discipline and M. Beza J do thinke of them as their writings do deserue but yet I thinke better of the ancient Fathers And with this I end touching the libration or ballancing of the Fathers of the primatiue Church with our Protestant Doctours Animaduersion XLII THere is one sleight vsed by our Aduersaryes which deserues Annotation It is this They are vnwilling openly to breake with the Fathers so long as they can preteÌ„d any shew of coniunction agreement with them Therfore when they fynd any of our Catholike points to be mantayned by the Fathers they gently tearme them Naeuos Nenia and at most Errores blemishes and errours Thus fauorably they depresse in the Fathers our Catholike Doctrines because they would seeme to continue members of the same Church whereof the Fathers were But now they stile the same Opinions and Doctrines as they are belieued by vs no lesse then Heresyes blasphemyes Jdolatry c. thereby to shew that the Members of the Church of Rome are not members of Christs Church This deceitfull and different appellation is precisely kept and practised by the Centuryes Jllyricus Doctour Whytaker and diuers other Protestant Wryters Animaduersion XLIII OVr Aduersaryes deportment towards the Fathers is most full of imposture and deceyte And they vse certaine stepps or gradatious therein For first they labour to euade the authority or testimony of a Father by shaping some seeming answere to it yet still admitting the authority produced Next if the testimony obiected by vs out of any Father be for its perspicuity not capable of any euading answere then they labour to weaken the authority of the said Father by making him seeme to contradict himselfe in some other place of the same point or els to be contradicted therein by other Fathers After this manner doth D. Whitaker in question of Traditions say of (h) D. Whit. l. de Sacr. Script pag. 670. Basill Basilius secum pugnat as also chargeth S. Austin (i) D. Whit. vbi supra â—8â— with the like contrariety in iudgement touching the same doctrine of Traditions But when they are told that it is most improbable that the Fathers being such learned men as they were should without any acknoledged retractation of their former writings crosse themselues in their later wrytings our Aduersaryes then vnmaske themselues plainly calling the Fathers Superstitious blynd and open mantayners of Papistry which poynt shaâ— be made euident by these testimonyes of the Protestants passed vpon them And to begin with Luther he thus writeth of the Fathers in generall The (k) Luth. de seruo arbitrio printed anno 15â—1 pag. 4â—4 Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures They haue erred all their life tyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor pertaining to the Church Melancthon ioyneth hands with Luther herein (l) Melancth in 1. Cor. cap 31. in these words Presently from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning Iustification by fayth increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar worships With both whome to omit the like condemning speeches of others passed vpon the Fathers conspires D. Whitaker thus scurrilously writing Ex patrum (m) Contra â—uâ—aeum p. 4â—3 erroribus ille Pontificiae religionis Cento consutus est The religion of the Papists is a patched Cloath of the Fatâ—ers â—rrours sowed together Thus â—ar of the seuerall peculiar deliueries of our Aduersaries against the Fathers Animaduersion XLIV TOuching the Controuersy whether the Blessed Virgin was conceaued in Originall sinne such Catholikes as deny the same hould the deniall thereof only as a probable and pious Opinion and not as matter of fayth we therfore are to conceaue that the Sinne of the first Parent is communicated to his Sonnes and posterity three manner of wayes First then the Sonnes of Adam are said to haue sinned in Adam himselfe in that Adam did transgresse the precept of God in Paradise And because the Sonnes of Adam were not then in actu but in potentia only therfore that sinne they contracted not in actu but only in potentia And in this sense it may be said that the B. Virgin sinned in Adam Secondly all the Children of Adam are said to be conceaued in Sinne as soone as the child beginnes to exist in the Mothers Wombe although it be then vnformed and without life because a Man then beginneth truly to exist in respect of one of his parts that part hath its beginning from a corrupt Nature and may be said to be truly vitiated by force of its generation And in this sense also we acknowledg that the Blessed Virgin had her beginning from a corrupt Nature and that by force of such generation it was due that Sinne should be contracted as soone as her Rationall soule was ioyned to her Body The third and last manner whereby men are said to be conceaued in Sinne is when their Soules are inspired into their bodies since at that tyme they beginne properly really to become Men and to haue their Wâ—â— naked of Originall Justice and consequently auerted from God and in it selfe deformed Now touching this third and last kind we hould it most probable that the Soule of the Blessed Virgin euen at the first instant of its creation and infusion into the Body was so without spot of Originall Sinne as that person of hers actually existing had neuer any Sinne she herein differing from all others in that she was freed from Originall Sinne euen in the very instant of her Animation Now here it is to be noted that the texts of Scripture vrged by the Protestants to proue that the Blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall Sinne haue respect reference only to one or other of the first two kinds touching the propagation of Originall Sinne in Man but they haue not any true reference to this last kynd Animaduersion XLV IT is most wonderfull to obserue the great contempt and little respect our Aduersaryes giue to our Blessed Lady Diuers of theÌ„ speaking of Caluin Beza two Sodomits euen by the Protestants (n) See Schlusselburge l â— fol. 121. l. 1 fol. 93. Confessions with great obseruancy stile them (*) So D Banâ—râ—ss stileth Caluin and Beza in his Suruey of the pretended disâ—ipline M. Caluin M. Beza In like manner speaking of Luther that wicked Monke they feare not to call him the Elias (o) Fox Act. Mon. pa. 416. Conductour Chariot of Jsrael But when they come to name our Blessed Lady who is an intâ—merate Virgin the Queene of Heauen an instrument of mans Redemption the Mother of God and Sauiour of the world most of them bluntly and rudely stile her without any addition of Honour only Mary O contempt most sacrilegious and insufferable Animaduersion XLVI IN the Hymne of our Ladyes office thus begining Aue Mariâ— stella c. two passages much distast our Aduersaryes The first 〈◊〉 this Solue
