheres) & our soules, The Peri­patetiks denie that there be demons. there is put no substance indued with reason; and that whatsoeuer may be knowne of these things, we knowe it onlie by effects. For by the continuall and ordinarie motion of the spheres, Whether there be de­mons. we vnderstand that there be spirits, which doo gouerne them; and that there is a prouidence. Howbeit the maruellous things which are reported of Daemons or spirits, can­not procure vs a knowledge of them. For that which doth not happen commonlie & publikelie; but is shewed sometime by this man, and som­time by that, cannot be knowne but by sup­position; if those things be true which are re­ported. But séeing it should be an impudent part to denie those things, which by so manie historiographers and credible authours are put in writing, they haue found an other shift. For they saie, that there may be other causes; and in déed they inuent manie, whereby common na­ture may séeme to be ouercome, & that woon­derfull & incredible things may be brought to passe: & that the power and strength of things is secret and vnknowne to the common sort, and is vnderstood of such onlie as be learned and industrious. For (saie they) the rude and ignorant man will maruell at the Loadstone, The power of the Loadstone. that so senseles and dead a thing should drawe iron vnto it, and will crie out that it is doone by art magicke.

Further they saie, that man is the chéefest among worldlie things; and that he, by a cer­teine power and indiuisible propertie, bringeth maruellous things to passe. Vespas [...]an by a secret power hea­led both a blind man and a lame. The power of the phan­tasie. Such as that of Vespasian, who with his spittle healed a blind man; and by touching of a lame man with his foote, restored his lims. They adde further, that such is the power of mans phantasie, that it of­tentimes shaketh and maketh to tremble the whole bodie, and changeth it either vnto cold or vnto heate; as it commeth to passe common­lie in feare and anger. And Auicenna saith, if a man walke aloft vpon a beame, he dooth easilie fall; bicause his phantasie is greatly mooued, and bicause he verelie thinketh with himselfe that he shall fall, and therefore réeleth and falleth downe. Neither doo such phantasies mooue only our owne bodies, but the bodies of others also. For so doo women sorcerers infect those, whom they stedfastlie behold with fixed eies. Where­fore (saith he) seeing these things may be doone by naturall reasons, there is no néede of spi­rits. But they adde, that all the things which we doo sée happen strange and woonderfull, The power of the celes­tiall bodies. may be referred to the celestiall bodies. For they saie, that God & the Intelligencies may bring these things to passe; yet not without some meane, but by the heauenlie spheres and stars: & therfore no néed of Daemons or spirits. How­beit they grant, that there be some things which cannot be doone by naturall reason; as, to raise the dead to life, and many mo such like things. Plato held that for publike cō ­modities sake, it is lawfull to make a lie. But yet if you vrge those things also, they will say that they be false woonders deuised by men. Plato in his booke De republica saith, that it is lawfull for men to make a lie for publike com­modities sake.

There be others doo referre these things vn­to the humors of mans bodie, The power of melan­cholie. and especiallie vnto melancholie. For Aristotle in his Pro­blems the 30 sextion saith, that the Sibyls, and the excellent Emperours and famous philoso­phers were melancholike: and that there were some, which béeing affected with that humour, [Page 78] spake suddenlie manie languages, Some spake in manie toongs vp­on the sud­den. which they had neuer learned; and that they afterward béeing healed by physicians, left off speaking in that manner. Thus much for their part. But forsomuch as they sée, that by the most learned men, there is mention made of spirits; and that they cannot denie it without blushing: while they would confesse somewhat, they are diui­ded into twoo sundrie sects. Som thinke that soules become de­mons. [...]. For they which thinke that mans soule is immortall, doo saie that those which die after they haue liued well and honestlie, are made [...]: but e­uill and wicked liuers become [...], and so perpetuallie remaine. For séeing they cannot now worke contrarie actions, it must néeds be, that those habits which they carried with them, Som would that de­mons are onelie in this life. should indure for euer. But they which would haue the soule to be mortall, doo allow of spirits, but onelie in this life. So that they which applie all their senses, as much as in them lieth, to vnderstanding, be [...], and good spirits: but they which turne vnder­standing into sensualitie, be [...], and disturbe all things. So the former opinion dooth affirme, that one kind passeth into ano­ther; which séemes no more possible to bée brought to passe, than that a man should be changed into a woolfe. But if there be anie cer­teine nature of spirits, no doubt the same must be firme and stedfast. But if the latter opinion were true: then man, bicause he is mutable, might be sometimes a spirit, and sometimes an angel. But these men would haue angels and spirits to be nothing else, but mens affec­tions.

The opini­on of Tris­megistus. Mercurius Trismegistus (as Augustine saith in his eight booke De ciuitate Dei, the 23. chap­ter) denieth that there be indéed anie spirits at all. For he saith, that God made gods & Intel­ligences separated from all matter; by which the spheres of the world are mooued: further, that men also did make to themselues gods. Asclepius answereth; I thinke thou speakest of images. Indéed so I doo (saith Mercurius) but I meane such images as be so applied to certeine aspects of the stars, that they can speake, and heale men, and afflict with sicknes, and worke miracles; and which be indued with mind, sense, and spirit. Aphrody­saeus. Alexander Aphrodysaeus saith, that there is a certeine diuine power spred through the whole world, which can worke all things; but that it is requisite the same should be wise­lie drawne to particular effects. A simili­tude. For euen as we sée it commeth to passe in the sunne, that al­though the heate thereof be the generall life of all things; yet out of it being diuerslie applied, there are brought foorth diuers and sundrie things; (for out of the vine it bringeth foorth grapes, and out of the trée, apples:) so if that power, which is so spred vniuersallie, be fitlie drawn by wise men through herbs and stones, there doo followe maruellous effects. And thus much hitherto, as touching those, which vtter­lie denie, that there is anie certeine nature of Daemons or spirits.

9 The Platonists grant, The opini­on of the Platonists. that spirits be cer­teine substances betwéene gods and men; and that of them some be earthie, som waterie, som airie, some fierie, and some starrie: and to eue­rie one of the spheres seuerallie, there be attri­buted seuerall spirits; as some be of Saturne, some of Iupiter, and some of the Sunne. And they were led thus to saie, chéeflie by this rea­son: That betwéene two extreames, there must of necessitie be placed a meane: for that hea­uenlie bodies are eternall and incorruptible; but ours are mortall and fraile: and therefore betwéene both must be the bodies of spirits, as certeine meane things, which may somewhat communicate with both the extreames. For they, notwithstanding that, in time, they be e­ternall, yet are stirred with affects and moti­ons. And further, that as there be birds in the aire, and fishes in the water; euen so in the highest region of the aire, and in the fire, there be spirits. And least we should thinke them al­togither idle, partlie they are tutors of men, and partlie rulers of prouinces: that they both bring mens praiers vnto God, and also carrie the benefits of God vnto men: that of som they be called Meane-gods, of some Natiuitie-spi­rits, and of other some House-gods. Apuleius. Apuleius not the least among the Platonists defineth spi­rits on this wise. He saith that by nature, they are liuing creatures; by wit, reasonable; by bodie, airie; by time, eternall; and by mind, passiue: for that they be affected euen as men be. Howbeit, all they doo not séeme to agrée in this, that the bodies of spirits are eternall. For Plutarch writing of oracles, saith it was repor­ted, that Pan the great god once died. The opi­nion of the diuines. But the diuines & fathers of sound religion doo affirme that there be spirits; and not onelie those by whom the celestiall spheres are driuen about: but others also. And some of them saie, that they haue no bodies, proper I meane, and of their owne, whervnto they be so ioined, as they can quicken them: and yet they may ioine vn­to themselues bodies, which be none of their owne.

10 So all these men doo confesse, The summe of all these opinions. that woon­derfull things are doone by spirits. The Peripa­teticks, by celestiall bodies; the Platonists, by bodies proper vnto spirits; and our diuines by spirits, sometime taking bodies to them, and sometimes without bodies. These thrée opini­ons confesse that there be magicians. But the first vnderstand by magicians, good and wise [Page 79] men, which fitlie can applie things that worke, vnto things that suffer; such as are philoso­phers and physicians. The Platonists doo not al­waies take the name of magicians in euill part; but such as haue familiaritie with spirits. And christians, and the true professors, vnder­stand them onelie to be magicians, which haue made anie league with diuels, and conspire with them against God. For there be some spi­rits good, and some bad; for some fell at the be­ginning, & some remained as they were; which thing Homer séemeth to signifie in Ate, and others in Ophionaeus. And it may be, that these things came vnto them by tradition from the fathers, although darkened with shadowes and fables. A proofe of spirits by the scrip­tures. Wherefore we affirme out of the holie scriptures, that there be spirits: and a few pla­ces of the scriptures I will rehearse. For it would be infinite and troublesome to recite all.

Iob. 1, & 2. The diuell vexed Iob, ouerthrew his houses, and destroied his cattell and seruants. In the historie of Achab, 1. kin. 22, 22. a lieng spirit was in the mouths of the prophets. Satan put into Dauids hart to number the people. 1. Para. 21, 1 And Dauid him­selfe in the psalme saith, that God plagued the Aegyptians by euill spirits. Psal. 78, 49. In the prophet Za­charie, Zachar. 3, 1. sathan stood to let Iesus the préest, that the people might not returne out of captiuitie. God forbiddeth sacrifices to be doone vnto di­uels: Leuit. 17, 7. which he would not forbid, if there were no diuels at all. Matth. 4, 1. and 13, 19. Sathan tempted Christ; hée plucketh the good séed out of mens harts, & had bound the daughter of Abraham for manie yéeres. Luk. 13, 16. The diuell praied Christ that he might go into the herd of swine. Matth. 8, 31 Christ at the latter daie shall saie vnto the vngodlie; Go ye cursed into euerlasting fire, Matt. 25, 41. prepared for the diuell and his angels: by which words the diuels are most plainlie distinguished from men. Iude the apo­stle saith, Iude. 9. that Michaël stroue against the diuell for the bodie of Moses. And Iames saith, that The diuels beleeue and tremble. Iam. 2, 19. Christ saith, that He sawe sathan falling downe from hea­uen, Luke. 10, 18 and that he stood not fast in the truth.

Of good spirits. Of good spirits also I will onelie speake a word. They be the ministers of God. For as it is written to the Galathians; The lawe was giuen by the ministration of angels. Galat. 3, 19. And as it is in the epistle to the Thessalonians; In the sound of a trumpet, Thes. 4, 16. and voice of an archangel, the dead bodies shall arise. And Christ saith, that God wil send his angels, Matt. 24, 31. to gather togither his elect, from the foure quarters of the earth. And therefore we rightlie and trulie affirme that there be spirits.

A confuta­tion of con­trarie opi­nions of the Peripate­tikes. 11 But now we must confute those reasons, which are woont to be alledged by others. These things (saie they) may be doone by naturall cau­ses. I grant indéed, that naturall causes are of­tentimes great and secret; and doo bring ma­nie woonderfull things to passe. But these ef­fects, which we speake of; as images to speake and giue answers, and to vtter the distinct voi­ces of men; also to foretell things to come, and those not common, but hidden and secret mat­ters; an ignorant man to haue suddenlie lear­ned arts & sciences; and he to speake Gréeke, Hebrue, and the Syrian toong, and to recite the sentences of philosophers and poets, which ne­uer learned those toongs, nor euer handled po­ets or philosophers; a man to walke inuisiblie; to stir things that are a farre off; to put out a torch far distant from vs; an oxe or an asse to speake like a man: these things I saie doo far excéed all force of nature. The magicians also, which worke these things, doo ioine therewith­all praiers, inchantments, coniurings & com­mandements: wherein certeinlie, there is no naturall power of working at all. Herevnto they ad also their lines, characters, and circles; which things be within the compas of quanti­tie. But quantities be neuer reckoned of the philosophers among things that worke. The temperature of mans bodie (I grant) hath great force, but yet not so great; and besides it must néeds worke by touching. Imaginati­on can doo much. True it is: but euerie one in his owne bodie. Howbeit no man, no not in his owne proper bodie, how stronglie soeuer he imagine, can worke all things. For if a man haue a withered arme, and so stopt, as the pores cannot haue their passage; let him vse as great imagination as he will, he shall not cure the same.

As for bewitching, it is not so great a mar­uell; for in old women the humors are corrup­ted, and being drawne into the eies, doo easilie infect, especiallie children and infants, whose bodies be as it were of waxe. But there be other things, which go beyond all power of be­witchings; as that was, when Christ fed fiue thousand men with fiue loaues; Matt. 14, 2 [...] when Iosua commanded the sunne to stand still, Iosua. 10, 13 (whereas Aristotle in his eight booke of physicks, and in his treatise De coelo & mundo saith, that Those intelligencies which mooue the spheres, cannot cease at anie time from their worke; and that they should mooue the spheres more slowelie, if but one star more should be added therevnto;) when Esaie called backe the sunne; Esaie. 38, 8. when at the death of Christ, the Sunne suffered an e­clipse, the moone being then in opposition. Luk. 23, 44. Of which thing Dionysius writeth in an epistle vn­to Apollophanes, and saith, that he had conside­ratelie beheld the same, while he was in Ae­gypt; and that it is extant in the historie of Phlegon & Aphricanus. Hervnto adde, that the shadowe of Peter healed the sicke; Acts. 5, 15. & that Elias [Page 80] shut vp the heauens, 1. Kin. 17, 1. so that it did not raine for the space of thrée yéeres and an halfe.

12 But humors in mans bodie can doo much. I grant. But yet Christ saith; The works which I doo, Iohn. 15, 24. no man can doo: and he must sooner be be­léeued than all the sort of Peripatetikes. Others saie, that these things are onlie terrifiengs, de­uised by prudent men to containe the people in their dutie. But we doo knowe, that nothing in the scriptures is feigned or deuised; for They be the pillers and sure foundation of the truth. 1. Tim. 3, 15. And whereas they saie, that the soules of men doo passe and be changed into spirits; that was sufficientlie confuted before, when the same was obiected. Trisme­gistus. Trismegistus saith, that Men doo make vnto themselues gods; namelie, ima­ges made and applied vnto certeine aspects of the heauen, that they can speake, and giue out oracles. But a foolish thing it is to thinke, that men can make themselues gods; and yet if they can, why doo they submit & humble them­selues vnto them? whie doo they worship them, whom they themselues made? For it is a ri­diculous thing, to imagine that the cause of anie thing is inferiour to the effect thereof. This dooth Esaie verie well deride and taunt; Esaie. 44, 12. A man (saith he) taketh a peece of wood, & with the one part he warmeth himselfe, and baketh him bread; and with the other part, he frameth himselfe a god. But they can speake and giue out oracles. Naie rather Dauid saith much more trulie; They haue eies, and see not; they haue eares, Psal. 115, 5. and heare not; they haue mouthes, and yet speake not. And if they be able to make gods, why doo they not rather make themselues [to be] gods? For doubtles, they shuld be much better aduised, if they would make gods of their owne selues, than to make them of stones and stocks. Further, if they be gods, whie doo they not defend themselues? For those idols were a good while a go throwen downe, and abolished. And although other idols are brought in by the naughtie practise of the pa­pists; yet shall those also by the helpe of God be one daie taken quite awaie: but if they were gods indéed, they would surelie defend them­selues. Aphrodisae­us. Aphrodisaeus saith, that There is a certeine generall power, which by the proper­ties of things (such as be herbes, stones, and metals) must be drawne vnto euerie particu­lar thing. I admit it be so; yet no such thing can be brought to passe vpon the sudden: for the works of nature haue their time & course. But Christ vpon the sudden turned water in­to wine; Iohn. 2, 8. & vpon the sudden restored the blind and lame. Matth. 11, 5.

Of the Pla­tonists. 13 Indéed the Platonists grant, that there be spirits; but they saie that they haue bodies either waterie, or aierie, or fierie. These things doubtlesse they speake; howbeit they speake such things as will not agrée one with another. For if the bodies of spirits be elementarie, Whether the bodies of spirits be elemen­tarie. how commeth it to passe, that they be eternall? For the elements haue both cold and heate, qualities both actiue and passiue, and some­time they striue one with another, and some­time they perish. Others reason after this sort; Forsomuch as there be extremities, we must also grant that there is a meane: but hea­uen is eternal, and mens bodies are fraile and mortall; wherefore of necessitie, something must be put betwéene these two, that may be partaker of both. This is no necessarie argu­ment. For first we grant, that certeine minds there be void of bodies; such as are the angels, and those intelligencies, which driue the celesti­all spheres; & further, that the soules of our bo­dies are the other extreame. Of other meane things there is no néed. But they saie, that as fishes be in the sea, and foules in the aire; so there must be spirits cōuersant in the fier. This is of no necessitie. For liuing creatures are not made for the elements; but the elements for liuing creatures: and liuing creatures were made for mans sake. Now what vse can there come vnto man by those liuing creaturs, which abide in the fier?

Howbeit, if these men will vrge further, concerning the vpper region of the aire, we will not denie, but that there be spirits there. For so Paule to the Ephesians saith, Ephe. 2, 2. & 6, 12. After the prince that ruleth in the aire: and afterward in the same epistle; We wrestle not against flesh and bloud, but against principalities & powers of this aire. Chrysost. Also Chrysostom in his 11. homilie vpon the first epistle to the Thessalonians saith; that the whole aire is full of spirits. But let vs consider of the bodies of these spirits; for they can be no aierie bodies, séeing the aire is a bo­die of one kind. For euerie part of the aire is aire; and there can be no reason giuen, whie one part thereof should be a spirit more than another: and by that meanes the whole vni­uersall aire should be one continued bodie of spirits. Moreouer, the bodie of a liuing crea­ture must be instrumentall, and haue bones, sinewes, parts, and seuerall members: but these things cannot be made of the aire. Fur­thermore, a bodie must haue fashions & forms; which things cannot so much as be imagined in the aire. But there be (you will saie) fashions, and distinct formes in the clouds. I grant it; but they consist not of aire onelie, or alone. And yet this argument is not firme; for spirits may take vnto them the bodies of other things. Wherefore some doo rather argue on this sort; Spirits haue bodies, either celestiall, or ele­mentarie: if celestiall, then their moouing must [Page 81] be round or circle-wise; as the moouing of the heauens is: if elementarie, they must of ne­cessitie followe the motion of that element, whereof they had their bodies.

Demons be spirits. 14 But to let these things passe. The scrip­tures doo not make Daemons to haue bodies, but to be spirits onlie. Now spirits & bodies, by an Antithesis are put as contraries. For euen as a spirit is no bodie, so likewise a bodie is no spirit. Luk. 24, 39. And Christ saith; A spirit hath no flesh nor bones. And that Daemons be spirits, is prooued by infinit testimonies of the scriptures. In the historie of Achab, thus the diuell speaketh; I wil be a lieng spirit in the mouth of all the prophets of Achab. 1. Kin. 22, 22 And Christ cast out an vncleane spi­rit; Matt. 12, 43. & the vncleane spirit wandered through drie and desert places; afterward he tooke to him­selfe seuen other spirits, woorse than himselfe. Naie verilie (will you saie) these spirits are but onlie certeine impulsions of the minds, such as be the spirits of wisedome, and the spirits of knowledge: yes in verie déed they be substan­ces. Matt. 18, 10. For Christ saith, that They behold the face of his father: and he shall pronounce at the lat­ter daie; Matt. 25, 41. Go ye cursed into euerlasting fire, pre­pared for the diuell and his angels. Wherefore, séeing the holie scriptures doo call Daemons, by the name of spirits; I sée no cause why anie should attribute bodies vnto them. But I speake not here of bodies, which are assumed and are come vnto them; but of such as be pro­per to them, and of their owne.

I knowe there be other men, somewhat sharpe witted indéed, which saie, that Daemons be spirits in comparison of vs; euen as on the other side, angels in comparison of God, may be said to haue bodies: and after this maner they saie, that Augustine affirmeth Daemons to haue bodies. And they saie also, that Barnard was of the same opinion, both in his treatise to Eugenius, and also vpon the Canticles; how­beit, there be some, which interpret Barnard to speake of bodies assumed. But séeing the holie scriptures (as I said) doo call Daemons, spirits; I sée no cause why we should imagine them to haue bodies. Foure kinds of spirits. For in the scriptures we sée, that there are foure kinds of spirits. 1 First in verie déed, GOD himselfe is a spirit; for he hath no néed of a bodie, either for his being, or for his do­ing of anie maner of thing. 2 The next be angels, as well good as bad; neither doubtles haue they néed of bodies, as touching their owne proper actions; but to communicate in actions with vs, they haue néed of bodies: for as we read in the epistle to the Hebrues, Heb. 1, 14. They be admi­nistring spirits. 3 The third sort are the spirits of men, which doubtles that they might haue their being, haue no néed of bodies; for they haue their being, and doo liue, euen when they are se­parated from their bodies: yet about their owne proper actions, as to haue sense, or to growe, they cannot be without bodies. 4 The last be the spirits of brute beasts, which neither can haue their being, nor doo anie thing without bo­dies. By this diuision we sée, that there is no néed at all for Daemons to haue bodies: for euen without them, both they may haue their being, and also may exercise their owne actions. For they loue, they desire, they vnderstand euen without bodies.

15 Now we must sée what they can doo. Two sorts of power of the spirits. Their power is of two sorts, one in vnderstanding; another in working. But we will sée what is to be attributed vnto them in both kinds. Of the kno­ledge which they haue. That spirits doo knowe manie things, we haue no doubt: for after the opinion of Lactantius, Ter­tullian, Capella, Looke In 1. Cor. 12, 2. and Plato in his booke intituled Cratylus, they be called Daemones, quasi [...], à sciéndo, that is, of knowing. Whether they know of things to come. But peraduenture you will demand, whether they also knowe things to come; for the which things chéeflie their counsell is demanded I answere, that things to come are not alwaies knowne after one maner. First things to come, are not knowne as things present, but of God onelie: for he within his compasse comprehendeth all the differences of times. For (as Paule saith) All things are naked, & laid before his eies. Heb. 4, 14. Others doo not presentlie sée the effects of things, but by reasons they gather of things to come; and that manie waies. For first they sée the causes of things, and by them gather of the effects, which shall afterward followe. But of causes some are necessarie, and some not necessarie: of ne­cessarie are such as be contained in the mathe­matikes, and in the opposition or coniunction of the heauenlie spheres. So doo men, which be skilfull in the stars, foretell manie yéeres before hand, what time eclipses shall happen after­ward. Other causes sometime are not necessa­rie or certeine: for their effects may be hinde­red, and such are those, which are called things seldome happening, or things that may happen this waie or that waie. So the mariner pro­nounceth of the tempest, and the physician of the pulse.

16 Then if there be such knowledge granted vnto man, How the spirits knowe of things to come. much rather must the same be gran­ted vnto spirits. For they are not let by the hea­uines and lumpe of the flesh, as men be: besides this, continuance and experience is a furthe­rance vnto them. For if that old men doo sée ma­nie more things than yoong men doo, The old age of spirits. then is it credible that spirits, which liue for euer, doo knowe verie manie things: and if they haue bo­dies proper and of their owne (as some thinke) they haue such as are nimble and readie, The nim­blenes of them. so that in a verie short space they can flie to and fro [Page 82] ouer all places of the world, and make relation what is doone euerie-where. And for that cause Tertullian calleth them, Tertullian. Flieng spirits. When they doo these things, they may séeme to be pro­phets; bicause they foreshew such things as are afterward declared vnto vs in writing. And Augustine De ciuitate Dei saith, Augustine. that They fore­shew these things, that they might be accoun­ted for prophets. And in his booke De genesi ad lit­teram, he reciteth an historie of a certeine man, who (as he saith) would take meate at no mans hands, but at the hands of a certeine préest; and that whereas the préest dwelled far off, about the space of fiue mile from him, he was woont to tell before hand: Now is he comming out of his house, now is he onward in the waie, now is he in the tauerne, now is he come to the field, now is he at the doore. But Augustine denieth that this kind of foretelling is prophesie: for if a troope of soldiers should come from some place, A simili­tude. & the watchman from the top of a tower spieng them comming, should declare that within short space they would be there; he saith that he ne­uerthelesse cannot séeme to be a prophet. More­ouer spirits may foretell those things which God commandeth them to doo; Spirits may foretell things com­manded them by God. as oftentimes it hap­peneth: for God dooth oftentimes command them to wast and destroie countries. And (as Dauid saith) He destroied Egypt by euill angels. So in Samuel, Psal. 78, 49. 1. Sam. 28, verse. 19. the diuell foretold that Saule the next daie after should die; for he was then in the bondage and possession of the diuell. Further, when they sée that they haue a bound prescribed them, they promise (so they may haue some little gift giuen them) that they will rage no lon­ger.

Spirits of the aire. An other reason is, for that they be placed in the aire, and from that region, as out of a watch tower, they perceiue the influences and euents of things much more easilie than we can. They see the scriptures of the pro­phets. Besides this also, they sée the scrip­tures of the prophets, and whatsoeuer is doone in the church: and although otherwise they knowe manie things, yet are they much better learned, both by meanes of the scriptures, and also for bicause they sée what is doone in the church. Wherefore Paule vnto the Ephesians saith; Ephe. 3, 10. that The hidden mysterie of Christ is made manifest vnto principalities and powers in the heauenlie places. And whereas Hermes Trismegistus foreshewed vnto Asclepius, that there would be a fall and desolation of idols, and lamented the same; Augustine saith in his booke De ciuitate Dei, that he might vnderstand that by the predictions of the holie prophets. Manie times also doo they knowe, for that they be present at the counsels of God, and are cal­led to execute his commandements. For so, when GOD was taking counsell to deceiue Achab, the diuell stood foorth, and promised, that he would be A lieng spirit in the mouth of all the prophets of Achab▪ 1. Kin. 22, 22 and a certeine other spi­rit obtained of God, to forment & trouble Iob. And it is no maruell; Iob. 2, 6. for the diuell is the mi­nister of God to doo execution. Howbeit, when they be thus called to the counsels of God, they sée what he hath appointed to doo. They ga­ther the causes by the effects. Oftentimes also, by effects, they gather the causes of things; as if they sée a man liue well and godlie, they suspect that he is a chosen of God; for good déeds be the fruits and effects of election: in like maner, if they sée a man to frame himselfe well vnto religion, and to knéele deuoutlie, they thinke he praieth, although they cannot descend into his mind.

17 But although they can by so manie waies and meanes knowe things to come, Why the spirits are oftentimes deceiued. yet are they oftentimes deceiued; and that for ma­nie causes: first bicause God can let the causes of things, God can let the causes, how cer­teine soeuer they be. though they be neuer so certeine or necessarie. When the children were cast into the burning fornace, it was certeine that they should be burned; but God did miraculouslie put himselfe betwéene them and their destructi­on, and did hinder the cause: but this could not the diuell foresée. For God sometime preser­ueth those that be his, and sometime he leaueth them, so that they die: and so doth it oftentimes come to passe in things that may happen, ei­ther this waie, or that waie. For although the experience of spirits be verie great, yet is it not so great, but that they maie be deceiued. Vndoubtedlie the nimblenes of spirits is ve­rie great, so that they can easilie perceiue and report what is doone in regions verie farre di­stant one from another: God reuo­keth decred purposes. but yet oftentimes God reuoketh his purposed decrées. And if perhaps God command the diuell to wast and destroie some region, and the people in the meane time doo repent; if the diuell foretell that the destruction shall come vpon them, it must néeds be that he maketh a lie: for oftentimes when men begin to repent from their hart, God forgetteth all his threatenings. These spi­rits doubtlesse doo sée and knowe the predicti­ons of the prophets: but yet those purposes, which God doth reueale by his prophets, may sometimes be mitigated or changed. Esaie pro­phesied that Ezechias should die; Esai. 38, 1, and 5. but yet when he humbled himselfe, and earnestlie repented, his life was prolonged for 15. yéeres: but that this should come to passe, the diuell could ne­uer haue suspected. Wherefore they may be de­ceiued; partlie bicause they knowe not the will of God, and partlie also bicause they cannot throughlie looke into our minds. But the good angels are not deceiued, bicause they referre all things to the will of God.

[Page 83] The diuell deceiued by ambition. Besides this also, the diuell is oftentimes deceiued through ambition: for he will séeme to be ignorant of nothing; & therefore he doub­teth not to foreshew those things which are far beyond his reach. For which cause he mingleth therewith colorable deceits & wiles, that what­soeuer should happen, he might séeme to haue spoken the truth. For he is a craftie and double dealing fellowe, as appeareth by these two oracles of his; The diuels double meaning. I saie that thou Aeacides the Ro­mans conquer may. Againe, Craesus being past ouer Halis floud, shall bring great riches vnto naught. Rightlie therefore said Esaie in the 41. chapter; Let them tell vs what shall happen, & we will saie that they be gods: not as though they tell not the truth sometimes, but bicause they are oftentimes deceiued: Wherefore this doth Esaie saie; Let them answere vs certeine­lie, and truelie, and alwaies, and without error, what shall come to passe; and we will account them for gods. But how fowlie the diuell may be deceiued, it chéefelie appeareth in Christ our sauiour. Augustine in the ninth booke De ciuitate Dei, The know­ledge that the diuell had of Christ. the 21. chapter saith, that The diuell knew and sawe manie things to be woondered at in Christ, but he knew not with that holsome and quickening light, wherewith reasonable spi­rits are clensed; but onlie, by certeine experi­ments and temporall signes: & yet did he know him far better than men did. For he sawe bet­ter and more néerelie, than any sight of man can discerne, how much the acts of Christ did sur­passe the power of nature. And yet that know­ledge in the diuell did God represse and darken, when it pleased him. And therefore the diuell doubted not to tempt Christ, which certeinlie he would not haue doone, Matth. 4, 3. if he had knowne Christ indéed. For that knowledge depended vpon cer­teine temporall signes, which oftentimes may trouble a man. 1. Cor. 2, 8. Therefore Paule said, If they had knowne the Lord of glorie, they would neuer haue crucified him.

But these words (you will saie) were spoken of Pilate, and of the chéefe préests. But that ma­keth no matter; for they were the organs and instruments of the diuell. And Iohn saith, that The diuell put into Iudas hart to betraie Christ. Luke. 22, 3. But what did let him (you wil say) that he might not perceiue the Godhead of Christ? I will tell you. Euen manie things, which in Christ sée­med to be but poore, abiect and vile. For he sus­pected, that he, which suffered such infamous things, could not be God: and so it was but a sus­picion, and not a knowledge. But wherefore then did he persecute Christ vnto death? Bi­cause he did not think, that his kingdome should by that meanes haue a fall: yet on the other side, when he saw that his tyrannie began to decline, & that his ouerthrowe was at hand, he thought to preuent it in time; and for that cause he sent those dreames vnto Pilats wife, Mat. 27, 19. The dreams of Pilats wife. bicause he now suspected that it was Christ. I might shew by other examples, how the diuell is woont to be de­ceiued; but I thought this one to be sufficient for our purpose at this time. In déed he knoweth naturall things redilie inough, vnlesse perhaps God will sometimes blind him, and turne him awaie. For though he be stubborne and rebel­lious, yet is he in the hand and power of God. Moreouer, he is manie times let, The diuell deceiued through his owne ma­lice and pride. through ha­tred, enuie, malice, and pride. And we haue ex­perience in our owne selues, how much reason is woont to be obscured by such troublesom affec­tions, Herevnto also may be added the great­nes of torments, and the sharpenes of punish­ments [wherwith he is vexed:] wherefore the an­gels are lesse deceiued, bicause they sée al things with a quiet mind.

18 But you will demand, Whether the spirits see the cogita­tions of men. whether they sée the thoughts and cogitations of men? Here they that answere, are woont to make a double distin­ction. If we vnderstand the mind to be, as it sheweth it selfe by signes, and by some moouing & gesture of the bodie; so diuels can sée the minds of men. For they which be in an anger, are hot; they which are afraid, are cold and pale. And Au­gustine saith, that All the cogitations of the mind haue some impressions in the bodie: by them the diuell can make his cōiecture, what we cast in our mind. Now our eies are not so sharp sighted that they can sée these things: yet the same Augustine in his booke of retractations, dooth after a sort moderate this sentence; and de­nieth that anie impressions arise in the bodie by quiet cogitations. But if we vnderstand the ve­rie mind, as it is of it selfe, the diuel cannot reach so far, as that he can vnderstand what we desire or thinke. But you will saie; Séeing mans vn­derstanding dependeth of phantasies and forms, cannot the diuell perceiue them? Yes verelie; but whether our vnderstanding be occupied in them, that he cannot sée, much lesse can he sée what the will dooth determine of them. For the will dooth not followe those forms & figures, but it followeth the vnderstanding. Now if we will aske counsell of the holie scriptures, they an­swere most plainelie, that the diuell cannot knowe mans cogitations. For they call God, The knower of harts; and saie, that He alone is the searcher of the harts & reines. Psal. 7, 11. And they adde that None knoweth the secrets of man, 1. Cor. 2, 11. but the spirit of man that is within him; and that The spirit searcheth out euen the deepe mysteries of God. Séeing onlie God and man can sée mans hart, the diuell must néeds be excluded.

And Salomon in the second booke of Chroni­cles, the sixt chap. in those solemne praiers, verse. 30. which he made after the finishing of the temple, spea­keth [Page 84] thus vnto God; Thou onlie ô Lord know­est the thoughts of mans heart. As if he had said, No man, no angels, nor any other thing created. And Ieremie; Ierem. 17, 9. Peruerse (saith he) and very deepe is the hart of man: who is able to search the bot­tome thereof? And of the person of God he ad­deth, I am God, which searcheth the heart and reines. Further, God will not worke togither with the diuell, so that the diuell also should be a­ble to sée the cogitations and minds of men. And this is thought of some to be doone through the mercie of God. For if he could looke into the se­cret counsels of our harts, he would tempt vs much more vehementlie. The author of the book De dogmatibus ecclesiasticis affirmeth for certein­tie, Augustine De dogmati­bus ecclesi­asticis. that the diuell cannot knowe the thoughts of men. And Ierom vpon the ninth chapter of Mat­thew expounding these words; verse. 4. And Iesus per­ceiuing their thoughts; by this (saith he) it is eui­dent inough, that Christ is God; séeing he can reach euen vnto the harts of men. By signes therefore, and outward tokens the diuell maie gesse what we cast in our minds; but to what end and purpose, and what we thinke, he cannot for certeintie vnderstand. And out of doubt if he were sure of the faith & constancie of holie men, he would neuer tempt them, least he should be shamefullie reiected, as it fell out in Iob.

19 Touching the knowledge which the diuell hath, By what meanes the spirits can giue an­swers. we haue spoken sufficientlie. Now we must sée by what meanes he is able to declare those things, which he foreséeth will com to passe; & there be diuers waies therof. For he hath ora­cles; fore-speakings, dreams, superstitions, wor­king by circles and pricks in the earth, diuinati­ons on the water, necromancie, lots, soothsai­engs by birds & beasts, and a number such like. And these things he sheweth vnto men for no o­ther end, but to obteine of them some offering & seruice. Which thing Seneca not vnderstanding, in the fourth booke of his naturall questions ie­steth at certeine things, which séeme to serue for our purpose. For he saith, that Among the Cle­ons there was a custome, that when they which were the obseruers [of the comming] of haile, had perceiued by some cloud, that haile was rea­die to fall vpon their vines, they should diligent­lie warne the people of the same: now they fled neither to cloke nor couer, but to sacrifice. For they which were of some welth, killed either a cocke, or a white lambe: & those of the poorer sort which had neither cock nor lambe, vsed violence on themselues, & with a very sharp pointed knife let themselues blood out of the thumb; as though forsooth (saith Seneca) that sillie little bloud could rech vnto the clouds. These are his words; but (as I saie) he vnderstood not the ambition of euill spirits.

20 Now we must consider of the power of spirits, as touching those works, Of the po­wer and strength of spirits. which séeme to be aboue nature. Some iest at all this matter, and thinke that nothing at all can be doone ei­ther by magicians or by spirits. And of this mind is Plinie in the thirtie book of his naturall historie, and the first chapter: for he saith, That art magike is vaine and vncerteine. that It is found by most euident reasons, that all art magike is vaine, and hath neither any certein­tie nor soundnes. For he sheweth that Nero be­ing a prince, as he gaue himselfe to the studie of singing and ruling of chariots; so he was desi­rous of art magike, and that he wanted neither wit nor power, nor instructor. For that Tyrida­tis the king of Armenia, receiued his kingdome from him, and by his commandement brought verie learned magicians out of the east; that Nero also as he was very diligent suffered him­selfe to be instructed, but that at the length all came to nothing. And this also may be said of Iulian the apostata; for after that he had be­gun to giue himselfe vnto magicians, all things began to fall to ruine. If these so great princes, and (as it were) rulers of the world, could bring nothing to passe; what may we gesse of other men? And yet the diuels must néeds haue obei­ed these two men most of all: for they were the most malicious enimies of christian religion. But howsoeuer it be, there is no doubt but the diuels can doo manie things: howbeit, whie they would doo nothing for Nero and Iulians sake, God onlie knoweth. For he will not haue the diuell to doo more, than he himselfe permitteth and willeth him to doo; for the strength of spi­rits, and their power of working, dependeth no lesse vpon God, than dooth their knowledge.

21 But that magicians can doo much, That magi­cians can doo manie things, it is prooued by the scrip­ture. Exo. 22, 18. Gen. 20, 6. and 27, Deut. 18, 10. it may be prooued out of Gods lawe. For in the 42. chap­ter of Exodus, the 20. of Leuiticus, & in the 18. of Deuteronomie, it is commanded that The magicians, soothsaiers, and witches should be punished with extreamitie. The same thing al­so is decréed by mans lawe. For there is a ca­ueat in the twelue tables, that none should charme other mens fruits. Whereof Plinie like­wise maketh mention; and so dooth Seneca in his booke of naturall questions. But lawes are not made but of things that be, and doo vsuallie come to passe. In the code De maleficis & mathe­maticis, there be many lawes extant concerning this thing: and especiallie the lawe of Constan­tius; who without doubt was fellowe in the em­pire with Iulianus, & peraduenture his naughti­nes (for it is certeine that Iulian attributed much to such follies) was touched in those lawes, wher­in it is thus decréed; If anie magician shall re­paire to another mans house, let him be burned; he that brought him thither, let him be bani­shed into the ylands; let them be striken with the sword; let them be cast vnto the wild beasts: [Page 85] they being such as will disturbe mankind. In the decrées, caus. 26. quest. 5. beginning Nihil ali­ud agitur, among the Extrauagants, there is a speciall title of sorcerers: so manie lawes should neuer haue béene made, vnlesse it had béene kno­wen for certeintie, that magicians and witches are able to doo somewhat. And Dauid in the 58. psalme, verse, 5. saith, that The poison of them is like the poison of a serpent, and as [the venom] of a deafe adder stopping hir eare, which refuseth to heare the voice of the inchanter or charmer, charme he neuer so wiselie. Dauid by these words com­mendeth not inchantment; but yet vndoubted­lie he sheweth, that there is a certeine power of inchanting.

