not be if his concurse were indefinite generall only 3ly If it were as these men imagine the determination of the will of the creature should not bee within the compasse of things ordered by diuine prouidence and so God should not haue particular prouidence of euery particular thing That this is consequent vpon the fancie of indefinite concurse it is euident For if Gods concurse bee indefinite and in generall only then doth hee not truly and efficiently worke that the will of the creature shall in particular encline to and bring forth such an indiuiduall actiō And if he be not the cause that it so enclineth worketh his prouidence extēdeth not to such working seing his prouidence extēdeth to those things only wherein he hath a working So that if these things were soe as these men imagine Gods prouidence should extend it selfe to contingent things in a generality only in that he hath giuen to intellectual creatures a freedome to what whē how it pleaseth thē in particular in respect ofthings of this nature hee should haue a presidence onely and no prouidence Neither doth that which is alleaged by these men touching the indifferēt cōcurse of the Sunne or that of a man offering his concurrence in a generality only proue that Gods concurse is such For the Sunne is a finite and limited thing hauing something in act somthing in possibility so is man likewise therefore they may be determined to produce such such indiuiduall acts by the concurse of some other cause But God is a cause of infinite perfection and a pure act hauing nothing admixt of possibility so that his action and will cannot bee determined limited by any other Wherefore the resolution of the best diuines is that Gods concurse influence is not into the effects of 2d causes only but into the 2d causes thēselues So that he doth not only by an immediate concurse influence concurre with the 2d causes for the bringing forth of such effects as they determine themselues vnto but he hath an influence into the 2d causes thēselues mouing working thē to bring forth effects such effects as he thinketh good to worke thē vnto This is proued by sundry reasons First as we see 2d causes do not only produce some certaine effects operations as within some certaine kind but they giue vnto thē their last actuall perfection to bee But this they cānot giue vnlesse they be made cōpleate in vertue actiue by the first agent because an agent must be no lesse actuall then the effect or operation it bringeth forth But euery created agent is mixed compounded of actuall being possibility is not so actuall as an execution that is a 2d act therefore before it can bring forth any execution or effect it must be made cōpleate in vertue operatiue by the actuall motion of the first agent 2ly To bee is a most vniuersall act the proper effect of God onely therefore if wee will speak formally properly 2d causes in that they giue being to their own effects are but instruments of God whence it will follow that they must be moved by him in nature before they giue being to any of their effects For an instrument doth nothing towards the producing of the effect of the principall agent vnlesse it be actually moued by the principall agent 3ly Euery such thing as is somtimes an agent in act sometimes but potentially only must be moued by some mouer that is a pure act hath nothing mingled with it of possibility before it eā bring forth any actiō But the will of the creature is somtimes actually in actiō somtimes but potētially only therefore it must be moued by the first act before it can bring forth any action Which must bee granted for that otherwise the will of the creature in respect of some actions should bee the first mouer of it selfe and the first determiner That which is wrought by God in and vpon the second causes to make them actually to bee in action is a thing that hath a kinde of incompleate beeing in such sort as colours haue a being in the aire and the power of the act in the instrument of the artificer and so often as 2◠causes whether of naturall or supernaturall order haue in respect of the forme inherent in them a sufficient actiue power in the nature of the first act to bring forth their effects the helpe or precedent motion of God whereby he moueth and applyeth the same actiue powers to operate is not a qualitie but is more properly named a powerfull motion whereby the first and most vniversall agent so worketh vpon them that the 2d causes are actually in action euery one in sort fitting to the nature condition of it And to this purpose it is that Tho Aquinas hath that habituall grace is a quality but the actuall help whereby God moueth vs to will a thing is not a quality but a certain motion of the mind And surely it will easily appeare that there is a great difference between these For the habite doth perfit the power of the soule as a forme or first act implying possibility in respect of actuall operation because the habite doth not determine the power actually to worke but fitteth it only for action inclineth it thereunto But this actuall helpe mouing putting forth the 2d causes into their actions doth not perfit the power of working but makes thē actually to be in action Lastly the habit in respect of the nature of it may be the cause of diuerse actions but that actuall help mouing whereof we speak determineth the will to one individuall action yet taketh not from it a power of dissenting and doing otherwise Alvarez a great learned Archbishop that hath lately written with good allowance of the Church of Rome layeth downe these propositions First that God by an effectuall will predetermined all such acts of men and Angels as are good and all such as are not euill ex obiecto though in individuo they be euill sins ex malâ circumstantiâ Which he proueth out of the 10th of Esay where Almighty God saith Assur is the rod of my wroth he is my staffe I will send him to a deceiptfull nation against the people of my fury will I giue him a command a litle after Shall the axe boast against him that cutteth with it or shall the saw bee lifted vp against him that draweth it as if a rod should be lifted vp against him that lifteth it the staff which is but wood Here it is evident that Assur sinned ex malâ circumstantiâ in subduing the nations and yet it is cleere that God predetermined that he should waste and destroy the nations that he sent him to that purpose and moued him so to doe His 2d proposition is this that whatsoeuer is positiue of being in an act of sin though intrinsecally
not onely a condition but a cause of that perswasion of fayth which they haue yea the authority of the Church is the formall cause of all that faith seduced Papists haue And therefore the distinction of a cause and condition helpeth them not It is true indeed that the Ministerie of the Church proposing to men thinges to bee beleeued is onely a condition requisite to the producing of a supernaturall act of fayth in respect of them that haue some other thing to perswade them that that is true which the Church proposeth besides the authority of the Church but in respect of such as haue no other proofe of the trueth thereof it is a formall cause Now this is the condition of all Papists For let them tell Mee whether they beleeue the Scripture to be the Word of God without any motiue at all or not and if they doe not as it is most certaine they doe not whether besides such as are humane they haue any other then the authority of the Church if they haue not as doubtlesse they haue not they make the authority of the Church the formall cause of their faith and fall into that sophisticall circulation they are charged with For they beleeue the articles of religion because reuealed and that they were reuealed because it is so contayned in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the Word of God that it is the Word of God because the Church telleth them it is and the Church because it is guided by the spirit and that it is so guided because it is so contayned in the Scripture this is such a maze as no wise man will willingly enter into and yet the Treatiser commendeth the treading of these intricate pathes and telleth vs that two causes may bee causes one of another That the cause may bee proued by the effect and the effect by the cause and that such a kinde of argumentation is not a circulation but a demonstratiue regresse that two causes may be causes either of other in diuerse respects we make no question For the end of each thing as it is desired setteth the efficient cause a worke and the efficient causeth the same to bee actually enjoyed Likewise we doubt not but that the cause may be proued by the effect and the effect by the cause in a demonstratiue regresse For the effect as better known vnto vs then the cause may make vs know the cause and the cause being found out by vs may make vs more perfitly and in a better sort to knowe the effect then before not onely that and what it is but why it is also So the death of little infants proueth them sinners and their being sinners proueth them mortall The bignesse of the footstep in the dust or sand sheweth the bignesse of his foote that made that impression And the bignesse of his foote will shew how bigge the impression is that he maketh but this maketh nothing for the justifying of the Romish circulations For heere the effect being knowne in a sort in itselfe maketh vs know the cause and the cause being found out and knowne maketh vs more perfectly to knowe the effect then at first wee did but the case is otherwise with the Papists for with them the Scripture which in it selfe hath no credit with them but such onely as it is to receiue from the Church giueth the Church credit and the Church which hath no credit but such as it is to receiue from the Scripture giueth the Scripture credit by her testimony And they endeauour to proue the infallibility of the Churches judgment out of the Scripture and the trueth of the Scripture out of the determination and judgement of the Church Much like as if when question is made touching the quality condition of two men vtterly vnknowne a man to commend them to such as doubt of them should bring no other testimony of their good and honest disposition but the testimony of each of them of the other It is true then which I haue said that to a man admitting the Old Testament and doubting of the New a man may vrge the authority of the Old and to a man doubting of the Old and admitting the New the authority of the New but to him that doubteth of both a man must alledge neither of them but must bring some other authority or proofe so likewise to him that admitteth the Scripture and doubteth of the Church a man may vrge the authority of the Scripture but to him that doubteth of both as all doe when they begin to beleeue a man must alledge some other proofe or else hee shall cause him to runne round in a Circle for euer and neuer to finde any way out Wherefore to conclude this poynt let our Aduersaries know that wee admitte and require humane motiues and inducements and amongst them a good opinion of them that teach vs as preparing fitting vs to fayth Secondly that wee require a supernaturall ayde light and habit for the producing of an act of faith Thirdly that we require some diuine motiue inducement Fourthly that this cannot be the authority of the Church seeing the authority of the Church is one of the things wee are to bee induced to beleeue Fiftly that wee require the ministery of the Church as a propounder of all heauenly trueth though her authority can be no proofe in generall of all such truth Sixtly that the Church though not as it includeth onely the beleeuers that are in the world at one time yet as it comprehendeth all that are or haue beene is an infallible propounder of heauenly truth and so acknowledged to bee by such as are assured of the trueth of the doctrine of Christianity in generall Seauenthly that the authority of this Church is a sufficient proofe of the trueth of particular things proposed by her to such as already are by other diuine motiues assured of her infallibility §. 7. FRom the authority of the Scripture which he would faine make to bee wholy dependant on the Church the Treatiser passeth to the fulnesse and sufficiency of it seeking amongst other his discourses to weaken those proofes which are brought by Mee for confirmation thereof Affirming that though I make shew as if it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels Saint Luke in the Actes of the Apostles and Saint Iohn in the Apocalyps meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of faith yet I bring no reason of any moment to proue it Whereas yet in the place cited by him I haue these wordes contayning in them as I suppose a strong proofe of the thing questioned Who seeth not that the Evangelists writing the history of CHRISTS life and death St Luke in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles describing the comming of the Holy Ghost the admirable gifts and graces powred vpon the Apostles and the churches founded and ordered by them and Saint Iohn writing the Revelations
faith only doth not iustifie that good works are meritorious he endeauoureth to proue because I confesse that men iustified freely by grace are crowned in the world to come for that new obediēce that is foūd in thē after iustificatiō But this cōsequence I suppose wil not be thought good seeing as Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer God in respect of good works or hauing an eye to thē or for good works giueth not onely temporall but eternall rewardes not for the worthinesse of the workes in themselues but out of his owne grace for the merit of Christ first working such good workes in them that are his and then crowning his owne workes in them as Augustine long since aptly obserued Let vs see therefore if he can proue any better that fayth onely doth not justifie this hee vndertaketh to doe out of that which I haue written that justification implieth in it faith hope and charity But for the clearing of this poynt let him be pleased to obserue that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant but an adiudging of eternall life vnto vs sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sinne and wrath into a state of righteousnesse and acceptation with God which implyeth in it sundry things concurring in very different sort without any preiudice to the singular prerogatiue of fayth For first it implyeth in it a worke of almighty God as the supreame and highest cause Secondly the merits of Christ as the meanes whereby God is reconciled and induced to take vs into his fauour Thirdly in him that is to be justified a certaine perswasion of the trueth of such thinges as are contayned in the holy word of God Fourthly motions of feare contrition hope of mercy and the like workes of preparing grace as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified that hee may be capable of Gods fauour Fifthly as the susceptiue cause an act of faith by which a man truely repenting of former euils and seeking deliuerance without all doubting firmely beleeueth that all his sinnes are remitted him for Christs sake Lastly an infusion of the habite of diuine and heauenly vertues as a beginning of that life of God to which he doth adiudge them whom he receiueth to fauour So that my saying that justification thus taken implyeth in it Faith Hope and Charitie contrarieth not our position that fayth onely justifieth in sort before expressed which the Treatiser knowing right well insisteth no longer vpon this cauill but passeth to an vntruth charging Mee that I say of S. Augustine whom yet I pronounce to haue been the greatest of all the Fathers and the worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times that his manner of deliuering the Article of Iustification is not full perfect exact as if I imputed some fault to him in not deliuering the poynt of justification as it became him whereas I haue no such thing but say onely that his manner of deliuering that Article was not so full perfect and exact as we are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists in which saying I no way blame that worthy Father but shew that new errours require a more exact manner of handling of thinges then was necessary before such errours sprung vppe which I thinke no wise man will deny and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny vnlesse hee will bee contrary to himselfe For hee sayth expressely that Saint Augustine before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies spake not so aptly and properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted some things which hee had formerly vttered So that the Reader will easily finde that in this passage hee hath sayd lesse then nothing neither will his next discourse be found any better wherein he laboreth to shew a contrariety between Me Luther Caluine others in that I make that acte of fayth which obtayneth and procureth our justification to bee an acte by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour and not of comfortable assurance consisting in a full perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the children of God Whereas Luther Caluine and the rest make iustifying faith to be an assured perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the sonnes of God But the Treatiser might easily know if hee were disposed that according to our opinion iustifying faith hath some actes as a cause disposing preparing and fitting vs to the receipt of that gracious fauour whereby God doth iustifie vs and other as a susceptiue cause receiuing embracing and enioying the same in the former respect neyther they nor I make faith to consist in a perswasion that wee are the sonnes of God in the latter wee both do and so agree well enough though the Treatiser it seemeth could wish it were otherwise §. 4. WHerefore let vs goe forward and take a view of that which followeth The next thing which hee hath that concerneth Mee is that it may bee gathered out of my assertions in my Third Booke of the Church that I thinke as hee saith some other also do that it is no fundamentall point of doctrine but a thing indifferent to beleeue or not to beleeue the reall that is the locall presence of CHRISTS Body in the Sacrament But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him vnlesse it be lawfull for him to reason à baculo ad angulum as often as he doth For in the pages 120 and 121 of his second part because I confesse that in the Primitiue Church the manner of some was to receiue the Sacrament in the publique assembly and not bee partakers of it presently but to carry it home that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sicke that in places where they communicated euery day there was a reseruation of some parts of the sanctified Elements and that the sanctified Elements thus reserued in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them were the bodie of Christ to wit in mysterie and exhibitiue signification hee goeth about to conclude that I must needes confesse the reall that is the locall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which consequence is no better then if a man should goe about to conclude that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable booke because hee hath troubled the world with one such as it is full of vaine idle and emptie discourses whereof if any man make doubt let him consider but the very next words For whereas I confessed Calvines dislike of the reseruation aunciently vsed and yet saide it cannot bee proued that hee denied the Sacramentall elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them to bee Sacramentally the body of Christ hee saith I labour in vaine because