then the soule of Man as being a simple Spirit hath nothing in it selfe froÌ„ which it should receaue any distraction or extinguishment contrary to the sensitiue soule of other liuing Creatures which haue within it selfe the grounds of its owne Mortality therfore it followeth that the soule of Man is immortall and liueth after it is diuorced from the body Another argument in prooffe hereof is taken from the worth and dignity of Mans Soule which dignity is cheifly discerned to vs by its owne seuerall Operations For first the knowledge of the soule is altogether illimitable For it apprehendeth all kinds of things As also it conceaueth the vniuersall reasons of things as they are abstracted from particulars from sensible matter from place and tyme c. It searcheth into the reasons causes effects and proprieties of all things All which Action and operations beare no Reference to thâ— benefit of the Body but are ornaments only of the Mynd and belong only to the Mind Secondly The desire of Mans soule is in like sort infinite and boundles For the Soule doth not only desire such things as belong to the Body to wit to satisfy the sense of tasting and feeling as Beasts do but it stretcheth it selfe forth to euery Truth desiring the knowledg and contemplation of euery Verity Neither is the desire of the Soule I euer meane the soule of man enlarged only to ech Truth but also to euery thing that is Good Here then appeareth how much the power of desiring in man is eleuated and aduanced aboue the Matter and condition of his Body Thirdly the same is further confirmed from the Delights and Pleasures wherewith the Soule solaceth herselfe For she is delighted chiefly with the contemplation of Truth She is delighted with the Pulchritude and beauty of all things and in admiring the Art and skill which appeareth in euery thing She is delighted with Proportions and Mathematicall disciplines She is delighted with the works of Piety Iustice and exercise of all other Vertues Finally she is delighted with Fame Honour glory rule domination Now seeing none of these belongeth to the benefit of the Body but all are touching spirituall obiects or at least concerning such things which are estranged from the benefit of the Body and seeing the soule esteemeth these things far more then any corporall Good It therefore is most euident that the Soule is of a far higher and more worthy disposition then the body and of such a diuine Nature as that it dependeth not at all of the commerce and entercourse which she hath with the flesh Fourthly This verity is warranted from the Dominion which the soule hath ouer the Body and from the Soules enioying of Freewill For the Soule doth so direct gouerne ouerrule the body in her affections and passions as that neither the expectation of rewards or feare of torments can force the body to say or do any thing then what the Soule wâ—lleth Now the reason hereof is because the Soule dependeth not of the Body but is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sui iuris whereupon it riseth that the Soule so smally valeweth those things which appertayne to the Body as if they did not belong vnto her Fiftly Yf the Soule should haue her dependance of the Body and could not consist the body being once extinct then shold she haue against nothing a greater horrour and auersion then against death For death of the body depriuing the Soule supposing it to be mortall of all good should become her greatest infelicity and euill and present life her greatest good and happines But now daily experience teacheth the contrary for many do make so small account and estimation of lyfe as that they willingly spend it for prayse fame liberty auoyding of reproach and dishonor yea some there are who for auoyding of disgrace or affliction of mynd stick not to become their owne Homicides so much do those things which appertayne to the Mind ouer ballance all that which appertaineth to the Body Sixtly Yf the Soule of man be extinguished together with its body then nothing is attended on with greater Calamities then mans Nature for in this life mans nature stands subiect to many afflictions from which Beasts are most free For it is incessantly solicited with cares vexed with feares burning with desires sorrowing and complayning neuer content with its owne state nor enioying any tranquility of mynd Besides it often endureth pouerty banishment imprisonment disgrace the yoake of Matrimony losse of goods repentance of things past a care of things to come c. from all which Beasts are free Yf therefore the Soule be extinguished with the body then almost all kinds of Beasts would be more happy then Man Therefore it remayneth that the soule must expect its felicity after its departure from its body consequently that it dyeth not with the body but is immortall For how absurd is it that that which is of the highest Nature in â—his world should in its state and being become more miserable then things of a far meaner Nature Seauently That sentence which is the source and welspring of all Iustice Piety Vertue cannot possibly be false But this Article which teacheth the Soules immortality and that after this life it is to be rewarded or punished is the ground-worke of all Iustice and probity therefoee the article of the soules immortality is most true as on the contrary part that Opinion which teacheth the soule to be mortall and corruptible doth subuert and ouerthrow the foundation of all probity and vertue therefore that Opinion must of necessity be false since it promiseth a man that let him liue neuer so wickedly he shall not suffer any paynes after this life Eightly to remit the Reader for his fuller satisfaction herein to the foresaid booke of Rawleighs Ghost I say that Nature which is intelligent is the worthyest nature of all others which are in the world HeÌ„ce it is gathered that it is absurd to maÌ„tayne this nature vtterly to perish and to be mortall For if the earth sea and starres all which were created for the vse of this intelligent nature I meane for man do neuer decay but continue eternall then how can it be auerred that this intelligent nature should become mortall and passible Certainly it is altogether vnlawfull to affirme that nature to wit Mans soule to be mortall to which things that are immortall become seruiceable and for whose only vse and benefit the said immortall things were first created Animaduersion CLXXXXV THe Consideration of the fabrick of Mans body most irresistably conduceth vs to the knowledge of a Deity And theâ—efore not vndeseruedly is the body of man stiled by the Philosophers Microcosmus the lesser world Meaning lesser in Quantity then all this great world contayning in it the vniuersality of all sublunary things but farre greater with reference to the many mysteryes discouered in the framing therof First then Mans body but briefly to runne ouer some chiefe obseruations
in some Copyes and of King James in other Copyes and yet both of them reigned long after K. Edward Animaduersion IV. WE ought not to reiect the Authority of ancient approued Authors because there appeare some seeming repugnances in their wrytings For vpon this ground an vnbelieuing Atheist might bring the Holy Scriptures into question For example in Matth. 27. words are alledged vnder the name of Jeremy which are not found in Ieremy but in Zachary c. 11. In like sort in Mark our Sauiour is sayd to be crucifyed in the third hower whereas in Iohn 19. we read that Pilate sate in iudgement vpoÌ„ him about the sixt hower Therefore whereas our Aduersaryes vpon the former ground of incertainty of Mens writings do in like sort seek to impugne S. Peters being at Rome because diuers Historiographers do not agree of the time of his coÌ„ming to Rome his stay there we must content our selues in sobriety with acknowledging that receaued Axiome amoÌ„g the learned That is Saepâ— constat de re quando non constat de modo rei Since otherwise we shold not acknowledge that Hester had any husband or that at any tyme Iudith did liue For the opinions of the Iewes are various both touching the persons and the time herein yet we all acknowledge that Hester had a husband that there was such a woman as Iudith The like vncertainty of the tymes wherein actions were performed though the thing it selfe be most certaine is made euident euen from our owne Cronicles for example touching King Iohn his death whereof see the seuerall opinions in Holinshead in his last Edition 3. volume pag. 1â—4 Animaduersion V. IT is worthy consideration to obserue First how the Protestants