In the 13. of Deuteronomium; If anie pro­phet shall doo signes and woonders, Deut. 13, 1. and would lead thee awaie to strange gods: thou shalt not spare him, thy hand shall be vpon him. And in the 24. chapter of Matthew; verse, 24. There shall come false prophets, and false christs, and shall giue out signes, to turne, if it were possible, the verie elect into error. And Paule saith in the second e­pistle to the Thessalonians, that The comming of antichrist shall be in power, 2. Thes. 2, 9. in signes, and in lieng woonders. Also the histories, as well holie as prophane, doo teach vs this thing. In the histo­rie of Iob, Iob. 1 and 2. the diuell brought downe fire from heauen, and destroied the heards of cattell. He raised vp the winds, and shooke the foure cor­ners of the house, and crushed Iobs children in péeces. Matt. 8, 28. 31. and 32. In the gospell we read, that manie were taken with diuels, throwne downe on the ground, tormented, and cast into the fire. Other diuels, when they were manie, and yet possessed but one man, said that They were a legion, and obteined leaue to be sent into a heard of swine, Mat. 17, 15. which they droue headlong into the sea. In the histories of the Ethniks we read, that the image of fortune spake at two seuerall times; first that it was well or rightlie set vp; and secondlie that it was well worshipped: that Tuccia the vestall virgin, to cléere hir selfe from suspicion of whoor­dome, caried water in a siue: that Claudia, for the same cause, when the ship (wherein the god­desse called Bona dea was carried) stacke so fast in the sands, that by any strength of man it could not be mooued, she with hir girdle onlie remoo­ued and drew it to the shore: that a serpent fol­lowed Aesculapius euen vnto Rome. And Pli­ni saith, that the oliue garden of Vectius Marcel­lus started ouer the high waie: & that growing corne did oftentimes by art magik flit from one place to another. Actius Nauius did cut a whet­stone in sunder with a barbours rasor. What née­deth manie words? It were an infinit thing to shew all that might be said of this matter. And to saie that all these things are but fables, (espe­ciallie séeing some such things appeare vnto vs out of the holie scriptures) it should be too impu­dent a part.

22 But to the intent we may kéepe some method, we will thus distinguish this power. The power of spirits is distingui­shed. Those things which séeme to be doone, be either doone indéed; or else they are but feigned by illu­sion. In those things which be doon in verie déed, as they séeme to be; there are thrée things attri­buted vnto spirits. First, that they can gather togither the principles & beginnings of things, out of which they know somthing may be made; and then can compound one with an other, and ioine togither things that worke, with things that suffer: further, that they can mooue & driue some things: lastlie, that they can put on bodies, & in them be familiarlie conuersant with men. First, that they doo gather togither the princi­ples of things, and applie them vnto a matter; They ga­ther the principles of things, and applie them to a matter. Augustine testifieth, both in his booke De ciuitate Dei, and also in his third booke De trinitate, the se­uenth and eight chapters. By this meanes they worke things of great woonder and admiration; and yet we sée onlie the effects: for the way and meanes whereby they are doone, we cannot per­ceiue. But those miracles, which be doone by God, or by godlie men, in the name of Christ, haue no néed of anie such labour. No verelie, nor yet those things which be doone by euill men, in the name and power of Christ, néed anie such means: onlie the diuell séeketh those waies. They can doo no more than God giueth leaue. And yet, euen in those things he can doo nothing, more than God giueth him leaue: for he cannot doo all things at his owne libertie.

To make this matter plaine, Augustine (mée thinketh) dooth vse an apt similitude; A simili­tude. We sée that euill and wicked men, and such as are con­demned to worke in the mines, haue the vse of fire and hammers; and yet not to the end they should mar them, but that they might applie them to some vse: euen so, the diuell cannot doo so much as he would, but so much as God giueth him libertie to doo. The selfe-same must we thinke concerning that power, wherby the diuell driueth and mooueth anie thing. For if he might be suffered to haue his owne will, he would di­sturbe the whole earth & the heauens. And there­fore those magicians of Pharao, Exod. 8, 7. and 19. when they had brought foorth frogs, and had turned the water into bloud; yet afterward they failed in brin­ging foorth lice. Not that it was so hard a thing to make lice, but bicause God did hinder them; and therefore they were constrained to crie out; This is the finger of God. Those men were cal­led magicians, and therefore they vsed such kind of meanes. But Moses néeded no such meanes, although he brought to passe much greater and more maruellous things; Plinie an aduersarie of Christs religion. for he was no magi­cian: although that Plinie the perpetuall aduer­sarie of religion thought him so to be. For in [Page 86] his 30. booke the second chapter, He held Moses for a magician. when he had said that there be diuers waies & kinds of magike, he saith that there was one kind proper vnto the Iewes, & that the same was first begun by Mo­ses, Iambes, & Iatopas. In which place I thinke that Plinie not onelie erred in the thing, but also in the name; 2. Tim. 3, 8. Exod. 7, 12. and that he called him Iatopas, whom Paule to Timothie named Iambres.

How the rods of the magicians were chan­ged into serpents, it is not throughlie agréed vp­on among the fathers. Strabus and Tertullian in his booke De anima, How the magicians rods were turned into serpents. thinke that it was no­thing but a deceiuing of the sight; the rods be­ing priuilie conueied awaie, and serpents put in their places. Euen as the poets faine, that Iphi­genia being readie to be sacrificed, was taken frō the sight of men, and a hind put in hir place: but in very déed it is credible, that they were ser­pents; bicause the diuels were not ignorant of what beginnings & principles serpents might be made: & that they could presently bring to pas those things, which otherwise would haue requi­red a long time. For although we (saith Augu­stine) cannot sée that strength and power, which remaineth in the originall of euerie thing; yet the diuels doo sée it. For he saith that in Epyrus there is a well, wherein torches lighted are put foorth, and vnlight torches are lighted: the prin­ciples and beginnings of that effect are in that well, The diuell is no crea­tor, but a minister of nature to make things. A simili­tude. although we cannot sée them. And yet we saie not here, that the diuell dooth either create or make such things; but onlie that he is a mini­ster seruing vnto nature. Euen so the husband­man, when he tilleth and soweth the ground; and the gardener, when he pruneth and delueth a vine, doo not create the corne or wine, but onlie doo helpe nature. Gen. 30, 37. So Augustine saith, that Iacob did not bring foorth the colour vpon the shéepe; but did onlie rightlie applie the forms & shapes. And to take an exāple euen of spirituall things, the ministers of the church doo not iustifie anie man, or forgiue anie man his sinnes; but are on­lie ministers, by whose indeuour God bringeth these things to passe; I planted (saith Paule) and Apollo watered, 1. Cor. 3, 6. but God it is that gaue the increase.

23 But it séemeth woonderfull, how they can so spéedilie bring these things to passe. How they worke these things so suddenlie. For whe­ther they haue swift bodies, or no bodies at all; yet to bring foorth anie naturall thing, it would séeme to require a time. Howbeit, we must con­sider, that these [séeds or] beginnings of naturall things, be as it were instruments; and they haue some power of their owne nature. A simili­tude. But it maketh a great matter into whose hands they doo happen; for a skilfull artificer will worke a­nie thing both handsomlie and spéedilie: but giue the same instruments vnto an ignorant and vnskilfull man, and he will doo it neither re­dilie nor yet verie handsomelie: euen so anie spirit, as a skilfull artificer, will bring more to pas in one minut, than by the accustomed order of nature can be wrought in a long time. For those chéefe originals are not to be weighed in their owne nature; although that euen by na­ture we sée some things to be made in a manner vpon the sudden. As in the summer time, of a shower of raine, little frogs doo suddenlie arise: but yet therein indéed, there is admitted some space of time though it be but short. So these va­gabond iuglers séeme to deuoure bread, and im­mediatlie to spit out meale; and when they haue droonke wine, they séeme presentlie to powre the same againe out of the middest of their forehed. And if there can be such a readines and dexteri­tie of dooing in man, why shall it not much rather be attributed vnto spirits? For in a spirit there is much more nimblenes than in a man. Where­fore the spirits doo not bring foorth these things of themselues: for so should they beget a kind like vnto themselues; as of a man is brought foorth a man; of a horse, is brought foorth a horse. But a spirit dooth not bring foorth a spirit: but as I said, dooth take the principal originals of things, and applieth them vnto a matter, and so bringeth woonderfull things to passe.

But how far the nature of things may pro­céed, it is hard to iudge. The diuell bridled two maner of waies. Wherefore the diuell is bridled two waies: the first is, by the bounds of nature; the second is, by the will of God. So the diuell may bring in plague, famine, and sores: for he knoweth of what causes and begin­nings these things be made. For he afflicted Iob, Iob. 1, & 2. Psal. 7, 49. and brought plagues and punishments by euill angels. And Christ saith, that the diuell bound the daughter of Abraham by the space of fortie yéeres. Luk. 13, 16. And this also the good angels doo some­times; for the angel of the Lord in one night o­uerthrew the host of Senacherib, 2. kin. 19, 35. and brought in a plague in the time of king Dauid: 2. Sam. 25, verse. 17. & Dauid himselfe sawe the angel of God striking the people in [the threshing flower of] Areuna. But those things, which go altogither beyond nature, as to raise the dead, to change men into beasts, are onelie delusions, of which we are to speake afterward.

24 Now, as touching the other parts; The diuell can driue forward som things. name­lie that the diuell can mooue and driue foreward some things, there is no doubt thereof. For sée­ing the soule, which is tied much more vnto the bodie, than a spirit is, can mooue & gouerne the bodie; assuredlie the diuell can much rather doo it. This appeareth sufficientlie by fiers, and tem­pests so often raised by the diuell: and by that ship of Claudia, and by the flitting of the oliue garden and féeld of corne; of which things we spake before. It is said, that when Ascanius had caried awaie the houshold gods from Lauinium [Page 87] vnto Alba, they returned backe againe of them­selues into their owne chappell at Lauinium. Besides this, spirits doo somtimes hurle stones. And these magicians, which séeme to ride on a cane in the aire, are kept or held aloft by a secret power of diuels; and by the same power Simon Magus did flie in the aire.

Spirits put bodies on themselues. 25 Lastlie, they also put bodies on themselues. Neither is it to be doubted, but that the diuell be­ing a spirit, can perse through the soundest and massiest bodies. Looke after in the 12. ch. art. 5. Gen. 3, 1. Num. 22, 28 By this meanes he dooth often­times conueigh himselfe into images; he spake in the serpent, he loosed the toong of the asse. Hée also taketh vpon him euen the bodies of men, ei­ther liuing or dead; he vexeth and tormenteth them, How they ioine to thē selues bo­dies. and hindereth their naturall works. He obserueth oftentimes the course of the moone, to the intent (as Ierom saith) that he may slander that planet, or rather to watch for the aboun­ding of humors, whereby he may the more grée­uouslie disquiet the bodie. Somtimes he putteth on an airie bodie; but that he dooth not forme or quicken, as the soule dooth our bodie: neither dooth he make it to passe into one substance with himselfe, as did the word of GOD with an hu­mane bodie: for diuels can put off those bodies when they will, for they be in them (as the Schoolmen speake) definitelie; What is to be anie where de­finitelie. that is, they be in them, so that they be not anie where else. God in verie déed in the old testament, presented him­selfe somtime to be séene in some forme; but hée was not definitelie in the same: for he was so present there, as he notwithstanding in the meane time was euerie-where else. But the di­uell (as saith Augustine) fitteth vnto himselfe some bodie as it were a garment. And Chryso­stome writing of the patience of Iob, saith, that He which brought tidings of the fall of the house, Iob. 1, 18. and destruction of his familie and cattell, was not a man, but a spirit. For if thou wert a man (saith he) how diddest thou knowe that the wind came from the wildernesse? Or if thou wert there, how happeneth it, that thou wert not de­stroied with the rest?

They take to them­selues airie bodies. A good part of the writers thinke, that the spi­rits doo frame themselues bodies of the aire: for that there must be a certeine Sympathia, or mu­tuall agréement betwéene the place and the in­habitants thereof, and that the diuels (as wée haue said before) haue their habitation in the aire: wherfore it is credible, that they applie vn­to themselues fit bodies of the aire. Further they adde, that it behooueth that the bodies of them should be light and nimble; for spirits (as Tertullian saith) be as it were fowles, and doo most swiftlie flie ouer all places. Besides this they adde, that experience teacheth, that those bodies be airie; for that there had béene some men, which indeuoured sometime to cut and wound them, but yet they could not preuaile: for they gaue place to the blowes, and straitway came togither againe. Wherefore the poet Vir­gil trimlie pronounced [of Anchyses, which mis­sing his wife in the flight of Troie, séeming to him that he sawe hir spirit, said;]

Moreouer, these bodies doo soone vanish from the sight; but and if they were earthie, there would remaine some massie substance; if they were waterie, they would run abroad; if they were of fire, they would burne, and might not be handeled. But the spirits doo thicken and engrosse these bodies, by strait trussing of the parts togither; for otherwise they might not be séene or touched. Abraham sawe angels, Gen. 18, 2. and washed their féete, set meate before them, and they also did eate.

26 Howbeit, Whether they be bodies, or but imagi­nations. some thinke that those are no bodies, but are onlie certeine imaginations in the minds of men. But others answer, that that cannot generallie be true; for that they, which be mocked by such visions, are depriued of their senses. But neither is this certeine; for they that haue the phrensie, are so deceiued manie times, and yet they can vse their senses. For they feare, they run awaie, they be troubled in spirit, and they crie out. Others saie, that they be no phantasies, bicause they be séene of a great multitude of men togither; now it is hard to deceiue a great manie togither. For angels were séene of the whole housholds of Lot and A­braham. Gen. 19, 1. But the holie scriptures prooue, That they were true bodies. with­out all doubt, that these were not vaine imagi­nations onlie: for the diuell did in verie déed en­ter into the serpent, to the intent he might en­tice Eue to be deceiued. Which thing the curse, Gen. 3, 1. Ibid. 14. wherewith the serpent was cursed, dooth suffici­entlie declare; Vpon thy bellie shalt thou crall, and the seed of the woman shall tread downe thy head. For that is true, not onlie as touching Christ and the diuell; but also as touching men and the serpent. And further (as I said before) the angels offered themselues to be séene of Abra­ham and of Lot.

Neither were these anie phantasies, for the angels were handled with the hands: and when Lot made some delaie of departing out of So­dom, Gen. 13, 21. they in a manner drew him out of the citie by force. The Iewes in the daie-time sawe a smoke, and in the night-time a flame. So of­ten as they were to take their iournie, there en­tred in a spirit which moued those things. For as the light of the sunne doth pearse the water, the [Page 88] clouds, and the aire: so a spirit pearseth through all things. Exo. 19, 16. When the lawe was giuen vpon Sina, there were séene both lightenings, smokes, va­pours, and fires: also, the land was shaken with earthquakes. When Christ ascended into hea­uen, the angels accompanied him: for they both offered themselues to be séene, and spake also vnto the disciples; Acts. 1, 10. Yee men of Galile, why stand yee gazing vp vnto heauen? Wherefore it were an impudent part to saie, that all these things were onlie imaginations, and deceiuings of the mind. Yea, and the Peripatetiks did neuer so saie, that these are onlie vaine images, and fai­ned shewes in mans imagination. They rather inuented other reasons; namelie, [that they be] humors, secret powers of nature, and celestiall bodies. An obiec­tion. 2. Thess. 2, 9. Why then (thou wilt alledge) doth Paule saie to the Thessalonians, that Antichrist shall come in power, in woonders, and signes of lieng? For if they be true things, how commeth it to passe then, that they be signes of lieng? I an­swere, that they may be called lies, either of the cause (for the diuell being authour of them, is a lier:) Ibidem. 10, and 11. or else of the end, for he shall make them, to the end he may deceiue men. And assuredlie, the wicked are woorthie so to be deceiued and moc­ked. The wicked are worthie to be decei­ued. For euen as Paule saith, Bicause they recei­ued not the loue of the truth, God shall send them strong delusions. Euen so in the apostles time, 1. Cor. 5, 5. men were deliuered to sathan. But some­times these things be done, to shew the mightie power of God, for séeing the power of the diuell is so great; it is requisit that the power of God, whereby he is brideled and ruled, should be much greater. But it is our part to giue God continu­all thanks, by whose onlie benefit we are defen­ded from the diuell. Wherefore these bodies, which the spirits doo applie vnto themselues, be airie. For euen as water is congealed into yse, and sometime hardneth till it become christall: euen so the aire, wherwith spirits doo cloth themselues, is thickned, so that it becommeth a visible bodie; but if it may séeme, that the aire alone is not suf­ficient, they can also mingle some vapour or wa­ter withall, whereof colours may be had. For this we sée to be done in the rainbowe, as saith Virgil;

27 There is no néed at all to attribute vnto di­uels and angels those vitall parts; namelie, the lungs, hart, and liuer: for they doo not therefore put on bodies, to the end they may quicken them, but onlie that they may be séene, and therefore they vse them as instruments. How the angels and spirits doo eate. Luke. 24, 43. But thou wilt saie that they doo eate, and that Christ, when he was ri­sen from death, did eate with his disciples. Augu­stine in his 94 epistle Ad Deo gratias, quaest. 1. saith, that In Christ that eating was of no neces­sitie, but of power, and he vseth this similitude. For in one sort (saith he) doth the earth sucke vp waters, and in another sort the sunne-beames; A simili­tude. the earth of necessitie, but the sunne by a certaine strength and power: euen so (saith he) the bodies raised vp from death, if they could not take meate, they should not be perfectlie happie. A­gaine also, if they should haue néed of it, they should be vnperfect: wherefore in that Christ did eate, it was not of necessitie, but of power; and he did eate with his disciples, least they should haue thought that their eies were deceiued: and so we saie, that the angels also and spirits do eate.

Yea but (thou wilt saie) euen this is a deceipt, when as they will séeme to be men, being no men. I answere; Good spirits doo not deceiue, for they come not to prooue themselues to be men, but to declare the commandements of God. Note. A lie is al­waies ioi­ned with a mind to de­ceiue. Now a lie is alwaies ioined with a mind to deceiue: but in the end, they sufficientlie shew themselues by some token, to be angels; for they vanish awaie, and suddenlie withdrawe them­selues out of sight. Wherefore, they instruct men two manner of waies; first, in that they shew the commandements of God; secondlie, bicause they declare their owne nature. And this we knowe was done by those angels which were séene of Gedeon and Manoah. Iud. 6. But euill spirits first doo teach false things, and doo leade vs from God; secondlie, they will also séeme to be ter­rible, and of far greater power, than they be in­déed, and promise that they will either giue or doo manie things: neither doo they onelie change themselues into men, 2. Cor. 11, 14 but also into angels of light. And thus haue we spoken sufficientlie of these thrée parts [cōcerning the power of spirits.]

28 Now fourthlie there remaineth to speake of the illusion of the senses. Spirits be­gile the out­ward senses And the senses may be deceiued many waies; first by a certeine nim­blenes and dexteritie, which we sée to be doone of them, whom we commonlie call iugglers. For they find the meanes that one thing séemes to be an other thing, and that without anie helpe of spirits. Secondlie, they deceiue also by vsing of certeine natural things; as metals or perfumes, wherby it is brought to passe, that a parlour may séeme to be strowed ouer with serpents, or that men séeme to haue dogs heads, or asses heads. Of these waies or means of illusions we doo not speake now in this place. But the diuell, to be­guile the senses, The diuell vseth to be­guile by things con­sisting in nature. sometime vseth things con­sisting in nature; namelie, to mingle colours or forms, and to alter the quantities of things: for so things doo séeme far otherwise than they be. Otherwhile he putteth some bodie vpon him, and so setteth himselfe before mens eies. Other­while he darkeneth the meane, so that a thing may séeme greater than it is: or else he putteth a [Page 89] cloud or mist betwéene, that it may not be séene at all. And such a like thing that séemeth to be, which Plato mentioneth of Gyges; and Virgil of Aeneas. Sometime he altereth the instrument of the senses, casting ouer the eies bloudie hu­mors, A simili­tude. that all things may séeme bloudie. So in sick men, when choler aboundeth in the toong, all things séeme bitter. Sometime he dazeleth the eiesight, and striketh men with such blindnes, that they cannot sée one whit; as once he did by the Sodomits, Gen. 19, 11. when they would haue broken perforce into the house of Lot. So Elizeus blin­ded the aduersaries host, when he led the same into Samaria. 2. king. 6, 18.

Also he can beguile the senses after another sort; which that we may vnderstand, we must know that of those things, which by sense are con­ceiued, He laieth images be­fore the sense or phantasie. there arise certeine images, and doo come vnto the senses, afterward are receiued vnto the common sense; then after that, vnto the phan­tasie; last of all vnto the memorie; and there are preserued: and that they be imprinted and gra­uen in euerie of these parts, as it were in waxe. Wherefore when these images are called backe from the memorie vnto the phantasie, or vnto the senses; they beare backe with them the verie same seales, and doo so stronglie strike & mooue affection, that those things séeme euen now to be sensible perceiued, and to be present. For so great may the power of the phantasie be, (as A­ristotle teacheth in his booke De somno & vigilia) that those things which be far off, a man may thinke that he dooth most certeinlie sée and touch them. By the po­wer of the phantasie a man may thinke he seeth that which he seeth not. These things doo sometime happen vnto men that be awake; as for example, vnto men possessed, and vnto the frantike; and somtimes also vnto men that be asléepe. Wherefore that which is doone by naturall meanes, the same al­so may be doone by the diuell. For he can call backe the images of things from the memorie vnto the phantasie, The diuell and angels can call things back from the memorie to the sense. or vnto the sense, and so de­ceiue the eies of men.

And this thing not onlie can the euill spirits doo, but also the good angels. For it is likelie, that they did ingraue in the phantasies of the prophets, those things which God would reueale. But betwéene the good angels and the bad there is much difference. The diffe­rence in this matter betweene the good angels and the bad. For when as anie thing is imprinted by good angels, the light of nature is confirmed: but if it be doone by euill spirits, it is troubled and confounded. The difference is part­lie in the end, & partlie in the things themselues. For as touching the end, a good angel wil right­lie instruct men, and propoundeth things that be pure and vncorrupt but euil angels doo not teach but deceiue, and doo laie before vs counterfeit, vnpure, and corrupt things. These things we sée happened in the historie of Saule. 1 Sam. 28, 13. and 14. For the diuell by his art called backe the humors from the me­morie to the phantasie and sense; so that the séelie witch thought she saw Samuel himselfe; & Saule thought that he had heard him speake. For that action was not naturall, neither was it directed either by temeritie or by chance. For there was no reason at all whie Samuel, rather than anie o­ther man, should fall into the imaginatiō of that witch. He must néeds be his crafts-maister, or verie cunning that framed these things in hir phantasie and senses.

And vndoubtedlie, there is no néed whie we should thinke, that there be brought in by the di­uell or by an angell fresh and new forms, They bring in no new forms. for they vse such as be present. While we sléepe, we fall into dreames: which sometime the good an­gels, sometime the bad doo ioine and couple one with another, that something may be signified by them. They cannot bring to passe by any po­wer, that he which is borne blind should dreame of colours, or he which is borne deafe should dreame of sounds: for there be no such images in their minds. But it may be doubted, that when the spirits doo laie these images before vs, whether we be constrained of necessitie to thinke vpon them or no. Those that be awake, Whether we be compel­led to think of the forms brought in. are not constrained therevnto; for the exercise of the mind dependeth on the will, and that cannot be compelled. Wherefore the safest waie is, conti­nuallie to exercise our selues either in the holie scriptures, or in praiers; neither is there anie thing better, than to reuoke the mind dailie from humane affaires vnto diuine things; that whensoeuer the diuel approcheth vnto vs, he may (as Ierom saith) find vs alwaies occupied.

29 With illusions, old women speciallie can doo verie much. Such as are Canidia in Horace, and Gratidia in Iuuenal. Of the Grecians they were called Empusae, Lamiae, Mormolyciae, Scri­ges. Of the Lamiae writeth Duris, Of Lamiae Empusae and such like. in his second booke of the matters of Lybia; he saith that La­mia was an excéeding faire woman, and the concubine of Iupiter; which thing Iuno taking verie gréeuouslie, she both killed the sonne, which Iupiter had by hir, and also disfigured hir in most shamefull guise: now shée being not able to abide or beare so great an iniurie, first began to be furious; and secondlie to kill other mens children also. Further he saith, that there be of those kinde of women in the gulfe of the sandie sea in Lybia, and that those which haue suffered shipwracke, sticking fast in the quick-sands, are foorthwith taken, and deuoured by them.

Ieremie in the fourth chapter of his lamenta­tions saith, that the Lamiae discouered their breasts, for they haue verie faire breasts. Albeit in the Hebrue it is written Lilith, about which word the Rabbins doo verie much trifle. Of the Empusae, Lamiae, and Mormolyciae, Philostratus writeth in the life of Apollonius Tyanaeus; for he [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90] saith, that whereas a certeine yoong man was al­lured to marriage by a woman (as she séemed) both verie faire and rich, and who alreadie so bur­ned in the loue of hir, that he would in anie wise take hir to his wife; Apollonius being inuited to the wedding supper, did foorthwith vnderstand the deceipt, and said: This is one of those Empu­sae, which manie men take to be the Lamiae and Mormolyciae, and so constreined hir to confesse what she was, and foorthwith all that gorgeous­nes of gold and siluer vanished into coles. Now all such, as well men as women, doo excéedinglie follow fleshlie lusts. Wherefore the Satyri are so called of Sati, Wherof Sa­tyrs tooke their name. that is to saie, of the priuie mem­bers. And Incubi and Succubi, and Ephialtes of Insiliendo. Although with the physicians Ephi­altes is a disease, Ephialtes a disease. procéeding of the cruditie of the stomach, and the troubling of the head, whereby men thinke themselues to be pressed with an intollerable burthen, and to be in a ma­ner choked, and therefore the Grecians call it [...], that is, A choking spi­rit [and we, the mare] but of the disease we doo not now speake.

Of the In­cubi and Succubi. Of the Incubi and Succubi, Augustine wri­teth manie things in his 80. booke De ciuitate Dei. There were certaine nations which fetched their originall from them. Also the poets write of their gods, that they were wanton, and such as sometime vsed the companie of men. But women witches, Women and men sorce­rers in their sleepe recei­ued manie pleasures of the diuels. and men sorcerers, to the in­tent they might allure these spirits vnto them, were woont to annoint themselues all ouer with some ointment, which had the propertie to bring in a dead sléepe: afterward, they would laie themselues downe vpon their bed, where they slept so soundlie, that they could not be awaked, neither with the pricking of pinnes, nor yet with fires. In the meane time, while they thus slept, the diuels set before them manie pleasant ban­kets, danses, and all kind of voluptuous plea­sures. And séeing the power of spirits is so great, as I haue before described; there is no let, but that they may sometimes take vp men, and ca­rie them into groues, and there set such sights be­fore them. Simon Magus. For Simon Magus could flie in the aire, but at the praier of Peter, he suddenlie fell downe from aloft. And the Cardinall De Turre Cremata, in the decrées, 26. question 5, in the Chapter Episcopi saith, that both may be done.

And if hapned once, that a certaine man, which delighted very much in the studie of such things, being suddenlie taken from his house, was set in a verie delectable place, where after he had all the night beheld pleasant danses, and had his fill of daintie fare, the next morning, when all these things were vanished awaie, he sawe himselfe to sticke fast in the thornes among most thicke bushes and briers: and although it séemed vnto him before, that he had eaten, yet the miserable wretch died then for hunger. And these spirits are mooued not onlie vnto fleshlie lust, but also vnto crueltie; for they come into houses in the likenes of cats and dogs, and doo either kill, or else de­spoile children, and therefore Horace saith; Or else he plucketh a liue child out of the bellie of the Lamia, when she hath dined. The diuell there­fore can thus beguile men, either when they be in a sound sléepe, or else he can put some bodie vpon him, and so bring these things to passe: howbeit hurt he cannot, The diuell can hurt no further than God per­mitteth. but onlie so much as God per­mitteth, who sometimes permitteth children to be slaine for some grieuous sin of the parents. Some are brought vnto that crueltie, that they kill children, bicause they thinke that their soules shall passe into spirits, and that they shall be sub­iect vnto them. So we reade in the Commenta­ries of Clement, that Simon Magus killed men, and vsed their soules as his seruants. Sometime diuels shew themselues like giants, or as some mightie warriors; and it is no maruell, for they can fashion themselues bodies of the aire, and so beguile mens senses. They can raise vp tempests and destroie all things: The diuels raise vp tempests. Iob. 1. Apoc. 8, 7. and this doo we read to be done in the historie of Iob. And in the Apoca­lypse, power is giuen vnto the spirits, to destroie corne and trées; but afterward, they be restrai­ned, that they should not hurt.

It is reported that certaine people called La­pones in Norwaie, A people called La­pones. haue great familiaritie with spirits, and that whereas they haue thrée knots tied vpon their beards, if they vnlose one, there will follow a great tempest vpon the sea; if ano­ther, the waues will arise yet more vehementlie; if they vndoo the third, it will fare as heauen and earth should go together, and an vndoubted shipwracke doth followe. Augustine in his 18. booke De ciuitate Dei, the ninth chapter, when he had rehearsed that fable, how there had bin once a controuersie betwéene Pallas and Neptune, which of them should giue name vnto the citie of Athens, and that when the men were on Nep­tunes side; and the women with their Pallas, and that the women had ouercome the men by one voice, Neptune being angrie, caused the waues to arise, A part of Athens ter­ritorie drowned. and drowne a great part of the territorie of Athens. This (I saie) when Augustine had reci­ted, he added, that the diuell might doo the same, and that sometime he can raise vp the flouds, and sometime represse them. If I would rec­kon vp all [that might be spoken hereof] it should be infinite, let it be sufficient that I haue thus shortlie touched the generall things themselues.

VVhether it be lawfull to aske counsell of the Diuell, and to vse his helpe.

30 Now must we consider of that, which we [Page 91] set downe in the third place; namelie, whether it be lawfull to aske counsell of ill spirits, or to vse their helpe. First indéed it séemeth to be lawfull; for God vseth the labour of diuels: why then should it not be lawfull for vs? And Paule deli­uered men vnto sathan; 1. Cor. 5, 5. and therefore it is law­full for vs also to vse the ministerie of spirits. Here we must make a distinction. For we vse spirits either by authoritie & commandement, as when we command them anie thing in the name of God: or else by acquaintance, felow­ship, couenant, obedience, or praiers. God bea­reth rule ouer the diuels, Matt. 17, 18. Acts. 16, 18. and Christ and the apo­stles commanded that they should go out of the bodies possessed; Why it is not lawfull to vse the helpe of diuels. but to require or expect anie thing of them vpon anie couenant or bargaine, that is not lawfull; for it is idolatrie. And the di­uell séeketh nothing more, than to lead vs from God, to the worshipping of him. Herevnto also tendeth customs, ceremonies, and sacrifices: by this meanes men fall from God vnto the diuell. Further, they which doo these things, doo sinne against themselues; for we neuer read that the end of these arts was good: whereof wretched Saule may be an example and instruction vnto vs. Sam. 28, 19. The diuell indéed feigneth himselfe to be compelled, and to be bound by little stones or rings: howbeit the same compulsion is onelie a voluntarie and deceitfull compulsion: he feig­neth, as though hée would cast out another spi­rit, but it is nothing. For the ill spirits doo but dallie one with another to deceiue men. None of vs would commit our dooings to a man, whom we knowe to be full of fraud and trecherie. Now the diuell is not onelie a lier, but euen the father of lies.

Exorcismes in y ^e church. Truth indéed it is, that there were certeine ex­orcismes or adiurations in the church, wherof Ire­naeus, Tertullian, Augustine, and Eusebius make mention: Looke part. 4, chap. 9, art. 7. but these were speciall gifts for that age, & dured but for a time: now they be taken a­waie. But thou wilt saie; The Hebrues had con­iurers, & Salomon wrote exorcismes. Salomons exorcismes. I knowe that Iosephus in his eight booke of antiquities writeth, that Salomon did so, to driue awaie ill spirits, and to maintaine the health of man. He describeth also the meanes whereby those things might be doone; namelie, that vnder the broad part of a ring, there was a little root, and that the same being applied to the nostrils of a man pos­sessed, the ill spirit was foorthwith expelled. But herewith he writeth, that Salomon vsed also cer­teine praiers and holie names; and that one E­leazar being a man skilfull in these things, made demonstration of his cunning before Vespasi­an, and his sonnes Titus and Domitian; and at the commandement of Vespasian wrought so, that a spirit at his comming foorth of a man, ouerthrew a basen full of water, which was there set for the purpose: and he saith, that he sawe all these things. In verie déed I dare not denie the historie, but yet I thinke good to answere one of these two waies: either that God would for a time bestowe such a benefit vpon the Israelites, (which notwithstanding we haue not read) or els that Salomon did these things when he was now departed from the true God, and had begun to worship the gods of the Gentils. That such exor­cists indéed were vntill the apostles time, it ap­péereth by that historie of the children of S [...]eua, Acts. 19, 13. which is written in the Acts.

Howbeit exorcismes must not be vsed, but on­lie by them which are sure, that they be indued with that grace. But yet there be certeine, which haue the name without the grace: these doo vse inuocations by names, merits, and reliks of saints. For this dooth the diuell séeke, euen to in­tangle the people with superstitions. The diuels seeme to be delighted with out­warde things. Indéed the diuels séeme as though they were delited with outward things, as herbs, little stones, and per­fumes: but they are not so delighted withall, as liuing creatures are with the desire of meate; but as it were with certeine seals & sacraments. Wherefore they come quicklie when they be cal­led, least they should not séeme to stand to their couenants. They will altogither imitate God: for little stones & rootes haue no power at all to allure diuels. Wherefore euen as God forgiueth not sinnes vnto vs by anie power of the sacra­ments, but onelie for his couenant and promise sake: so the diuell will séeme to deale with those that be his, to the intent he may shew himselfe to be present with them; not for the woorthines of the things offered by them, but onelie in re­spect of his promise and couenant. He mocketh simple men. And verie pi­tifullie dooth he mocke simple and foolish men; for they which boast that they haue spirits which doo loue them, when they are afterward called into iudgment, and condemned vnto death, can­not by them be deliuered from the extremitie of execution. Somtimes indéed they are readie to obeie them, that are their owne: but that is in foule and dishonest things; namelie, in adulte­ries, thefts, & murthers: they neuer stir them vp vnto good. For they be sathans, that is to saie, the aduersaries of God. They will haue coue­nants and promises to be made, which cannot otherwise be than against God.

31 But the Schoolmen stand in doubt, Whether we may vse inchant­ment to take awaie mischiefs. whether it be lawfull to vse inchantment to take awaie mischéefs; and in generall, they answere, that it is not lawfull. But yet they saie, that if we can perceiue that those couenants consist in fethers, or roots, or little stones; and we can find those things, it is lawfull to take them awaie & breake them: for otherwise they saie that one inchant­ment must not be taken awaie with another. For We must not doo euill, Rom. 3, 8. that good may come [Page 92] thereof. And whie it is not lawfull we haue de­clared before. Also Esaie in the eight chap. saith; that We must not aske questions of the dead, verse. 19. but must rather returne vnto the lawe and testi­monie. And Christ saith; Matt. 6, 24. that No man can serue two maisters. And Paule saith; There is no a­greement betweene light & darknes, 2. Cor. 6, 14. betweene God and Belial. Elias saith; that We must not seeke Belzebub the god of Acaron, 2. Kings. 1, 3. seeing there is a God in Israel. Besides this, the ciuill lawes, the canons and councels, haue with most seuere and sharpe words forbidden these things. And Apuleius, Apuleius denied him­selfe to be a sorcerer. when he was summoned to appeare, bicause he was reported to be a sorcerer, so pleaded his cause, as he vtterlie denied that he was a sorcerer: for otherwise he might not haue defended himselfe. Augustine in his booke De di­uinatione daemonum, the eight chapter saith, that The euill spirits neuer durst denie the God of Is­rael to be the true God, or Christ to be the sonne of God: but contrariwise Christ, the prophets and apostles denie them to be gods; and that we must by all meanes beware of them. Therefore (saith he) whether part shall we hearken vnto; to those which cannot denie God to be the true God, or rather to God which warneth vs to flie from them? Wherfore séeing both the holie scrip­tures, and godlie lawes, & also the euents them­selues doo vtterlie forbid and condemne all kind of inchantments; we must iudge that it is not lawfull for a christian man.

In 1. Sam. at the be­ginning. 32 Last of all we will note, that the true God is woont to chase awaie false gods. Wherfore im­mediatlie vpon the birth of Christ, all the oracles of the gods were put to silence, which before were of great fame and renowme. At the birth of Christ all heathen o­racles cea­sed. For when the light it selfe (which is Christ) was come into the world, darknes should néeds vanish awaie. And Plu­tarch, being otherwise a verie learned writer, in séeking a cause why the oracles ceased in his time, hauing deuised manie things; yet spea­keth nothing to the purpose. First he saith, that some thought that the Daemons or spirits, which gaue out oracles, were vndoubtedlie of long life; yet mortall notwithstanding: and that men reported (as he saith) that the great god Pan was dead. Wherefore he saith, that séeing the Dae­mons be now dead by reason of age, there are none to giue or vtter out oracles anie more. He addeth moreouer, that there were others, which thought, that those préests and diuines, by whom answeres were giuen, were inspired with cer­teine exhalations, which came foorth of the caues and pits; and that séeing those exhalations could not be perpetuall, they ceased at the last; and that prophesies finished togither with them. He addeth moreouer, that by others, these things were attributed to the situation of stars, which being passed from thence, had also drawne a­way these oracles with them. He sheweth also certeine other things like vnto these, but he yéel­deth no reason, whie all the oracles ceased at one verie time, and so ceased, as that no one of them remained.

If the exhalations be not perpetuall in one place, whie doo they not breake out in another place? And the situations of stars being passed away, euen the same doo vse to returne againe to their place: which if they doo returne, whie doo not the same oracles returne also? If so be that the Daemons, as they affirme, doo die at the length, whie doo not one succéed another? There is then another cause of this euent, which Plutarch could not perceiue; namelie, that all contrarie powers are bridled by Christ, and therefore they all cea­sed at his comming. And thus were Iupiter, Mac [...]. 5, 12. Apollo, Diana, and Aesculapius put to silence. Which thing the prophets foreshewed long be­fore; and which we sée also at this daie to come to passe in those countries, which imbrace the gospell; where not onlie idolatries, but also di­uinations & feigned miracles doo straight-waie cease.