eminent and peculiar power is giuen and whom all must obey In respect of this first kinde of vnity consisting in the subjection of each people or portion of the flocke of Christ to their lawfull Pastours if they who should obey this one Pastour as being in the stead place of Christ doe either wholly withdraw themselues refusing to be subject to any Ministerie like Core and his complices pretending that all the people of God are holy and that the guides of the Church take too much vpon them or when one is elected doe set vp an other against him and forsaking the right cleaue to him that hath no right This is the first kinde of Schisme Secondly because there must be an vnitie not onely among the parts of each particular Church but also of many particular Churches and the Pastours and guides of them among themselues the Churches which forsake the communion of other Churches without just cause doe fall into Schisme And if they not onely refuse to communicate with them in the performance of the acts of religion vpon causelesse dislike but swarue from the rule of faith the other doe constantly hold they become not onely schismaticall but hereticall also These are the seuerall kindes of Schisme of which one is much more daungerous then another The forsaking the rule of faith or absolute refusall to be subject to the holy Ministerie saying as they did Are not all the people holy you take too much vpon you c. is damnable Schisme In each Church wherein there must be one Pastour hauing eminent and peerelesse power when one is lawfully called they who presume to set vp an other if they know the former to be lawfully possessed of the place or their ignorance thereof bee affected or they be so violentlie carried with the streames of contention and faction that they would not yeeld though the right should appeare vnto them this Schisme is likewise damnable But if it be doubtful and men carry mindes readie to yeeld when they shall see the right it is not so When whole Churches with their Pastours and guides diuide themselues from other refusing to communicate with them if this separation grow out of pride and Pharisaicall conceit of fancied perfection and absolute holinesse as did the Schisme of Novatus Donatus Lucifer and others of that sort it is damnable Schisme but if out of ignorance or errour not ouerthrowing the rule of faith or ouer earnest vrging of ceremonies rites and observations as the separation of Victor Bishop of Rome and the Churches of Asia had beene if Irenaeus had not interposed himselfe or striuing for precedence it is dangerous but not damnable vnlesse it be joined with such pertinacie that though it should appeare they were in errour or did amisse and contrary to the rule of charitie they would not yeeld This being the nature of Schisme and Heresie and these the kindes and degrees of them more or lesse dangerous let vs in the next place see what is to be thought of all those Churches of Graecia Armenia Aethiopia Russia before mentioned Every of which is in some sort rent and divided from other Wee dare not with the proud Romanists condemne so famous Churches as culpable of damnable Heresie and Schisme and cast so many millians of soules into hell for every difference in matter of opinion or rent from the other parts of the body of the Church All these therefore holding the rule of faith and beleeuing all those things that are on the perill of eternall damnation to bee particularly and expresly knowne and beleeued and their seperation not growing for ought wee know out of Pharisaicall and damnable pride as did that of Nouatus Donatus and the like but out of error not directly contrary to the rule of faith or some other humane infirmitie and defect and it no way appearing that their obstinacie is such that though they knew they did amisse they would still continue so to do wee accompt them in the number of the Churches of God and doubt not but that innumerable liuing and dying in them notwithstanding their sundry defects imperfections and wants are and haue beene saued Wee conclude therefore that their Schismes and seperations are sinfull wicked and dangerous and their errours inexcusable insnaring the consciences of many to endlesse perdition and greatly endangering all that are or haue beene misse-led with them but not damnable excluding from all possibility of salvation Wee make a great difference betweene them that were the first Authors and beginners of these diuisions and such as walke in the wayes and insist in the steps of their misse-led and seduced fathers betweene such as are more and such as are lesse deepely plunged into errour CHAP. 6. Of the Latine Church that it continued the true Church of God euen till our time and that the errours wee condemne were not the doctrines of that Church TOuching the Latine Church likewise wee are of the same opinion that it continued still a part of the Catholike Church notwithstanding the manifold abuses and superstitions that in time crept into it and the dangerous and damnable false doctrine that some taught and defended in the middest of it It is therefore most fond and friuolous that some demand of vs where our Church was before Luther began For wee say it was where now it is if they aske vs which wee answere it was the knowen and apparant Church in the world wherein all our Fathers liued and died wherein Luther and the rest were baptized receiued their Christianity ordination and power of ministery If they reply that that Church was theirs and not ours for that the doctrines they now teach and wee inpugne the cerimonies customes and observations which they retaine and defend and wee haue abolished as fond vaine and superstitious were taught vsed and practised in that Church wherein our fathers liued and dyed wee answere that none of those points of false doctrine and errour which they now maintaine and wee condemne where the doctrines of that Church constantly delivered or generally receiued by all them that were of it but doubtfully broached and deuised without all certaine resolution or factiously defended by some certaine onely who as a dangerous faction adulterated the sincerity of the Christian verity and brought the Church into miserable bondage Touching the abuses and manifold superstitions which wee haue remoued it is true they were in that Church wherein our fathers liued but not without signification of their dislike of them and earnest desire of reformation as shall appeare by that which followeth As therefore the Churches of Corinth Galatia Pergamus and Thyatira had in them emulations diuisions neglect of discipline contempt of the Apostles of Christ some that denied the resurrection of the dead that ioyned circumcision and the workes of the law with Christ in the work of saluation thē that maintained the doctrine of the Nicolaitans suffered the woman
daies For behold there are many that peruert the holy Scriptures and deny the sayings of the holy Fathers reiecte the Canons of the Church and ciuill constitutions of the Emperours which molest persecute bring into bondage and without mercy torment and afflict euen vnto death them that defend the trueth And that I may conclude many things in fewe words with harlâ—…ttes foreheades and execrable boldnesse doe endeavour to subuert imperiall and regall power and to ouerthrow all lawes both of GOD and man Neither are these young men or vnlearned but they are the elders of the people High Priests Scribes Pharises and Doctours of the Law as they were that crucified Christ so that wee may rightly say of our times that which Daniel long since pronounced in his 13 Chapter Iniquity is gone out from Babylon from the elders and iudges which seemed to governe and rule the people For many that should bee pillars in the Church of God and defend the truth euen vnto bloud doe cast themselues headlong into the pit of heresies Thus spake he in his time of the corrupt 〈◊〉 of the Church wherein so damnable a faction prevailed daungerously pervâ—…ting all things that in the end he submitteth all his writings to the judgment correction of the true and Catholicke Church but not of the Church of malignant miscreants heretickes schismatickes and their favourers CHAP. 9. Of an Apostasie of some in the Church THus then we thinke with Lira that as there was an Apostasie or revolt of many kingdomes from the Romane Empire and of many Churches from the communion of the Romane Church so there hath beene an Apostasie from the Catholick faith in the midst of the Church not for that all at any time did forsake the true faith but for that many fell from the sinceritie of the faith according to the saying of our Sauiour a when the time of Antichrist draweth on iniquity shall abound and the charity of many shall waxe cold and that 1 Timoth. 4 In the last times some shall depart from the faith attending to spirits of errour and 2 Timoth. 3. In the last dayes there shall bee perilous times men shall be louers of themselues men of corrupt mindes reprobâ—…e concerning the faith This hee speaketh of an Apostasie in the middest of the Church it selfe answerably to that of â— Nazianzen who saith that as when one taketh water into his hand not onely that which hee taketh not vp but that also which runneth forth and findeth passage betweene his fingers is divided and separated from that which he holdeth inclosed in his hand so not onely the open and professed enemies of the Catholicke verity but they also that seeme to bee her best and greatest friends are sometimes divided one from another There is no cause then why it should seeme so strange to our Adversaries that our Divines affirme there hath beene an Apostasie from the Faith not of the whole Church but of many in the Church dangerously erring and adulterating the Doctrine of Faith deliuered by Christ and his blessed Apostles And that some say this Apostasie began sooner some later For if wee speake of those grossest illusions wherewith men were abused in these latter ages surely that degree of Apostasie did not enter into the Church in former times For there was no thought in any Christian man liuing sixe hundred yeares agoe that the Pope could dispense the merits of the Saints and giue pardons that hee might depose Princes for supposed heresie that the Sacrament not receiued but elevated gazed on and adored is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead that Mary was conceiued without originall sinne that the people are to be partakers of the Sacrament but onely in one kinde and sundry other things of like nature But if we speake of a declination from the sincerity of the Christian Faith it is certaine it began long agoe euen in the first ages of the Church Of this sorte was the errour that the soules of the iust are in some part of hell till the last day as Tertullian Irenaeus and sundry other of the auncient did imagine that they see not God nor enjoy not heauens happines till the generall resurrection which was the opinion of many of the Fathers That all Catholicke Christians how wickedly soeuer they liue yet holding the foundation of true Christian profession shall in the end after great torments endured in the world to come be saued as it were by fire This was the errour of sundry of the auncient who durst not say as Origen that the Angels that fell shall in the end be restored nor as some other mollifying the hardnesse of Origens opinion that all men whether Christians or Infidells nor as a third sorte that all Christians how damnably soeuer erring in matter of faith shall in the end be saued but thought it most reasonable that all right beleeuing Christians should find mercy whatsoeuer their wickednesse were This opinion was so generall in Augustines time that very fearefully he opposed himselfe against it and not daring wholly to impugne that which he found to haue so great and reuerend authours he qualified it what he could and so doubtingly broached that opinion which gaue occasion to the Papists of their heresie touching Purgatory For saith he if they would onely haue vs thinke that the soules of men liuing wickedly heere in this World may through the goodnesse of God and the prayers of the liuing find some mitigation of their paines in hell or haue their punishments suspended and differred for a time yet so that they be confessed to be eternall I would not striue with them yea saith he it may be that men for some lighter sinnes and imperfections cleauing to them while they are here may finde pardon remission in the world to come and be saued as by fire which whether it be so or whether there be no other purging but in this life by the fire of tribulation he professeth he knoweth not nor dareth not pronounce Of this sorte was the opinion of a double resurrection the first of the good who should liue in all happinesse on the earth a thousand yeares before the wicked should be awaked out of the sleepe of death and another after the thousand yeares expired when the wicked also should rise and goe into euerlasting fire and the good into euerlasting life which they supposed to bee the second resurrection How generally this errour spread it selfe in the true Church they that haue but looked into the writings of the fathers and monuments of antiquitie cannot bee ignorant The opinioÌ„ of the necessity of infants receiuing the sacrament of the Lords body and blood as well as Baptisme did possesse the mindes of many in the Church for certaine hundreds of yeares as appeareth by that Augustine writeth of it in his time and Hugo de sancto victore so
vertue of their owne proper for me Caietan confesseth that God doth not so produce them as an immediat agent but that the 2d causes doe mediate between him and them as secondary principal agents bring forth their effects Yet are not these that is the first the 2d causes partiall but totall causes of all those effects which they produce For the cleering whereof we must obserue that a cause may bee said to be totall either totalitate effectus that is because it bringeth forth the whole effect though some other cause haue such efficiencie also in respect of the same that without the helpe of it it cannot bring forth any such effect as when 2 men draw a ship either of them produceth the whole effect and moueth the whole ship but yet not so wholly but that either hath need of the others helpe and concurrence Or secondly a cause may bee said to bee totall totalitate causoe and that in 2 sorts either so as to produce the whole effect without any concurrence of any other cause in which sense neither God nor the creature neither the first nor the 2d cause must be said to be a totall cause or so as that though some other do concurre yet the being power of working and actuall cooperation of it is wholy from the agent with which it doth concurre and so God is a totall cause of all those effects that he produceth by and together with the 2d causes So that the opinion of them who thinke that God hath no immediat influence into the effects of 2d causes nor immediate concurrence with such causes in producing their effects is to be exploded out of all Christian schools Churches as profane heathnish Wherfore there are who finding that this first opiniō is not to be admitted flie to a 2d little better then the former For they acknowledge that God hath an immediate influence into the effects of all 2d causes but they think it to be general indefinit to be ◅ted determined by the different concurse of 2d causes It is true indeed that God worketh all things as an vniversall cause but this may bee vnderstood wayes For first a cause may be sayd to be vniuersall in the vniuersality of predication as opposit to speciall or particular as an artificer in respect of this that speciall kinde of artificers is generall and is an vniuersall cause of all workes of arte and they of such speciall workes as are incident to their seuerall kinds Secondly a cause may bee sayd to bee vniversall in that it extendeth it selfe to effects of all sorts in respect of something common to them all and not in respect of that which is proper to each of them vnlesse the working of it bee limited and directed by something else The fire warmeth the water with which poison is mingled in the same sorte that it doth any other water and without any difference of it own action And the actions of the sun fire are such as that men make vse of thē to vvhat purposes they please accordingly as their vvorking is differently applied bring forth differēt effects Thirdly a cause may be sayd to be vniversall because the efficiencie and vvorking of it extendeth it selfe to many things according to the seuerall differences of them without being limited and determined by any other thing These men suppose that God is an vniversall cause in the second sense and that his concurrence influence is indefinit generall and such as may be taken and applied by second causes in what sort they will So that the actions of free vvill the actions of euery other second cause haue from the freedome of the wil the particular quality of the second causes that they are of this or that sort good or bad not from the concurse or influence of the first cause which is finde◅init as is the concurse influence of the sun vvith other inferiour causes and as one man may make offer of his helpe concurrence to whatsoeuer another vvill make vse of it So they suppose that God offereth his concurse to second causes to be vsed by them to what purpose in what sort they will According to this conceipt they suppose they can easily cleere the doubt and free God from all imputation of being authour of sin though he concurre immediatly with second causes in to the producing of those actions that are sinfull For say they his concurse influence is indefinit and is by them applied in ill sorte to ill purposes But first this conceipt cleereth not God from being authour of sin And secondly it cannot stand with the grounds of Philosophie or diuinity That it cleereth not God from being authour of sin but rather layeth this imputation on him it is euident For if the concurse of God be generall indefinit indifferent and to be determined by the creature to the producing of good or euill it followeth that when the will of the creature determineth it selfe to the specificall act of sin God also determinately concurreth with it in particular to the producing of such an acte in kinde That this consequence is good it is evident because whosoeuer shall offer his help concurrence cooperation to another indifferently for the producing of good or euill the actes of sin or vertue as it shall please him he concurreth in trueth indeede to the producing of the acte of sin in particular as it is such an act if by the will of the other his concurrence cooperation bee determined to such an acte in particular Wherefore if God for his part offer onely a generall concurse such as is indifferent to the producing of actes of vertue or sinne accordingly as the will of the second cause shall determine it it will follow that God concurreth determinately or in particular to the producing of the acte of sin as being determined to the producing of such an act in particular by the will of the creature before he come to actuall cooperation or concurrence Secondly this conceipt cannot stand with the grounds of true Philosophie or diuinitie For if Gods concurse were onely generall and indefinit to bee determined by the will of the creature the will of the creature should bee before the will of God in respect of the particularity of things yea in respect of some reall acte as an acte it should be simply the first agent For according to this fancie because the creature inclineth to such an acte to put a thing in being therefore God cooperateth Whence it will follow that there are 2 beings of things that God is not simply the first cause of all those things that haue being 2ly It pertaineth to diuine prouidence determinately to will aforehand to appoint what afterwards shall be to moue second causes to certaine and determinate effects so to dispose all things that they may attaine the ends for which they were created But this could
