that should bee in the will but is not when it faileth to bring forth that action that in duty it is bound to doe But some man will say this must not be granted for if wee admitte not the distinction of that which is formall that which is materiall in the sin of commission the difformity the substance of the act that the one is positiue and the other priuatiue God hauing a true efficiency in respect of the substance of the act that which is positiue in it we must acknowledg that he hath a true efficiency in respect of the whole euen the difformity aswell as the substance consequently make him the author of sin They who make this objection seeme to say some thing but indeed they say nothing for this distinction will not cleere the doubt they moue touching Gods efficiency working in the sinful actions of men Whensoeuer sayth Durandus two things are inseperably ioyned together whosoeuer knowing them both that they are so inseperably ioyned together chooseth the one chooseth the other also because though happily he would not choose it absolutly as being evill yet in that it is ioyned to that which he doth will neither can be seperated frō it it is of necessity that he must will both As it appeareth in those voluntary actions that are mixt as when a man casteth into the sea those rich commodities which he hath dearly bought brought from a farre to saue his owne life which he would not doe but in such a case Hence it followeth that the act of hating God sinfull difformity being so inseperably ioyned together that the one cannot bee diuided from the other for a man cannot hate God but he must sin damnably if God doth will the one he doth will the other also This of Durand is confirmed by Suarez who saith he shall neuer satisfie any man that doubteth how God may be cleared from being author of sin if hee haue an efficiency in the sinfull actions of men that shall answere that all that is sayd touching Gods efficiency concurrence is true in respect of the euill motions actions of mens wills materially considered not formally in that they are evill sinfull For the one of these is consequent vpon another For a free and deliberate act of a created will about such an obiect with such circumstances cannot be produced but it must haue difformity annexed to it There are some operations or actions saith Cumel that are intrinsecally euill so that in them we cannot separate that which is materiall from that which is formall wherein the sinfulnes of sin consisteth as it appeareth in the hate of God in this act when a man shall say resolue I will do euill So that it implyeth a contradiction that God should effectually worke our will to bring forth such actions in respect of that which is materiall in them not in respect of that which is formall And this seemeth yet more impossible if wee admit their opinion who think that the formall nature being of the sin of commission consisteth in some thing that is positiue as in the manner of working freely so as to repugne to the rule of reason law of God So that it is cleare in the iudgment of these great diuines that if God haue a true reall efficiency in respect of the substance of these sinful actiōs he must in a sort produce the difformity or that which is formall in thē Wherefore for the clearing of this point we must obserue that there are 3 opiniōs touching Gods cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their effects The 1st that God hath no immediate influence but mediate only in respect of volūtary agēts And according to this opiniō it is casie to cleare God frō the imputatiō of being author of sin yet to acknowledg his cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their defectiue effects If the will of the creature saith Scotus were the totall and immediate cause of her action that God had no immediate efficiency but mediate only in respect thereof as some think it were easie according to that opinion to shew how God may bee freed from the imputation of being author of sin and yet to acknowledge his concurrence with second causes for the producing of their effects For whether we speake of that which is materiall or formall in sinne the will onely should be the totall cause of it and God should no way be a cause of it but mediatly in that hee caused and produced such a will that might at her pleasure doe what shee would Durandus seemeth to incline to this opinion supposing that 2d causes do bring forth their actions operations by of themselues that God no otherwise concurreth actiuely to the production of the same but in that he preserueth the 2d causes in that being power of working which at first he gaue them But they that are of sounder judgment resolue that as the light enlightneth the aire with the aire all other inferior things so god not only giueth being power of working to the 2d causes preserueth them in the same but together with them hath an immediate influence into the things that are to be effected by the God saith Caietan being the first cause worketh produceth the effects of all 2d causes immediatly tum immediatione virtutis tum immediatione suppositi that is not onely so as that the vertue power of God the first agent immediatly sheweth it self in the production of the effect but so also that he is an immediate agent between whom the effect produced no secondary agent intercedeth Yet are we not to conceiue that he is an immediate agent immediatione suppositi as he is immediatione virtutis for hee produceth immediatly euery effect of euery 2◠cause in respect of all that is found in any such effect immediatly immediatione virtutis that is so as that his vertue and power more immediatly effectually sheweth it self in the production of euery such effect then the power and vertue of the 2d cause but hee produceth euery effect of euery 2d cause immediatly immediatione suppositi that is as an immediate agent betweene whom and the effect no secondary agent intercedeth not in respect of all that is found in such an effect but of some things only as existence and the last perfection of actuall being For to giue being is proper to God as to make fire is proper to fire So that between God the supreme agent and being communicated to the effects of 2d causes there is nothing that commeth betweene that by force and power of it owne can produce any such effect So that God as an immediate agent bringeth forth such effects and all 2 causes in respect thereof are but instruments only But in respect of those things found in the same effects into which the 2d causes haue an influence by
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
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
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
or omission and permissiuely to suffer it for to enter and by a positiue decree resolued that auerting himself from the fountaine of all goodnesse and the rule of all righteousnesse hee should runne into innumerable dangerous euils and grieuous sinnes of commission But Bellarmine will say Calvine denieth that Gods determination decreeing what shall bee dependeth on this prescience and that his prescience presupposeth his purpose and decree For answere hereunto wee must remember that there is a double prescience simplicis intelligentiae and visionis The first is of all those things that are possible and which vpon any supposed condition may bee as was that prescience of God whereby hee foreknew that if in Tyrus and Sidon those things should be done which afterwards were done among the Iewes they would repent This doeth not presuppose the decree of God but extendeth to many things God doth not decree nor purpose to bee as it appeareth in the example proposed The other is of those things onely which hereafter shall bee and this presupposeth some acte of Gods will For seeing nothing can bee vnlesse some act of Gods will doe passe vpon it at least not to hinder the beeing of it nothing can bee thus foreseene as beeing hereafter for to bee vnlesse some decree of God doe passe vpon it Of this kinde of prescience Caluin speaketh and not of the other For that first kinde of prescience what the creature would doe if it were so created and left to it selfe as afterwards it was was before any decree of God or determination what hee would doe But that other to wit what hereafter shall be not so and therefore Caluin rightly affirmeth that Gods foresight of the entrance of sinne presupposed his decree that it should enter Thus I see not what can be disliked by our aduersaries in our doctrine thus deliuered nor what difference can be imagined betweene them and vs touching the entrance of sinne But sayth Bellarmine Caluine affirmeth that the end for which God purposed to make man was the manifestation of the seuerity of his justice and the riches of his mercie and that the consideration of this end was the first thing that was found in God when hee thought of creating man so that this purpose was before and without respect vnto the prescience of any thing that afterwards might or would be in man And that because there was not any thing wherein hee could shew either mercie or Iustice vnlesse sinne did enter therefore secondly hee purposed that sin should enter So that first hee purposed to punish before hee saw any cause and then purposed the entrance of sinne that there might be cause which is no lesse inexcusable from iniustice cruelty and tyranny than if he should purpose to punish and so doe without any cause at all Thus sayth hee it should seeme that the first originall and spring of sinne is from the will of God according to Calvines opinion For answere hereunto wee must note that Caluine doeth no where say that God did purpose the manifestation of his mercie and Iustice before all prescience but onely before that which is named praescientia visionis Secondly that Caluin doeth no where pronounce that simply absolutely the end wherfore God purposed to make man was the manifestatiō of the severity of his justice the riches of his mercie or that hee might saue some and condemne others But as I conceiue according to Caluines opinion foure things are implied in Gods purpose of creating man First what hee meant to bestow vpon him Secondly what he meant to deny vnto him Thirdly the foreknowledge what would fall out vpon the bestowing of such benefits onely and the denying of others namely Sin Apostasie Fourthly his purpose notwithstanding his foreknowledge to bestow vpon him onely such benefits of his rich and abundant goodnesse and no other So then the end of those benefits which God purposed in such sort and in such degree and measure to bestow vpon man in his creation was not the manifestation of his mercie and Iustice neither did he purpose the entrance of sinne originally out of his owne liking that he might haue matter of punishment as Bellarmine injuriously chargeth Calvine to affirme But the end of his purpose of bestowing such benefites onely and no other notwithstanding his fore-knowledge what would fall out if so hee did was that he might shew his mercie and Iustice in sauing and condemning whom he would And against this Bellarmine neither doeth nor can except Thus hauing cleared those doubts that occurre in the doctrine of the Divines of the reformed Churches touching the entrance of sinne Let vs come to the second part and see what it is that they attribute vnto God when sin is entred The actions they attribute to God when sinne is entred are three Limitation direction and condigne punishing of one sinne with another For the first that God setteth bounds to wicked men in their wickednesse not onely in respect of the effect and event but also of the very inward purpose affections and designes and at his pleasure stoppeth them when hee will I thinke none of our adversaries will make any question For the diuell himselfe was limited how farre he should proceede in afflicting Iob and could not enter into an herde of swine without leaue obtained For though the will to doe euill be not of God yet the power is for there is no power that is not of God Touching the second which is direction though God bee not the Authour and causer of euill nor may be thought without impiety to put it into men yet when he findeth it in them hee directeth it not onely in respect of the kind wherein the persons against whom and the time when it shall breake forth But also in respect of the end and effect in which sense it is that Bellarmine and Stapleton both say that though GOD incline not simply and absolutely vnto euill yet hee inclineth and bendeth the willes of them that bee wicked that they shall be wicked in this sort rather than that at this time than at some other against such men rather than against those they more maligne and desire to despite if they were left to themselues This God doth in that he openeth the passage and maketh way for wickednesse to come foorth and shew it selfe in what sort he pleaseth and stoppeth all other Euen as a man being in a high Tower and desiring to cast himselfe downe there being many passages thorough which he might cast himselfe out if a man should stoppe all but one though hee might not justly bee saide to bee the cause of the fall of him that should thus cast away himselfe yet might hee rightly bee said to bee the cause why he fell rather this way and out of this window or passage then any other So doth God order dispose and direct the wickednesse of men to breake out in what sort at