AS touching the significa­tion of the word intent, Of a good intent. In Iud. 7, 27. Looke In Sam. 6, 6. and in the booke De votis set foorth at Basil. pag. 247. & 255. it signifieth a motion of the mind, whereby we inde­uour vnto an end by som meanes; as if a man in­deuour by liberall ex­pense or by flatterie to at­taine vnto some honors: for such is the nature of things, that manie of them are so knit togither betwéene themselues, that by one there is a step vnto an other. For by medicines and potions we come to health; by studies, reading, and maisters, vnto wisedome. Wherefore intent is an act of the will; for the propertie thereof is to mooue and stirre vp the mind. And séeing the will perceiueth not the thing that it desireth, be­fore it haue a knowledge therof; it dooth neither mooue nor force the mind before knowledge, which reigneth in the power of intelligence or vnderstanding. The same perceiueth both the end, and those things which further thervnto, and presenteth them to the will. Therfore, intent, stir­reth vp vnto an end, as vnto a marke, by those things which are directed vnto it. Let this be the definition thereof. A definiti­on of intent. It is a will tending vnto an end by some meanes; and will, which is the gene­rall [Page 93] word thereof, is an act of the power that wil­leth. The difference is taken of the obiect, that is, of the end, and of those things which are ordeined vnto it. Iudg. 8, 24. As in the historie of Iudges, Gedeons intent was a motion of his will, to kéepe in re­membrance, by an ephod which he had made, the victorie which he obtained. Therefore in his will he comprehended both togither, as well the end as the meane.

A good in­tent and an euill intent. Looke In Rom. 1, 21. and 3, 8. Intent is diuided, into a good intent, and an ill intent: and to a good intent this is chéeflie re­quired, that the end it selfe should be a iust and good thing: yet is not this sufficient. For if one should steale, to the intent he would giue almes, he doubtles should purpose a good thing: but bi­cause the meanes is naught, therefore the intent cannot be accounted good: but if the end be both vnlawfull and euill, then shall also the intent be euill. Wherefore that the intent may be good, it behooueth both the end and the meanes to be ho­nest and iust. Howbeit, certeine things are of their owne nature so euill, as we can neuer vse them rightlie. Such are theft, periurie, adulte­rie, and other like; so that the apostles rule must alwaies be firme; Rom. 3, 8. An ill in­tent is of two sorts. To a good intent is re­quired, that both the end and meanes be good. that We must neuer doo euill, to the intent that good may come thereof. Wher­fore an intent is euill two maner of waies; to wit, either by the naughtines of the end, or else of the meanes. But the intent can neuer be good, vnles both the end, and the means be good. Thus far the philosophers & schoole-diuines agrée with vs. Now let vs sée how they differ from vs.

2 The philosophers thinke, that the rightnes of the end and meanes, dependeth of mans rea­son, or naturall vnderstanding; as though that should suffice, to knowe the difference betwéene things iust and vniust. But this we denie, and in anie wise require faith, and the word of God, as sure rules: Augustine. which Augustine in manie places te­stifieth, and especiallie in his treatise vpon the 31. psalme, where he saith; Account not thy works good before faith, which (me thinketh) are nothing else, A simili­tude. but great strength and hastie spéed out of the waie: and he which maketh such haste, runneth headlong into destruction. Wherefore a good intent maketh a good action, but faith direc­teth that intent; so that when we purpose anie worke, we must take héed that our hart haue re­gard vnto faith, whereby it may direct his inde­uors. Faith rules the intent. The schoole-diuines will easilie grant, that faith gouerneth the intent, and maketh it good. But we differ from them in thrée respects; 1 first, bicause we affirme that faith dependeth on­lie of the word of God: Faith can­not be tied to the fa­thers and councels. but they will haue it de­pend both vpon the fathers and councels, which may in no wise be granted them; forsomuch as faith must be constant, & altogither void of error: which two things are not found in the fathers and councels, for they speake one contrarie vn­to another. Fathers doo verie oftentimes differ from fathers, and councels from councels. And few are the fathers, yea almost none, which haue not sometimes erred, and that in most weightie matters. And verie manie of the coun­cels haue néed of correction. Dooth not the holie scripture in expresse words testifie, Rom. 3▪ 4. that All men are liers. 2 The second thing, wherein we cannot assent vnto the Schoolemen is, bicause they af­firme, that by a good intent our works are made meritorious, yea and that of eternall life. Our works by a good intent can­not be me­ritorious. But how contrarie this is vnto truth, the nature of merit may teach; of the which I mind not at this present to intreate. 3 Thirdlie, we disagrée from the Schoolemen, in that they affirme, that the worke is made good (as they speake) by an habi­tuall good intent; that is to saie, The worke cannot be made good by an habi­tuall inten­tion. doone without anie good motion of the hart. They feigne that our actions, such as be praiers, reading of psalmes, and giuing of almes, doo please God, although indéed we thinke nothing vpon God at all: and they suppose that this habituall intent, which they place in him, is sufficient enough. So that if thou shalt aske of him that worketh, why he dooth so, he may be readie to answere, that he dooth them to the glorie of God: especiallie, when in the dooing, he hath not a contrarie mind, or will repugnant. But this doubtles we may not grant them, séeing that in this carelesnes, wher­by we in working thinke not of God, nor of his glorie, the commandement of God is broken, Deut. 6, 5. Matt. 22, 37. which commandeth vs to loue God with all our hart, with all our mind, & with all our strength. Wherefore we counsell rather, that this bée ac­knowledged a sinne, than to be accounted a good worke.

3 But bicause they perceiued, that their sai­engs are not without absurditie, they added; So that in the beginning of the worke it selfe, there be some thinking of God, and of his glorie, in such sort, that the thing purposed be directed vnto him. But no man doubteth, that it is néedfull to haue a good beginning of those things, which we doo. But afterward, if faith accompanie not those things, which we haue well begun; and we, while we are working, doo not respect God and his glo­rie, we shall run headlong into sinne; which ought not to haue béene dissembled. Further, if we should worke, as we ought to doo, and as the lawe requireth, yet should We still (as Christ saith) be vnprofitable seruants: so far off is it, Luk. 17, 1 [...]. that we should attribute vnto our selues anie merits. Wherefore, while we giue ouer to thinke vpon the honour and glorie of God, we fall, nei­ther are such fals to be dissembled; but we must rather craue pardon for them, séeing in their owne nature they be sinnes, although bicause of Christ they are not imputed as deadlie vnto the beléeuers. And so let a good intent be ioined vnto [Page 94] our works, A good in­tent must be ioined with faith and action. Matth. 6, 22. but yet such as is adorned with faith, and let vs performe the same, not in habit, but in act.

Wherefore the Lord in the gospell of Matthew the sixt chapter, saith; The light of thy bodie is thine eie, and if thine eie be single, all thy bodie shall be light: but if the light that is in thee be­come darkenes, how great shall the darkenes then be? These things doth Augustine in his se­cond booke of questions vpon the gospels, quest. 15. and against Iulian in the fourth booke, the 20. chapter, iudge to be vnderstood of a good in­tent. And in like manner writeth he in his tenth Tome, the second sermon, where hée treateth vpon this place; Matth. 6. Let vs not doo righteousnes be­fore men, to the intent we may be seene of them. The intent (saith he) must alwaies be had vnto the glorie of God, but the desire to haue it knowne vnto men, must be laid apart, sauing so far as it may appéere to appertaine to Gods ho­nor. And thither tendeth that which was said of Christ; Matth. 7, 18. that A good tree cannot bring foorth euill fruit, nor an euill tree good fruit, for the trée be­tokeneth the intent. So as those things being true, which we haue said, the act of Gedeon done of a good intent, séeing faith did not gouerne the same, can not be excused.

Of zeale In Rom. 10, verse 3. What zeale doth signifie 4 But now, to declare what is zeale, let vs first consider the etymologie therof. The word [...] that is, zeale, is a Gréeke word, deriued [...], which signifieth To loue, but yet vehemēt­lie, so that after loue, followeth admiration; & af­ter admiration, imitation, and a gréefe; if wée may not enioie the thing we loue, or else if others be admitted into our companie: and this is the proper signification of the word. Wherefore we may thus define it, A definiti­on of zeale. Zeale is an affection, which a­bideth in that part of the mind, which lusteth or de­sireth, after which, by reason of the vehemencie, there followeth sorrowe, as well bicause of the concurrence of other things, as for want of the thing that it desireth. But the nature of zeale is not of one sort. A good zeale, and an euill zeale. Looke In 2. Sa. 12, 1. 2. Cor. 11, 2. 1. Cor. 14, 1. For there is one zeale that is good, and another that is bad. Of the good Paule spake, when he said; I am zealous ouer you with a godly zealousie, for I haue betrothed you to one man, to present you a chast virgin to Christ. And in the first to the Corinths; Desire you then the best gifts. Yea, and God himselfe, as the scripture of­ten teacheth, hath a most perfect zeale towards vs, although affections cannot properlie be at­tributed vnto him. But of naughtie zeale, Paule vnto the Galathians thus speaketh; Gal. 4, 17. The false a­postles are zealous ouer them, that they may glorie in their flesh, and to leade them from Christ vnto the bondage of the lawe: and in ma­nie other places there is mention made of it.

But the cause why this zeale either good or bad doth come, may thus be assigned: the manner is alike in this affection, as it is in others. The cause of a good and of an euill zeale. Where­fore, euen as boldnes, lust, and anger be either good or bad, according as they kéepe or excéed the bounds prescribed by wisedome, so doth it come to passe in zeale. But it must be vnderstood, that according to morall doctrine, prudence com­meth by naturall vse or discipline. But the same in verie déed, as it hath respect in this place, can not be gathered but out of the holie scriptures, through the inspiration of the holy Ghost. Wher­fore it shall then be good zeale, when through faith it is brideled by a iust and godlie knowledge; and it is euill, if it be not restrained by such a knowledge: euen as a ship, A simili­tude. when the maister is present, is preserued; but he being absent, it sin­keth. Therfore Paule vnto the Romans spake ve­rie wiselie, Rom. 10, 2. for when as he condemned the zeale of the Iewes, he declared the same to be void of knowledge, and by one word noted that to be a vice, yea verelie and a dangerous vice, which o­therwise might haue bin an excellent vertue.

And as there is a great difference betwéene good and euill zeale, The effects of a good and of an euill zeale. Iohn. 2, 17. so the effects which procéed from the one and the other, are of excéeding great diuersitie. With a good zeale was Christ kindled, when he purged the temple of biers and sellers, by ouerthrowing their tables and chaires. With the same zeale Phinees being led, he thrust them both through the bodies, Num. 25, 7. which committed most shamefull whoredome. On the other part, what effects procéed of a naughtie zeale, we may perceiue by Paule, Philip. 3, 6. who for zeales sake persecuted the church of Christ. And in Iohn it is written; Iohn. 16, 2. The time will come, when they shall thinke they doo God good seruice, which afflict the faithfull people of Christ. Also, Peter kindled with an im­moderate zeale, Iohn. 18, 10 drue out his sword to strike those which laid hands vpon Christ. There is yet ano­ther difference betwéene the zeales, for euill zeale bréedeth hatred; but good zeale doth most of all ioine with charitie. For although Samuel woor­shipped God with verie great zeale, 1. Sam. 16, 1. yet he moor­ned too long a time for Saule. And there is no­thing more an enimie vnto naughtie zeale, than is charitie; euen as selfe-loue is chiefelie repug­nant vnto a good zeale. They also are contrari­wise affected, which either be so blockish, as they bée not stirred vp with anie indeuour of good things, or else so corrupt, as they feare not to boast of their sinnes and wickednes.

5 Wherefore the Nicodemits of our time are to be woondred at, In Rom. 10, verse 1. The Nico­demits of our time. The fact of Naaman the Syrian verie ill ci­ted. which obiect the historie of Elizeus and of Naaman the Syrian, to prooue that it is lawfull for them, so that they thinke well in their heart, to be present at vngodlie su­perstitions. For Naaman the Syrian, although he were newly conuerted, yet he vnderstood that to be sinne: and for that he had not as yet profi­ted so well as to depart from his commodities, [Page 95] he desired of the prophet that he would praie for him: 4. King. 5, 18 which declareth that he iudged such a sinne to haue néed of pardon. Wherefore we conclude, that that zeale of the Iewes, whereof the apostle giueth a testimonie, was in verie déed sin. And although it haue a shew of vertue, yet is it far from it. For as it is plaine by morall philoso­phie, Vices and vertues are occupied a­bout one & the same matter. that vertues & vices are one and the same, as touching the things whereabout they be oc­cupied, but in forme doo much differ: as fortitude and feare, temperance and intemperance, iu­stice and iniustice. For one and the selfe-same affects, when they are by right reason bridled to a mediocritie, and when through vice they either want or excéed, differ not in matter, although the habits or qualities which are occupied about them, are much differing. And that which the philosophers speake of vertues, and of vpright reason, we ought also to transfer vnto the holie Ghost, and faith giuen vnto the scriptures.

And although in a good and euill zeale the af­fect be one & the same; yet is the difference most great, when it is gouerned by true knowledge and faith, and when it is gouerned of it selfe, and wanteth true knowledge. A simili­tude. As the water of the sea, and raine water, although they agrée togi­ther in matter of moisture; yet are they sundred by very manie properties and differences. These things haue I therefore alleadged, A good in­tent is not sufficient to make the word good. to confute those, which oftentimes defend wicked acts; for that they are doone of a good mind and purpose, or (as they saie) intent: as though euerie zeale were sufficient to make the worke good. Whose opinion (if it were true) might easilie excuse the Iewes, in that they killed Christ, & afflicted his apostles. For they beléeued, that by these meanes they defended the lawes of God, and ceremonies of their fathers. But the apostle saith otherwise, when he attributeth vnto them a zeale, but yet a zeale ioined with error.

But when error lighteth in matters of faith, it is deadlie sinne. Errors in matters of faith is deadly sin. Wherefore let them well ad­uise themselues what to saie, which so stoutlie de­fend works preparatorie. Doubtlesse their mea­ning is nothing else, but that men, although be­fore iustification they absolutely worke not good works; yet by reason of a certeine vpright pur­pose and zeale of congruitie, they deserue grace. Such works, forsomuch as they want true knowledge, which is faith, it followeth, that they be such a zeale as the apostle speaketh of. We denie not, but that God sometimes vseth such our wicked works, to bring vs at length by them to iustification: but that we our selues through them doo deserue iustification, it is far from the truth. Goodlie works are somtimes a let vnto saluation. Naie rather, it oftentimes com­meth to passe, that such works are a great let to saluation. For the philosophers and Phariseis being dronken and glutted with those goodlie works, were ouermuch puffed vp; and for that they were maruelouslie delited in themselues, they setled themselues in those works; neither indeuored they to ascend vnto the true degrées of righteousnes. Wherfore we are admonished by the doctrine of Paule, that we should not straitwaie giue place vnto zeale. We must not streight waie giue place vnto zeale. We must first trie and diligentlie examine it: for oftentimes vnder the goodlie shew thereof, lieth hidden verie great impietie; as it is manifest in the Iewes, which slue Christ, and persecuted the apostles.

6 The Apostle giueth a rule, A rule to trie zeale. whereby we may be able to trie and examine our zeale, and that rule is this; to sée whether we will be subiect vnto God, whether we can abide that all things should be attributed vnto God, and claime nothing vn­to our selues, as the true knowledge of God re­quireth. There be a great manie in our daies, which as it were by a certaine zeale, labour to de­fend woorshipping of images, pilgrimages, and other such superstitious acts; vnto whome, if a man manifestlie declare, that those things are repugnant to the word of God, they will not be subiect vnto it, but straitwaie flie to the custome of their elders, and to the helps of humane tradi­tions. There be some also, which are mooued with a zeale to defend sole life of the ministers of the church: vnto whom if a man doo shew, that the bed of matrimonie ought to be vndefiled in all men, Hebr. 13, 4, 1. Cor. 7. as it is said vnto the Hebrues (and it is written to the Corinthians; It is better to marrie than to burne; They which cannot liue conti­nent, let them marrie; Let euerie man haue his owne wife, and euerie wife hir owne husband, to auoid fornication) they will not be subiect to this knowledge of the lawes of God, but doo bring foorth the fathers, councels, and humane inuentions. Whereby is plaine, what we are to iudge of this zeale of theirs. Doubtlesse, it is a verie euill zeale, and onlie leaneth vnto selfeloue, and giueth it selfe vnto his owne things, and no­thing regardeth the things that pertaine vnto God. Such are the Monks, which preferre their institutions, rules, and works before all other things which are commonlie doone of christians, and much delight in contemning all others, in respect of themselues.

With this blind zeale are the miserable peo­ple euerie-where infected, whom the pastors and preachers ought to succour and helpe, in discoue­ring their want of knowledge, & setting before them the true knowledge of the scriptures, and that of a singular affection, & true christian mer­cie, wherewith they ought throughlie to be tou­ched in so great dissipation of churches, which of no man can be sufficientlie lamented. It were néedfull to haue Ieremie to bewaile the calami­ties of the church. And from this mercie we [Page 96] should go forward vnto praiers, We must e­uen of mer­cie be moo­ued to fall to praiers. Rom. 10, 2. Luk. 23, 34. An example of Christ. as Paule saith he did: and in imploring the aid of God, we ought to record before GOD, that which Paule hath written; They haue zeale, but not according to knowledge. The verie which thing our Saui­our did vpon the crosse, when he praied; Fa­ther forgiue them, for they knowe not what they doo. Further, séeing we delight in the good mo­rall works of men not yet regenerate, and are sorie that they are not doone as they ought to be doon, we may thus gather: If these men displease God, and are condemned, which yet of a good in­tent (as they speake) doo these so honest things, when yet notwithstanding they be void of true knowledge; what shall at the length become of vs, which being indued with knowledge, liue shamefullie; yea euen against our owne consci­ence? They can pretend a zeale, but we wretches, what excuse shall we make, séeing we professe the gospell?

The Iewes had not the zeale of God. Howbeit this must not be ouerpassed, that the Iewes, of whom the apostle speaketh, had not, if we shall speake properlie, the zeale of God. For there hath not béene at anie time, nor euer shall be, anie true God, which will haue the lawe of Moses to be defended against Christ and his gos­pell. Wherefore they abused the name of God, when as they defended not him, but rather their owne opinions. The Turks worship not the true God, and why? As the Turks also, although they boast that they worship and call vpon the true God; yet they lie. For there is no where such a God, which hath not one Lord Iesus Christ, and the holie Ghost, of one and the same sub­stance with him: which, forsomuch as they take awaie from the God, whom they worship, they worship their owne inuention for God, and doo fight, and are zealous for it, and not for the true God. The scrip­tures often­times name things, not as they are, but as they seeme to be. But Paule spake according to the accusto­med maner of the scriptures, which oftentimes name things, not as they are, but as they séeme to be. Séeing therefore that those thought that they were mooued with the zeale of the true God, and that they did not for anie other cause enter into these zeales, but for that they thought them to be acceptable vnto God; therfore Paule saith, that they had the zeale of GOD, when yet they were deceiued. For if they had béene kindeled with the zeale of the true God, they would neuer haue resisted Christ. Wherfore in Iohn the Lord said excellentlie well vnto those, which boasted that they would beléeue Moses, and not him; If ye beleeued Moses, Iohn. 5, 46. ye would beleeue me also, for he wrote of me. Wherefore Chrysostome hath wiselie noted, that Paule gratified the Iewes, but yet in words onelie.

Of Prescription and Custome.

7 We gather out of the historie of the Iud­ges, that the right of prescription is no new thing, In Iud 11, verse. 12. but hath béene planted in the harts of men by GOD himselfe: and for what cause it was found out, I will declare in few words. Why the law of pre­scription was broght in. It may be, that a man vnwittinglie possesseth the goods of another man: as for example. There is an heire, which succéedeth him that is dead, & among his goods hée findeth some things, that were wrongfullie held of him, or kept in pawne, while he liued; which he not knowing of, possesseth all those things with a safe conscience: and thus ig­norantlie & vnwittinglie he holdeth other mens goods in stead of his owne. What then? Shall the heire neuer séeke the iust possession thereof? If the right owner neuer make claime to his own, ought the ignorant to defraud the heire for euer, that he should neuer possesse it againe as his owne? Doubtles, if the owner doo neuer de­mand againe that thing, it must be ascribed to his owne slouth, sluggishnes, and negligence. Wherefore in detestation of such slouthfulnes, in the fauour of good dealing, and lastlie for publike quietnes sake, the lawe of prescription hath béen deuised. This lawe did Iephtha vse against the Ammonites; Iudg. 11, 12. We haue possessed this land (saith he) three hundred yeeres; wherefore doost thou then disquiet and trouble vs? Vnles there should be some certeine time prescribed, within which space, and not beyond, things may be claimed againe, the titles of all things would be vncer­teine: which is excéedinglie repugnant to the affaires of men; wherefore this inconuenience is preuented by the right of prescription. A definiti­on of pre­scription. And it is defined in the digests, De vsu capionibus, lawe the third; that it is a claime of dominion, through the continuance of possession, during the time appointed by the lawe. The definition is plaine and manifest. But at this daie they make a diffe­rence betwéene prescription, and that which they call Vsucapio; when as neuertheles in the digests, among the old lawiers, there was put no diffe­rence. These (so far as I remember) began first to be separated in the time of Antoninus Pius: The diffe­rence be­tweene pre­scription & Vsucapio. so as Vsucapio takes place in things mooueable, and prescription in things immooueable. But thus much by the waie.

But in the historie of the Iudges it is to be noted, that Iephtha did wiselie place his argu­ments: for he vsed not prescription in the first place, but before all things he obiected the lawe of armes; afterward the gift of the true God: and the cause being thus confirmed, at the last he vsed the right of prescription, bicause a conti­nued possession dooth not by it selfe and alone pre­scribe, but it hath néed of a good title, What is re­quired vnto the lawe of prescriptiō. and of a good conscience. A good title is, that the thing be or­derlie and lawfullie come by. For he that hath gotten anie thing by theft or robberie, although he haue long enioied the same; yet he may not [Page 97] claime it by prescription: but if the title be good, the dealing plaine, and a continuance of time had withall, the prescription is firme and good. If we haue gotten anie thing, either by bar­gaine, or by frée gift, or by inheritance, or by o­ther like meanes, the title is good. But besides, there must be good dealing, whereby we may te­stifie in our consciences, that no mans right is iniured, and that we knowe there is nothing that by iust meanes should let vs. Wherefore Iephtha had a good title, to wit, the law of armes, and the gift of God. He possessed it also by good dealing, for he was not guiltie either of fraud or of robberie, and therefore he verie well vsed the lawe of prescription.

But the time of prescription in things mooue­able, is by our ciuill lawes, The time required for prescrip­tion. the space of thrée yeares; but in things vnmooueable, ten or twen­tie yeares, if ignorance be not the cause thereof. For if the owner shall know the thing to be his, which another man possesseth, and yet so long holdeth his peace, he can not afterward demand it againe, and the lawe séemeth iustlie to punish such negligence. But if the owner shall not knowe of his interest, the time is deferred, namelie to thirtie or fortie yeares; and this is done, when there is no ignorance in the case, and that one possesseth for himselfe, and not for ano­ther, otherwise it is no prescription. Howbeit, this we must consider by the waie, that the eccle­siasticall rules touching prescription, doo differ from the ciuill lawes. For they (as we haue said) appoint thirtie yeares, although the possessor haue not dealt well; for they decrée, that fraud shall be no let vnto prescription. But as wée reade in the sixt De regulis iuris, in the chapter Possessor; A possessor which holdeth by ill dea­ling, prescribeth not by length of time. For wée must haue respect to the word of God, and consi­der with what conscience a man possesseth anie thing.

8 Now I thinke it fit to speake somwhat of cu­stome, yet bréeflie, bicause the same hath some af­finitie with prescription. And bicause our aduer­saries make much adoo about that, and would vt­terlie oppresse vs with customs, the same ought to be agréeable vnto reason, and be lawfullie pre­scribed, as we haue it in the Extrauagants De consuet. the last chapter. The ciuill lawes assigne vnto custome the space of ten or twentie yeares, and the canons thirtie or fortie yeares: but most firme is that custome, The most firme cu­stome for prescrip­tion. No custome can pre­scribe a­gainst the law of God. whose beginning is time out of mind. And it ought to be taken for a sure rule, that whatsoeuer is repugnant to the word of God, doth by no meanes prescribe. And therefore, whereas the Papists doo pleade, that the Communion hath bin giuen to the laitie vn­der one kind, by the space of four hundred or fiue hundred yeares, séeing that is manifestlie a­gainst the word of God, they cannot prooue that it is prescribed by custome: for such a thing is not as (I may saie) prescriptible. For the verie which cause, they cannot alledge a custome prescribed, as touching the sole life of ministers. For euen at the first it was enforced by violence, and it is against the word of God. Hostiensis. And yet Hostiensis saith, that The power of custome is so great, as it constreineth priests to sole life: In the distinct. 23. in the chapter Placuit. Howbeit, as the ciuill lawes decrée, A naughtie custome that conten­deth with [...], or common right. Matth. 15, 3. That custome which contendeth ei­ther with nature or publike right, is a naughtie custome. But that which I haue affirmed, hath foundation in the word of God. For when Christ said to the Pharisies; Yee hypocrites, why doo ye breake the commandements of God for your traditions sake? for God saith, Honor thy father and thy mother: but yee saie; Whoso shall saie to his father or mother; By the gift that is offered by me, &c. They might haue prescribed vnto him custome, but that was not lawfull in a thing quite contrarie to the word of God.

9 There was a custome in the region of Tau­rus, to kill such as were strangers and ghests. Among the Persians, the custome was neuer to deliberate vpon graue and weightie matters in counsell, but in feasts and dronkennes. The Sau­romates had a custome among their cups, that while they were drinking, they sold their daugh­ters. These prescribe not, séeing it appeareth ma­nifestlie, that they are naught and vicious: but that custome prescribeth, which is neither a­gainst the word of God, nor the lawe of nature, nor yet the common lawe. For the right of cu­stome commeth of the approbation, and still con­sent of the people. For otherwise, why are wée bound vnto lawes, but because they were made, the people consenting and allowing of them? And this is onlie the difference betwéene cu­stome and lawe, What is the difference betweene custome and lawe. that there is a secret consent in the one, and an open consent in the other: where­fore such customs cannot be reuoked without danger. Aristotle in his Politiks admonished, Aristotle. that Men which haue learned to doo things with the left hand, should not be constreined to vse the right; so that in things indifferent, and of no great importance, custom must be reteined still.

There is an old prouerbe, [...], that is, Lawe and countrie. For euerie countrie hath certaine customs of his owne, which cannot easi­lie be changed: but yet (as I said) when they im­pugne the word of God, or nature, or common lawe, they doo not prescribe, for then they be not customes, but beastlie cruelties. It is well set foorth in the digests, De legibus & senatus consul­tis, In the lawe De quibus: Custome without reason is of no force. And in the decrées, distinct, the eight, in the chapter Veritate, Augustine. Augustine saith; When truth is tried out, let custome giue [Page 98] place: let no man be so bold as to prefer cu­stome before reason and truth. And in the next canon Christ said; I am the waie, the truth, and the life: Cyprian. he said not, I am custome. Cyprian in his epistle against the Aquarians saith; Let all custome, though neuer so ancient, giue place vn­to truth. For otherwise Peter, when he was reprehended by Paule in the epistle to the Gala­thians, Gala. 2, 14. might haue pleaded custom; but he rather assented, that custome should giue place vnto the truth. Cyprian in the same epistle against the Aquarians saith, that Custome without truth is but oldnes of error; and the more it is reteined, the more gréeuous it is. Wherfore let the Pa­pists cease to brag of their customes, which be full both of error and vngodlines.

What deth establish custome. 10 Moreouer, for establishing of a custome, it is not sufficient that some thing be done of som men, or that it be often doone; vnles it be so doone, that it be receiued into a vse and an ordinance to be obserued. For there be manie things doone either vnaduisedlie, or of necessitie; and yet we would not haue them to be drawne into a cu­stome. In the digests De itinere & actu priuato, lawes the first and last: Admit I go through the field once, twise, or thrise; bicause the high waie perhaps is foule: in that I sometimes passe too and fro through thy grounds, doo I therefore get a right of lordship or seruice therein? No vere­lie: neither was it my purpose to passe through thy field to anie such end, but I was compelled thereto of necessitie. In the decrées, distinction the first, in the chapter Consuetudo, custome is said to be a certeine right instituted by manners; What is cu­stome. which is taken for a lawe, where lawe it selfe fai­leth. It is requisite, that this should be a lawe, and made for manners: especiallie in the first times of the church, when tyrants persecuted chri­stian religion; & that godlie men, through feare, were driuen from house to house, & constrained to assemble togither in houses and secret places by night. Secret mee­tings. But if we would now in these daies worship God after that maner, the church being setled; both we should séeme verie ridiculous and intollerable. For they did not so, to the intent they might drawe it vnto a custome, or that it should be an ordinance for others to followe.

Ambrose, when he was a nouice yet in the faith, was chosen bishop of Milan; so was Ne­ctarius of Constantinople; Ambrose being Ca­techrime­nus was chosen bi­shop. [...]o was Nectarius. and perhaps other: yet is it not lawfull for vs now to followe the same custome, and to choose a bishop, who neither hath béene conuersant in the holie mysteries, nor yet hath béene baptised; howbeit they did so: they did it in déed, but yet compelled of necessitie, bi­cause they had not other men both of learning and credit, An answer vnto the ex­ample of Eusebius. whom they might oppose against the Arrians. So is that easilie confuted, which they are woont to bring out of the historie of Eusebius, for communicating vnder one kind: namelie, that Serapion sent his boie, and bad him moist the bread in wine. Indéed I might expound that place otherwise; but it shall suffice for this time to saie, that it was not so doone then, to the intent a custome should be drawne thereof for others to followe. Wherefore custome is not made by ex­amples, but by the assent, approbation, Custome is not made by exam­ples, but by approba­tion of the people. and ordi­nance of the people: otherwise there are in manie places droonkennes, and riots by night; but sée­ing these things are not allowed of the people, as ordinances to be kept, they haue not the force of custome.

11 And that the matter may the better be vnderstood, I will bring a definition of custome, Another definition of custome. Hostiensis. which I found in Hostiensis, in the title De consu­etudine; It is an vse (saith he) agréeable to rea­son, and allowed by a generall ordinance of them that vse it, whose beginning is time out of mind; or else, which is by a iust time prescribed and con­firmed, so that it be by no contrarie act inter­rupted, but allowed by a That is, when one part alled­geth cust­stome, and the other denieth it, if sentence be giuen on the behalfe of custome, the same custome is confirmed. contradictorie iudge­ment. And this dooth Hostiensis thinke to be a perfect definition. But whereas he saith, that that vse ought to be agréeing with reason; that is not inough: but this ought first to be prefer­red, that it must be agréeable to the word of God. For that is to be accounted for the chéefest rea­son; and afterward let it be allowed by the insti­tution of the people: for it is not sufficient, if something be doone either rashly, or of necessitie, or for some other cause; but it must also be allo­wed by the assent and institution of the people, and that the beginning thereof be time out of mind, and that it be prescribed by a iust and de­terminate time in the lawe, being not interrup­ted by anie contrarie act.

Note. For if a iudge or prince shall giue iudgment against custome, then custome is broken. As it also commeth to passe in prescription, when a man is cast out of his possession, or when a mat­ter is called into sute of lawe, & the issue ioined, prescription is broken. Also the allowing of con­tradictorie iudgement must be had, (that is, that when one part alledgeth the custome, and the o­ther part denieth it) if sentence be giuen on the behalfe of custome, custome is confirmed. But all these things (as I said before) must be redu­ced to the rule of Gods word. Onlie this séemeth now méet to be added, which is in the Extraua­gants De consuetudine, A custome burdensom vnto the church must be reiected. chapter 1. that A custome cannot be suffered, if it be burdensome vnto the church. Also Augustine complained that in his time, there were such a number of new rites and ceremonies sprong vp, that the church was grée­uouslie burdened, and that the state of christians at that time was nothing at all more tollerable, than in old time the state of the Iewes. The same exception doo we also take against our ad­uersaries, [Page 99] that the church should not be ouerbur­dened. This is their owne lawe; why doo they not acknowledge their owne words?

In Rom. 3, verse. 21. Rom. 1, 2. 12 Paule disputing in the third chapter of the epistle to the Romanes of the righteousnes of faith, added, that the same hath testimonie both of the lawe and of the prophets: which he there­fore saith, bicause that the doctrine, which he set foorth, might séeme to be new and latelie sproong vp. Newnes must be re­mooued from the Gospell. But in the Gospell, newnes must speciallie be shunned, and therefore he testifieth in euerie place, that the Gospell is ancient, and was ordei­ned of God from the beginning. And at the be­ginning of the epistle, he wrote, that God pro­mised the same by his prophets in the holie scrip­tures. And at this daie, the controuersie betwéen vs & our aduersaries is, as touching doctrine; while they affirme, that we bring in new things, and that themselues doo cleaue fast to the anci­ent doctrine. But we learne of the Apostle, how this cōtrouersie may be determined. What doc­trine is old, and what is new. Assured­lie, that doctrine is old and ancient, which hath testimonie from the lawe and the prophets, that is, of the holie scriptures: but that shall be iud­ged new, whereof there is no mention in them. They erect the Masse, The popish is new, for that it hath no testimo­nie of the scriptures. where onlie one man doth communicate for others that doo stand by. This hath no testimonie in all the whole scriptures.

We affirme, that the supper of the Lord ought to be common vnto the faithfull; which is most manifestlie shewed by the institution thereof, as we haue it in the Gospels, and in Paule. These men deliuer vnto the laitie the sacra­ment of Christes bodie, Matt. 24, 26. 1. Cor. 11, verse. 24. halfe maimed and vn­perfect. This doubtles, they not onlie haue not out of the holie scriptures, but plainelie against the scriptures. They mainteine inuocations of the dead, which they are not able to confirme by the scriptures; They driue the cleargie from matrimonie; They defend purgatorie; They reteine images; They vse strange toongs in the diuine seruice, choise of meates and gar­ments, shauings, annointings, and an infinite number of such like things they obtrude vpon vs, as necessarie to the woorship of God, and that altogither without testimonie of the scrip­tures. Let them learne out of Paule, which min­ding to teach the righteousnes that commeth by Christ, saith, that It hath testimonie of the law and the prophets, and not that it was deuised by himselfe. But the doctrine of these men aduan­ceth impietie: for they bring in the inuentions of men, in stead of necessarie woorshipping of God; which hauing no testimonie out of the scriptures, The reason why new­nes in reli­gion must be auoided. Deut. 12, 32. must of necessitie be new.

And the reason why it behoueth in religion to beware of newnes, is; for that God comman­deth in Deuteronomie, that none should either adde too, or take awaie anie thing from his cu­stomes and commandements. Yea and Plato himselfe in his lawes and common-weale for­bad, that nothing should be made new in things which belonged vnto religion. No doubt, Mens laws may bee changed. but the lawes of men may be altered, bicause the fourme of a common-weale is sometimes al­tered. Neither doo those lawes which serue for a kingdome, serue also for the gouernement of a Signiorie & a Common-weale of the vulgar people. Moreouer, séeing lawe-makers are but men, they cannot perceiue all things that should be done. And manie chances doo happen euer a­mong, for the which it behooueth both to amend and change lawes. And as in arts, something hapneth in euerie age for the more perfecting of them: so lawes likewise now and then, by suc­cesse of times are amended, and reduced to a better fourme. But none of these things takes place in the lawes of God. For as touching the Church, she altereth not hir fourme. The out­ward go­uernment of the church altereth not the fourme. It is al­waies one manner of common-weale, and no­thing is hidden from the vnderstanding of God the author of the lawes; he foreséeth all things, neither is his knowledge augmented by the successe of time. Wherefore there is no cause why men should attempt to alter anie thing in his word.

VVhether the holie Ghost be God.

In 1. Cor. 12. 6 Now it shall not be from the purpose, to confirme by manie reasons, that the holy Ghost is God. The word spirit diuer­slie taken. This word spirit, sometime signifieth a certeine motion, or a nature mooueable; some­times it is taken for life, or mind, or the force of the mind, whereby we are mooued to doo anie thing; it is also transfferred to the signifieng of things, Why our soules, and angels, and God are called spi­rits. which be seperate from matter, as be the angels, which the philosophers call Intelligen­cies: yea, and it is so far drawne, as it represen­teth our soules. Which metaphor séemeth to haue respect therevnto, bicause we somtimes signifie by this name, the thin exhalations, which breath either from the earth, from the water, from the bloud, or from the humors of liuing creatures: which exhalations, although they be not easilie perceiued by the sense, yet are they effectuall, and of excéeding great force; as it appéereth by winds, earthquakes, and such like things. And so it commeth to passe hereby, that the name of these most subtill bodies, whose force is excéeding great, hath béene translated to the expressing of substances without bodies. Wherefore it is ta­ken for a word generall, Spirit is a generall word. both vnto God, vnto an­gels, and vnto our soules. And that it is attribu­ted vnto God, Christ sheweth, when he saith; God is a spirit, Iohn. 4, 24. and therevpon concludeth, that he must be worshipped in spirit and truth. When it is so taken, this name comprehendeth vnder it, the Father, the Sonne, and the holie Ghost. But somtime it is taken particularlie; That the holie Ghost is a person distinct frō the Father and the Sonne. for the third person of the Trinitie, which is distinct from the Father and the Sonne. And of this person we speake at this time, wherein two things must be shewed: first, that he is a person distinct as well from the Father as the Sonne: secondlie, we will shew that the holie Ghost is by this meane described to be God.

The first reason. Matt. 28, 19. 7 As touching the first, the apostles are com­manded in the Gospell, that they should baptise in the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holie Ghost. Which place dooth most plainlie expresse the distinction of the thrée persons, and dooth signifie nothing else, but that we be deliue­red from our sinnes, by the name, power, and au­thoritie of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holie Ghost. And in the baptisme of Christ, as Luke rehearseth, The second reason. Matt. 3, 16. Luke. 3, 21. the voice of the Father was heard, which said; This is my beloued sonne, &c. Further, the holie Ghost appéered vnder the forme of a dooue. Here, as thou séest, the sonne is baptised, the father speaketh, and the holie Ghost sheweth himselfe in forme of a dooue. In Iohn it is said; Iohn. 14, 16. The third reason. I will aske my Father, and he shall giue you another Comforter. Here also the Sonne praieth, the Father heareth, and the Comforter is sent. And againe; He shall receiue of mine: The fourth reason. Iohn. 16, 14. whereby is signified, that the holie Ghost dooth so differ from the Father and the Sonne, as he is deriued from both.

And least that anie man should thinke, that when Christ promised that the holie Ghost shuld come vpon the beléeuers (as in the daie of Pen­tecost it came to passe) onlie a diuine inspiration and motion of the mind was signified, the words of Christ are against it, wherein he said; The fift reason. Iohn. 14, 26. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, which I haue told you. But in­spiration and motion of the mind, doo not teach nor prompt anie thing; but are onelie instru­ments, whereby something is taught and prom­pted. And the action of teaching and prompting, cannot be attributed but vnto one that is a per­son indéed. Which is prooued by other words of Christ, when he said of the holie Ghost; The sixt reason. Iohn. 16, 13 He shall speake whatsoeuer he shall heare. And that this third person procéedeth from the Father and the Sonne, it is euident enough in the same Gospell of Iohn, where it is written; Iohn. 15, 26 The 7. reason. When the Comfor­ter shall come, whom I will send vnto you: euen the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father. Séeing the sonne saith, that he will send the Spirit, and (as we said before) affirmeth him to receiue of his; no man doubteth, but that hée procéedeth from the sonne. And he now expresse­lie addeth; Who proceedeth from the Father.