ex obiecto euill it hath God for the first mouing cause he doth primarily originally predetermine the will of the creature by an actuall motion to such an act in that it is an act in that it hath being and yet not to the difformity of it But Cumel disputeth strongly against this proposition in this sort There are certain acts saith he intrinsecally euill so that in them that which is materiall cannot bee separated à formali malitiâ peccati that is from the difformity or sinfulnesse of such an act So that it implyeth a contradiction that God should determine our wills freely to bring forth such an action in respect of that which is materiall in it and not to determine it to bring forth the same action in respect of that which is formall And this reason hath greater force against them that hold that the formality of sinne consisteth in some thing that is positiue as in the manner of working freely with positiue repugnance to the Law of reason and of God For if God predetermine and effectually moue to the producing of euill actions in respect of that which is materiall in them and the substance of the act hee must necessarily also predetermine the same actions in respect of all their positiue conditions and circumstances as the freedome of working and the positiue repugnance to the Law of God And if he determine the will to worke repugnantly to the Law he must needs moue and determine it to sinne seeing to sinne is nothing else but to repugne vnto the law So that it must not bee sayd that God is the originall cause that man hath any such action of will as is euill ex obiecto For if hee should originally and out of himselfe will any such acte he must bee the authour of sinne seeing such an acte is intrinsecally euill so that it cannot be separated from difformity but whosoeuer willeth the substance of such an acte must also will the difformity annexed therevnto in the same sorte as hee willeth the substance of it as is already proved Wherefore that wee may rightly conceiue how God may bee said to will actions of this kinde I will lay downe these propositions First that of the sinne of omission no higher cause needeth to be sought then the deficient will of the creature and that God no otherwise decreed the enterance of it but in that he decreed the deniall of that grace without which hee knew such omission would bee The second that the sinne of omission is in order before the sinne of commission The sinne of omission was first in the Angells sayth Wickliffe as it is also in every man that sinneth Omission saith Alexander of Hales in the order of sinnes so farre forth as wee may conceiue that there is any order amongst them is before commission The third that the sinner falling into the sinne of omission putteth himselfe not onely into an estate of aversion from God but of opposition also and being adverse vnto God and so into a necessitie of committing sinne so long as hee continueth in that state For hee that is opposite to God if he haue any action at all must of necessity haue such as are repugnant to the will and law of God The fourth that God the vniversall mouer who moueth and worketh all things to bring forth such actions as are fitting to their condition ceaseth not to worke and moue vpon men Angels after they are become averse but hee still moueth and impelleth them to doe things fitting to that condition wherein hee findeth them as he doth all other things and as hee worketh in and together with all second causes such effects as are fitting to their condition So hee bringeth forth in and with these thus auerse actions fitting to such an estate of aversion and adverse opposition that is such as are beside and contrary to the rule of righteousnes So that to conclude this point God neither worketh the creature to be evill for it becommeth euill of it selfe by falling into the sinne of omission nor simplie and absolutely moueth and determineth it to doe euill but hee moueth it to doe things fitting to the condition wherein it is even after by it owne fault it is become evill and produceth in and together with it such actions as are fitting to that estate that is such as are euill And his will being that nothing shall be without action nor without action fitting to the condition thereof hee hath setled it by an effectuall and positiue decree that hee that will be averse and evill shall not but doe euill so long as he is and will bee in such an estate and condition If wee speake saith Gregorius Ariminensis de prima mala voluntate non habuit causam efficientem quia nulla res fuit quae aliquid faciendo faceret illam malam sed ipsa desistendo à bona volitione facta est mala sed malae volitionis aliqua est causa That is If wee seeke out how the will of the creature at first became ill there is no efficient cause thereof to bee found for there was nothing that did any thing to make it euill but of it selfe by desisting to will that it should it became euill but of the acte of willing what it should not there is a positiue cause It is excellent to this purpose that Luther hath in his booke de servo arbitrio against Erasmus Reason yeeldeth sayth hee that God worketh all in all and that nothing can be done without him for hee is omnipotent and this pertayneth to his omnipotencie as Paul saith to the Ephesians Now Satan and man fallen from God and forsaken of him cannot will that which is good that is such things as please God or such as hee would haue to be done but being turned away to desire such other things as shall please themselues they cannot but seeke those things that are their owne This nature of men and Angels thus turned from God is not nothing neither is Satan and a wicked man nothing neither can wee say they haue no nature nor will though they haue a corrupt and auerse nature Therefore that which remaineth of nature in a wicked man and in Satan as a creature and the worke of God is no lesse subject to omnipotencie and the action of God then all other creatures and workes of God are Whereas therefore God moueth and worketh all in all hee moueth and worketh also in Satan and the wicked man and hee worketh in them in such sorte as is fitting to that they are and as hee findeth them that is so that being evill and averse yet carried on with the motion of diuine omnipotencie they cannot but doe such things as are averse euill As if a horseman shal driue a horse that goeth but on two or three feete hee maketh him goe so as hee must needs goe if hee goe at all so long as hee is thus lame that is haltingly But
what should the horseman doe hee driueth on the lame horse with the other that are sound they goe well this ill It cannot bee otherwise vnlesse the horse bee freed from his lamenesse Heere wee see by this comparison how that when God worketh in and by them that are euill such things are done as are euill but that God cannot doe euill though hee produce in and by them that are euill such things as are euill because hee being good cannot doe euill Yet doth hee vse ill instruments which cannot but bee moued with the motion of his power nor cannot but doe euill if they bee moued So that the fault is in the instruments which God moueth and will not suffer to be idle that euill things are done when he moueth them no otherwise than if a Carpenter vsing an ill axe should cut or rather teare the timber ill favouredly And hence it commeth that the wicked cannot but alwayes doe amisse and sinne Because being carried on by the motion of diuine power they are not suffered to doe nothing but are forced to will desire and doe that which it fitting to the state wherein they are till they be altered by Gods holy grace and spirit And herevnto agree all the best learned in the Roman Schooles If the name of sinne saith Gregorius Ariminensis be taken improperly for an euill act as for such an acte as whosoeuer doth sinneth for example for the acte of willing something that should not be willed or for some other inward or outward acte which the sinner doth there is some doubt whether God be an immediate efficient cause of such a sinfull acte or not and there are solemne opinions one contrary to another touching that point But without peremptory defence of the one or the other which might argue rashnesse for the present I hold the affirmatiue as more probable and as it seemeth to me more consonant to the sayings of the Saints And hee addeth whereas some speake of the difformity of such a sinfull acte denying God to bee any efficient cause thereof Si per difformitatem intelligatur aliqua entitas quaecunque vbicunque sit illam coagit Deus nec scio oppositum dici à Sanctis Doctores aliqui moderni dicunt quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo difformitas tamen ipsa non est à Deo Quod dictum potest habere bonum intellectum non quidem concipiendo quòd difformitas sit aliqua entitas ab actu distincta quae non causetur à Deo sed intelligendo quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo non tamen est difformis in quantum est à Deo Nam non est difformis nisi in quantum contra rectam rationem fit ab homine non autem à Deo qui nihil agit contra id quod ab eo agendum esse recta ratio indicat Deus non est eiusdem rei secundum idem actor vltor sed est eius actor in quantum entitas quaedam eius verò vltor in quantum est malum Est autem malum in quantum malè fit ideo punit eum à quo male fit pro eâ If by the difformity they vnderstand any being or any thing that is positiue whatsoever and wheresoever it is God is a cause thereof neither doe I know sayth hee that the contrary is deliuered by the Saints Indeede there are certaine moderne Doctours that say that though the acte wherein difformity is bee from God yet the difformity is not which their saying may haue a good sense not conceiving that the difformity is any positiue thing distinct from the acte whereof God should not be an actor but so vnderstanding it that though the act which is done otherwise then it should be done be of God yet it is not done otherwise then it should bee done as it is done by God for God doth nothing in producing such an acte that hee should not doe but the creature onely So that as the Divines doe tell vs God is not an actor and a punisher of the same thing in respect of the same but hee is an actor of the thing in that it is a thing done but a punisher in that it is ill done And therefore he punisheth him that hath done ill in doing ill himselfe hauing done the same thing well Quid mirum saith Anselm si dicamus Deum facere singulas actiones quâ—… fiunt mala voluntate cùm fateamur eum facere singulas substantias quae fiunt iniustâ voluntate inhonestâ actione that is What strange thing is it if wee say that God produceth all those actions which sinfull men doe wickedly seeing we confesse he produceth all those substances which are brought forth by a sinfull desire of the will and an vnhonest action God produceth formeth the same child in the womb which a man begetteth in adulterie yet man only sinneth not God Si verò dicitur saith Hugo de S. Victore Deus vult malum grave est auditu non facilè recipit hoc pia mens de bono quod malumvult Videtur enim hoc solum dici cum dicitur Deus vult malum quia bonus malum diligit approbat quod pravum est amicam sibi reputat iniquitatem gaudet quasi de consimili bonum put at quod malum est ideo refutat hoc menspia non quia quod dicitur non benè dicitur sed quia quod bené dicitur non benè intelligitur Non enim hoc solùm dicitur sed ex eo quod dicitur aliquid intelligitur quod non dicitur Quoniam malum esse vult malum non vult that is If it be said that God willeth the thing that is euill men hardly endure to heare it and a pious and good minde doth not easily admit that he that is good willeth the thing that is euill for wee conceiue nothing else when we say God willeth that which is euill but that hee that is good loueth that which is euill and approueth that which is wicked And therefore a good minde reiecteth such a speech not because it is not right and good but because that which is rightly said is not rightly vnderstood For this speech is not so to be taken as if God loued or approued that which is euill but something is to bee vnderstood which is not expressed And the meaning of this speech is that God willeth the being of euill or that euill shal be and yet willeth not euill that is approueth it not Now when it is said that God willeth the being of euill or that euill shal be the meaning of this saying of Hugo is concerning the sinne of omission that he willeth it no otherwise but onely in that he denieth that grace which onely he knoweth would worke the doing of the contrary good and concerning the sinne of commission that he produceth in and together with them that by falling into the sinne of
omission are become euill such actions as are euill There are saith Cameracensis who hold that God hath an efficiencie and is a cause producing the action that is sinfull and that he may and doth cause will that which is sin as Ockam Bradwardine and sundry other renowned Doctors And elsewhere he saith that according to the opiniō of the master of the sentences God only permitteth those euils which are sinne that he neither willeth their being or not being For if he did will their being hee should be the cause of them which he thinketh must not bee graunted and if hee did will their not being they should not be But Bradwardine and others hold that God willeth those euils that are sinnes that in respect of euery thing he hath an act of will either that it shal be or not be and not a meere negation of such act If wee speake saith Ockam of the sinne of commission wee must not thinke that the will of the creature hath an efficiencie and is so the cause of that act but that God also who as immediately produceth euery act of the creature as the creature doth it selfe hath his efficiencie and is a cause also euen of the difformity that is found in such an act aswell as of the substance of the act Seeing as we haue already shewed the difformity in an act of commission is nothing else but the very act it selfe that is done contrary to the precept Yet doth not God originally moue the creature to doe any such euill act but contrarywise so made it and would haue so continued it if the fault had not beene in it selfe that it should neuer haue done any euill act But finding it by it owne fault averse and turned from him notwithstanding all the gracious meanes he vsed to retain it hee goeth on mouing carrying it forward with restles motions and produceth in and with it thus averse actions fitting to such an estate and such as it must needes bring forth if it bring forth any at all that is such as are euill Thus he doth without all fault of his who must not cease to doe his worke of mouing and carrying forward all things with restlesse motions though by their owne fault being put out of due course they doe not attaine their wished good but runne themselues into endlesse euills Thus then God did onely by substraction and denyall of that grace without which hee saw the creature would not be wonne to continue in that state of good wherein it was to be created decree purpose the entrance of the sinne of omission and auersion but presupposing this purpose and foreseeing that which would follow vpon it by his consequent conditiouall will he positiuely decreed the other which is of commission For seeing man must needes seeke an infinite good loue it infinitly if he seek it not in God must seeke it elsewhere God did decree that man not continuing to adhere to him should seeke his chiefe good in him selfe so consequently fall into selfeloue pride all other euils of that kind This is the opinion of many worthy diuines in the Romane Church and this is that Zuinglius Caluin Beza the rest meant if any where they affirmed that God doth effectually moue impell and incline sinfull creatures to do such things as are euill namely that God hath setled such a course in things that they that wil not do what they should shall do that they should not that hee will not suffer them that fall from him to doe nothing but will effectually moue them to will desire do that which is fitting to the estate into which they put themselues so long as they continue in the same will not be reclaimed wonne to returne to him againe And this is agreable to that of S. Augustine that God enclineth or moueth no man to euill but that hee enclineth such as are euill to this or that euill With whom Anselm writing vpon the epistle to the Romans agreeth where he saith that God may be said to deliuer men vp to their owne harts desires when being prone to euill he stayeth them not addeth that it is also manifest that God doth work in the harts of men to incline their wills whither soeuer he pleaseth either to choose things that are good out of his mercy or to choose things that are euill according to their deserts the reasons of his iudgement being sometimes manifest sometimes hid but alwaies iust For because men haue run into some sins they afterwards fall into many God that long expecteth the sinner looking that hee should returne when he findeth that he returneth not but cōtemneth both his iustice mercy he casteth some thing in his way at which hee may stumble fall yet worse then before Inter primum peccatū apostasiae vltimam poenā ignis media quae sunt peccata sunt poenae peccati Whatsoeuer sins do come between the first sin of apostasie the last punishment which is that of eternall fire they are both sins punnishmēnts therefore God may iustly deliuer vp such as fall from him by the first sin of apostasie depart from him vnto their owne harts desires for the committing of such things as are not seemly Thus then we may resolue touching the entrance of sinne First God purposed eternally to make man a rationall and intellectuall creature indued with knowledge of all things and faculty and power to make choise of what hee would Secondly Man could not be thus made and bee naturally free from possibility and danger of making an euill choise disposing amisse of himselfe offending against the lawes of his righteous Creator Thirdly God wanted not gracious meanes whereby to hold him inseperably to himselfe and to preserue him infallibly from falling away though hee were not nor could not be naturally free from possibility of falling Fourthly God foresaw that if man were so created and left to himselfe as afterwards hee was hee would sinfully depart from him Fifthly hee saw that it was best to create and leaue him so and that if sinne should enter hee could take an occasion thereby of the manifestation of greater good then the world otherwise could ever know Sixtly seeing the determination of mans will that if he should be thus created and left hee would auert from him and sinne would enter hee determined soe to create him and leaue him and to giue way that sinne might enter Thus then wee doe not say that God did absolutely without all prescience of the determination of mans will determine and decree that sinne should enter but that foreseing what would be the determinatiō of his will if he were so created and left to himselfe as in his diuine wisedome he saw it to be fittest he determined so to create and leaue him and purposed by subtraction of grace to giue way vnto the sinne of auersion
