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
passionate zeale that they abandoned the societie of them that did held them not Christians and rebaptised them which came from them to their pretended purer societies The fift of the Luciferians who received men returning from heresie to the Catholique faith without rebaptization and enioyned them penitence gaue them imposition of hands But Bishops that had beene drawne into heresie they would not admitte vnlesse they forsooke their office and ministerie against these Hierom writeth his booke against the Luciferians All these did erre vrging overmuch the Church discipline in casting off the wicked and not admitting the vnworthy to her happie fellowshippe CHAP. 17. Of the considerations moouing the Church to vse indulgence towardes offenders BVt the true Church admitteth and receiveth all that with sorrowfull repentance returne and seeke reconciliation how great soever their offences haue beene not forgetting to vse due severitie which yet shee sometime remitteth either vpon due consideration or of negligence The due and iust consideration moouing the Church to remitte something of her wonted severitie is either priuate or publique perill Private as when the partie beeing of a tender timorous and relenting disposition if hee bee proceeded with rigorously is in daunger to fall into despaire or to bee swallowed vppe with ouermuch sorrow In this case the Apostle hauing excommunicated the incestuous Corinthian writeth to the Church of Corinth speedily to receiue him againe least hee should be swallowed vp with overmuch griefe and in this sorte the auncient Bishoppes were wont to cut off great parts of enioyned penance which remission and relaxation was called an indulgence Out of the not vnderstanding whereof grew the popish pardons and indulgences Publike perill is then when the multitude authority and prevailing of the offenders is so great as that if they be cut off and separated from the rest a schisme may iustly bee feared without hope of any good to be effected thereby in this case there is iust cause why the Church forbeareth to proceede to excommunication For whereas the end of excommunication is that evill doers being put from the company of right beleeuing Christians and forsaken of all may be made ashamed of their evill doing and so brought to repentance this cannot be looked for when the multitude of offenders hath taken away all shame These are the due and iust motiues which cause the Church sometimes to forbeare to punish with that extremitie which the qualitie and condition of the offenders fault may seeme to require But sometimes of negligence not led by any of these considerations shee omitteth the due correction of such as haue offended God and scandalized his people So the Corinthians before the Apostles Letter written vnto them suffered an incestuous person seemed not much to be mooued with so vile a scandall And the like negligence is often found in the Churches of God which notwithstanding their fault in this behalfe continue the true Churches of God still and priuate men may communicate with them that through the Churches negligence are thus tolerated and suffered and that both in publique actes of religion and priuate conuersation without being partakers of their sinnes if they neither doe the same things nor approue like and applaud them that doe and if they neglect not by all good meanes to seeke their correction and amendment CHAP. 18. Of their damnable pride who condemne all those Churches wherein want of due execution of discipline and imperfections of men are found THere are and haue beene alwayes some who possessed with a false opinion of absolute sanctitie and spotlesse righteousnesse reiect the societies and companies of them in whom any imperfection may be found which was the furious zeale of the Pelagians in old time and the Anabaptists in our time Others there are which though they proceede not so farre yet denie those societies of Christians to be the true Churches of God wherein the seueritie of discipline is so farre neglected that wicked men are suffered and tolerated without due and condigne punishment These while they seeme to hate the wicked and flie from their companie for feare of contagion doe schismatically rent and inconsiderately diuide themselues from the bodie of Gods Church and forsake the fellowship of the good through immoderate hate of the wicked Both these doe dangerously and damnably erre the first in that they dreame of heauenly perfection to be found amongst men on earth whē as contrariwise the Prophet Esay pronounceth that all our righteousnesse is like the polluted and filthy ragges of a menstruous woman And b David desireth of Almighty God that he will not enter into iudgement with him for that in his sight no flesh shall be iustified And Augustine denounceth a woe against our greatest perfections if God doe straitly looke vpon them The later though they doe not require absolute and spotlesse perfection in them that are in and of the Church yet thinke it not possible that any wicked ones should bee found in so happie blessed a societie not remembring that the Church of God is compared to a Nette that gathereth into it all sorts of fishes great and small good and badde which are not separated one from another till they be cast out vpon the shore that it is like a field sowen with good seede wherein the enuious man soweth tares like a floore wherein wheate and chaffe are mingled together like the Arke of Noah wherein cursed CHAM was aswell preserued from drowning as blessed SEM. But they will say there may be Hypocrits who for that their wickednes is not knowne cannot be separated from them who in sincerity serue and worship God but if their wickednesse breake foorth that men may take notice of it either they are presently reformed or by the censures of the Church cut off from the rest which course if it be not so holden but that wicked ones without due punishment be suffered in the middest of Gods people those societies wherein so great negligence is found cease to bee the true Churches of God and wee may and must diuide our selues from them This was the errour of the Donatistes in former times and is the errour of certain proud arrogant Sectaries in our time But if the Church of God remained in Corinth where there were diuisions sects emulations contentions and quarrels and going to law one with another for every trifle end that vnder the infidels where that wickednesse was tolerated and winked at which is execrable to the very heathens where Paules name and credite was despitefully called in question whom they should haue honoured as a father where the resurrection of the dead which is the life of Christianity was with greate scorne denied who dare deny those societies to bee the Churches of God wherein the tenth part of these horrible evills and abuses is not to be found We see then the difference betweene the turbulent disposition
of sin the sinner is denominated euill partly by denomination passiue in that he wanteth that orderly disposition that should bee in himselfe partly by actiue in that he depriueth as much as in him is some other of that good which pertaines to him Some not rightly obseruing these things finding that some sinnes are positiue acts whereas the nature of euill is privatiue distinguish that which is materiall in the sins of commission that which is formall the substance of the act the difformity of it making the one positiue the other privatiue consisting in the want of that rectitude which should be in it But these men seeme not rightly to conceiue the things whereof they speake For the sin of omission is formally euill a want of rectitude in that the good act that should be done is omitted But the sin of commission if it be an euill act ex genere obiecto is denominatiuely euill not by passiue denomination as wanting that rectitude that should be in it but by actiue in that by way of contrariety it depriueth the sinner of that orderly disposition that should be found in him others of that good that pertaineth to them That that sin of commission that is an euill act ex genere obiecto is not denominated euill passiuely froÌ„ the want of rectitude due vnto it it is evident in that no rectitude is due to such an act For what rectitude is due to the specifical act of hating God or what rectitude is it capable of Greg. de Valentia finding this to be true yet willing to defend the distinctioÌ„ of that which is formall that which is material of some thing positiue some thing privatiue in the sin of commission saith that euill acts as particularly the act of injustice may be considered 2 wayes First in the proper specificall nature of iniustice so it is no subiect capable of the perfection of vertue neque huius perfectionis negatio est in illo priuatio sed pura negatio neither is the deniall of this perfection in respect of such an act so considered a priuation but a meere pure negation 2l l Secundum communem quandam rationeÌ„ illi actui iustitiae vt versantur circa materiam communem ipsi iusticiae scilicet rem alienam sic subiectum aptum est ad perfectionem iustitiae et huiâ—… perfectionis negatio est in illo priuatio In a generalitatie in respect of that which is common to it the contrary act of iustice as they are both conuersant in things pertaining to other men and in this sort it is a subiect capable of rectitude and the perfection of vertue his meaning is that a morall act conuersant in things pertaining to other men considered in a generality is indifferent either to bee an act of iustice giuing to euery one his own or of iniustice depriuing others of that which pertaineth to them that the omission of the act of iustice is a priuation of such rectitude as might be found in this kind So that wheÌ„soeuer any act of iniustice is don first there is a want of rectitude that is an omissioÌ„ of the good act of iustice which might ought to haue bin donne 2ly the producing of an evill act contrary to that good act that is omitted 2 kinds of sin do allwaies concurre the one of omission the other of commission the one is a meere priuation of rectitude the difformity of it is priuatiue in the other which is a sin of coÌ„missioÌ„ specifically coÌ„sidered there is no priuatiue waÌ„t of rectitude for it is capable of none in it there is nothing but meerly positiue the difformity that is fouÌ„d in it is precisely a positiue repugnance to the Law of God Aluarez saith the sin of commission is a breach of a negatiue law which is not broken but by a positiue act contrary to the prescript of right reason as Tho Aquinas teacheth 2ª 2ae q. 79. ar 2. 3. 4. And the same is further confirmed because the same Thomas elswhere saith that in the sin of omission there is nothing but priuation if we consider it as it is in it selfe but the sin of coÌ„mission is some positiue thing Because saith Caietan sin consisteth aswell of a coÌ„version to an obiect contrary to the obiect of vertue as of an aversion from the Law there is in sin a double nature of euill the one arising from the obiect the other froÌ„ the not obseruing of the law the first is positiue the 2d priuatiue the first inferreth the 2l. For it cannot bee that a man should hate God but that in so doing he must breake the Law For there are some acts simply intrinsecally euill so that to doe them is to sin of which sort is the act of hating God Besides one coÌ„trary depriueth the subiect wherein it is found maketh it vncapable of the other so long as it is in it as the hate of God maketh a man vncapable of the loue of God of the hate of such things as are contrary to God should be hated So that there is a double nature of evill the one positiue the other priuatiue the one of these is the cause of the other Greg. de Valentia saith it is consequent vpon the opinion of Caietan that sin formally as sin is a positiue thing which thing he also expressly affirmeth in 1am 2ae q. 71. ar 6. There are that hold saith Cvmel that the formal nature of sin he meaneth the sin of commission consisteth in some positiue thing to witt in the manner of working freely with positiue repugnance to the rule of reason the Law of God Difformitas in actu coÌ„missionis saith Ockam non est nisi ipsemet actus elicitus contra praeceptum diuinum nihil penitus aliud dicit Qâ—…ando elicit quis actum quem non debet si non teneatur ad oppositum actum difformitas non est careÌ„tia alicuius rectitudinis debitae inesse nec illi actui nec voluntati sed si teneatur tunc est duplex peceatuÌ„ coÌ„missionis omissionis et hoc est carentia alterius actus debiti inesse et it a rectitudinis debitae inesse voluntati that is The difformity in an act of commission is nothing but the very act which is done contrary to the Law of God neither doth it imply any thing else So that when a man produceth an action which he should not do if he be not bound to do the contrary the difformity that accompanieth such an actioÌ„ is not the want of any rectitude that should be either in that action or in the will but if he be bound to do the contrary then there are 2 sins found in him the one of coÌ„missioÌ„ the other of omissioÌ„ this latter is the want of another act that should bee donne consequently of a rectitude
what time and against what persons he pleaseth and no otherwise and is author ordinis in malo though not mali When we say he openeth the way passage for wickednesse to break forth wee must vnderstand that he doth this in two sorts either by not hindring it from breaking forth in some one kinde which hee suffereth no otherwise to shew it selfe or in that he positiuely inclineth it hither rather then thither not by way of cause but of occasiō offered In which sense it is that Dauid saith God commanded Shemei to curse him not as if God had eyther inwardly or outwardly perswaded him so to do But because finding him full of malice against Dauid he so prospered Dauid before that he durst not reuile him not had no cause to insult vpon him But now he presented him to his eyes in such a miserable estate forsaken of many and pursued by his owne sonne as he knew would occasion these words of insultation and bitter malediction Thus then God commanded Shemei to curse Dauid not by precept outwardly requiring him so to do nor by perswasiō inwardly inclining him to so vile an actiō but by direction inclining him by words of malediction to expresse his bitter affection which long before desired to vent it selfe now at this time and for the punishment of Dauids sinnes rather then at an other time and in another sort So when wicked men had spoyled Iob he sayd The Lord hath giuen the Lord hath taken away imputing it to God not as if he had made them to become Robbers but for that being such hee directed their wickednesse and vsed it to the triall of his servant opening a passage for their wickednesse and presenting to them such things as hee knew would occasion this outrage As lakewise the Iewes in crucifying Christ are said to haue done nothing but that which God had before resolutely determined not as if God had purposed their wickednesse but only because knowing what was in them he was pleased to direct guide and turne their wickednesse and furious malice to the effecting of his owne purposes The third action that wee attribute vnto God is that hee punisheth one sin by an other In punishments Hugo de sancto victore noteth three things The matter with which a man is punished the contrariety betweene it and the party punished and the order of consequence that where such an offence went before such an euil shall follow to make the party offending feele the smart of it In those punishments which be punishments onely not sinnes God is the author and cause of all these three things implyed in the nature of punishments in those which be punishments and sinnes God is author only of the order of consequence the contrariety between them the nature of the parties punished not of the matter wherwith they are afflicted punished As for exāple Pride is punished by envie Enuie is not of God but the contrarietie betweene it and the soule of man which maketh it bitter and afflictiue is And the order of consequence that where pride went before enuy must follow Neither doth God only punish one sinne with another when there is such a dependance of one vpon the other that where one goeth before the other must follow But oftentimes when there is no such necessary dependance yet he withdraweth his grace and for the punishment of one sinne letteth men runne into another In this sense there are three things attributed to God in the punishment of wicked and godlesse men The blinding of their vrderstanding The hardning of their hearts and the giuing of them vp vnto a reprobate sense These things God is said to doe three wayes First by subtraction and deniall of that grace which should lighten the vnderstandings and soften and mollifie the hearts of men Secondly by giuing leaue to Sathan to work vpon them no way either strengthning them against him or weakning his force Thirdly occasionally and by accident when God doth that which is good which yet hee knoweth through the euill disposition that is in men will increase their wickednesse and make it greater then it was before CHAP. 24. Of the heresies of Origen touching the Image of God and touching hell falsely imputed to Caluin IN the third place the Iesuite fearing that men should thinke hee were neere driuen and wanted store hee chargeth Caluin at once with two heresies of Origen The first concerning the Image of God the second touching Hell and the punishments of it Touching the first it is true that Epiphanius chargeth Origen with heresie For saying that Adam lost the Image of God by his disobedience and sinne but how iustly it is very doubtfull Seeing neither Hierome nor Theophilus Alexandrinus most diligently noting his errours make any mention of it And therefore it may bee probably thought as Alphonsius à Castro noteth that if any such thing was found in the workes of Origen it was so deliuered by him as that it might carrie a good construction and free from heresie But leauing it vncertain what it was that Origen meant by the losse of Gods Image For the cleering of Caluin wee must note that which Thomas Aquinas no hereticke I hope in Bellarmines iudgment beeing a Canonized Saint of the Romish Church hath fittely obserued to this purpose Hee noteth first that the Image of God consisteth in the eminent perfection which is found in men expressing the nature of God in an higher degree then any excellencie of other creatures doth Secondly that this perfection is found principally in the soule Thirdly that it is threefold First naturall which is the largenesse of the naturall faculties of vnderstanding and will not limitted to the apprehension or desire of some certaine things only but extending to all the conditions of beeing and goodnesse whose principall obiect is God So that they neuer rest satisfied with any other thing but the seeing and enioying of him The second kind of this perfection is supernaturall when the soule actually or at the least habitually knoweth and loueth God aright though not so perfectly as hee may and shall bee loued hereafter The third is when the soule knoweth and loueth God in fulnesse of happinesse The first is of nature the second of grace and the third of glory The first of these is neuer lost no not by the damned in hell The second Adam had but lost it and it is renued in vs by grace The third wee expect in heauen To thinke the Image of God considered in the first sort to be lost is heresie but Caluin is free from it To thinke it lost in the second sort is the Catholique doctrine of the Church for who knoweth not that man hath lost all right knowledge and loue of God by Adams fall Some restraine the name of the Image of God to the excellency of the soules nature framed to know all things and neuer to rest