in seuerall points make the same Arguments against some articles of our Religion which the Iewes were accustomed to make against the same Secondly how the Protestants somtimes vse the same answers to our Arguments which the Jewes did For example touching the Reall Presence and our receauing of Christs body in the Sacrament the Protestants chiefe Argument is taken from the impossibility therof to wit that God cannot performe all those points aboue nature which are found therein And is not this obiection borrowed from the Jewes against Christ giuing his body to eate in these wordes Quomodo (m) Iohn 6. potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum Againe The Puritans especially condemne the confession of Sinnes to Man vpon this ground that only God can remit sinne And do they not compart with the Iewes herein demanding Quis (n) Marc. 1. potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus And where it is vulgarly obiected by the ignorant that man cannot remember all his sinnes to man therfore his Confession of them is imperfect and maymed I say by this reason we should not coÌ„fesse them to God since we cannot number them to God no more then to man Now to shew how our Aduersaries in like manner borrow from the Iewes their Answers to our Catholike Arguments one instance in place of many shall serue We Catholikes in proofe of our Religion do vrge one chiefe Argument drawne from Miracles exhibited by God in warrant of the same All which testimonies taken from the patration of infinite Miracles recorded by both Ancient and Moderne Authours our Aduersaries do euade by stiling them Antichristian (o) Ofiand cens 10.11 1â— Cent. 4. col 1445. Cent. 5. col 1486. wonders and lying signes and as wrought by the assistance of the Diuell how conspiring is this answere wâ—â— the Answere of the Iewes against the Miâ—cles of Christ Hie (p) Mat. 11. non eijcit Daemonia 〈◊〉 in Beelzebub Principe Daemoniorum Animaduersion VI. AS here aboue we haue shewed how oâ— Aduersaries conspire with the Ieweâ— both in obiecting and answering so I hoâ— it will not be impertinent to discouer in lyne or two how that the Protestants 〈◊〉 agree with the Ancient and condemnâ— Heretiks in obiecting the arguments agaiâ— vs obiected long since by the said Heretiks in impugning our said Catholiâ— points as also how our Aduersaries do coâ—sociate with the very Gentills or Heathenâ— â—gainst the Catholiks yea against our belieâ—â— in Christ. For touching the first we 〈◊〉 find that place to be obiected by Fauâ—â—â— the old Heretike against Abstinence aâ—â— single life and so recorded by Austin In (q) Austin l. 30. c. 4. contra Faust Manich. the later dayes (r) 1. Ti. c. 4. there shall come some forbâ—ding to Marry and to abstaine from certaiâ— Meates A passage of Scripture wherein tâ— Protestants chiefly insist against single lâ—â— and Abstiâ—ence Againe to omit many â—ther such like instances Iustinus (s) Iust Dial. cum Triphon Euseb l. hist 5. c. 1. Marâ—â— recordeth that the Heretikes of his day did as in respect of the Sacrament charâ—â— the true Christians with the grosse and câ—â—nall eating of human flesh with which veâ—â— point the Protestants do at this present 〈◊〉 â—â—aid vs Catholikes Now concerning the Heathens it is cleare that the Heathens and â—ur Aduersaries do mutually agree in denying many points maintained and affirmed by the Catholike Roman Church For both the Heathens and the Protestants do promiscuously deny Freewill Purgatory Jnuocation of Saints vniuersality of Grace Euangelicall Counsells Merit of workes Sacrifice of the Masse and many other Catholike and â—ffirmatiue articles taught by the present Church of Rome But to come to the Seâ—ond point to wit the deniall of the necessity of Christian Religion do we not find Swinglius himself thus to geÌ„tilize with the Heathens Ethnicus (t) Zuin. in Epist. Zuingliâ— Oecolamp l. 1. pag. 30. si piam mentem domi foueat Christianus est etiamsi Christum ignoret and hereupon Zwinglius particularly auerreth that (u) Zuin glâ—tom 1. in exposit fideâ— Christ fol. 150. Hercules Theseus Socrates Aristides all Heathens are now in Heauen which said Blasphemy is in like sort taught by (x) Gualter in Apol pro Zuing. Gualter (y) â—ullinger as is reâ—orded by Simlerus a Protestant in vita Bullingeri Bullinger and other Protestants Thus farre for this present of the strict association and commerce of the Protestants with the Iewes the ancient stigmatized Heretikes and the Heathens or Pagans touching matter of Religion Animaduersion VII THe doctrine of the Reall Presence to the mouth of Fayth is maintained against â—he Puritans by Doctor Whitaker (z) D. Whiâ—ak contra Duraum pag. 168. Bucer in Script Angl. p. 548. c. and diâ—ers other learned Protestants all which men do hould our Catholike Doctrine far more probable then the doctrine of the others who only acknowledge a typicall presence of Christ in the Sacrament Againe many moderate and learned Protestants (a) In his booke of Eccles policy pag. 188. D. Couâ—â— in his defence of â—â—â—er p. 77. do teach the Church of Rome to be the true Church of God and that men dying in
Mans Vnderstanding God can effect The 3. proposition God hath in All things so much an Actiue power by how much they haue in themselues a passiue power And which is more we Christians do belieue that the Actiue power of God can extend beyond the Passiue power of things and agreably hereto we belieue that God created the world of Nothing Now to make a thing of Nothing is not to depend or rely of the Passiue power of the Subiect seeing in this kind of producing there was no preexistent Subiect at all much lesse any Passiue power thereof The fourth Euery thing is possible to God to be done which implyeth not a Contradiction Now what implyeth a Contradiction is impossible to be done Because what implyeth a Contradiction supposeth a Being and a Nothing of a thing and all this at one tyme and in one manner of circumstance And therefore if such a thing could be then could a thing be whose being a thing most absurd should consist in a Not being The fift It riseth partly from out the former propositions that what faculty or Operation God doth impart to any thing created the same he also ominenter as the Schoolmen speake retayneth to himself and is able to performe it without the help of any Secondary cause This must be assumed as true in force of Reason since otherwise the Creature should transcend in might the Creatour which Axiome being applyed to diuers difficulties in the Question of the Eucharist demonstrateth that God can preserue an Accident without its Subiect and that he can keep a Body without any circumscription of Place since otherwise it would follow that in these Examples A Subiect and Place should be able to performe more then God could performe which were great blasphemy to maintayne Animaduersion LXXXX THe Philosophers do assigne three things to concur to Magnitude The first of these is that euery Magnitude should haue an extension in it selfe and haue Partem extra partem That is that one part should not be confounded in it selfe with another part and consequently an intrinsicall site disposition of parts And this is of the very essence of Euery Magnitude and cannot be separated from it The Second thing agreeing to euery Magnitude is to haue a commensuration coextension with Place that is an intrinsecall disposition and order of parts according to place This second ariseth from the first and consequently as being later in Nature then the first may by Gods power be separated from the same yea it is actually separated from the first in the highest Spheare the parts whereof