that all the workes of infidells and men not renewed and iustified by Gods speciall grace were sinnes Yea so great is the force of this trueth that since the councell of Trent some of great esteeme and place in a sorte giue way vnto it For Didacus Alvarez an Archbishop within the dominions of the king of Spaine hath written a learned worke de Auxiliis gratiae and dedicated it with good allowance to the king that now is wherein hee sayth that though euery morall acte that is good ex genere obiecto as to giue almes to a poore man out of naturall compassion bee of that nature that it may bee done in reference to God as loued aboue all as the authour of nature or as the cause and obiect of supernaturall happinesse yet no such can bee so done de facto but by the acte of charitie So that by a man vnregenerate no such acte canne bee done in reference to God formally or vertually Now I suppose there is no morall acte that canne bee done by man but it must bee referred formally or vertually to some last end and if not to God as hee sayth the workes of Infidells cannot then to some other end and then of necessity they must bee sinne for whatsoeuer is done in reference to any thing besides God as the last end is done perversely and sinfully The good man no doubt saw the trueth touching this poynt and therefore sayth that there is no true vertue without charity that the workes of Infidels are not onely not meritorious but not truely good nor the workes of vertue and proveth the same at large out of Augustine whence it will follow that they are sinne for every morall acte is either a worke of vertue and truely good though in an inferiour sort or sinne but this he durst not say and so putteth himselfe into a necessitie of contradicting himselfe for if an infidell when hee giueth an almes cannot doe this act in reference to GOD as the last end either formally or vertually then hee must doe it formally or vertually in reference to some other thing most loued by him and if hee doe so then he putteth an ill circumstance to this his action and so it cannot but bee sinne Thus then wee haue strongly proued out of the testimonies of such as best vnderstood the doctrine of the Church that grace was giuen to Adam in the day of his creation not onely to make him constantly and collectiuely to doe all the morall duties that were required of him and to merit supernaturall happinesse as if he might haue done the seuerall duties and performed the seuerall acts of morall vertue without it but simply to inable him to doe good and decline euill so that it being taken away man knoweth not his true good nor is any way inclined to seeke it as he should doe For whereas there was a threefold eye in Adam as Hugo de Sancto Victore noteth Carnis quo mundum quae in mundo cernebat rationis quo se quae in se contemplationis quo deum primum perfectè habet secundum ex parte tertium omninò non habet nam postquam tenebrae peccati intraverunt oculus contemplationis extinctus est ut nihil videret oculus rationis lippus factus est ut dubiè videret solus oculus carnis in suâ claritate permansit That is Of the flesh by which hee saw the world and the things that are in it of reason whereby hee saw and vnderstood himselfe and all the things that were in himselfe and of contemplation by which he was to see God the first he hath still in perfection the second in part the third he hath wholly lost for after the darkenesse of sinne entred the eye of contemplation was put out so as to see nothing at all the eye of reason was dimmed so as to see doubtfully only the eye of the flesh remained in perfection And two kindes of euill are brought into the nature of man Privativa amissio notitiae in intellectu rectitudinis in voluntate conversionis ad deum tanquam ad proprium obiectum positiva perpetuae tristes dubitationes de Deo de providentiá Dei iudicio promissionibus comminationibus in voluntate conversio ad obiecta contraria legi That is there are newly brought into the nature of man euils of two sorts privatiue as the losse of the true right knowledge of God in the vnderstanding of rectitude in the will and of due conversion to God as her proper object positiue as perpetuall doubtings of God of the providence of God his judgement promises threates in his will a conversion to the desiring of things the Law forbiddeth This corruption of mans nature is excellently described by Prosper Humana natura in primi hominis praevaricatione vitiata etiam inter beneficia inter praecepta auxilia Dei semper in deteriorem est proclivior voluntatem cui committi non est aliud quam dimitti Haec voluntas vaga incerta instabilis imperita infirma ad efficiendum facilis ad audendum in cupiditatibus caeca in honoribus tumida curis anxia suspicionibus inquieta gloriae quam virtutum avidior fame quam conscientiae diligentior per omnem sui experientiam miserior fruendo his quae concupiverit quam carendo nihil in suis habet viribus nisi periculi facilitatem And againe Omnes homines in primo homine sine vitio conditi sumus omnes naturae nostrae incolumitatem eiusdem hominis praevaricatione perdidimus inde tracta mortalitas inde multiplex corporis animique corruptio inde ignorantia difficultas curae inutiles illicitae cupiditates sacrilegi errores timor vanus amor noxius iniusta gaudia poenitenda consilia non minor miseriarum multitudo quam criminum By this which hath beene sayd it appeareth that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died euer taught as wee doe touching the state of mans creation fall and originall corruption and euer reiected the fancies of those more then Semipelagians that brought in the errours the Romanists now maintaine and so was in this as in the former points a true orthodoxe and Protestant Church CHAP. 6. Of the blessed Virgins conception HAuing spoken of Originall sinne and shewed the nature of it the next thing that is questioned is the generality of it for wee say that amongst al them that haue beene borne of women there neuer was any found that was not conceiued in sinne besides Christ the Lord who had God for his father and a virgin for his mother of whose spotlesse conception his Fathers diuinity and mothers virginity were proofe sufficient But they of the Church of Rome at this day for the most part say that the blessed virgin the mother of our Lord was conceiued likewise without spotte of originall sinne Leo the tenth was moued to determine this question touching the conception of
velle perficere pro boná voluntate Soe that God doth not stirre and moue the will and soe stay to see whether it will consent or nor but worketh moueth and inclineth us to consent The good vse of grace proceedeth not from the meere liberty of our will but from God working by the effectuall helpe of preoperating grace and causing a man freely to consent and cooperate If not God were not the totall cause which as the first roote bringeth forth all that which discerneth the righteous from the sinner Quis te discernit Our consent and effect of predestination The will doth not first begin her determination and consent The influx of free will into a good action or the good vse of grace exciting is supernaturall as being about a supernaturall obiect therefore it must proceede from a supernaturall cause c God is a cause and the first eause in that a cause he hath reference to the effect in that the first to the second when therefore by his helping grace he worketh together with vs to will and performe his operation hath a double respect first to our will which it effectually moueth to worke this and secondly to our act of willing which it produceth together with our will for our will hath no operation but in one respect only that is of the act it bringeth forth but it hath no influence upon it selfe antecedently to the production of the act So then God is the first determiner of our will for iâ—… the created will originally begin her owne determination it will follow that it is the first free the first roote and the first cause of her owne determination which must not be granted for seeing a created thing that is free is free by participation it must of necessity be reduced to a first free as to a former cause otherwise duo prima principia Soe that God by his effectuall grace not onely morally but truly efficiently moueth and inclineth the will to the loue and liking of what hee will in such sort that it cannot but turne nor cannot dissent in sensu composito though it may in sensu diuiso The meaning of this is that the effectuall motion of Gods grace and an actuall dissenting resisting or not yeelding cannot stand together but the efficacy of Gods grace and a power of disenting do stand together For the efficacie of grace doth not take away the power but soe directeth the will as infallibly in such liberty to bring forth that he pleaseth Est simultas potentiae ad opposita non autem potentia simultatis ad opposita simul habenda there is in some created thing at the same time a possibility of hauing or doing things opposite as to sitte or walke but there is no possibility of hauing these together Soe there is in free will moued by effectuall grace a power to doe or not to do in sensu diuiso because the efficacy of grace and power of dissenting may stand together but not in sensu composito that is that the motion of grace and actuall dissenting should stand together This is the opinion of Aluarez and many other opposing the Iesuites neither had Caluin or Luther any other apprehension of these things So that the necessity efficacy power and working of Gods grace is rightly deliuered by sundry in the Roman Church euen till this day It is not to be maruelled therefore if it be sayd that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died beleeued and taught as we now do Aloisius Lippomannus in catenâ ad lectorem hath these words Illud te admonitum esse volumus vt si in toto hoc opere Chrysostomum aliquando legeris dicentem homini quoties is sua attulerit conatum omnem fecerit abundè postea à Deo gratiam suppeditari caute prudenter pium doctorem legas ne in errorem illum decidas vt credas gratiam Dei dari propter merita nostra nam si ex meritis non est gratia cum nec istud ipsum sua afferre conatum omnem facere sine praeueniente Dei gratiâ possit esse juxta illud Psalmi misericordia ejus praeueniet me itemque misericordia ejus subsequetur me in omnibus diebus vitae meae ac illud sanctae Ecclesiae tua nos quaesumus domine gratia semper praeueniat sequatur cui nos quoque scrupulo prouidè occurrentes in duobus fortassis aut tribus locis paucula quaedam in Chrysostomum apposuimus Gocchianus de libertate christianâ l. 2. c. 23. Maria salutatur gratia plena vt quic quid in eâ per eam diuina dispositione fieri conspicitur totum ex dono dei nullis praecedentibus meritis designetur c. habes qualiter in exordio humanae reparationis praesumpsio humanae facultatis dejicitur In eo quod Maria plena gratiâ nunciatur praedicatur in eaplenitudo gratiae ut nihil proprii meriti sed totum quod in ea est gratia esse designetur August in enchirid Quid humana natura in homine Christo meruit ut in unitate personae unici filii Dei singulariter esset Quae bona voluntas cuius boni propositi studium quae bona praecesserunt quibus mereretur iste homo ut una fieret persona cum Deo nempè ex quo homo esse caepit non aliud caepit esse quam Dei filius idemque hominis filius c. Magna hic sola Dei gratia ostenditur ut intelligant homines per eandem gratiam eius se iustificari a peccatis per quam factum est ut homo Christus nullum habere posset peccatum Eccehabes in Mediatore Christo gratiam commendatam qui cum esset unicus Dei filius non gratiâ sed naturâ ob hoc plenus veritatis factus est hominis filius ut esset etiam gratiae plenus verbum caro factum est Cùm in Christo in quo omnia instauranda tanquam in fonte vnde totius humani generis derivatur salvatio nihil aliud invenitur quam gratia unde alicui aliquid aliud de proprio potest provenire per quod potest salvari Miranda quidem imò potius miseranda humanae praesumptio facultatis quae cùm per humilitatem gratis salvari possit propriâ impediente superbiâ salvari non velit Omnes inquit Esaias sitientes venite ad aquas qui non habetis argentum aurum properate emite comedite emite absque ullâ commutatione vinum lac Idem spiritus movet hominis voluntatem ut bonum velit quod prius noluit bonam voluntatem adiuvat ut bonum volitum ad effectum perducat nullâ cooperatione propriae voluntatis facultatis sed sanatae renovatae Aug. de patientia Gratia non solùm adiuvat iustum verum etiam iustificat impium ideo etiam cùm adiuvat iustum videtur eius meritis reddi nec sic
afterwards when they are grown inveterate for that then they will corrupt the monuments of antiquity 8 That the whole present Church may be ignorant of some things and erre in them but that in matters necessary to bee knowne and beleeued expressely it cannot erre and that it cannot erre in any the least thing with pertinacie such and so great as is found in Heretickes Ninthly that Councels and Popes may erre in matters of greatest consequence This our opinion thus layde downe is defended by Waldensis Occam and others Waldensis saith the Church whose faith neuer faileth according to the promise made to Peter who bare the figure of the Church when Christ said I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not is not any particular Church as the Church of Africa within the bounds whereof Donatus did inclose it nor the particular Romane Church but the vniversall Church not gathered together in a generall Councell which hath sometimes erred as that at Ariminium vnder Taurus the Governour and that at Constantinople vnder Iustinian the younger but it is the Catholique Church dispersed through the whole world from the Baptisme of Christ vnto our times which doth holde and maintaine the true faith and the faithfull testimony of Iesus CHAP. 6. Of the Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth and of their errour who thinke the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith and that shee may make new articles of our faith THus hauing spoken of the Churches assured possession of the knowledge of the truth in thenext place wee are to speake of her office of teaching witnessing the same touching the which our adversaries fall into two dangerous errours the first that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei ratio credendi the rule of our faith the reason why we belieue The second that the Church may make new articles of faith Touching the first of these erroneous conceipts the most of them doe teach that the last thing to which the perswasion of our faith resolueth it selfe the maine ground whereupon it stayeth is the authoritie of the Church guided by the spirit of truth For say they if infidels and misbeleeuers demaund of vs why we beleeue the Trinity of persons in the Vnity of the same Divine essence the Incarnation of the Sonne of God the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come we answere because these things are contayned in the Scriptures If they proceede farther to aske why wee beleeue the Scripture we answere because it is the word of God if why wee beleeue it to bee the word of God because the Church doth so testifie of it if why we beleeue the testimony of the Church because it is guided by the spirit of truth so that that vpon which our faith settleth her perswasion touching these things is the authority of the Catholique Church ledde and guided by the spirit of truth If it be said that it is one of the things to bee beleeued that the Church is thus guided by the spirit therefore that the authority of the Church cannot be the reason cause of beleeuing all things that pertain to the Christian faith because not of those things which concerne her owne authority Stapleton who professeth to handle this matter most exactly Sometimes seemeth to say that this article of faith that the Church is guided by the spirit and appointed by God to be a faithfull mistrisse of heauenly truth is not among the Articles of faith nor in the number of things to be beleeued Which the Rhemists vpon these words The Church is the pillar and ground of truth most constantly affirme saying We must beleeue heare and obey the Church as the Touchstone Pillar and firmament of truth for all this is comprised in the principle I beleeue the holy Catholique Church Sometimes that though perhaps in that Article it be implyed that wee beleeue whatsoeuer the Church teacheth vs yet not necessarily that wee beleeue that the Church is a faithfull and infallible witnesse mistresse of trueth And sometimes as in his triplication against Whitaker he sayth that when we professe that we beleeue the holy Catholike Church we doe not onely professe to beleeue that there is such a Church in the world but that wee are members of it and doe beleeue and embrace the doctrine of it as being guided infallibly by the spirit of trueth and that wee are taught in the Articles of our faith that the Church ought to bee listned vnto as to an infallible mistresse of heauenly trueth Surely it seemeth his braine was much crased when he thus wrote saying vnsaying saying he knew not what That which he addeth that this proposition God doth reveale vnto vs his heavenly truth teach vs the mysteries of his kingdome by the ministery of his Church is a transcendent wherevpon that article wherein wee professe to beleeue the Catholike Church doth depend as all the rest do is not an Article of the Creede doth but more more shew the distemper of his head But in that which hee addeth for confirmation hereof that we do not professe in the first Article of our faith to beleeue God as the reuealer of all hidden and heauenly truth and to rest in him as in the fountaine of all illumination is the note brand of an impious miscreant For this doubtlesse is the first thing implyed in our faith towards God that we yeeld him this honour to be the great master of all trueth vpon whose authority we will depend renouncing all our owne wisedome knowing that as no man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man so no man knoweth the things of God but the spirit of Got and that flesh and blood cannot reueale these things vnto vs but our father which is in heauen That the precept of louing God aboue all is not distinctly set downe among the rest of the tenne commaundements but is implyed though principally in the first yet generally in all is to no purpose If he thinke it is not at all contayned in the Decalogue his folly is too too great CHAP. 7. Of the manifold errours of Papistes touching the last resolution of our faith and the refutation of the same THus wee see hee cannot avoid it but that the Church is one of the things to be beleeued therefore cannot be the first generall cause of beleeuing all things that are to be beleeued For when we are to be perswaded of the authority of the Church it is doubtfull vnto vs and therefore cannot free vs from doubting or settle our perswasion because that which setleth the perswasion must not be doubted of There is no question then but that the authority of the old Testament may bee brought to proue the new to him that is perswaded of the old and doubteth of the newe and the authoritie of the newe to