are sinnes and decayes of natures integrity and consequently that concupiscence being a declining from that entire subiection to and conjunction with God is truely and properly sin whatsoeuer our adversaries teach to the contrary Fourthly that originall righteousnesse is said to bee a supernaturall quality because it groweth not out of nature and because it raiseth nature aboue it selfe But that it is naturall that is required to the integritie of nature Neither should it seeme strange to any man that a quality not growing out of nature should be required necessarily for the perfecting of natures integrity seeing the end and object of mans desires knowledge and action is an infinite thing and without the compasse bounds of nature And therefore the nature of man cannot as all other things doe by naturall force and things bred within her selfe attaine to her wished end but must either by supernaturall grace bee guided and directed to it or being left to her selfe faile of that perfection shee is capable of and fill her selfe with infinite euills defects and miseries This may suffice for refutation of the vaine and idle conceits of the Papists concerning three estates of man the one of grace the other of nature and the third of sinne Out of which we may obserue that howsoeuer they indeavour to make shew of the contrary yet indeede they thinke that concupiscence is not sinne neither in the regenerate nor vnregenerate Whereupon it is that Bellarmine speaking of the guilt of concupiscence which the Diuines say is taken away in Baptisme though the infirmity remaine saith it must be vnderstood of that guilt which causeth concupiscence not which is caused of it For saith he originall sinne maketh guilty and subjecteth men to concupiscence but concupiscence doth not make them guilty that haue it and therefore it is not sinne neither before nor after Baptisme But we say with Augustin Sicut caecitas cordis quam removet alluminator deus peccatū est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbū dignâ animadversione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid caeci cordis errore cōmittitur ita concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest ei inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis As the blindnesse of heart which God remooueth when hee lightneth those that were formerly in darkenesse is a sinne in that by reason of it men beleeue not in GOD and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proude hearts of wicked men are iustly punished and a cause of sinne when erring by reason of this blindnesse of heart they doe those things that are euill so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit doth striue and couet is a sinne because there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind and a punishment of sinne in that it falleth out by the iust iudgment of God that they who are disobedient vnto God shall finde rebellious desires in themselues and it is a cause of sinne in that men either by wicked defection consent vnto it or by reason of the generall infection of humane nature are borne in it Wee thinke therefore there should be no question made of concupiscence and other like defects and euils found in the nature of man but that they are in their owne nature sinfull defects And hereof I am well assured none of the Fathers euer doubted but how farre they are washed away and remitted in Baptisme which is the matter about which Bellarmine wrangleth and taketh exception against vs let vs now consider Alexander of Hales the first and greatest of all the Schoolemen noteth diuers things most fitly to this purpose out of which wee may easily resolue what is to bee thought of this matter First therefore hee obserueth that there are two sortes of sinnes some naturall which are in the person from the generall condition of nature some personall that are acted by the person and so defile the nature as all actuall sinnes Secondly that concupiscence is of the first kind being an euill contracted and cleauing to nature not personally acted or wrought by vs. Thirdly that concupiscence may bee considered either as it hath full dominion and is a prevailing thing in them that haue it or as it is weakened and hath lost that strength dominion and command which formerly it had Fourthly that concupiscence while it hath dominion is a sinne defiling and making guilty both the nature person in which it commaundeth all But if it lose this dominion it cleaueth to the nature only and is not imputed to the person for sinne vnlesse hee some way yeelde vnto it bee drawen by it or suffer himselfe to be weakened in well doing by the force of it Fiftly that the benefits of grace are not generall but speciall of priuiledge not freeing the whole nature of man from sin and punishment as sin corrupted and defiled all but that they extend onely personally to some certaine Sixtly that when men are borne anew in baptisme they are freed from all that sin which maketh their persons guilty before God and consequently from all punishments due to them for any thing their persons were chargeable with But because they still remaine in that nature which is of the masse of malediction therefore sin cleaueth to their nature still and they are subject to the common punishment of hunger thirst death and the like Seauenthly that the dominion of that sin which is of nature is taken away by the benefit of regeneration in Baptisme Whence it commeth that the persons of men baptized are not chargeable with it though they remaine still in that nature wherein it is And consequently that the punishments which they are subject vnto because they remaine in the communion of that nature which is not generally free from sin cease to be vnto them in the nature of destroying euils serue to diverse good purposes and turne to their great benefit So then wee say with the Fathers and best learned of the Schoolemen that concupiscence in men not regenerate is a sinne corrupting and making guilty both the nature and the person wherein it is and that in the Regenerate it cleaueth to nature as a sinne still but hauing lost the dominion it had so that it cannot make the person guilty not prevailing with it nor commaunding ouer it Regnum amittit in terra perit in caelo It is driuen from the kingdome it formerly had in the Saints of God while they yet remaine on earth but it is not vtterly destroyed till they goe from hence to heauen Thus then I hope it appeareth that wee are far from the errour of the Messalians and doe fully accord with the Catholike Church of God and that the Romanists are not far from the heresie
of Pelagius CHAP. 27 Of the heresies of Nouatus Sabellius and the Manichees THe sixt heresie that wee are charged with is that of Nouatus who would not haue those that fell in the time of persecution reconciled and receiued againe to the communion of the Church vpon their repentance But wee receiue all Penitents whatsoeuer and therefore this lying slander may be added to the rest to make vp a number But they will say the Nouatians were condemned for denying penance to be a Sacrament and that therein at least wee agree with the Nouatians This is as false as the rest for it is most certaine that the absolution which was giuen in the Primitiue Church disliked by Nouatus was not taken as a sacramentall acte giuing grace remitting sinnes but as a judiciall acte receiving them to the peace of the Church and the vse of the Sacraments which had beene formerly put from them This the best and most iudicious of the Schoole-men confesse besides the infinite testimonies that might be alleaged out of the Fathers to proue the same It was then an admitting to the vse of the Sacraments not it selfe a Sacrament But Caluin sayth that the speech of Hierome that poenitentia is secunda tabula post naufragium is impious and cannot be excused and therefore it seemeth he inclineth to the Nouatians heresie in denying the benefite of penitencie to distressed and miserable sinners that seeke it Augustine in his booke De mendacio ad Consentium maketh it a disputable question whether a man that vsually lieth speaking trueth at some one time with purpose to make men thinke it like the rest of his lying speaches wherewith they are well acquainted may not be said to lie when hee speaketh trueth because hee intendeth to deceiue and doeth deceiue Surely if this man should speake any trueth I feare the Reader would thinke it a falsehood because his ordinary manner is seldome or neuer to speake any trueth Doeth Caluine say the speach of Hierome is impious and not to bee excused as hee reporteth he doeth Surely no but that if it be vnderstood as the Papists vnderstand it it cannot bee excused For they conceiue thereby that the Sacrament of Penance is implied which Hierome neuer thought of But hee will say the Nouatians refused to haue those that they baptized to receiue imposition of hands with which was joyned in those times the anoynting of the parties with oyle Surely so they did but so doe not wee for we tâ—…inke of the vse of imposition of hands as Hierome doeth in his booke against he Luciferians But touching the vse of oyle though at that time there was no cause for the Nouatians to except much against it yet now that it is made the matter and element of a Sacrament and that by a kinde of consecration the ground whereof wee know not wee thinke we doe not offend in omitting it no more than the Church of Rome in omitting innumerable ceremoniall obseuations of like nature that were in vse in those times The seauenth is the heresie of Sabellius which he sayth was reuiued by Servetus So it was indeede that Seruetus reuiued in our time the damnable heresie of Sabellius long since condemned in the first ages of the Church But what is that to vs How little approbation hee found amongst vs the just and honourable proceeding against him at Geneva will witnesse to all posterity The eighth is the heresie of the Manichees which taught that euills which are found in the World were from an euill beginning so making two originall causes the one good of things good the other euill of things euill It is true that this was the damnable opinion of the Manichees But will the shamelesse companion charge vs with this impiety I thinke hee dareth not for hee knoweth that wee teach that all the euils that are in the World had their beginning and did proceede from the freedome of mans will which while hee vsed ill hee ouerthrewe and lost both himselfe and it that while hee turned from the greater to the lesser good and preferred the creature before the Creatour hee plunged himselfe into innumerable defects miseries perplexities and discomforts and justly deserued that GOD from whome thus wickedly hee departed should make all those things which formerly hee appointed to doe him seruice to become feeble weake vnfit and vnwilling to performe the same But saith he Luther affirmeth that all things fall out by a kinde of absolute necessitie whence the heresie of the Manichees may bee inferred The aunswere to this objection is easie for Luther taketh necessitie for infallibilitie of event thereby meaning that all things fall out infallibly so as God before disposed and determined but doth not imagine a necessitie of coaction enforcing nor a naturall and inevitable necessitie taking away all freedome of choyce as our adversaries injuriously impute vnto him If this of Luther faile as in deede it doeth Bellarmine hath another proofe and demonstration that wee are Manichees for that Calvine denyeth man to haue freedome of choyce in any thing whatsoeuer This is a most false and injurious imputation For though Calvine deny that man can doe any thing in such sort as therein to bee free from the direction and ordering of Almighty GOD yet hee confesseth that Adams will in the day of his creation was free not onely from sinne and miserie but also from limitation of desire and naturall necessitie and left to her owne choyce in the highest matter and of most consequence of all the rest and that man by making an euill choyce did runne into those euills which he is now subject vnto Calvin then is not worse than the Manichees as making God the Authour of those euills which the Manichees attribute to an euill beginning as Bellarmine is pleased to pronounce of him but is farther from that hellish conceit than Bellarmine is from hell it selfe if he repent him not of these his wicked and hellish slanders But sayth hee the Manichees blamed and reprehended the Fathers of the Olde Testament and so also doeth Calvine therefore Calvin is a Manichee This is as if a man should thus reason with Bellarmine Porphyry blamed Paul as an arrogant man for reprehending Peter that was his auncient and before him in the faith of Christ and Bellarmine diliâ—…eth him for persecuting the Church of GOD in the time of his infidility therefore Bellarmine is as bad or worse than Porphyry For the Manichees thought that the Old Testament was from an euill beginning and therefore exaggerated all the faults and sinnes of the Fathers that then liâ—…ed for confirmation and strengthening of this their blasphemie But Calvin hateth this impiety more than the Romanists who imagine a greater difference betwixt the state of the Iewes and the Christians that hee doeth It is therefore an ill consequence Caluine doth not hide nor excuse but condemne the murder and adultery of Dauid the drunkennesse of Noe and the
originall sinne cease so to misincline nature as formerly it did and so as to haue the person at command to be swayed whether it will it maketh it not cease to misincline nature in some sort and so to be a sinne of nature it maketh it cease to be a sinne of the person freeing it from being subiect to it and putting it into an opposition against it so that it is no farther a sinne of the person then it is apt to be ledde by it to be hindred from good or drawne to euill The nature and person are freed from the guilt of condemnation the nature in respect of the sinne that remaineth in it is subiect to punishment the person is not free from those punishments which the remaining sinne of the nature it hath bringeth vpon it as death c The person is freed from being subiect to any punishment farther then it must needes be in respect of nature So that originall sinne or concupiscence remaineth in act in the regenerate mouing to desire things not to be desired and so a sinne of nature making it subiect to punishment but it doth not remaine in act illiciendo abstrahendo mentem eiusque consensu concipiendo pariendo peccata that is it doth not so remaine in act as to allure and draw the minde and to gaine the consent of it to conceiue and bring forth sinne and so remaineth not in the guilt of condemnation nor as a sinne of the person If therefore when the question is proposed whether concupiscence in the regenerate which grace restraineth and opposeth be sinne wee vnderstand by sinne a thing that is not good an euill that is not a pvnishment onely but a vice and fault and such an euill as positiuely and priuatiuely repugneth against the law which the spirit of God writeth in the harts of the beleeuers an iniquitie a thing that God hateth and which wee must hate and resist against by the spirit that it bring not forth euill acts if wee vnderstand by sinne such a disposition of nature as God by the law of creation at first forbad and ceaseth not still to forbidde to be in the nature of man it is undoubtedly sinne a sinne I say of nature though not of person And hereunto Stapleton agreeth for whereas it is obiected out of Augustine to proue that concupiscence in the regenerate is sinne that as blindnesse of hart is a sinne in that men by reason of it beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proud hart of man is punished and a cause of sinne when men through errour of their blind hart do any euill thing So that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit opposeth good desires is a sinne in that there is in it disobedience against the minde that should command and a punishment of sinne because it was iustly brought vppon him whose disobedience against God deserued so and a cause of sinne when it obtaineth a consent hee answereth setting aside all other answers as not sufficient that concupiscence in that place is sayd by Augustine not onely to be a punishment and cause of sinne but sinne also not as if it were truly and properly a sinne making God displeased with the regenerate in whom it is but that it is a sinne of nature respecting the first integrity of it and not of the person according to that of the Apostle It is not I that do it but the sinne that dwelleth in mee that is in my flesh For the reason which hee bringeth why it is sinne doth euidently shew this Because sayth hee there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the