are in no place The third and last property of Magnitude is to extrude and driue away all other Magnituds from that place which is made equall and commensurable to it selfe that is not to suffer another Magnitude to be in the same place with it Now as the second was later then the first so this third resulteth out of the second and is later then the same in Nature and therefore may be separated from it Now according to this doctrine we Catholiks hold that Christs Body in the Sacrament hath the true and whole Magnitude of his Body But this Magnitude hath there only the first Condiâ—ion which is essentiall to euery Magnitude to wit to be extended in it selfe and by reason of that intrinsicall extension to haue partem extra partem but it hath not the second Condition of Magnitude much lesse the third for it is not coextended with any place but existeth whole in respect of all externall place in euery part Animaduersion LXXXXI THe two supreme Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation do afford a strong Argument that a Body may at once be in seuerall places and consequently Christs Body Thus I dispute In the Trinity we find an Vnity or as I may terme it an Indiuiduality of Nature and a Diuersity of persons sortable to the Vnity of a Body and multiplicity of places Now here euery one of these three Persons is identifyed really formally with this Nature whereas the Body is only externally conioyned with the Place Now touching the Jncarnation we are taught that one Hypostasis or Person is in two Natures which two Natures are far more different in themselues then seuerall Places câ—n be Againe the Vnion here betweene the Person and the Nature is far greater as being intrinsicall and substantiall then the Vnion of the Body and the Place can be which is only accidentary and extrinsicall and which is more a circumstance wanting in the Vnion of the Body Place here the Person or Hypostasis is identifyed and made the same Really and formally with its Diuine Nature Here then to recapitulate Yf in the Trinity one Nature be iâ— three seuerall persons without any confusion of the Persons or distraction of the Natâ—â—â— And if in the Incarnation one Hypostasis or Person be in two different Natures and yet neither the Natures confounded nor the Hypostasis distracted or multiplied mucâ— more easely then may Christs Body by diuine power be in seuerall places at one and the same tyme. Animaduersion LXXXXII THe like Argument to the former we may draw from Gods Vbiquity God being 〈◊〉 one and an indiuisible thing is in all placeâ— and things whatsoeuer for if he were not so then would it follow that God should be circumscriptible and consequently not iâ—finite It cannot be here answered that hâ— replenisheth all places as one since we mâ—â—â— grant that he is able to create another world far remote from this and so should be present in the same world and consequently in seuerall and far distant places Neither is this doubt salued by saying thâ—â— God is only a spirituall Substance and noâ— a Body since this point aduantageth nothing for the mayne reason why it shouâ—â— seeme that a Body cannot be in diuers places is not taken so much á mole corporiâ— quam ab vnitate corporis which Vnity as it iâ— more perfect in God then it can be in a Body so it should seeme it should be no lesse deuided and distracted in it selfe in God then in a Body through his being in diuersity of Places Animaduersion LXXXXIII TO these two former Arguments in proofe that a Body may be in two places I will adioyne this following taken from the Nature of Eternity It is this Eternity is defined to be Instans durationis non flucus that is an Jnstant of Duration which is euer present and neuer passeth away Now the difficulty and such which in the like touch of the doubt is greater then the former confessed difficulty of a Body being in seuerall places at once consisteth in this To wit That this Jnstant of Duration being but one Jnstant yet is and coexisteth in seuerall tymes both Past and to Come and yet neither is this Instant deuided or multiplied nor these seâ—erall Tymes confounded And heere a circumstance much agrauating the difficulty iâ— that diuers Places wherein we may suppose a body to be
from a shadow a celestiall Diuine and inconsumptible thing from a terrene and consumptible They in like manner compare the Eucharist with the mysteryes of the Incarnation They compare Christ as he is vpon the Altar in the Eucharist with Christ as he was in the Cribbe or Manger They in like manner compare Christ in the Eucharist with Angels appearing in corporall formes Finally they compare those men who vnworthily do handle or receaue the Eucharist with those men who killed Christ. The thâ—rd is taken from the change of bread which mutation the Fathers seuerall wayes proue to be Reall First they say the bread doth not remayne after Consecration Secondly that the Sense is deceaued herein Thirdly they compare the change here made with the reall mutations of Water into Wyne and of the wandes of Moyses into Serpents Fourthly the Fathers affirme that the Omnipotency of God is necessarily required to performe this mutation The fourth Head is taken from the most high Mystery which the Fathers did acknowledg to be in the Eucharist For first they say it cannot be apprehended without fayth Secondly they did exhort Christians to an infallible constancy in beliefe of the truth of this mistery Thirdly they taught that the miracle therein exceeded mans capacity and apprehension Fourthly the Fathers did forbeare in reuerence thereof to speake of the Eucharist before Heathens or those which were only Catechumeni except couertly in these words Norunt fideles Fiftly they bâ—ing demanded how the mystery of the Eucharist could be performed their answere was to refer it to the Omnipotency of God The fift Branch is taken from the Veneration and worship giuen to the Eucharist For first they did adore the Eucharist Secondly they did Jnnoke it or did say that it was to be inuoked Thirdly they were most cautelous that no part thereof should fall vpon the Earth Fourthly they would not suffer it to be seene of Heathens or Catechumeni Fiftly they auerred that Angells did stand neere vnto the Altar whilst this Sacrifice is performed yea Chrysostome plainly sayth that Angells did stand in the presence of the Eucharist capite inclinato with bowing downe their Heades The sixt Classe is taken from the Effects which the Fathers ascribe to the Eucharist For first they teach that by it we are corporally vnited with Christ. Secondly they affirme that our bodies are to suffer Resurrection because they are vnited with the body of Christ. Thirdly Chrysostome sayth that Christ doth giue himselfe in the Eucharist that we may haue him truly within our selues Euen as men do couet yet cannot giue themselues to those whom they loue Fourthly the Fathers say that when we receaue Christ in the Eucharist Christ is ioyned with vs not only by Fayth and Charity but also reipsa in very deede Fiftly they teach that by the perception or receauing of this Sacrament we are made Consortes diuinae naturae partakers of the Diuine Nature Now if the Reader do desire to see the Fathers in particular who affirme such and such points set downe in this Animaduersion I refer him to the 39. Chapter of the second booke de Eucharistia in Bellarmine from which place I do acknowledg I haue taken this Animaduersion Now what can be replied against the Fathers Sentences herein It cannot be said that they deliuered these Encomia and lauds of the Blessed Sacrament by way of Rhetoricall amplification exaggeration or Hyperbolicall speeches First