8 Now haue we first declared out of the holie scriptures, Whether the holie Ghost be God. that the person of the holie Ghost is distinguished, as well from the Father as the Sonne; and that he procéedeth from them both. Now must we sée, whether he be God. This dooth Paule shew two maner of waies: first, when it is said; There be diuersitie of gifts, but one Spirit; The first reason. 1. Cor. 12, 4. diuersitie of operations, but one and the same God. But to giue gifts and spirituall faculties, is no whit lesse, than to distribute operations: wherefore, séeing the holie Ghost is said to distri­bute gifts, & God to impart actions vnto men, it is manifest that the holie Ghost is God. If the spirit be the author of graces, & the Father of o­perations; it is méet that the holie Ghost should be equall to God the Father. Further it is ad­ded; that The same spirit dooth worke all these things, The second reason. 1. Co. 12, 11 distributing to euerie one euen as he will. Séeing then the souereigne choise is in him, to impart heauenlie gifts, he is God. And it is written; Ye are the temple of God, 1. Cor. 3, 16. The third reason. and the Spi­rit of God dwelleth in you: if anie man doo vio­late the temple of God, him shall God destroie. But it is not méete for anie creature to haue a temple, séeing the same is proper vnto the di­uine nature. Wherefore, séeing we be called The temples of the holie Ghost, it is now ma­nifest, that he is God.

[Page 104]And least we should thinke it lawfull to build temples vnto martyrs, Augustine saith that temples are not builded vnto mar­tyrs. let vs heare Augustine, who denieth that we build temples vnto mar­tyrs; we build them (saith he) vnto God, al­though they be called The memories of martyrs: and out of Augustine himselfe is this forme of reasoning gathered. Neither did the apostle but onlie once saie; that We are the temples of the holie Ghost, but he hath the verie same thing in the sixt chapter of the same epistle, where it is written; And doo yee not knowe that your bo­dies are the temples of the holie Ghost? 1. Cor. 6, 19. Fur­thermore the power of creating, which is pro­per vnto God, The fourth reason. Psal. 33. 6. is ascribed vnto the holie Ghost; séeing Dauid hath written; By the word of the Lord were the heauens made, & all the powers of him by the spirit of his mouth. And againe; Send foorth thy spirit, Psa. 104, 30. and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth. And in Matthew it is said of the bodie of Christ, which should be brought foorth in the virgins wombe; Matth. 1, 20. That which is borne in hir, is of the holie Ghost. Againe; Luke. 1, 45. The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee, and the power of the most high shall ouer­shadowe thee. Séeing then the holie Ghost hath the power of creating, (as it hath béene decla­red) vndoubtedlie he is God.

1. Cor. 2, verse 10. In the same epistle to the Corinthians it is said, that he searcheth the bottome of Gods se­crets: & it séemeth that the apostle maketh this kind of argument; The fift rea­son. The things which be of man, no man knoweth, but the spirit of man which is in him: euen so the things that be of God, none knoweth but the spirit of God. And so he will haue it, that euen as the spirit of man is vnto man; so the spirit of God is towards God. And no man is ignorant, but that the spirit of man belongeth vnto the nature of man; whereby it is certeine, that the spirit of God is of his diuine nature. Basil. The sixt reason. Basil against Eunomius vseth another reason, which commeth in a manner to the selfe­same; he saith, that the holie Ghost is the spirit both of the father and of the sonne, and therefore of the verie same nature that they be. For it is written in the epistle to the Romans; And if the spirit of him, Rom. 8, 11. which raised vp Iesus frō death, doo abide in you, he that raised vp Christ shall also raise vp your mortall bodies. This place decla­reth, that the holie Ghost dooth belong vnto the father, who in the same epistle is shewed to be­long also vnto the sonne, when as a little before it is said; He that hath not the spirit of Christ, the same is not his. But in the epistle to the Ga­lathians, Galat. 4, 6. The seuenth reason. both togither is expressed in these words; And bicause yee be children, therefore hath God sent the spirit of his sonne into your harts, whereby ye crie Abba father. Wherefore, séeing the holie Ghost is the spirit, aswell of the father as of the sonne, he is wholie partaker of their nature.

9 Moreouer in the Acts of the apostles, the fift chapter, Peter said to Ananias; Acts. 5, 3. How darest thou lie vnto the holie Ghost? The eight reason. Thou diddest not lie vnto men, but vnto God. Now in this place, he most manifestlie calleth the holy Ghost God. Augustine in his booke De trinitate, & else where: and Ambrose also De spiritu sancto doo both cite the apostle to the Philippians, the third chapter, Phil. 3, 3. where he writeth; Beware of dogs, beware of euill workers, beware of concision: for we be the circumcision which serue God in the spirit. Where you sée, that the worshiping of God which the Grecians call [...], [...]. is doon vnto the holie Ghost, which he calleth God. Albeit in some place it is read in the genitiue case, [...]: as if thou shouldst saie, Seruing the spirit of God. I sée the place is not verie firme; for some inter­pret it Seruing God in spirit: but yet I thought it good to shew that the fathers haue vsed this ar­gument. Basil in his treatise De spiritu sancto, Basil. Didymus. The ninth reason. the 22. chap. and also Didymus De spiritu sancto de­clare that to be God, which can be in diuers places at one time: which thing is not agréeable to anie creature. But that the holie Ghost, was present with the apostles and prophets in sundrie parts of the world, at one time, no man profes­sing the faith of Christ doubteth: wherfore it fol­loweth that he is God.

Also Basil against Eunomius alleadged the epistle of Iohn, the fourth chapter; The tenth reason. Iohn. 4, 13. And in this we knowe that Christ dwelleth in vs, and we in him, bicause we haue receiued of his spirit: which should not be true, if we should account the holie Ghost to be of another nature than Christ is; for then might the holie Ghost be communicated vnto the faithfull without Christ. He addeth al­so another reason; The ele­uenth rea­son. Iohn. 8, 15. By the holie Ghost we are a­dopted to be the children of God: wherefore he himselfe is God. For the scriptures doo euerie where call him The spirit of adoption. But none that is not God, can adopt anie to be the children of God. In the Acts of the apostles we read; The holie Ghost said, The twelfe reason. Separate me Paule and Bar­nabas vnto the worke of the ministerie, Acts. 13, 2. where­vnto I haue chosen them. And there is no doubt, but that it is the part of God onelie to call vn­to the ministerie. Athanasius The 13. rea­son. Acts. 20, 28. Which reason Athanasius vseth in disputing against Arrius. There is al­so brought the twentie chapter of the Acts, where Paule thus admonisheth; Take heed vnto the whole flocke, wherin the holie Ghost hath made you ouerseers, to gouerne the church. But it is the office of none but of God onlie, to choose mi­nisters and bishops of the churches.

Ambrose thoroughlie weieth of these words; All things are made by him, and he saith, Ambrose. The 14. rea­son. that the holie Ghost spake in the Euangelist: and that therefore if it had béene a creature, he should [Page 105] haue said; Iohn. 1, 3. All we things are made by him: by that meanes he had not excluded himselfe from the number of creatures. Againe, he citeth that saieng of Iohn; Iohn. 16, 14. The 15. reason. He shall receiue of mine: we cannot (saith he) vnderstand this to be spoken of the bodie, no nor yet of the soule; and then it must be vnderstood of the diuine nature. He also ta­keth the testimonie of Esaie, which is written in Luke; The 16. reason. Luke 4, 18. Esai. 16, 1. The Spirit of the Lord hath annointed me, and sent me to preach glad tidings to the poore. But there is none that hath power to send Christ, no not as touching his humane nature, vnles it be God. The 17. reason. Psal. 85, 9. We read in the psalme; I will heare what the Lord God will speake in me: but when Dauid spake these words, there was none spake in him but the holie Ghost, wherfore he is God. In the tenth chapter to the Hebrues; The holie Ghost hath testified, Heb. 10, 15. The 18. reason. This is my testa­ment that I will make vnto them: he calleth it his testament, which onelie God made with his people; wherefore it is manifest that the holie Ghost, which did speake, is God.

1. Iohn. 5, 7. The 19. reason. 10 And in the first epistle of Iohn, the fift chapter; There be three, which beare witnes in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three be one. Manie write, that this testi­monie is not found in the Gréeke; against whom is Ierom in his preface of the canonicall epistles, who saith that these words are in the Gréeke, Ierom. but haue béene left out by the Latine translatours. Yet Cyrillus herein agréeth not with Ierom: Cyril. for he reciteth in the 14. booke of his Thesaurus, all this whole place, and omitteth this particle. Among the Latins Augustine and Beda read not these words. Augustine. Beda. Erasmus. But Erasmus in his notes vpon this place sheweth, that there was found a Gréek booke in Britan, A booke found in England. which had these words: also the Spanish edition hath them. But admit that these words be not had in the Gréeke copies, the strength of the argument shall not be anie thing diminished for that cause: The Spa­nish editi­on. for that which we af­firme is prooued by the other particle of the sen­tence, which is found extant as well among the Gréeks, as among the Latins, namelie; There be three things, 1. Iohn. 5, 8. which beare witnes on the earth; bloud, Augustine. water, and the spirit. Augustine against Maximus the Arrian bishop, in his third booke, the 14. chapter vseth this place; and he would, that the spirit should signifie the Father, The Spirit God the fa­ther. bicause God is a spirit; and the Father himselfe is the fountaine and beginning of the whole diuinitie. Further, Bloud, the Sonne. bloud (as he saith) betokens the Sonne; bicause he tooke vpon him the nature of man, and shed his bloud for vs. Finallie water, in his iudgement, Water, the holie Ghost. dooth manifestlie declare the holie Ghost.

Wherevnto the Gospell dooth verie well a­grée. For whereas Iesus said; Riuers of liuelie water shall flowe out of his bellie, Iohn. 7, 38. it is expoun­ded that he spake this as touching the Spirit, which they should receiue that beléeued in him. Wherefore insomuch as the thrée persons are re­presented in these thrée names, and that it is ad­ded withall, that these thrée be one; it is mani­festly declared, that the thrée diuine persons haue one and the selfe-same substance. And Augu­stine treating vpon this place, dooth speciallie vrge that particle; And they three be one. And he would haue it to be a stedfast and firme thing in the scriptures, that when anie things are said to be one, they differ not in substance. Euen as when we read in the Gospell, that Christ said; I and the Father be one, Iohn. 10, 30. there was ment to be one nature, both of the Father, and of the Sonne: so (saith he) we must now vnderstand as touching these thrée, that they be one.

11 Cyrillus thus argueth vnto this matter: The 20. reason. Iohn saith; It is the Spirit which beareth record▪ and the Spirit is veritie, bicause there be thrée which beare record vpon the earth; The Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three be one: but and if ye receiue the testimonie of men, the testimonie of God is greater. In this place thou séest (saith he) that the testimonie of the holie Ghost, is called the testimonie of God; whereby it is prooued, that the holie Ghost is God. The spirit bloud, and water re­present the three per­sons. And that those thrée (I meane the spirit, bloud, and water) doo represent the thrée persons, it is shew­ed by thrée reasons. 1 The first is taken from the Analogie or conueniencie of the signes: which Augustine recited. 2 Secondlie thou percei­uest, that those thrée are said to be one; which is not méete for them, vnles thou shalt respect those things which be represented: for otherwise, spi­rit, bloud, and water doo varie in nature or kind one from another. 3 Thirdlie, those thrée nounes in the Gréeke [...], that is wa­ter, spirit, and bloud be of the neuter gender: vn­to which afterward is put the masculine article, in the plurall number; namelie, [...], that is, These three be vnto one, or be one. But the masculine article, as touching signes, which be of the neuter gender, might take no place, vnles it should be applied vnto those which are signifi­ed; that is, vnto the Father, the Sonne, and the holie Ghost. Neither let it trouble vs, that it is read some-where; These three be vnto one, as though it should make for the Arrians, which said, that these thrée persons be vnto one, bicause they consented togither in one testimonie; as though the spéech concerneth not one maner of nature, but one maner of will. The He­brue phrase. And the phrase commeth néere vnto the Hebrue: so as To be vnto one, and To be one, is the selfe-same thing. As when we read in the psalme; I will be vnto him a Father, and he shall be vnto me a Sonne: it is as if it were said; I will be his Father, and he shall be my Sonne. And in another place; [Page 106] They shall be vnto me a people, 2. Cor. 6, 18. and I will be vnto them a God, is all one, as to saie; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And when it is said; They be one, there is signified both a distinction of persons, and an vnitie of substance. For vnlesse there were some distinc­tion, it should haue bin said; It is one.

The 21. reason. verse 57. 12 Also, they alledge the song of the thrée chil­dren, wherein, when all creatures are stirred vp vnto the praises of God, the Sonne & the holie Ghost are not mentioned: whereby it is plaine, that they be not reckoned among creatures. Neither maist thou saie, that this song is a part of the Apocrypha, bicause this part of Daniel is wanting in the Chaldean edition: for thou shalt sée the verie same to be done euerie-where in the Psalmes of Dauid, wherein is the same stirring vp of creatures vnto diuine praises. Iohn in his first epistle saith; 1. Iohn. 5, 6. The spirit is truth: and this cannot be written of a creature, séeing truth is chiefe and principall, The 22. reason. and dependeth not of an­other. They are woont to alledge the beginning of the booke of Genesis, The 23. reason. where it is said; The spi­rit of the Lord mooued vpon the face of the wa­ters. Genes. 1, 2. In which place they affirme, that there is mention made of thrée persons, namelie, of the Father, which created; of the Sonne, by whome all things were made (as when it is said, In the beginning, it is all one, as to saie, By the begin­ning;) and of the holie Ghost. I knowe that the Hebrue expositors interpret far otherwise of these words; but I haue onlie taken vpon me to shew those places, by which the fathers gathered the Godhead of the holie Ghost. Wherevnto adde, The 24. reason. that Paule in his epistles seldome maketh mention of the father and the sonne, but he also speaketh of the holie ghost, either expreslie, or by adding of somewhat pertaining to him. And Ba­sil sheweth, The 25. reason. that it was a custome receiued in the whole church, to adde in the end of the Psalmes, that which we now vse; Glorie be to the Father, to the Sonne, and to the holie Ghost, wherein the thrée persons are made equall the one to the other.

The 26. reason. 13 The Synod of Nice set foorth a créed, in which we saie; I beleeue in the holie Ghost. But it is verie manifest, that we must not repose our confidence in anie thing that is created. And bicause in those daies the contention was not much sproong vp of the holie Ghost, there was nothing else added: but afterwards, when diuers and sundrie heresies grew vp as tou­ching him, The Coun­cell of Con­stantinople. then in the Councell of Constanti­nople, which was the second among the foure principall, manie things were added to make this article plaine. For we grant, that We be­leeue in the holie Ghost, both the Lord & giuer of life. By the particle (Lord) they make him e­quall vnto Christ, who in the scriptures is com­monlie called Lord, which epitheton or addition, they would therefore to be expressed, Against the Arrians. bicause the Arrians affirmed, that Christ was altogether a creature, but yet the noblest (they said) which next vnto God was the chéefe. And they said, that the holie ghost was yet lesse than the sonne, and euen his minister. Wherefore the Synod in place of Minister, put the title of Lord. The selfe-same thing did they in the particle; The giuer of life: for they saw that it is written in Iohn, that not onlie the father doth giue life, but that the sonne also can quicken whom-soeuer he will; and so, least the holie ghost might séeme to be ex­cluded from this propertie, they added that par­ticle. And that his Godhead might be the more manifest, it was added, The 27. reason. that He together with the father and the sonne is woorshipped and glorified.

14 Further, Athanasius hath in his créed; The 28. reason. God the Father, God the Sonne, and God the holie Ghost. And to prooue this thing, no lesse is the for­giuing of sins taken for an argument which they grant as proper to the holie Ghost. For when Christ had breathed vpon his disciples, he said; Receiue yee the holie Ghost, Iohn. 20, 22. and whose sinnes ye remit, they be remitted vnto them; and whose sinnes ye reteine, they be reteined. Whereby it appéereth, that this power is yéelded to the holie Ghost, and is proper vnto God. And this, e­uen the Scribes themselues testified, The 29. reason. who hea­ring Christ saie to the man sick of the palsie; Thy sinnes be forgiuen thee, Matth. 9, 2. cried out that he spake blasphemie, in that he durst take vpon him the office of God. Furthermore, The 30. reason. the holie scriptures doo call this self-same spirit, both A sanctifier and giuer of light, which faculties are méete to be at­tributed vnto God onlie. In Exodus, the fourth chapter, it is said vnto Moses (when he detracted the time of dooing his message, bicause he had an impediment in his spéech; Exod. 4, 11. ) Who hath giuen a mouth vnto man? Or who maketh the dumbe or deafe, the blind & seeing? Haue not I the Lord? Wherfore I will be in thy mouth. By which place it is shewed, that it is the worke of almigh­tie God, to speake in his ministers, to open their mouths, & to make them readie of spéech. But Christ, when he speaketh of this matter, saith; It is not you that speake, but the spirit of your father: whereby it séemes to be prooued, Mat. 10, 20. that the holie Ghost is God, séeing he hath one and the selfe-same action with him.

Augustine in his epistle to Pascentius saith, Augustine. that he doth woonder how it can be, that Christ, whose members we are, is beléeued to be God; and that the holie Ghost, whose temple we be, should be denied to be God; séeing the excellen­cie of the Godhead is more prooued in the latter condition, than in the first. The reasons which we haue brought, do in part prooue of necessitie, [Page 107] and doo plainelie shew, What ma­ner of rea­sons haue bin alleged. that the holie Ghost is God. Others indéed be not altogether of such efficacie, but being ioined with other things, doo confirme the minds of the faithfull in this truth; neither is there anie of them, which the fa­thers haue not some-where vsed. There might also be added other arguments of this sort, but with these we will hold our selues contented.

What may be obiected against this doctrine. Rom. 8, 26. 15 Now remaineth to consider, what is woont to be obiected against this doctrine. Some saie; The holie Ghost praieth for vs, and that with sighings vnspeakeable. How can he then bée God, séeing it is not méete for God, to humble himselfe after the maner of suppliants? Some answere and saie; That the sonne doth make intercession for vs, How the holie Ghost praieth for vs. Rom. 8, 34. Looke In Rom. 8, verse 26. The holie Ghost hath not taken vpon him a­nie creature into the v­nitie of per­son. who neuerthelesse is God, and that therefore to praie, is not strange from the nature of God; howbeit, this is friuolous, For Christ, in that he was man, was inferiour to the father, and therefore might be a suter vn­to him. But the holie Ghost hath not taken vp­pon him the nature of anie creature, into vni­tie of person. Wherefore the respect that must be had towards him, and towards Christ, is far differing and vnlike: and therefore we will an­swere, that the spirit praieth, and maketh re­quest for vs, as it is written in the epistle to the Romanes, bicause it driueth vs forward to doo these things: and it is therefore said to sigh, bi­cause it maketh vs to sigh. Neither is this phrase strange from the scriptures, God is said to doo those things which he causeth vs to doo. Gen. 22, 12. but it is verie often vsed. For God said vnto Abraham, when he would haue sacrificed his sonne; Now haue I knowne that thou fearest God. That vn­doubtedlie was knowne before vnto the diuine maiestie, and was commanded. For the harts and cogitations of men are not hidden from him. But, I haue knowne, in that place, is as much to saie, as, I haue caused to knowe. That this phrase is so to be vnderstood, the Apostle te­stifieth to the Galathians, when he saith; And seeing yee be children, Galath. 4, 6. therefore God hath sent the spirit of his son into your harts, crieng Abba father. In which words he séemeth to affirme, that the holie Ghost himselfe doth crie vnto God. But to the Romanes, the same Apostle doth make it verie plaine; For ye haue not re­ceiued the spirit of bondage, Rom. 8, 15. to feare anie more, but yee haue receiued the spirit of adoption of children, whereby we crie Abba father: in which place it appeareth most plainelie, that it is wée which crie, the holie Ghost stirring and driuing vs forward therevnto.

16 Further they demand, that If the spirit procéed from the father, Why the ho­lie Ghost is not said to be the son. and also from the sonne, what is the cause why he is not called a sonne, séeing he hath not beginning of himselfe? We answere; Bicause that in diuine and se­cret things, we followe both the doctrine and manner of spéech of the holie scriptures. Séeing then that the scripture hath in no place said, that the holie Ghost either is begotten, or is the sonne, why should we attempt thus to saie? And doubtles vnto godlie men this answere should suffice. It must be added moreouer, that this is­suing out of the holie Ghost, is called a procée­ding, therefore we must call it so. And albeit that betwéene the Gréeke and Latin churches, A long con­tention be­tweene the Greeke and Latine Churches. Looke In Rom. 3. verse 30. there was a long contention, whether the holie Ghost procéeded from the sonne, yet was it not of anie great importance, vnlesse it had bin ag­grauated with the spirit of ambition. For after the time that the Grecians began to contend in the Church for primacie, they easilie tooke in ill part the opinions of the Latins. But the dis­sention was taken vp in the Councell of Flo­rence, where it was manifest, The Synod of Florence. that the Latins meant no other thing, but that the holie Ghost had his procéeding or issuing out, as well from the father as from the sonne. The which séeing it may be found, as we haue said, that in the ho­lie scriptures it is called a procéeding, we are not to be blamed. Iohn. 20, 22. The sonne is said to send the holie Ghost, for when he breathed vpon the A­postles, he said; Receiue yee the holie Ghost. Iohn. 16, 14. Againe he said; He shall receiue of mine. And manie of the fathers, before the Councell of Florence, wrote, that the holie Ghost is deriued as well from the father as the sonne. Augustine against the heretike Maximinus, Augustine. and else­where, sheweth it verie plainelie. Also Epipha­nius in Ancorato confesseth, Epipha­nius. that the holie Ghost procéedeth from both, that is, from the father and the sonne.

17 Albeit that betwéene procéeding and ge­neration it is hard to put a difference, A difference betweene generating and procee­ding. and that Augustine in the place now alledged, granteth, that he perceiued not the difference: yet he said, that this he knew; namelie, that whatsoe­uer thing groweth, doth also procéed: but he saith not on the other side, that whatsoeur things procéed, are also sproong foorth. Howbeit, we cannot properlie expresse the difference. Wher­fore the holie Ghost is not said, The holie Ghost nei­ther begot­ten nor vn­begotten. either to be be­gotten, or vnbegotten, least by saieng vnbegot­ten, we might séeme to affirme him to be the father; or by affirming him to be begotten, we may séeme to call him the sonne. This we haue out of Augustine in his third tome, at the be­ginning of the small questions gathered out of the booke De trinitate. Adde withall, that if the holie Ghost should be said to be begotten, then in the trinitie we should appoint two sonnes, & two fathers. For, séeing the holie Ghost is as well of the father, as of the sonne, he should haue them both to be his fathers, if it might be said that he is begotten of them: yea, and if the matter be well considered, he might (I saie) be [Page 108] called both the sonne and sonnes sonne of one and the selfe-same Father. For in affir­ming him to be begotten of the Father, he should be called his Sonne; but in asmuch as it should be said, that he is borne of the Sonne, he should be nephew vnto the Father: which things be absurd, and wholie strange from the scriptures. Since the Sonne is called the onlie begot­ten, it may not be said that the ho­lie Ghost is begotten. Iohn. 1, 14. Iohn. 3, 16. 1. Iohn. 4, 9. Yea and further, to saie that the ho­lie Ghost is begotten, the words of the scrip­ture are against it, which verie often doo call the Sonne, The onlie begotten: whereof it fol­loweth, that the holie Ghost is not begotten.

In the first chapter of Iohn, it is said; We sawe the glorie thereof, as the glorie of the on­lie begotten of the father. And in the third chapter of the same gospell; So God loued the world, as he gaue his onlie begotten sonne. And the same Iohn in his epistle; In this the loue of God towards vs appeared, that he gaue his on­lie begotten sonne. Christ as touching his humane nature is called the first begot­ten. Rom. 8, 29. And Christ as touching his humane nature, hath béene accustomed in the scripture to be called, not The onlie begotten of God, but The first borne among manie bre­thren: as it appeareth in the epistle to the Ro­mans. Howbeit doubtles as touching his di­uine nature he hath no brethren. There be some which cauill, that in the Synod of Nice, the ho­lie Ghost was not in expresse words called God; but that onlie the Godhead of the sonne was expressed. Vnto which obiection Epipha­nius answereth, Why Epi­phanius in the Synod of Nice, and other fa­thers else where haue not expresly named the holie Ghost God. that in the Synod of Nice the controuersie was as touching the sonne onlie. For Arrius at the first contended onlie against this point. And Councels for the most part de­fine not anie other things, but such as are cal­led in question: yet neuertheles, if a man dili­gentlie examine the matter, he shall sée that those things be there defined, which doo plaine­lie inough declare the diuine nature of the holie Ghost. For it is there said; We beleeue in the holie Ghost: and it is not lawfull for one to put his confidence in a creature. Moreouer, that which was doon in the Synod of Nice, was per­formed in the Synod of Constantinople.

18 Also they obiect, that among the fathers there were some, and especially of the more an­cient of them, which were slacke in their wri­tings, to expresse in plaine words the holie Ghost to be God. Among whom Erasmus rec­koneth Hilarie, Erasmus. Hilarie. who was thought to be the first among the Latins that wrote against the Ar­rians. This father, in his booke De trinitate, ne­uer by expresse words called the holie Ghost God. Vnto this obiection we answere, that the most ancient fathers, in teaching diuine things vsed a singular modestie, and did imitate the holie scriptures so much as they could: and al­though they said not in expresse words, that the holie Ghost is God; yet in the meane time they wrote those things, which manifestly prooue his Godhead. And further it appeareth, that they of set purpose disputed against them, which de­nied the Godhead of the holie Ghost, and equa­litie of the thrée diuine persons: as we sée by the strife that was about the word Of like substance. Homousion; A simili­tude. from which manie of the Catholiks at the be­ginning did restraine themselues, bicause it séemed to bée but new, and that it was not had in the holie scriptures: & yet they neuertheles did imbrase and most willingly admit the thing signified. Howbeit we striue not about these things, but grant first and chéefelie whatsoeuer is in the holie scriptures: and then whatsoeuer is necessarilie and manifestlie deriued out of them. Next vnto those ancienter sort of fathers did Basil, and diuers others succéed; which by all meanes both testifie and defend the holy Ghost to be God.

19 Others cauill, bicause it is written; that None knoweth the Father but the Sonne, Mat. 11, 27. and on the other side; None the Sonne, but the Fa­ther: in which places they saie, that there is no mention of the holie Ghost; and therefore it sée­meth vnto them, that he knoweth neither the Father, nor yet the Sonne, & that for the same cause he is not God. To these also we answer, Whether the holie Ghost kno­weth the Father and the Sonne. that when the knowing of the Father, and of the Sonne is attributed to two persons, the ho­lie Ghost must not be excluded; séeing he is said to be the spirit aswell of the Father as of the Sonne: wherfore that which is belonging to both, is also common vnto him. And if they demand a plaine testimonie hereof out of the scriptures, we will bring foorth one out of the first epistle to the Corinth. where it is written; 1. Cor. 2, 11. The things of man none knoweth, but the spirit of man, which is within him: and euen so those things which be of God, Matt. 16, 17. none knoweth but the spirit of God. Also it is written in the gospell; Blessed art thou Simon the sonne of Iona: The holie Ghost both knoweth the Father and the Sonne, and also reuea­leth them. for flesh and bloud hath not reuealed these things vnto thee, but the spirit of my father, which is in heauen. By these testimonies it is manifest, that the holy Ghost dooth not only knowe God, but dooth also reueale & make him to be known vnto others.

But this error, whereby some indeuor, Origins error. to re­buke the holie Ghost with an ignorance of hea­uenlie things, tooke beginning frō Origin, who affirmed a certeine degrée to be among the na­tures of Intelligencis; so as he though that the Father knoweth himselfe onelie; & he said that the Sonne did not knowe the Father; and that the holie Ghost knew not the Sonne: Epipha­nius. and he would moreouer, that the angels perceiue not the holie Ghost, and lastlie that men sée not the angels. And that this order is set downe by him, Epiphanius sheweth out of the booke, as he [Page 109] testifieth, The booke [...]. [...]; in which booke neuerthe­les, so far as hitherto I remember, I haue not read the matter plainlie in such sort described. Which is no maruell; for that booke which Ruf­finus translated, Ruffinus. hath manie things vnperfect. For he plucked out those things, which hée thought tended most vnto error, least the rea­ders should be too much offended, whereby af­terward there arose a great discord betwéene him and Ierom. Ierom.

20 There were some which affirmed, that sée­ing the holie Ghost is said to be sent, in like manner as the Sonne is said to be sent; he should haue taken vpon him, euen as Christ did, some visible nature into the vnitie of per­son: which reason of theirs is not necessarie. We grant, that sometimes he tooke vpon him either a doue, or firie toongs, by which he decla­red his presence; howbeit, these he tooke but for a time: neither was he made one person with these two natures, as we grant it to haue come to passe in Christ. Albeit there haue bin most impudent heretikes, as Manes, of whom the Manicheis were named; as were Monta­nus, Basilides, and such other pestilent men, which published themselues to be the holie Ghost, whome Christ had promised. But in vaine were these things deuised by them; for the Acts of the Apostles doo sufficientlie de­clare, that the promise of Christ was performed within a few daies after his ascension.

In Gen. 8, verse 1. 21 But it must be considered, that the scrip­ture speaketh of God after the manner of men, for the affect of remembrance declareth the goodnes of God: for they which be mindfull of their fréends in danger, doo (for the most part) re­léeue them. Howbeit, to remember, accordeth not properlie with God, séeing it noteth a cer­taine forgetfulnes that went before; which to ascribe vnto God, were an vniust thing. But of knowings we sée there be thrée kinds, Three kinds of know­ings. the which are distinguished one from another, according to the difference of time. For if a thing present he found out, to one which then beholdeth, it is called a certaine beholding: and this knowledge is the roote of all the other, and more surer than the rest. Further, if it haue respect vnto things that be past, it is called memorie. If vnto things to come, it is foresight; which third (for the most part) springeth from the second. For they which haue experience of manie things, and remem­ber much, are woont by a certeine wisdome at­chieued, to haue great iudgement of things to come. Of these kinds of knowledge, none is trulie attributed vnto God, but the first, séeing all things are present with him: and euen as his nature, With God all things are present. so his actions are by no meanes com­prehended within the course of time. But yet it is said in the scriptures, that either he remem­bred, or that he foresawe; bicause oftentimes those effects are attributed vnto him, which they are woont to doo that foresée or remember anie thing. But memorie requireth a know­ledge that is past. We shall find that the scrip­ture hath said, Gen. 6, 8, and 9. that Noah was iust and perfect in his generations. Then when he was minded to saue him, and had made him safe in the arke, he séemed to attend for him: and when he had tari­ed so long shut vp in the arke, Gen. 8, 1. and was not deli­uered from thence (if I shall speake after the maner of men) God séemed in a maner to for­get him. And againe, when he deliuereth him, he is said to remember.

22 So, when it is said, that God waxed angrie, In Iud. 2. verse 15, and 18. it is not so to be vnderstood, as though God were troubled with affects; for that belongeth vnto men: but according to the common and receiued exposition of these places, How we must vnder­stand God to be angrie and to re­pent. we vnder­stand it, that God behaued himselfe like vnto men that be angrie. After the selfe-same man­ner it is sometimes written, that he repented him: wherefore God, either to repent, or to be angrie, is nothing else, but that he doth those things, which men repenting, or being angrie, are woont to doo. For the one sort doo either alter or vndoo all that euer they had done before; and the other reuenge themselues of such wrongs as haue bin done vnto them. Ambrose. Ambrose in his booke of Noah and the arke, the fourth chapter, speaketh otherwise of the anger of God. For neither (saith he) doth God thinke as men doo, as though he should be of anie new mind; neither is he angrie, as though he were mutable. But these things are therefore beléeued, to the in­tent that the bitternes of our sins may be ex­pressed, which hath deserued the wrath of God, that so much, and so far foorth hath the fault in­creased, as euen God (which naturallie is not mooued, either with anger, hatred, or anie other passion) may séeme to be prouoked vnto wrath. And rightlie is there mention made of anger, before that punishment is rehearsed; for men vse first to be angrie, before they reuenge. And anger (if we may beléeue Aristotle in his Rhe­thoricks) is nothing else, but a desire of re­uengement, bicause of contempt. For they that perceiue themselues to be despised and contem­ned, doo straightwaie thinke vpon reuenge, and doo continuallie meditate how they may, by meanes of some punishment, requite either the iniurie or contumelie that is done.

23 But yet peraduenture some man will doubt, whether God, when he repented him, God doth not so re­pent, as he is any waie changed. After in the 15. chapter, act. 1. were in anie respect changed. All the godlie in a maner with one mouth confesse, that God cannot be changed one iote, bicause that would be a certaine signe, both of imperfection, and also of inconstancie: but they saie, that this va­rietie [Page 110] which happeneth herein, must not be as­cribed to God himselfe, but vnto vs. For ex­ample sake. If one will saie, that God out of all doubt ceased to fauour the Chananits, against the children of Israel, whom he before so séemed to strengthen, as he would haue them to op­presse the Iewes: & againe, that he afterward exalted the Hebrues, whom before it séemed that he would haue to be kept vnder by the Chananits; certeinlie no man can denie, but that these things be true. How shall we there­fore defend, that the will of God is without al­teration. Iere. 18, 7. I answere out of Ieremie the 18. chap­ter, that vndoubtedlie there appeareth a plaine diuersitie to be in the effects, The altera­tion is in the effects, not in God. wheras God not­withstanding dooth alwaies reteine one man­ner of will. For thus it is there written in his name; So soone as I shall speake against a king­dome or nation, to destroie it, roote it out, and ouerthrowe it, if they shall repent, I also will re­pent. And contrariwise, when I shall speake good of a kingdome or people, to set them vp and plant them; and that nation or kingdome shall doo euill in my sight, I also will repent of the good which I ment to doo vnto them. These words shew, that God is not variable in these kind of promises and threatnings; for he spea­keth not absolutelie and simplie, but vpon con­dition. But the fulfilling, or making void of the conditions, is looked for in vs: wherefore the change must not be attributed vnto him, but vnto vs.

But if thou wilt aske me, whether God hath knowen and decréed before what shall come to passe, as touching these conditions; I will grant he hath. For euen at the first beginning, he not onlie knew what the euents of things would be, but also decréed what should be. But séeing the secretnes of his will, touching these things, is not opened vnto vs in the holie scrip­tures; therefore we must followe that rule, which is giuen by Ieremie, Ionas. 3, 4. euen as we haue re­hearsed before. Esaie. 38, 1. This rule, the Niniuits, and al­so Ezechias the king had respect vnto, euen be­fore the same was published. For although that destruction was denounced to them in the name of God, yet they escaped from it; by rea­son of the repentance and praiers, which they in the meane time vsed. Neither is there anie cause whie we should suspect that God dooth lie in anie thing, God lieth not when he threat­neth things which come not to passe. when he threatneth or promiseth those things which doo not afterward come to passe. For as touching Ezechias, death was vn­doubtedlie to haue taken hold of him, by reason of naturall causes, commonlie called the second causes: wherefore the sentence being pronoun­ced according to those causes, he might not be accused of a lie. Also the Niniuits (if God had doone by them as their sinnes deserued) there had béene no other way with them but destru­ction. And God commanded Ionas to preach vnto them, according to their deserts. Fur­thermore a lie, which in talke hath a supposition or condition ioined therewith, cannot be bla­med in such sort, as it may be in arguments which he absolute and without exception: sée­ing the euent dependeth of the performing or violating of the condition.

I Would thinke that vn­der the name of heauen and earth, In Gen. 1, 1. What is sig­nified vnder the name of heauen and earth. Moses she­wed that the foundation or ground of all things, aswell of the heauens, as of the elements was made, and that this mat­ter is signified by the names of things alreadie finished. For séeing it cannot be knowen other­wise, but by the forme and perfection, it is méet that that also should be named and specified. Wherefore this whole heape is signified by the name of heauen and earth; wherein also come the other thrée elements, fire, aire, & water. He shewed vs of the vttermost things, by which he will also haue vs to knowe the things that are betwéene both. But how far these things at the first were out of square and order it is shewed, when of the earth it is said; It was without form, Gen. 1, 2. & wast. Wherfore this rude heape was brought foorth, being as yet, stuffe or matter void of or­der, the which belonged aswell to the vpper things, as to the lower. And so perhaps, as the more noble had the vppermost place; so to the lesse noble was assigned the nethermost: for this cause, the name of creation is verie fit for the first and vnorderlie heape. The diffe­rence be­tweene ma­king and creating. For those things séeme onlie to be made of nothing, and other things are said to be made and fashioned. And yet this difference is not obserued in all things; for some things are called created, which are said to be deriued from some former mat­ter. Two things doubtles men haue béene ac­customed to attribute vnto creation, both that it should be of a sudden▪ and that it require no matter to be before hand. The Philo­sophers er­ror tou­ching y ^e be­ginning of the world.

2 Thus the world was not rashlie made, neither is it coeternall with the maker or crea­tor. Manie of the ancient philosophers assigned the workemanship of things vnto rashnes and [Page 111] chance; séeing diuers of them in the stead of beginnings, named discord and debate, or else such little small bodies, as smaller cannot be. Aristotle attributed eternitie vnto that, where­by he maketh God, not to be the working cause of the world; but onelie attributed vnto him the cause of the end: or if he doo, he taketh from him the power of working according to his will; and thinketh that the world followeth him, as a shadowe dooth the bodie, or as the light dooth the sunne. Which the Peripatetikes will séeme to doo for diuine honour sake, least they should be driuen to ascribe anie lacke of power or alteration in God. But these things hurt not vs at all; for we affirme not, that God is borne, or apt to suffer anie thing: but we attri­bute vnto him the chéefest power to doo. And although God in his eternitie, minded to make the world, it followeth not therefore, that when he did make it, there was in him anie alterati­on of his purpose or will. Againe, let vs beware of the error of them in old time, A curious imagined error. which thought that there was an eternall and vncreat Chaos, or confused heape, extant before: and that God did onelie picke out those things, which were there mingled togither. But we saie, that the same heape also was made the first daie. Some there be which demand, that séeing God could haue brought foorth the world long before, why he did it so late? This is an arrogant and male­pert question, wherein mans curiositie cannot be satisfied; but by beating downe the follie thereof. For if I should grant thée, that the world was made before, at anie certeine in­stant of time, that thou couldest imagine; yet thou mightest still complaine, that the same was but latelie made, if thou refer thy cogita­tion to the eternitie of God: so as we must her­in deale after a godlie maner, and not with this malepert and rash curiositie.