minde it is therefore a certaine sinne or fault contrary to the integrity of nature in which there was no disobedience of the flesh as it is a fault of the eye to be dimme and of the eare to heare imperfectly And though Sapleton say he had no author to follow in this interpretation yet hee might easily haue found that Alexander of Ales long since was of the same opinion making concupiscence in the regenerate a sinne of nature and not of the person as I haue else where shewed at large If this be soe what then will some man say is the difference betweene the Romanists and those of the reformed Churches surely it is very great for these teach that concupiscence was newly brought into the nature of man by Adams sinne that in the vnregenerate it is properly sinne that it maketh them guiltie and worthy of eternall condemnation that haue it But the Romanists say it was not newly brought in by Adams fall that it is a consequent of nature that it is more free and at liberty to produce the proper effects of it now then it would haue beene if grace had not been lost but not more then it would haue beene in nature simply considered without grace or sinne and that it never made them guilty that had it These say that in the regenerate it is so far weakened as that it hath no power to sway him that is so renewed to what it pleaseth that the guilt of condemnation which it drew vpon man before his regeneration is taken away that yet still it is a sinne of nature making guilty of punishment that yet still it is hated of God and must be hated of vs But the Romanists say the guilt that is taken away is not the guilt whereby concupiscence maketh guilty but out of which it came that man deserved to haue concupiscence free and at libertie And therefore Bellarmine sayth the guilt of concupiscence may be conceiued in three sortes First To be a guilt rising from it and founded in it making him guilty that hath it as the guilt of theft is that whereby he is guilty that hath committed theft Secondly That may bee sayd to bee the guilt of concupiscence not that floweth from it but from which it floweth as if a man should cut off his hand he might be said to be guilty of the hand that is cut off not because it is a sinne making guilty to haue a hand cut off but because he is guilty of the not hauing a hand that hath cut it off himselfe so wee are to vnderstand the guilt of concupiscence not as if the hauing of it did make a man guilty but because Adam by sinne made himselfe guilty of hauing concupiscence at libertie to sollicit him to ill that was formerly restrained Thirdly the guilt of concupiscence is that which it causeth if it obtaine consent to those motions it maketh not for that a man is guilty because he hath concupiscence but because he yeeldeth to it So that according to their opinion when there is a remission of the offence that set concupiscence at liberty it is no guilt to haue it for it is naturall Foure things therefore are to be proved by vs. First That concupiscence was no condition of nature Secondly That it maketh guilty of eternall
what is yet wanting to the faithfull departed or to such as are aliue at the suite supplication of the holy Patriarches Prophets Apostles c. For seeing it is confessed by vs that the Saints in heauen doe pray for vs in a generality we may desire of God the graunting of such things as we or others need not only vpon our own suite but much more for that there are so many supplyants to him for vs not in earth alone but in heauen also though without sence or knowledge of our particular wantes So that there is nothing found in Chrysostome either touching prayer for the dead or invocation of Saints that maketh any thing for the confirmation of popish errours For neither doth Chrysostome in that Liturgie pray for the ease of men in Purgatorie neither doth he inuocate any Saint but calleth vpon God onely though not without hope of being heard the rather for that not onely the faithfull on earth but the Saints in heauen also make petition for him But Master Higgons asketh why I concealed these things To whom I answere that I did not conceale any of them For howsoeuer citing some other parts of Chrysostomes Liturgie to another purpose I had no reason to bring in these passages being altogether impertinent to my purpose and the matter in hand yet in other places I haue shewed at large the ancient practise in all these things and therefore this seduced runnagate whom Sathan the tempter hath beguiled had no reason to compare me to the Tempter leauing out certaine wordes in the text he alleadged vnto Christ. §. 5. IN the next place he obiecteth to vs the heresie of Aerius condemned by Augustine amongst many other impious heresies and Augustines conclusion that whosoeuer maintaineth any of the hereticall opinions condemned by him is no Catholicke Christian and telleth vs that this censure toucheth vs very neere but that I demeane my selfe plausibly and artificially to avoid the pressure of that difficultie which is too heauy for me to beare Whereunto I briefly answer that I demeane not my self artificially to avoid the force of any trueth which I esteeme value aboue all treasures in the world but in all sincerity vnfold those thinges which Papists seeke to wrap vp in perplexed and intricate disputes to the entangling of the Readers For I shew that the naming of the names of the departed the offering of the sacrifice of praise for them the praying for their resurrection publike acquitall perfect consummation and blisse in the day of Christ yea the praying for their deliuerance from the hand of hel the mouth of the Lyon the vtter deletion remissioÌ„ of their sins respectiuely to their passage hence first entrance into the other world are not disliked by vs and that thus far the general intention of the Church extended but that to pray for the deliuerance of meÌ„ out of hel or for the mitigation or suspension of the punishments that are in hel was but the priuat deuotioÌ„ of some particular men doubtfully eroneously extending the publicke prayers of the Church farther then they were meant and intended by her and that in this particular they fell from the trueth which if M. Theophilus Higgons shall deny justifie such kind of prayers for the dead we will be bold to call him by his new name Theomisus But he is desirous to know of me or any other without lies obscurities and circuitions whether Cyrill of Hierusalem concurring absolutely with the Papists in this point of prayer for the dead and Augustine agreeing with him fell away from the truth or not That he professeth himselfe an enemy to lies obscurities and circuitions the best sanctuaries of their euill cause I greatly maruell feare that if he giue ouer the aduantage which he and his companions are wont to make thereof this his first booke will be his last But in that he saith Cyrill of Hierusalem concurreth absolutely with the Papists in the matter of prayer for the dead and Augustine with him hee doth as beseemeth him for he vttereth lies and vntruthes which before vnaduisedly he condemned For first it is most certaine that Cyrill maketh but two sortes of men departing out of this life sinners righteous and that he thinketh as Chrysostome also doth and after them Damascene many other that wicked and sinfull men in hell may find some ease be relieued by the prayers of the liuing but of Purgatory he speaketh not Touching Augustine he dissenteth altogether from this opinion of Chrysostome Cyrill and Damascene thinketh that the prayers of the Church for such as excelled in goodnes are thanksgiuings to God for such as died impenitently in grieuous sins comforts of the liuing but no helpes of the dead for those that were neithâ—… exceeding good nor exceeding euill propitiations and meanes to obtaine fauour and remission But whether they of this middle sort be in any penall estate after death or whether by the mercy of God and working of his grace the prayers of the liuing accompanying them they bee freed from sinne and the punishment of it in the first entrance into the other world he resolueth nothing and therfore there was no cause why this good man reflecting as he saith vpon my assertion should bee amazed to behold such a repugnancie betweene these things to wit Augustine ran doubtingly into the opinion of Purgatorie and yet he affirmeth there is no doubt but that some sinnes are remitted in the other world and tâ—…at some soules may be relieued by prayer For in the iudgement of wiser men then Mastâ—…r Higgons these thinges imply no contradiction and therefore the Grecians admit the latter of them and yet deny Purgatory Yea in their Apologie touching Purgatory they say if there be remission of sinnes after this life there is no enduring of the punishments due to sin it being one thing to haue remission of a sin or fault and another to suffer the extremity of punishment it deserueth That there is therefore remission of sinnes of a middle sort of men after this life in the entrance into the other world Augustine made no doubt and to that purpose he alleadged the saying of Christ concerning the sinne that is neither remitted in this world nor the other from thence to inferre that some sinnes are remitted after this life But whether there be any Purgatory-punishments after this life or not hee was euer doubtfull as appeareth by sundry places in his workes where he saith Perhaps there is some such thing it is not incredible that there is some such thing and whether there be or not it may be found out or it may be hid neither will it follow that because he maketh three estates of men dying whereof some are so good that wee haue rather cause to giue God thankes for them then to pray others so ill that they cannot be relieued and a third sort that need our
faith only doth not iustifie that good works are meritorious he endeauoureth to proue because I confesse that men iustified freely by grace are crowned in the world to come for that new obediēce that is foūd in thē after iustificatiō But this cōsequence I suppose wil not be thought good seeing as Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer God in respect of good works or hauing an eye to thē or for good works giueth not onely temporall but eternall rewardes not for the worthinesse of the workes in themselues but out of his owne grace for the merit of Christ first working such good workes in them that are his and then crowning his owne workes in them as Augustine long since aptly obserued Let vs see therefore if he can proue any better that fayth onely doth not justifie this hee vndertaketh to doe out of that which I haue written that justification implieth in it faith hope and charity But for the clearing of this poynt let him be pleased to obserue that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant but an adiudging of eternall life vnto vs sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sinne and wrath into a state of righteousnesse and acceptation with God which implyeth in it sundry things concurring in very different sort without any preiudice to the singular prerogatiue of fayth For first it implyeth in it a worke of almighty God as the supreame and highest cause Secondly the merits of Christ as the meanes whereby God is reconciled and induced to take vs into his fauour Thirdly in him that is to be justified a certaine perswasion of the trueth of such thinges as are contayned in the holy word of God Fourthly motions of feare contrition hope of mercy and the like workes of preparing grace as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified that hee may be capable of Gods fauour Fifthly as the susceptiue cause an act of faith by which a man truely repenting of former euils and seeking deliuerance without all doubting firmely beleeueth that all his sinnes are remitted him for Christs sake Lastly an infusion of the habite of diuine and heauenly vertues as a beginning of that life of God to which he doth adiudge them whom he receiueth to fauour So that my saying that justification thus taken implyeth in it Faith Hope and Charitie contrarieth not our position that fayth onely justifieth in sort before expressed which the Treatiser knowing right well insisteth no longer vpon this cauill but passeth to an vntruth charging Mee that I say of S. Augustine whom yet I pronounce to haue been the greatest of all the Fathers and the worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times that his manner of deliuering the Article of Iustification is not full perfect exact as if I imputed some fault to him in not deliuering the poynt of justification as it became him whereas I haue no such thing but say onely that his manner of deliuering that Article was not so full perfect and exact as we are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists in which saying I no way blame that worthy Father but shew that new errours require a more exact manner of handling of thinges then was necessary before such errours sprung vppe which I thinke no wise man will deny and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny vnlesse hee will bee contrary to himselfe For hee sayth expressely that Saint Augustine before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies spake not so aptly and properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted some things which hee had formerly vttered So that the Reader will easily finde that in this passage hee hath sayd lesse then nothing neither will his next discourse be found any better wherein he laboreth to shew a contrariety between Me Luther Caluine others in that I make that acte of fayth which obtayneth and procureth our justification to bee an acte by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour and not of comfortable assurance consisting in a full perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the children of God Whereas Luther Caluine and the rest make iustifying faith to be an assured perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the sonnes of God But the Treatiser might easily know if hee were disposed that according to our opinion iustifying faith hath some actes as a cause disposing preparing and fitting vs to the receipt of that gracious fauour whereby God doth iustifie vs and other as a susceptiue cause receiuing embracing and enioying the same in the former respect neyther they nor I make faith to consist in a perswasion that wee are the sonnes of God in the latter wee both do and so agree well enough though the Treatiser it seemeth could wish it were otherwise §. 4. WHerefore let vs goe forward and take a view of that which followeth The next thing which hee hath that concerneth Mee is that it may bee gathered out of my assertions in my Third Booke of the Church that I thinke as hee saith some other also do that it is no fundamentall point of doctrine but a thing indifferent to beleeue or not to beleeue the reall that is the locall presence of CHRISTS Body in the Sacrament But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him vnlesse it be lawfull for him to reason à baculo ad angulum as often as he doth For in the pages 120 and 121 of his second part because I confesse that in the Primitiue Church the manner of some was to receiue the Sacrament in the publique assembly and not bee partakers of it presently but to carry it home that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sicke that in places where they communicated euery day there was a reseruation of some parts of the sanctified Elements and that the sanctified Elements thus reserued in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them were the bodie of Christ to wit in mysterie and exhibitiue signification hee goeth about to conclude that I must needes confesse the reall that is the locall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which consequence is no better then if a man should goe about to conclude that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable booke because hee hath troubled the world with one such as it is full of vaine idle and emptie discourses whereof if any man make doubt let him consider but the very next words For whereas I confessed Calvines dislike of the reseruation aunciently vsed and yet saide it cannot bee proued that hee denied the Sacramentall elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them to bee Sacramentally the body of Christ hee saith I labour in vaine because