because not any one Father among so many doth but intimate any such manner of writing in their workes Secondly in that some of them do write to the contrary affirming that the sense of the words touching the B. Sacrament are literally to be taken as they are written for thus doth Hilarius by way of preuention touching the Fathers meaning write hereof Non est (m) Hilarius cap. 8. de Trinitate humano aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum neque per violentam impudentem praedicationem caelestium dictorum sanitati alienae atqus impiae intelligentiae extorquenda peruersitas est Quae scripta sunt legamus quae legiâ—â—s intelligamus tunc perfectae fidei officio fungemur de naturali enim in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus nisi ab eo discimus stultè atque impiè dicimus ipse enim ait Caro mea verè est esca c. And thus much touching this Father censuring of his owne writings and of other Fathers also concerning the Blessed Sacrament and that the Sentences deliuered of it ought to be taken literally and plainly and not Hyperbolically or figuratiuely and as amplifications Animaduersion CXXIV AS aboue is shewed that the auncient Fathers euen by the Confession of the Protestants taught the Doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiation in the Eucharist so also in this Animaduersion I hold it conuenient to discouer the like iudgement of the Fathers that the Eucharist is a true and Reall Sacrifice offered vp to God and this from the penns of our Aduersaryes First theÌ„ Symmachus was Bishop of Rome of whom the Centurists thus write (n) Cent. 6 cap. 10. col 664. Notas Antichristi c. â—ymmachus had the Notes of Antichrist for he brought the Masse into a forme Of Ambrose the Certurists thus confesse (o) Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. Ambrosius locutionibus vtitur quibus ante cum ex patriâ—us nemo vsus est vt Missam facere offerre Sacrificium Ambrose doth vse certaine speeches the which no other Father before him did vse as to say Masse to offer vp Sacrifice c. The Councell of Carthage whereat S. Austin was present is in these words depressed by Pelargus a Protestant (p) In his Schoâ—la fidei tract de Concil pag. 13. Haec Synodus Carthaginensis Intercessionem MissaÌ„ pro defuuctis iniunxit This Synod of Carthage â—id ordaine intercession of prayers and Masse for the Dead Cyrill of Jerusalem is thus taxed by Hospiâ—ian the Protestant (q) Hospinian hist Sacrament pag. 167. Quoad Cyrilium Hicrosolymitanum attinet c. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith indeed according to the vse of his tyme that the Sacrifice of the Altar is a great help to soules Gregory Nyssene is thus charged by Crastoâ—ius a Protesâ—ant Nyssenus (r) L. de opificio missae 164. ille ait Cùm â—ederit Christus discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum c. tam latenter inâ—ffaâ—â—â—â—ter inuisibiliter Corpus immolatum erat c. When Christ gaue to his disciples his body to â—â—te c. that then his body was immolated and offered vp latently ineffably and inuisibly Cyprian who liued an 240. the Centurists do thus reprehend Sacerdotem (s) Cent. 3. c. 4. col 33. Cyprianus inquit vice Christi fungi Deo patri Sacrificium offerri and from hence they charge Cyprian with (t) Centurists in the Alphabeticall Table of the third Century vnder the letter S. Superstition Tertullian who liued anno 220. Osiander thus accuseth
to be really in the Eucharist since by this reason say they it may become rotten and mouldy and be eaten by myce should passe to the belly and so to the common passage To this I answeare that these supposed indignityes do not touch the body of Christ but only affect the species and forme of the Eucharist which is ioyned with the body Againe seeing our Christian fayth teacheth vs that Christ was included for a long tyme within the Wombe of the Blessed Virgin being a Woman that he was swadled and lapped in Cloaths that then he might fall vpon the earth and might also haue beene eaten with beasts or burnt if so by miracle he were not preserued from such mischances if rheÌ„ he was truly and in his owne person subiect to all these difficultyes without any dishonour what dishonour is it to him if he did vndergo in another forme the former supposed Indecencyes vrged by our Aduersaryes Againe the former Indignityes do no more truly and properly touch the body of Christ then the Diuinity which being in all places can be said to be burnt it being in the fyre or being rotten it being in bodyes that are rotten c. Animaduersion CXXIX OVr Aduersaries draw another argument taken from the vnprofitablenes of the Reall Presence in the Eucharist Thus they dispute The reall being of Christs body in the Eucharist is needles in that seeing the end and fruite of the Eucharist is to nourish the Soule and this nourishment consisting in fayth and Charity may as auayleably be performed by apprehending Christ by fayth as he is only in Heauen it therefore followeth that no profit aryseth from the Catholike doctrine herein which is not by other meanes as well effected To this I answere first that it is false to say that the same fruite is reaped by Christ in Heauen as by receauing him really into our bodies since Experience doth witnesse that by this receauing him in the Eucharist our Fayth Charity Deuotion and Reuerence are more encreased Besides our reall coniunction with Christ affordeth many benefits to the soule which Christ giueth not without this Coniunction no otherwise then he cured all such who touched the Hemme of his garment whom he would not haue cured though otherwise he could if they had not touched it Secondly I affirme It is a false â—â—â—ation to conclude It was not conuenient that Christ should be really in the Eucharist because the fruite reaped thereby may be obtained by other meanes For that is profitable which doth confer any Good though the same good may be obtayned otherwise For one drop of Christs bloud or any other laborious worke vndertakâ—n by him for our good had beene sufficient for our Redemption yet it followeth not that all his paines labours effusion of bloud yea death it selfe were vnprofitably and bootelesly performed Yea God could haue redeemed the world without the Incarnation of Christâ— shall we therefore say that the Incarnation of Christ was needles inconuenient and vnprofitable Animaduersion CXXX WHereas aboue there haue beene alledged diuers testimonies out of the Iewes and ancient Rabins in proofe of diuers Articles of our Roman Catholike fayth particularly of the Sacrifice which the Rabins say the Messias shall make at his comming our Aduersaries seeke to euade the force of all the Iewish Rabins authorities by saying that those testimonies of the Rabins were first forged by Galatinus and fathered vpon the Iewes for their greater credit And according hereto we find D. Whitaker thus to answere Dureus who vrged some Jewish sentences out of Galatinus for proofe of the Reall Presence and Sacrifice Tuum (h) Whitak contra Duraeum pag. 818. in hac causa Petrum Galatinum minimè profectò desideramus nec Haebreorum testimonijs illis indigemus Now to free Galatinus from suspition of forging all such sentences of the Rabins in fauour of Christianity and of Articles of our Roman Religion I answere hereto and say that one Hieronymus de Sancta fide being a Jew and conuerted to Christianity in the tyme before Galatinus whose Physitian he was did write a booke entituling it Hebraeo-mastrix or vindex impietatis perfidiae Iudaicae wherein he proueth diuers points of Christianity from the there allâ—dged â—estimonies and sentences of the said formâ—r Iewes mentioned