Of Angels and their creation.

3 But verelie it séemes to be a maruell, why the creation of Angels is so kept in silence, as there is no mention thereof in all the old testa­ment: in the old testament (I saie) bicause in the new testament it is spoken of. In the first chapter to the Colossians, there is plaine men­tion of their creation. Colos. 1, 16. There be some, which bring two places of the old testament, name­lie; Who maketh his Angels spirits. Psal. 104, 4. And in an other place, Psal. 33, 9. when he said; And they be made. Howbeit these places doo not firmelie persuade it. The hea­uens are turned a­bout by Angels. It should be rather said, that they are com­prehended vnder the name of heauen, séeing it is generallie receiued, that the heauens are turned about by them. The first reason is, bi­cause if their creation had béene first descri­bed, it might haue séemed, that God vsed their labour in the bringing foorth of other things. But to the intent wée should attribute vnto God the whole power of creation, therefore did Moses kéepe it in silence; least perhaps wée might suspect our selues to be their workman­ship. And euen as our redemption is onelie at­tributed vnto Christ the sonne of God, and not to the Angels; so was it méet to be as touching our creation. The second reason; bicause of the pronesse of men vnto idolatrie: for if they haue worshipped heauen, stars, foure-footed beasts, serpents, and birds; what would they haue doone, if Moses had described that spirituall creature in his colours; and had said, that they were made to doo vs seruice, to be presidents ouer countries, and to be at hand with euerie man? What would not men haue doone? They would haue run a madding to the worshipping of them. The first mention of them was at pa­radise with the sword of the cherubims. Gen. 3, 24. Also in Abrahams time, Gen. 18, 2. when there was present an excéeding strong deliuerer. For euen then are dangers permitted by God, when most strong remedies are also vsed by him. And as tou­ching this superstitious worshipping of An­gels, Paule speaketh in the second to the Colos­sians. Col. 2, 23.

4 Rabbi Selomoh saith that the names of An­gels are secret; so as they, euen themselues, In Iudg. 13, ver. 17. doo not knowe their owne names: yea, and he ad­deth, that they haue not names of their owne, Angels take their names of those things which they doo. but that onlie surnames are appointed them of those things, vnto which they are sent to take charge of. Wherevnto the epistle to the He­brues assenteth, when it calleth them Admini­string spirits. Heb. 7, 14. Rabbi Selomoh bringeth exam­ples out of the holie scriptures. An Angel was sent vnto Esaie, Esaie. 6, 6. and bicause he put vnto his lips a burning cole, he was called Seraphim, Seraphim. of the Hebrue verbe Saraph, which signifieth To burne. So of Raphael we may saie, that he which cured Tobias was so called; as who shuld saie; He was the medicine of God. Tob. 12, 15. Luke. 1, 26. And Ga­briel, by the same reason is called The strength of God. Also the word Peli, which the Angel at­tributed to himselfe in the 13. of Iudges, signi­fieth Woonderfull: for he came, Iudg. 13, 18. to the intent he might doo a miracle. And surelie it was verie woonderfull, to bring out a flame out of a rock, which consumed the sacrifice. And it may be, that the Angel would not open his name; bi­cause men in those daies were prone vnto ido­latrie: and perhaps, when they had heard the name of the Angel, they would soone haue béene induced to worship it, more than right religion requireth. But Cherubims be Angels, In Gen. 3. at the end. Cherubim. whose name is deriued of a figure. Aben-ezra saith, [Page 112] that Keruf signifieth A forme or figure, be it ei­ther of man, or of brute beasts, it maketh no matter which, séeing either of both is so called. Angels haue these names, bicause they appeare vnto men, in figure or forme of a liuing crea­ture, as it appeareth in the tenth of Ezechiel. [...] O­thers thinke, that the name is compounded of the Hebrue letter [...], which is a marke of simili­tude; and of Raui, which in the Chaldean spéech signifieth Boies, or Yoong men, bicause Angels appéered in the fourme of men, and that of yoong men. And to that similitude those in the taber­nacle were made, hauing wings put to them. Which peraduenture Dionysius, and other fol­lowed; when they saie, that they are signified by the fulnes of knowledge, séeing a man, whose fi­gure they beare, differeth in vnderstanding and knowledge from brute beasts.

In 2. Sam. 22, verse 11. Wherefore Cherub is a certaine figure gi­uen, and betokeneth vnto vs The messengers of God, which with great celeritie doo all those things which God commandeth. He vseth them, and rideth as it were vpon the winds, Psal. 18, 10. which are gouerned by those Angels, bicause by those things, that which God would, is brought to passe. [...]ings at­tributed vnto An­gels. Exod. 37, 9. Esaie. 6, 2. Ezech. 10, 5. Dan. 9, 21. Also, the Ethnicks made Mercurie with wings, and attributed wings vnto the winds. The Angels likewise are often-times put with wings. In Exodus, the Cherubims are made with wings. Esaie saith, that Seraphim came flieng vnto him. Ezechiel & Daniel sawe Angels flieng vnto them. These things declare, that the ministerie of Angels is excéeding swift. In the 104. Psalme; Psal. 104, 4. Who maketh his Angels spi­rits. We must not héere imagine with the Sa­duces, as though the Angels were but a bare seruice of no substance, seuered from matter. They are not onlie mooued with the moouing that brute creatures haue, but they vnderstand, they speake, and they instruct vs. An Angel came vnto the virgin Marie, Luke. 1, 26. and 11. and vnto Zacha­rie. Their Angels (as it is in the Gospell) doo al­waies behold the face of their heauenlie father. Matt. 18, 10. Vnto the Hebrues they are called Admini­string spirits. Hebr. 1, 14. Dan. 10, 13. and 12, 1. Finallie, they gouerne kingdoms and pr [...]uinces.

In Iud. chap. 13. Looke be­fore psal. 9. art. 25. 5 It followeth, that I speake somwhat of the visions of Angels. For an Angel appeared vn­to Manoah; and oftentimes in other places, as the scriptures declare, Angels haue bin séen of men. But it may be demanded, how they did appeare, whether with anie bodie, or onlie in phantasie: and if with a bodie, whether with their owne bodie, or with a strange bodie: and whether the bodie were taken for a time, or for euer? Of these things, there be diuers opinions of men. The Platonists saie, that The minds, that is, The opini­on of the Platonists. the Intelligencis are so framed, that cer­teine of them haue celestiall bodies, and some haue firie bodies, some airie, some watrie, and some earthie bodies, and some they affirme to be darke spirits, which doo continuallie dwell in darkenes and mist. Of these things Marsilius Ficinus hath gathered manie things, in his tenth booke De legibus, and in his Argument of Epinomis. The Peripatetikes affirme, The Peri­patetikes. that there be certaine Intelligencies, which guide and turne about the celestiall circles, neither make they mention of anie other. The schoole diuines. Also the schoole di­uines haue decréed, that those minds and In­telligencies are altogither spirituall, and that they haue no bodies. And they were led thus to thinke, by reason that these Intelligencies must néeds excell the soules of men, whose per­fectest facultie consisteth in vnderstanding. Wherefore (as they thinke) it is méete, that in this worke, the Intelligencies should much ex­céed them: and that this commeth to passe, bi­cause those heauenlie minds haue no néed of i­mages or of senses, the which being so, it should be superfluous for them to haue bodies.

6 But amōg the Fathers, The fathers Origin. some haue affirmed far otherwise. Origin in his bookes [...] (as Ierom hath noted in his epistle Ad Pamma­chium de erroribus Iohannis Hierosolymitani) saith, that Those spirituall minds, so often as they of­fend, doo fall, and are thrust into bodies, but yet not immediatelie into the vilest bodies; but first into starrie bodies, then into firie and airie, af­terward into watrie, and last of all into humane and earthie bodies: and if then also they behaue not themselues well, they become diuels. And further, that if they will yet then repent, they may come againe by the selfe-same degrées vn­to their former state. And this he saith, we should vnderstand by that ladder, Gen. 28, 12. vpon which Iacob saw the Angels ascending and descending. But Ierom, to make the matter more plaine, Ierom. giueth a similitude. If a tribune (saith he) do not right­lie execute his office, he is put from that degrée, and is made a principall secretarie, afterward a senator, a captaine ouer two hundreth, a ruler ouer fewer, a constable of a watch, afterward a man at armes, and after that, a souldier of the meanest degrée. And although a tribune were once a common souldier, yet of a tribune he is not made a yoong souldier, but a principall secre­tarie. Howbeit, these things be absurd, and woor­thie to be laughed at. And certeinlie héerein O­rigin speaketh more like a Platonist, than a Christian. That which he first affirmeth; Against O­rigins opi­niō of thru­sting soules into bodies as vnto pu­nishments. name­lie, that soules are thrust into bodies, as vnto punishments, is manifestlie false; forsomuch as God hath ioined the bodie to the soule, for a helpe, not for a punishment. Neither doth he well, to put the diuell into anie hope of saluation in time to come, séeing Christ hath taught the contrarie, saieng; Matt. 25, 41. Go yee cursed into eternall [Page 113] fire, prepared for the diuell and his angels. Nei­ther can we in that place vnderstand Eternall, to be onlie a long space of time. For Christ most plainlie expoundeth his meaning, when he saith; Their woorme shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched. Mark. 9, 44. Esaie. 66, 24. Neither did he truly affirme, that the soules first sinned, before they came in­to bodies; Rom. 9, 11. séeing Paule writeth of Iacob and Esau, that before they were borne, and had doon neither good nor euill, it was said; Iacob haue I looued, and Esau haue I hated: the greater shall serue the lesser. Vpon iust cause therefore is this opinion of Origin reiected by all men.

Augustine. 7 Augustine in manie places séemeth to at­tribute bodies vnto Angels; and namelie in his second booke De trinitate, the seuenth chapter: & in the third booke, the first chapter. Which the schoole men perceiuing, excused him, saieng, that he spake not there after his owne iudgement, but according to the iudgment of others. Which thing I also might allow, for so much as I sée, that that father in his eight booke and 16. chap­ter De ciuitate Dei, (after the opinion of Apulei­us Madaurensis and Porphyrius) defineth, that Angels be in kind, sensible creatures; in soule, passiue; in mind, reasonable; in bodie, airie; in time, eternall. Doubtlesse herein he followeth the doctrine of the Platonists; but in the places before alleadged, he séemeth to speake altogi­ther of himselfe. Barnard. Yea and Barnard also, vpon the song of the thrée children (as it appeareth) is of the same opinion. Wherefore the schoole­men be compelled to deuise an other shift, and they saie; that Angels, if they be compared with men, are spirits: but if with God, they haue bo­dies, bicause they are destitute of the single and pure nature of God. Tertullian. Tertullian De carne Christi affirmeth, that Angels haue bodies: but that is the lesse maruell in him; for he attribu­teth a bodie euen to God himselfe. But he cal­leth a bodie, whatsoeuer is; for he delt with vn­learned and rude men, which thinke, that what­soeuer is not a bodie, is nothing. But the schoolemen saie, that Angels in verie déed are spirits; but that when they come vnto men, they take vpon them airie bodies, which they thicken and make verie grosse, whereby they can both be séene, touched, and perceiued, be­yond the nature of aire. There be some also, which saie, that some earthie or waterish thing is mixed with them; but in no wise will grant the same to be anie perfect mixture, least they should be compelled there to appoint a genera­tion. There haue béene also which thought, that Angels tooke vpon them dead carcases: but this to the more part séemeth an vnwoorthie thing, to be thought of the holie Angels.

Whether it be conueni­ent for An­gels to take vpon them the simili­tude of men. 8 Here will some man saie, that it is an ab­surd thing to charge the celestiall Angels with feigning and lieng; as they to feigne them­selues to be men, and yet are none indéed. Yea and this séemeth to weaken the argument of Christ, which he vsed after his resurrection, to declare that he had a verie bodie indéed; Feele (saith he) and see: Luk. 24, 38. for a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as ye see mee haue. For the apostles, being dismaid, thought that they had séene a spirit; and therefore to bring them out of doubt, Christ bad them to handle and féele his bodie. But the apostles might haue said; That which we féele is a phantasie, it séemeth indéed to be Christ, but perhaps it is not. For Angels also séeme to haue bodies, and to be touched & felt, whereas yet they haue no bodies indéed. Also this opinion may weaken the argument of the fathers against Marcion, as touching the flesh of Christ. For he did eate (saie they) he dranke, he was hungrie, he slept, he did sweate, and such like; and therefore had a true and humane bodie. Vnto these things might be answered, that the selfe-same things haue happened vnto Angels, whereas notwithstanding they had no bodies. I answere; that which they first saie, that it is absurd to charge the Angels with lies; they should vnderstand that euerie thing, how­soeuer it be feigned, is not straightwaie a lie. Euerie thing that is feigned is not a lie. Luk. 24, 15. Christ appeared vnto his disciples as a stran­ger, and yet he lied not; euen he was séene vn­to Marie in likenes of a gardener, yet he lied not: so the Angels, although they appéered to be men, when they were no men, Iohn. 15, 20. The An­gels while they seeme [...] to be men lied not. yet were they no liers. For they came not of purpose to prooue themselues men, but onelie that they might conuerse and haue communication with men.

To the argument of Christ, as touching his owne bodie, thus I answere: first, the apostles thought that it had béene a ghost, which appea­red: and therefore Christ, to refell that, saith; Handle and see, for a spirit hath neither flesh nor bones. By the handling it selfe it might be perceiued, that the same, which was present, was a verie true and perfect bodie, not a vaine phantasie. But thou wilt saie; It was a true bo­die indéed, but yet taken for a time, and such a bodie as Angels sometime are woont to put on. But how could it be prooued, that it was the same bodie which laie before in the sepulchre? Herein the authoritie of Christ, and of the scrip­tures must be of force: for the scriptures teach plainelie inough, that Christ should die, and af­terward rise againe the third daie: but nothing can rise againe, except that which fell before, as Tertullian doth verie learnedlie write. And this did the Schoolmen perceiue; Tertullian. Thomas Aquinas. whervpon Thomas Aquinas saith, that vnlesse something else can be added, this is no good argument. The same may be answered vnto the reasons of the fa­thers against Marcion. Indéed manie of the [Page 114] actions before alledged, may be fit for Angels, or bodies assumed: but yet not all. For, to be borne and nourished, to die and to féele, happen neither vnto Angels, nor yet vnto bodies assu­med. But the scripture dooth most plainlie testi­fie, that Christ was borne, that he sorrowed, that he was hungrie, that he suffered death, and that he was verie true man. But of these things more at large hereafter.

What ma­ner of bo­dies the Angels take vpon them. 9 There be manie other things in the schoole Diuines, as touching these matters: but bi­cause they are not so profitable, I will omit them, and will demand this; Whether Angels may take verie bodies vpon them, and those naturall, which were bodies before, and may vse them at their libertie, as the diuell did put on the serpent, Gen. 3, 1. and thereby deceiued Eue? An Angel also spake in Balaams asse, Num. 22, 28 wherefore then cannot an Angel after the same maner possesse a humane bodie, and speake therein? Doubtles it is written in the prophet Zacharie; The Angel of the Lord, which spake in mee. Wherfore it appéereth, Zach. 1, 19. that Angels may vse the bodies of men and beasts. Augustine. Augustine in his third booke De trinitate, the first chapter saith, that This is a verie hard question, whether An­gels may adioine bodies to their owne proper bodies, and change them into diuers formes; as we vse to doo garments, or also to change them into verie nature, as we read that Christ did, Iohn. 2, 9. when he turned water into wine: this he saith is not vnpossible to be doone. For thus he writeth; I confesse it passeth the strength of my capacitie, whether that Angels, reteining the spirituall qualitie of their owne bodie, may in working more secretlie by it, take to them som thing of the more grosse inferiour elements, which being framed fit to themselues, may al­ter and turne the same, as it were a garment, into all bodilie forms or shapes; yea, euen into the true things themselues, as true water was turned into true wine by the Lord: or else, whe­ther they can transforme their owne proper bo­dies into what they will, being applied to that thing which they go about to doo. But whether of thes [...] be true, it belongeth not to the present question. But I saie, that if there were verie bodies of Angels, then was Christs argument firme. And I will more willinglie grant vnto this, than to saie as some doo, that Angels de­ceiued the senses of men. For after this maner they will striue against vs, when we saie that in the Eucharist remaineth bread, which is both séene and touched; The Pa­pists subtile shift as tou­ching tran­substantia­tion. as they may answere, that indéed it séemeth bread, but yet it is none: euen as Angels séemed to be men, when as yet they were no men. Trulie I denie not, but that som­times the senses may be deceiued; but yet I affirme, that there be two kinds of those things which are perceiued by the sense. A distincti­on of sensi­ble things. For some things are common vnto manie senses, and others are proper vnto some one sense alone. For figure, quantitie, and number, are percei­ued of manie senses: Wherin the senses may be deceiued and where­in not. & doubtles in such things the senses may be deceiued. As Carneades was woont to dispute of bending an ore in the wa­ter, and of the bignes of the bodie of the sunne. But in things which properlie be sensible, the sense is neuer deceiued, vnlesse it be long of some impediment of the bodie, or ouermuch distance, or some such like let. Wherefore, séeing that in the Eucharist our sense dooth shew vs that bread remaineth, there is no néed to feigne that the sense is therein deceiued.

10 But to appoint a certeine compendious waie of this disputation, Three ma­ner of ap­perings of Angels. thrée waies come to mind, by which it may séeme that the Angels appéered. 1 For either they were séene in phanta­sie, so as they were thought to haue bodies, when they had not (which waie cannot be ap­prooued; for they did not beguile the senses, and they were not séene onlie of one person, but of manie, and at manie and sundrie times, and were in such sort séene, Gen. 18, 4. Gen. 32, 24. as Abraham washed some of their féet, and Iacob wrestled a whole night with an Angel:) 2 or else they verelie ap­péered with a true bodie, which notwithstan­ding was not such a bodie, as it was thought to be: 3 or else they had the verie selfe-same bo­die, trulie and in verie déed, which they séemed to haue. Tertullian. Tertullian De carne Christi, hath writ­ten most learnedlie of this third sort; Thou hast somtimes (saith he) both read and beléeued, that the Angels of the Creator were turned into the shape of a man, Note that they were turned. and that they carried such a truth of a bodie, as both Abraham washed their féet, and Lot by their hands was plucked from the Sodomites. An Angel also wrestled with a man, and desired to be loosed from the weight of the bodie of him, by whom he was held. That therfore, which was lawfull vnto Angels, which be inferiour vnto God (namelie, that they be­ing turned into the corpulencie of men, and yet neuertheles remained Angels) this doost thou take awaie from God, which is more mightie: as though Christ, taking true manhood vpon him, were not able to remaine God? Thus Ter­tullian disputeth against the Marcionites; The errour of the Mar­cionites. for they affirmed, that Christ did séeme to haue, but yet indéed had not, the bodie of a man. Tertulli­an obiecteth against them; And if ye grant this (saith he) vnto the Angels, that they haue had bodies; why doo ye not much rather yéeld the same vnto the sonne of God? And he addeth; Or did these Angels also appéere in phantasie of flesh? but thou darest not saie so. For if thou ac­count so of the Angels of the Creator, as thou doost of Christ, Christ shall be of the same sub­stance [Page 115] that Angels be of, and the Angels shall be such as Christ is. If thou haddest not of set pur­pose reiected the scriptures, which are contrarie to thy opinion, and corrupted others, the Gospell of Iohn would héerein haue abashed thée, which declareth, that The spirit comming downe in the bodie of a doue, Iohn. 1, 32. Matth. 3, 16. lighted vpon the Lord, which, be­ing the spirit, was as trulie a doue, as he was the spirit: neither did the contrarie substance taken, destroie his owne proper substance.

Of the doue wherein the holie Ghost appeared. 11 I knowe there haue bin some schoolemen, which thought, that it was not a verie doue, which descended vpon the head of Christ, but that it was onlie an airie and thickned bodie, appéering to be a doue. But Augustine De agone Christiano wri­teth otherwise; Augustine. namelie, that the same was a ve­rie doue. For a thing (saith he) is more effectuall to expresse the propertie of the holie Ghost, than is a signe. Euen as Christians also are better ex­pressed in shéepe and lambes, than in the likenes of shéepe and lambs. Againe, if Christ had a true bodie, and deceiued not; then the holie Ghost had the verie true bodie of a doue. Tertullian addeth; Thou wilt demand where the bodie of the doue became, What be­came of the doue wher­in the holie Ghost ap­peered. when the spirit was taken againe into heauen, and in like manner of the Angels bo­dies? It was taken awaie, euen after the selfe-same manner that it came. If thou haddest séene when it was brought foorth of nothing, thou mightest also haue knowen when it was taken awaie to nothing. If the beginning of it was not visible, no more was the end; then he remitteth the reader vnto Iohn: Was he also (saith he) a phantasie after his resurrection, when he offered his hands and féet to be séene of his disciples, sai­eng; Behold, it is I; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see me haue? Luke. 24, 39. Therefore Christ is brought in as a iugler or coniurer. And in his third booke against Marcion; Therefore his Christ, that he should not lie nor deceiue, and by that meanes perhaps might be estéemed for the Creator, was not indéed that which he séemed to be, and that which he was, he was feigned to be: flesh, and yet no flesh; man, and yet no man, and therefore Christ; God, and not God. For why did he not also beare the shape of God? Shall I beléeue him as touching this inward substance, that is ouerthrowne about the outward sub­stance? How may he be thought to worke soundlie in secret, that is perceiued to be false o­penlie? And afterward; It is inough for me to affirme that, The iudge­ment of the senses. which is agréeable vnto God, name­lie, the truth of that thing which he obiecteth to thrée senses, to sight, to touching, and to hearing. Againe, in his booke De carne Christi, His vertues (saith he) prooued that he had the spirit of God; and his passions, A proofe of the godhead & manhood in Christ. that he had the flesh of man. If vertues be not without spirit, neither shall pas­sions be without flesh. If flesh togither with the passions be feigned, the spirit also with his ver­tues is false. Why dooest thou make diuision of Christ by an vntruth? He is all wholie truth.

12 Apelles the heretike, The opinion of Apelles the heretike. being in a manner vanquished with these reasons, agréed indéed that Christ was indued with verie flesh, but yet denied the same to be borne, but said, that it was brought foorth from heauen. And he obiecteth, that The bodies which were taken by Angels, were true bodies, but were not borne: such a bo­die (saith he) Christ had. Whervnto Tertullian an­swereth, They (saith he) which publish the flesh of Christ to be after the example of the Angels, saieng, that it was not borne, namelie a fleshie substance, I would haue them also to compare the causes, as well why Christ, Christ tooke flesh vpon him in one respect, An­gels in ano­ther. as why the An­gels did come in the flesh. For there was neuer anie Angel that came downe to be crucified, to suffer death, and to rise againe. If then there was neuer anie such cause for Angels [...]o incorpo­rate themselues, then hast thou a cause why they take flesh, and yet were not borne. They came not to die, therefore they came not to be borne; but Christ being sent to die, it was necessarie that he should be borne; for no man is woont to die, but he which is borne. He addeth moreouer; And euen then also the Lord himselfe, among those Angels, appéered vnto Abraham, with flesh indéed, without natiuitie, by reason of the same diuersitie of cause. After this he addeth, that An­gels haue their bodies rather from the earth than from heauen. For let them prooue (saith he) that those Angels receiued of the stars substance of flesh; if they prooue it not, bicause it is not writ­ten, then was not the flesh of Christ from thence, wherevnto they applie their example. And in his third booke against Marcion; My God (saith he) which hauing taken it out of the slime of the earth, formed it a new vnto this qualitie, not as yet by the séede of matrimonie, and yet flesh notwithstanding, might as well of anie matter haue framed flesh vnto Angels, which also of no­thing framed the world, and that with a word, into so manie and such bodies.

Againe, in his booke De carne Christi; it is ma­nifest, that Angels bare not flesh proper of their owne, as in the nature of spirituall substance: and if they were of anie bodie, yet was it of their owne kind; and for a time they were changea­ble into humane flesh, to the intent they might be séene and conuerse with men. Further, in the third booke against Marcion; Vnderstand thou (saith he) that neither it must be granted thée, that the flesh in Angels was an imagined thing, but of a true and perfect humane substance. For if it were not hard for him to giue both true sen­ses and acts vnto that imagined flesh, much ea­sier was it for him, that he gaue a true substance of flesh to true senses and actions: insomuch as [Page 116] he is the verie proper authour and worker there­of. For it is harder for God to make a lie, than to frame a bodie. Last of all, he thus concludeth; Therefore are they verie humane bodies, bicause of the truth of God, who is far from lieng and deceit: and bicause they cannot be dealt withall by men, after the maner of men, otherwise than in the substance of men. I might alledge manie other things out of Tertullian, but these may séeme to suffice for this present purpose. The summe of Tertulli­ans opi­nion. Bréeflie, he thinketh that Angels haue bodies for a time, but yet strange, and not their owne: for their owne bodies (as he thinketh) belongeth vnto the spirituall kind. Secondlie, he saith, that those strange bodies, which they take vnto them, are either created of nothing; or else of some such matter, as séemeth best to the wisedome of God. Thirdlie he teacheth, that those bodies were true and substantiall, and humane bodies; not vaine or feined, but of verie flesh; and not of that, which onlie appéered to be flesh: in such wise, as of men, they might both be touched and handled; to the intent that both he might remooue dissimulation from God, & also confirme the truth of humane flesh in Christ. Whereby it is prooued, that mens senses beguiled thē not as touching these things; as the Papists confirme, that men are deceiued about the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Origin. 13 But Origin in his booke [...], as Ierom citeth him against Iohn bishop of Ierusa­lem, was of a far other mind. For whereas we saie, that the visions of Angels may be concei­ued thrée maner of waies; to wit, either in phan­tasie, or in bodie, but not humane: or else in the verie true bodie of a man; he taketh a certeine meane, and saith; that The bodies of Angels, wherein they present themselues to the eies of men, are neither perfect bodies, nor humane bo­dies, nor yet phantasticall bodies, and yet bodies neuertheles: and that he applieth to them that rise againe. For we shall (saith he) haue bodies in the resurrection, but yet onlie bodies, not bones, not sinewes, not flesh. And indéed there is some difference betwéene a bodie and flesh: Euerie flesh is a bodie, but not eue­rie bodie flesh. for euerie flesh is a bodie, but euerie bodie is not flesh. Such a difference Paule toucheth in the first chapter of his epistle to the Colossians, when he said; Ye are reconciled in the bodie of his flesh. Col. 1, 22. And in the second chapter; Col. 2, 11. By putting off the sinfull bo­die of the flesh. Yea, and in the Créed also we saie; that We beleeue in the resurrection of the flesh, and saie not; Of the bodie. Origin said, that he sawe two excéeding errors; the one was, of them which said, that there was no resurrecti­on. Such were the Valentinians and Marcio­nites; 2. Tim. 2, 18. of which sort also were Hymenaeus and Phi­letus, who (as Paule witnesseth) taught that the resurrection was alreadie past; and such are the Libertines at this daie reported to be. For they babble (I cannot tell what) of the matter both vngodlie, and vnlearnedlie. Another of those which think, that perfect and true bodies shall rise againe with flesh, sinewes, and bones: which thing (he saith) is not possible; for Flesh & bloud cannot inherit the kingdome of God.

But Origin should haue weighed what Paule said afterward: for he addeth; Neither shall corruption possesse incorruption. 1. Co. 15, 50. Where­fore, his meaning is, that a corruptible bodie cannot possesse the kingdome of GOD. But Origin, to kéepe himselfe within that meane, which he appointed, confessed that bodies indéed shall rise againe, yet not grosse and bonie, but spirituall: according as Paule said; 1. Co. 15, 44 It shall rise a spirituall bodie. But Origin in these words marked not, that Paule calleth it A spirituall bo­die; not bicause it shall be wholie conuerted in­to a spirit, but bicause it shall haue spirituall qua­lities: namelie, incorruption, and most cléere brightnes. But bicause he perceiued, that the bodie of Christ, which he after his resurrection offered to his disciples to be handled and fealt, was against his doctrine, therefore he saith; Let not the bodie of Christ deceiue you, for it had manie singular properties, which are not gran­ted vnto other bodies. Further, he would haue a true bodie after his resurrection, to the intent he might prooue by this dispensation, that he was trulie risen from the dead: not to signifie that other bodies should be semblable vnto it at the resurrection. But he shewed the nature of a spi­rituall bodie at Emaus, Luk. 24, 13. when he vanished from the sight of his disciples; and at another time, when he went in to his disciples, Iohn. 20, 19. the doores being fast shut.

14 Against these things Ierom repugneth; Ierom. If Christ (saith he) after his resurrection, did verelie eate with his disciples, he had also a ve­rie true bodie: if he did not eate, how did he by a false thing prooue the truth of his bodie? Luk. 24, 31. In that he vanished from the sight of his disci­ples, this was not through the nature of his bodie, but by his owne power: Luke. 4, 30. for so in Na­zareth, when the people would haue assailed him with stones, he withdrew himselfe out of their sight. And shall we not thinke, that the sonne of GOD was able to doo that, which a magician could doo? Apollonius Tyanaeus. For Apollonius Tyanaeus, when he was brought into the coun­cell before Domitian, he foorthwith vanished a­waie. That this was in Christ, not in respect of the nature of his bodie, but of his diuine po­wer, it is shewed by that which went before in the historie. For while he was in the waie with his disciples, their eies were held, Luke. 24, 16 so as they could not knowe him. And whereas Origin affirmeth, that the bodie of Christ was spirituall, Iohn. 20, 19 bicause it came in where the doores [Page 117] were shut: Ierom answereth, that the creature gaue place to the creator, In what sort the bo­dy of Christ entred in, the doores being shut. &c. Wherefore the bodie of Christ persed not through the middest of the planks and boords, so as two bodies had béene togither in one and the selfe-same place; but herein was the miracle, in that the verie timber of the doores gaue waie vnto the bodie of Christ.

Luke. 24, 2. Further, whereas some doo obiect, that the bodie of Christ came foorth of the sepulchre be­ing close shut; The bodie of Christ came not out of the sepulchre, the same be­ing shut. that also is not of necessitie to be beléeued: but it may be thought that the stone was rolled away before he came out. And least any should thinke that I deuise this of my self, let him read the 83. epistle of Leo vnto the bi­shops of Palestine; The flesh (saith he) of Christ which came out of the sepulchre, the stone being rolled awaie, &c. Now to returne to the pur­pose. The bodies wherein Angels ap­peared were true hu­mane bo­dies. Bicause I said that the bodies of Angels, which they take vnto them, maie be thought either to haue béene phantasticall or spirituall, or else substantiall and verie humane bodies; and that the two first opinions are reiected: it now resteth, that the bodies of Angels, where­in they shew themselues to be men, are verie true and humane bodies: and this onelie I affirme to be true, séeing Angels were in such sort séene, as they wrestled with men, and offered their féet to be washed. The visions of the pro­phets were sometime imagina­tiue. And I iudge it not lawfull to say, that mens senses were there deceiued, séeing the things were outwardlie doone. I denie not indéed, but that somtimes there happened to the prophets visions imagi­natiue, when they said that they sawe God or the cherubims, or such other like things. For in asmuch as that happened often in their mind or power imaginatiue, it might be doone by forms, images, and visions.

Angels ap­pering in mens bo­dies were not men. 15 Now remaineth two things to be exa­mined; one whether the Angels, hauing in this wise put on humane bodies, may be called men. I thinke not: for if we vnderstand hu­mane flesh, which is formed and borne a soule reasonable, surelie it cannot be said that An­gels in this sort haue humane flesh. What then (will some saie) were the senses beguiled when men sawe them? No verelie: for the senses doo onlie iudge of outward things, and of such things as be apparant: but what dooth inwardlie force or mooue those things, which they sée, they iudge not; this is the part of rea­son to séeke and search out. It must also be ad­ded, that Angels did not alwaies kéepe those bodies with them; bicause they were not ioi­ned vnto them in one and the selfe-same sub­stance, so as the Angel and the bodie should become one person. The holie Ghost also, al­though it was a verie dooue wherein he descen­ded, Matth. 3, 16 yet was not he togither of one substance with it; wherefore the dooue was not the holie Ghost, nor yet the holie Ghost the dooue: The dooue was not the holie Ghost, nor the ho­lie Ghost the dooue. Num. 12, 18 Gene. 3, 1. other­wise Angels, as we taught before, may enter secretlie into a bodie which was made before, and which before had his béeing: as it is read of the Angel which spake in the asse of Balaam, and of the diuell which spake vnto Eue by the serpent. But of this kind we dispute not now; but onlie saie, that Angels abiding after this maner in sensible creatures, are not ioined to them in one & the selfe-same substance. Where­fore the asse could not be called an Angel, nor the Angel, an asse: no more than the ser­pent was in verie déed the diuell, or the diuell a serpent. But the Sonne of God, for somuch as he tooke vpon him the nature of man, The Sonne of God was man, and man was God. was man, and man was God, by reason of one and the selfe-same substance, wherin were two na­tures. Before which time, when he appeared vnto Abraham, and vnto the fathers, although he had true flesh; yet bicause the same was not ioined in one substance with him, neither might he be called flesh, neither was the flesh God. But afterward, when he tooke vpon him both flesh and soule, so as there was onlie one sub­stance or person, then might it be trulie said that man was God, and God was man. By which meanes it came to passe, that he should verilie be borne, that he should suffer death, and redéeme mankind: Matt. 8, [...]0. Looke part. 2, place 17. art. 6. Iohn. 8, 40. Roma. 1, 3. Acts. 2, 22. Esaie. 7, 14. wherefore he trulie called himselfe The sonne of man. And in Iohn he saith; Yee seeke to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth. And in the scriptures it is said; Made of the seed of Dauid. And Peter in the Acts; Yee haue killed (saith he) a man ordeined vnto you of God. And Esaie; Behold a virgin shall conceiue, and shall bring foorth a sonne.

These words haue great force: for vnlesse Christ had béene verie man, a virgin could not haue conceiued him, neither haue brought him foorth, nor yet haue called him hir sonne. This dooth Tertullian consideratelie note; Tertullian. If he had béene a stranger (saith he) a virgin could not either haue conceiued him, or borne him. Also the Angel saluted Marie on this maner; Feare not (saith he) for thou shalt conceiue a sonne, Matt. 1, 22. Luke. 1, 43. &c. And Elizabeth said; How hapneth this to me, that the mother of my Lord commeth vnto me? If shée had had Christ onlie as a ghost, she might not be called his mother. Elizabeth. Luke. 1, 42. Also the said woman said; Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe. But how could it haue béene called the fruit of hir wombe, if he had brought a bodie with him frō heauen? And in Esaie it is written; Esaie. 11, 1, A rod shall come foorth of the stocke of lesse, & a blossome shal flourish out of hir roote. Iesse was the stock, Marie was the roote, and Christ was the blos­some which tooke his bodie of hir. Matthew al­so thus beginneth his gospell; Matth. 1, [...]. The booke of the [Page 118] generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of Dauid, the sonne of Abraham. If Christ brought a bo­die from heauen, how was he the sonne of A­braham, or of Dauid? Moreouer, the promise made to Abraham concerning Christ is on this wise; Gen. 22, 18. In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bee blessed. Paule intreating of these words in the epistle to the Galathians; He said not (saith he) in seeds, Galat. 3, 8. as though in manie; but in thy seed, which is Christ. And in the epistle to the Romans, Gen. 9. 5. we read; Of whom Christ came according to the flesh. All these saiengs prooue most euidentlie, that Christ was verie man; and that in him was one substance of God and man. Rom. 9, 5. These things cannot be said of the An­gels, nor yet of the sonne of God, before he was borne of the virgin: although when he ap­péered, he had verie flesh, as we said before, but not ioined to him in one and the selfe-same substance. Neither yet could it be said of the ho­lie Ghost, that he was a verie dooue indéed; al­though the same, wherein he once appéered, was a verie dooue. Matth. 3, 16 And according to this sense wrote Tertullian those things that we cited be­fore, which being not rightlie vnderstood, might bréed either error or offense vnto those that shall read them.

If Angels did trulie eat & drink when they appeered. 16 Now remaineth the other question; to wit, Whether Angels clothed with bodies ta­ken, did eate and drinke indéed? Of the School­men some thinke that they did eate indéed, and some denie it. Scotus thinketh, that to eate, is nothing else but to chawe meate, Scotus. and to con­ueie it downe into the bellie: but this did the Angels; wherefore he gathereth that they did verelie eate. Others thinke, that to eate, is not onelie to chawe the meate, or to conueie it downe into the bellie; but further, to conuert it into the substance of his owne bodie, by con­coction, through the quickening power: which thing, séeing the Angels did not, they did not trulie eate. The booke of Tobias. The booke of Tobias is not in the canon of the Hebrues; but yet we might applie the same to our purpose, sauing that there is a disagréement in the copies. For in that booke which Munster set foorth in He­brue, in the twelfe chapter, the Angel Raphael said; Tobi. 12, 19. I seemed to you to eate and to drinke, but I did not eate, nor yet drinke. The common translation hath; I seemed to you to eate and to drinke, but I vse inuisible meate and drinke. Neither text denieth, but that the Angel did eate after some maner. But whatsoeuer may be gathered of these words, me thinketh that the interpretation of Augustine in his 13. book De trinitate, the 22. chapter is to be receiued, where he wrote on this wise; The Angels did trulie eate, yet not for néed, but to procure con­uersation and familiaritie with men. Where­fore when as in another text it is said, that Ra­phael did not eate, it must not so be vnderstood, as though he did not eate at all, but that he did not eate after the maner of men. But this is speciallie to be noted there, What ma­ner of meat was that of Angels. that when the An­gel answereth, that he dooth féed vpon inuisible meate and drinke; that spirituall food was no­thing else, but a perfect and manifest know­ledge of the true God, and an execution of his diuine will. As Christ also said, Iohn. 4, 32. that His meate was to doo the will of his father. The verie which also is our meate, although not after the same maner: for they sée God manifestlie, but we by a glasse and in a darke spéech. 1. Co. 13, 12.

17 We may call Angels (both according to the Gréeke and Hebrue name) messengers or legats, In Gen. 32. at the be­ginning. verelie not as though they should teach God as concerning the affaires of men, or any other busines: naie rather, to the intent that they themselues may be instructed, what they ought to minister, and shew tidings of. Tob. 12, 12. Whether Angels do offer our praiers vn­to God. If so be thou read in the scriptures, that they offer vp our praiers, this is not doone of them to in­struct or teach God: in like maner, as wée, when we praie feruentlie, doo not therfore laie before God, our calamities, as though he were ignorant of them: séeing the Lord testifieth of that matter; Matth. 6, 33 that He knoweth wherof we haue need, euen before we aske. But by discouering and laieng them open, we our selues be the more earnestlie bent to craue the helpe of God. And what discommoditie should arise, if wée affirme this selfe-same thing to come to passe in Angels? These things did Augustine write in his 15. booke De trinitate, the 13. chapter. And in Enchiridio ad Laurentium, the 58. chapter, he saith the same thing, when he intreateth of the names of Angels, which are recited in the first chapter of the epistle to the Colossians; Colos. 1, 16. Let them saie what they can what be thrones, domi­nions, principalities, and powers; so they be able to prooue that they saie.