that others whom Augustine refuteth in his booke De fide operibus were of opinion that all Christians how damnably soeuer they liue holding the trueth of Christian profession may and shall be saued This he saith is the doctrine of the Protestants If any of vs euer wrote spake or thought any such thing let GOD forget euer to doe good vnto vs and let our prayers bee rejected from his presence but if this bee as vile a slaunder as euer Satanist devised the Lord reward them that haue beene the Authours devisers of it according to their workes But let vs see doth he make no shew of proofe doubtlesse he doeth Luther saith he pronounceth that there is no way to haue accesse vnto God to treate with him touching reconciliation acceptation into his fauour but by faith that God regardeth not workes that a true Christian is so rich in faith that he cannot perish though he would nor how wickedly soeuer he liue vnlesse he refuse and cease to beleeue For the cleering of these places of Luther wee must remember that which Illyricus hath fitly noted to this purpose that there are two Courts of Gods Iudgements most righteous proceeding towards the sons of men the one he calleth forum iustificationis the other novae obedientiae In the first hee saith God requireth perfect righteousnesse fully answering that his Law prescribeth which being no where to bee found but in Christ no way apprehended but by faith in this respect sitting in this Court of exact tryall he regardeth no workes vertues or qualities finding nothing of worth or worthy to be respected but looketh to our faith onely for Christs sake onely at the sole and onely suite of Faith forgiueth sin imputeth righteousnesse Notwithstanding because he neuer saith to any sinner Thy sinnes are remitted but that he addeth goe and sinne no more that vpon perill of forfeiting the benefite receiued and that some worse thing should betide vnto him therefore there is another Court wherein he sitteth giueth commaundement for new obedience and workes of righteousnes though not requiring so strictly that perfection which formerly hee did but accepting our weake indevours study of well doing and in this sort it is that hee will judge vs in the last Day according to our workes Thus then wee see how that though Faith be neuer alone yet in procuring vs acceptation with God it is alone and that though God regard none of our vertues actions qualities as being of any worth in the strictnes of his Iudgment but reject them as vnpure vncleane respect nothing but the humble sute petition of Faith for the purpose of justification yet when we are justified he requireth of vs a new obedience judgeth vs according to it crowneth vs for it That which Luther addeth that a man cannot perish though hee would and how wickedly soeuer hee liue vnlesse he cease to beleeue may seeme hard at the first sight but not to them that doe knowe that Luther is farre from thinking that men may bee saued how wickedly soeuer they liue for he constantly teacheth that Iustifying faith cannot remaine in that man that sinneth with full consent nor be found in that soule wherein are peccata vastantia conscientiam as Melancthon speaketh following Augustine that is raging ruling preuailing laying wast and destroying the integrity of the conscience which should resist against euill and condemne it This is all then that Luther saith that no wickednesse with which faith may stand can hurt vs soe long as faith continueth but if sinne once become regnant and so exclude faith wee are in the state of damnation Against this doctrine of Luther or any part thereof neither Bellarmine nor the gates of hell shall euer be able to prevaile Wee see then how iustly wee are charged with the heresies of the Simonians Eunomians and the like monsters surely as iustly as Bellarmine may be charged with true and honest dealing in this imputation and other that follow CHAP. 23. Of the heresie of Florinus making God the author of sinne falsely imputed to Caluine and others THe next heresie which they say wee are fallen into is the heresie of Florinus who taught that God is the cause and author of sinne This he sayth Caluin Luther Martyr and sundry other of the greatest Diuines of the reformed churches haue defended in their writings Of this sinfull wicked and lying report wee are sure GOD is not the Author but the diuell and therefore wee doe not fully accord with Florinus But that it may appeare how truly these men write and speake of things of soe great moment I will onely positiuely lay downe what wee thinke of this matter and the adversaries slaunders will bee sufficiently refuted For the clearing of our opinion touching this poynt I will first set downe the different kinds of sinne Secondly what God may be sayd to will or decree touching the first entrance thereof And thirdly what when it is entred Sinne as wee know is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the law The law is partly affirmatiue requiring partly negatiue forbidding the doing of a thing Hence it followeth that all sinne is either of omission or commission Sinne of omission is the not doing of that the Creature is bound to do Sinne of Commission is the doing of that the creature is bound not to doe The not doing of that the creature is bound to doe God may be sayd to will and decree foure wayes First by effectuall opposing against the doing of it in this sort it is impious to thinke that God decreed the omission or not doing of that the creature stands bound to doe Secondly by discouraging and disswading from the doing of it which is no lesse absurd and impious then the former Thirdly by deniall of that grace concurrence and assistance without which it cannot be done this cannot bee imagined in respect of the state of mans first creation but wee must make God the Author of sin and therefore there is none of vs that doth attribute any such thing vnto God But contrarywise Caluin whom Bellarmine seemeth most to challenge noteth fitly to this purpose out of Augustine that God gaue Adam posse si vellet sed non velle quod potuit power to stand and continue in his vprightnesse if he would though hee did not inseparably hould him to it but left him to his owne choice whence followed that euill we now complaine of Fourthly by deniall of that grace assistance and concurrence without which he seeth the creature will not be moued nor wonne to doe it though it haue other more then sufficient graces motiues and encouragements to induce it therevnto In this fourth sense many feare not to say that God negatiuely or privatiuely decreed the sinne of omission or the not doing of that the creature was bound to doe in that he decreed the deniall of
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
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
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
I am si canon ille missae in hunc quem diximus sensum intelligatur nihil habet incommodi superstitiosa tantum absit opinio quia quidam de naturâ energiâ huius sanctissimi sacrificii male edocti virtutem eius ex solo externo opere quod facit Sacerdos in se deriuari putabant tametsi illi nullam viuam fidem adferrent nullam pietatem adhiberent nulla communione vel precum seu orationis sacrificio assensum praeberent quales erant qui nullâ suae nefandae impietatis execrandorum flagitiorum habitâ ratione se huic sacratissimae diuinissimae actioni damnabiliter miscuerunt missam solius externi operis quod sacerdos facit virtute prodesse put antes etsi ipsi nihil probae mentis adferrent That is If the canon of the Masse bee vnderstood in this sense which wee haue expressed there is no euill in it so that men haue no superstitious conceipt of things for there were some who being ill instructed touching the nature of this sacrament supposed that vertue might be deriued vnto them by the sole externe action of the priest although they brought no liuely faith no piety nor gaue any consent to the sacrifice by any communion so much as of prayer of which sort they were who hauing no consideration of their owne horrible impieties evills committed by them persevering in the purpose of sinning damnably presumed to be present at this most holy action and put themselues in a sort into it perswading themselues that the masse by the vertue of the externe worke of the priest alone would doe them good though they brought no motions affections or desires of a good mind with them Hosius was of the same opinion with these before recited When the priest sayth hee lifteth vp the eucharist let men remember that sacrifice wherein Christ being lifted vp to the crosse offered himselfe to God a sacrifice for vs. Let them thinke how bitter the torments were that hee sustained let them know that mens sins were the cause of such his sufferings let them greiue as it is fitte they should for them and let them shew by all meanes that they hate them And because by his precious death hee hath so fully satisfied for all sinnes that there are none that are not abolished let them with good assurance considence goe vnto the throne of grace and whereas wee haue no merit of our owne let them plead that of Christ let them present that his body that did hang on the crosse and his bloud which was shed for the remission of our sinnes to God the Father and let them humbly beseech him to turne away his face from their sinnes and to looke vpon the face of his son Christ who bare our infirmities to looke vpon his face for his merit to remit their sinnes and to graunt that they may deriue vnto themselues all that fruite which that sacrifice of the crosse that is represented on the altar brought to the world Thus he sayth the people were taught by our forefathers and this hee sayth is enough for them to know Notwithstanding hee sheweth that Michael Bishop of Merspurge a man learned godly and truely catholique published certaine sermons touching the sacrifice of the massâ—… which hee wisheth to bee in the hands of all men in these sermons the same explication is made of the sacrament so often mentioned that I haue already deliuered And with him agreeth another learned Bishop Thomas Watson sometimes Bishop of Lincolne in his sermons vpon the seauen sacraments his words are these Christ in heaven and wee his mysticall body on earth doe but one thing for Christ being a Priest for euermore after his passion and resurrection entred into heauen and there appeareth now to the countenance of God for vs offering himselfe for vs to pacifie the anger of God against vs and representing his passion and all that he suffered for vs that we might be reconciled to God by him euen so the Church our mother being carefull for vs her children that haue offended our father in heauen vseth continually by her publique minister to pray to offer vnto God the body bloud of her husband Christ representing renewing his passion and death before God that wee thereby might bee renewed in grace and receiue life perfection and saluation and after the same sort the holy Angels of God in the time of this our sacrifice do assist the priest and stand about the host thinking that the meetest time to shew their charitie towards vs and therefore holding forth the body of Christ praye for mankind as saying thus Lord wee pray for them whom thou hast so loued that for their saluation thou hast suffered death spent thy life vpon the crosse we make supplication for them for whom thou hast shed this thy bloud we pray for them for whom thou hast offered this same thy very body In that houre when Christs death is renewed in mysterie his most fearefull and acceptable sacrifice is represented to the sight of God then sitteth the King on his Mercie-seat enclined to giue and forgiue whatsoeuer is demaunded and asked of him in humble manner In the presence of this body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ the teares of a meeke and humble man neuer beg pardoÌ„ in vain nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart is neuer put back but hath his lawfull desires granted giuen By resorting to this sacrifice of the masse we evidently declare protest before God the whole world that we put our singular only trust of grace saluation in Christ our Lord for the merits of his death his passion not for the worthinesse of any good worke that we haue done or can doe that we make his passion our only refuge For when wisedome faileth which onely commeth by the doctrine of Christ when righteousnesse lacketh which onely is gotten by the mercie of Christ when vertue ceaseth which onely is receiued from him who is the Lord of all vertue then for supplying of these our lacks needs our refuge is to Christs passion then we run as the Prophet saith to the cup of our Sauiour and call vpon the Name of our Lord that is to say we take his passion offer to God the Father in mystery the worke of our redemption that by this memorie commemoration of it it would please his mercifull goodnes to innovate his grace in vs to replenish vs with the fruit of his Sonns passion We are become debtors to Almighty God for our manifold sins iniquities done against him we can neuer pay this debt no scarse one farthing of a 1000 pounds what remedie then haue we but to run to the rich man our neighbour that hath enough to pay for vs all I meane Christ our Lord who hath payde his heart bloud for no debt of his own but for our
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
the more ancient for we intend not to accuse the just but to shew the infirmitie of man and the mercie of GOD vpon and towardes all Enoch as Ecclesiasticus testifieth pleased GOD and was translated into paradise but in that it is written in Genesis hee pleased GOD after he begat Methusalem Basil doth not without cause collect that hee formerly did not so please GOD and the same Basil saith that that great Father of the faithfull is found to haue beene some-where vnfaithfull and not without cause for when God first promised Isaak vnto him though he fell on his face yet he laughed in his heart saying thinkest thou that a sonne shall bee borne to him that is an hundred yeares old and that Sarah who is ninety yeares old shall bring forth Wherevpon Hierome speaketh of Sarah and him in this sort they are reproved for laughing and the very cogitation and thought is reprehended as a part of infidelity yet are they not condemned of infidelity in that they laughed but they receiued the garland of righteousnes in that afterwards they beleeued Besides these the Scripture giueth ample testimony to Noah Daniel Iob who onely in Ezechiel it saith may escape the anger of God ready to come on men yet Noah fell into drâ—…nkennes which is a sinne and Daniel professeth he prayed vnto the Lord and confessed his owne sinne and the sin of his people Iob also is commended in the Scripture and of God himselfe as being a sincere man righteous fearing God and departing from euill and that not in an ordinary sort but so as that none of the most righteous then in the world might be compared vnto him as St Austine rightly collecteth out of the words of God vnto Satan This man though hee were a singular example of innocencie patience and all holines and though hee indured with admirable patience horrible tribulations and trials not for his sinnes but for the manifestation of the righteousnes of God yet as Augustine and Gregorie who as loud sounding trumpets set forth his prayses freely confesse hee was not without veniall sinne Which thing is strongly confirmed in that the same most sincere louer of righteousnes confesseth of himselfe saying I haue sinned what shall I doe vnto thee ô thou â—…eeper of men And being reproued by the Lord and in a most mild sort willed to say what hee could for himselfe hee answered without any circuition that he had spoken foolishly and therefore the Scripture as it were carefully declining the giuing occasion to any one to attribute so great innocencie to Iob as to make him sinles sayd not that he sinned not but that hee sinned not in all those things that hee suffered before that time when he answered his wife if wee haue receiued good things of the hand of the Lord why should we not patiently suffer the evils he bringeth vpon vs Moses beloued of God men and the most meeke of all the inhabitants of the earth doubted something of the promise of the Lord when hee stroke the rocke twise with the rodde to bring out water for the people being distressed for want of water and that his doubting displeased the Lord God and hee let him know so much both by reprouing him and punishing him and therefore presently he sayd to him Aaron because yee beleeued mee not to sanctifie mee before the children of Israel you shall not bring in this people into the land which I will giue them The Scripture also highly commendeth Samuell but as August noteth that neither hee nor Moses nor Aaron were without sin David sufficiently declared when he said thou wast mercifull vnto them and didst punish all their inventions for as August noteth he punisheth them that are appointed to condemnation in his wrath the children of grace in mercy but there is no punishment no correction nor no rod of God due but to sinne Zacharie and Elizabeth are renowmed for eminent righteousnes for they are both sayd to haue beene iust before God walking in all his commandements without reproofe but that Zacharie himselfe was not without fault sinne Gabriel shewed when hee sayd vnto him behold thou shalt be silent and not able to speake And the same may be proved out of Paul who sayth that Christ onely needed not daily as the priests of the law to offer sacrifice first for their owne sinnes and then for the sinnes of the people And it is one thing as the fathers of the councell of Mileuis haue well noted in their epistle to Innocentius to walke without sinne another thing to walke without reproofe for he that walketh so that no man can iustly complaine of him or reprehend him may bee said to walke without reproofe though sometimes thorough humane frailety some lighter sinnes doe seize vpon him because men doe not reproue nor complaine but onely of the more greivous sinnes And to what end should wee runne thorough other examples of the Saints Whereas the lights of the world and salt of the earth the Apostles of Christ that receiued the first fruits of the spirit confessed of themselues that in many things they offended and sinned And therefore the Church taught this euer with great consent Tertullian Quis hominum sine delicto Cyprian proveth by Iob Dauid and Iohn that no man is without sinne and defiling Hilarie vpon those words thou hast despised all them that depart from thy righteousnes If God should despise sinners he should despise all for there is none without sinne Hierome shewing that the Ninivites vpon good ground and for good cause commaunded all to fast both old and young writeth thus The elder age beginneth but the youngger also followeth in the same course for there is none without sinne whether he liue but one day or many yeares for if the starres be not cleane in the sight of God how much lesse a worme rottennes and they that are holden guilty of the sinne of Adam that offended against God And in another place wee follow the authority of the Scripture that no man is without sinne And Saint Augustine whosoeuer are commended in Scripture as hauing a good heart and doing righteously and whosoeuer such after them either now are or shall be hereafter they are all truely great iust and praise worthy but they are not without some sinne nor no one of them is so arrogantly mad as to thinke he hath no need to say the Lords prayer and to aske forgiuenes of his sinnes And in his 31 sermon de verbis Apostoli he hath these words Haehetici Pelagiani Coelestiani dicunt iustos in hac vitâ nullum habere peccatum redi haeretice ad orationem si obsurduisti contra veram fidei rationem Dimitte nobis debita nostra dicis an non dicis Si non dicis etsi praesens fueris corpore foris tamen es ab ecclesiâ Ecclesiae enim oratio est vox est de
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