by Galatinus This booke of his was printed at Franckford anno 1602. Animaduersion CXXXI IT is much obserued how our Aduersaries in answering to Catholike Bookes often giue slip to the argument or authority produced and in lieu thereof either by degrees flye to the state of the Question as though afore it were not acknowledged or to the Scripture themselues only interpreting the same where they may range vp and downe ar large or to some by circumstance meerely accessory to the Question and difficulty disputed of or do vse deceytefull resemblance and exchange of matter subtilly conueyed and brought in by tedious entertainment of prolonged discourse and all this to hold the Reader therewith that so vnespiedly they may diuert the Readers eye and memory being thus fixed vpon their digressions from the authority and reason alledged Here also may alledge their accustomed practize in printing the Catholikes Books at large their answere conioyned thereto in the same bulke or volume Their vsuall imposture then is to cause the Catholike authors words to be set downe in a most little obscure and darke letter or Character thereby to withdraw the Readers eye from perusing and reading it at large whereas their answere thereto they procure to be printed in a fayre and great Character or letter that so they may more easely inuite the Reader to the full perusing of it And this sleight is particularly besides in others manifested in D. Whitakers Answere to B. Father Câ—â—pian his ten Reasons in his Challenge to the two Vniuersities also in D. White his Booke against his Aduersaries entituled The way to the true Church Animaduersion CXXXII YF many miracles were wrought concerning Christs body before and whiles he here conuersed vpon earth may not then a man be more easely induced to belieue the great Miracle of his body in the Institution of the Eucharist A litle before the Natiuity thereof we reade Coâ—ceptus est de Spiritis Sancto At the very instant of his birth Natus est ex Maria Virgine some small tyme after his deathe Tertia die resurrexit vpon his last departure from vs Ascendit ad Caelos In all which passages Nature herselfe was if not dissolued at least suspended yea whi es he here conuersed vpon earth the samâ— sacred body of Christ was sometimes nourished without (i) To wit during Christs fast of forty dayes eating at other tymes did eate without (k) WheÌ„ he did eate with his Apostles after his Resurrection any nourishment thereby furthermore the same body remayning Visible (l) According to Luc. 4. Ipse transient peâ— medium illorum ibat became Jnuisible To conclude â—hrist blessed body did walke (m)
Mat. 14. most firmely vpon the liquid Element so as the vnstable Water did then support him who supports the Heauens Yf then Nature did so often subâ—ect and humble herselfe to this sacred body how can we Christians doubt of the infallible certainty of those words of Christ concerning his body Hoc est corpus meum proceeding from our true and powerfull Lord since Truth acknowledgeth not Falshood nor Omnipotency Deficiency Animaduersion CXXXIII TOuching the doctrine of Freewill I haue thought good to set downe these fâ—â— Animaduersions following especially for the vse of such as are scollars Here then we are to know that liberum arbitrium or Freewâ—â— is not only a passiue power neither partly passiue nor partly actiue but is simply and onâ—â— an Actiue power Secondly by Freewill nâ—â— things Euill but only things Good are desâ—red For the proper obiect of the Will is that which is good or at least that which is apprehended vnder the shew of God 〈◊〉 Noâ— that which is euill doth not belong to the obiect of the will but only secondarily anâ— per accidens so far forth as we will 〈◊〉 that which is Euill and therefore we wâ—â— not because Euill is contrary to the goâ—â— which properly we will Thirdly Freewâ—â— hath reference as well to things Present a to things to come The truth of which Thesis is thus proued Yf Freewill could noâ— consist touching things that are present then would it follow that God should 〈◊〉 be in his Actions truly free the reason is because to God nothing is past nor nothing to come but all things are present Foâ—â—thly the obiect of Freewill is not the 〈◊〉 but only the meanes to the End Heere 〈◊〉 speake of the chiefe Act of the Will whiâ—â— is Election where the Freedome of the Will doth respect only the Media but not the Finis And it may be said to respect the End only as the End may inducre rationem medij vndergoe the shew or forme of the meanes Fiftly the Subiect of Freewill cannot be any thing but an Intelligent Nature that is nothing is endued with Freewil which hath not intelligency vnderstaÌ„ding And hence it is that Beasts cannot be said to haue free-will because they haue their iudgement determined by Nature against the which they cannot reluctari or striue and they cannot conferre one thing with another which is the foundation of freewill And thereupon it riseth that all Beasts of the same kind do euer worke after one and the same manner Sixtly it is to be obserued that there is a double fredome of Nature for there is a freedome which is opposed to a simple coaction and constraint and those things are said to be freely donne froÌ„ this simple constraint the which though necessarily they be donne and cannot be but donne yet they are freely and voluntarily done according hereto we all will wish â—o be happy and cannot in any sort will to â—e vnhappy There is also a freedome or liâ—erty of the will to the which not only coâ—ction but also necessity is repugnant And â—hose actions are said to be free from necesâ—ity the which we can will or not will as when we do walke or speake we might notwithstanding haue not walked or haue beene silent Now the freedome of will which the Catholike doctrine requireth it a freedome from necessity and not only a freedome from coaction or constraint Animaduersion CXXXIV OVr Aduersaryes hâ—uld it impossible that Liberum Arbitrium can stand with the Diuine Operation affirming that the Cooperation of God doth take away and destroy the Freedome of will But the Catholike Schoole Deuynes (n) Gregorius Ariminensis Scotus Gabriel and others in secund Sencent distinct 37. do mantayne that they both may stand together and they explicate it in this sort They teach that the Cooperation of God in any worke performed by Man with Freedome of will beareth it selfe with reference to the Effect not with reference to the Cause that is that the concourse of God doth not determinate our Will neither doth worke or imprint any thing vpon it but that it immediatly flowes into the Effect and doth produce the same in the very same moment in the which it is produced by the Will And hence say they it followeth that God doth neither determinate or necessitate the Will nor the Will God since both giue freely their concourse and if the one will not concurre the Action will not be done Euen as say they when two men do beare a great stone the which the one of them is not able to beare nether of these men do add force to the other or impell the one the other and it is in the liberty of either of them to leaue the burden Although God except he would extraordinarily worke some miracle doth euer concur when our Will doth concur because he hath in a certaine manner bound himself thereto when he did create mans Freewill From which it followeth that though God and Mans will euen in the same moment of tyme do begin to worke yet God worketh because the Will worketh not contrariwise Animaduersion CXXXV OVr Aduersaries for the impugning of Freewill say that it destroyeth Gods prescience or foreknowledg seing both these