that the Church of God taught as wee do that concupiscence in it owne nature is a sinne making guilty of grieuous punishment that when it is weakned and ceaseth to be so potent as formerly it was yet it ceaseth not to be of the same kind that formerly it was as Gregorius Ariminensis sheweth and therefore seeing it was before a sin it is still in some sort a sin that God hating it before he hateth it still we also are to hate it by all meanes to seeke to weaken and destroy it Cassander sayth that a very worthy and famous diuine affirmeth that it is sin in the regenerate though it be not imputed And he addeth that the difference between them that say it is sin and them that say it was sin properly made guilty of condemnation but now being weake ned the guilt taken away it is not properly sinne is a meere logomachia And therefore in the conference at Wormes the colloquutors agreed touching this point the forme of their agreement is this We confesse with vnanimous consent that all that come of Adam according to the ordinary course are borne in originall sinne and vnder the wrath of God Originall sinne is the priuation and want of originall righteousnes ioyned with concupiscence We agree also that the guilt of originall sinne is remitted in baptisme together with all other sinnes by the merit of Christs passion But we thinke that concupiscence a vice or fault of nature an infirmity and disease remaineth taught soe to thinke not only by the apostolicall scriptures but by experience also And touching this disease wee agree that that which is materiall in originall sinne remaineth in the regenerate that which is formall being taken away by baptisme And wee call that the materiall part of originall sinne that tooke beginning from sin that inclineth vnto sinne and repugneth against the law of God as Paul also calleth it and in this sort it is briefely sayd in the Schooles that the materiall part of originall sinne remaineth in the baptized and that the formall is taken away By the formall part of sinne they vnderstand the priuation or want of those diuine graces that should cause the knowledge loue and feare of God the inordinate inclination to loue ourselues and finite things so as not to regard God and the consequent guilt of condemnation accompanying such priuation and inordinate inclination by the materiall part they vnderstand not concupiscence as it is in strength captiuating all to the sinister loue of our selues and things finite but as weakened it still solliciteth to evill but so that easily it may be resisted if wee make right vse of the grace that God hath giuen vs this remainder of concupiscence is euill inclineth to euill God hateth it and we must hate it c. And therefore it is most absurd that the councell of Trent hath that God hateth nothing in the regenerate and the reason they giue is very weake that therefore he hateth nothing in them because there is no condemnation vnto them for many things may be disliked in them that shall not be condemned It remaineth that wee speake concerning first motions Bonauentura describeth first motions to be the motions of sensuality according to the impulsion of concupiscence impetuously tending to the fruition of a delectable creature First motions saith hee are either primò primi or secundò primi primò primi sunt naturales secundò primi sunt sensualitatis primò primi sequuntur naturalium qualitatum actionem secundò primi imaginationem these first motions hee pronounceth to be sinne for three causes First because they moue to that which they should not and to that which is vnlawfull Secondly because they are in a sort voluntary though not in themselues yet in that they are not hindred by the will or in respect of precedent apprehension Thirdly they are sinne in respect of delight annexed for when the soule is ioyned by delight to the creature it is darkned and made worse as when it is ioyned to God it is inlightened and bettered These sayth he are veniall sinnes because the will hath not a compleate dominion ouer these motions of sensuality as ouer those acts that proceed from the command of the wil but yet it might haue hindered them therefore they are veniall sins so they continue so long as they stay proceed not so farre as to haue the willes consent but if they proceede so farre as that the will consenteth to take delight therein though not to proceede to action it is a mortall sinne This is the opinion of Bonauenture a cardinall and a canonized Saint and with him agree sundry others soe that in this point the Church formerly taught as wee do now CHAP. 9. Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne BEllarmine saith that the Romanists with one consent do teach that some sinnes in their owne nature no respect had to predestination or reprobation to the state of men regenerate or not regenerate are mortall other veniall and that the former make men vnworthy of the fauour of God and guilty of eternall condemnation the other onely subiect them to temporall punishments and fatherly chastisements But wee knowe the Church of God beleeued otherwise For first Gerson proueth that euery offence against God may iustly be punished by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgment with eternall death yea with vtter annihilation because there is no punishment so euill and so much to be auoyded as the least sinne that may be imagined So that a man should rather choose eternall death yea vtter annihilation then committe the least offence in the world Secondly he proueth the same because all diuines do agree that wheresoeuer there is eternity of sinne there must be eternity of punishment now where there is no remission there sinne must of necessity remaine for euer for though sinne soone cease in respect of the act yet euery sinne remaineth after the act is past in respect of the staine and guilt till it be remitted whence it followeth that euery sinne in it owne nature and without grace to remitte it remaineth eternally and deserueth eternity of punishment and is mortall Wee say therefore that some sinnes are mortall and some veniall not because some deserue eternity of punishment and others do not for all deserue eternity of punishment and shall eternally be punished if they remaine without grace and vnremitted eternally but because some sins either in respect of the matter wherein men do offend or ex imperfectione actus in that they are not committed with full consent exclude not grace the roote of remission and pardon out of the soule of him that committeth them whereas other either in respect of the matter wherein they are conuersant or the full consent wherewith they are committed cannot stand with grace Soe that contrary to Bellarmines position no sin is veniall in it owne nature without respect had to the
beleeued by the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died But they of the Church of Rome at this day dislike this opinion for they suppose that though our will be not free from sinne so as collectiuely to decline each sinne and that though in the state wherein presently we are we cannot but sinne at one time or other in one thing or other yet we may decline each particular sinne divisiuely and doe the true workes of morall vertue Much contending there is hath beene touching freewill wherefore for the clearing of this point two things are to be noted 1 from what and 2dly wherein this liberty may be thought to be The things from which the will may be thought to bee free are fiue 1 The authority of a superiour commander and the duty of obedience 2ly The inspection care gouernment direction and ordering of a superiour 3ly Necessity that either from some externe cause enforcing or from nature inwardly determining and absolutely mouing one way 4ly Sinne the dominion of it 5ly Misery Of these fiue kindes of liberty the 2 first agree only to God so that in the highest degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is freedome of will is proper to God only and in this sense Calvin and Luther rightly deny that the will of any creature is or euer was free The third kind of libertie is opposite not only to coaction but naturall necessitie also In opposition to coaction the vnderstanding is free for howsoeuer a man may be forced to thinke beleeue contrary to his inclination that is such things as he would not haue to be true yet the vnderstanding cannot assent to any thing contrary to her owne inclination for the vnderstanding is inclined to thinke so of things as they are as they may be made to appeare vnto her to be whether pleasing to nature or not but the vnderstanding is not free from necessitie But the will in her action is free not onely in opposition to coaction but to naturall necessity also Naturall necessitie consisteth herein that when all things required to inable an agent to produce the proper effect thereof are present it hath no power not to bring forth such effect but is put into action by them So the fire hauing fit fuell in due sort put vnto it being blowed vpon cannot but burne The libertie of the will therefore appeareth herein that though all those things be present that are pre-required to inable it to bring forth the proper action of it yet it hath power not to bring it forth and it is still indifferent indeterminate till it determine and incline it selfe God indeed worketh the will to determine it selfe neither isit possible that hee should so worke it and it should not determine it self accordingly yet doth not Gods working vpon the will take from it the power of dissenting and doing the contrary but so inclineth it that hauing libertie to doe otherwise yet shee will actually determine so Here Luther and Calvin are charged with the denyall of this libertie of the will many strange absurdities are attributed to them for first Luther is said to haue affirmed that the will of man is meerely passiue that it produceth not any act but receiueth into it such acts as God alone without any concurrence of it worketh produceth in it But all this is nothing but a meere calumniation for Luther knoweth right well that men produce such actions as are externally good euill willing out of choice confesseth that we doe the good things that God commandeth vs when we are made partakers of his grace but that God worketh vs to doe them Wee beleeue we feare we loue but it is God that worketh vs to beleeue feare loue Certum est nos facere cùm facimus saith Saint Augustine seà Deus facit ut faciamus It is most certain that we doe those things we are said to doe but it is God that maketh vs to doe them not only by perswading inviting inwardly drawing vs by morall inducements but by a true reall efficiencie So that according to Luthers opinion we moue not but as moued nor are actiue but as hauing first bin passiue nor turne our selues but as first wrought vpon and made to turne yet doe wee truely moue our selues and truely freely and cheerefully choose that which is good and turne ou rselues from that which is euill to that which is good Diuines say that facere vt velimus and facere ipsum velle differ very much that is they say it is one thing to make vs to will and another to produce the acte of willing God worketh both but in a different sorte the first sine nobis facientibus nos velle Secundum autem operatur nobiscum simul tempore consentientibus cooperantibus that is God worketh the first of these alone we make not our selues to will the second hee produceth together with vs willing that hee would haue vs and producing that wee doe So that in the former consideration wee are meerely passiue in the latter actiue which neither Luther nor any of his followers ever denyed Calvine they say confesseth that the will concurreth actiuely to the acte which God produceth but without any freedome at all vnlesse wee speake of that freedome which is from coaction It is true indeede that Calvine denyeth vs to bee free from necessity but hee speaketh of the necessity of sinning but hee neuer denyeth vs to bee free from naturall necessitie that is from being put into action so as naturall agents are that is without all choyce and liking ofthat wee incline to doe It is evident that Calvine confesseth the will of man to bee free to doe euill and he denyeth it not to bee free to performe acts civilly good or morally good ex genere obiecto yea hee thinketh that the will freely and out of choyce willeth whatsoeuer it willeth as in the state of auersion it freely willeth that it should not so when God conuerteth it hee turneth the course of the actions and desire of it and maketh it freely and out of choyce to turne to good That men haue lost the freedome from sinne and put themselues into a necessity of sinning Saint Augustine sheweth Libero arbitrio male vtens homo se perdidit ipsum sicut enim qui se occidit vtique vivendo se occidit sed se occidendo non vivit nec seipsum potest resuscitare cum occiderit ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio victore peccato amissum est liberum arbitrium à quo enim quis devictus est huic servus addictus est Quae sententia cum vera sit qualis quaeso potest servi addicti esse libertas nisi quando eum peccare delectat Liberaliter enim seruit qui sui domini voluntatem libenter facit Ac per hoc ad peccandum liber est qui peccati servus est