of the same Waldensis who sayth that some supposed the conuersion that is in the Sacrament to bee in that the bread and wine are assumpted into the vnity of Christs person some thought it to be by way of Impanation and some by way of figuratiue or Tropicall appellation The first and second of these opinions found the better entertainment in some mens mindes because they graunt the essentiall presence of Christs body and yet deny not the presence of the bread still remayning to sustaine the appearing accidents These opinions hee reports to haue beene very acceptable to many not without sighes wishing the Church had decreed that men should follow one of them Wherevpon Iohn Paris writeth that this way of Impanation so pleased Guido the Carmelite sometimes Reader of the holy Palace that hee professed if hee had beene Pope hee would haue prescribed and commaunded the imbracing of it Neither was it lesse pleasing to many in Waldensis time who as hee sayth did as it were wish in their hearts it were free from them to defend it and that a decree in the Church were passed in the favour of it CHAP. 18. Touching or all Manducation ALexander of Hales and Bonaventura doe teach that no man can eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood without faith and that the eating of Christ is mysticall not corporall Bonaventura sheweth for that whereas there are three things implied in corporall eating to wit a mastication or chewing a traiection into the stomacke and bellie and a conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater this later which is most essentiall in eating cannot agree vnto the body of Christ which is not turned into our substance but rather in mysticall sort turneth vs into it selfe It appeareth by that of Waldensis cited before that many thought the wicked doe not eate the flesh of Christ seeing they supposed so much onely of the bread to be turned into the body of Christ as is to be receiued by the beleeuers or if all bee turned that yet the body of Christ ceaseth to be in the Sacrament when a wicked man is to receiue it and that the bread returneth againe CHAP. 19. Of the reall sacrificing of Christs body on the Altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and dead TOuching the reall sacrificing of Christs Body on the Altar the Church neuer taught any such thing as the Romanists now teach as appeareth by these testimonyes following Although sayth Biel Christ were once offered when he appeared in our flesh he is offred notwithstanding dayly hidden vnder the vailes of Bread wine not touching any of those things which import punishment or suffering for Christ is not dayly wounded he suffereth not he dyeth not but for two other causes the consecration and receiuing of the holy Eucharist may be named a sacrifice oblation first because it is a representation and memoriall of the true sacrifice holy oblation made on the Altar of the Crosse secondly because it maketh vs partakers of the effects of the same now the resemblances of things as Augustine noteth writing to Simplicianus are called by the names of those things whereof they are resemblances as we are wont to say when we behold a paynted table or wall this is Cicero this Salustius Wherefore seeing the celebration of this sacrifice is a liuely resemblance of the Passion of Christ which is the true sacrificing of him it may rightly bee named the sacrificing of him Peter Lombard Thomas and the other Schoolemen sayth Bellarmine were not carefull of that which is now in question touching the dayly renewed Reall sacrificing of Christ but only sought to shew how the sacrifice of the Masse may be called an offering of Christ that is a slaying of him therefore proposing the question whether the Eucharist be a sacrifice they answer for the most part that it may be sayde to bee an offering or sacrifice because it hath a resemblance of the true and Reall offering which was on the Altar of the Crosse and because it communicateth vnto vs the effects of the true and Reall killing of Christ. CHAP. XX. Of Remission of sinnes after this life THat Remission of sinnes after this life was not taught nor beleeued in former times by the Church appeareth by the judgement of these Divines who teach the contrary The prayers of the liuing sayth Durandus may be vnderstood to benefit the dead two wayes either in respect of remitting the fault or diminishing or taking away the punishment in the first sort the prayers of the liuing cannot profit the dead because either the sin wherein they depart out of this life is mortall or veniall if it be mortall hee that so departeth is not capable of Remission if veniall he needes no helpe because such remission of sinne consisteth in the ordering the will aright againe whereby men rightly dislike that they ill affected before now the willes of them that depart hence in grace yet with veniall sinne so soone as they are out of the body are brought into due order because as weight and lightnesse carry the things that are heavy or light if there be no impediment to their owne places so Grace and Charity carry men going hence to the possessing of eternall happinesse so that all things hindering or staying from the present enjoying thereof are bitter and vnpleasant Now because not onely punishments for mortall sinnes formerly committed but also veniall sinnes if any bee found in him that dyeth in state of grace hinder from such desired enjoying therefore they must needes bee disliked in which dislike the will is reordered againe which in the liking of that it should not was disordered c. The merites sayth Scotus of him that dyeth in charity are a sufficient cause of the remission of veniall sinnes neither is this cause hindred from working the proper effect thereof in him that dyeth as it often is in him that liueth for in him that liueth there is a stop and hindrance so long as hee remaineth actually in sinne but after death there is no stop because then a man committeth no sinne and therefore by such merits sinnes are remitted Whence it followeth that in the instant of death all veniall sinnes are remitted to men dying in state of grace Alexander of Hales maketh grace to be of three sorts the first that which is giuen in baptisme the second that which is found in men repenting of sinne committed after Baptisme and the third that which is in men departing hence which he calleth finall grace this last he saith taketh away all sinfullnesse out of the soule because when the soule parteth from the body all pronenesse to ill and all perturbations which were found in it by reason of the conjunction with the flesh do cease the powers thereof are quieted and perfectly subjected to grace and by that meanes all veniall sinnes remooued soe that no veniall sinne is remitted
after this life but in that instant wherein grace may be sayd to be finall grace it hath full dominion and absolute command and expelleth all sinne Whereas therefore the Master of sentences and others do say that some veniall sinnes are remitted after this life we must soe vnderstand their sayings that therefore they are sayd to be remitted after this life because it being the same moment or instant that doth continuate the time of life and that after life so that the last instant of life is the first after life they being remitted and taken away in the very moment of dissolution are sayd to be remitted after this life for otherwise the wills of men after death are vnchangeable and there is no more place left for merit Hereunto Gregory seemeth to agree saying that the very feare that is found in men dying doth purge their soules going out of their body from the lesser sinnes Seeing therefore as Bernard sayth if all sinne be perfectly taken away whiâ—… is the cause the effect must needes cease which is punishment it followeth that seeing after death there is no sinne found in men dying in state of grace there remaineth no punishment and consequently no purgatory CHAP. 21. Of Purgatory TOuching Purgatory whether they that are to be purged be purged by materiall fire or by some other meanes it is doubtfull likewise touching the place the Roman Church hath defined nothing Whereupon some thinke that soules are purged where they sinned some in one place some in another neither is there any more certainty touching the continuance of sinfull soules in their purgation Dominicus â Soto thinketh that no man continueth in this purgation ten yeares his reason is for that seeing men may pacifie Gods wrath by very short penance in this life where they can neither endure any great extremity nor are perfectly apprehensiue of smart griefe therefore much sooner in the other where they may endure greater extremity and are more apprehensiue of it so that the extremity of their passion may counteruaile long continuance in paine This of Soto if we grant to be true saith Bellarmine no soule needes stay in purging one houre neither indeed caÌ„ he proue that any doth by Scripture or Fathers or any resolutioÌ„ of the Church but only because they vse to pray for men departed a long time after their death which doth no more proue that they neede prayers so long as they are prayed for then pardons for thousands of yeares proue Purgatory to continue so long and by certaine visions which sometimes he regardeth not For howsoeuer sundry visions reported by Beda Dionysius Carthusianus and in the first booke of the life of Bernard import that the soules of men in Purgatorie are tormented by diuels yet he thinketh that the children of God ouercomming Satan in the last conflict being secure of their future state for euer are neuer molested by Satan any more Thus then we see that notwithstâ—…ding any thing defined in the Church the soules of men may be purged from all the drosse of sinnefull remainders and freed from all punishments in the very moment of dissolution which is that wee say Hereupon Iohn Bacon sayth there be some who thinke that Purgatory after this life cannot be prooued by the authority of the Scripture that these do say the bookes of Macchabees are not Canonicall and that the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. speaketh of that fire that shall purge the elements of the world in the last day And touching that saying of Christ of sinne that shall neuer be remitted in this world nor that to come they say it prooueth not the remission of any sinnes in the other world but that this forme of speaking is vsed only for the better inforcing of that he intendeth to deliuer as if a man should say to a barren woman thou shalt neuer beare child neither in this world nor in that which is to come CHAP. 22. Of the Saints hearing of our prayers THat the Saints doe heare our prayers or are acquainted with our particular wants was neuer resolued in the Church of God Biel sayth that the Saints by that naturall or euening knowledge whereby they see and know things as they are in themselues do not know or discern our prayers neither mentall nor vocall by reason of the immoderate distance betweene them and vs and touching that morning knowledge whereby they see things in the eternall word it no way pertaining to their essentiall felicity to see and know our desires and it being vncertaine whether it appertaine to their accidentall happinesse hee sayth it is not certaine but that it may seeme probable that God revealeth vnto them all those suites which men present vnto them The Master of sentences sayth it is not incredible that the soules of the Saints that delight in the secrets of Gods countinance in beholding the same see things that are done in the world below Hugo de Sancto Victore leaueth it doubtfull whether the Saints do heare our prayers or not and rejecteth that saying of Gregory brought to proue that they do Qui videt videntem omnia videt omnia The interlineall glosse vpon Esay 63. sayth Augustine was of opinion that the dead though Saints know not what the liuing though they be their owne children doe here in this world Which appeareth to be true by his owne words pronouncing that if so great Patriarkes as was Abraham knew not what befell to the people that came of them it is no way likely that the dead do intermeddle with the affaires of the liuing either to know them or to further and set them forward whereupon he concludes that for ought is knowne to the contrary the Saints remaining only in heauen and praying for vs only in generall God by the ministery of Angels or immediately by himselfe without their particular intermedling giueth vs the things we haue need of Willihelmus Altisiodorensis sayth that many do thinke that neither wee do properly pray to the Saints nor they pray for vs in particular but that improperly only we may be sayd to pray to them in that wee desire God that the fauour which they finde with him resting from their labours and their workes being gone after them may procure vs their brethren acceptation likewise whom they haue left behind them in the warfare of this world Whereupon the prayers are Adiuuent nos eorum merita c. In the margent he sayth that this was a common opinion in his time CHAP. 23. Of the Superstition and Idolatry committed formerly in the worshipping of Images THat many in the Romane Church did see the abuse superstition that was in the vse of Images appeareth by Picus Mirand his Apology of his conclusion proposed in Rome that neither the Crosse nor any other image is to be worshipped with diuine worship by Durand blaming many things in the practise of the Church at that time and
to glorifie God as much as he dishonoured him before and God accepteth weake indeauours as sufficient in this kind CHRIST hauing perfectly satisfied for us as a publicke person may accept of a meane and weake satisfaction for the wrong done to him but must inflict punishment answerable to the fault to satisfie publique justice offended by that wrong Wherefore passing from this kinde of satisfaction let vs speake of that other that God requireth standing in the suffering of punishments due to sinne Some define this kind of satisfaction to be the suffering of the punishments that God inflicteth or wherewith a man voluntarily punisheth himselfe but this is not a good definition For as a thiefe or murtherer may not lay violent hands on himself be his owne executioner when he hath offended to satisfie publique Iustice but must submit himself to that which authority will lay on him so it is so farre frō being any satisfaction to Gods Iustice for a man when he hath sinned to become his own executioner to punish himselfe for his sin to satisfie the Iustice of God that it highly displeaseth God It is true indeede that we may lawfully afflict our selues not to satisfie Gods Iustice but to purge out the drosse of that sinfull impuritie that cleaueth to vs and to cure the wounds of our soules as wee may afflict our selues by fasting watching and abstaining from many things otherwise lawfull for the freeing of our selues from the remaines of our former excessiue and immoderate delight in eating drinking surfeiting and riot other abuses of the good creatures of God So that we must not define satisfaction to bee the suffering of those punishments that God inflicteth or wherewith the sinner punisheth himself for it is only the sustaining of those that God in Iustice doth inflict And in this sort Christ satisfied his Fathers wrath not by punishing himself but by being obedient to his Father euen vnto the death Wherefore let vs proceed more particularly to consider the satisfactory sufferings of Christ see first what punishments Christ suffered to pacifie his Fathers wrath and secondly what the manner of his passion was Touching the punishments that Christ suffered they were not ordinary but beyond measure grievous bitter insupportable yea such as would haue made any meere creature to sinke down vnder the burthen of thē to the bottome of Hell For he suffered grieuous things from all the things in Heauen Earth Hell in all that any way pertained to him He suffered at the hands of God his Father and of Men of Iewes of Gentiles of enemies insulting of friends forsaking of the Prince of darknes all his cruell mercilesse instruments of the elements of the world the Sun denying to giue him light the aire breath the earth supportance Hee suffered in all that pertained to him In his name being condemned as a blasphemer as an enemy to Moses the Law the Temple worship of God to his own Nation to Caesar the Romans a glutton a cōpanion with Publicans sinners a Samaritan one that had a Diuell did all his miracles by the power of Beelzebub In the things he possessed when they stripped him out of his garments cast lots on his seamelesse coate In his friends greatly distressed discomforted with the sight of those things that fell out vnto him according to that which was prophesied before The Shepheard shall be smitten the sheep shall be scattered In his body when his hands feete were nailed his sides goared his head pierced with the crown of thorns his cheeks swollen with buffering his face defiled with spitting vpon his eyes offended with beholding the scornefull behauiour of his proud insulting enemies his eares with hearing the wordes of their execrable blasphemy his taste with the myrrhe gall that they gaue him in his drinke his smell with the stinch and horrour of the place wherein he was crucified being a place of dead mens skuls Lastly in his soule distressed with feares compassed about with sorrowes besetting him on euery side that euen vnto death In so wofull sort did he take on him our defects and suffer our punishments But because we may as well enlarge and amplifie Christs passions and sufferings too much as extenuate them too much let vs see if it bee possible the vttermost extent of that he suffered For the clearing hereof some say that he suffered all those punishments that were beseeming him or behoofefull for vs that hee suffered all those punishments that neither prejudice the plenitude of sanctitie nor science But that wee may the better informe our selues touching this point wee must obserue that the punishments of sinne are of three sorts First Culpa Secondly ex culpa ad culpam Thirdly ex culpa sed nec culpa nec ad culpam that is First sinne Secondly something proceeding from sinne and inducing to sin Thirdly things proceeding from sin that neither are sins nor incline and induce to sinne Examples of the first are Enuie afflicting the mind of the proud man grieuous disorders accompanying the drunkard and a reprobate sense following the contempt of Gods worshippe and seruice Of the second naturall concupiscence pronenesse to euill difficulty to doe good contrariety in the faculties of the soule and repugnance and resistance of the meaner against the better Examples of the third which are things proceeding from sin but neither sinnes nor inclinations to sinne are hunger thirst weakenesse nakednesse and death it selfe The punishments of this last sort onely Christ suffered and neither of the former two for neither was there sin in him nor any thing inclining him to euill or discouraging him from good The punishments of this kinde are of two sorts Naturall and Personall Naturall are such as follow the whole nature of man as hunger thirst labour wearinesse and death it selfe Personall are such as grow out of some imperfection and defect in the vertue and faculty forming the body disorder in diet or some violence offered and these are found but in some particular men and not in all men generally as Leprosies Agues Gowts the like All those punishments that are punishments only that are from without and that are common to the whole nature of Men Christ suffered that came to bee a Redeemer of all without respect of persons but such as flow from sin dwelling within or proceed from particular causes or are proper to some and not common to all hee suffered not The punishments that are punishments onely and not sinne and are common to the whole nature of man are likewise of two sorts for either they are suffered for sinne imputed or sinne inherent For one may bee punished either for his owne fault or the fault of another in some sort imputed to him When a man is punished for his owne fault hee hath remorse of conscience blaming and condemning him as hauing brought such euils vpon himselfe by