we should haue no greater certainty of things Diuine and revealed then such as humane meanes and causes can yeeld And so seeing wee can neuer bee so well perswaded of any man or multitude of men but that we may justly feare either they are deceiued or will deceiue if our faith depend vpon such grounds we cannot firmely vndoubtedly beleeue Nay it is consequent vpon this absurd opinion that the Children of the Church and they of the houshold of faith haue no infused or Diuine faith at all for that whatsoeuer is revealed by the God of truth is true the Heathens make no doubt but doubt whether any thing were so revealed and that any thing was so revealed if these men say true we haue no assurance but by humane meanes and causes But the absurdity hereof the same Canus out of Calvin doth very learnedly demonstrate reasoning in this sort If all they that haue beene our teachers nay if all the Angels in Heauen shall teach vs any other or contrary doctrine to that we haue receiued we must holde them accursed and not suffer our faith to bee shaken by them as the Apostle chargeth vs in the Epistle to the Galatians therefore our faith doth not rely vpon humane causes or grounds of assurance Ne mens nostra vacillet altius petenda quà m ab hominum vel ratione vel auctoritate scripturae authoritas Besides our faith and that of the Apostles and Prophets being the same it must needes haue the same object the same ground and stay to rest vpon in both but they builded themselues vpon the sure and vnmooueable rocke of Diuine truth and authority therefore we must doe so likewise If any man desire farther satisfaction herein let him reade Canus and Calvin to whom in these things Canus is much beholding Others therefore to avoide this absurdity run into that other before mentioned that we beleeue the things that are diuine by the meere and absolute command of our will not finding any sufficient motiues reasons of perswasion hereupon they define faith in this sort Fides est assensus firmus ineuideÌ„s that is faith is a firme certaine ful assent of the mind beleeuing those things the truth whereof no way appeareth vnto vs. For father explication and better clearing of this definition of faith they make two kindes of certainty for there is as they say certitudo evidentiae and certitudo adhaerentiae that is there is a certainty of evidence which is of those things the truth whereof appeareth vnto vs and another of adherence and firme cleauing to that the trueth whereof appeareth not vnto vs. This later they suppose to bee the certainty that is found in fayth and there vpon they hold that a man may beleeue a thing meerely because hee will without any motiues or reason of perswasion at all the contrary whereof when Picus Mirandula proposed among other his conclusions to bee disputed in Rome hee was charged with heresie for it But hee sufficiently cleared himselfe from all such imputation and improued their fantasie that so thinke by vnanswerable reasons which I haue thought good to lay downe in this place It is not sayth hee in the power of a man to thinke a thing to bee or not to bee meerely because hee will therefore much lesse firmely to beleeue it The trueth of the antecedent wee finde by experience and it evidently appeareth vnto vs because if a doubtfull proposition bee proposed concerning which the vnderstanding and minde of man resolueth nothing seeing no reason to leade to resolue one way or other the minde thus doubtfull cannot incline any way till there bee some inducement either of reason sight of the eye or testimony or authority of them wee are well conceipted of to settle our perswasion Secondly a man cannot assent to any thing or judge it to bee true vnlesse it so appeare vnto him but the sole acte of a mans will cannot make a thing to appeare and seeme true or false but either the euidence of the thing or the testimony and authority of some one of whose judgement he is well perswaded Thirdly though the action of vnderstanding quoad exercitium as to consider of a thing and thinke vpon it or to turne away such consideration from it depend on the will yet not quoad specificationem as to assent or dissent for these opposite and contrary kinds of the vnderstandings actions are from the contrary and different appearing of things vnto vs. Fourthly the sole command of the will cannot make a man to beleeue that which being demanded why hee beleeueth he giueth reasons and alledgeth inducements but so it is that in matters of our Christian faith we alledge sundry reasons mouing vs to beleeue as Christians doe as appeareth by the course of all Diuines who lay downe eight principall reasons moouing men to beleeue the Gospell namely the light of propheticall prediction the harmony and agreement of the Scriptures the diligence of them that receiued them carefully seeking to discerne betweene truth and errour the authority grauitie of the writers the reasonablenesse of the things written the vnreasonablenes of all contrary errours the stability of the Church and the miracles that haue beene done for the confirmation of the faith it professeth Fiftly if there be two whereof one beleeueth precisely because he will and another onely because hee will not beleeue refuseth to beleeue the same thing the acte of neither of these is more reasonable then the other being like vnto the will of a Tyrant that is not guided at all by reason but makes his owne liking the rule of his actions Now who is so impious to say The Christians that beleeue the Gospell haue no more reason to leade them so to doe then the Infidels that refuse to beleeue With Picus in the confutation of this senselesse conceipt wee may joyne Cardinall Cameracensis who farther sheweth that as a man cannot perswade himselfe of a thing meerely because hee will without any reason at all so hauing reason hee cannot perswade himselfe more strongly and assuredly of it then the reason hee hath will afforde for if hee doe it is so farre an vnreasonable acte like that of a Tyrant before mentioned Durandus likewise is of the same opinion Assentiri nullus potest nisi ei quod apparet verum igitur oportâ—…t quèd illud quòd creditur appareat rationi verum vel in se vel ratione mâ—…dij per quod assentitur si non in se sed tantùm ratione medij illud medium apparebit verum vel in se vel per aliud medium si non est processus in infinitum oportet quòd deueniatur ad primum quod apparet rationi esse verum in se secundum se That is No man can yeeld assent to any thing but that which appeareth to him to be true therefore whatsoeuer a man beleeueth must seeme and appeare vnto him to bee
that place which the Lord hath chosen shew thee thou shalt obserue to doe according to all that they informe thee according to the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee shalt thou doe thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee neither to the right hand nor to the left And that man that will doe presumptuously not hearkning to the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there or vnto the Iudge that man shall die and thou shalt take away euill from Israel This was the highest Court amongst the Iewes from this there was no appeale and this Court some thinke to haue enjoyed so great and ample priviledges as that it could not erre and thereupon inferre that Popes in their Consistories cannot erre to whom Christ hath made as large promises of assistance and direction as euer he did to the high Priests and Rulers in the time of Moses Law That the Priests and Rulers in the time of the Law could not erre they indeavour to proue because he was to answer it with hisbloud whosoeuer disobeyed the sentence decree of those Iudges God required euery man without declining to the right hand or the left to doe that they commanded If it be objected that the words of Almighty God requiring all men so strictly to obey the sentence and decree of those Rulers are not to bee vnderstood concerning matters of faith but Causes Ciuill and Criminall and that therefore this place maketh not any proofe of the infallibilitie of their judgment in matters of faith it will bee answered that there is no reason to doubt of their judgment in matters of faith of whose right judgment in matters Ciuill and Criminall wee are assured Surely it is true that if those Iudges in the time of the Law could not erre in matters Ciuill and Criminall they were vndoubtedly much more freed from danger of erring in matters of faith but it is one of the strangest paradoxes as I thinke that euer yet was heard of that the Priests and Iudges in the time of the Law were priviledged from danger of erring in matters of fact and that they were so assisted in their proceedings as that they could not bee mis-led by any passions or sinister affections to pervert judgement and doe wrong For besides that it is refuted by sundry instances of sinister and wicked judgments passed by those Iudges against the Seruants and Prophets of Almighty God it maketh the Ministery and government vnder the Law incomparably more glorious and excellent then the Ministerie of the Gospell For it is by all confessed that the Popes and Councels may erre in things of this nature But that the Priests in the time of the Law did sometimes erre in judgment condemning them whō God would not haue had condemned appeareth evidently by that we read in the booke of the Prophesies of Ieremy where when Ieremy had made an end of speaking all that the Lord commanded him to speake then the Priests and the Prophets and al◅ the people took him and said Thou shalt dye the death And when the Princes of Iudah heard of these things they came vp from the Kings house into the house of the Lord sate down in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House Then spake the Priests the Prophets vnto the Princes to all the people saying This man is worthy to dye but the Princes said This man is not worthy to dye for he hath spoken vnto vs in the Name of the Lord our God Here we see the Priests erred and were resisted by the Princes of the Land but elsewhere we reade that the Princes also were angry with Ieremy smote him and layde him in prison in the house of Iehonathan the Scribe and saide unto the King Wee beseech thee let this man be put to death for he weakneth the hands of the men of war that are in the Citie and the hands of all the people So that both Priests and Princes might did sometimes erre in judgment But some man perhaps will say that howsoeuer they might erre in matters of fact yet they could not erre in any matter of substance pertaining to the worship seruice of God This also is clearely demonstrated to be false their errours in things pertaining to the worship and seruice of God proued by sundry examples In the second booke of Kings wee reade that Ahaz k◅ng of Iudah walked in the waies of the kings of Israel made his sonnes goe through the fire after the abominations of the heathen and offered burnt incense in the high places and on the hils and vnder euerie greene tree This wicked Ahaz sent from Damascus to Vrias the Priest the patterne of the Altar he saw at Damascus and the fashion of it and all the workemanship thereof and Vrias the Priest made an Altar in all points like to that which King Ahaz sent from Damascus So did Vrias the Priest before King Ahaz came from Damascus and the King commanded Vrias to offer sacrifice on the Altar and Vrias did whatsoeuer the King commanded him Yea we reade of many Priests especially about the time of the Maccabees that forsooke the law of God and followed the abominations of the heathen Idolaters and many Iudges and Kings likewise so that Dauid Hezekiah Iosias only excepted there was none of the Kings that did not decline more or lesse to Idolatry The meaning therefore of Almighty God according to the iudgment of the best Diuines was not that Priests and Iudges in the the time of the law should be obayed in all things without exception but when they commanded and iudged according to the diuine law and verity and in the same sort must wee vnderstand the words of Christ when he sayth The Scribes and Pharisees sit on the Chaire of Moses and commandeth the people to obserue and doe whatsoeuer they prescribe to be obserued and done For otherwise Christ should be contrary to himselfe who elsewhere willeth men to beware of the leauen of the Pharisees which S. Mathew interpreteth to bee their doctrine teacheth men by his own example to cōtemn their traditiōs Yea it is most certaine that the Pharisees erred dangerously and damnably in many things notwithstanding their sitting on Moses chaire and therefore Christ doth oftentimes sharpely reproue them for mis-interpreting the law of God Some man perhaps will say they taught lesse then is implied in the Law in that they condemned murther adultery and the like crimes but not lust hatred and such other sinister affections of the heart and that therefore Christ did not reproue them as teaching any thing contrary to the Law but as teaching lesse then is contained in it and comming short of it This euasion will not serue for it appeareth euidently that they did not only come
his Epistle to Michael the Emperour pronounceth that the priuiledges of the See of Rome are perpetuall rooted and planted by Almighty God in such sort that men may stumble at them but cannot remoue them may pull at them but cannot pull them vp therefore he thinketh the Pope cannot erre which is a very bad consequence For the infallibility of iudgment in the Pope is not mentioned among the inuiolable priuiledges of the Church of Rome and therefore the priuiledges of that Church may be inuiolable and yet the Pope subiect to errour neither hath Nicolas one word of the Popes not erring The testimonies of Leo the ninth and Innocentius the third as being late and partiall in their own cause may iustly be excepted against yet do they not proue the thing in question For they speake of the See and throne of Peter in which the faith may continue without failing though the Popes erre and seeke to subuert the same so long as any other that are to gouerne the throne with them perseuere in the true faith Wherefore from the prayer of Christ made for Peter that his faith should not faile they descend to other proofes taken from the promise made to Peter by Christ that vpon him he would build his Church and his mandate requiring him to feede his sheepe and to feede his Lambes which are too weake to perswade vs that the Pope cannot erre or is more priuiledged then other Bishops in this respect First because it is most cleare and euident and confessed by our aduersaries themselues that the Church was builded vpon all the Apostles as well as vpon Peter and there is no kind of feeding of Christs sheepe and flocke that commeth not within the compasse of that office and commission which the other Apostles had in common with him as I haue elsewhere shewed at large Secondly because Peter and his colleagues were foundation stones vppon which the Church was builded in that their doctrine was receiued by immediate and vndoubted reuelation without mixture of errour vpon which the faith of all after-commers was to stay it selfe none of which things agree to the Romane Bishop So that it is no way necessary that there should be the same infallibility of judgment in him that was in Peter and in his colleagues Thirdly because we know and all that are in their right wits do acknowledge that a man may be a Pastor in the Church of God and yet subject to errour and that therefore Christs requiring Peter to do the duty of a Pastor will not proue that the Pope cannot erre Wherefore from the Scriptures they passe to the Fathers and among them first they produce Theodoret who in his Epistle to Renatus a Presbyter saith that among other things the reason why the Romane Church hath a kind of chiefety among other Churches is because it hath euer remained free from heresie From whence I thinke hardly any good proofe can be drawne of the Popes not erring For how will this consequence euer be made good There are many things that make the See of Rome great as the greatnesse of the city the Empire