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
Simeon and Leui Priest-hood and knight-hood Bishoply power and that which is Princely must rise vp together for the rescuing of Dinah their sister out of the hands of him that seeketh to dishonour her Vi charitatis etsi non authoritatis that is By force of charity though not of authority So that according to his opinion the chiefe Ministers of the Church inuest the Princes of the world with their royall authority according to the saying of Hugo but giue them not their authority they may iudge of the actions of Princes but they may not praeiudicare they may not preiudice Princes They may in the time of neede come to the succour and in the time of danger reach forth the helping hand to the ciuill state shaken by the negligence or malice of ciuill princes but it must bee by way of charity not of authority as likewise the ciuill state may and ought to bee assistant to the Ecclesiasticall in like danger defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall ministers The next argument that our Aduersaries bring is taken from a comparison between the soule and body expressing the difference betweene the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state found as they say in Gregory Nazianzen But that we may the better vnderstand the force of this argument we must obserue that in the comparison which they bring they make the Ecclesiasticall state and spirituall power like the spirit and diuine faculties thereof and the ciuill state like the flesh with the senses and sensitiue appetite thereof And as in Angels there is spirit without flesh in bruit beasts flesh and sense without spirit and in man both these conjoyned so they will haue vs graunt that there is sometimes Ecclesiasticall power without ciuill as in the Apostles times and longe after sometimes ciuill without Ecclesiasticall as among the heathen and sometimes these two conjoyned together And as when the spirit and flesh meete in one the spirit hath the command and though it suffer the flesh to do all those things which it desireth vnlesse they be contrary to the intendments designes ends of it yet when it findeth them to be contrary it may and doth command the fleshly part to surcease from her owne actions yea it maketh it to fast watch and do and suffer many grieuous and afflictiue things euen to the weakning of it selfe Soe in like manner they would inferre that the Ecclesiasticall state being like to the spirit and soule and the ciuill to the body of flesh the Church hath power to restraine and bridle ciuill Princes if they hinder the spirituall good thereof not onely by censures Ecclesiasticall but outward inforcement also This is the great and grand argument our Aduersaries bring to proue that Popes may depose Princes wherein first wee may obserue their folly in that they bring similitudes which serue only for illustration and not for probation for the maine confirmation of one of the principall points of their faith which whosoeuer denyeth sinneth in as high a degree as Marcellinus that sacrificed vnto Idols and Peter that denied his maister Secondly we see how much Princes are beholding vnto them that compare them to bruit beasts and at the best to the brutish part that is in men common to them with bruit beastes If they say Nazianzen so compareth them they are like themselues and speake vntruly for he compareth not Princes Priestes to spirit and flesh but going about to shew the difference of the objectes of their power maketh the spirit to be the obiect of the one of thē the flesh of the other Not as if Princes were to take no care of the welfare of the soules of their subjects as well as of their bodies but because the immediate procuring of the soules good is by preaching ministration of the Sacraments Discipline which the Prince is to procure and to see wel performed but not to administer these things himselfe as also because the coactiue power the Prince hath extendeth onely to the body and not to the soule as the Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing doth Thirdly we may obserue that if this similitude should proue any thing it would proue that the ciuill state among Christians hath no power to do any act whatsoeuer but by the command or permission of the Ecclesiasticall For so it is between the spirit the body sensitiue faculties that shew themselues in it The Philosophers note that there is a double regiment in man the one politicall or ciuill the other despoticall the one like the authority of Princes ouer their subjects that are freemen the other like the authority of Lords ouer their bondmen and slaues The former is of reason in respect of sensitiue appetite which by perswasion it may induce to surcease to desire that which it discerneth to be hurtfull but cannot force it so to doe the other of reason and the will in respect of the loco-motiue facultie and this absolute so that if reason cannot winne a desisting from desire in the inferiour powers that shew themselues in the body yet the will may command the loco-motiue faculty either cause al outward action to cease how earnestly soeuer sensitiue desire carry vnto it or to bee performed how much soeuer it resist against it as it may commaund and force the drinking of a bitter potion which the appetite cannot be wonne vnto and the rejecting putting from vs those things that are most desired Neither can the appetite and sensitiue faculties performe any of their actions without the consent of the will reason For if the will commaund the eyes are closed vp and see nothing the eares are stopped and heare nothing how much soeuer the appetite desire to see and heare Neither onely haue the soules higher powers this commaund ouer the inferiour faculties in respect of things that may further and hinder their own good and perfection as they may command to watch or fast for the prevention and mortification of sin but they may also at their pleasure hinder the whole course of the actions of the outward man withdraw all needfull things from the body and depriue it euen of life it selfe though there be no cause at all so to doe So that if the comparison of the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state to the soule and body do hold from thence may it be inferred that the Church hath power to commaund in all things pertaining to the common-wealth and that the ciuill magistrates haue none at all For the lower faculties neither haue nor ought to haue any commaund further then they are permitted by the superiour neither can they doe any thing contrary to the liking of the superiour though neuer so just reasonable And so we see how silly a thing it is to reason from these similitudes and that they that so do build vpon the sands so that all the frame of their building commeth to the ground The third reason brought by our Adversaries is this
saued though the assertions of some men were damnable Now it is cleane contrary touching the present state of the Romish Church For the generall maine doctrine agreed vpon in the Councel of Trent in sort as it is most commonly conceiued is damnable but there are no doubt some of a better spirit and haue in themselues particularly a better conceit of things than generally is holden Formerly the Church of Rome was the true Church but had in it an hereticall faction now the Church it selfe is hereticall some certaine onely are found in it in such degree of Orthodoxie as that we may well hope of their saluation Thus then this great obiection taken from our owne confession is easily answered CHAP. 48. Of Miracles confirming the Romane faith THe next note of the Church is Gods owne testimony which hee giueth of the trueth sanctity of the faith and profession it holdeth This doubtlesse is the most absolute excellent note of all other For that must needes bee the true Church which holdeth the true faith and profession and that the true profession which God that neither himselfe can be deceiued nor deceiue others doeth witnesse testifie to be so For who dare make any doubt whether that bee the true religion or that the true Church which the God of trueth witnesseth to be so Let vs see therefore how God doth testifie concerning the trueth of religion and the happy condition of them that professe it Surely this testification is of two sorts the one by the inward operation of his inlightening spirit satisfying our vnderstandings in those things which by natures light we could not discerne and filling our hearts with ioy and gladnesse such and so great as nothing within natures compasse can yeeld For by this so great happie and heauenly an alteration which wee finde in our selues vpon and together with this receiuing of this doctrine which the spirit of trueth doth teach vs hee doth most clearely witnesse vnto vs that it is heauenly indeede and such as we could not haue attained vnto but by diuine reuelation The other kind of testification is when being desired by them that teach and learne this doctrine to giue some outward testimonie that it is true he doth some such thing for the good of them that receiue it or hurt of such as refuse it as none but God can doe But because partly by reason of the manifold illusions wherewith Sathan can and often doth abuse men making it seem vnto them that those things are done which are not and partly because we doe not exactly know what may be done by the force of naturall causes we cannot infallibly know concerning any outward thing performed before our eyes that it is in deede immediately and miraculously wrought by Gods owne most sacred hands This kinde of testification is not matchable with the other Nay wee cannot be infallibly assured of any thing done that it is Gods owne worke and in deede a miracle vnlesse this assurance grow out of the former testification For we may justly feare some fraud till finding by the inward testimony of Gods spirit the trueth of that for proofe whereof this strange thing is done we are assured it is the immediate and peculiar worke of God This assurance the quality of the things done and the difference betweene the workes of Sathan which onely cause admiration and wonder and the miraculous workes of God that are full of gracious goodnes winning the hearts of such as see them will greatly strengthen To what purpose then will some man say serued all the miracles that were done by Christ and his blessed Apostles This doubt is easily cleared for whereas the things then taught were new strange and incredible to naturall men they would not at all haue listned vnto them made inquiry after them or search into them had not the strange workes that followed the publishers of them made them thinke the things credible that were accompanied with so strange attendants Now while they gaue heed to the things that were spoken the Word was mighty in operation and entred into them in such sort that they discerned it was Gods owne word and that the way of saluation which by it they were directed vnto Thus then we see that miracles are no