his owne folly But when a man is punished for another mans fault whereof hee hath beene no cause by example perswasion helpe or consent hee canne haue no remorse of conscience Now our Saviour Christ suffered the punishments of the sinnes of other men not his own and therefore hee was free from remorse of conscience though it be generally found in all men and be neither sinne nor inducement to sin Lastly the punishments that are punishments onely and not sin that are common to the whole nature of Man and suffered not for the faults of him that suffereth them but for the sins of other are of two sorts for either they are the punishments of sinne eternally remayning in staine and guilt or broken off ceasing and repented of The punishments of sinne eternally remaining must according to the rules of diuine justice be eternall and consequently joyned with desperation which alwayes is found where there is an impossibility of any better estate for euer But it is no way necessary neither doth the iustice of God require that the punishments of sinne repented of ceasing and forsaken should bee euerlasting or ioyned with despaire For as the Diuines doe note that there are three thinges to bee considered in sinne The auersion from an infinite and incommutable good the inordinate conuersion to a finite good and the continuing in the same or ceasing from it so to these seuerall thinges in sinne there are three seuerall thinges answearing in the punishment of it For to the auersion which is obiectiuely infinite there answereth poena damni the losse of God which is an infinite losse To the inordinate conuersion of the sinner to thinges transitory there answereth poena sensus a sensible smart and griefe intensiuely finite as the pleasure the sinner taketh in the transitory thinges hee inordinately loueth is finite To the eternity of sin remayning euerlastingly in staine guilt or the continuance of it but for a time answereth the eternity of punishment or the suffering of the same but for a time It is true that euery sinner sinneth in suo aeterno as Saint Gregorie speaketh in that hee would sinne euer if hee might liue euer and that euery sinner casteth himselfe by sinning into an impossibility of euer ceasing to sin of himselfe as a man that casteth himselfe into a deepe pit canne neuer of himselfe rise out of it againe And therefore naturally eternity of punishment is due to sinne but if by force of Diuine operation men be framed to cease from sinne and to turne from it vnto God the Iustice of God requireth not eternity of punishment but onely extrâ—…mitie answerable to the grieuousnesse of sinne Wherefore seeing our Sauiour Christ suffered onely for those sinnes which he meant to breake off by framing the sinners to repentance it was no way necessary for the satisfying of diuine Iustice that hee should endure eternall punishment If it be sayd that all doe not repent nor cease from doing ill wee easily graunt it but it is likewise to be knowne that the satisfaction of Christ is not appliable to all sinners not through any defect in it selfe but through the incapacity of them to whom it should be applyed Soe that as Christ dyed and satisfied Gods wrath sufficiently for all but effectually onely for the elect and chosen soe likewise hee giueth grace to cease from sinne if the fault were not in themselues sufficiently to all But to the elect and chosen whom he foreknew before the world was made hee giueth grace effectually that his passion may be applyed vnto them and they really and indeede made partakers of it They seeme therefore to be deceiued who thinke that the excellencie of the person of Christ dispensed with the eternity of punishment which otherwise to satisfie diuine justice hee was to haue suffered and thereupon inferre that it might also dispense with the grieuousnesse and extremity of punishment that otherwise hee was to haue endured For the worth and excellency of his person was neither to dispense with the time nor grieuousnesse of his punishments but to make the passion of one auaileable for many Otherwise if it might haue dispensed with one degree of extremitie of punishment due to sinne it might also haue dispensed with two and consequently with all as Scotus aptly noteth though to another purpose These things being thus distinguished it is easie to answer that question that hath troubled many Whether Christ suffered all the punishments of sinne or not For wee may safely pronounce as I thinke that Christ suffered the whole generall punishment of sinne that onely excepted which is sinne or consequent vpon the inherence and eternity of sinne that is punished as remorse of conscience and desperation If any man shall goe further and aske whether to satisfie Gods justice Christ suffered the paines of hell or not it will be answered that he suffered not the paines of hell in specie or loco that is either in kind or place but some thinke that he suffered paines and punishments conformable and answerable to them in extremity that onely excepted which is sinne or consequent vpon the inherence and eternity of the sinne of such as are punished in hell Concerning poena sensus that is sensible smart and griefe Cardinall Cusanus a famous learned man is claerely of opinion that Christ suffered extremity of such paine answerable to that sensible smart and griefe that is indured in hell but the doubt is principally of the other kind of punishment named Poena damni which is the losse of God For the clearing of which point Scotus aptly obserueth diuers things For first he sheweth that punishment is the discernable want of some fitting good in an intellectuall nature and the presence of some euill in the same Secondly that the good that is in an intellectuall nature is of two sorts the one of vertue the other of sweete joyfull and pleasing delight and that though both these concurre sometimes as in the fruition of God in heauen wherein the perfection of vertue the fullnesse of joy and delight do meete together yea that though every thing that is vertuous be delightfull yet it is not so much the height of vertue as of delight that is to be judged happinesse Thirdly he inferreth from hence that there are two kinds of punishment consisting in the losse of God whereof the one is the want of that vertue whereby the soule is to be joyned and knit vnto God the other the want of that delight and pleasure that is to be found in God That the former is an evill of vnrighteousnesse sin may be called an obstinacy in sinne and is nothing else but sinne not remitted nor remoued Poena derelicta non inflicta that is no new euill brought in vpon the sinner but that left in him that hee wrought in himselfe The other is more properly named Poena damni or Damnum that is the punishment of losse or a losse
God shall in the end find mercy and that no torments shall be eternall he concludeth in this sort ◠As we beleeue that the torments of the diuel of such as deny God and of impious men which haue said in their hearts there is no God are eternall so we thinke that the sentence of the Iudge that shall be pronounced vpon sinners vngodly men who yet are Christians whose workes are to bee tryed and purged in the fire shall be moderate and mixed with clemency Where we see againe he maketh not the difference betweene the degrees of sinne as the Romanists doe but betweene impious men that say in their hearts there is no God that deny God and his truth and Christians that are vnrighteous and sinners Neither are those words whose workes are to be tryed and purged in the fire to bee taken distinctiuely to note forth vnto vs one certain degree of Christians who shall suffer a temporall punishment in fire as M. Higgons would haue them but explicatiuely to signifie the condition of all Christians Which appeareth because otherwise he would not haue said of sinners yet Christians but of sinners yet such Christians whose works are to be tryed in the fire This explicatiō is added to put a difference between Christians such as are no Christians because the works of Christians only of all Christians shall come to be tryed in the fire of Gods judgment others being judged already as Hierome speaketh adjudged to eternall perdition These circūstances of the words of Hierome considered I thinke there is no indifferent reader but wil cōceiue his opiniō to haue bin as I haue deliuered it that I haue no way wronged him but that Higgons hath causelesly wronged Me. Some places there are in Hierome that are brought to proue that he was of another opinion but they proue nothing The first is out of his Commentaries vpon Hosea where he saith When heretickes see men offend against God they say God seeketh nothing of them but the verity of faith for this cause the people are not humbled but they reioyce in their sinnes and goe forward with a stiffe necke wherefore the People and Priest Master and Schollers are bound vp in the same judgment This place is alledged to no purpose For here Hierome sheweth onely that Heretickes teaching falsely that God requireth not good works and such as beleeuing them shall rejoyce in euill doing shall perish which is no way contrary to the other conceipt that right beleeuing Christians liuing ill shall in the end be saued The next place they bring is out of his Commentaries vpon Mathew the words are these Marke prudent Reader that both punishments are eternall and that euerlasting life hath no more feare of any fallings away which no way contraryeth the opinion of Hierome before-mentioned For hee is resolued that the punishments of the Diuell his Angells and all impious ones are eternall but thinketh right beleeuers though liuing wickedly shall bee punished but for a time That out of his Commentaries vpon the Galathians That enmity contention wrath brawling dissention drunkennesse and other-like which wee esteeme to bee but small euills exclude vs from the Kingdome of GOD If it bee vnderstood of right beleeuers accorcording to Hieromes opinion sheweth onely what these deserue namely exclusion from the Kingdome of God but preiudice not the riches of his mercy towardes them that doe such things Heere by the way I would haue the reader to obserue a grosse ouersight in M. Higgons who saith it may as well be inferred out of the writings of Hierome that he thought all Christians shall in the end be saued how damnably soeuer erring in matters of faith as right beleeuers Whereas distinguishing the godlesse or impious man that neuer knew God or corrupteth the knowledge hee had of God as heretickes from a sinner or vnrighteous man he expresly pronounceth the one to perish euerlastingly and not the other Hauing thus cleared my selfe from the suspition of wrong offered to Hierome which M. Higgons would willingly fasten on me I will perswade my selfe to contemne the wrongs he doth me As namely that I vse the testimonies of this Saint at my pleasure that I vainely elude the truth and vnconscionably intreat the Fathers that I craftily conuay wordes into Saint Augustin that I sort my termes wisely for my aduantage and that I seeke to dazle the vnderstanding of my readers If Master Higgons were a man of any worth and should entreat mee thus ill without all cause as hee doth I would lette him knowe more of my minde but I haue resolued not to turne backe to euery Curre that barketh at mee SECT 4. WHerefore from Hierome I will passe to Ambrose whom this prophane Esau who hath sold his birth-right for a messe of pottage for more I thinke hee will not haue for it bringeth in as hee saith to make vp the messe In this idle discourse touching Ambrose the poore fellow is to bee pittied or laughed at accordingly as men are disposed so ridiculously doth hee behaue himselfe The circumstances of the matter are these In the place cited by him first I shew in what sort men prayed lawfully for the dead without any conceit of Purgatory namely respectiuely to their passage hence and enterance into the other world and for their resurrection publicke acquitall in the day of iudgement and perfit consummation blisse Secondly I shew first what erroneous conceits some particular men in former times had touching the possibility of helping men dying in mortall sinne whereupon they prayed for the dead in such sort as the Romanistes dare not doe as for the deliuerance of men out of hell or at least the suspension or mitigation of their paines secondly that they thought that there is no iudgement to passe vpon men till the last day that in the meane while all men are holden either in some place vnder the earth or else in some other place appointed for that purpose so that they come not into heauen nor receiue the reward of their labours till the generall iudgement and that out of this conceit that prayer in Iames his Liturgie grew that God would remember all the faithfull that are fallen asleepe in the sleepe of death since Abell the iust till this present day and that hee would place them in the land of the liuing as also many other like Of this opinion I report Iustine Martyr Tertullian Clemens Romanus Lactantius Victorinus Martyr Pope Iohn the two and twentith and Ambrose to haue been besides sundry other All that which I haue said touching the lawfull and vnlawfull formes of praying for the dead vsed amongst the Auncient no way importing any conceit in them of Purgatory hee passeth ouer in silence as no way able to refute any part of it likewise by his silence yeeldeth that Iustine Martyr Tertullian Clement Bishop of Rome Lactantius Victorinus Martyr and Pope Iohn
flye all are friendes and all are enemies all are tyed vnto her in a bond of amity and yet all are her aduersaries all are of her houshold and yet none are at peace with her all are neighbours and yet all seeke their owne they are the Ministers of Christ and they serue Antichrist soe that nothing remaineth but that the diuell that feareth not to walke at noone day should be reuealed to seduce such as remaine in Christ still abiding in their simplicity for hee hath already swallowed vppe the riuers of the wise and the floudes of the mighty and hath hope to draw in Iordan into his mouth that is the simple and lowly in heart that are in the Church What is therefore the frandulency Maister Higgons so much complaineth of Surely hee sayth it was onely wickednesse of life Bernard complayneth of and I seeme to extend his complaint farther For answere whereunto first I say that I no way extend the wordes of Bernard to any particular kind of euill of life doctrine or violation of discipline but cite them in such generall sort as they are found in him Secondly I say it is vntrue that Higgons sayth that Bernard complained onely of the euill liues of men in his time for in his bookes of Consideration to Eugenius the Pope hee blameth him for medling with thinges more properly pertaining to men of another ranke and sort asking of him Quid fines alienos inuaditis quid falcem vestram ad alienam messem extenditis that is why doe you incroach vppon the bounds of other men and why doe you reach forth your sicle and thrust it into the haruest of other men adding that if the daies were not euill hee would speake many other things Likewise he complaineth of the confusion and abuse of appeales to Rome in this sort Praeter fas ius praeter morem ordinem fiunt non locus non modus non tempus non causa discernitur aut persona That is appeales are made and admitted besides law and right besides custome and order no difference is made of place manner time or cause so that the Bishoppes in all partes of the world are hindered that they cannot do their duties as also of the spoyling of the guides and gouernours of the Church of their authority by exemptions and priuiledges freeing such as are vnder them from their subiection Murmur loquor sayth hee querimoniam ecclesiarum truncari se clamitant demembrari vel nullae vel paucae admodum sunt quae plagam istam aut non doleant aut non timeant Quaeris quam Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis Episcopi Archiepiscopis Archiepiscopi Patriarchis siue Primatibus That is I vtter the murmuring complaint of the Churches they cry out that they are mangled and dismembred there are eyther none or very few which either feele not or feare not this plague if you aske what plague Abbots are exempted from the iurisdiction of their Bishoppes Bishoppes of their Arch-bishoppes they of their Primates But hee dissented not from the Papistes in matter of doctrine Surely this is no truer then the rest for it will be found that Bernard hath written that which will not please our Adversaries very well touching speciall faith imperfection impurity of inherent righteousnesse merites power of free-will the conception of the blessed Virgin and the keeping of the Feast of her Conception For I would willingly learne of them whether they will graunt that all our righteousnesse is as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman that wee must beleeue particularly that our sins are remitted to vs that our workes are via regni not causa regnandi that is the way that leadeth to the Kingdome but not the cause why we raigne that the blessed Virgin was conceiued in sin and that the feast of her conception ought not to be kept In all these things doubtlesse Bernard dissented from the Papists at this day neither did he know or vnderstand any thing of their transubstantiation locall presence priuate masses halfe Communions indulgences the like which are matters of difference betweene vs our Adversaries at this day so that there might be good conformity in substance betweene Bernard and Wickliff his followers though many Articles falsely attributed to him are damned hereticall some things were vttered vnadvisedly by him therefore that which followeth of Falshood Inflexions Pretenses and subtilties is but the bewraying the distemper of Higgons hâ—…e braine who hauing confounded himself in his owne intricate conceipts woulâ—…â—…ke men beleeue other are like vnto him how orderly plainely and sincerely soeuer they handle things The Third Part. §. 