I meane mans Freewill and Gods foreknowledge cannot stand together for God doth foreknow all future things necessarily and it cannot possibly bâ— that God should be deceaued therefore all things haue their euent out of a certaine Necessity I answere hereto that the Prescience of God is most certaine yet doth it not impose any necessity to things future This is thus proued according to the iudgment of S. Austin (o) Austin l. 3. de libero Arbitrio and others Yf the foreknowledg of God doth impose a Necessity to future things the reason hereof should be taken from Prescience or foreknowledg as it is considered in it selfe or els from Prescience as it is the Prescience of God But neither of these are true For first if Prescience of God because it is Prescience should impose a necessity to future things then it would follow that not only the Prescience of God but also the Prescience of Man should in like manner impose a necessity to future things But this is false for the foreknowledge of man is not the cause of things neither doth it worke any things that are future For exaÌ„ple if by diuine reuelation I should know that it will raine to morrow neuerthelesse I should not be the cause of the rayne and yet without doubt it would rayne but no lesse contingently then if I had knowne nothing thereof Now why those things which certainely are foreknowne do euer haue their Euent when as notwithstanding they come to passe contingently and in respect hereof may not come to passe the cause hereof is Because who foreseeth a thing to come doth in his vnderstanding anticipate and preuent the effecting doing of the same thing and so behouldeth the thing already done before it be
Church of Christ Thou (37) Esay c. â—0 shalt sucke the milke of the Gentills and the breasts of Kings And againe it is prophesied of the Church by the Kingly Prophet J (38) Psal â— will giue thee the Heathens 〈◊〉 thy inheritance and the End of the Earth for sâ—â— thy possession Now two things are cleare the first that many Heathen Kingdomes hâ—â—e beene conuerted to Christianity by the Pope and his ministers This is proued from the coÌ„fession of D. Whitaker who acknowledging the conuersion of many Countryes made by the Church of Rome thus debaseth them The (39) Whitak l. de Eccles pag. 336. Conuersion of so many Nations after the tyme of Gregory haue not beene pure but corrupt Now that the Protestant Church neuer conuerted any Gentill King or Nation to the fayth of Christ appeareth from its coÌ„fessed Inuisibility for so many ages till Luthers tyme aboue set downe Thus then I here aâ—gue The predictions of conuerting Kings and Kingdoms to the fayth of Christ were performed by the Pope only and his Substituts and not by the Protestants Therefore the predictions for the enlarging of Christ his Church by conuerting Gentills vnto it were performed by Antichrist Christs designed Enemy How do these stand together and yet do these incompatibilityes necessarily result out of the former Assertions Animaduersion CLIV. THe example of Paphnutius his standing in the Nicene Councell in defence of Priests mariage so much insisted vpon by so many eminent Protestants is misapplied and withall in all likely hood most false It is misapplyed because where it is vrged in proofe of Priests Mariage it proueth the contrary For though perhaps Paphnutius might be persuaded that Priesthood did not dissolue Mariage afore contracted yet he sayth plainly Those (40) So relateth Socrates l. 1. ca. 8. who are made Priests before they are maried cannot after marry And this Paphnutius calleth Veterem Ecclesiae traditionem The ancient tradition of the Church So far was Paphnutius from ascribing the doctrine of Priests not marrying after the Order of Priesthood taken to the Councell of Nice Now that this example of Paphnutius is vntrue many probabilities may be vrged First because there is not so much as any Mention of this matter concerning Paphnutius made by any who did wryte of the Nicene Councell before Socrates tyme who first relateth the words of Paphnutius For neither did Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Theodoret nor yet Ruffinus himselfe who writ many things of Paphnutius and of the Nicene Councell all being more ancient then Socrates make any mention of this matter Now I here demaÌ„d could all these be silent in so great a busines and so earnestly debated in the Nicene Councell Secondly this example of Paphnutius seemeth to be against the third Canon of the said Nycene Councell which altogether forbiddeth Priests to haue dwelling with them any Woman other then their Mother Sister their Fathers sister their Mothers sister c. Now if as Socrates reporteth in the example of Paphnutius the Councell had left liberty for married Laymen afterwards made Priests to haue kept still their former Wynes why then was not the wyse first placed here in the exception but altogether omitted This example of Paphnutius is so much suspected to be false that Frigeuilleus (41) In his palmâ— Christiana p. 103. Ganuius a Protestant doth plainly ascribe it to the forgery of Socrates Animaduersion CLV IT will not be amisse to obserue the Protestants Method in disputing with the Catholikes touching the Reall Presence as it is taught by the Church of Rome For the Question of the Reall Presence being but propounded they quickly tell vs that Christ neuer intended or willed it which answere is made to omit all other Protestants by (42) In his Decads in English serm 8. p. 971. Bullinger And when to declare Christs Will therein we alledge his words they make then a new question of his power as denying such to be his will or sense of words vnder pretence that it is (43) So answereth whitak in his answ to M. William Reynolds pa 179. contradictory to the truth and Nature of his humane body now in Heauen and so is therby impossible And when in reply therto we proue to them directly that it is not impossible then returning per circuitum to their firster Euasion they answere that the Question (44) So answereth D. Whitak in his answere to M. Reynolds refutation pag. 192. is not of his power but only of his Will and so dancing in a round they triffle and delude vs by a subtle escape of an endles Circulation Animaduersion CLVI IT is most certaine that the doctrine of many of our Aduersaries touching the Reall Presence is inuolued with greater shew of Impossibility then our Catholike doctrine thereof is for whereas they teach that Christs reall body is really (45) So teach besides many others M. Perkins in his reformed Catholike pag. 187. and D. Fulke against the Rhâ—mish Testam in 1. Cor. 15. and truly present and yet not bodily and corporally but only Spiritually present By which word Spiritually they do not exclude the true and reall presence of his body Now how this should be free from repugnancy and meere contradiction and therfore impossible I cannot discerne For to affirme that Christs very body and not only a figure or efficacy thereof should be truly and really present and yet not bodily but spiritually present is in it selfe inexplicable and as Swinglius (46) Swimglius co 2. de vera falsa religionâ— fol. â—06 in confutation therof truly obserueth is vpon the matter no other thing then to turne his body into a Spirit For as the true substance of Christs Spirit cannot be said to be present to vs only corporally or bodily and not spiritually because it is a spirit and no Body so neither may the substance it selfe of Christs very body be said to be present to vs not bodily but only Spiritually nor at all spiritually vnlesse we do which is impertinent to the matter in hand vnderstand the word Spirituall as the Apostle doth 1. Cor. 15. because it is a true and reall body no Spirit Animaduersion CLVII VNiuersality of our Catholike Doctrine in all chiefest points dispersed througout all Nations euen by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries as appeareth from their confessed Inuisibility of their owne Church and Religion for so many ages is a most strong Argument of the truth of our Catholike Religion My reason hereof is in that the doctrine of the Roman Church could not by any pretended corruption be deriued from that Church to so many Nations so far remote and distant ech from other Sundry of which Nations were vnknowne to the Latin Church and many of them at variance therewith in some small points Therefore from hence I conclude that our Catholike fayth was the Primitiue fayth first taught by the Apostles in all those far different Nations wherein