sure notes of the trueth of Religion nor certaine marke to know the Church by vnlesse they bee strengthened by some other meanes not for that a miracle knowne to bee so is insufficient to testifie of the trueth of God but because it is not possible infallibly to know that the things which seeme vnto vs to be miracles be so in deede vnlesse being assured of the trueth of that for confirmation whereof they are wrought wee thereby bee perswaded they are of God All that hath beene hitherto said is confessed to be true by the best learned Divines of the Romane Church Yea Cardinall Caietan proceedeth so farre that he pronounceth it cannot bee certainely knowne that those miracles are true miracles which the Church admitteth and approueth in the canonizing of Saints seeing the trueth of them dependeth on mens report that may deceiue and be deceiued Thus hauing declared what the vse of miracles is and how farre they giue testimony of the trueth let vs see what our adversaries conclude from hence for themselues or against vs. They haue miracles for confirmation of their faith and Religion and we haue none therefore they hold the true faith and we are in errour For answere hereunto first we say that the trueth of Religion cannot infallibly and certainely be found out by miracles especially in these last times because as Gerson noteth in his booke De distinctione verarum falsarum visionum in this old age of the world in this last houre and time so neere Antichrist his revelation it is not to bee marvailed at if the world like a doating olde man bee abused by many illusions and fantasies most like to dreames Secondly wee say that howsoeuer it may bee some miracles were done by such good men as liued in the corrupt state of the Church in the dayes of our Fathers yet that is no proofe of those errours which the Romanists maintaine against vs. For wee peremptorily deny that euer any miracle was done by any in times past or in our times to confirme any of the things controuersed betweene them and vs. What credit is to be giuen to the reportes of their miracles they may easily conceiue in that in all the differences they haue had amongst themselues either in matters of opinion or of faction they haue had contrary visions reuelations and miracles to confirme the perswasion of either side as appeared in the differences touching Maries conception and in the times of the Anti-Popes Wherevpon Caietane writing to Pope Leo about the controuersie of Maries conception wisheth him not to suffer his iudgement to be swayed by shew of miracles and giueth many good reasons of the
that in the one men are sure and know they neither are nor can be deceiued in the other they knowe and are certaine that they are not not that they cannot bee deceiued But this difference cannot staud for if a man know and bee certaine that hee is not deceiued he must certainly know that no such thing doth now fall out as doth fall out when men are deceiued in apprehensions of this kind and consequently that now and things so standing he cannot be deceiued For example a man dreaming thinketh he is waking and vndoubtedly perswadeth himselfe hee seeth or doth something wherein he is deceiued because it is but representation in a dreame but he that is waking knoweth that he waketh that hee seeth that which he thinketh he seeth that in this perswasion hee is not nor cannot be deceiued things so standing Amongst the Articles agreed vpon in the conference at Ratisbon 1541 this is one Docendum est ut qui vere poenitent semper fide certissimâ statuant se propter Mediatorem Christum Deo placere quia Christus est propitiator Pontifex interpellator pro nobis quem pater donavit nobis omnia bona cum illo Quoniam autem perfecta rectitudo in hac imbecillitate non est suntque multae infirmae pavidae conscientiae quae cum gravi saepe dubitatione luctantur nemo est à gratiâ Christi propter ejusmodi infirmitatem excludendus sed convenit tales diligenter adhortari ut ijs dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent juxta illud Adauge nobis Domine fidem So that touching this point it is evident that the Church of God euer taught that which we now teach Neither haue wee departed from the doctrine of the Church in that wee teach that faith onely justifieth For many of the ancient haue vsed this forme of words as Origen ad Rom. 3. Dicit Apostolus sufficere solius fidei justificationem ita ut credens quis tantummodo justificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum Hilar. can 8. in Math. Fides sola justificat Basil. homil de humilitate Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum solâ autem fide in Christum justificatum Ambros. ad Rom. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei Chrysost. Homil. de fide lege naturae Eum qui operatur opera iustitiae sine fide non potes probare vivum esse fidem absque operibus possum monstrare vixisse regnum coelorum assecutam nullus sine fide vitam habuit latro autem credidit tantum iustificatus est Aug. l. 1. contra 2 Epistolas Pelag. c. 21. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquòs praedices justos non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris 83. q. q. 76. Si quis cùm crediderit mox de hâc vita decesserit iustificatio fidei manet cum illo nec praecedentibus bonis operibus quia non merito ad illam sed gratiâ pervenit nec consequentibus quia in hac vita esse non sinitur Theophylact. ad Galat. 3. Nunc planè ostendit Apostolus fidem vel solam iustificandi habere in se virtutem Bern. ser. 22 in Cantic Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit sitit iustitiam credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebitad te Et ep 77. citans illud Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit Cautè inquit non repetiit qui vero baptizatus non fuerit condēnabitur sed tantū qui vero non crediderit innuens nimirum solam fidem interdum sufficere ad salutem sine illâ sufficere nihil Sometimes by these phrases of speech they exclude all that may bee be without supernaturall knowledge all that may be without a true profession Sometimes the necessity of good workes in act or externall good workes 3. The power of nature without illumination and grace 4. The power of the Law 5. The sufficiency of any thing found in vs to make vs stand in judgement to abide the tryall and not to feare condemnation And in this sense faith onely is said to justifie that is the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ apprehended by faith and then the meaning of their speech is that onely the perswasion and assured trust that they haue to bee accepted of God for Christs sake is that that maketh them stand in judgement without feare of condemnation And in this sense all the Diuines formerly alleadged for proofe of the insufficiency of all our inherent righteousnesse and the trust which wee should haue in the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ doe teach as wee doe that faith onely iustifieth For neither they nor we exclude from the worke of Iustification the action of God as the supreme and highest cause of our iustification for it is he that remitteth sinne and receiueth vs to grace nor the merit of Christ as that for which God inclineth to shew mercy to vs and to respect vs nor the remission of sinnes gratious acceptation and grant of the gift of righteousnes as that by which we are formally justified nor those works of prenenting grace whereby out of the generall apprehension of faith God worketh in vs dislike of our former condition desire to be reconciled to God to haue remission of that is past grace hereafter to decline the like euils to do contrary good things For by these wee are prepared disposed and fitted for iustification without these none are iustified And in this sense to imply a necessity of these to be found in us sometimes the fathers others say that we are not justified by faith only And we all agree that it is not our conuersion to God nor the change we find in our selues that can any way make us stād in judgment without feare and looke for any good from God otherwise then in that we find our selues so disposed and fitted as is necessary for justification whence we assure our selues God will in mercy accept us for Christs sake CHAP. 12. Of Merit MErit as Cardinall Contarenus rightly noteth if we speake properly importeth an action or actions quibus actionibus aut earum autori ab altero iusticia postulante debeatur praemiū No man can merit any thing of God First because we are his seruants owe much more seruice vnto him thē bond-slaues that are bought for money owe vnto their masters though no reward were promised we were bound to obey his commands Yet if we looke on the bounty of God he deales with us being bond-men as with hired seruants recōpencing that with a reward which we stood bound in duty to
themselues to another not of falsehood but of superfluitie the first instance whereof that they giue is the sixt of Mathew where the Lords prayer in the vulgar Latine endeth with that petition deliuer vs from euill leauing out for thine is the Kingdome the power and the glory which they suppose to bee superfluously added in the Greeke But these men should know that though it were granted that these words were superfluous yet nothing is thereby derogated from the Greeke seeing some Greeke Copies and they very auncient omit them as Beza sheweth Their next instance is Rom. 11. where the vulgar Latine hath If of grace not of workes otherwise grace should be no more grace to which is added by way of Antithesis and opposition in the Greeke If of workes not of grace otherwise workes should be no more workes It will be very hard for our adversaries to proue that these latter words are superfluously added being found not onely in the most Greeke Copies but in the Syriacke translation But if it were granted yet there is one Greeke Copie of great antiquity that omitteth these words as well as the vulgar Latine The next instance is the sixt of Marke and the 11. Verily I say vnto you it shall be easier for Sodome and Gomorrha c. If it were granted that these wordes were superfluously added which yet there is no reason to doe seeing besides very many Greeke Copies the Syriacke translation hath them also yet would this make nothing for the improuing of the credite of the Greeke seeing as Beza professeth there are three Greeke Copies that omit them The like may bee said touching the next allegation of Mathew the 20 22 23. where these wordes and bee baptised with the baptisme that I am baptised with are supposed to bee superfluous for there are some Greeke Copies that omit them as well as the vulgar Thus hauing examined the seuerall allegations of our adversaries against the authoritie and credite of the Greeke Text of the New Testament wee see that they faile in them neither being able to convince it of falsehood nor superfluitie Wherefore to conclude this matter wee say with Hierome that the Latine editions are to be corrected by the Greeke that by the providence of GOD the verity of the Scriptures of the New Testament hath euer beene preserued in the originall That those faults and errours which are crept into some Copies may easily by the helpe of others be corrected and that there is no difference in matter of substance in so great variety of Copies as are found in the world If any man say the Greeke hath beene corrupted since the dayes of Hierome and that therefore though hee in his time thought the translations might bee corrected by the originals yet now wee may not take the same course we answere it may easily be proued that all those supposed corruptions which they now finde in the Greeke were found in it in Hieromes time For there are but two places to wit 1. Corinth 15. and 1. Iohn 4. 