the sepulchers of those common Fathers and Doctors of truth Peter and Paule those two great lights that rose in the East cast forth their beames into all parts of the world but set in the West and sundry other things and among them the felicity and happinesse of it that till the time of Theodoret no heresie euer preuailed in it therefore the Bishop of Rome can neuer erre Seeing Theodoret doth not dispute what may be but sheweth only what by the happy prouidence of God had beene and besides speaketh not precisely of the Bishop of Rome but of the Romane See including the whole company of the Bishops of the West adhering to him which was a great part of the whole Christian Church and more glorious then the rest for that it was more free from hereticall novelties in those times then they To Theodoret they adde Saint Augustine who saith the succession of Bishops from Peters chaire to his time is that rocke against the which the proud gates of hell cannot preuaile His meaning is that what all those Bishops haue constantly and successiuely taught as true must needes be true and what they haue impugned as false must needes be false seeing it is impossible that any errour or the impugning of any trueth should haue bin found successiuely in all the Bishops of that or any other Apostolicall Church whatsoeuer But what is this to the Popes not erring Surely as litle as that of Gelasius in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour that the glorious confession of the Apostle Peter thou art the Christ the Son of the liuing God is the roote of all the faith and piety of the whole world that therefore the Apostolique See carefully looketh vnto it that no chinke be made in it that it be not spotted with any contagion for that if it should there were no meanes of resisting any errour But because this maketh not for them the Cardinall helpeth the matter with an vntruth saying that Gelasius proueth that the See of Rome cannot erre because the confession of it is the roote of al the faith piety that is in the world whereas he neither goeth about to proue the one nor speaketh any word of the other but of the excellencie of the confession that Peter made the necessity of preseruing it inuiolable and the care of the See of Rome in and before his time for the safe keeping of the same Wherefore let vs come to the places that are cited to this purpose out of Gregories Epistles which shew plainly they are past shame that manage the Popes affaires defend his cause For whereas Gregory saith that if he that claimeth to be vniuersal B doe fall all the whole Church is ouerthrowne and that therefore there must bee no such vniversall Bishop and particularly sheweth by the grieuous heresies that prevailed in the Church of Constantinople how ill it would haue beene for the Churches of God if the Bishops thereof had beene vniversall Bishops as they sought to be they bring this place to proue that the Pope cannot erre whereas they should haue brought it to shew how dangerous it is that there should bee any one vniversall Bishop such as their Pope desireth to be and that therefore as Cyprian obserueth Almighty God wisely foreseeing what euils might follow such vniversality of power and jurisdiction in one man ordained that there should bee a great number of Bishops joyned in equall commission that so if some fell the rest might stand and keepe the people from a generall downefall The next allegation is out of the Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria whereby the Reader may see with what conscience these Iesuited Papists doe cite the writings of the Fathers The wordes of Gregory are these Your most sweete Holinesse hath
from his communion that thought and practised otherwise then he did as it appeareth by the testimonies of Firmilianus and Dionysius so that it is strange that Bellarmine should bee able so to harden his fore-head as not to blush when he saith that Stephen did not define any thing touching the question of rebaptization that he did not make it a matter of faith necessary to be beleeued of all and that he did not excommunicate those that were to her wise minded but onely threatned them that he would so doe It is true in deede that Cyprian howsoeuer hee definitiuely deliuered in a Councell of Bishops what hee was perswaded men were to beleeue and practise touching rebaptization and protested against Stephen as a proud ignorant and vnadvised man yet did not vrge this his decree so as to reject from his communion all that should dislike it but left euery Bishop to his owne judgement as being to giue an account to God onely But how the Iesuites can defend against all the former proofes that Stephens proceedings were like to those of Cyprian and that he also left euery man to his owne judgement and rejected no man from his communion for dissenting from him I cannot see By that which hath beene said it appeareth that the Ancients did not thinke euery thing to be heresie that the Romane Bishops defined to be so and that therefore they did not thinke him free from danger of erring Neither need we to marvaile saith Bellarmine if in former times men had not learned this lesson seeing to this day they are not judged to be heretickes that thinke the Pope may erre Yet so kinde is he to Cyprian that whereas Austine excuseth him in his errour and thinketh his sinne was veniall he pronounceth he sinned mortally and so without particular repentance whereof there is little likelyhood perished euerlastingly notwithstanding his martyrdome The reason of this difference of the censures of Austine and Bellarmine is because Austine looked onely or principally to his errour but Bellarmine to his contempt of the Bishop of Romes Decrees and determinations CHAP. 43. Of such Popes as are charged with heresie and how the Romanists seeke to cleare them from that imputation HAuing examined our Adversaries proofes of the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement taken from the acceptation of his judgement as right and good by all the world whensoeuer hee defined anything let vs come to the other proofe of the same taken from the felicity of the Romane See in former times Ruffinus saith that before his time no heresie had euer taken beginning in the Romane Church but our Adversaries proceede farther and feare not to pronounce after sixteene hundred yeares that no hereticke did euer sit in the See of Rome which their proud bragge will bee found much more vaine then true and many vnanswerable instances will bee brought of wicked heretickes possessing that chaire Tertullian in his booke against Praxeas speaketh of a Bishoppe of Rome but nameth him not that admitted and allowed the prophecies of Montanus and his two Prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla and held communion with the Montanists till he was disswaded by Praxeas Who as he saith caused the prophecies of Montanus and his Prophetesses to be banished and brought in heresie who banished their Paraclete and crucified the Father But because Tertullian was a Montanist and wrote partially in things that concerned them though Rhenanus say the Bishop of Rome did Montanize yet for my part no other history reporting any such thing of any Romane Bishoppe I will not vpon Tertullians bare word charge any of them with any such heresie But howsoeuer wee thinke of Tertullians report we finde in the Councell of Sinuessa in the Pontificall in the Epistle of Nicholas the first to Michael the Emperour in Platina and others that Marcellinus did sacrifice vnto idols and so at least in outward action shewed himselfe an infidell which is a higher degree of impiety then heresie If it be said he committed that execrable act of idolatry not out of any mis-perswasion of his minde but feare of death it will be replied that if the passion of feare bee able to worke so ill effects in Popes as the vtter abnegation of Christianity and the professing of themselues to bee Pagan infidels by publicke outward acts of idolatry there is little reason to be giuen but that some other sinister and vile affection may carry them as farre to make profession of heresie a thing not so ill as Paganisme Wherefore Baronius to prevent the worst and to make all sure inclineth to deny that euer Marcellinus committed any such act of idolatry and discrediteth the report of the Councell of Sinuessa in which he is said to haue beene condemned Wherein hee doth as much disaduantage the Romane cause another way in depriuing his friends of so good an authority as the resolution of that sacred Synode that Prima sedes á nemine iudicatur that is that the first See is iudged of none as hee advantageth it in the clearing of Marcellinus and therefore hee is rightly blamed by Binnius for his inconsiderate rashnes in this behalfe But that wee may be assured that Popes may be hereticks as well as infidells wee haue the confession of as good a man as Baronius acknowledging the same For Bellarmine saith that Liberius howsoeuer for a long time he continued constant in the profession of the true faith so that for the same his constancie he was banished and another by the Arrian faction put into his place yet in the end weary of banishment he was brought to subscribe to heresie and was in his outward courses an hereticke whatsoeuer his heart was whereof God onely is the searcher so that iustly as an heretick he was condemned pronounced to be no Pope any longer by his own Clergie This he proueth out of the testimonies of Athanasius and Hierome who say expressely that being weary of his continuance in banishment he was at last brought to subscribe to heresie And Hilary who speaking to Constantius the wicked Arrian Emperour hath these wordes Afterwards thou diddest turne the course of thy warre against Rome whence thou tookest the Bishop ô wretched Emperour I canne hardly say whether thy impiety were greater in sending him into banishment or in sending him home againe Thereby insinuating that he restored him vpon very ill conditions And that he was not restored but by some kinde of consenting with the Arrians it is most cleare in that Zozomen reporteth that the Arrian Bishops assembled at Sirmium sent their letter to Felix then Bishop of Rome the Clergy there kindly to receiue Liberius and that both Felix and he might sit as Bishops and gouerne the Romane Church together which they would neuer haue done if they had not found him tractable yeelding yet could not these two Bishoppes endure one the other long notwithstanding these letters
alleaged by Cusanus and greatly approued yea the same Cusanus complaining of the abuses of the Court of Rome in that thinges are carried thither that should bee determined in the Prouinces where they beginne in that the Pope intermedleth in giuing Benefices before they be voide to the preiudice of the originall Patrons by reason whereof young men run to Rome and spend their best time there carrying gold with them and bringing backe nothing but paper and many like confusions which the Canons forbid and neede reformation addeth that the common saying that the secular power may not restraine or alter these courses brought in by Papall authority should not moue any man for that though the power of temporall Princes ought not to change any thing established canonically for the honour of GOD and good of such as attend his seruice yet it may and ought to prouide for the common good and see that the auncient canons be obserued Neither ought any one to say that the auncient christian Emperours did erre that made so many sacred constitutions or that they ought not so to haue done For saith he I read that Popes haue desired them for the common good to make lawes for the punishment of offences committed by those of the cleargie And if any one shall say that the force of all these constitutions depended vpon Papall or Synodall approbation I will not insist vpon it though I haue read and collected foure score and sixe chiefe heads of Ecclesiasticall rules and lawes made by old Emperours and many other made by Charles the Great and his successours in which order is taken not onely concerning others but euen concerning the Bishoppe of Rome himselfe and other Patriarches what they shall take of the Bishoppes they ordaine and many like things and yet did I neuer finde that the Pope was desired to approue them or that they haue no binding force but by vertue of his approbation But I know right well that some Popes haue professed their due regarde of those Imperiall and Princely constitutions But though it were graunted that those constitutions had no further force then they receiued from the canons wherein the same thinges were formerly ordered or from Synodall approbation yet might the Emperor now reforme things amisse by vertue of old canons and Princes constitutions grounded on them Yea if hee should with good aduice considering the decay of piety and diuine worshippe the ouerflowing of all wickednes and the causes and occasions thereof recall the old canons and the auncient and most holy obseruation of the Elders and reiect whatsoever priuiledges exemptions or new deuices contrary therevnto by vertue whereof suites complaintes and controuersies the gifts and donations of benefices the like thinges are vnjustly brought to Rome to the great prejudice of the whole Christian Church I thinke no man could justly blame him for so doing Yea he saith the Emperour Sigismund had an intention so to doe and exhorteth him by no fained allegations of men fauouring present disorders to bee discouraged for that there is no way to preserue the peace of the Church whatsoeuer some pretend to the contrary vnlesse such lewde and wicked courses proceeding from ambition pride and couetousnesse be stopped and the old canons reuiued From that which hath beene obserued touching the proceeding of Christian Kings and Emperours in former times in calling Councels in being present at them and in making lawes for persons and causes Ecclesiasticall it is easie to gather what the power of Princes is in this kinde and that they are indeede supreame Gouernours ouer all persons and in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill which is that wee attribute to our Kings Queenes and the Papistes so much stumble at as if some new and strange opinion were broached by vs. Wherefore for the satisfaction of all such as are not maliciously obstinate refusing to heare what may be said I will endeauour in this place vpon so fitte an occasion to cleare whatsoeuer may bee questionable in this point will first intreat of the power and right that Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall then of that they haue ouer persons Ecclesiastical jn treating of causes Ecclesiasticall I will first distinguish the diversities of them the power of medling with them Causes Ecclesiasticall therefore are of two sorts for some are originally and naturally such and some onely in that by fauor of Princes out of due consideration they are referred to the Cognisance of Ecclesiasticall persons as fittest Iudges as the probations of the Testaments of them that are dead the disposition of the goods of them that dye intestat and if there be any other like Causes Ecclesiasticall of the first sort are either meerely and onely Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall or mixt Meerely Ecclesiasticall are of three sorts First matters of Faith and Doctrine Secondly matters of Sacraments and the due administration of them Thirdly the orders degrees ordination of such as attend the Ministery of the word Sacraments Mixtly Ecclesiasticall are of two sorts either such as in one respect belong to one kinde of cognisance and in another to another as marriages which are subiect to ciuill disposition in that they are politicall contracts and to spirituall in that they are ordered by the diuine law or such as are equally censurable by Ciuill Ecclesiasticall authority as murthers adulteries blasphemies the like All which in the time when there is no Christian Magistrate or when there is ouer-great negligence in the ciuill Magistrate are to bee punished by the spirituall guides of the Church Whereupon wee shall finde that the auncient Councels prescribed penance to offenders in all these kindes But when there is a Christian Magistrate doing his duty they are to bee referred specially either to the one or the other of these and accordingly to bee censured by the one or the other as wee see the punishment of adultery vsury and things of that nature is referred to Ecclesiasticall persons the punishment of murther theft the like to the ciuill Magistrate This distinction of causes Ecclesiasticall premised it is easie to see what authority Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall For first touching those causes that are Ecclesiastical onely in that they are put ouer to the cognisance of spiritual persons there is no question but that the Prince hath a supreame power and that no man may meddle with them any otherwise then as he is pleased to allow And likewise touching those things which in one respect pertaine to ciuill jurisdictiō in another to spiritual or which are equally censurable by both there is no question but that the Prince hath supreame power in that they pertaine to ciuill jurisdiction So that the onely question is touching things naturally and meerely spiritual The power in these is of two sorts of Order of Iurisdiction The power of Order is the authority to preach the Word minister the Sacraments to ordaine Ministers
