velle perficere pro boná voluntate Soe that God doth not stirre and moue the will and soe stay to see whether it will consent or nor but worketh moueth and inclineth us to consent The good vse of grace proceedeth not from the meere liberty of our will but from God working by the effectuall helpe of preoperating grace and causing a man freely to consent and cooperate If not God were not the totall cause which as the first roote bringeth forth all that which discerneth the righteous from the sinner Quis te discernit Our consent and effect of predestination The will doth not first begin her determination and consent The influx of free will into a good action or the good vse of grace exciting is supernaturall as being about a supernaturall obiect therefore it must proceede from a supernaturall cause c God is a cause and the first eause in that a cause he hath reference to the effect in that the first to the second when therefore by his helping grace he worketh together with vs to will and performe his operation hath a double respect first to our will which it effectually moueth to worke this and secondly to our act of willing which it produceth together with our will for our will hath no operation but in one respect only that is of the act it bringeth forth but it hath no influence upon it selfe antecedently to the production of the act So then God is the first determiner of our will for iâ—… the created will originally begin her owne determination it will follow that it is the first free the first roote and the first cause of her owne determination which must not be granted for seeing a created thing that is free is free by participation it must of necessity be reduced to a first free as to a former cause otherwise duo prima principia Soe that God by his effectuall grace not onely morally but truly efficiently moueth and inclineth the will to the loue and liking of what hee will in such sort that it cannot but turne nor cannot dissent in sensu composito though it may in sensu diuiso The meaning of this is that the effectuall motion of Gods grace and an actuall dissenting resisting or not yeelding cannot stand together but the efficacy of Gods grace and a power of disenting do stand together For the efficacie of grace doth not take away the power but soe directeth the will as infallibly in such liberty to bring forth that he pleaseth Est simultas potentiae ad opposita non autem potentia simultatis ad opposita simul habenda there is in some created thing at the same time a possibility of hauing or doing things opposite as to sitte or walke but there is no possibility of hauing these together Soe there is in free will moued by effectuall grace a power to doe or not to do in sensu diuiso because the efficacy of grace and power of dissenting may stand together but not in sensu composito that is that the motion of grace and actuall dissenting should stand together This is the opinion of Aluarez and many other opposing the Iesuites neither had Caluin or Luther any other apprehension of these things So that the necessity efficacy power and working of Gods grace is rightly deliuered by sundry in the Roman Church euen till this day It is not to be maruelled therefore if it be sayd that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died beleeued and taught as we now do Aloisius Lippomannus in catenâ ad lectorem hath these words Illud te admonitum esse volumus vt si in toto hoc opere Chrysostomum aliquando legeris dicentem homini quoties is sua attulerit conatum omnem fecerit abundè postea à Deo gratiam suppeditari caute prudenter pium doctorem legas ne in errorem illum decidas vt credas gratiam Dei dari propter merita nostra nam si ex meritis non est gratia cum nec istud ipsum sua afferre conatum omnem facere sine praeueniente Dei gratiâ possit esse juxta illud Psalmi misericordia ejus praeueniet me itemque misericordia ejus subsequetur me in omnibus diebus vitae meae ac illud sanctae Ecclesiae tua nos quaesumus domine gratia semper praeueniat sequatur cui nos quoque scrupulo prouidè occurrentes in duobus fortassis aut tribus locis paucula quaedam in Chrysostomum apposuimus Gocchianus de libertate christianâ l. 2. c. 23. Maria salutatur gratia plena vt quic quid in eâ per eam diuina dispositione fieri conspicitur totum ex dono dei nullis praecedentibus meritis designetur c. habes qualiter in exordio humanae reparationis praesumpsio humanae facultatis dejicitur In eo quod Maria plena gratiâ nunciatur praedicatur in eaplenitudo gratiae ut nihil proprii meriti sed totum quod in ea est gratia esse designetur August in enchirid Quid humana natura in homine Christo meruit ut in unitate personae unici filii Dei singulariter esset Quae bona voluntas cuius boni propositi studium quae bona praecesserunt quibus mereretur iste homo ut una fieret persona cum Deo nempè ex quo homo esse caepit non aliud caepit esse quam Dei filius idemque hominis filius c. Magna hic sola Dei gratia ostenditur ut intelligant homines per eandem gratiam eius se iustificari a peccatis per quam factum est ut homo Christus nullum habere posset peccatum Eccehabes in Mediatore Christo gratiam commendatam qui cum esset unicus Dei filius non gratiâ sed naturâ ob hoc plenus veritatis factus est hominis filius ut esset etiam gratiae plenus verbum caro factum est Cùm in Christo in quo omnia instauranda tanquam in fonte vnde totius humani generis derivatur salvatio nihil aliud invenitur quam gratia unde alicui aliquid aliud de proprio potest provenire per quod potest salvari Miranda quidem imò potius miseranda humanae praesumptio facultatis quae cùm per humilitatem gratis salvari possit propriâ impediente superbiâ salvari non velit Omnes inquit Esaias sitientes venite ad aquas qui non habetis argentum aurum properate emite comedite emite absque ullâ commutatione vinum lac Idem spiritus movet hominis voluntatem ut bonum velit quod prius noluit bonam voluntatem adiuvat ut bonum volitum ad effectum perducat nullâ cooperatione propriae voluntatis facultatis sed sanatae renovatae Aug. de patientia Gratia non solùm adiuvat iustum verum etiam iustificat impium ideo etiam cùm adiuvat iustum videtur eius meritis reddi nec sic