3. where all Greeke Copies haue otherwise then they say the truth is and these places were corrupted if there bee any errour in the present reading before Hieromes time Thus much touching the sufficiencie of the Scriptures and the editions wherein the authenticall veritie of the same is to bee sought CHAP. 30. Of the Power of the Church in making Lawes NOw it remaineth that wee come to the next part of our diuision touching the power of the Church in making lawes As the will of God willing and purposing the being of each thing is the first and highest cause of things so the same will of God determining what is fitte to bee what of what kinde in what sort each thing must bee that it may attaine and possesse the vttermost degree of perfection the orderly disposition of things requireth to bee communicated to it is the first and highest lawe to the whole world And as the will of God determining what is fitte defining what ought to bee and what must bee if the Creatures attaine their highest perfection is a generall lawe to all Creatures soe when he maketh knowne to creatures rationall and of an vnderstanding nature which haue power to doe or omitte thinges thus fitte to bee done that though hee leaue it in their power and freedome of choise to doe or omitte them yet they shall be tyed either to doe them or to loose the good they desire to enjoy incurre the euils they would avoyd It is more specially named a lawe of commandement precept or direction binding them vpon whom it is imposed to the performance of that it requireth The Precepts and Commandements of Almighty God are of two sorts for either they are such as in respect of the nature and condition of the things themselues are good and soe binde all men at all times or else they are positiue prescribing things variable according to the diuersities of times and the different condition of men liuing in them The former kinde of lawes God imposed vpon men in the day of their creation or redemption and restauration together with the very nature and being which hee gaue them the later prescribing things not naturally and perpetually good but good onely at some time to some men and to some purposes and vses to which they serue were not imposed at first together with the institution of nature or the restauration of the same by grace but are then imposed when the things they prescribe are iudged good and beneficiall Soe God prescribed before the comming of Christ his sonne those sacrifices and offerings which now hee regardeth not and hath now instituted those Sacraments Ceremonies and rites of Religion which before were not knowne in the world Thus wee see that the originall of all lawes is the will of God who as hee reserueth for himselfe the honor of being the supreame first and highest cause of all thinges and yet communicateth part of his Diuine power to subordinate and inferiour causes so though he alone be the great lawegiuer to euery creature yet hee communicateth part of his authority to such among the sonnes of men as he is pleased to make greater than others giuing them power to command and prescribe lawes vnto them Touching this matter thus generally deliuered there is noe difference betweene vs and our aduersaries For it is confessed on both sides that God who is the great lawgiuer to the whole world hath chosen out some from amongst the rest of the sonnes of men whom hee hath beene pleased to honour with his owne name to set vpon his owne seat and to make rulers and lawgiuers vnto his people but the question is within what bounds this power is contained and how farre the band of lawes made by such authority extendeth CHAP. 31. Of the boundes within which the power of the Church in making lawes is contayned and whether shee may make lawes concerning the worshippe of God TOuching
and tying them to the performance of certaine duties Secondly of sinnes Thirdly of punishments to be inflicted by Almighty God and Fourthly of punishments to be inflicted by men The bond of Lawes is of two sorts For there are diuine lawes and there are humane Lawes God bindeth men to the doing of what hee pleaseth and Men that are in authority either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall to such things as they thinke fit Touching these bonds none haue power to loose but they that haue power to binde so that what God by precept bindeth vs to doe none but God can free vs from the necessity duty of doing it and what the Church or Magistrate binde vs to no inferiour power can loose vs or free vs from Loosing in this sense opposed to binding by law and precept is in two sorts By Reuocation and by Dispensation Reuocation is an absolute Abrogation of a Law in respect of all places times persons and conditions and that either by expresse and direct Repeale or by generall neglect and long continued disuse Dispensation is in respect of certaine persons times places and conditions of Men thinges so that a dispensation permitting the Law to retaine her wonted authority onely freeth some particular person or persons at some times in some places and in some condition of thinges from the necessity of doing or leauing vndone that which vnlesse it be in consideration of such particular circumstances the Law-giuer meant should be obserued but in such cases not so Heere the question is moued by occasion of that kinde of loosing which is by reuersing Lawes formerly in force whether God the giuer of the morall Law may revoke the same and dispense with men for the not doing of things there prescribed of the doing of things there forbidden The answere is that these Lawes are imposed vpon men by the very condition of their nature and creation as the very condition and nature of a man created by GOD requireth that he should honour loue feare and reuerence him that made him and therefore touching the precepts of the first Table that concerning the Sabaoth excepted it is cleare and euident that they cannot be altered nor Man by God himselfe discharged from the duty of honouring loving and fearing God so long as he hath any beeing Touching the precepts of the second Table it is resolued that GOD cannot dispense with man or giue him leaue to doe the thinges therein forbidden as to steale murther or lie For all these imply and involue in them that which is simply euill and to bee disliked but by some alteration in the doer or matter of action he may make that not to bee euill that otherwise would bee euill and consequently not forbidden as namely that to bee no theft or murther which otherwise would be as when hee commanded the Israelites to spoyle the Aegyptians they did not commit the act of robbery for robbery is the taking away of a thing from the owner against his will but these thinges which the Israelites tooke away were the Aegyptians no longer after God the supreme Lord had spoyled them of the title they had therevnto and assigned the same to the Israelites So likewise for one man to take away the life of another hauing no authority so to doe is murther and no man can be dispensed with lawfully to doe any such act but for a Magistrate to take away the life of an offender is a lawfull act and no act of murther and so if Abraham had slaine his sonne Isaac it had not beene murther being authorized so to doe by God who hath supreme authority in the world and may justly as a Iudge for sinne found in men take away the liues of whom he pleaseth and as supreme and absolute Lord bring all to nothing that for his wills sake he made of nothing though there were no sinne nor fault at all But touching Ceremoniall Iudiciall and Positiue Lawes of God concerning Sacraments and obseruations of what kinde soeuer seeing they are imposed after vpon the being of nature wee thinke that God may alter them at his pleasure so that at one time it may bee lawfull to doe that was forbidden at another The Gouernours that God hath set ouer his Church and people by commission from him may interprete what is doubtfull in these Lawes of God or in those of the other sort but yet according to the Law but they may not abrogate or dispense with any Law of God either naturall and morall or positiue established concerning the vse of Sacraments and things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice But concerning those Lawes that were made by the Apostles and Primitiue Fathers touching matters of outward obseruation the succeeding Guides of the Church may either dispense with them or reverse them vpon the due consideration of the difference of times Men and things And so wee see to whom it pertaineth to binde men with their lawes and to loose them from the bonds thereof The bond of sin which is the second kinde of those bonds I mentioned is two-fold for there is Vinculum captivitatis and Vinculum servitutis that is a man that is a sinner is so bound that hee can neither returne to doe good nor leaue off to doe euill for sinne holdeth him in a bond of captivitie that hee shall not returne to doe good and with a bond of seruitude that he shall not cease to doe euill And though God hath so ordered the nature of Man that hee who will doe euill shall thus bee entangled yet it is man that thus entangleth wrappeth and bindeth himselfe and not God But for the bond of eternall condemnation and the punishments following euill doers which is the third kinde of those bonds wherewith I shewed that men are tyed and bound it is of GOD. From these bonds of sin and punishment inflicted by GOD none but hee alone can free men by his fauour and the worke of his grace as the supreme and highest cause none but Christ by Merite Satisfaction The Ministers of the Church by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments may convert Men to God instrumentally making them partakers of his graces bringing thē into such an estate wherein they shall be sure for Christs sake to finde mercie with GOD for the remission taking away of their sinnes They may pray for them and out of the knowledge of their estate assure them of remission But other power to vnloose and vntie these direfull horrible bonds of sinne and punishment they haue none only the punishments which they haue power to inflict they haue authoritie to diminish lessen or take away so that whom they bind with the bonds of Ecclesiasticall censures punishments those by the same authoritie they may vnloose For as the Guides of Gods Church may prescribe enjoyne and impose certaine actions of Mortification and penitentiall conversion vnto GOD so when they see cause they may release from the same as by
of a Bishop in Pontus hee embraced virginitie in his first times and seemed to liue a retired solitarie and Monasticall kinde of life but in the end casting the feare of God behinde his backe hee abused a certaine virgin and not onely fell himselfe but drew her also away from the course of vertue and well-doing into the fellowship of sinfull wickednesse Heereupon hee was excommunicated and put out of the Church by his owne Father For his Father was a right good and vertuous man and carefull of the things that concerned his calling and though after he was put out of his Church hee sought very earnestly to be admitted to penitency that so he might bee restored to the Church againe yet his Father exceedingly grieued not onely in respect of his fall but also in respect of the dishonour and shame hee had brought on him would by no meanes be induced to yeelde vnto it Whereupon hee left that Citie whereof his Father was Bishop and went to Rome in the time of the vacancie of that See after the death of Hyginus and after he had stayed there a certaine space and conferred with the Presbyters of that Church hee desired to be admitted to their assemblies But they tolde him they could not so doe without the consent of his honourable Father For say they wee have one faith and one consent and wee may not contrary our good fellow-minister thy Father Which their answere when hee heard hee was filled with fury and madnesse and professed in great rage that hee would rent their Church in peeces and cast a schisme into it that should neuer haue an end This is the narration wee finde in Epiphanius concerning Marcion his going to Rome Wherein there is nothing that any way proueth that it was alwayes lawfull to appeale from all other Bishops to the Bishop of Rome For first it doth not appeare that Marcion went thither to complaine of his Father but being put from the communion by him and not obtaining reconciliation by any intreaty as a runnagate he sought to other places and among other went to Rome hoping there to bee receiued into the Church But the guides of that church knowing the canon which forbiddeth one church to admit them another hath reiected and cast out vtterly refused to permit and suffer him to communicate with them And secondly if hee had gone to Rome by way of appeale it would most strongly ouerthrow all such courses and proue that the Romane Bishop may not reverse and make voide the Acts and proceedings of other Bishops seeing the gouernours of the Romane church at that time freely professed vnto Marcion and told him peremptorily that it was not lawfull for them to admit him to their communion without his Fathers consent by whom hee was excommunicated But the truth is he did not seeke by their authoritie as superiours to reverse his Fathers censure and iudgement or to bee restored to the communion of that church out of which