touching the condition of such as dyed in an imperfect state of grace contrary to any thing holden by vs at this day These premisses considered and euery of these things being confessed by Master Higgons or proued abundantly by Mee it seemeth the poore man is beside himselfe and that his discontentments haue made him madde For otherwise what should moue him like a madde man to crye out in such sort as hee doth That I haue disabled my booke and ouerthrowne the Protestanticall Church that Papistes may triumph in the victory which their chiefest enemies haue wrought in their behalfe and ioyfully applaud the excellencie of their cause which enforceth her greatest aduersaries to prostitute themselues to such base and dishonest courses Let the base Runnagate looke to himselfe and his conscience will tell him that his courses haue beene base dishonest perfidious vnnaturall that I say not monstrous but our cause is such as shall euer be able to vpholde it selfe against all opposers without any such shifting devices as they of the adverse faction are forced to vse for the staying of that from falling for a little while that must fall and come to nothing in despight of all that Diuels or diuellish men by lying slaundering murdering and all hellish practises can doe to sustaine it §. 8. THus haue I breefely runne thorough his two bookes answered whatsoeuer concerneth my selfe in the same and so might passe presently to his Appendix but that towards the end of the 2d part ofhis second booke he once againe wrongeth that renowned Diuine Dr Humphrey in such sort as is not to be endured For he chargeth him with vnfaithfulnesse in his relations digressions from the matter a generall imbecillity of his whole discourse obscuritie vncertainty notorious deprauing of Saint Augustine and other vnfaithfull practises against the same Father and sayth the detection of his falshood ministred the first occasion of his chaunge If Master Higgons were not better knowne then trusted some man happily would bee mooued to thinke that some very grosse and vnexcusable ouer-sights are found in Doctour Humphrey against whom hee so clamorously inveigheth but seeing all the world taketh notice what manner of man hee is by that description of him which is found in a letter of a worthy Knight lately written to him another of his own father written to the same Knight I think there is no man of any sence that will regard his words any more then the braying of an Asse or the bellowing of an Oxe when he lacketh fodder yet to make it appeare that he hath calumniated and wronged a worthy person without all cause or shew of cause I will breefely set downe the summe of D. Humphrey his discourse Whereas Campian obiecteth to vs that we haue begged certaine fragments of opinions from Aerius and others condemned as heretickes first hee answereth that we haue not receiued our faith from Heretickes but from the Apostles and their successours Secondly he sayth that we condemne all the hereticall positions of Aerius yet admit whatsoeuer he held rightly and agreably to the holy Scripture in which saying Maister Higgons telleth vs the Papists will concurre with him Thirdly he alloweth a commemoration of the Saints and holy ones departed and consequently disliketh Aerius for condemning the same Fourthly hee condemneth that abuse in praying for the dead which Aerius condemned Fifthly he sayth the commemoration of the departed is not commanded in Scripture but holden by custome of the Church Sixtly that if wee dye not in a true and liuely faith all the prayers in the world cannot helpe vs contrary to the error of those men who thought that not onely a suspension or mitigation but a totall release of the punishments of men dying in mortall sinnes may be procured which error Augustine refuteth by the euidence of the words of the Apostle that vnlesse we here sowe vnto the spirit we cannot reape immortality And againe that we must all stand before the Tribunall seate of Christ that euery one may receiue according to the thinges hee did in this body whether good or ill Whence hee sayth is inferred that vnlesse men depart hence in state of grace all the world cannot releeue them afterwardes These being the principall and most materiall partes and circumstances of D. Humphrey his discourse touching Aerius let vs see what are the exceptions that Maister Higgons take against him The first is that he sayth there is no Scripture for that prayer for the dead that was ancienily vsed in the Church and that Augustine seemeth to confesse as much which hee goeth about to improue because Augustine alleageth the booke of Machabees for the practise of praying for the dead But for answere here-vnto 1. wee say that D. Humphrey denyeth that there is any precept requiring vs to pray for the dead found in Scripture speaketh nothing of exāples And therefore the allegation of the book of Machabees is impertinent 2. that the praier of Iudas Machabaeus mentioned in that booke was not for the reliefe of the dead but for the remission or not imputing of their sins to the liuing least God should haue smitten them for the trespasse committed by those wicked ones that displeased God and perished in their sin though the author of that book make another construction of it 3. that the booke of Machabees is not Canonical and though Augustine seeme to incline to an opinion that it is yet hee is not resolued that it is so yea some are of opinion that he thought it Canonicall only in respect of the Canon of manners and not of faith but Mr Higgons will proue that in the iudgement of Augustine prayer for the dead is plainely expressed or sufficiently deduced from the Scriptures of the new Testament in that S. Augustine hauing alleadged the bookes of Machabees to proue that prayer was made for the dead sayth if this were no where read in the old Scriptures the authority of the Church were greatly to be regarded which shineth in this custome which is a very silly inferēce For neither doth it follow that if it be not in the old it must be in the new neither would Augustine haue presently vrged the authority of the Church vpon the supposition of not finding it in the old Scriptures but the bookes of the new Testament if hee had thought it to be found in the new seeing he seeketh first and principally to proue it by Scripture His second exception is that Augustine vrgeth the custome of the Vniuersall Church for the commendation of the dead and pronounceth that without intollerable insolency and madnesse this authority cannot be reiected whence he inferreth that both these must ineuitably fall vppon D. Humphrey and his Church but the poore fellow that chargeth other men with madnesse if hee were in his right wittes might easily haue found that Doctor Humphrey doth not condemne the commemoration and commendation of the dead for he saith
the notorious negligence of the Court of Rome in omitting to doe that which is fitte other to base corruption and therevpon sheweth that an appeale was put in on the behalfe of the Lords of Polonia to the next Generall Councell against which exception was taken that it was not lawfull to appeale from the Pope in any case or to decline his iudgement in matters of faith contrarie to the lawes of God and the decrees of the same Conncell and to the vtter ouerthrowing of all those thinges that were done in the Councell of Pisa and Constance in reiecting the pretenders and electing a new Pope professing that hee is well assured there will neuer be any reformation of the Church by a Councell without the presidency of a guide well affected and prudent stout and constant of which sort he insinuateth the Pope then beeing was not Thus wee see Gerson thought it no impiety in modest sort to taxe the Popes negligence and in most resolute manner to condemne as impious against the Lawes of God and man his pride in denying appeales from himselfe as if no man might decline his iudgement in matters of faith Which things being so let the reader iudge whether that one poore sentence of Gerson mangled and rent from that which went before and followeth after doe bring more aduantage to Master Higgons his cause then it doth preiudice the same when it is ioyned with the other parts of his discourse in the same place But thus doe these Madianites slay themselues with their owne swordes and turne their weapons vpon themselues to the vtter ouerthrow of their bad cause From this particular of the Popes supremacy wherein Master Higgons hath foyled himselfe and hurt his cause hee proceedeth to some generall euidences whence as hee saith it may be proued that Gerson neuer fauoured the Protestanticall reformation The first is for that speaking of the Romish Church he saith Wee must r◅ue the certainty of our faith from it The second for that hee preached zealously at Constance against the articles of Wicklife and the Bohemians For answere to the first of these allegations the reader must remember that Gerson doth clearely resolue that the Pope may erre not onely personally but Episcopally and iudicially also and consequently that wee must not ground our faith vpon his resolutions as certaine and vndoubted The like may be said of the Romane Church that is the Romane Diocesse Prouince or Patriarchship for if it haue any more infallibility of iudgement then other particular Churches it hath it from the Bishoppe which it cannot haue seeing he is not free from errour himselfe the meaning therefore of Gerson is not that wee may or must take whatsoeuer the Romane Diocesse Prouince or Patriarchship deliuereth vnto vs to be vndoubtedly true but speaking of the Indians who are Christians and yet doubting whether they hold the faith of Christians sincerely or not hee saith it may be feared least they doe not seeing ◅ey are diuided from the Roman Church from which the certainty of faith is to ◅e sought to shew that the truth certainty of faith is to be sought in the vnity of the vniuersal or Catholique Church the beginning being taken frō that which of all others is the first and chiefest and hathhitherto beene most free from damnable heresies For otherwise that he is no way resolued that the determinations of the particular Roman Church Diocesan Provinciall or Patriarchicall doe absolutely binde all to receiue them it is most cleare and euident in that in his discourse of the meanes of procuring vnitie betweene the Greekes and Latines one speciall cause of the breach betweene them being the determination passed by the Latines touching the proceeding of the Holy Ghost without the consent of the Greekes he wisheth men to consider whether as we are wont to say of the Articles of Paris that they binde none but such as are within the Diocesse of Paris so it may not be saide that the determinations of the Latine Church binde none but those that are within the compasse of the same which he could not nor would not doe if he thought the infallible direction of all the rest to bee in the Romane Church alone and that all euery-where were bound to receiue as vndoubtedly true whatsoeuer it deliuereth as the Romanists at this day doe thinke Besides this it is to be obserued that by the name of the Romane Church the person of the Pope whom the Romanists name the Virtuall Church is not meant nor the Diocesse or Prouince of Rome alone but the whole Latine or West Church subiect to the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West which wee are perswaded neuer yet erred from the Faith but had alwayes in it many worthy men professing and maintaining the trueth of Religion howsoeuer some erred damnably in the midst of it and a separation be now growne betweene the true members of that Church and such as were but a faction in the same So that that which Gerson hath of fetching the certainty of our faith from the Church of Rome proueth not that hee would haue beene an enemy to the Protestanticall reformation for he speaketh not of our fetching the certaintie of our Faith from the Pope or Court or Diocesse of Rome but of the Indians fetching the certainty of their Faith from the Roman that is the Westerne Church But that he neuer thought that all Christians and Churches of the West are to fetch the certainty of their Faith from the Pope or Court of Rome it is evident In that he commendeth the French King that condemned the heresie of Iohn the two and twentieth touching the soules not seeing God till the Resurrection with sound of trumpets the Nobles and Prelats of France being present and beleeued rather the Vniuersitie of Paris then the Court of Rome Neither is the next proofe of Gersons preaching against the Articles of Wickliff and the Bohemians any better then this for hee preached against such Articles as were brought to the Councell of Constance by the English and Bohemians now those Articles were many of them impious and hereticall nay hellish and blasphemous in such sort as they were proposed by them that brought them as that God must obey the Diuel that Kings or Bishops if they be reprobates or if they fall into mortall sinne cease to be Kings or Bishops any longer and that all they doe is meerely voide whereas Wickliffe neuer deliuered any such thing nor had any such impious conceipt as they sought to fasten on him neither is it to be maruailed at that impious things were falsly slanderously imputed to him seeing we are wronged in like sort at this day For there are who shame not to write that we affirme God to be the author of fin that we teach that God doth sin that man sinneth not that God onely sinneth and that God is worse then the diuell with many other like
Augustine saith he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him hee vnderstandeth by the name of the Church the Primitiue congregation of those Faithful ones which saw heard Christ and were his witnesses Thirdly Driedo writeth thus when Augustine saith hee would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him hee vnderstandeth that Church which hath beene euer since the beginning of the Christian Faith hauing her Bishops in orderly sort succeeding one another and growing and increasing till our times which Church truly comprehendeth in it the blessed company of the Holy Apostles who hauing seene Christ his miracles and learned from his mouth the Doctrine of Faith deliuered vnto vs the Evangelicall Scriptures And againe the same ◠Driedo saith that the authority of the Scripture is greater then the authoritie of the Church that now is in the world in it selfe considered But if wee speake of the vniversal Church including all Faithfull ones that are and haue beene the authority of the Church is in a sort greater then the Scripture and in a sort equall For explication whereof he addeth that as touching things that cannot bee seené nor knowne by vs we beleeue the sayings writings of men not as if they had in them in themselues considered a sufficient force to moue vs to beleeue but because by some reasons we are perswaded of them who deliuer such things vnto vs thinke them worthie to be beleeued So S. Augustine might rightly say hee would not beleeue the bookes of the Gospel if the authority of the Church did not moue him vnderstanding the vniuersal Church of which he speaketh against Manicheus which including the Apostles hath had in it an orderly course of succession of Bishops till our time For the faithfulnes trueth credit of this Church was more evident then the Trueth of the books of the New Testament which are therefore receiued as sacred true because written by those Apostles to whō Christ so many waies gaue testimony both by word and worke and the Scriptures are to be proued by the authority of that Church which included the Apostles but in the Church that now is or that includeth only such as are now liuing God doth not so manifest himselfe as hee formerly did so that this Church must demōstrat herself to be Orthodox by prouing her faith out of the Scripture With Driedo Ockam cōcurreth his words are these sometimes the name of the Church cōprehendeth not only the whole cōgregation of Catholiques liuing but the Faithful departed also in this sense blessed Augustine vseth the name of the Church in his book against the Manichees cited in the Decrees 2. dist c. palà m where the Catholique Church importeth the Bishops that haue succeeded one another frō the Apostles times the people subiect to thē And in the same sense Augustine vseth the name of the Church when he saith he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him for this Church comprehendeth in it the Writers of the bookes of the Gospell and all the Apostles so that from the authoritie of Augustine rightly vnderstood it cannot be inferred that the Pope the maker of the Canons is rather more to be beleeued then the Gospel yet it may be granted that wee must more rather beleeue the Church which hath beene from the times of the Prophets Apostles till now then the Gospel not for that men may any way doubt of the Gospell but because the whole is greater then the part So that the Church which is of greater authoritie then the Gospel is that whereof the Writer of the Gospel is a part Neither is it strange that the whole should bee of more authority then the parts These are the words of Ockam in the place cited by me Wherfore let the Reader judge whether that I cite out of Ockam be impertinent as the Treatiser saith or not To Durandus Gerson Driedo Ockam we may adde Waldensis who fully agrees with thē shewing at large that it pertayned to the Church onely in her first best and primitiue state age to deliuer a perfect direction touching the Canon of the Scripture so that shee hath no power or authority now to adde any more bookes to the Canon already receiued as out of her owne immediate knowledge But it sufficeth to the magnifying of her authority in her present estate that euen now no other bookes may bee receiued but such only as in her first and best estate shee proposed Farther adding that the saying of Augustine that hee would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him is to bee vnderstood of the Church including the primitiue Fathers and Pastors the Apostles Scholers By this which hath bin sayd it is euident as I thinke that the former of those two constructions which I make of Augustines words hath bin approued by far better men then this Treatiser And that therefore he sheweth himself more bold then wise when he pronounceth it to be frivolous And surely if we consider well the discourse of S. Augustine I thinke it may be proued vnanswerably out of the circumstances of the fame that hee speaketh not precisely of the present Church For it is that authority of the catholicke church hee vrgeth that was begun by miracles nourished by hope increased by charity confirmed strengthned by long continuance And of that Church he speaketh wherin there had bin a succession of Bishops from Peter till that present time So that he must needs meane the Church including not onely such faythfull ones as were then liuing when hee wrote but all that either then were or had bin from the Apostles times Wherefore let vs passe to the other construction of Augustines words which is that the authority of the present church was the ground reason of an acquisit fayth an introduction leading him to a more sure stay but not the reason or ground of that faith whereby principally he did beleeue This constructiō the Treatiser sayth cannot stand because Aug saith if the authority he speaketh of be weakned hee will beleeue no longer Whence it seemeth to be consequent that it was the cause of all thē perswasion of fayth that he had then when he wrote not only of an acquisit fayth preparing fitting him to a stronger more excellent farther degree or kind of faith For the clearing of this poynt we must note that there are 3. sorts of such mē as beleeue for there are some that beleeue out of piety onely not discerning by reason whether the things they beleeue be to be beleeued as true or not the 2d. haue a light of diuine reason shining in them causing an approbation of that they beleeue the 3d. sort hauing a pure heart conscience begin already inwardly to taste that which hereafter