and tying them to the performance of certaine duties Secondly of sinnes Thirdly of punishments to be inflicted by Almighty God and Fourthly of punishments to be inflicted by men The bond of Lawes is of two sorts For there are diuine lawes and there are humane Lawes God bindeth men to the doing of what hee pleaseth and Men that are in authority either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall to such things as they thinke fit Touching these bonds none haue power to loose but they that haue power to binde so that what God by precept bindeth vs to doe none but God can free vs from the necessity duty of doing it and what the Church or Magistrate binde vs to no inferiour power can loose vs or free vs from Loosing in this sense opposed to binding by law and precept is in two sorts By Reuocation and by Dispensation Reuocation is an absolute Abrogation of a Law in respect of all places times persons and conditions and that either by expresse and direct Repeale or by generall neglect and long continued disuse Dispensation is in respect of certaine persons times places and conditions of Men thinges so that a dispensation permitting the Law to retaine her wonted authority onely freeth some particular person or persons at some times in some places and in some condition of thinges from the necessity of doing or leauing vndone that which vnlesse it be in consideration of such particular circumstances the Law-giuer meant should be obserued but in such cases not so Heere the question is moued by occasion of that kinde of loosing which is by reuersing Lawes formerly in force whether God the giuer of the morall Law may revoke the same and dispense with men for the not doing of things there prescribed of the doing of things there forbidden The answere is that these Lawes are imposed vpon men by the very condition of their nature and creation as the very condition and nature of a man created by GOD requireth that he should honour loue feare and reuerence him that made him and therefore touching the precepts of the first Table that concerning the Sabaoth excepted it is cleare and euident that they cannot be altered nor Man by God himselfe discharged from the duty of honouring loving and fearing God so long as he hath any beeing Touching the precepts of the second Table it is resolued that GOD cannot dispense with man or giue him leaue to doe the thinges therein forbidden as to steale murther or lie For all these imply and involue in them that which is simply euill and to bee disliked but by some alteration in the doer or matter of action he may make that not to bee euill that otherwise would bee euill and consequently not forbidden as namely that to bee no theft or murther which otherwise would be as when hee commanded the Israelites to spoyle the Aegyptians they did not commit the act of robbery for robbery is the taking away of a thing from the owner against his will but these thinges which the Israelites tooke away were the Aegyptians no longer after God the supreme Lord had spoyled them of the title they had therevnto and assigned the same to the Israelites So likewise for one man to take away the life of another hauing no authority so to doe is murther and no man can be dispensed with lawfully to doe any such act but for a Magistrate to take away the life of an offender is a lawfull act and no act of murther and so if Abraham had slaine his sonne Isaac it had not beene murther being authorized so to doe by God who hath supreme authority in the world and may justly as a Iudge for sinne found in men take away the liues of whom he pleaseth and as supreme and absolute Lord bring all to nothing that for his wills sake he made of nothing though there were no sinne nor fault at all But touching Ceremoniall Iudiciall and Positiue Lawes of God concerning Sacraments and obseruations of what kinde soeuer seeing they are imposed after vpon the being of nature wee thinke that God may alter them at his pleasure so that at one time it may bee lawfull to doe that was forbidden at another The Gouernours that God hath set ouer his Church and people by commission from him may interprete what is doubtfull in these Lawes of God or in those of the other sort but yet according to the Law but they may not abrogate or dispense with any Law of God either naturall and morall or positiue established concerning the vse of Sacraments and things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice But concerning those Lawes that were made by the Apostles and Primitiue Fathers touching matters of outward obseruation the succeeding Guides of the Church may either dispense with them or reverse them vpon the due consideration of the difference of times Men and things And so wee see to whom it pertaineth to binde men with their lawes and to loose them from the bonds thereof The bond of sin which is the second kinde of those bonds I mentioned is two-fold for there is Vinculum captivitatis and Vinculum servitutis that is a man that is a sinner is so bound that hee can neither returne to doe good nor leaue off to doe euill for sinne holdeth him in a bond of captivitie that hee shall not returne to doe good and with a bond of seruitude that he shall not cease to doe euill And though God hath so ordered the nature of Man that hee who will doe euill shall thus bee entangled yet it is man that thus entangleth wrappeth and bindeth himselfe and not God But for the bond of eternall condemnation and the punishments following euill doers which is the third kinde of those bonds wherewith I shewed that men are tyed and bound it is of GOD. From these bonds of sin and punishment inflicted by GOD none but hee alone can free men by his fauour and the worke of his grace as the supreme and highest cause none but Christ by Merite Satisfaction The Ministers of the Church by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments may convert Men to God instrumentally making them partakers of his graces bringing thē into such an estate wherein they shall be sure for Christs sake to finde mercie with GOD for the remission taking away of their sinnes They may pray for them and out of the knowledge of their estate assure them of remission But other power to vnloose and vntie these direfull horrible bonds of sinne and punishment they haue none only the punishments which they haue power to inflict they haue authoritie to diminish lessen or take away so that whom they bind with the bonds of Ecclesiasticall censures punishments those by the same authoritie they may vnloose For as the Guides of Gods Church may prescribe enjoyne and impose certaine actions of Mortification and penitentiall conversion vnto GOD so when they see cause they may release from the same as by