he was eiected which had beene to appeale but being in Rome desired onely to bee admitted to ioyne in prayers and other exercises of Religion with them of that Church which yet as Epiphanius reporteth was denied vnto him The next example is of Fortunatus and Faelix in Africa deposed by Cyprian as Bellarmine would make vs beleeue and appealing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome for releefe But there is no word of trueth in that which this Cardinall writeth For these men did not goe to Rome to complaine that they were vniustly deposed as hee vntruely reporteth but these are the circumstances of the matter as we may reade in the Epistles of Cyprian A company of wicked ones hauing made Fortunatus one of the Presbyters that were suspended by Cyprian and a great number of other Bishops a Bishop in opposition to Cyprian hasten to Rome to Cornelius with false reports of the number of Bishops that concurred in the ordination of Fortunatus that so hee might be induced to admit of him as a true Bishop and hold communion with him Which when Cornelius wisely refused to doe he feared not to threaten grieuous things vnto him With the suddennesse and strangenesse whereof Cornelius much moued maruailed greatly that Cyprian had not before certified him of this schismaticall ordination that so hee might haue beene the better prepared Whereunto Cyprian answered That it was not necessarie to be so carefull about the vaine proceedings of heretiques that he had before giuen him the names of such Bishops as were found to whō and from whom hee might write and receiue letters And that howsoeuer false ill dealing by haste and preuention thinketh to gaine all yet that is but for a little time till trueth overtake it and discouer it euen as the darknesse of the night continueth till the Sunne arise And farther hee sheweth that these schismaticall companions had no reason to make such haste to Rome to publish it and make it knowen that they had set vp a false Bishop against a true For that either it pleased them that they had so done and then they continued and went forward in their wickednesse or they repented of that they had done and then they knew whither to returne and needed not to haue gone to Rome For saith he whereas it is agreed among vs and it is both iust and right that euery man shall be heard there where his fault was committed and all Pastours haue a part of the flocke of Christ assigned to them which euery one is to rule governe as being to giue an account vnto the Lord of his actions it is not fitte nor to be suffered that they ouer whom we are set should runne vp and downe and by craftie and deceitfull rashnesse shake in sunder the coherent concord of brethren but that they should haue their causes handled where they may haue both accusers and witnesses of their crimes Vnlesse a few desperate and wicked companions doe thinke the Bishops of Africa that iudged them haue lesser authority then others A more cleare testimonie or pregnant proofe against appeales to Rome then this cannot be had And yet this is one of the principall authorities the Cardinall bringeth to proue the lawfulnesse of appeales to Rome To the next place alleaged out of Cyprian touching Basilides and Martialis Bishoppes of Spaine I haue answered already and made it most cleare that nothing could be alleaged more preiudiciall to the Popes claimes and more for the aduantage of the trueth of that cause which wee defend So that it seemeth our Aduersaries haue turned their weapons against themselues and whetted their swords and made readie their arrowes to wound themselues to death How the facts of Athanasius Chrysostome Flauianus and Theodoret appealing to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synodes for reliefe and helpe when they were oppressed and wronged by the Easterne Bishops proue not the illimited and vniuersall power of the Pope I haue at large shewed before to the satisfaction I
Emperours charges But there are many things that bewray it to be a mere counterfeit For first it hath a sencelesse title for it is named another Romane Councell vnder Syluester the first whereas no man can tell of any besides this Secondly it is fronted with a briefe Epilogue in steed of a Preface Thirdly there is scarce any sence to bee made of any one sentence throughout the whole Fourthly it is sayd to consist of 139 Bishops out of the citty of Rome or not farre from it and the rest out of Greece whereas all men know the citty of Rome had but one Bishop so that it was sencelesse to say there were in that Councell 139 Bishops out of the citty of Rome or not farre from it And besides all men see how silly a thing it was to muster so many names of Bishops without specifying the places whereof they were Bishops Fiftly whereas it is said to haue consisted of 284 Bishops out of the citty of Rome and places neere to it and out of Greece as if it had beene a generall Councell it is strange that the Histories reporting farre meaner Councels then this is supposed to haue beene should neuer make any mention of this nor the occasion of calling it Sixtly whereas the supposed Fathers of this Councel do condemne though in very sencelesse manner certaine vnknowne heretickes it is strange they should make no mention of the Arrians who were famous and at that time troubled all the East Seuenthly the end why these supposed Fathers met was ridiculous For thus it is expressed i Vt Ecclesiae regia non vatieinentur sed sit fiâ—…ma claudat ostium propter persecutorem Or as another Edition hath it Vt Ecclesia regia non vacilletur sed sit firma claudat ostium propter persecutorem For why should these good men forbid the kingly Churches to prophecie or why should they feare the shaking or tottering of them or shut the doore for feare of the persecutor after Constantine was become a Christian baptized by Syluester and in requitall of his kindnesse had giuen him all the Empire of the West Lastly whereas the manner of Councels was that the Bishops sate round in a compasse the Presbyters sate behind them and the Deacons stood before them the Councell of Carthage forbiddeth a Bishop to sit suffer a Presbyter to stand Hierome sheweth that euen in Rome the manner was that Presbyters did sit and Deacons stand here it is noted that none sate but Bishops These things being obserued touching the credit of this Councel let vs come to the Decrees of it by which the Pope would exempt himselfe from all iudgment of men whatsoeuer villanyes he should chance to commit Thus then the Decrees of this sacred Synode are passed in fauour of the Pope First it is decreed that no Presbyter à die onus Presbyterij latine fitter for Hog-heards then Bishops shall marry and that if he do hee shall loose his honour for 12. yeares Secondly it is ordered thus That if any one shall do against this present hand-writing hee shall be condemned for euer For let no man iudge the first See for neither shall the Iudge be iudged of Augustus nor of all the Clergy nor of Kings nor People These sencelesse Decrees of a fained ridiculous Synode our aduersaries such is their pouerty in this cause bring forth as good authorities for the Pope But I thinke the reader will not much be moued with them vnlesse it be to pitty those that liued before vs who were abused with such fooleries and shamelesse forgeries and to giue thankes to God that hath giuen vs meanes to descry the cozening deuices of Satans Agents Neither doth it any thing assure vs of the truth of this Councel that Pope Nicholas was coÌ„tent to make vse of it in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor of Constantinople seeing he citeth also in the same Epistle the Romane Synode vnder Sixtus the third in the cause of Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem whereas yet not withstanding Binnius saith confidently that euery learned man wil pronounce the acts of it to be counterfeit if he attend the names of the Consuls in whose times it is supposed to haue bin holden the name of him that was accused and other things described in those supposed pretended acts To these they adde another authority as it may seeme of the same stamp out of the Councell of Rome vnder Sixtus the third which they endeuour to strengthen with certaine sayings out of a booke of one Euodius a Deacon admitted and allowed in the fifth Councell vnder Symmachus The Romane Councell vnder Sixtus was called to examine a very foule fact wherewith Sixtus was charged which was the abusing of one Chrysogonet a professed and consecrated virgin In this Councell Sixtus presented himselfe and professed that it was in his power choice either to submit himselfe to the iudgment of the Councell or to refuse it yet voluntarily referred his cause to be there heard whence our Auersaries suppose they may inferre that all the world may not iudge the Pope against his will The Barbarismes manifold senceles absurdities that are found in this Councell may iustly make us suspect it of forgery But admitting it to haue bin a lawfull Synode no such thing can be concluded out of it as our aduersaries dreame of For it was but a Diocesan Synode there was neuer a Bishop in it besides Sixtus whom they went about to iudge And therefore it was not to be maruailed at if Sixtus said it was in his power and choice whether hee would be iudged by the Presbyters Deacons of his owne Church or not seeing no Bishop be he neuer so meane may be judged by the Clergy of his own Church but by the Synode of the Bishops of the prouince and therefore I greatly feare they wil hardly draw a good argument froÌ„ hence to proue that the Pope may not at all be iudged For I think it will not follow Maximus the exconsul said it was not lawful for those Lay-men inferiour Clergy-men theÌ„ assembled to giue sentence against the B of Rome the B himselfe protested that he might chuse whether he would be judged by them or not therefore the whole Christian world may not judge the Pope Wherefore let vs come to the sayings of Euodius see whether they confirme the Romish conceipt any better The occasioÌ„ of the writing of this booke of Euodius was this Symmachus the Bishop of Rome being charged with certaine grieuous crimes was to bee judged in a Synode called by Theodoricus the King not without his own coÌ„sent To this Councel he was willing to come and to submit him selfe to the judgement of it onely hee desired restitution of such things as had beene taken from him till he were convicted which he could not obtaine and yet presented himselfe in the Synode But such was the
in appointing some selected men for the visitation of the rest Fourthly in joyning temporall menincommission with the spirituall guides of the church to take view of and to censure the actions of men of Ecclesiasticall order because they are directed not onely by Canons but lawes Imperiall Fifthly when matters of fact are obiected for which the canons and lawes Imperiall judge men depriueable the Prince when hee seeth cause and when the state of things require it either in person if he please or by such other as hee thinketh fitte to appoint may heare and examine the proofes of the same and either ratifie that others did or voyd it as wee see in the case of Caecilianus to whom it was objected that hee was a Traditor and Faelix Antumnitanus that ordayned him was so likewise and that therefore his ordination was voyd For first the enemies of Caecilianus disliking his ordination made complaintes against him to Constantine and hee appointed Melchiades and some other Bishoppes to sitte and heare the matter From their judgement there was a new appeale made to Constantine Whereupon hee sent to the Proconsull to examine the proofes that might bee produced But from his iudgmēt the complainants appealed the third time to Constantine who appointed a Synode at Arle All this hee did to giue satisfaction if it were possible to these men and so to procure the peace of the Church And though he excused himselfe for medling in these businesses and asked pardon for the same for that regularly hee was to haue left these iudge ments to Ecclesiasticall persons yet it no way appeareth that hee did ill in interposing himselfe in such sort as hee did the state of things being such as it was nor that the Bishoppes did ill that yeelded to him in these courses and therefore in cases of like nature Princes may doe whatsoeuer hee did and Bishops may appeare before them and submit themselues to their iudgement though in another case Ambrose refused to present himselfe before Valentinian the Emperour for tryall of an