And against the Priscillianists, and Originists, the 11. chapter; Archangels (saith he) perhaps are powers, and we denie not, but that there is some difference betwéene these; To be igno­rant of the estate of Angels is no harme to vs. but to be igno­rant of such a thing, will bring no great danger vnto vs. For there certeinlie are we in dan­ger, where we despise the commandements of God, or neglect the obedience of him. But if thou wilt aske me, why the scriptures make mention of these things, if the knowing, or not knowing of them be of so smal importance? He addeth a fit answere; namelie, that If these things haue béene reuealed to some excellent men, they may then knowe that there is no­thing prooued for a certeintie, which is not found written in the scriptures. To which answere, I adde also this other; Bicause we may be the [Page 119] more humble, and not to puffe vp our selues, as though we were able to sound vnto the deapth of all that we reade in the canonicall scriptures.

Gen. 32, 1. 18 The Iewes haue noted in the historie of Iacob, that the scripture saith not that he went, and met with the Angels: Whether godlie men be better than An­gels. but contrariwise, that the Angels met with him, and that they saie was done for honor sake. And thereof they ar­gue further, that Iacob, and euerie godlie man is more woorthie than Angels, Psal. 91, 11. forsomuch as the person that is met, is more honorable than hée that goeth foorth to méete. Also, he is better which is borne of anie man, than he which beareth him. But the scripture saith, that the Angels doo beare [the godlie] in their hands, least they should hurt their feet against the stones. Who so euer is appointed to haue the custodie of ano­ther, séemeth to be inferiour to him which is kept. By which reasons they make Angels inferiour vnto holie men, who are called The freends of God. But all men doo easilie sée how these rea­sons of theirs doo prooue. For the father and the mother doo beare in their armes their yoong chil­dren, doo they therfore beare more woorthie than themselues? It is said, that Christ doth beare all things by the word of his power; Hebr. 1, 3. but who is so far beside himselfe, or deceiued, as to iudge that things created, be more excellent than the Sonne of God? The shepheard when he findeth his shéepe, beareth it vpon his shoulders; doth he beare a better than himselfe? A father, a maister, and a fréend, go foorth vpon the waie to méete with their sonne, scholer, or fréend, retur­ning from perill out of a strange countrie; doo they this therefore as vnto their better? Men be euerie-where set ouer flocks of shéepe to kéepe them, yet are they much better than the shéepe. In verie déed the Angels doo all these things, not that they are bound to vs, but to the intent they may be thankefull vnto God. Wherefore the arguments of the Rabbins are vaine and friuolous.

19 But vnto this selfe-same purpose, there be reasons gathered out of the new Testament. For the Apostle saith in the first chapter to the Ephesians; Christ being raised vp by his father from death, Ephes. 1, 21. is lifted vp on high, far aboue all principalitie, and power, and dominion, and a­boue euerie name that is named, not onlie in this world, but also in the world to come. Further, in the second chapter he testifieth, Ephes. 2, 6. that God hath taken vs vp togither with him, and hath alreadie made vs to sit on the right hand with him: whereby it commeth, Whether we shall be in­dued with greater glo­rie than the Angels. that wée are accounted greater than the Angels. For if we sit hard by Christ, and he no doubt hath ascended aboue all creatures, the highest degrée giueth also place vnto vs. Howbeit, this is yet a blunt argument, for it may be, that we shall sit with Christ in glorie, taking the saieng generallie. It is suffici­ent that we be partakers of that glorie. And it followeth not necessarilie thereof, that we shall be superiours vnto the Angels; vnlesse that thou wilt vnderstand, that the state of men shall then be so absolute & perfect, as they shall haue no more néed of the helpe of Angels. When they shall haue God and Christ present, and saluati­on atteined, to what purpose shall there be néed of the ministerie of holie spirits? whereof vnder­stand this reason; If so be that when Christ came, and powred out his spirit plentifullie a­mong the faithfull, that same instruction of An­gels was not vsed, or néedfull vnto diuine things, as commonlie it had bin in the old Te­stament: euen so in the euerlasting kingdome, where we shall haue Christ reuealed, and the fa­ther euidentlie knowne vnto vs, certeinlie we shall enioie the fellowship of Angels, but not vse the ministerie of them. But as touching the sub­stance and nature of Angels, and of men, we cannot certeinelie knowe in what degrée we and they shall be placed in the heauenlie habita­tion: but yet, if we respect nature, we doubt not but that they are more excellent than we be. But who can boldlie either affirme or denie, whether the grace and spirit of God shall more abound in some certeine men than in them?

Neuerthelesse, as concerning the place of S. Paule in the second chapter to the Ephesians, Ephes. 2, 6. it sufficeth, that his words be true; namelie, that we, as we be, and are conteined in our head, may be said to sit at the right hand of the father, a­boue all creatures. But afterwards, if one would infer thereby [that we shall doo the same] as touching our owne proper nature or person, that cannot be prooued by anie firme argument. And Paule vseth things past for things to come, to wit, that we are alreadie taken vp, and sit in heauenlie places (and that not without reason) that he might make the same more certeine, euen as those things be which are past alreadie. Or else, if we haue respect to the will and decrée of God, these things be alreadie done. But in the epistle to Timothie, the selfe-same things are assigned vnto the time to come, when the A­postle saith; If we be dead together with Christ, 2. Tim. 2, 1 [...]. we shall liue together with him: If we suffer with him, we shall also reigne with him. Yet neuer­thelesse, we must not accuse him of a lie, in that he vseth those times that be past, in stead of the times to come. For whatsoeuer is come to passe in our head, we confesse it to be done in vs; in so much verelie, as we are growne vp together with him. Wherefore let none saie; If Christ be risen from death, if he be carried vp into hea­uen, if he sit at the right hand of God, what be­longeth this vnto mée? Yes doubtles, verie much, for whatsoeuer hath hapned vnto him, thou [Page 120] maiest of good right estéeme that it hath happe­ned to thy selfe. Those shall not greatlie trou­ble vs, which by thrones, principalities, po­wers and dominions, will haue to be vnder­stood such princes, monarchs, & magistrates. For Paule, when he maketh mention of these, speaketh manifestlie of Angels, & of spirits that be aboue: whom in the second to the Ephesi­ans, Ephe. 2, 2. Colo. 2, 15. he calleth rulers or guiders of the world: and to the Colossians he saith; Christ hath spoi­led principalities and powers, & hath led them as it were in open triumph. In which place who séeth not, that these words doo signifie vnto vs the spirits which be aduersaries vnto God?

In 1. Cor. 15, verse 14. 20 But whereas it is said in the first to the Corinthians, the 15. chapter; When he hath put downe all principalitie, 1. Cor. 15, verse. 14. Chrysost. and rule, and power: these things, aswell Chrysostome, as diuers o­ther interpretors, refer vnto the diuell, & other wicked spirits, being souldiers of his band; which I mislike not. Albeit, if anie will vnder­stand them as concerning magistrates and principalities of this world, I will not be a­gainst it. For kings and princes haue the sword, to the intent that sinne may be kept in subiection; and that innocent subiects may be defended from violence and iniuries: which things shall take no place, when things shall be set at peace and quietnes by Christ. We might also vnder these names comprehend the good Angels, which be assigned as ministers and hel­pers vnto vs, while we be here in this misera­ble life; as we read in the epistle to the Hebrues, and as Daniel testifieth, Heb. 1, 14. Dan. 10, 13. and 12. 1. Angels be gouernours of king­doms, and gardians of men. Mat. 18, 10. The cause of the moti­on of the planets. they be set ouer king­doms, and they be the gardians of men: séeing Christ said, as touching the yoong children; Their Angels doo alwaie behold the face of the Father. But when the kingdome of Christ shall be ful­lie appeased, then these ministeries shall be su­perfluous; and therfore it is said, that they shall be taken awaie. Yea, and the labours of the sunne, moone, stars, and celestiall bodies shall not be néedfull: for therefore are they mooued, and kéepe their circuite in the world, that they may driue awaie darkenes and cold; and bi­cause that fruits also may be brought foorth for the defense of our infirmitie: which béeing perfectlie healed, these helps and supportati­ons shall be at rest. Wherefore we read in the Reuelation of Iohn, that an Angel sware by him that liueth for euer, Apoca. 1, 5. that hereafter there should be no time anie more: which cannot be taken awaie, vnles the motions of the heauens be at rest. And therefore it is said, that all these things shall be abolished: if not as touching their substance, In what re­spec [...]s y ^e ce­lestiall bo­dies shalbe abolished. yet as touching their gifts and offices, which they exercise towards men. The same thing also may be said of ecclesiasticall dignities and functions, which now indéed fur­ther vnto edification: but when all things shall be perfect & absolute in the elect, they shall cease and haue an end.

Manie things hath Dionysius concerning the signification of the words Principalitie, po­wer, and dominion; but yet such as are spoken onlie of him: for among the rest of the fathers, there is verie little extant as touching these things; and that for good cause: for the holie scriptures teach not these things, bicause they further not to our saluation. Wherefore they, A iudgment of bookes ascribed to Dionysius. which be of the greatest iudgment in ascribing of bookes to the true authours of them, doo not thinke that Dionysius, which wrote of these things, is that Areopagita the scholer of Paule, but some later Dionysius. Neither is it likelie to be true, that that worke was in estimation long ago, séeing that ( Gregorie except, Gregorie. who was a Latin man) none of the ancient fathers cited those writings. I haue heard sometimes diuers saie, that these surnames of Angels were com­monlie translated by a metaphor taken of the powers of this world; and therfore they would that Paule, when he happened to make mention of Angels, remembred these names: as if he should saie; Whether they be principalities or dominions. And they alleadge the place vnto the Ephesians, where it is said; Ephe. 1, 21. that Christ is set aboue euerie name that is named, whether it be in this life, or in the life to come. But I doo not much allow this iudgement, bicause not onlie the Rabbins, Orders of Angels. Among the celestiall spirits there be or­ders and offices. In Rom 8. toward the end. but also the holie scripture hath the name of Archangel, or Seraphim, and of Cherubim; which things declare, that among the celestiall spirits there be certeine orders and diuers offices.

21 Perhaps therefore the scripture, by the name of principalitie vnderstands the higher spirits, vnto whom is committed nothing but the charge of prouinces, empires, & kingdoms. This ment Daniel, when he wrote of the prince of the Grecians, and of the Persians, Dan. 10, 13. Dani. 12, 1. & brought in Michaël the prince of Gods people. Power, called in Gréeke [...], is taken of Paule for that power, which is giuen of God to worke miracles, Power and the gift of healing are opposed one against the other. Acts. 5, 5. Acts. 13, 11. whereby the wicked may be restrai­ned: wherevnto answereth on the other side, [...], which signifieth The gift of healing. For euen as by that power wicked men were cha­stined, so by this the vexed were made whole. By this power Peter slew Ananias & Zaphira, Paule made blind Elimas the sorcerer, and de­liuered diuers, which had sinned, into the hands of sathan. Angels sent to punish sinne. And those Angels in the eight chap­ter to the Romans, are called by this name, which be sent by God to punish the wicked. Such were they that destroied Sodom and Go­morrha; and such was that Angel, Gene. 18, 2. which went betwéene the host of the Aegyptians, and the [Page 121] people of God, 2. Sam. 24, verse. 16. and which drowned Pharao with all his in the sea; and whom Dauid sawe vpon the threshold of Areuna, destroieng the people of God; 2. Kin. 19, 35 and which consumed the host of Senache­rib with fire. Albeit God dooth somtime the selfe same things by euill Angels. For so Dauid wri­teth in the psalme; Psal. 78, 49. that God sent plages among the Aegyptians, by the hands of euill Angels. Paule [in that place to the Romans] nameth the orders of the Angels by their ministeries and of­fices. And it is a thing woorthie to be noted, that in the holie scriptures there be verie few things mentioned of Angels: for subtilie and earnestlie to search after them, declareth rather our curio­sitie, than furthereth our saluation. But those things which serue to edifieng, are most diligent­lie set foorth in the scriptures: which thing I would to God that the Schoolmen had obserued, for then they had not left behind them so manie intricate and vnprofitable things, which at this daie are to no purpose, and with great offense dis­puted of. It is profitable for vs to vnderstand, that there be certeine Angels appointed about our affaires; for by that meanes we perceiue the goodnes of God towards vs. And on the other side also it is profitable to knowe, that there be some euill spirits, by whom we be continuallie assalted; both, that we may beware of them, and that we may implore the helpe of God against them. And these things indéed, bicause they be profitable to be knowne, the holie scripture hath not kept them in silence.

Of the estate of man; Jn Gen. 2, verse 7.

Of Paradise.

Of the long life of the Fathers.

31 But some men might muse in their mind, In 2. Sam. 19, verse 35. how it happened that the old Fathers before the floud, and a while after liued so long; and that this age afterward was shortened by little and little, vntill it was brought by a common course vnto fourescore yéeres? Manie were the causes of that long life in the old time. An addi­tion. [And it hath beene the generall opinion, as well a­mong the philosophers as Diuines, Causes of the long life of the fathers. that those ancients liued al that while by nature, and not miraculouslie. 1 And the first reason that mooued them ther­vnto, was; that our first parents A­dam and Eue were created immediate­lie by the hand of God, without anie [Page 127] meanes of man, or of anie other cor­ruptible thing: wherefore it is presup­posed, that he made them of an excel­lent complexion, of a perfect agree­ment, and proportion of humors: by which meanes the children proceeding from them, resembled their parents in sound and good complexion, vntill the third generation. 2 Secondlie, in those daies they had no such cause to breed diseases and infirmities, as did afterward followe to their succession. 3 Thirdlie, their temperance in eating and drinking, as well in quantitie as in qualitie, did much further them; bicause they were not acquainted with the eating of flesh, nor yet with the confection of so manie deintie di­shes, as we are in these daies. 4 Fur­thermore, in those daies, fruits, plants and hearbs were of more vertue than now they be, bicause they sprang from a new made ground, & as yet became not barren with the inundation of waters. 5 Also Adam out of all doubt knew the propertie of all hearbs and plants, for the preseruation of health, more than we at this daie doo, and brought the same knowledge to his succession after him. 6 Moreouer, the course of the heauens, and the influ­ence of the stars & planets were then more fauourable vnto them, than they be now vnto vs, when as they haue passed so manie eclipses, aspects and coniunctions; whereof proceedeth so great alterations and changes vpon the earth.] 7 Besides this, many children were then to be procreated, and the world to be reple­nished, which was doone by the meanes of long life. 8 Arts were to be found out, wherefore long life was requisite; for they are learned by expe­rience. 9 And (that which was the chéefest cause) it behooued that the worshipping of the onlie true God should be reteined among men; which thing in so great a varietie of people might hardlie haue béene doone. Afterward, when so great a procreation was not néedfull, when artes were found out, and the holie scriptures (vnto which the seruice of God was fastened) were giuen vnto vs, long life would haue béene tedious. Gen. 5, 32. Gen. 47, 9. The patriarch Iacob said; Few and e­uill are the daies of thy seruant, if they should be compared vnto the age of our forefathers, not to our age. So this shortening of mans age, was doone of a certeine mercie of God towards vs.

But whie did those first men absteine so long from procreation of children? For it is written, Why it was so long be­fore the fa­thers did procreate. Gen. 5. that they begat children at the age of fiue hun­dred yéeres, at a hundred and thirtie, and not be­fore. Augustine in the 15. booke De ciuitate Del, the 15. chapter saith, that It may be answered two maner of waies; the first is, that in these men it was long before they came to the age of procreation, & that they inioied not the power of séed so soone as we doo. Which answer may thus be confirmed; our age is diuided into infancie, childhood, youth, and mans state. Wherein if so be the number of yéeres be proportioned to the rate of our whole age, so was it then. And there­fore, if their life did so greatlie excéed ours, it be­hooued also that the time of their infancie & child­hood should be more at length extended and in­larged. The second answer is, that in that gene­alogie, the descent is not reckoned from one first begotten to another. For it may be, that there were others begotten euen before them; which thing is after this maner declared. The purpose of the scripture is to conueigh the course of the narration vnto Abraham, from whom the peo­ple of Israel had their beginning: wherefore in the genealogie those children are chosen to be described, by whom they descend vnto him. But it is of no necessitie, that those had béene of the first begotten. Matt. 1, 1. Euen as in the gospell of Mat­thew, where the meaning of the Euangelist, in describing of the stocke of Christ, is to descend by Dauid vnto Christ himselfe, therefore he dooth not alwaies take the first begotten; for Ismael was borne before Isaac, Esau went before Iacob: and in the order of the procreation, Iuda among the children of Iacob was not the first begotten. And by Iuda himselfe other children were be­gotten, before Phares & Zeram of Thamar. Nei­ther was Dauid the eldest son of his father, but the yoongest among the rest of his brethren. But by others, the stocke would not haue descended vnto Christ. But whie speciallie it was so long before that Noah begat children, was (as saith Rabbi Selomoh) bicause that the children, which should haue béene begotten before of him, might easilie haue béene infected with the vices of other men. And God would that they, at the time of the floud, should be yoonger, wherby they might not be infected with such horrible vices as others were.

Finallie, it is thus argued; These, if they had béene borne long before the floud, would either haue béene iust or wicked; if they had béene wic­ked, they must therefore haue perished with o­thers, and by that meanes sorrowe had béene added vnto a righteous father, which thing God would not; if they had béene good, and they also had begotten others, and perhaps Noah him­selfe others also: all which, if God would haue [Page 128] saued for Noahs sake, the arke should haue béen made much bigger. Whereby Noah had béene more wearied, in the building of it, than reason would. This séemeth to be a pleasant deuise. But (as I haue said before) it shall appeare sufficient­lie to a christian man, that either these were not the first among his children, or else that children were denied him, so long as it pleased the Lord. Neither is it méet to cleaue vnto fables, so curi­ouslie inuented. But what shall we saie as con­cerning the great number of yéeres, wherein they are said to haue liued? Shall we be so har­die to affirme, that those were not so long as these yéeres of ours, but that they were of two or thrée moneths long? And Plinie séemeth to report in the 7. booke of his naturall historie, that diuers countries made their computation of yéeres otherwise than we doo; and that there­by it came to passe, that some may séeme to haue liued longer than the common course. This can­not possiblie be prooued by this argument; bi­cause in the description of the arke, and of the floud, Gen. 7, 12. there is mention made of the second and tenth moneth: wherefore the same maner of yéeres was then that are now. Gen. 8, 5. An additi­on. [Yea and by the whole course of the historie ye may plainelie perceiue, that the full num­ber of daies and moneths, which we vse in our age (or at the least wise within verie few more or lesse) were compleated at that time. For in the 17. daie of the second moneth, at what time as the fountaines of the great deepe did breake vp, Noah ente­red into the arke. The 17. daie of the second moneth, the arke rested vpon the tops of Armenia. In the first daie of the tenth moneth, the tops of the mountaines were seene; then followed fortie daies before Noah opened the windowe of the arke; wherevnto adde 14. daies more, which were spent in sending foorth of the dooue. Which be­ing in all 54. daies, or two moneths, make vp the ful number of twelue mo­neths; the very same reckoning which we at this daie obserue. So we haue it sufficientlie prooued, that seeing as well the yeres as moneths of old time were the verie same that ours be, or little differing, the time of their life in those daies was no les, than the scrip­tures declare.]

Of Giants.

In Iud. 1. verse 10. 32 Now, séeing that in the holie scriptures, there is mention made oftentimes of giants, Looke in Gen. 6, 4. it shall not be vnprofitable if we speake somewhat of them. First we must vnderstand, By how manie names the giants are called in the holie scriptures. What signi­fieth Ha­nak. that they be called by diuers names in the scriptures, as Rephaim, Nephilim, Emim, and Hanakim. The Hebrue verbe Hanak, is to inuiron or compasse about, and from thence is deriued the nowne Hanak: and in the plurall number it is both the masculine and feminine gender, and signifieth a chaine; and it is transferred vnto notable & fa­mous men: as if thou shouldest saie Knight and chainemen. But they were called Emim, by rea­son of a terror which they brought vpon others with their looke. They were called Zamzumim, of wickednes; for they hauing confidence in their owne power and strength, contemned both lawes, iustice, and honestie; and they al­waies wrought wickednesse. For doubtles the hebrue word Zimma, signifieth wickednes, or mischéefe. Also they were named Rephaim, bi­cause men méeting with them, became in a ma­ner astonished: for that word otherwhile signifi­eth dead men. Finallie they be called Nephilim, as one may say oppressors, of the verbe Naphal, which is To fall or to rush vpon; bicause they did violentlie run vpon all men. Som thought that they were sometime called Gibborim; but bi­cause we vse to refer that word vnto power, and Gibborim are properlie called strong men; ther­fore I would not put it among these. Further, What time giants be­gan to be. Augustine. if thou wilt demand when giants began to be (to follow the opinion of Augustine in the 16. booke De ciuitate Dei, the 23. chapter) we may saie that they were before the floud. Wherein we be­léeue him, bicause he prooueth it by the testimo­nie of the holie scriptures: for we haue it in the sixt of Genesis, Gen. 6, 4. that in those daies there were giants vpon the earth, whose stocke although it were preserued after the floud, yet he thinketh that it was not in anie great number.

33 Besides this, Whether gi­ants were begotten by men. there is a doubt as touching procreation and parents. For some thinke that they were not begotten of men, but that angels or spirits were their parents: and this they saie, is speciallie confirmed by that which is written in the booke of Genesis; Gen. 6, 1. The sonnes of God see­ing the daughters of men, that they were faire, tooke them to wiues, and of them were borne most mightie men or giants. Of this fall of an­gels, bicause they were conuersant with wo­men, manie of the ancient fathers are of one mind: and among the rest Lactantius in the se­cond booke the 15. chapter. Lactantius. For (as we read there) he thought, that God feared least that sathan, to whom he had granted dominion of the world, would vtterlie haue destroied mankind: and therefore he gaue vnto mankind angels for tu­tors, by whose industrie and care they might be defended. But they being as well prouoked by [Page 129] the craft of sathan, as allured by the beautie of faire women, cōmitted vncleannes with them; wherefore he saith, that both they were cast from their dignitie, and were made souldiers of the diuell. This indéed did Lactantius thinke; yet he said not, that through those méetings of the an­gels with women, were borne giants; but earth­lie Daemons or spirits, which walke about the earth to our great harme. Eusebius Caesari­ensis. Eusebius Caesariensis, in his fift booke De praeparatione euangelica, is in a maner of the same opinion. For he saith also, that the angels which fell, begat of women (whom they lewdlie loued) those Daemons or spi­rits, which afterward in sundrie wise brought great troubles to the world. And to the verie same sort he referreth all those, which the poets and historiographers taught to be gods: & whose battels, contentions, lusts, sundrie and great tumults, they haue mentioned either in verse or in prose.

Augustine. But Augustine De ciuitate Dei, the 15. booke, and 23. chapter, thinketh not that the opinion of these ancient fathers can be gathered out of that place of Genesis. For he saith, that such as be there called The sonnes of God, were verie men, Men of the stocke of Seth were called the sonnes of God. and came of the generation of Seth, the third sonne of Adam. For séeing they reteined the true and sincere religion of God, and the pure inuocation of his name, and were adorned with the fauour and grace of God; they are cal­led by the scriptures The children of God. In what sort the chil­dren of God fell from God. Ne­uertheles, when they afterward burned in the lusting after those women, which descended of the stocke of Cain, and therefore belonged to the societie of the wicked, and had taken to them­selues wiues of them, they themselues also in­clined to superstitions and vngodlie worship­pings; and they of the sonnes of God not onlie became men, but also flesh. And (to shew this by the waie) Aquila translating those words out of the Hebrue; Aquila. Not (saith he) the sonnes of God, but the sonnes of gods, in this respect (as I thinke) bicause they had godlie progenitours, which so miserablie fell from God, through the mad loue of women. Symma­chus. But Symmachus transla­teth it; The sonnes of the mightie. But to re­turne to Augustine, he constantlie affirmeth, that out of that place of Genesis, there can be nothing gathered, as touching the copulation of angels with women: but rather thinketh, that far otherwise may be gathered of the words of God there written. For when the scripture had there said, that giants were vpō the earth, & that the sonnes of God (as it is said) had transgressed and brought foorth giants, it is added; And God said, Gen. 6, 3. My spirit shal not alwaies striue with man, bicause he is flesh. By this saieng Augustine will haue it manifest, that they which so offen­ded, are called men; not onelie as they were in their owne nature, but also as they are called flesh, vnto the which they inclined with their shamefull lusts.

But they which vnderstand it otherwise, thinke that they bring a great testimonie of E­noch the seuenth from Adam, Iude. 14. The booke of Enoch. of whom Iude speaketh in his canonicall epistle. For in the booke which is intituled to him, the giants are said to haue had, not men, but angels to be the authours of their generation. But vnto this an­swereth Augustine, Augustine. that the booke is altogither Apocryphus, [not canonicall;] and therefore that credit must not be giuen to the fables, which be recited therein. He saith, that it must not be doubted, but that Enoch wrote manie diuine things, séeing Iude the apostle did plainlie testi­fie the same; but yet that it is not necessarie to beléeue all the writings in the booke of Apocry­phus, which are shewed to haue come from him; forsomuch as they lacke sufficient authoritie. Neither should it be thought, that if Iude vtte­red some certeine sentence out of it, that therfore by his testimonie he approoued the whole booke: vnles thou wilt saie, that Paule also allowed of all things that were written by Epimenides, A­ratus, and Menander; bicause he alledged one or two verses out of them. Ierom, Which thing Ierom in expounding of the first chapter of the epistle to Titus, testifieth to be a verie absurd and ridicu­lous thing. And as concerning Enoch, it would séeme a verie great maruell, if he were the se­uenth from Adam, how he could write that Mi­chael wrestled with the diuell for the bodie of Moses; séeing if these things were (as in verie déed we must beléeue they were) they of necessi­tie happened well-néere a thousand, fiue hun­dred yéeres after; vnles we shall grant that this was reuealed vnto him at that time, by a cer­teine excellent power of prophesie.

34 Neither must it be forgotten, that those, The reason that moo­ued some to thinke that giants came not of men. which thinke that giants had not men, but an­gels for their parents, were therefore brought thus to thinke; bicause they thought it might not possiblie be, that huge giants can be borne of men, which be of an ordinarie stature and big­nes. Wherefore there were some, which procéeded so farre in the matter, as they affirmed, that the first man was a giant; and also Noah and his children. For they beléeued not, that that kind of men, either before or after the floud (if so be they might be thought to haue sproong of men) could be, vnles they had such progenitours. But Au­gustine prooueth that opinion to be false, Augustine. and saith; that A little before the destruction which the Gothes made, A woman giant in Rome. there was in Rome a woman of a giants stature, whom to behold, they came by heaps out of diuerse parts of the world; which woman neuertheles had parents, that excéeded not the common and vsuall stature of men. If [Page 130] we shall search what the cause is, that nature hath brought foorth giants of such huge bodies; we can alledge no other, A naturall cause of the tall stature of giants. but an abundance of naturall heate, and a moisture, which abundant­lie and largelie ministreth matter. For the heate, not onelie extendeth a man to tallenes and heigth, but also spreadeth and inlargeth him to breadth and thicknes. Wherefore giants be­gan to be before the floud, and they were also be­fore the resort which the sonnes of God had with the daughters of men, and were bred after that also. Further, men did beget them, and there was a naturall cause, as I haue shewed. Also for a truth, there were of them borne after the floud. For there is mention made of them in the bookes of Numbers, Deuteronomie, Ioshua, Iudges, Samuel, and Paralipomenon, and in others of the holie bookes.

Of what stature gi­ants haue bin. 35 Of the greatnes and stature of them, we may partlie coniecture, and partlie we haue the same expresselie described. The coniectures be, that Goliah had a coate of male, which weighed fiftie thousand sickles of brasse. 1. Sam. 17, 5. The haft of his speare was like a weauers beame, and the iron speare had weighed sixe hundred sickles of iron. We also coniecture of the excéeding great sta­ture of Og the king of Basan, Deut. 3, 11. by his bed, which being of iron, was of ten cubits long. Also, the Israelits being compared with Anachis, Num. 13, 34 séemed to be but grashoppers: these things may be a token vnto vs, of what greatnes these men were. The great­nes of Go­liah. 1. Sam. 17, 4 But the greatnes of Goliah is properlie and distinctlie set foorth in the booke of Samuel: for it is said there, that he was of sixe cubits and a hand-breadth high: and a cubit, if we followe the measure of the Gréekes, is two foote; but ac­cording to the account of the Latins, The cubit of y ^e Greeks and Latins. one foote and a halfe. Some alledge this to be the cause of the difference; that the measure may be some­times extended from the elbowe to the hand, sometime closed together, and sometime open & stretched foorth. This is as much as I could ga­ther of the stature of giants out of the holie scripture. The Eth­nicks testi­monie con­cerning gi­ants. These testi­monies of Plinie and Berosus be­ing in the latin copie put a little after, are more con­uenientlie set in this place. Plinie. Berosus. Philostra­tus. But among the Ethnicks we reade of much more woonderfull things, such as men can hardlie be persuaded to giue credit vnto. For Plinie writeth in his seauenth booke, that in Candie there fell downe a hill, and that there was found a mans bodie of sixe and fortie cubits long, which some thought to be the bodie of Ori­on, some of Otho. Also it is written, that the bo­die of Orestis, being digged vp, by the comman­dement of an oracle, was of 7. cubits. That which Berosus affirmeth of Adam, and of Seth his son, & of Noah & his sons, that they were all giants, séeing it is without scripture, it may be reiec­ted. Philostratus saith in his Heroikes, that he sawe a certeine dead carcase of a giant of thir­tie cubits long, another of two and twentie, and another of twelue. The com­mon stature of men of our time. The mea­sure of a foote. But the common stature of men in these daies is little aboue fiue foote. And héerein the measure of a foote agréeth as well a­mong the Gréeks as Latins, that vnto euerie foote are appointed four hand-breadths, and eue­rie hand-breadth conteineth the [...]readth of foure fingers, that is, the length of the little finger. But if so be that the two outwardmost fingers, I meane the thumbe and the little finger bée stretched out, euerie foote conteineth onelie two spans or hand-breadths. Vnto this place I thought good to transfer those things, Augustine. which Au­gustine hath in his 15. booke De ciuitate Dei, the ninth chapter, where he reprooueth those, which af­firme stoutlie, that men were neuer of such tall stature; and sheweth, that he himselfe sawe vp­on the coast of Vtica, a chéeke-tooth of a man so excéeding great, as the same being diuided into the fourme and quantitie of vsuall téeth in our age, it might easilie be iudged a hundred times greater. And that there were manie such perso­nages in old time, he declareth out of the verses of Virgil in the 12. booke of Aeneidos, where he brought in Turnus to haue lifted vp from the earth, and to haue shaken at Aeneas so great a stone, as twelue choise men could scarselie rule.

Which thing he declared out of the sixt Iliad of Homer. Also Virgil in the first booke of Geor­gicks saith, that men would woonder in time to come, when they should happen to till vp the féelds of Aematia, to sée the greatnes of bones which should be digged out of the graues. Fur­ther, he alledgeth Plinie the second, Plinius se­cundus. who in the seauenth booke affirmeth, that nature, the fur­ther forward that it goeth, the lesser bodies it dailie bringeth foorth. He calleth to mind, that Homer once in his verses bewailed the selfe-same thing, wherevnto I might adde the testi­monie of Cyprian against Demetrianus. Cyprian. But if I should be demanded, whether I thinke that mens bodies, which came after the floud, Whether humane bo­dies haue decreased euer since Noes floud hitherward. Aulus Gel­lius. were lesse than those which were brought foorth before the flood perhaps I would grant they were: but that they haue continuallie decresed, euen from the flood to this daie, that I would not easilie grant; especiallie considering the words which Aulus Gellius wrote in his third booke, where he [Page 131] saith; that The stature wherevnto mans bodie groweth, is of seuen foote, which séemeth also at this daie to be the measure of the taller statures. But yet we read in the Apocryphus of Esdras in the fourth booke, 4. Esdr. 5, 54. at the end of the fift chapter, that now also our bodies are lesse, and dailie shall be lessened; bicause nature alwaies becommeth more barren. The selfe-same thing also (as I said a little before) Cyprian séemeth to affirme. But I alleadged the cause whie I cannot easilie grant therevnto; namelie, for that I sée little diminished at this daie of the measure which Aulus Gellius described.

36 Now it séemeth good to shew the cause, whie God would, that some men otherwhile should be borne of such huge stature. The cause whie God would som­time raise vp such huge gi­ants. Forme and stature doo nothing further vnto sal­uation. Augustine in the 24. chapter of the booke before alleadged thinketh, this was doone, to the intent that it should be left for a testimonie vnto vs, that nei­ther the beautifulnes of the bodie, nor the large­nes of stature, nor yet the strength of the flesh should be accounted among the principall good things, séeing those are sometimes common, as well to the wicked, as to the godlie. Certeinelie, they which bend their mind vnto godlines, will iudge that spirituall good things must be prefer­red far aboue; partlie bicause they further vs vn­to saluation, and partlie bicause they in verie déed make vs better than other men. But that giants were nothing at all furthered vnto salua­tion, through the greatnes of their stature, he prooueth by that which the prophet Baruch wri­teth in the third chapter; Baru. 3, 16. What is becom of those famous giants, that were so great of bodies, and so worthie men of war? Those hath not the Lord chosen, neither hath he giuen them the waie of knowledge: therefore were they destroied, bi­cause they had no wisedome. But if a man will peruse the historie of the Bible, he shall scarselie find, Giants tooke not the defense of good causes. Deut. 3, 4. 1. Sam. 17, verse. 1. that they at anie time tooke a good or godlie cause in hand; naie rather he shall perceiue, that through their pride and frowardnes they were perpetuall enimies vnto God. For so was Og the king of Basan; so was Goliah and his bre­thren, they were most iniurious to the people, whom God had imbraced, & chosen from others to be peculiar vnto himselfe.

Also there is another matter, which may verie much confirme our faith. Giants o­uercome by weake men. For the holie histories alwaies make mention, that such huge giants were foulie vanquished in battels; and that es­peciallie by weake men, and by men verie vn­expert in warfare: namelie, by Dauid, being as yet a shéepheard; & by the people of Israel, when as yet they were yoong souldiers and ignorant in wars. Wherefore the spirit of God warneth vs to be of a constant and stedfast mind, when for godlines sake we are to fight with such mon­strous men. We must not then be dismaid for lacke of strength, séeing the holie oracles in eue­rie place pronounce, that it is God which deli­uereth such huge bodies into the hands of those, whom he will defend. Which things being so, then this vndoubtedlie is brought to passe, that we are not in anie wise to stand in feare of ty­rants, (which alwaies for the most part are a­gainst God, and haue a confidence in their own great strength) when they defend a wicked cause, and assure themselues of abilitie to ouer­throwe the weake and féeble flocke of Christ, at their owne pleasure. For against them the strength of Gods word, and the power of the spi­rit, although we be weake and féeble of nature, shall make vs mightie and inuincible. Indéed in mans reason we being compared with them, may easilie appeare to be but woorms or gras­hoppers; but we being fortified and walled in by the power of God, shall not onlie ouercome them; Rom. 8, 37. but (as Paule to the Romans saith) We shall conquer them. For Christ himselfe shalbe present with vs, who bindeth that strong armed man, & plucketh from him by force those most rich spoiles, which he had heaped togither.

Happilie did he wrestle with the diuell and his members; and through him shall we also fight prosperous battels, and shall obteine a far more noble victorie, than the poets feigned their gods to carrie with them against the Cy­clops, Titans, and other the giants, which at a place called Phlaegra (as they fable) were quite extinguished by Iupiters thunder-claps. It is proofe inough, whie in old time the giants, Why gi­ants, migh­tie, and wise men doo resist God. and now at this daie the mightiest princes, and wise men of the world resist God: verelie euen bi­cause they trust & leane ouermuch to their owne strength, wherein they hauing more affiance than is méet, there is no mischéefe, but they dare attempt, there is nothing that they thinke not lawfull for them. But God vouchsafeth not by such men to bring to perfection those things, which he hath determined to do; but is woont ra­ther by Dauids, and such other abiects, Whie God dooth exe­cute by weake men and not by mightie. to per­fourme the things that he hath purposed to doo; to the intent that his strength and power may far and largelie appeare.

37 I would thinke that inough hath béene spoken of this matter, but that yet there remai­neth a certeine place to be expounded: to wit, how it is written in Deuteronomie, that Og the king of Basan was onlie left of the giants. Deut. 3, 11. Whether Og was the last of the giants. What Rabbi Selomoh fableth I am not ignorant, but his exposition is so childish and ridiculous, as I am ashamed to rehearse it. Wherefore I iudge that it was not spoken absolutelie, and without exception, that he was left; as though there had béene no giants left in the world besides him­selfe; but it is shewed, that he onlie did remaine in those places; namelie on the other side of Ior­dan. [Page 132] Further, it must be knowne, that not the Israelites onelie did rid the giants out of those regions: The Moa­bites and Israelites draue gi­ants out of their bor­ders. Deut. 2, 20. for the Moabites also (as we reade in the second chapt. of Deuteronomie) draue them out of their coasts. Which thing also we must thinke did happen vnto them by the fauour of God: for it is there declared, that God gaue those regions to the Moabites to dwell in.

TOuching the name of Felicitie, all men in a maner agrée; which is manifest by the Latins, Gréekes, and Hebrues: for none of them doo con­tend about the name; but about the thing it selfe, and especiallie wherein the subiect or mat­ter is to be placed, they are at great dissention, For the vulgar sort differ from the wise men; yea & if thou wilt somewhat narrowlie consider the matter, all the common sort agrée not with themselues; and wise men doo not a little differ from wise men. The mat­ter or sub­iect of fe­licitie. The defini­tion of feli­citie. From this felicitie did Aristo­tle exclude all creatures void of reason, and this he did by vertue of the definition of felicitie; which he affirmed to be the chéefe action of mans mind, arising of the most excellent vertue. If this be so, then brute creatures shall not be par­takers thereof, séeing they be not capable of such an action. Indéed it would not be denied, but that they haue in their owne nature or kind som good, proper to themselues, which to them is prin­cipall and chéefe; but yet we must not thinke that the same is blessednes, séeing it is of such a nature, as it cannot be without reason.