1. IN the third part of this Chapter he reflecteth to vse his owne wordes vpon foure passages of mine and professeth that he will detect sundry vntrueths and vanities wilfully committed in the same Wherein the Reader shall finde him as false and as vaine a man as euer he met with The foure passages he speaketh of are these the first that Gerson reporteth that sundry lewd assertions preiudiciall to the states of Kings and Princes were brought into the Councell of Constance and that the Councell could not be induced to condemne them Secondly that they made no stay to condemne the positions of Wickliff and Hus. Thirdly that they condemned the positions of Wickliff Hus seeming to derogate from the state of the Cleargy Fourthly that they condemned the said positions though many of them might carry a good and Catholicke sense if they might haue found a fauourable construction In which of these passages is my falshood and vntruth Doth not Gerson report that sundry lewd positions prejudiciall to the state of Princes were brought to the Councell of Constance to bee condemned and that by no exhortations or entreaties by word or writing the Fathers assembled in it could be brought to condemne them Doth hee not say that they condemned the positions of Wickliff and Hus that they imprisoned some for those errours in the beginning of the Councell and burnt them afterwards Doth he not say the positions preiudiciall to the states of Princes which hee speaketh of were more pestiferous in the life and conversation of men and in the state of Common-weales then those they condemned Doth he not complaine of partialitie respect of persons and the Cleargies seeking their owne rather then that which is Christ Iesus Doth he not say many of the positions of Wickliff might haue had a good sense if they might haue beene fauourably construed Doth hee not protest that he hath no hope of reformation by a Generall Councell things standing as hee found them to doe if there be any vntruth in any of these passages let the Reader censure me as he pleaseth But if all these things be most vndoubtedly true let him accompt of Higgons as of an impudent young man that hath strangely hardened his fore-head as if he had beene a
I may be as good as my word iustifie it against the proudest Papist liuing that none of the differences between Melancthon Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall Wherefore the Treatiser leaueth Illyricus commeth to Hosiander whom hee will proue to haue holden a priuate opinion touching iustification because Calvine in his Institutions spendeth almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of his conceipt touching the same Article which in the very entrance hee calleth hee wores not what monster of essentiall righteousnesse Conradus Schlusselburge placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of heretickes But this obiection will easily be answered For it is not to be doubted but Caluine the rest iustly disliked that which they apprehended to bee his opinion and condemned it as a monster For they conceiued that heâ—… made Iustification to bee nothing else but a transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a mixture and confusion of it with vs. But Smidelinus sheweth at large that he neuer had any such conceipt but that distinguishing three kinds of righteousnesse in Christ whereof we are made partakers to wit actiue passiue and essentiall in that hee was the Sonne of God he taught that justification is not onely an acceptation and receiuing of vs to fauour vpon the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ but an admission of vs also to the right of the participation of the diuine nature as Peter speaketh and of that essentiall righteousnesse that was in him in that he was the sonne of God that so receiuing of his fulnesse we may be filled with all diuine qualities and graces The reason why hee thus vrged the implying of the communication of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ in our iustification was not as the same Smidelinus telleth vs for that he thought iustification to consist wholy therein or for that hee meant to exclude the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ from being causes of our iustification or receiuing fauour with God but because he saw many mistooke and abused the doctrine of free justification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to the carelesse neglecting of al righteousnesse in themselues therefore he taught there is no remission of sin no receiuing of any man to fauour by vertue of the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnes of Christ vnlesse out of dislike of sin desire of grace to auoid it he be admitted to the right of the participation of that essentiall righteousnes that dwelt in him in all fulnesse that so it may dwell in him that is to be iustified also in some degree sort Neither is this construction of Hosianders words made by Smidelinus onely but by sundry other For Stapleton sayth the followers of Brentius defended the opinion of Hosiander whereas yet neither Brentius nor any of his followers euer dreamed of any transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs any mixture or confusion of it with vs or any other communication of it to vs or in any other sort then is before expressed So that the Treatiser had no reason to write as he doth that my proceedings are rare and singular and that I feare not to affirme things apparantly false and confessed vntrue by all my brethren much lesse to say that euery man may easily perceiue by these my proceedinges that I had a good opinion of mine owne wit and learning For what haue I done that sauoureth of pride or wherein haue I bewrayed such vanitie as he speaketh of Is it a matter of pride not to condemne hastily other opinions to make the fairest and best construction of other mens words especially such as are of the same profession with vs Wherefore if the Treatiser be able to say any thing against this my defence of Illyricus and Hosiander I will heare him otherwise let him not tell me of my schoole distinctions for I am not ashamed of them Neither doe I vse them as the Romane sophisters do to auoid the euidence of that truth that is too mighty for them to encounter but to cleare that which the Romanistes desire to haue wrapped vp in perplexed and intricate disputes But it seemeth the Treatiser will not accept of this condition and therefore hee passeth from the supposed diuisions of our Churches and differences of our Diuines proceedeth to shew their inconstancie instancing particularly in Luther And wheras in my former books I haue answered the obiections of Papistes touching this supposed inconstancie he goeth about to refute that my answer which consisteth of two parts Whereof the first is that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-will iustification the difference of the Law and the Gospell faith and workes Christian liberty and the like Luther was euer constant The second that it is not so strange as our Aduersaries would make it that Luther proceeded by degrees in discerning sundry Popish errours seeing Augustine and their Angelicall Doctour altered their iudgment in diuerse things and vpon better consideration disliked what they had formerly approued The former part of this my answere he pronounceth to containe a manifest vntruth for that amongst other things mentioned by me Luther was not euer constant of one iudgment touching freewil hee endeauoureth to proue because in the defence of his Articles condemned by the Pope he saith Freewil is a forged or fained thing a title without a substance it being in no mans power to think any thing good or euill but all things falling out of absolute necessity and else-where hee saith men of their owne proper strength haue free-will to doe or not to doe externall workes so that they may attaine to secular and ciuill honesty But M. Treatiser should know that between these sayings of Luther there is no contradiction in truth and in deed but in his fancy onely for in the former place two things are deliuered by Luther The first that no man by nature hath power to turne himselfe to God without grace or so much as to prepare himself to the receipt of grace which in the latter place speaking onely of externall workes and ciuill or secular honesty hee doth not contradict The second that though men in outward things and things that are below haue a kinde of freedome of will and choyce and power to doe or not to doe them yet not so free but that they are subject to the providence disposition of Almighty God bowing bending turning them whither he pleaseth and hauing them in such sort in his hand as that they can will nothing vnlesse he permit them which no way preiudiceth that liberty which else-where he attributeth to the will For the will of man is sayd to be free because it doth nothing but on liking and choice and because God permitting it hath power to doe what pleaseth it best and not because it is free and not subiect to diuine disposition and
debt there whiles wee celebrate the memory of his passion we acknowledge confesse our sinnes which be without number grant that we are not able to satisfie for the least of them therfore beseech our mercifull Father to accept in full payment satisfaction of our debts his passion which after this sort as hee hath ordained to be done in the sacrifice of the masse we renew represent before him where our sinfull life hath altogether displeased him wee offer vnto him his welbeloued Son with whom we are sure he is well pleased most humbly making supplication to accept him for vs in whom only we put all our trust accounting him all our righteousnes the authour of our saluation Thus doth the Church daylie renew in mysterie the passion of Christ doth represent it before God in the holy masse for the attaining of all the graces benefites purchased by the same passion before after the measure of his goodnes as our faith deuotion is knowne vnto him And againe The Church offereth Christ Gods Sonne to God the Father that is representeth to the Father the body and bloud of Christ which by his omnipotencie hee hath there made present and thereby reneweth his passion not by suffering of death againe but after an vnbloudy manner not for this end that we should thereby deserue remission of sins deliuerance from the power of the deuill which is the proper effect of Christs passion but that we should by faith devotion this representation of his passion obtaine remission grace already deserued by his passion to be now applyed to our profite and saluation c. not that we can apply the merits of Christs death as we list to whō we list but that we by the representation of his passion most humbly make petition prayer to Almighty God to apply vnto vs the remission grace which was purchased deserued by Christs passion before after the measure of his goodnes and as our faith and deuotion is knowne vnto him The thing offered both in the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse in the sacrifice of the Church on the Altar is all one in substance being the naturall body of Christ our high Priest and the price and ransome of our redemption but the manner and effects of these two offerings are diuerse the one is by the shedding of Christs bloud extending to the death of Christ the offerer for the redemption of all mankind the other is without shedding of his bloud onely representing his death whereby the faithfull and deuout people are made partakers of the merits of Christs passion Hitherto the Bishoppe of Lincolne and to the same purpose the Authour of the Enchiridion of Christian religion hath these words Diligenter ergo haec omnia nobis intuentibus nihil vel absurdi vel scrupulosi in toto missae contextu occurret sedomnia praesertim quae canon complectitur pietatis plenissima ac plané reuerenda vt sunt videbuntur Aut enim Ecclesia respicit ad corpus sanguinem Christi pro se in cruce oblata vi omnipotentis verbi in altari praesentia non veretur haec appellare hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam panem sanctum vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae aut ad oblationem repraesentatiuam commemoratiuam passionis seu corporis Christi veri quae fide misericordiam per Christum apprehendente redemptionem quae est in Christo deo patri opponente peragitur non dubitat hoc sacrificium laudis offerre pro se suisque omnibus pro spe salutis incolumitatis suae nimirum spem salutis incolumitatis ac redemptionem animarum debitalaude ac gratiarum actione deo accepta referens petitque vt hanc oblationem seruitutis suae Deus placatus accipiat diesque nostros in sua pace disponat atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi et in electorum suorum grege iubeat numerari non quidem ex meritis nostris aut ex dignitate nostrae seruitutis sed per Christum dominum nostrum that is If wee rightly looke into these things nothing will occurre vnto vs in the whole context of the masse that may iustly seeme absurd or cause any scruple but all things there found especially such as are contained in the canon will appeare vnto vs as they are indeede full of piety and much to be reuerenced for either the Church hath respect to the body and bloud of Christ offered for her on the crosse and by force of his Almighty word present on the altar and so feareth not to call these a pure host an holy host an immaculate host the holy bread of eternall life and the cuppe of eternall saluation or else shee hath an eye to the representatiue and commemoratiue oblation of the passion or true body of Christ which consisteth in faith apprehending mercy by Christ and opposing vnto God the redemption that is in Christ and soe shee doubteth not to offer this sacrifice of praise for her selfe and all her members for the hope of her saluation and safety that is with all due praise and thankesgiuing shee acknowledgeth that shee hath receiued from GOD the hope of saluation safetie and the redemption of the soules of her sonnes and daughters and desireth that God will take in good part this oblation of her service and bounden dutie that hee will dispose our dayes in peace that hee will deliuer vs from eternall condemnation and that hee will make vs to be numbred with his elect not for our merits or the worthinesse of this seruice but thorough Christ our Lord. With these Georgius Wicelius a man much honoured by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian fully agreeth defining the masse to bee a sacrifice rememoratiue and of praise and thankesgiuing and in another place he saith the masse is a commemoration of the passion of Christ celebrated in the publike assembly of Christians where many giue thinkes for the price of redemption With these agreeth the Interim published by Charles the fift in the the assembly of the states of the Empire at Augusta March 15 t 1548 and there accepted by the same states But some man happily will say here are many authorities alleaged to proue that sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church in Luthers time denyed the new reall offering or sacrificing of Christ and made the sacrifice of the altar to bee onely representatiue and commemoratiue but before his time there were none found soe to teach Wherefore I will shew the consent of the Church to haue beene cleare for vs to uching this point before his time and against the Tridentine doctrine now prevailing Bonaventura in his exposition of the masse hath these words The body of Christ is eleuated and lifted vp in the masse for diuers causes but the first and principall is that wee may obtaine and regaine the favour of God the Father