Ecclesiasticall cause Neither is it strange in our state that Kinges should intermedle in causes Ecclesiasticall For Matthew Paris sheweth that the ancient lawes of England prouided that in appeales men should proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishoppe from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop and that if the Arch-bishop should faile in doing iustice the matter should be made knowne to the King that by vertue of his commandement it might receiue an end in the Arch-bishops Court that there might be no further proceeding in appeales without the Kings consent From the power which Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall let vs proceed to the power they haue ouer persons Ecclesiasticall and see whether they be supreame ouer all persons or whether men of the Church bee exempt from their iurisdiction That they are not exempted by GODS law wee haue the cleare confession of Cardinall Bellarmine and others who not onely yeeld so farre vnto the trueth forced so to doe by the cleare euidence thereof but proue the same by Scripture and Fathers The Cardinals wordes are these Exceptio Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona iure humano introducta est non diuino that is The exemption of Cleargy-men in things ciuill as well in respect of their persons as their goods was introduced brought in by mans law and not by the law of God Which thing is proued first out of the precept of the Apostle to the Romanes Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and addeth Therefore pay yee tribute For when the Apostle saith Let euery soule be subiect hee includeth Cleargy-men as Chrysostome witnesseth and therefore when hee addeth for this cause pay yee tribute he speaketh of Cleargy-men also Whence it will follow that Cleargy-men are bound to pay tribute vnlesse they be exempted by the fauour and priviledge of Princes freeing them from so doing which thing Thomas Aquinas also affirmeth writing vpon the same place Secondly the same is proued out of the Ancient For Vrbanus saith The tribute money was therefore found in the mouth of the fish taken by Saint Peter because the Church payeth tribute out of her outward and earthly possessions And Saint Ambrose saith if tribute bee demaunded it is not denyed the Church-Land payeth tribute Now if Vrbanus Bishoppe of Rome and worthy Ambrose Bishop of Millaine then whom there was neuer any Bishoppe found more resolute in the defence of the right of the Church say that tribute is not to bee denyed but payed vnto Princes by men of the Church and in respect of Church-land I thinke it is evident there is no exemption by any Law of GOD that freeth the goods of Church-men from yeelding tribute to Princes For touching that text where our Sauiour sayth vnto Peter What thinkest thou Simon of whom doe the Kings of the Gentiles receiue tribute of their owne children or of strangers And Peter answereth of strangers Whence CHRIST inferreth that the children are free brought by some to proue the supposed immunity of Cleargy-men to bee from GODS owne graunt Bellarmine sufficiently cleareth the matter For first hee sheweth that CHRIST speaketh of himselfe onely making this argument Kings sonnes are free from tribute as beeing neither to pay to their owne fathers seeing their goods are common nor to strangers to whom they are not subiect therefore himselfe being the Sonne of the great King of Kings oweth no Tribute to any mortall man So that when hee saide the children are free hee meant not to signifie that any other are free but onely that himselfe was free Secondly he rightly obserueth that this place would proue that all Christians are free from Tribute if it proued any other then CHRIST to bee so for all Christians are the sonnes of GOD by adoption and grace And Hierome writing vpon this place hath these words Our Lord was the Kings son both according to the flesh and according to the spirit descending of the stocke of Dauid and being the Word of the Almighty Father and therefore as being the Sonne of the Kingdome owed no tribute but because hee assumed the humility of flesh it behooued him to fulfill all righteousnesse but vnhappy men that wee are we are called after the name of Christ doe nothing worthy so great an honour He for the great loue he bare towards vs sustained the crosse for vs and payde tribute but we for his honour pay no tribute and as Kings sons are free from tribute These words are brought by some to proue the imagined freedome we speake of but first they are so far from prouing any such thing that Erasmus thinketh Hierome reprehended it and disliked it as a thing sauouring of arrogancy that cleargymen should refuse to pay tribute which hee saith is contrary to the conceit of men in our time who thinke it the height of all piety to maintaine
this immunity And Sixtus Senensis saith that Hierome speaketh not of that tribute which subiects pay to their Princes here in this world but of that which we all owe to CHRIST so that this is that he saith why doe not we wretched men professing our selues to be the servants of Christ yeeld vnto his Maiesty the due tribute of our seruice seeing Christ so great and excellent payde tribute for our sakes S. Austine in his first book of Questions vpon the Gospels saith that Kings sons in this world are free that therefore much more the sonnes of that Kingdome vnder which all kingdomes of the World are should bee free in each earthly Kingdome which words Thomas and Sixtus Senensis vnderstand of a freedome from the bondage of sin but Iansenius rejecteth that interpretation because Austine saith the children of Kings are free from tribute and thinketh that Austines meaning is that if God the King of Heauen Earth had many naturall sonnes as hee hath but one only begotten they should all be free in all the Kingdomes of the world and other apply these words to cleargy-men though there bee nothing in the place leading to any such interpretation But whatsoeuer we thinke of the meaning of Austine Bellarmine saith it cannot bee inferred from these his wordes that cleargy-men by Gods Law are free from the duty of paying tribute because as Chrysostome noteth Christ speaketh only of naturall children and besides prescribeth nothing but onely sheweth that vsually among men Kings sonnes are free from tribute and therefore whereas the authority of Bonifacius the Eighth who affirmeth that the goods persons of Cleargy-men are free from exactions both by the law of God and man is brought to proue the contrary Hee answereth first that haply the Pope meant not that they are absolutely freed by any speciall graunt frō God but only that there is an example of Pharaoh an Heathen Prince freeing the Priests of his Gods mentioned in Scripture which may induce Christian Kings to free the Pastours of Christs Church Secondly that it was but the priuate opinion of the Pope inclining to the iudgment of the Canonistes and that he did not define any such thing So that men may lawfully dissent from him in this point So that we see by the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers and the confession of the best learned among our aduersaries themselues that Almighty God did not by any special exemption free either the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the command of Princes and that in the beginning they were subiect to all seruices iudgements payments burdens that any other are subiect to and required by Christ the Sonne of God and his blessed Apostles to be so But some man happily will say that though Christ did not specially free eyther the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the subiection to Princes yet there are inducements in reason and in the very light of nature such and so great to moue Princes to set them free that they should not do well if they did not so Whereunto wee answere that there is no question to be made but that the Pastors of the Church that watch ouer the soules of men are to bee respected and tendered more then men of any other calling and so they are and euer were where any sence of religion is or was The Apostle Saint Paul testifieth of the Galathians that they receiued him as an Angell of God yea as Christ Iesus himselfe that they would haue euen plucked out their eyes to haue done him good The Emperour Constantine honoured the Christian Bishops with the name and title of Gods acknowledged himselfe subject to their iudgment though he swayed the scepter of the World and refused to see what the complaintes were that they preferred one against another or to read their bils but professed that to couer their faults he would euen cast frō him his purple Robe Whence it came that many priuiledges were anciently graunted vnto them both in respect of their persons goods For first Constantine the Great not onely gaue ample gifts to the Pastors of the Churches but exempted them also from those seruices ministeries and imployments that other men are subiect to His Epistle to Anelinus the Proconsul of Africa wherein this graunt was made to them of Affrica is found in Eusebius Neyther is it to be doubted but that he extended his fauours to the Bishops of other Churches also aswell as to them The words of the Grant are these Considering that the due obseruation of things pertaining to true religion and the worshippe of God bringeth great happinesse to the whole state of the Common-wealth and Empire of Rome For the incouragement of such as attend the holy Ministery and are named Cleargy-men my pleasure is that all such in the Church wherein Caecilianus is Bishop be at once and altogether absolutely freed and exempted from all publicke Ministeries and Seruices Neither did the Emperors only exempt them from these seruices but they freed them also frō secular iudgements vnles it were in certaine kindes of criminall causes Wherein yet a Bishop was not to be cōuēted against his wil before any secular Magistrate without the Emperors cōmand Neyther might the temporall Magistrates condemne any Cleargy-man till hee were degraded by his Bishoppe howsoeuer they might imprison and restraine such vpon complaints made And answerably hereunto the Councell of Matiscon prouideth that no Cleargy-man for any cause without the discussion of his Bishop shall bee wronged imprisoned by any Secular Magistrate that if any Iudge shal presume to doe soe to the Cleargy-men of any Bishoppe vnlesse it be in a criminall cause hee shall bee excommunicated as long as the Bishoppe shall thinke fitte This was all the immunity that Cleargy-men anciently had by any grant of Princes and as much as euer the Church desired to enjoy but that which in latter times was challenged by some and in defence of the claime whereof Thomas Becket resisted the King till his bloud was shedde was of another kinde For whereas it was not thought fitte by the King and State of the Realme at that time that Church-men found in enormous crimes by the kings Iustices should be deliuered ouer to their Bishoppes and so escape ciuill punishment but that confessing such crimes or being clearely conuinced of them before the Bishoppe the Bishoppe should in presence of the Kings Iustices degrade them and put them from all Ecclesiasticall honour and deliuer them to the Kings Court to be punished Becket was of a contrary minde and thought that such as Bishoppes degraded or putte out of their Ministery of the Church should not bee punished by the ciuill Magistrates because as hee sayd one offence was not to be punished twice The occasion of this controuersie betweene the King and the Arch-bishoppe was giuen by one Philip Brocke a Canon of Bedford Who beeing brought before
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