But before we come to the thing it selfe, I thinke it shall be good to knowe how this defini­tion of Aristotle dooth either agrée or disagrée with the holie scriptures. How Ari­stotles defi­nition a­greeth with the holie scriptures. Psal. 118. and 127. 1. Psal. 111, 1. and 127, 1. Psal. 1, 2. Psal. 32, 1. Iohn. 2. And first, where he ap­pointed mans worke in act to be felicitie, he de­créed no otherwise than doo the holie scriptures, where it is said; Blessed are those which walke in the lawe of the Lord. Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, and which dooth meditate in the lawe of the Lord daie and night. All these be most godlie acts and exercises for this life. But it is obiected; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes be couered. Bles­sed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne: which things belong not to the worke of men, but flowe from the méere liberalitie of God. Héerevnto we saie, that Aristotle vnder­stood not, nor beléeued this iustification through Christ, which the holie scriptures haue reuealed vnto vs; neither doo we in the meane time speake of this felicitie: but we speake onelie of that which followeth this first blessednes, and standeth in the right dooing while we liue héere; and in the other world, in the contemplation and fruition of the sight of Gods maiestie. And yet neuerthelesse, if we will also regard the bles­sednes of iustification, and laie that before our eies, whereby it is applied vnto vs; then com­meth the worke of faith. For we be iustified by beléeuing, although we are not iustified by the merit of that action, nor yet for the dignitie thereof are receiued into grace: but of this feli­citie we doo not now treate.

And that which we doo speake of, although it be the worke of man; yet doth it not breake out from his strength, but is produced by the power of the spirit of God, and from the heauenlie ma­iestie. In the world to come this felicitie shall be perfect, which shall neuer be interrupted, but shall be one, and a continuall act. Whereas this blessednes of Aristotle, as his definition shew­eth, may manie times betwéene whiles breake off. He would that this action, whereby a man is blessed, should flowe from a most excellent vertue. The same also doo we thinke, who shew that the actions of faithfull men are not right and acceptable vnto God, vnlesse they be the branches of faith, hope, and charitie, the which we estéeme for the chéefest vertues. We agrée with him also as touching the continuance; for we require a perseuerance while we liue héere, and in the world to come we beléeue to haue e­uerlasting blessednes. Onlie in this, there is a disagréement betwéene Aristotle and vs, that he requireth the good things of the world, but we affirme that they are not of necessitie héere in this world vnto a Christian to make him blessed.

2 The opinions of the philosophers concerning felicitie, may thus be distinguished; Sundrie o­pinions of the philoso­phers as touching felicitie. so as we may saie, that some of them were notable, ha­uing famous patrons; but others vile and ob­scure, bicause they came from men of no ac­count, and be not confirmed by strong and eui­dent reasons. And of this kind are found health, riches, and such like, whose defenders were no notable men. To the other kind belongeth plea­sure, honestie, vertue, to liue agréeable with the first gifts of nature, knowledge, &c. Simple ends and conioined ends. These in­déed are the ends, which are accounted without mixture. And there be some that haue other things ioined with them: for some men vnto vertue doo ioine pleasure; others vnto honestie ioine a fréedome from sorrowe; othersome with vertue doo ioine the accomplishment of a perfect [Page 133] life. Augustine against Iulianus Scyllaeus bla­meth that good, which is compounded with plea­sure; for in that honestie is placed therein, it re­presenteth a shew of man, the pleasure which is mingled, is a brutish thing. But he that will more fullie vnderstand of this matter, let him reade Cicero as well in his second booke De fini­bus, as in his Tusculans quest: and thou maist al­so sée, that sometimes some of them disagrée with themselues; and that which they first iud­ged to be the chéefest good, straightwaie they re­fuse it: for they which being whole, made small reckoning of health, afterward being destitute thereof, placed it in the chéefest good, which also hapneth to them that be pressed with pouertie: for such, not onlie make great account of riches, but aboue all things séeke for the same. And these, whom we haue spoken of, doo appoint some thing shat should be euident and manifest. For these things; namelie, pleasure, riches, and ho­nors be so plaine and euident, that they are ap­parant, euen to the senses. Yea and Epicurus said, that he therefore thought pleasure to be the chéefest good, bicause it was the most knowen, and most euident good thing. And he said, that pleasure was no lesse knowne to be the chée­fest good, than snowe to be white, or fire hot. Varro sheweth, that the number of opinions concerning this matter, was verie great, as Augustine declareth in his booke De ciuitate Dei: for he saith, that there might be reckoned two hundred fourescore and eight opinions touching felicitie.

Let vs then séeke the cause why there arose so manie and so variable opinions thereof: which therefore we saie came to passe, bicause men did not deliberate of this matter with the better part of their mind, but rather counselled with their owne affections, which as they be diuers, and doo diuerslie stir vp the affections, they in­clined mens minds vnto so manifold and sun­drie ends. A man may sée yoong men, which di­uers waies being hot in loue, thinke them­selues blessed; others make their bellie their God; some haue giuen themselues like bond­slaues to the séeking of honor. There be some such also, which thinke that nothing is to be pre­ferred aboue riches: and the libertie of the Cy­nicke philosophers verie well pleased Diogenes and his like. But if that reason it selfe had bin consulted withall in this matter, aboue the sen­ses and affections, without doubt we should not haue had so manie and so contrarie opinions.

Now since there be, or may be so manie in number, to reckon all, much lesse to examine them, should be ouer-great labour. Wherefore, that we take not a superfluous matter in hand, we will in this treatise choose those things which might easilie deceiue vs, séeing a great likeli­hood of truth is discerned in them; Eustratius. which Eustra­tius shewed by a verie learned similitude; A simili­tude. If one (saith he) sée a stock-doue, he will soone thinke he séeth a pigion, which will not happen vnto him when he séeth an eagle, séeing the same is far vn­like vnto a pigion. So we may iudge, that there be some opinions of blessednes, so far from the truth, as verie few or none can be deceiued by them: and againe, others in a maner so néere ioined vnto the truth, as it is not in all men to discerne or knowe them one from another: wherefore those that be of this sort, ought not to be passed ouer, but to diligentlie be examined.

Aristotle declareth, that men, as touching the chéefest good things, bent their opinions vnto those kinds of life, which they had determined to followe, which indéed are reckoned to be thrée; namelie, delightfull, ciuill, and contemplatiue. But if thou shalt demand the causes why one will incline to this kind of life, another to that, Why men doo seeke diuers kinds of life. manie causes may be shewed: for manie in the execution of their affaires, and ordering of their actions, doo followe the constitution of their bo­die, wherein, if they be giuen to surfeting, to drunkennes, to the flesh, to excellent and good arts, to reuenging of iniuries, then they speci­allie thinke themselues happie, when they haue obteined those things, wherevnto they are moo­ued by a certeine naturall prouocation. Others are greatlie desirous to atteine this or that thing, being brought therevnto by education; and it doth not seldome happen, that they be­come like vnto those men, with whom they be conuersant, and be ioined in frendship. Againe, vnto others, and those without doubt not a few, nor alwaies euill men, it is argument and cause inough for them to prosecute anie thing; bicause they regard their authoritie, which go­uerne either the common wealth, or church, or schooles, or warfare. For looke what princes, graue and wise men, whose authoritie is verie great, doo choose vnto themselues as an end and thing most to be desired, that doth a great part of men take in hand and wish, according to that woorthie sentence of Plato, and of other wise men; Such as the kings and princes be, Such prin­ces, such people. such are their people. When England had king Edward who was a godlie prince, and giuen to good lear­ning, Godlie king Edward the sixt. all the youth indeuoured to imitate his la­bours. Causes indéed these be, but yet no iust causes. We ought not to be mooued by authors, nor by examples, nor yet by the force of bodi­lie constitution, but by the suggestion of reason, and of the mind, and by the weight of the things themselues. But to follow Aristotles similitude, héerein the common people are like vnto bond-slaues, and brute beasts. For this séemes to be the maner of shéepe, that if the ramme, or that shéepe which goeth formost in the flocke, depart [Page 134] vnto anie side, they doo all followe: also bond­slaues without anie iudgement or anie choise doo followe their maisters. I would speake som­what of Sardanapalus, Sardana­palus. sauing that those things which Iustine hath of him, are common vnto all men: onlie that I will shew, which they saie he had alwaies in his mouth; Eate, drinke, and plaie. But Horace in his epistles reprooueth those spéeches; Thou hast plaid enough, thou hast drunk enough, and thou hast eaten enough, it is time for thée to be gone.

In the fift booke of Tusculans questions Ci­cero saith, that Sardanapalus willed to be writ­ten vpon his toombe;

that is,

Cicero addeth that Aristotle said; What else wouldest thou write vpon the toombe of an oxe, not of a king? But what complaine we onelie of Sardanapalus, Tyberius. as though that Tyberius prince of the Romans were not so greatlie giuen to these delights and wantonnes, as he erected to himself euen an office of pleasures. For euen as vnto kings and magistrates, there are some which be maisters of requests, secretaries, and maisters of the horses; so would he haue a maister of the pleasures. Helioga­balus. Also Heliogabalus, whom I cannot tell whether I should call an emperour, or a mon­ster, appointed rewards to them which could de­uise strange kind of sauces, that he might the more prouoke his appetite to eating and drin­king. And not onelie did the Roman monarchs sinne in this point, but also the great king of the Persians; Xerxes. euen Xerxes, who appointed great re­wards to the inuentors of new pleasures.

Of Pleasure, and wherein it may con­cur with the cheefest good, and wherein it may not.

3 Now the place serueth to speake somwhat of pleasure; and that we may not thinke that all kind of pleasure is secluded from the chéefest good, or from felicitie. For in verie déed, felicitie, whether we vnderstand it for naturall or theolo­gicall, is either pleasure, or else is ioined there­with; so as they cannot be plucked one from an­other. First I will shew those things, which I haue gathered thereof out of Platos doctrine; afterward I will bréeflie comprehend what Ari­stotle hath of the same. Plato diuided our soule at the least into two parts; to wit, the mind, and the sense: of these parts, as the one is high and most excellent, and whereby we approch verie néere vnto God; so the other is grosse, and in a maner brutish, and by it we communicate with beasts. This distinction of the mind being put and confirmed, hée attributed vnto the mind gladnes and ioie; but vnto the sense, pleasure. But what the difference is betwéene ioie and gladnes (as me thinks I find by his opinion) I wil declare. He will haue it, that gladnes is som­times good and commendable; but sometimes, if it shall passe the limits, he affirmeth it to be a vice, and that it is to be despised. A definiti­on of glad­nes. Which will ap­péere the more plaine, if it be defined: for it is a certeine hautines of the mind, bicause of the presentnes of some good thing: but euerie man dooth sée that gladnes is right, if we be lifted vp by reason of some present good, that is neither lesse nor more than the thing it selfe deserueth. Wherefore they be foolish, which puffe vp them­selues for false good things, or be too much eleua­ted for the obtainment of vile and simple goods. But those men are to be detested, which reioise at wickednes committed, which thorough the corruption of iudgment séemes good vnto their minds. But on the other side, gladnes is then praised and commended, when the mind is no more merier nor puffed vp, than agréeth with the good that is gotten. And Cicero in his second booke De finibus, as he had learned of the Sto­ikes, comprehended naughtie gladnes vnder these words, saieng that the same is an exalting of the mind, which without reason thinks it en­ioieth a great good.

But I returne to Plato, who also ascribeth ioie vnto the mind; but yet so, Ioie defi­ned. as there can no euill cleaue therevnto, bicause he defineth the same to be a pleasantnes, which floweth either from the contemplation of a wise man, or else from the actions of vertue. This pleasantnes can suffer no euill accesse: for those things which be iust, right, and as best becommeth, cannot please anie man too much. And he so commen­ded ioie, as in his booke De pulchro, when he spea­keth of heauenlie & true blessed life, he affirmeth that thereby the minds of the faithfull are nou­rished. And he will haue it, that the poets did cunninglie call that kind of meate Ambrosia & Nectar. But the pleasure, whereby the senses alone (as he thinketh) are replenished, is a swéet motion, which tickleth the senses. From which opinion Cicero nothing disagréeth, who in the second booke De finibus saith, that All men think this to be pleasure, which the sense receiuing is mooued, and is replenished with a certeine plea­santnes: and after a few words betwéene, hée misliked not to repeate the same. That pleasant motion, wherewith the senses is made merie, all men call in Gréeke [...]; in Latine Volup­tatem; that is pleasure. By these things which I now shew, ye must obserue this, that as well [Page 135] Plato, as the Stoikes, and other ancient wri­ters iudged pleasure to be a motion or action: for afterward we shall sée what truth this may haue in it.

Whence pleasure doth spring. Plato thinketh, that this pleasure of the sen­ses riseth of the infirmitie of nature: for the same if it be spent, beginneth to desire those things wherewith it iudgeth that it may be restored and renewed; & while we satisfie the want of nature, the senses are tickled and tempered with plea­santnes. And contrariwise, while nature cannot obteine those things that it hath néed of, both it languisheth, and thorough want is maruelouslie gréeued. Wherevpon the same authour in Phi­leto said, that pleasures are the auoiding of sor­rowes, and thereof concludeth, that the plea­sures of them that be sicke are greater and more vehement than of them that be in good health: for when they be greatlie tormented with gréefs, they doo excéedingly burne with the desire of me­dicins, I meane with the desire of all pleasures; therefore when they obteine them, they are de­lighted aboue measure. As we may perceiue in them which are sicke of most sharpe feuers, and be in a maner consumed with intollerable thirst, to whom when the physician giueth leaue to satisfie themselues with cold, or some other kind of drinke; it cannot be said what excéeding pleasure they take. The plea­sures of the senses are mixt. Herevnto in that place he addeth, that these grosser sort of pleasures, which belong vnto the senses, are not single but mixt; for they haue alwaies some sorrowe ioined with them: for (as we haue said) the néedines of nature bréedeth gréefs. Neither are the pleasures of this kind brought foorth anie longer, when the natu­rall want is satisfied: for meate liketh not them that be satisfied and haue their fill; neither is drinke welcome to them which haue droonke abundantlie. But and if it happen to be other­wise, Naturall necessitie being satis­fied, plea­sure seaseth. as otherwhile we sée it dooth to them which be droonkards & gluttons, there is another cause of the pleasure than naturall want; namelie an ill disposition, or else some other thing, which is not now fit time to declare, séeing we treat of naturall pleasures.

How the name of pleasure is vnderstood by Aristo­tle. 4 Howbeit Aristotle put not these differen­ces of words; but those delectations which as well belong vnto the mind or reason, as those which be of the senses he called pleasures, that is, [...]. Yea, and in the seuenth booke the ele­uenth chapter, he will that [...], that is, happie, is so called of [...], which is to reioise; and he speaketh of pleasure, which he ioineth with blessednes. Certeinlie he speaketh not of this pleasure, wherewith the sense and grosser part of the mind is possessed: for that is only ioi­ned with the felicitie which shall be of the mind, which as I haue said, of a mingled word, is na­med pleasure. And perhaps Aristotle would not change the name, bicause he thought to speake as most men did, although he agréed with Pla­to as touching the difference of the thing. Wherein A­ristotle and Plato differ concerning pleasure. But yet herein they differ one from another, that A­ristotle thinketh not (as Plato and the old philo­sophers did) that pleasure is a motion or action; but rather an affect cleauing vnto the motion or operation. Wherefore these differ after a sort, although in the subiect they agrée. And if at any time Aristotle himselfe, or any Peripatetike, cal­led pleasure a motion; that proposition, which commonlie in the Schooles they call Identica, must be ascribed vnto them: for as it hath béene said, both the affect, and motion or action; are in subiect all one. Wherefore the generall word therof is the Predicament of qualitie, The gene­rall word of pleasure. and pleasure belongeth to the third kind thereof, and the same is called a passion; or passible qualitie. It is called in Gréeke [...]; whereby we are swéetlie affected with the presence of some good thing agréeing with our nature. And as beautie is a qualitie which riseth of a iust and right tem­perature of the bodie, of wel-fauourednes, and of a comlie colour; so pleasure ariseth of a conueni­ent motion and action. Wherfore thus it shall be lawfull to define the same.

Pleasure is an affect, wherwith we are swéet­lie mooued, The defini­tion of plea­sure. by reason of an action which procée­deth from a nature that is of good constitution, or else from an habit according to nature with­out impediment. For the actions both of eating, and drinking, and procreating, séeing they arise of nature, doo alwaies to him that is in health bring pleasure with them; for they be not hindred by sicknes, nor weakenes, nor yet by saturitie and fulnes. Euen so contemplations, and the actions of vertues, since they spring from an ha­bit of the mind, they be readie and easie, and are a present good thing, which agréeth with the na­ture of man; & therefore haue pleasure alwaies ioined with them. Aristotle in the tenth booke of Ethiks prooueth, That plea­sure is no motion. that pleasure is not a moti­on, bicause it is all whole togither, as is a vision: and pleasure hath no succession, except it be ac­cidentallie. For if it followe actions, which haue successe, the same in like maner is prolonged, as it happeneth in eating and drinking; but if the action be momentanie, as is a vision, hearing and vnderstanding, then is all the pleasure had at once: euen as the whole vision is at once; if the vertue and power of seing be perfect, if the thing that is séene be set before the eiesight all at once, if the light going betwéene be not obscured, and a conuenient distance come betwéene. A motion is not perfect in his parts, but pleasure is whole all at once; therefore it is no motion. Motion cannot be at one moment or instant, but plea­sure may. The properties of motion be swiftnes, and slownesse; and these things are not answe­rable [Page 136] to pleasure. For while a man reioiseth, he neither reioiseth the swifter, nor the slower; for if pleasure endure for an houre, it is all whole at once, while the houre lasteth.

How long pleasure may conti­nue. 5 Since we vnderstand by the definition now brought, that the power must be perfect, and the habit firme; and that the action must be without impediment, and the obiect principall and excellent: it is gathered how long pleasure can endure. It so long abideth, as the obiect and ablenes, or power of dooing doth remaine whole: for if the obiect fall from the excellencie thereof, or that the facultie be not vehement and ear­nestlie bent, delectation dooth not followe. Here­of it commeth, that when in working men be ti­red, pleasurs are oftentimes diminished. Which thing also happeneth, when anie thing is taken awaie from the excellencie of the obiect. Whie new things so greatlie delight. It ap­péereth also, why new things doo so greatlie de­light; bicause the mind, so soone as anie noble and excellent thing offereth it selfe to be beheld, dooth behold the same earnestlie and attentiue­lie; which, after it is knowne, the mind rebateth his earnestnes, and so the pleasure ceasseth: but if anie other new thing be put in place of the former obiect, then the vnderstanding enfor­ceth his studie againe in beholding of the same, and the pleasure returneth, and by this meanes we euer delight our selues in new things. Be­sides this, it is shewed héereby, that the actions which are doone before we attaine to an habit, bréed not pleasure; bicause they be not easilie and readilie doone, but with some difficultie and labour. These things are opened by that defi­nition.

That plea­sure diffe­reth in kind. Now must we shew what pleasure is by hir forms and kinds. Neither is it anie doubt, but that pleasures are diuided among themselues in kind, séeing actions doo differ. But pleasure (as we knowe) is the perfection of an action; and the thing which should be doone, being changed, the perfection also thereof is changed. For these be of those sort of things, which be compared one with another. Neither is anie man ignorant, that there is one prefection of a chest, another of an house, another of a plant, and another of a man. Wherefore since that actions be diuided one from another, so shall the pleasures, where­by they are performed, differ. Furthermore, they striue one against another, & one extingui­sheth or letteth another; wherof it commeth that they are distinguished. That pleasure, which shall come of musicke, will take awaie that which ari­seth of spéeches: and those, which be the grosser sort, doo withstand and let the delights of the vn­derstanding and reason. Again, of actions some be euill, some good, and some betwéene both; whereby it is brought to passe, that the pleasures which followe them haue varietie and diffe­rence. The which also by this meanes commeth to passe, bicause the desires of actions are sun­drie: for if the desires be varied, much more be the pleasures, which are more ioined with the actions, than be the desires: for desires are often­times plucked awaie from the worke, whereas pleasures cannot be separated from their acti­ons. No doubt but some pleasures there be of horses, some of lions, some of beares, and there­fore also there be some of men: and not one­lie haue they them diuerse from other liuing creatures, but euen men themselues also haue them not alike among them. For those plea­sures, which be naughtie, doo please naughtie men; and those which be honest, doo delight good men.

6 Wherefore now (as I thinke) it is suffici­entlie confirmed, The first diuision of pleasures. that pleasures must be distin­guished. Let this then be the first distinction. Of pleasures some be pure, and some vnpure. And this diuision is taken from works and actions; so as of them some be about the obiects more se­uered from matter, or more ioined with the same. Which how true it is, Galen hath verie well declared in his second booke De causis sym­ptomatum; There are found (saith he) gréefes and pleasures in all the senses: gréefes (as he saith) come herevpon, that the senses are remoo­ued from their owne constitution and naturall state; but pleasures come, when they returne to the same. And that this may the more plainlie appéere, he thus runneth thorough all the sen­ses. Féeling is remooued from his owne estate, if there happen too much heate, or too much cold; or else, if it incur those things which doo strike, or gnawe, or breake, &c. hereof doo arise gréefes vn­to it. Tasting is gréeued with the selfe-same things, which it dooth communicate with féeling: but as it is taste, it is offended with tasts, which be too tart, sower, sharpe, and bitter; for by these the naturall constitution thereof is disturbed, and the continuance broken off. Smelling is di­sturbed by the dissolution of ouer vehement va­pors; for by them the continuance is broken off. Againe, hearing is put from his state, by a voice too high, or too lowe, or too great, or too swift, and also by euerie violent noise. Finallie, the sight is offended, when it happeneth vpon most bright lights and colours; for these things doo scatter and disperse the vertue therof. With all these same things the senses are gréeued, bicause through them they depart from their owne measurable and quiet state. Againe, they are delighted and take pleasure, when they are reduced to their proper & naturall state. Where­of the sight hath triall, when it turneth it selfe to a browne colour, whereby the power thereof is more gathered and knit togither into one; or else when it beholdeth pleasant colours, as [Page 137] gréene, golden, blue, or skie colours. The hea­ring delighteth in a mild and treatable voice. The smelling, when those vapours be dissolued, which with a certeine swéetnes doo strengthen and confirme the instruments of smelling. Vnto tasting are fat and swéet relishes pleasant. And though we be sicke, yet are we for a little while delighted with somewhat sharpe and sower tasts. Féeling is delighted with qualities which be temperate, soft, and somewhat warme. Thus are the senses delighted, and doo take pleasure, when they be reduced to their naturall and pro­per constitution.

But it is to be vnderstood, that those also may take pleasure, though they haue not bin first of­fended or remooued from their naturall state. For if there happen to come a pleasant colour, or delightfull sound, the sight and hearing is de­lighted, though it haue not bin first remooued from the constitution thereof. Galen procéedeth in those things which he said, and sheweth, that there is a degrée of greater or lesse purenes in these actions of the senses, and in pleasures; and declareth that the same standeth in the meanes that the senses vse. The sight worketh by light; hearing, by the aire; smelling, by sauour; these things be pure, and haue little of the grosser and thicker kind of matter. Those things, wherin fée­ling is occupied, hold the lowest place; those be grosse and terrestriall things. From thence we come to tasting; that also is exercised about waterie humors, which bée somewhat thicke. Smelling is eleuated vnto vapours, far more pure than water. Vnto hearing is the aire, and that a pure aire more néere. Lastlie, we come vnto the light, which among those things that be perceiued, is most fine, and hath a great deale of purenes. Howbeit, we are not there to rest, but after these things we come to imagination, co­gitation, memorie, and vnderstanding, which are occupied about the similitudes and images of things far more pure. Wherefore by these things appeareth, that first distinction of plea­sures, that one is purer, and another grosser, and out of Galen wée haue expounded the ground of the diuision.

7 After this diuision there followeth another, that some pleasures are bodilie, The second diuision of pleasures. others not bodi­lie. Of the bodilie, thus we affirme in generall, that neither they be good, nor yet bad; as also are not the actions about meate, drinke, and carnall pleasure. But as touching the kinds and parts, we must saie, that if they excéed measure, they be euill; but if they conteine themselues within iust and due limits, they are indifferent, since that men may vse them both rightlie, that is, accor­ding to vertue, and also vnto good and laudable ends. They doo also abuse them sometimes, namelie, vpon an ill determination & corruptlie, as Catiline, when he tempered himselfe from de­lights and pleasures, to the intent he might de­stroie his countrie: but yet, if they shall be wei­ed in their owne nature, they be rather good, ac­cording to ciuill goodnes, than euill. The third distinction of pleasurs. We come now to a third distinction of pleasures. There be some, wherein there is excesse; but there be o­thers, wherein it cannot be, as it also hapneth in actions. For who did euer rightlie or iustlie more than is requisite? And so in contemplations of the truth, be it of things naturall, or mathemati­call, or diuine; no man can reioice, or take plea­sure of them more than is requisite; neither can he in like manner, as touching things rightlie done, and of the works of iustice. But in being angrie, in ambitious desire of promotion, in gi­uing, in hearing, we may excéed measure, no lesse than in eating, drinking, and procreation.

Finallie, the fourth distinction is, The fourth distinction of pleasures. that of plea­sures, some be single, and by themselues; bi­cause they haue no sorrowes mingled with them, nor yet be swéet, in respect they fill and re­store nature, being wasted and consumed. Nei­ther be they at one time pleasant, and at another time vnpleasant, but are euer in their owne na­ture to be wished and desired: and these plea­sures are chéefelie those, which are perceiued in the mind; but others be mixed, namelie with sorowes, and for that cause are pleasant, bicause they refresh and renew nature decaieng, and therefore are not to be desired alwaies and at all times.

8 These things being thus determined, What plea­sures must be auoided and why. let vs go in hand with the pleasures which be vnpure, bodilie, and which haue excesse, and which be mixed; and let this be the first proposition of them: If they excéed measure, they must be alto­gither auoided; for such doo either arise of a cor­rupt nature (for some men are euen by a proprie­tie of nature, fierce, wild, and cruell; and others be beastlie, and altogither intemperate) or else these euill actions and pleasures doo come from a vitious habit, brought in by a naughtie cu­stome, as we sée it in drunkards, gluttons, and lasciuious men: wherefore from such shamefull and wicked causes, nothing can happen which (as we haue said) must not be auoided. Fur­thermore, since that pleasures of this kind, as it hath bin alreadie said, haue bin inuented to be as it were medicins vnto vs, when we suffer them to excéed measure; How great­lie the gros­ser pleasurs hurt vs. so far is it off that they be medicins, as they are euen hurtfull vnto vs, and that in all kind of good things, and espe­ciallie those things which come of fortune. For how manie riotous men be there, which hauing spent their great and ample patrimonies, are constreined miserablie to liue in want? I speake nothing of the goods of the bodie, séeing gluttonie and fleshlie pleasure killeth far more than the [Page 138] sword, or anie ordinarie sicknes, or defect of na­ture. Yea, and Galen in his second booke De se­mine wrote, that Pleasure is somtime by it selfe the cause of dissoluing the force and strength which giueth life. And there haue béene manie, which haue yéelded vp the ghost thorough too much pleasure. But & if that all abuse of things must be auoided, such kind of immoderate plea­sures as these must be vtterlie shunned, séeing by this meanes they cure not the bodie, but doo excéedinglie destroie it. I let passe the goods of the mind, since nothing dooth more harme vnto wisdome, nor anie thing more weaken the right iudgement of dooing things, than these immo­derate pleasures.

The reason which I haue brought, that by these grosse and immoderate pleasures, all the kinds of good things belonging to man be de­stroied, is written by Cicero in his booke called Hortensius, which booke is lost; yet will I reherse his words as they be recited of Augustine in his fourth booke against Iulian the 14. chapter; Cicero his words as touching the euils which rise of plea­sures. But are those pleasures of the bodie to be desired, which trulie and grauelie are of Plato called the allurements and baits of euils? For what de­stroieng (saith he) of helth, what deforming of the colour and the bodie, what foule losse, what dis­honour is there, that is not called and brought foorth by pleasure? Euerie motion whereof, the greater it is, the more is it enimie vnto philoso­phie. For the pleasures of the bodie cannot agrée with anie great cogitation of the mind. For who is he, that when he vseth the greatest pleasure he can, is able to applie his mind to make an ac­count, or to thinke of anie manner of thing? But who is so vnsatiable a person, that day and night, without anie intermission of time, will haue his senses so to be mooued, as they be mooued in the chéefest pleasures? What man indued with a good mind, had not rather that no pleasurs at all shuld be giuen vs of nature? Thus much said he. Vnder which sentence of his are cōprehended the hurts, which are woont to be brought in through these pleasures of the bodie, which excéed mea­sure. But thou wilt saie, that If this reason were of force, Whether the plea­sures that arise of con­templation or iust acti­ons do hurt. it will condemne pleasures which spring of contemplation, and also that which ari­seth of iust actions; bicause both the bodie is hurt by too much studie and contemplation: and that Socrates and also Aristides perished for their ho­nestie sake. I answere, that this was acciden­tally; bicause Socrates lighted among euill men. Againe, that the powers of the head, which doo serue vnto cogitation, are somtimes ouermuch consumed. But some wittie fellowe will replie, that this also is accidentall, as touching the pleasures of the bodie; which in verie déed doo a­rise of those actions, which destroie the bodie, and our good things, which the verie pleasures by themselues would not doo. Howbeit to this we answere, that it coms not alwaies to passe, that a man perisheth for righteousnes; nor yet that contemplation dooth alwaies harme. But these grosser and mixt pleasures, so oft as they excéed the meane, it cannot be but they doo hurt: and so the hurt is not to be accounted of both alike.

9 But this of some is counted a hard matter, Whether the plea­sures which must be shunned be verie plea­sures. that these pleasures must be shunned, séeing pleasure by it selfe is good, & to be desired. Wher­fore to auoid this, they are wont to say, that They are not pleasures indéed, but onlie séeme so to be; and although they séeme so, yet that of wise men they ought not to be accounted pleasures. Euen as those things are not said to be white, which so appeare vnto bleare eies; neither swéet or bitter, which those that are sicke doo so affirme. But me thinks it should not so be answered; bicause both Plato and Aristotle doo call them pleasures, wherevpon the definition before alledged dooth trulie agrée vnto them. Therefore would I rather saie to the argument, that pleasure in­déed is of his owne nature good, and to be desi­red, but not to be taken of all things: euen as we desire to satisfie hunger, yet not by euerie kind of meate. Iust men also would become rich, but yet not by euerie kind of gaine; we also desire health, but yet not by euerie kind of medicine; and so we would haue pleasures, but yet not those which arise of actions that be dishonest and filthie, and which doo hurt the bodie, and all the good things which we haue. Whie these kind of-pleasures which hurt and are to be shunned are desired of manie. But séeing this kind of pleasures is both hurtfull, and to be shunned, how happeneth it that it is desired of so manie? Bicause pleasure in his owne nature hath some certeine diuine thing in it, and is desired of all men. Howbeit it coms to passe, that séeing na­ture in manie is not yet full perfect and confir­med, as in children, or else when men be indued with naughtie and lewd habits of mind, as be drunkards and fleshlie persons, they be decei­ued, and séeke for pleasures where they ought not. Wherefore I maruell at Epicurus, which taketh his argument from children, whose na­ture is not yet become full perfect, neither are they indued with any vertue, & therfore may ea­silie be deceiued. Againe, it must be considered, that men doo perpetuallie labour, and are wea­ried with sundrie exercises; and therefore to be recreated and refreshed, they turne themselues to diuers pleasures; and when they cannot haue honest, pure, and simple pleasures, they will be satisfied with those grosser and hurtfull plea­sures. And men haue a compounded nature, not simplie one and vnmixed; and thereof it coms, that they imbrace sundrie kinds of plea­sures. Somtimes they take those which belong vnto the mind, and sometime those which be of the bodie; since that they consist as well of the [Page 139] mind as of the bodie. Yea, and the bodie it selfe, bicause it hath manie humors, and is indued with manie senses, therefore are we somtimes mooued to these pleasures, and sometimes to those, according as the humors stir them vp, or as the sundrie obiects doo fall into the senses. But God, since he is one and most pure, he en­ioieth one and the selfe-same pure and eternall pleasure.

Who be most incli­ned to the pleasures of the bo­die But to those pleasures of the bodie, they that be yoong, and melancholike men are most incli­ned. In them, while their stature is increased, the humors are disturbed, and nature is weari­ed and haled; and therefore doo they flie vnto pleasures, as vnto a certeine medicine and re­creation. Likewise dooth the melancholike hu­mor disquiet and vexe melancholike persons, and suffereth them not to rest; so as they being wearie, returne to pleasures, whereby they somewhat restore and exhilerate themselues. Wherevpon it appéereth, that nature, yea God himselfe, Why these pleasures were giuen by God vn­to men. did not vnprofitablie giue vnto man­kind these pleasures, that the immoderate vse of them might be auoided. For by them we lead the more commodious life, and we take more willinglie in hand the necessarie labours of life, and the preseruation of mankind, and are the more readilie healed of our dailie infir­mities. Moreouer, yoong men, by certeine ho­nest and moderate pleasures, are stirred vp vn­to honest duties, and excellent vertues; and by gréefes they are terrified from sinnes and wic­kednes. Augustine. And Augustine addeth, that these base pleasures are certeine steps of good, and as it were a little shadowe of the nature of felicitie, and of the chéefe good, whereby we may be stir­red vp to an earnest desire thereof: wherefore they be of force to awaken vs, wherein neuer­theles we are not to staie, but must rather rise vp vnto better things. And that we should not dwell in these things, God is so good, that he with these kinds of pleasures hath mingled manie bitter things.

What plea­sures are not to be auoided, and why. As touching those pure, vnmixt, and no bo­dilie pleasures, and which haue no excesse, let this be the proposition. They ought not to be re­fused, but since they are of the better sort, they drawe not a little néere vnto the nature of the chéefest good: for they be desired; not for them­selues, but for another thing. I said that they drawe néere to the nature of the chéefest good; bicause in verie déed, the chéefest good is not in pleasure, no not of this kind: for that consisteth in the most perfect action, and vnto it is plea­sure ioined, as a perpetuall companion: where­fore it cannot be plucked from the chéefest good, so as it should not be comprehended in the na­ture thereof. We verelie grant, that the same is wished for of all men, since there is none, but desireth both to liue, and to liue well. And as to liue, is to worke; so to liue well, is to be occu­pied in a verie good action: wherevnto when ex­cellent pleasure is ioined, all men wish for the same, when they wish for that whereof it is a perpetuall companion. But an excellent action it cannot be, vnlesse it be conuersant about the most noble obiect; whereof as of a fountaine our perfection dependeth. Which that it may euidentlie be perceiued, we must vnderstand, that we are made perfect by a most excellent obiect, as by the efficient cause, whereby our mind and will is carried, or is allured vnto it. Againe, we are made perfect through pleasure, which is an affect and qualitie, that is instilled into our mind. Whether pleasure for life, or life for pleasure is to bee wished. But it is called into doubt by some, whether pleasure must be wished for the life sake, or life for pleasure sake. And to omit those things which may be said on the other part, that which to mée séemeth good, I thus set downe; Pleasure is desired for the life sake, not the life for pleasures sake; bicause pleasure here­of ariseth, that the action agréeth with nature, and this we both féele and knowe. Wherefore that aboue all is to be wished, to the intent that the action may be counted most perfect. Nei­ther is anie man ignorant, that perfection is in­stituted for that thing sake, which dooth make it perfect, especiallie when in his owne nature it hath no stabilitie. And all men sée, that meate it selfe is better than the sauce thereof.

10 But how those things, How Ari­stotles opi­nion agre­eth with the scrip­tures. which Aristotle brin­geth, doo agrée with the holie scriptures, we may easilie perceiue. First he saith, that this opinion, as touching the grosser sort of pleasures, is the opinion of manie, and that of the vulgar sort of men. Which also Christ taught, affirming that the waie of perdition is large, Matt. 7, 13. and manie doo go that waie. He addeth moreouer, that they which iudge this, are [...], that is, most bur­densome. And in Esaie we knowe, that it was said to wicked Ahaz; Esaie. 7, 13. Is it a small matter vnto you to be greeuous vnto men? Aristotle calleth them bond-slaues. And the Lord said; Iohn. 8, 34, He that dooth sinne, is the seruant of sinne. Also Peter said; Euerie man is his seruant, 2. Pet. 2, 19. of whom he is ouercome. Aristotle saith, that they choose a beastlie life. And we haue it in the Psalmes; Man, when he should be in honour, Psal. 48, 12. is compa­red vnto the brute beasts, and is made like vnto them. Also Ieremie; Ierem. 5, 8. Euerie man neigheth at his neighbours wife. And againe in the psalme; Be ye not like horsse and mule, Psal. 32, 10. in whom there is no vnderstanding. They which so thinke (saith the philosopher) doo defend themselues by the autho­ritie of princes, which liue after the maner of Sardanapalus. Neither dooth this disagrée with the holie scriptures, wherein we read, that such in a maner were the people, as were the kings [Page 140] whom they had. Osea. 4, 9. And in Osea we reade; Such people, such priest. In the Prouerbs, the 29. chapter; When the wicked shall beare rule, transgression shall be multiplied. And in the Gospels as touching Herod, Matt. 2, 3. when the wise men came to Ierusalem, we find that not onlie hée himselfe was troubled, but also the whole citie with him. Lastlie, it is concluded, that in these grosser sort of pleasures cannot be reposed the chéefest good. Which also the Apostle confirmeth to the Corinthians; 1. Cor. 6, 13. Meate for the bellie, and the bellie for meate, God shall destroie both the one and the other. And Christ himselfe speaking of the pleasure of procreation; Matt. 22, 30. In the regeneration they neither marrie wiues, nor are married, but they shall be like vnto the angels.

11 Aristotle disputing yet further of pleasure saith, That plea­sure is not strange from felicitie. that the same must not be counted strange from felicitie, and so prooueth it, bicause it is of those kind of good things, which belong vnto the mind, vnlesse we will saie, that stones, stocks, & mettalles reioice and be glad. Let vs first de­clare his generall sentence; That is pleasant to euerie man, wherevnto he is said to be, and ther­of is named desirous. Héereby Aristotle meant, that pleasure séemeth to be of those kind of things, which haue relation one to another. And it is no maruell, for those things which be swéet, must of necessitie be swéet to some bodie. But what he is, to whome pleasure is referred, is de­clared by affection, while he saith; A horsse, a shew, iust things, and vertues doo delight those men, which haue bin desirous of horsses, shewes, a iust thing, and of vertues. The maner of all Syllogismes is, that first should be brought foorth the cause in generall, and then it is woont to be applied vnto that thing wherof it is spoken. So in this matter, the generall cause is set foorth for which anie thing is pleasant and swéet vnto anie man; namelie, for bicause he loueth it. This generall cause is héere restreined vnto him that is happie, bicause he is a louer of honest and good actions, wherevpon of necessitie it fol­loweth, that he is verie much delighted with them.