which wee haue lost by our sinnes for there is nothing that offendeth God and provoketh him to be dipleased but sinne only as the Psalmist sayth they prouoked and displeased God with their inuentions the Priest therefore lifteth vp the body of Christ on the altar as if hee should thus say O heauenly Father wee haue sinned and provoked thee to anger but now looke on the face of Christ thy sonne whom wee present vnto thee to moue thee to turne from thy wrath and displeasure to mercie and grace turne not away thy face therefore from this thy holy child Iesus from this thy sonne but remember that thou hast sayd of this same thy sonne this is my welbeloued sonne in whom I am well pleased correct therefore mercifully in vs whatsoeuer thou findest in vs fit to be corrected and turne vs vnto thee and turne thy wrath from vs. The question is proposed sayth Petrus Cluniacensis why this sacrifice is so often repeated seeing Christ once offered on the crosse is sufficient to take away the sinnes of the whole world especially seeing here and there not a diuers but the same sacrifice that is the same Christ is offered For if that on the crosse sufficed this seemeth to bee supefluous but it is not superfluous c. for after hee had sayd doe this hee addeth in remembrance of mee This then is the cause of this Sacrament euen the commemoration of CHRIST Our Sauiour knew what hee had done and what hee would doe for man hee knew how great and singular that worke was which hee had done in putting on the nature of man hee knewe how wonderfull that worke would bee that hee was to do when hee should die for man hee knew that by this worke hee should saue man but that noe man could be saued without the loue of this worke hee knew that this worke of his becomming man and dying for man as it was renowned aboue all his workes soe it was especially to bee recommended vnto men for whome it was done it was specially to bee commended to them seeing his flesh was tormented for them his soule grieued and death seized on him that they might liue this was solemnly to be commended vnto them that Christ might bee beloued that being beloued hee might be possessed that being once had hee might neuer bee lost But this loue of him could not haue beene retained by men if they should-haue forgotten him neither could they haue retained the memorie of him vnlesse they should haue beene put in minde of him by some fitting outward signe For this cause was this signe proposed and appointed by CHRIST which yet is so a signe that it is the same thing that it signifieth and herein it differeth from the sacrifices of the old Law which were not that they signified Sed istud nostri sacrificij signum non aliud sed ipsum est quod signat ita vero est ci idem quod signat vt quantum ad corpus id est ad veritatem carnis sanguinis Christi pertinet sit idem quod signat non quoad mortem passionem neque enim ibi Christus vt olim dolorem mortem patitur cum tamen immolari dicatur cum videlicet inviolabiter in altari frangitur diuiditur comeditur cum ijs quibusdam alijs signis in quantum fieri potest mors domini maximè repraesentatur vnde sicut dixi quantum ad veritatem corporis sanguinis Christi pertinet est idem quod signat non quoad mortem passionem quam tamen maximè signat that is This signe of our sacrifice is noe other but the same thing that it signifieth but wee must soe vnderstand it to bee the same thing that it signifieth in respect of the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ which it signifieth but not in respect of his passion death though it very liuely expresse signifie that also for Christ doth not there suffer griefe or death as once he did though hee be said there to be offered immolated when hee is inviolably broken vpon the altar distributed eaten when by these the like signes Christs death is represented asmuch as possibly it may be so that as I said if we speake of the trueth of the body and bloud of Christ this signe is the thing it signifieth but if we speake of the death and suffering of Christ it is not so though it doe very clearely expressely represent signifie that his death and passion Thus we see he maketh the sacrifice to be merely representatiue Algerus excellently expresseth the same thing in these words Notandum quia quotidianum nostrum sacrificium idem ipsum dicit cum eo quo Christus semel oblatus est in cruce quantum ad eandem veram hic ibi corporis substantiā quod verò nostrum quotidianum illius semel oblati dicit esse exemplum id est figuram vel formam non dicit ut hic vel ibi alium Christum constituat sed ut eundem in cruce semel in altari quotidiè alio modo immolari offerri ostendat ibi in veritate passionis quâ pro nobis occisus est hic in figurâ imitatione passionis ipsius quâ Christus non iterum verè patitur sed ipsius verè memoria passionis quotidiè nobis iteratur quod ipse Ambrosius notans subiicit Quod nos facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est hoc enim facite inquit in meam commemorationē non aliud sacrificium sed ipsum semper offerimus magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Non ergo est in ipsius Christi veritate diversitas sed in ipsius immolationis actione quae dum veram Christi passionem mortem quâdam suâ similitudine figurando repraesentat nos ad imitationē ipsius passionis invitat accendit contra hostem nos roborat munit à vitiis purgans virtutibus condecorans vitae aeternae idoneos dignos exhibet That is It is to bee noted that our daylie sacrifice is the same thing with that sacrifice whereby Christ was once offered vpon the crosse in that the same true substance is offered here that was offered there whereas therefore he saith that the sacrifice which we daylie offer is a similitude figure or representation of that sacrifice which Christ once offered he is not to be conceiued to imagine that there is one Christ essentially here another there but his meaning is to shew that the same Christ once offered on the crosse is dayly offered in another sort on the altar there in the truth of his passion being slaine for vs here in figure and imitation of his passion not suffering againe indeed but hauing the memory of his passion which once he endured daylie renewed which thing Ambrose himself also obseruing hath these words That which we doe is done in remembrance of that which
Pope sought to ouerthrow the order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie to encroach vpon all Bishoppes and guides of the Church and to vsurpe such an illimited vniversall and absolute authority as no way pertained to him feared not to call him Antichrist to compare him and his Courtiers to that Behemoth that putteth his mouth to the Riuer of Iordan thinking he can drinke it vp to pronounce that it is most true that before his time was said of him and his execrable Court Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis Eius luxuria meretrix non sufficit omnis That the Church was holden in Babylonicall captivity by this Antichrist and that her deliuerance would neuer be wrought but by the edge of the sword that must be bathed in blood This is the true report concerning Grosthead in all which there are neither fictions nor exaggerations as Higgons pretendeth by which it is evident that there was as little Communion between the Pope challenging as he did then and doth now infallibility of judgement vniversality of illimited and vncontrouleable power right to dispose the Kingdomes of the World as there is betweene light and darknesse the Temple of God and Idols CHRIST and Antichrist So that he was no Papist seeing he ouer-threw the Papacie and if in any thing he erred as liuing in corrupttimes it is not to be marvayled at neither did his errour in some particular thing so much prejudice his piety and sanctity as that he may not bee called a worthy and renowned Bishop seeing hee held the foundation and stroue for the truth as farre as hee knew it euen to death And therefore the exceptions of the Author of the booke of the Three Conversions against Master Foxe touching this Bishoppe and some other mentioned by him and recorded in the number of Martyrs and Confessors are little to be regarded for that men might be members of that true Church whereof we are holding the foundation and carefully seeking out and maintaining the truth as farre as they knew it though they were otherwise perswaded in some things then either Master Foxe or we are which need not to seeme strange to Master Higgons nor any other of that side seeing they thinke many to haue beene members of their Church and Catholiques that dissented from them in all the questions concerning the Pope to which all other as Master Higgons telleth vs are subordinate and besides in the questions of originall sin free-will justification merite satisfaction the number of the Sacraments and sundry other like things Thus wee see how zealously Grosthead the worthy renowned Bishop of Lincolne opposed himselfe against the tyrannicall vsurpations and incroachments of the Pope and feared not to call him Antichrist for the same Neither was he alone in this opposition but we shall finde that the whole state of England after many complaints against the Popes incroachments vsurpations and tyrannicall intermedling in things no way pertaining to him to the ouerthrow of the Hierarchy of the Church told him in the end that if these courses were continued they should bee forced to doe that which would make his heart to ake Thus faith Mathew Paris at last the poore Church of England that had bin long vsed as an Asse to carry the Popes burdens in the end grew weary opened her mouth as Balaams Asse did to reproue the folly of the Prophet that not without just cause in the judgement of all the world for howsoeuer the church of Rome challenged to be the Mother of all churches and the Popeto be the Father of all Christians yet the one proued a cruell stepmother the other an vnkind vnnaturall Father so that they both lost the hearts of all men But what did the Pope vpon the complaints of so great a church nation as this of England did he ease her burthens or any way listen to her most reasonable suits no verily but was so vnmercifull as the same Paris testifieth that hauing so sore beaten vs he beate vs againe in more cruel sort then euer before onely because we cryed therefore let him not be angry with vs because we haue kept our word with him that neuer kept any with vs haue indeed done that which maketh his heart to ake as our fore-fathers threatned him long before these groanes of our wrōged Mother her often renewed bitter complaints before any was found to worke her deliuerance doe iustifie that which we haue done to be no more then in duty we stood bound to do neither is there any better proofe of the goodnes of our cause then that that which we haue done in the reformation of the church was long before wished for expected fore-tolde by the best men that liued in former times in the corrupt state of the church But because Mr Higgons is pleased to tell vs that if there be no better proofe the cause is bad the patrons worse because these best men we speak of will not speake for vs I will take a litle paines to shevv the goodnes of this proof vvhich I doubt not but the Reader vvill find to be better then that Mr Higgons or any other of his Romanists shall euer be able to vveaken it All that vvhich vve haue done in the reformation of the church cōsisteth in 3 things the first is the condemning of certain erronious opiniōs in matters of doctrine the 2d the shaking off of the yoake of Papall tyranny the 3 the remouing of abuses superstitious observatiōs Novv then if it be proued that the best best learned in former times thought as vvee doe in matters doctrinall that they complained of the heauie yoake vvhich the Pope laide on them and desired the remoouing of such abuses as vvee haue remooued I thinke this proofe vvill bee found very strong and good I vvill therefore first beg◅ vvith matters of doctrine and so proceede to the other points not intending to run through all the controversed points of doctrine but some onely for example and because the question is onely of the judgment of men liuing in latter times in the corrupt state of the Church vnder the Papacie I will passe by the Fathers and speake of such as liued since their time Touching the Canon of Scripture which is the rule of our faith wee deny the bookes of Tobit Iudith Ecelesiasticus Wisdome Machabees the song of the three Children and the story of Bell and the Dragon to bee Canonicall Scriptures So did Hugo de Sancto Victore Richardus de Sancto Victore Petrus Cluniacensis Lyranus Dionysius Carthusianus Hugo Cardinalis Thomas Aquinas Waldensis Richardus Armachanus Picus Mirandula Ockam Caietan and Driedo to say nothing of Melito Bishop of Sardis Origen Athanasius Hilarius Nazianzen Cyrill of Ierusalem Epiphanius Ruffinus Hierome Gregory and Damascen Here wee see a cloud of witnesses deposing for vs. And what better proofe of the goodnesse of our cause canne there be then that so
many worthies of the world in so diuerse places and at so diuerse times giue testimony to our opinion Touching the creation fall and state of originall sinne there were some and they excellently learned who thought as we doe that man must either be lifted aboue himselfe by grace or fall below himselfe by sinne that there is no middle estate of pure nature that originall righteousnesse was required to the integrity of nature and consequently that being lost nature is corrupted and depriued of all naturall and morall rectitude so that a man after the fall of Adam till grace restore him can do nothing morally good or that is not sin These men defined originall sin to be a priuation of originall righteousnesse that is of that grace without which a man can neither feare loue nor serue God aright And consequently do teach that after Adams fall without grace renewing vs wee cannot keepe the commaundements of God do the workes of morall vertue or any way dispose our selues to a true conuersion and turning vnto God This opinion is lâ—…rnedly defended by Thomas Bradwardin in his discourses against the Pelagians of his time and confirmed by him out of the Scriptures and Fathers and likewise by Gregorius Ariminensis as it was before them by Augustine and Prosper Many there were who thought otherwise whom Cardinall Contaren blameth as inclining too much to the Pelagian heresie but the best men concurred in judgment with these For proofe whereof Cassander citeth an excellent saying of Bonauentura Hoc inquit piarum mentium est vt nil sibi tribuant sed totum gratiae Dei vnde quantumcunque aliquis det gratiae dei a pietate non recedit etiamsi multa tribuendo gratiae Dei aliquid subtrahit potestati naturae vel liberi arbitrij cum vero aliquid gratiae dei subtrahitur naturae tribuitur quod gratiae est ibi potest periculum interuenire That is it is the property of pious and good mindes to attribute nothing to themselues but to ascribe all vnto the grace of God for how much soeuer a man giueth to the grace of God hee offendeth against no rule of piety noe though by giuing much to the grace of God he subtract something from the power of nature or free-will but when any thing that pertaineth to grace is denied vnto it and giuen to nature there may be some danger Concerning iustification there is a very maine difference betweene the Papists and vs for though we deny not but that there is a donation and giuing of the spirit to all them that are iustified changing and altering them in such sort as that they beginne to do the workes of righteousnesse yet we teach that iustification consisteth in such sort in the remission of sinnes and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse that the faithfull soule must trust to no other righteousnesse but that which is imputed the other beeing imperfect and not enduring the triall of GODS seuere judgement Now that this was the faith of the best and worthiest men in the Church in former times it will easily appeare vnto vs. The righteousnesse of another sayth Bernard is assigned to man because he had none of his owne and vppon the Canticles he sayth I also will sing the mercies of the Lord for euer Shall I sing of mine owne righteousnesse noe Lord I will remember thy righteousnesse onely for that is mine seeing thou art made vnto mee of God righteousnesse Is there any cause for mee to feare least it should not suffice vs both it is no short cloake which according to the Prophet cannot couer two With Bernard all other good men agreed who in respect of the imperfection of our inherent righteousnesse pronounced it to be as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman Who is there saith Gerson that shall dare to boast that hee hath a cleane heart and who shall say I am innocent and I am cleane who is hee that will not quake for feare when he shall stand before God to bee iudged who is fearefull in his counsels Hence Iob in his affliction saith vnto God I feared all my workes knowing that thou sparest not the sinner and again if he will contend with me I cannot answere him one of a thousand Whereunto the prayer of the Prophet agreeth enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for no liuing man shall bee iustified in thy sight And againe if thou shalt obserue iniquities O Lord Lord who shall endure it Furthermore we reade that Esay wrapping vp himselfe with other and waxing vile in his owne eyes in all humility professed that all our righteousnesse is as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman Who therefore in boasting sort shall dare to shew his righteousnesse to God more then a woman dareth shew the ragges of her confusion and shame to her husband There are two kindes of iustice to which faith leadeth vs saith Cardinall Contarenus the one inherent the other imputed it remaineth that wee enquire vpon which of them we are to stay our selues and by which wee are to thinke that wee are iustified before God that is accounted iust and holy as hauing that iustice that pleaseth God and answereth to that his law requireth I truely saith hee thinke that a man very piously Christianly may say that wee ought to stay to stay I say as vpon a firme and stable thing able vndoubtedly to sustaine vs vpon the iustice of Christ giuen and imputed to vs and not vpon the holinesse and grace that is inherent in vs. For this our righteousnesse is but imperfit and such as cannot defend vs seeing in many things we offend all c. But the iustice of Christ which is giuen vnto vs is true and perfect iustice which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God and in which there is nothing that offendeth God Vpon this therefore as most certaine and stable wee must stay our selues and beleeue that wee are iustified by it as the cause of our acceptation with God this is that precious treasure of Christians which whosoeuer findeth selleth all that he hath to buy it With Contarenus agree the Authors of the Enchiridion of Christian religion published in the prouinciall Synod of Collen in the yeare of our Lord 1536. Which as Cassander saith the more learned diuines in Italy and France approued the authours of the booke called Antididagma Coloniense Albertus Pighius and sundry other who if they were now a liue and should thus teach our Iesuited Papists would soone condemne them as Heretickes Touching merits I haue shewed else-where that Scotus Cameracensis Ariminensis and Waldensis doe thinke there is no merit properly so named With whom agreeth Adrian the Pope vpon the fourth of the sentences writing thus like a Protestant as I thinke Our merits are as a staffe of reed vpon which if a man stay himselfe it will breake and pierce the hand of him that