and not these for being sent by men that haue authority though abusing the same they haue a true and lawfull Ministery till they be put from it by superiour authority else were all Ministration of Sacraments and other sacred things voyde performed by such as simoniacally or by sinister meanes get into these holy places The fourth are such as neither are sent of GOD nor of men nor by men but of them-selues of whom our Sauiour Christ saith all that came before me were theeues robbers and of whome almighty GOD pronounceth and sayth by the Prophet Ieremy I sent them not they 〈◊〉 I spake not to them they prophecied This euill is carefully to bee declined and therefore CHRIST would not suffer the diuels to speake that which was true least vnder the pretence of trueth errour might creepe in seeing hee that speaketh of him-selfe cannot but speake lyes These are the foure sortes of them that serue in the worke of the Ministery whereof the last haue no calling at all and all they doe is voide the Third haue a lawfull commission though they obtayned it by sinister meanes and bee vnworthy of it so that they could not bee put into it without the faulte of the ordayners The First had a lawfull but extraordinary calling needefull onely in those first beginnings of Christianity and not longer to continue The second haue that calling which is Ordinary and to continue whereof wee are now to speake In this calling there are three things implied Election Ordination and Assignation to some particular Church whereof men elected and ordained are appointed to take charge In ancient times there was no ordination at large without particular Assignation and sine titulo allowed as it appeareth by the Councell of Chalcedon forbidding any such thing to be done and voyding any such Act if it should bee done and therefore in those times the very electing and ordayning was an assigning of the elected ordayned to the place of Charge they were to take and a giuing of them the power of iurisdiction as wel as of order But this Canon in latter times grew out of vse whence ensued great confusions in the state of the Church as Duarenus rightly noteth yet are we not of opinion that all such ordinations are voyde in the nature of the thing whatsoeuer the Ancients pronounced of them according to the strictnesse of the Canons For seeing Ordination which is the sanctifying of men to the worke of the holy Ministery is a diffeernt thing in nature from the placing of them where they shal do that holy worke and a man once ordained needeth not any new Ordination when he is remoued from one Church to another it is euident that in the nature of the thing Ordination doth not so depend on the title and place of Charge the Ordayned entereth into as that Ordinations at large should bee voyd yet are they not to bee permitted neither are they in our Church For the Ordinations of Ministers in Colledges in our Vniuersities are not within the compasse of those prohibited Ordinations at large and sine titulo and none other by the order of our Church may bee Ordayned vnlesse he be certainly prouided of some definite place of charge imployment And as the Auncient were thus precise in admitting none into the holy Ministery but with assignation of the particular place of his imployment so they tooke as strict order that men once placed should not sodainly be remoued and translated to any other church or charge In the Councell of Sardica Hosius the President of that Councell sayd That same ill custome and pernicious corruption is wholy to be plucked vp by the rootes that it may not be lawfull for a Bishoppe to passe from his citie to any other city For the cause why they doe so is knowne to all seeing none is found to passe from a greater citie to a lesser whence it appeareth that they are inflamed with ardent desires of couetousnesse and that they serue their owne ambitious designes that they may exercise dominion and grow great If therefore it seeme good to you all that such an euill as this is may be more seuerely punished lette him that is such a one bee reiected from all communion euen such as Lay-men inioy To whom all the Bishoppes answered it pleaseth vs well To whom Hosius replyed Though any shall bee found so ill aduised as haply in excuse of himselfe to affirme that hee receiued letters from the people to draw him from his owne city to another yet I thinke seeing it is manifest that some few not sincere in the Faith might be corrupted by reward and procured to desire his translation all such fraudes should altogether bee condemned So that such a one should not bee admitted so much as to the communion which Lay-men enioy no not in the end which thing if it seeme good vnto you all confirme and settle it by your Decree And the Synode answered it pleaseth vs well Leo to the same purpose writeth thus If any Bishoppe despising the meanenesse of his owne citie shall seeke to gette the administration gouernment of some more noted and better respected place and shall by any meanes translate remoue himselfe to a greater People and more large and ample charge let him bee driuen from that other chaire which hee sought and lette him bee depriued also of his owne So that hee bee neither suffered to rule ouer them whom out of a couetous desire hee would haue subiected to himselfe nor ouer them whom g in pride hee contemned and scorned And the like is found in other but as Theodoret sheweth it was ambition and such other like euils that these Holy Fathers sought to stoppe and preuent rather then generally to condemne all Translation of Bishops from one Church and cittie to another For these changes may sometimes bring so great and euident vtility that they are not to be disliked And therefore the same Theodoret sheweth that notwithstanding this Canon Gregory Nazianzen was remoued from his Church and constituted Bishop of Constantinople And Socrates reporteth that Proclus was remoued thither from Cyzicum Wherefore passing by these matters as cleare and resolued of Let vs proceed to see first to whom it pertaineth to Elect Secondly to whom it belongeth to ordaine such as are duly elected and chosen to the worke of the Ministery Touching Election wee thinke that each Church and People that haue not by lawe custome or consent restrayned themselues stand free by Gods law to admitte maintaine and obey no man as their Pastor without their liking and that the peoples election by themselues or their rulers dependeth on the first principles of humane fellowships and assemblies for which cause though Bishops by Gods lawe haue power to examine and ordaine before any may be placed to take charge of soules yet haue they no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their
wils nor to force them to yeeld obedience and maintenance to any without their liking And therefore anciently as LEO sheweth the custome was that hee should bee chosen of all that was to bee ouer all that the wishes and desires of the Cittizens should bee expected the Testimonies of the people should be sought the will and liking of the noble and honourable should be knowne and the Cleargy should choose All which thinges are wont to be obserued and kept in ordinations by them that know the rules of the Fathers that the rule of the Apostle may be followed in all things who prescribeth that hee who is to be ouer the Church should not onely haue the allowance of the faithfull giuing witnesse vnto him but the testimony also of them that are without and that no occasiō of any scandall may be left while he who is to be the Doctor ofpeace is ordained in peace and concord pleasing vnto God with the agreeing and consenting desires of all And in the same Epistle hee addeth Teneatur subscriptio Clericorum honoratorum testimonium ordinis consensus Plebis That is Let the subscription of the Cleargy be had the testimony of the honourable and the consent of the order and people Cyprian to the same purpose writeth thus The people beeing obedient to the precepts of the Lord and fearing God ought to seperate themselues from a sinnefull and wicked Ruler and not intermingle themselues or to haue any thing to do with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest especially seeing they haue power eyther to chuse such Priestes as are worthy or to refuse such as are vnworthy And a little after in the same Epistle hee hath these words For which cause it is diligently to bee obserued and kept as from the tradition of God and the Apostles which thing also is obserued and kept with vs and almost throughout all Prouinces that for the due performance of the worke of Ordination when any Ruler and Gouernour is to be ordained the Bishops of the same Prouince which are nearest should come together vnto that people ouer whom he is to be sette and that the Bishoppe should be chosen in the presence of the people which most fully and perfectly knoweth the life of euery one and hath perceiued by their conuersation what kind of workes they are wont to do Which thing also we see to haue bin don in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague to wit that vpon the voyces of the whole brotherhood and the judgment of the Bishops which came together which sent their letters expressing their opiniō of him the Episcopall dignity was cōferred vpon him with the imposition of hands he was ordained into the voyd roome of Basilides That in the time of Chrysostome the people had interest in chusing their Pastors it is euident out of his booke of Priest-hood The Fathes of the Nicene Councell as wee finde in Theodoret write to the Church of Alexandria and to the beloued brethren of Egypt Lybia and Pent◅polis in this sort If haply any Bishop of the Church de fall asleepe let it be lawfull for such of the sect of Meletius as haue beene not long since restored to the Communion of the Church to succeede into the place of him that is dead if so be that they shall seeme to bee worthy and the people shall chuse them yet so notwithstanding that the voyce and consent of the Bishop of the Church of Alexandria bee added to seale and confirme the same And touching the election of Nectarius the Bishoppes of the first councell of Constantinople write thus Wee haue ordained the most reverend and beloued of God Nectarius Bishop before the whole Councell with all consent and agreement in the presence of Theodosius the Emperour beloued of God and of the whole cleargy the whole city likewise with vnanimous consentagreeing thereunto And Leo provideth and taketh order what shall bee done when they that should elect agree not His words are these When ye goe about the election of the chiefe Priest or Bishop let him be advanced before all vpon whom the consenting desires of the Cleargy and People concurre with one accord and if their voyces be divided betwixt twaine let him be preferred before the other in the iudgment of the Metropolitane which hath more voyces and merits but let none be ordained against their wils and petitions least the people despise or hate the Bishoppe which they neuer affected and lesse care for religion when their desires are not satisfied And Grego◅y the Bishoppe of Rome long after allowing the election by the people hath these wordes If it be true that the Bishop of Salona bee dead hasten to admonish the cleargy and people of that city to choose a Bishoppe with one consent that may bee ordained for them And to Magnus about the election of the Bishoppe of Millaine hee saith Warne the Cleargy and people that they dissent not in choosing their Priest but that with one accord they elect some one that may bee consecrated their Bishoppe By all which testimonies wee see what interest aunciently the people had in the choyce of their Bishops and how carefull good Bishops were that they should haue none thrust vpon them against their wills that they should proceede to election with one accord if it might bee or otherwise that such should be ordained as were desired by the greater part and that all things might be done peaceably and without tumult But how much in time they abused this their power it is too evident For Nazianzene reporting the choyce of Eusebius to bee Bishoppe of Caesarea sayth the Citty of Caesarea was in a tumult and the people divided about the choyce of their Bishoppe and the sedition was sharpe and hardly to bee appeased and that as men distracted in many mindes some proposing one and some another as is often seene in such cases at length the whole people agreeing on one of good calling among them commended for his life but not yet baptized tooke him against his will and with the helpe of a band of souldiers that was then come to the Citty placed him in the Bishops chaire and offered him to the Bishoppes present mixing threates with perswasions required to haue him ordained and pronounced their Bishop Likewise at Antioch as Eusebius reporteth there was raised a grieuous sedition about the deposing of Eustathius and after when another was to be chosen the flame therof so increased that it was like to haue consumed the whole city For the people being diuided into two parts the Magistrates of the citie supported the sides and bandes of souldiers were mustered as against an enemy and the matter had vndoubtedly beene tryed by the sword if God and the feare of the Emperour writing to them had not asswaged the rage of the multitude But howsoeuer such was the dissention that eight whole yeares the place was without a Bishop When