it Thirdly whatsoeuer the most famous in euery age haue constantly delivered as matter of faith receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the gain-sayers were in their beginnings noted for singularity nouelty and diuision and in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie which is as much as any Papist doth say And then insteed of shewing that I attribute not soe much to the Fathers as I should do or as Papists doe hee turneth himselfe to shew that such consent of Fathers as I speake of is no sure direction for the finding out of the trueth Soe ouer-throwing all that which his owne Diuines haue deliuered touching this point But yet that he may seeme to say something to the purpose he goeth about to proue that I bereaue the Fathers almost of all authority First in that I reiect their testimonies touching all other matters but onely certaine principall and substantiall points Secondly in that I require such a generall consent as can hardly be found touching such principall points Thirdly in that I make the whole Church subiect to error For answere vnto these Allegations I say The first is a shamelesse vntruth For I do not limitte or restraine the consent of the Fathers to certaine principall or substantiall points as hee mis-reporteth Mee but make the same to bee a direction in all thinges that may be cleerely deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly trueth answerably to that of Vincentius Lyrinensis that the consent of holy Fathers is with great studie and care to be sought out and followed by vs not in all petite questions that may bee moued concerning the Diuine law but onely or at the least specially in thinges pertaining to the rule of Faith with whom Pererius agreeth To the second I say that I require no other consent of Fathers then Vincentius Lyrinensis doth who will haue vs onely to followe that doctrine of the Fathers as certaine which all with one consent haue holden written and taught that haue written of such thinges Neither doth this worthy Treatiser admitte any other consent then I require for in this same chapter hee hath these wordes They will obiect that euery one of the Fathers was subiect to errour I confesse it but yet God according to his promise as I haue aboue declared was so to direct and gouerne them that they should not all erre This consent of the Fathers wee make to be a Rule of direction but yet not so generally and absolutely as if truth could not at any time be found out without it but so that wee must not neglect the knowledge of it nor goe against it when wee know it Neither is it necessary for the knowledge hereof as the Treatiser obiecteth to read ouer all the Fathers for the constant concurrence of the principall in all ages without noted contradiction doth suffice to assure vs of such consent The third allegation is partly vntrue and partly inconsequent it is vntrue in that hee sayth I thinke all the Pastours of the present Church may erre in matters of greatest momeÌ„t It is incoÌ„sequeÌ„t because though the whole preseÌ„t Church may erre in some things not pertaining to the rule of faith and Generall Councels in matters of greatest consequence yet it followeth not that the Fathers of all times and places may be thought to haue erred seeing this succession of Fathers is of greater authority then the company of Pastors that now are Neither is it consequent that if error may possesse the greatest part or almost all the present Church that it may bee Catholike also and so found euery where and euer The former Vincentius Lyrinensis yeeldeth to bee possible but disclaimeth the latter and therefore prescribeth that if error creepe into one part of the Church wee should looke vnto other that if it endeauour to staine and defile all we should looke vp higher vnto antiquity and that if some haue erred amongst the Auncient we should looke what all not noâ—…d for singularity did teach §. 2. WHerefore let vs proceed to that which followeth in the next place first hee reporteth what I haue written touching the ground of that perswasion which we haue of the trueth of thinges contayned in Scripture and then taketh exceptions to it In the report first he sayth that I make the principall cause of our beleefe of thinges contained in the bookes of holy Scripture to be the habit or light of faith Secondly that besides the habit or light of faith I require reasons or motiues by force whereof the spirit of God may settle the mind of a man in the perswasion of the trueth of things contained in Scripture that might otherwise be doubted of Thirdly that I make this motiue or reason in some things to bee the evidence of the things themselues in the light of grace in other not so evident vnto vs the authority of God himselfe whom we doe most certainely discerne to speake in the word of Faith preached vnto vs. These things I confesse are deliuered by Mee and rightly collected by him out of that which I haue written Yet doth hee wrong some other of the same iudgment with Me touching this point in that he saith vntruly they reject all supernaturall habits so goeth about to make a difference betweene them and Mee in this respect whereas in truth and in deede there is none But what is that the good man doth or can dislike in this my discourse First hee vndertaketh to proue that neither the evidence of the things contained in Scriptures in themselues presupposing the light of grace nor the authoritie of God himselfe discerned to speake can be sufficient motiues whereby the spirit of God may settle vs in the perswasioÌ„ of the truth of such things as are therein coÌ„tained Whereas yet I think if he were asked what the motiues are by force whereof the spirit doth effect this work if these be not he would not easily giue any answer but how doth he demoÌ„strate the insufficiencie of these motiues Surely very weakly insufficiently For first thus he reasoneth against them if these motiues were of sufficiencie euery one enlightned by the light of grace should by vertue of them bee perswaded of the Heauenly Trueth of all such things as are contained in the books of God which is a very bad inference For by the like kinde of reasoning it may bee prooued that the evidence of things in the light of nature is not the motiue or inducement that causeth our perswasion touching such things as are knowne in naturall knowledge because all that haue the light of naturall reason are not rightly perswaded concerning all such things which no wise man will allow So that as it is not to be imputed to the defect of evidence in the things that are to be knowne in naturall knowledge which should settle the perswasion that all men are not rightly perswaded of
explicatio Canonum Apostol i Cap. 21. k Canone â—…3 l Damian a Goes de morib Aethiop m Canone 33. n Tom. 1. Conciliorum o Locor Theolog lib. 5. cap. 4. p De Imaginib lib. 2. cap. 9. q Tom. 1. anno Domini 57. num 119. trib sequent r Tom. 2. anno 305. num 42. s Canone 4 5. t Canone 9. u Dist. 20. cap. de Libellis x Actione 4. y Inter Epistolas Decâ—…etales z Can. 2. 3. a Epist. 3. b Canone 3. c Canone 1. d Canone 9. e Canone 2. f Lib. 5. Annal. Boiorum pag. 564. g Naucler vol. 〈◊〉 generat 36. h De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 19. i Vbi suprà k Vbi suprà l Lib. 7. Math. Paris in Henrico 1. pag. 67. m Math. Paris in Henrico 1. pag. 68. n Constit. Othonis de vxoratis à Beneficiâ—… amouendis n De Sacr. Ecclminist Benef l. 4. c. 8. p Heb. 13. 4 q Socrat. l. 1. c. 8 〈◊〉 In 1 ad Tim. 3 s De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10 t Syricli ad Himericum c. 7. Innocen ad Victricium c. 9. in cp ad Exuperium c. 1 u Can. 1. x Can. 33. 18 y Can. 12. z Turonens 〈◊〉 Canone 2. a Canone 4. b Canone 〈◊〉 c Canone 10. d Concil Tolet. 1. Canone 4. e Canone 10. f Canone 15. g Canone 32. h Canone 29. i Canone 22. k Matisconens 2. Canone 16. l Annal. Boiorum lib. 5. pag. 565. 571. m Bernard de Conuersione ad Clericos c. 29. n Saluianus de Diuina prouideutia lib 5. citat ab Eâ—…encaeo lib. 1. de Continentia cap. 12. o Sigebertus in Câ—…onico Anni 1074. * Rubric 4â—… fol. 35 p AEn Sylv. de gest concil Bas. q Ep. 307. ad Ioan. Fiundt r In Pio 2. s Ennead 10 l. 6. pag. 731. t Fastorum l. 1. u Tit. Qui Clerici vel â—…oventes matrimonia contrahere possunt Citat ab Andr. Frisio l. 4. de Ecclesia x 1 Cor. 7. 25. y De Clericis conjugatis cap. cum olim z Citat ab Andreâ—… Frisio de Ecclesia lib. 4. a De Inuent Rerum lib. 5. cap. 4. b Citat a chemnitioâ—…n exami ne Trident. Concil c In Declamat de laâ—…dib Matrimonij d Vbi spurâ e In Consultatione de Sacerd. Caelibatu * Aeneas Syluius writing to Petrus Noxetus hath these words Adhuc caui ne me â—…acer ordo inuolueret Timeo enim continentiam c. Epist. 50. f Canone 10. g De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 18. h Vide suprâ i Vbi suprà * For farther proofe hereof see the first booke of Claudius Espencaeus de Continentiâ k Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 11. l De Monach l. 2. c. 34 m Aug. de bono Viduitatis n Epist 70 o De sancta Virginitate cap. 34. p Hieron Epist. 47. de suspecto Conâ—…bernio vitando q Heresi 61. r Erudit Theolog de Sacram. fidei lib. 2. part 11. c. 12. s Epist. 2. ad Victricium cap. 12. t In secundam secundae quaest 38. art 11. u De Monachis lib. 2. c. 34. x Secunda secundae quaest 88. art 〈◊〉 y In 4. sent dist 58. z In secunda secundae loc cit a Lib. 4. de eccl b Opus tom 1. tract 27. c Erudit theol de sacr fid l. 2. part â—…2 c. 4 d Acts 23. 〈◊〉 e Vbi supra f In Consult de Caelibatu Sacerdotum g De vita spirituali 〈◊〉 Eâ—…ud Theolog de Sacrament fidei lib. 2. part 11. ca. â—…2 i Vbi suprâ—… a 1. Tim. 3. 2. b Apologia 2. c In locum Timothei praedict in Titu d De Clericâ—… lib. 〈◊〉 cap. 23. e Annotations vpon that place f Theod. in loc Tim. praedict g In â—…und loc Hier. ad Oceâ—…m l Vbi supra m Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 11. n Epist. 22. cap. 1. 2. o De bono coniugali p Bibliothecae Sanctae lib. 6. annot 318. 325. q Lib. 10. Epist 82. r August de bono Coniugali s Bonauentura in 4. sent dist 25. quaest 3. t In duab Epist. Citat ab Erasmo in vita Hieronymi u Aug. confess lib. 4. cap. 2. lib. 6. cap. 15. * Hieron ad â—…num x De sacr eccl minist Ben. l. 4. c. 8. y Can. 3. 7. z Referente Ambrosio in 7. c. 1. ad Cor. in 3. 1. ad Tim. Aug. serm 243. de temp Isid. l. 2. de Divin officiis c. 19 a Can 1. b Apud Gratian part 2. caus 31. q. 1 c Can. 8. d In Triphone e In Apol. post f In loc Tim. g Rhemenses in locum Titi. h In hunc locum i Lib. 3. cap. 15. k Haeresi 79. l Haeresi 61. m De Bono viduitatis n Epist. 9. ad Episc Lucaniae o Vide Binnium tomo 2. Concil pag. 115. annot in Toletan 4. a 1. Cor. 9. 〈◊〉 b Ibid. vers 11. c Galat. 6. 6. d Galat. 4. 15. 〈◊〉 Philem. 29 f In Trialogo h Leuit. 27. 30. i Malach. 3. 10. k Numb 35. 2. c. l Numb 18. 12. m 1. Cor. 9. 13 n De Clerici s lib. 1. cap. 25. o Secunda secundae quaest 87. art 1. p Gen. 14. 20 q Gen. 18. 22. r De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25. s Ver. 21. t Orig. Hom. 1â—… in Numeros u In Malach. 3. x De tempore serm 219. y Aug. in Psal. 146. z In Math. 23 a Iuo part 2. c. â—…74 in 2. tom concil p. 954. apud Bin. b Ca. 17. c Can. 5. d Can. 14. e Canone 9. f Cap. 38. g Homil. 48. h Canone 13. i Linwood Provincial lib. 1. de consuetudine k De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25. l M. Carleton of Tithes m Comment in Concord Euang. cap. 84. n De Clericis li 1. cap. 25. o Eod. capite Dubio 4. p Gelas. cp 9. ad Episc. Lucaniae Vide Gratian. part 2. decreti caus 12. q. 2 * This word imported no base but an honorable allowance q Cypr cp 66. 34. r In indice in appendicem Concil Lateranens 3. de Pactionib 39. 40. s Part. 2. causa 16. qu. 42. 1. c. t Citatus part 2 causa 16. qu. 1. cap. 55. u Ibid. cap. 45. x Canone 47. y Habetur Tomo 3. Concil apud Binnium pag. 65â—… z Cap. 13. a Indice in appendicem b Cabilonens 2. Canone 19. c Hier. ad Heliodorum de laude vitae solitariae d De Sacris 〈◊〉 minist benef l. 7. c. 1. e In Iohan. 13. f Acts 4. 34. 35. g Decr. part 2. caus â—…2 q. 1. c. 15 * Ibid. c. 16 h Canon 15. i Canon 25. k Duaren de sacr eccl min. benef l 2. c. r l Ibid. m Devit a contemplativa l. 2. c. 9. n Vol 2. generat 11. pa. 505. o De potest Eccleâ—…ast considerat â—…2 p De sacris Eccles minist Benef. lib. 7. cap.
heart that they may discerne see the light of heauenly truth it is evident that in Augustines judgment the authority of the Church serueth but as an introduction that the thing which right beleeuers rest vpon is of a higher nature to wit the discerning of heauenly truth Wherefore finding himselfe too weak to giue any substantiall answer he betaketh himselfe to a most silly exception pretending that I haue not truly translated these words of Augustin praesto est authoritas quā partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit authoritie is ready at handwhich standeth vpō 2 things the one the greatnes of miracles done the other multitude Is this a false translatiō hath the authority of the church that force which it hath to moue mē to beleeue partly by reasō of miracles partly by reasō of multitude may it not be truly said that it standeth partly vpon the greatnes of miracles wrought partly vpō multitudes but valere doth not signifie to stād vpō it is true it doth not yet what boy in the Grāmer School will not laugh at him for thus childishly demeaning himself for what man of vnderstāding would cal men to cōster euery word precisely as it importeth by it selfe without consideration of the coherence it hath with other in the same sentence Besides this place of Aug. there is another cited by Me out of Hugo where he maketh 3 sorts of beleeuers whereof the first are such as are moued out of piety to beleeue which yet discerne not by reason whether the things they beleeue are to bee beleeued or not The second such who by reason approue that which by faith they beleeue The third sort are such as by reason of the purity of their heart conscience begin inwardly to taste what by faith they beleeue This place maketh strongly for the confirmation of that I say that the evidence of sundry things in the light of faith and grace is that formall reason which assureth vs of the truth of them For heere Hugo affirmeth that the best sort of beleeuers doe approue by reason or by taste invvardly discerne the things they beleeue to be true So that such approbation or spiritual taste is the reason of their perswasion of the truth of these things To this authoritie the Treatiser hath nothing to say but that it maketh nothing to the purpose and that if I meant to translate the vvords of Hugo I haue not exactly translated thē Whether the saying of Hugo be to the purpose or not I vvill leaue it to the iudgment of the Reader but as for his other exception I vvould haue him knovv and any sensible Reader vvill very easilie discerne that I meant not exactlie to translate his vvordes but at large to set downe the intent driftes of them which I haue most truely performed and therefore hee doth Me wrong when hee saith I deale corruptly vntruly In the third place hee endeauoureth to make his Reader beleeue there is a contrariety betweene Me and Luther Brentius in that Luther with whom Brentius seemeth to agree maketh the Scripture to be of it self a most certaine most easie and most manifest interpreter of it selfe prouing judging and enlightning all things I acknowledge many difficulties in it But if the Treatiser had beene pleased to haue taken thinges aright he could not but haue seene that Luther also acknowledgeth manifold difficulties in the Scripture yea hee doth see it and acknowledge it and yet will not see it and therefore that he bee not contrary to himselfe when he affirmeth that the Scriptures are easie interpret themselues and judge and enlighten all thinges he must bee vnderstood to meane that notwithstanding some difficulties they are not so obscure and hard as that Heretiques may wrest and abuse them at their pleasure and noe man bee able to conuince them out of the euidence of those sacred writings as the Romanistes imagine but that wee may bee so assured out of the Scripture it selfe and the nature of the thinges therein contained that wee haue the true meaning of it that wee neede not altogether to rest in the authority of Church which explication of Luthers words the Treatiser might haue found in the place cited by him if hee had beene pleased and so haue omitted the vrging of this imagined contradiction §. 3. The 4. thing that he proposeth which cōcerneth me is that I mentiō a rule of faith according to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted which if we neglect al other considerations are insufficient the like he alleageth out of the Harmony of confessions whence he inferreth that we admit another guide in interpreting the Scripture besides the letter of the Scripture But hee should knowe that the rule of faith mentioned by me deliuered to vs from hand to hand by the guides of Gods Church containeth nothing in it but that which is found in Scripture either expressely or by necessary implication so that though wee admitte another guide in the interpretation of of Scripture besides the bare letter yet wee admitte noe other but that forme of Christian doctrine which all right beleeuing Christians taught by the Apostles and Apostolique men haue euer receiued as contained in the Scripture and thence collected To this hee addeth an excellent obseruation which is that I seeme to confesse that Saint Paul sometimes by the workes of the Law vnderstandeth the workes of the Law of Moses in that I say that that Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched and that if they still persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the Law with Christ they were fallen from grace and Christ could profit them nothing But hee needed not thus to mince the matter for I willingly confesse that Paul not sometimes onely but euer vnderstandeth by the workes of the Lawe the workes of Moses Law Neither can there any thing be inferred thence for the Papists or against vs. For whereas by the workes of the Lawe some vnderstand those workes which the ceremoniall Lawe prescribed other such as the morall Lawe requireth and and a third sort such as by terror it worketh in men or causeth them to worke without any chaunge of the heart which cannot be wrought but only by grace the Papists think that whē the Apostle sayth we are iustified by faith without workes he excludeth not such works as the Morall Law requireth but such as the ceremoniall Law prescribeth and the morall Law worketh in men we teach that he excludeth all these So that a man repenting and beleeuing may bee saued though hauing neuer done any good worke he be taken out of this world before he can do any It is true indeede that good workes do necessarily follow iustification if time do serue and opportunity bee offered yet are they no meritorious causes of saluation But the Treatiser will proue out of that which I haue written that they are meritorious that