and practise of Nicromantickâ— Magi or Wisards and Witches which swarme in all Countryes For these through certaine Ceremonies and Verses are able to call vp the deuills and do cause that they do not â—ly shew strange effects which necessarily â—ply their preâ—ence but also make them to â—peare in a visible forme Yea heere in Enâ—and in Lancashire about some six or seaâ—n and twenty yeares since there were apâ—ehended about twenty witches all confesâ—â—g their witchcraft by help of the deuill 〈◊〉 haÌ„ged at Lancaster In like manner some â—â—ree yeares since or there abouts there â—ere certaine witches apprehended in the â—me shyre and condemned to death by the Iudges of that Circuite Thirdly the same â—erity of Spirits or Deuills is euicted from â—hose who are called Energumeni or possessed persons for two things appeare in them which are aboue humane power One that such as are possessed do speake strange Tongues which themselues do not vnderstand The other that they do discouer things secret or do relate things done in great distance of place as if they saw them openly But these two things afford an euident demonstration of a certaine Superiour Inuisible Nature by the power whereof they are performed To conclude this point of being of Spirits is further euicted from the many apparitions of Spirits which are affirmed to haue been from the testimony of many most probable Histories Now then if there be Jncorporeall Substances or Spirits and these many in number as certayne they are many in number then it ineuitably may be concluded thâ— there is one supreme Spirit to the which aâ— the rest are subiect and at whose command they all are gouerned since euerâ— multitude of things except there be a dependency and subordination to one moâ—â— High begetteth disorder and Confusion This point is further proued from the mosâ— dangerous inconueniences accompanying the contrary doctrine For if among Spiritâ— there were no Order that the rest should not be subiect vnto one at the command whereof the power of them were not to be restrayned then might euery one of them afflict and trouble the World at his owne pleasure might take away mens goods yea euen their Lyues burne and destroy all things finally might ouerthrow all mankind neither could any redresse be found to the contrary Now this supreme Spirit to which they are all subiect we call God who at his pleasure is able to restrayne and bridle the forces and power of all the rest Well then seeing there are many Spirits I here demand from whence this Multitude had its beginning or who brought them into the Word They proceed not from Bodies in that they are of a more excellent Nature then bodies are as also in that bodies do bring forth only bodyes Neither is one of them ingendred of another seeing this kind of generation is peculiar to things which are subiect to corruption to wit that by these meanes the Species and â—ynds of things may be perpetuated whiâ—â— the Nature being extinct in the Parent â—conserued in the Issue Neither lastly can 〈◊〉 be said that euery one of these Spirits â—d their being from themselues so as they â—epend of no other Cause Since granting â—at any thing receaueth its existence beâ—â—g from it selfe it is farre more probable â—at this so taking its existence should be â—ut One not Many Therefore I conclude â—hat this which taketh its being existeÌ„ce â—rom it selfe is but one to wit God alone â—ho is the supreme spirit of all who gaue 〈◊〉 creation existence and being to all other Spirits be they either good or wicked Spirits Animaduersion CLXXXXIX CArdinall Bellarmyne in his booke De ascensione Mentis ad Deum per scalas rerum creatarum taketh his second scala or Degree from the consideratioÌ„ of the fabrick of this whole world and the things created and contayned therein Now in this great world which coÌ„prehendeth all things within it these things following are most wonderfull to wit the Magnitude of the world Multitudâ— of things Created Variety of things Eâ—ficacy or vertue of things astly Beauty of things The which seuerall Heads being with earnest attention pondered haue great â—orce so to eleuate the soule of man as that it shal be â—uen absorpt in the admiration of a certain immense Magnitude Multitude Variety Eâ—ficacy and Pulchritude all which is God himselfe To beginne 1. The Magnitude of the Eartâ— only is so great as that in so many thousaÌ„d of yeares since the Creation of the world yet the whole superficies of the Earth remaynes vndiscouered from Man Now what iâ— the whole bignes of the Earth if it be compared to the comâ—asse and Magnitude of the Highest Heauen It is accounted by the Astronomers to be but as it were a Poynt and this with iust Reason For we obserue that the beames of the Sunne by the interposition of the Earth do so reach pierce the Stars opposite to the Sunne as if the Earth were Nothing Furthermore if euery Starre in the firmament according to the iudgement of the Learned be greater then the whole Orbe of the Earth yet through the almost infinite distance of the Starres they seeme in our Eyes most litle who theÌ„ can in thought arriue to the greatnes of the Heauens wherein so many thousands of Starrs do shyne Therefore if we reade in Ecclesiasticus (1) Ecclesiasticus ca. 1. Latitudinem terrae profuÌ„dum Abismi quis dimensus est what then shall we conceaue of the exteriour superfices of the Heauen of the depth or profundity of the whole world from the highest Heauen to the Center of the Earth Certainly the corporall greatnes of the whole â—orld is of that immensity as that no â—hought or cogitation of man can comprehand it 2. The Multitude of things created by â—ne God who can number For how many Metalls of gould siluer brasse lead precious stones are within the Earth and the Sea And how many Species kynds and Indiuidua of hearbs flowers and plants are vpon the Earth and how many parts are in them In lyke sort how many kinds Species and Indiuidua of perfect and imperfect Creatures as of fourefooted Beasts of creeping Wormes of flying Creatures And what may we say of the Multitude of Men since the first Creation To conclude how many starres are there in Heauen and how many Angells aboue the Heauens And of the starres thus we read (2) Genes 15. Numera stellas si potes Now here we are to obserue that God would haue himselfe knowne of Man in some sort and because not any one Creature could aptly represent the infinite perfection of the Creatour therefore God did multiply Creatures and gaue a certaine goodnes and perfection to euery Creature that thereby iudgment might be made of the goodnes and perfection of â—he Creatour who contayneth infinite perfâ—ctions vnder the perfection of one mosâ— simple Essence Euen as one peece of gold contayneth the valew and worth of many