For the confirmation of that generall cause, he vseth diuers and manifold examples; and first, he alledgeth the pleasure that men haue in riding of horsses, wherewith, how fondlie and earnestlie some men are otherwhile delighted, the yong man Strepsiades in Aristophanes doth testifie. He bringeth foorth them also, which are desirous to behold shewes, vnto whome we may adde those, which giue their mind to philosophie, wine, and monie: all which men (we sée) are wonderfullie delighted, when at anie time they enioie their desires. By these examples the fourme of the argument, which the Logicians call Induction, being the maior proposition, which comprehendeth the generall cause, is plainelie confirmed and shewed, which is strait­waie applied to the matter in hand, whereas he saith, that The like reason is to be had of those causes that are of a iust thing, and of good acti­ons, and are referred to good and happie men, to wit, that those things be loued of them, and that they reioice not a little in them. Whereof it plainelie commeth, that blessed and good men, if they either sée or heare anie to liue well and ho­nestlie, they take great pleasure therein: but without doubt much more, while they them­selues exercise themselues in iust, good, and ho­nest actions. By these things we now vnder­stand, that the life of happie men is not seuered from pleasure; and we sée, that they did not vt­terlie straie from the right waie, which ioined themselues vnto this felicitie.

12 But the question is, Whether all pleasures haue felow­ship with fe­licitie. whether all pleasures haue fellowship with felicitie, and if that all haue not, as it should séeme we must affirme, then, what pleasure shall we ioine therewith? To this we answere by distinction. Some things are pleasant in their owne nature, and by them­selues; but some haue it not of their owne pro­pertie to delight, but taketh delight by a cer­teine corruption or viciousnes of him that is caught therewith. Wisedome, vertues, honest actions, remembrance of good déeds, prudent gouernment of things, finding out of profitable counsels, doctrine, contemplation, and such like, are delightfull euen of their owne goodnes, which if otherwhiles they be not liked of some, that hap­neth through their owne vnskilfulnes and rude­nes. But on the other side, immoderate wine, gorgeous sights, surfetings and lusts, are not in their owne nature pleasant and swéete, but doo onelie delight them which of themselues bée caught by such things. It is the common sort, which hunt after things not pleasant in their owne nature, which things are diuers and in sundrie sort, & those repugnant one to another. No man doubteth, but that there is a great number of pleasures of the common sort; for there be manie minds, and euerie one hath his owne delight, which certeinlie is then not law­full, when it passeth his bounds, and when it de­teineth men too much therein, or doth stir vp and disquiet their minds. These, and other plea­sures of the senses, if they hold themselues with­in their bounds and limits, and doo not passe them, are both naturall, and by right cannot be condemned.

And what contrarietie there is of pleasures betwéene the vulgar sort, The con­trarietie of pleasures betweene the vulgar sort. Eustratius thus shew­eth; One is delighted with salt meate, another with swéet, one with drinke somewhat bitter, another with sower, which tasts be one contrarie to another, and cannot be had togither in one [Page 141] and the same thing. But here a man may saie, that this also may be séene among the pleasures which ye call naturall; some are delighted in the mathematicall sciences, others in the know­ledge of naturall things, some in logicke, others onlie in prudent actions.

Wherefore since there is a varietie as well here as there, this difference of contrarietie after that manner interpreted, séemes not to put a distinction betwéene pleasures, séeing it is found alike on both parts. Vnlesse thou wilt saie, there is a great varietie & multitude of vul­gar pleasures, which are contraries; as swéet and sower, harsh and mild are one repugnant to another; which contrarietie is not in the ho­nest pleasures that we haue now recited. For the mathematicall sciences are not against the knowledge of naturall things; nor logicke a­gainst prudence. But the difference is more trulie declared, if we marke the repugnancie in the appetite of one & the selfe-same man: for euen he that delighted in a thing, straightwaie hateth the same; and he that desired meate, dooth by and by loath it. Whervpon Terence said; In loue are all these faults, iniuries, suspicions of enimitie, truce, war, and peace againe. Here we sée a contrarietie of things among them­selues, and against the mind. But those things are pleasant indéed, wherewith the louers of ho­nestie are delighted: for they which giue credit to reason, and not to the senses, take counsell of the better iudge. Thou shalt moreouer perceiue those to be constant, and of one mind; and that the right things which once liked them, will ne­uer mislike them: neither doo they suffer the true opinion to be wroong from them. Againe, they saie all one thing with men of their owne profession: for so manie as be louers of honestie, allow the selfe-same vertues, and the same actions.

How these things con­curre with the holie scriptures. Phili. 4, 4. 13 Finallie, this haue we learned out of the holie scriptures to concurre with Aristotle, that Paule exhorted the godlie, as being happie men, to true and perfect gladnes, when he wrote; Re­ioise in the Lord alwaies, and againe I saie re­ioise. Also in the 21. chapter of the Prouerbs; The iust man delighteth to doo iudgement. verse, 15. And Dauid dooth manie times stir vp the iust and godlie to gladnes, and reioising. And so true is this opinion, that euen those good actions, which by the sense of nature, and iudgement of the common sort séeme to be repelled, doo de­light happie men. And therefore we read that the Apostles went awaie merie and reioising from the sight of the councell, bicause they were counted woorthie of rebukes for the name of Christ. Acts. 5, 41. And we knowe, that not onlie manie christians suffered death with a ioifull mind for the testimonie of their faith, but that manie Ethniks also, with great ioie and chéerefulnes, gaue their life for the libertie of their countrie.

Of Honour, that it is not the cheefest good; but wherein it concur­reth with it, and wherein not.

14 Now that we haue disputed of pleasures, it followeth that we speake of honours; and for good cause are these ioined togither, séeing both of them doo accompanie actions, though after a diuers maner. For séeing that action agréeth with nature, and that we marke it, & are made glad with pleasure; euen to those actions, when they shall be good, and iust, and honest, honour is ioined. And that it may be made the plainer, which we treat of; I will speake somewhat of the nature of honour, and of those things which belong vnto the same. And first of all we will set foorth the definition thereof. The defini­tion of ho­nour. Aristotle in his first booke of Rhetoriks, will haue it to be a sig­nifieng of the opinion, which is had of a mans honestie; and that consisteth of outward signes. To make this definition perfect, I thinke good to adde therevnto the cause of the end, which since I cannot drawe from the philosophers, I will borowe of our diuinitie. We therefore te­stifie by manifest signes, that we iudge well of honest men, to the intent that God, the authour of all iustice and goodnes, may be honoured in them: secondlie, that the authoritie and exam­ple of them may profit others. Now doo we comprehend all the causes of honour. The forme is the signification, declaration, The causes of honour. and testimo­nie of our opinion touching good men. The effi­cient cause is touched, when we added thereto, the mans honestie: for by it are men stirred vp to iudge well. But the matter shall be in all those signes, whereby we giue a testimonie to good and iust men. And these things, since they be manifold, are mentioned in the booke of Rhe­toriks now alledged; namelie, monuments, images, gouernement, verses, sepulchres, a liuing of the publike treasurie, gifts; and we may ad thereto, the vncouering of our head, the giuing of place, and rising vp to our betters, &c.

And as all these things are manie in num­ber, so must we appoint as manie parts, forms, or kinds of honour. And the difference of them is in respect of the matter of them. And we haue also added the ends, that this testimonie of ours may redound vnto God, and that by our ho­nours wée may make the good examples of iust men to be the more famous; or else that vn­to them which behaue themselues well, there may be giuen an authoritie, and that thereby manie others may be holpen. From the sense [Page 142] of this definition did Augustine not much va­rie, Augustins definition of glorie. who saith, that Glorie is a iudgement of men, which haue a good opinion of [other] men. Herevnto we haue added certeine outward testimonies of this iudgement, and haue expres­sed vnto what men those testimonies must be giuen; that is to wit, vnto honest men, and to those which order themselues aright. But this is wanting as well in Aristotle, as in Augustine, who should be those, that should signifie their opinion. Certeinlie, those ought to be (as we ga­ther out of the first booke of Ethiks) wise men, and such as doo knowe vs well. Quintilian yet more bréeflie, and in a certeine compendious maner, Quintilians definition of glorie. hath thus expounded the matter; Glorie (saith he) is the praise of good men consenting in one: where that word [of good men] may be ioi­ned both to them that are praised, and to them that doo praise: for it behooueth them both to be good. Which to make more plaine, we will thus diuide honours; so that some of them we make to be of small importance, and but ouershadow­ed, which all, onelie are raised by a brute of the people: and these, since they procéed not of a sound iudgement, are neither firme, nor yet yéelded vnto them, to whom they ought to be giuen. But others (as said Quintilian) procéed of the consent of good men; wherefore they be sound, and good men onelie are honoured with them. But we haue experience, that those for­mer are so light and inconstant, as thou maist sée that well-néere in one daie, some are both iu­stified, and condemned of the people: wherefore he that likened this kind of good to a glasse, bi­cause it is verie brittle and fraile, straied not much from the truth.

Whether honour be his that gi­ueth the ho­nour, or of him that is honoured. 15 But now there riseth a question, Whether honour (to speake of the same which is sincere and constant) be the good of him that dooth giue the honour, or of him to whom the honour is gi­uen? This did Seneca handle in his 103. epistle to Lucillus. I affirme it to be the good of them both. Without doubt it is his that is the praiser, séeing that his action is iust and right. Neither thinke I it doubtfull, that euerie good action is his good, whose action it is. Furthermore, since he, who is honoured, hath in himselfe honestie, iustice, and goodnes, whereby both good and wise men are allured and prouoked to commend him; therefore is his good also called honour: for he hath the beginning and cause thereof in him­selfe. Moreouer, he himselfe reapeth fruit of that honour, when his authoritie increaseth, and he is made the abler to persuade others, what shall best béecome them, and the better to reteine them in their dutie. Thirdlie, also it is his good for this cause, that while he perceiueth good, ho­nest, and thankfull iudges, to iudge rightlie of those things which he hath verie well doone, hée greatlie reioiseth. Wherefore I haue shewed the reason why I iudge, that honour is the good, as well of him that is praised, as of him that praiseth. And yet for this cause am I not contra­rie to Aristotle, which saith, that the same is in him which dooth the honour, not in him which re­ceiueth the honour: bicause he (as it is now brought in the definition) saith, that honour is a signifieng of a mans opinion and mind; and therefore he iudgeth rightlie, séeing as well the opinion as signification thereof procéed from him that honoureth, and rest on him, as on a cer­teine foundation and matter subiect therevnto. But yet I haue respect to the originall, where­vpon this opinion was raised, and this iudge­ment is stirred vp in the minds of the wise; and moreouer, I note the fruits of this opinion, and I sée all these things to be in the man that is praised, that is to saie, a greater authoritie & glad­nes. Neither hath this my definition onlie place in honours; but it must be no otherwise estée­med of the lawfull iudgement of a iudge, and of a iust sentence, when he pronounceth the lawe. For these are the proper good things of him, which therwithall turne to his good, on whose side the matter is iudged. And no otherwise should we saie of iustice; the same without doubt is his good that is iust, but it is also good vnto him, to whom, by the same iustice, that which is due is rendered and paid. Now by these examples it plainlie appéereth, how honour is a certeine good thing, perteining as well vnto him which is had in estimation, as vnto him which did giue the same.

They doubt in like maner, Whether one good mans te­stimonie be sufficient vnto per­fect ho­nour. whether the testi­monie of one honest and wise man be sufficient vnto true and perfect honour; or rather that a signification from manie is not required. I thinke it may be said, that according to the na­ture of true and sincere honour, the testimonie of one wise and good man, and who knoweth vs well, is sufficient; bicause in one which is of this sort, we haue all others like vnto him: for there is one mouth and one iudgement of all wise and good men. Howbeit, to this end, that the exam­ple may be made manifest, and that the authori­tie may growe and be confirmed to him that is praised, the testimonie of one man is not of force; bicause a verie great furtherance hereto is fame and good name, which things doo require the te­stimonies of manie. Now must this be séene, Whether honour be alwaies ioined with iust deeds. whether at anie time honour be seuered from vertues and iust déeds. Some say it is, and some say it is not. Certeinlie the more common opi­nion among the learned is, that honour follow­eth vertue, as a shadowe followeth the bodie, which similitude in my iudgement, expoundeth the question. The shadowe accompanieth the bo­die, but yet not alwaies after one maner; some­time [Page 143] it goeth before, sometime it is vpon one side, and goeth togither, but sometime it follo­weth after: so the vertue of some men is had in honour, straitwaie after the beginning; of o­thers it is not regarded, till it be increast and made perfect. Finallie, thou maist sée some, which are not honoured, till they be quite gone: for then are men woont otherwhile to perceiue, though ouer-late, how great a good they haue forgon. Which we knowe happened in old time to the prophets and apostles, and also in our times to manie most iust princes, good pastors, and godlie preachers. While there were plen­tie of them, they were contemned; but when they were now taken awaie, then did they stir vp an incredible desire of them. Wherefore ho­nour dooch accompanie vertue, but not alwaies in the same step: somtime before, otherwhile togither, and oftentimes after. And besides this, the testimonie and signification of wise men is neuer wanting vnto true vertue, and iust actions, except there be a want of the wise, and such as haue séene and knowne these things.

16 Now at the length let vs come néerer to the matter, Whether there should be a desire of honour in good or euill men. and consider yée togither with me, whether the desire of honour should be ac­counted among good things, or among euill things. Shall we not commend honour, séeing it is planted in vs by God and by nature; sée­ing God promiseth it vnto them that be his, & that not seldome; They that glorifie me (saith he) I will glorifie them? 1. King. 2, 30 And The elders are by Paule pronounced woorthie of double honour. And therefore it séemes, 1. Tim. 5, 17. that God planted this desire in mens minds, that we might be more and more stirred vp to liue well and iustlie. Neither is that common prouerbe rashlie to be reiected; Honour nourisheth arts. Againe Ver­tue comended increaseth. Moreouer, there is none which hath but a sparke of godlines can denie, but that all our works must be so orde­red, as they may be allowed both of God and of men; namelie that men, by the séeing of them, should (as méete it is) glorifie God. Wherefore séeing honour, for the things that be well doone staieth not in vs, but redoundeth vnto God himselfe, how manie soeuer be desirous of his glorie, as we ought all to be, we may, at the least-wise for this cause, desire honour. Ouer this, We obeie Gods com­mande­ments, when we honor anie man woor­thie thereof. Rom. 12, 10. verse. 3. verse. 17. who ought not to wish, but that all the brethren should not faile of dooing their dutie and office? Verelie this hath God commanded all men, that they should honour their parents, and by the same reason the magistrats. And by Paule he commandeth; In giuing honour go one before an other. Also in the first epistle to Timothie the fift chapter; Honour widowes, which be widowes indeed. In the first of Pe­ter, the second chapter; Honour all men, loue brotherlie fellowship. And of Epaphroditus he said in the epistle to the Philipians; Phili. 2, 29. And such as he is haue ye in honour. Such places as these be I may bring manie; but séeing these be sufficient, it appeareth that when anie man hath honour giuen him, that is woorthie of it, the commandements of God are obeied. Which thing that it may be doone, ought not they which be honest, and behaue themselues well, commend it and be glad of it, and also wish that it may be doone? Whie doo we praie; Let thy will be doone in earth, as it is in hea­uen?

Herevnto adde, In honou­ring of the good, we obteine re­wards, and by contem­ning, pu­nishments. Exo. 20, 12. that in giuing honour vnto good men, we shall obteine rewards and bene­fits; That thou maist (saith God) liue long vp­on the earth. And on the other side, in contem­ning of them, they procure destruction to them­selues; as the children which derided the prophet Elizaeus were rent in sunder of beares. Which séeing it is thus, he loueth not his neighbour, which desireth not that he may auoid these pu­nishments, and obteine these commodities and rewards. Wherefore euen as with the good fauour of God we may wish for due honours; so are we driuen to the very same thing by that charitie wherwith we ought to loue our neigh­bour. And this dooth Dauid verie well con­firme in the 15. Psalme, when he spake of him which should dwell in the house of God, and in the euerlasting habitation, among other his vertues this he reckoneth; He that is lowlie in his owne eies, & glorifieth them that feare God. Therefore since without controuersie, eternall life is to be wished vnto our neighbours; this is to be wished for with most ardent praiers; that the godlie, and those which feare God may be had in honour: which is this kind of honour, namelie to haue them in estimation, to be de­lighted with their companie, to maintaine their good name, and chéerfullie to reléeue their necessities: all which things, since they be so coldlie doone in these daies, they which be god­lie cannot choose but earnestlie sorrowe, and wish that at the length it may be doone euen as God hath commanded. Augustine in his Soli­loquijs the first booke, and eleuenth chapter iudgeth, that since of honours authoritie dooth increase, and that authoritie dooth much further to induce men vnto honestie, and to driue men as well vnto true opinions, as vnto holines of life, therefore honours are to be desired. Yea, & for their sakes, whom we ought by our ministe­rie to helpe; if we sée our authoritie to be despi­sed, we ought for iust & honest causes to defend the same, least in verie déed it become vnprofi­table. To this belongeth that which Paul wrote vnto Timothie; Let no man despise thy youth. 1. Tim. 1, 12.

[Page 144] Wherein ho­nors profit them that doo well. And when we doo well, it doth not a little fur­ther to the confirming of vs, if we haue the commendation of good men. For euen as we are in a maner all troubled with the disease of selfe-loue, we are easilie deceiued in affaires & actions; and those things which we doo least commendablie, wée make most account of them. And bicause this doth not seldome hap­pen, it causeth the more ignorant sort to become more doubtfull and ambiguous in their dooing, vnto the which men, honor, praise, and appro­bation would doo much good, if by outward signes the same were yéelded: for by these things their mind and iudgement is establi­shed. But those which be not doubtfull, nay ra­ther be assured, that those things which they doo, be right, when they are adorned by wise and good men with a iust kind of honor, they cannot choose but excéedinglie reioise and be glad in themselues, that they haue gotten so good and iust iudges; wherefore honors doo also profit these men. Neither doo these things, which we haue said, differ from the opinion of Aristotle. For al­beit he denie honor to be the chéefest good, yet doth he not exclude it from the number of good things. Touching those things, which I haue spoken of firme and perfect honor, there is no­thing so agréeable, That the faithfull in the daie of iudgement shall haue the cheefest good. Matt. 25, 34. as that that shall be the chée­fest, which the faithfull in the last daie of iudge­ment shall haue of Christ, when he shall saie vn­to them; Come yee blessed of my father, &c. For that praise shall procéed from the most wise iudge, to whome all iustice is best knowne, nei­ther can our dooings anie waie be hidden from him.

17 Wherefore I thinke it is now sufficient­lie concluded, and made apparant, that the mo­derate desire of honors is not to be blamed: yet bicause manie doo soone ouer-reach themselues héerein, and that the place is slipperie, therefore must we declare some things, which we ought to take héed of, least in séeking for vertue, wée shamefullie fall into vices. To this must we haue a speciall regard, that euen Aristotle be­ing an Ethnike sawe, that we desire not honor for it selfe: That honor for it selfe sake must not be desi­red. for this were of a meane good, to make the principall good, and to enioie those things which we ought but to vse. Let the same desire therefore tend both to the glorie of God, and to the edifieng of our brethren. Next of all let vs beware, that we take not too much care for honor; That wee must not be too carefull for honor. for so would the mind be soone disqui­eted, which when manie, who were accounted ciuill, did not auoid, they with the desire of praise became in a manner mad. We knowe with what a furie Alexander of Macedonia was carried in a manner through the world, séeking glorie without measure and reason, who at length was brought to that passe, as he thought that there were other worlds to be conquered besides this; One world sufficeth not for yong Pellaeus. With the verie which disease, Iulius Caesar being infected, set vpon his countrie, and rashlie violated the lawes and libertie thereof. So then let this desire be moderate, and let it be bounded within certeine and iust limits. And in receiuing of honors, let vs fol­low Augustines counsell; Neither receiue thou (saith he) all that is offered, nor yet refuse thou all: for he that reiecteth all the honor, which is yéelded vnto him, for the things that he hath rightlie and verie well done, séemes as it were to suppresse the gifts of God, and that he would not haue them acknowledged, which in verie déed is against true godlines. And on the other side, he that imbraceth whatsoeuer is offered him, doth manie times passe the limits of mo­destie.

And héerewithall must héed be taken, that the kind of honor, which is brought, That the honor be not greater than the worthi­nes of the person. be not greater than the dignitie of men can sustaine; which when it happeneth, must not be abidden: for thereat is God angrie, and doth seuearelie take vengeance for his honors vsurped by men. Herod was most gréeuouslie punished, Acts. 12, 23. when the people cried vnto him with voices not fit for a man, but such as were méet for God. And for the same fault is Domitian, Nero, and manie other most insolent Emperours iustlie condemned, which would not be woor­shipped as princes, but as God. Those things which belong to God, let them be rendred vnto God; and let good men receiue humane honors rightlie and moderatelie when they be offered. Also, let there be kept a iust and right measure in obteining of honors. The right waie to come by ho­nors. There is onlie one waie and meane commended, and that is by well bringing of things to effect, which the Grecians call That is to saie, vertu­ous actions. [...], which things hypocrits doo counterfet, and while by outward signes they indeuour to declare themselues godlie and ho­lie, they be had in estimation of the people. But of them Christ said; Matth, 6, 2. They haue receiued their reward. And there be others, which are carried so far foorth, as they buie honors, which vice without doubt is condemned by all iust lawes, and of the Latins it is called Ambitus, that is, Ambition. Ambition: for it is a most vile thing to craue the peoples voices by great gifts. Héerof in the digests Ad legem Iuliam, de ambitu, are manie things extant. Those which were conuicted, were condemned of infamie, and also in a pai­ment of monie. And the punishments of this fault were manie times in the commonweale of Rome increased; for the fault did growe on without measure. Yea, and the ecclesiasticall Canons did imitate the Romane lawes. And bicause this vice grew mightilie in the church, [Page 145] and at this daie reigneth euerie-where, manie lawes were decréed, which are in the first cause, quest. 1. throughout the whole question: and in the fift booke of the decretals, in the title De Si­monia, & in another title, that the prelats should not grant their owne places, or places of the church, Simonie. for a yéerelie rent. They that sell eccle­siasticall dignities, followe Gehezi the seruant of Helizaeus, 4. King. 4, 12. and they which buie them, are like vnto Simon Magus. Neither is only monie, but words, & euerie kind of flatterie, if they be done onlie vnto that end, to obteine ecclesiasticall honors, to be estéemed as a price. And the fa­thers did so persecute this vice, as against those that commit Simonie, they admitted anie sort of accusers, euen those that were infamous, dis­honest persons, & harlots, and suth other sort of men, which is not suffered in the complaint of other crimes. Lastlie, must be regarded, that we vse honors well when they be gotten, That ho­nors gotten must be wel vsed. which I therefore speake, bicause we may sée some eue­rie-where, which abuse them, to obteine power to compasse riches, and follow pleasures, vnto all which things they make the waie easie to themselues by dignities and honors, as well ciuill, as ecclesiasticall.

18 These things we thought good to be reci­ted, The dutie of them that doo giue ho­nor. as touching them which receiue honors; now must we speake a few words of them, whose part is to yéeld honor vnto others: for these also must be admonished, bicause héerein men may sin diuerslie and manifoldlie. I sup­pose there is none that doubteth, but they doo greatlie erre, which denie iust and méet honors to them, that well and rightlie behaue them­selues, and yet we sée that there be manie such as denie this. And those men are a great deale worsse than these, which in the stead of giuing honor, doo hate them, doo diminish their deserts, be disquieted and gréeued, if they shall sée anie thing go well with them: these men without doubt are to be accounted vniust, and most vn­gratefull. Some indéed there be, which franke­lie inough doo honour good men, but this they doo, to reape in like maner some benefit, fauour, or helpe of them: and these passe not much of the well doings of honest men, but onlie séeke their owne good; wherefore they rather sell their ho­nor, than make it a reward of vertues. Againe wée haue knowne others, which are readie inough to giue honors vnto honest men, but in dooing thereof, vse a peruerse iudgement; for those good things which they ought to regard, they neglect, and doo greatlie estéeme those things which be of lesse value. If a man do well ouer-sée his church, bring sound doctrine, liue godlie, and sheweth euerie-where good ex­amples, in this respect they make small ac­count of him: but if the same man giue craftie and expert counsell to increase wealth, or shew some vnknowne thing in husbandrie, or in phy­sicke, then they haue him in admiration, and with praises extoll him to heauen. There be also those which doo flatter, and which adorne euen foule vices with the names of vertues. Also, there be some, which in giuing of honors kéepe no meane, but either they giue them sparing­lie, or else more than they should.

19 All these things, which I haue rehearsed, How these things a­gree with the holie scriptures. must be diligentlie taken héed of; which since I haue largelie enough declared, now remaineth that we shew how the doctrine of Aristotle a­gréeth with the holie scriptures, or else differeth from them. Indéed when he saith, that honour is not the chéefest good, he disagréeth not anie thing from the holie scriptures: for the chéefest good cannot be desired more than is méete; but in wi­shing for honours we must temper our desire. I would not haue you (saith the Lord to his apo­stles) be called Rabbi, or maisters, or fathers; Matth. 23, 8. but rather regard this, that ye serue one another, and that with a lowelie and moderate mind. Be­sides this, our sauiour would not suffer his to be defrauded of the chéefest good, seing he came pur­poselie to make vs happie. But he setteth vs open in a maner vnto rebukes, Luke. 21. Mat. 6, & 10 Iohn. 16. Mark. 13. Phil. 2, 7. and he foreshew­ed that his children should haue contumelies doone vnto them, whom he comforteth by his owne example; Who abased himselfe, and ta­king vpon him the forme of a seruant, was made obedient euen to the death of the crosse. And whereas it is affirmed, that our chéefest good should be firme, proper, and not easie to be remooued, it maketh with that which Paule saith; that therefore our saluation and iustifica­tion doth consist of grace and faith, Rom. 4, 16. but not of works, that the promise may be firme. That ho­nours may soone be taken awaie, the holie scrip­tures doo testifie: for Christ said; Matt. 13, 57. Marke. 6, 4. that No pro­phet is without honour, saue in his owne coun­trie. And we sée that the saints, hauing honour manie-times doone vnto them, are within a while after accused & caught vnto punishment. And finallie, the holie scriptures teach, that ho­nour is of the kind of those good things, which are referred to some other thing: bicause the Lord said; Let others see your good works, Matth. 5, 16. and glori­fie your father. Where we sée, that glorie and ho­nour ought not to rest onelie in vs; but must be referred vnto diuine honours and praises.

Of certeine good things attending vp­on Felicitie; namelie, riches, beautie, nobilitie, and such like: and how far men may vse them vvithout hinde­rance vnto Felicitie.

20 In the definition of Felicitie, action of the [Page 146] mind was the generall word vnder which it was conteined; A distincti­on of good things. which verie well agréeth with the old writers, who diuided good things into thrée parts, The goods of the mind. and among those things gaue the princi­pall and chéefe place vnto the goods of the mind. Wherefore, séeing felicitie is the chéefest good, it is well assigned to belong vnto the actions of the mind. That same distinction of good things, pro­céeded from the Academikes, and before them from Socrates, as it may appéere in Platos fift booke De legibus: albeit afterward followed the Stoikes, which onelie made one kind of good things; though Aristotle made no mention of them, bicause they flourished after his time. The goods of the mind are distinguished; A distinc­tion of the goods of the mind. for either they are referred to that which is to be vnder­stood, or to that which is to be desired: vnto the former part are referred sharpenes of wit, quicknes of spirit, spéedinesse of perceiuing, fast holding in the memorie, prudence, wisedome, and also knowledges and right opinions: but as for the will and desire, all the morall vertues doo adorne. The goods of the bodie are distingui­shed; The good things of the bodie distingui­shed. for some of them are dispersed ouer all the bodie, as health, strength, and beautie: for these settle not in one part of the bodie, but generallie in the whole. But there be other things which are proper vnto some of the members; name­lie, swift running, vnto the féete; to the hands, strength in holding fast, in driuing in, in draw­ing to, and in casting from; volubilitie or readi­nes vnto the toong, and to all the senses. Out­ward good things are distributed into fréends, Outward good things distingui­shed. nobilitie, honours, riches, and such like. But whie the goods of the mind haue the first place, manie reasons may be brought; but now it shall be sufficient to saie, that in good right those are the better properties, which are of a better matter that is subiect. But the argu­ment of Aristotle may thus be gathered; Those be the chéefest good things, which belong to feli­citie; A resolution But the goods of the mind be the chéefest; Iustlie therefore are they comprehended in the definition of blessednes. Wherefore, since the actions of the mind obteine the first place a­mong the good things thereof, they are rightlie set downe to be the generall word, vnder which felicitie is conteined.

Manie there were, and those not of the vulgar sort, Riches are remooued from felici­tie. which held riches in estimation, as the chée­fest good; and therefore Aristotle for two causes remooued those things from felicitie, the first is, for that they belong vnto violence; for that which is violent, hath no respect of felicitie. But that the possession and obteining of riches is a violent thing, vse and experience doth teach vs; for there is none that can get great and a­bundant riches, or can long kéepe them, vnlesse there be a violence, and that no small violence vsed. Another reason is, bicause they tend to profit, and are referred to another thing; where­fore the state of them is seruile. For we haue them to this end, that they may helpe vs to o­ther things which we desire: neither would a­nie man estéeme them the value of an heare, vnlesse he knew them to be profitable vnto those things that he would haue. And how strange this is from the nature of the chéefe good, all they are not ignorant, which knowe that the same should be desired for it selfe sake. Verie much therefore are they deceiued, which haue riches in the greatest honor, bicause they be profitable vnto all things. This if Midas had set before his eies, he would not haue so adicted himselfe to the studie of heaping vp riches, that he was iustlie called [...], that is, [...]. euen mad for the desire of gold. Neither is he alone among princes and kings to be reprooued, sée­ing now the greatest part of them is infected with this vice, who neuertheles might haue bin admonished, not onlie by these two reasons of Aristotle, but by manie other reasons, to set downe some moderation of their desire. Reasons why riches be not the cheefe good. For it is without reason, so greatlie to estéeme that kind of good, which is externall, and in a man­ner perteineth nothing to the mind; but is one­lie reckoned among the instruments, whereby men are holpen to doo those things which they haue purposed. Also, this kind of good doth be­sot men, if it happen vpon them that be vnwise: they be verie carefull to atteine vnto riches, but haue no care of their children, to whome they shall leaue them; nor yet of themselues, who should vse them. They are like vnto him, which would haue manie shooes, and in the meane time went barefoote. Besides this, the nature of riches is doubtfull, in so much as they serue no lesse to the accomplishing of lewd de­sires and wickednes, than of honest and iust duties.

Moreouer, if vertue be therefore not the chée­fest good, bicause it may be with them which be asléepe, and which be in miserie, whom no man iudging prudentlie would call happie; how shall felicitie be attributed vnto riches, séeing they be oftentimes possessed of most miserable men; yea rather, of them which be monsters and woonderments of the world, who hate all honest arts and all vertues? Vnto honour it is denied, and that iustlie, that it should not be accounted blessednes; bicause it is not in their power which be had in honour. Which if we shall affirme, no doubt but we may iudge the same of riches; séeing the possessi­on of them is subiect to infinit perils: they are gotten and lost well-néere in an houre. One man boasted of excéeding great riches, which his ships had brought vnto him: another hea­ring [Page 147] him, answered, that he made no account of goods which hoong on gables and winds. And that they be not the chéefe good indéed, it séems they verie well knew, which termed riches a gilted felicitie. Indéed I denie not, but that riches be good; The scrip­tures testi­fie that ri­ches be vio­lent. Luke. 16, 9. 1. Tim. 6, 20. but that they be the chéefest good, that we denie. That they be violent, & are refer­red to another thing, the holie scriptures in one word testifie; Make ye freends of vnrighteous Mammon. That they doo hurt the vnwise, it is said; The root of all euils is couetousnes; They which will become rich fall into snares & ten­tation, &c. And as for the inconstancie of them, [ Paule saith to Timothie;] Command that they trust not in the vncerteintie of riches; 1. Tim. 6, 9. Luk. 12, 20. [and Christ said] This night will they fetch awaie thy soule from thee. Finallie, they are a hinderance vnto men, as in the gospell; And the yoong man be­ing rich, Matt. 19, 21. went his waies: so as they be good things, but yet in their owne degrée.

Certeinlie this word [...], that is, That out­ward goods belong not to the na­ture of feli­citie. doo comprehend, must be diligentlie considered of; for we easilie vnderstand there­by, that the elder fathers thought not that the abundance of outward goods belonged to the nature of felicitie: but onlie called the same a thing added for a helpe. Riches make not the nature of felicitie, they are not placed in the de­finition therof, they are not counted among the goods of the mind; wherein it is said, that felici­tie chéefelie standeth. To what end are they then? First they are therfore added, to the intent they may further manie actions of an happie man; for neither a liberall man, nor a man of valiant courage, nor he that is honourable can doo anie thing of their owne vertue; if they want monie, if they lacke store of things, and finallie if they be néedie and poore. And moreouer, without ri­ches, a happie man not onlie cannot helpe ano­ther man, but can be at no leisure to giue him­selfe to contemplation; bicause with his trauell he must prouide for his dailie sustenance.

Whether fe­licitie haue need of the inferiour good things. 21 But some doo not allow of it, that so ex­cellent a thing as felicitie is, should haue néed of goods far inferiour vnto it: howbeit this knot is vndoone by our distinction. In it selfe and of his owne nature it hath no néed of them: for if in it selfe it should haue néed of these things, nothing might be happie, vnlesse it abounded with these things: which must not be granted, séeing God and the angels are blessed without the small helpe of these goods. This poore lacke, which is of a corruptible and mortall man, is ioined to this felicitie. Euen as our power of vnderstanding is not able, by consideration, to doo anie thing at all, without the senses and si­militudes which we contemplate: which in ve­rie déed happeneth vnto it, not in respect it is a mind or vnderstanding: for if it were on this wise, neither God nor angels should vnder­stand anie thing without senses and imaginati­on. So then, the mind and vnderstanding re­quire those things, not by themselues, or their owne nature; but in respect they belong vnto men. It is to be noted moreouer, that the mat­ter which is subiect, may be vnderstood two waies: for either it representeth that matter, about which our actions are occupied; or else it is the matter wherein our mind is, namelie the bodie, to the nourishing, sustaining and féeding whereof these outward goods are in anie wise re­quired; wherefore in these two respects felicitie hath néed of the outward good things.

Besides, we sée in arts, that manie things are doone, not onlie by the art, which is placed in the mind of the artificers, and in the members of their bodie; but by the helpe also of outward instruments. The smith vseth fire, tongs, a hammer, and an anuile: the carpenter a rule, a sawe, an axe, and such other things, and that bi­cause of the matter which is subiect: and so often­times it sufficeth not artificers to haue art, and the members of the bodie. In like maner dooth it come to passe touching felicitie; although the mind be indued with excellent vertues, and that it will and can shew foorth excellent actions, and is not destitute of bodilie power, yet hath it néed of fréends, riches, and ciuill power. By ciuill power I vnderstand honours, good will, fa­uours, protection, and such like. As for riches, they are diuided some into naturall, Riches na­turall and artificiall. and some into artificiall: naturall are counted whatsoeuer things doo growe out of the earth, and which the bréed of cattell produceth: but artificiall consi­steth on monie, which in verie déed was inuen­ted, that it should be indifferent to both parties in the exchange of things. And both these kinds béeing called faculties, Of riches Looke more part. 3. chap 11. Art. 15. we gather by the etymo­logie of the word, that they are a great furthe­rance vnto dooing.

Aristotle, to the furtherance of a mans felici­tie, required a beautifulnes of the bodie, nobili­tie, store of children, and of true fréends. Beautie re­quired to felicitie. Neither (as I suppose) dooth he here meane a pleasant physnomie, but that a man be not altogither de­formed: and this is the meaning of [...], [...]. as it is in Gréeke. The reason of this saieng (as Eustratius thinketh) may be, bicause mens minds are prone to loue & estéeme them, whom they perceiue to excel other mortall men in som goodlie fourme: of which inclination moreouer ariseth, that they willinglie obeie and followe them, which are thus beautifull. And a man, ha­uing the minds of the people thus affected to­wards him, dooth vndoubtedlie helpe very much forward to the execution of excellent things: for the people bring manie things to passe, when they be mooued of their owne accord, and when [Page 148] they fulfill the mind of one man with an ear­nest loue and voluntarie good will. And there­fore that king, whom God first set ouer the Israelites; 1. Sam. 10, verse. 23. namelie, Saule, was of so tall a stature, as he was higher than other of the He­brues by the shoulder vpward. And of Dauid, whom he also commanded to be annointed king, it is written; that He was ruddie, and of an excellent beautie. Another thing moreouer there is, whereby men are mooued to loue them that be beautifull; bicause the beautie of the bodie is a certeine image of the mind: which mind, since aboue all things we must séeke to haue it honest and good, and that it cannot be discerned by the eie, it remaineth that the com­mon sort followe the forme of the bodie: after which maner if they were led, which are the louers of our bodies, they should not be bla­med. But at this daie there is in a maner no­thing doone with moderation, but all things are wrought with vncleannes and lust.

Nobilitie required to felicitie. Also vnto blessednes, he requireth nobilitie; bicause the people obeie and reuerence noble personages: for nobilitie is in that kind, out of which haue procéeded manie famous and excel­lent men: and vertues, which shined in the an­cestors, are woont to be looked for in their poste­ritie. I knowe indéed, that some doo thinke, that nobilitie is but riches preserued of long time in some familie: but the former opinion liketh me much better. Eustratius moreouer addeth, that the noblenes of a stocke is therefore auailable vnto ciuill felicitie: for the people are woont to estéeme of new men, when they start vp, not onelie according to their present vertues or ex­cellent acts; but according to that which they were a little before. Wherefore the former basenes, while it is considered of, dooth some­what obscure the present glorie; which com­meth so much the more to passe, as men be ex­céedinglie giuen vnto backbiting. [...]. [...] is a doubtfull word, bicause it signifieth not so much a store of children, as it dooth their goodnes. And indéed as touching store of children, Store of good chil­dren requi­red to feli­citie. they which abound in them, are both gratefull vnto the citie, and are feared of others: gratefull trulie they be, bicause they increase the Com­mon-weale. Wherefore among the Romans there was a priuilege for those that had fiue or seuen children. And a yoong man of the Lacedaemonians would not rise vp vnto an an­cient, who otherwise had deserued well of the Common-weale; Bicause (saith he) he leaueth not behind him, one that may rise and vncouer his head vnto me, when I shall be old. But then onlie children doo further vnto felicitie, if they shall be well instructed: for otherwise they shall be rotten impostoms and cankers; as Octaui­us Augustus spake of his daughter and néece, when they were vnchaste. Also Tyberius sorro­wed, that he did nourish in his house for the peo­ple of Rome Caligula, a most cruell snake.