the Patriarch of Constantinople the second which conclusion was not of such force but that the succeeding Bishops of Constantinople cōtinued the same challeng their predecessors made as any oportunity was offered sought to aduance their pretended title till at length there growing some difference between thē in the matter of the proceeding of the holy G whome the Latines affirmed to proceede from the Father and the Sonne the GREEKES from the Father only either pronounced the other to be heretickes schismatickes Wherefore let vs see what the religion of the Greeke Church is and whether these Christians be so farre forth orthodoxe that wee may account them members of the true Catholicke Church of God or so in errour that we may reject them as schismaticks hereticks though in number never so many Bernard speaking of them sayth nobiscum sunt non sunt iuncti fide pace diuisi quanquam fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis That is they are with vs and they are not with vs they are of the same profession with vs touching matters of faith but they hold not the vnity of the spirit in the band of peace although they haue halted also and in some sort declined from the straight pathes in matters pertayning to the Christian faith Touching the state of these Christians the Romanists lay downe these propositions First that there is a double separation from the Church of God the one by heresie ouerthrowing the fayth the other by schisme breaking the vnity The second that schismaticks though they fall not into heresie are out of the Church cut off from being members of the same and consequently in state of damnation Beleeue certainely and no way doubt sayth St Augustine that not onely all Pagans but all Iewes hereticks schismaticks also dying out of the communion of the Catholicke Church shall goe into everlasting fire The third that the Graecians are Schismatically divided from the Roman Church that they haue long continued so that they are excommunicate with the greater excommunication thundred out against all Schismaticks in bulla coenae Domini and consequently are in state of damnation But whether they bee not only Schismaticks but haereticks also as some feare not to pronounce they are not yet agreed Azorius thinketh they are not to bee censured as hereticks and yeeldeth a reason of his so thinking because in those articles of the faith where they are thought to erre they differ verbally onely and not really from those that are vndoubtedly right beleevers and giueth instance first in the question touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost wherein hee thinketh they differ but in forme of words from them that seeme to bee their opposites and secondly in the questions touching the Pope his power priviledges and authority concerning all which hee affirmeth they haue no other opinion then Gerson the Parisians who were neuer yet pronounced heretickes for they yeeld a primacie to the Bishop of Rome but no supremacy They acknowledge him to bee Patriarch of the West amongst all the Patriarches in order honour the first as long as hee continueth orthodoxe and seeketh not to encroach vpon the jurisdiction of others But they deny as also the Parisians doe that his judgement is infallible or his power authority supreame absolute they teach that hee must doe nothing of himselfe in things pertayning to the state of the vniversall Church but with the concurrence of others his colleagues and that hee is subject to a generall Councell All which things were defined in the Councells of Constance and Basil and the contrary positions condemned as haereticall Neither want there at this day many worthy Diuines liuing in the Communion of the Roman Church who most strongly adhere to the decrees of those Councells and peremptorily reject those of Florence and Trent wherein the contrary faction prevayled For the whole kingdome and state of France admit those and reject the other and would no lesse withdraw themselues from all communion with the Roman Bishoppe then the Grecians doe if they should once bee pressed to acknowledge that his power and authority is supreame and absolute that hee cannot erre and that hee may dispose the kingdomes and depose the kings soveraigne princes of the world as the Iesuites and other the Popes flatterers affirme and defend Whence it will follow that they are not onely free from heresie as Azorius resolueth but frō schisme also So that after so great clamours and so long contendings they must of necessity bee forced in the end to confesse they haue done them infinite wrong and sinned grievously against God in condemning to hell for no cause so many millions of Christian soules redeemed with the most precious blood of his dearest Sonne There are sayth Andreas Fricius who thinke that the Russians Armenians and other Christians of the East part pertaine not to the Christian Church but seeing they vse the same sacraments which wee doe seeing they professe to fight vnder the banner of Christ crucified and rejoyce in their sufferings for his sake farre bee it from vs ever to thinke that they should bee cast off and rejected from being fellow citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God having borne the burden endured the heate of the day so many ages in the vineyard of the Lord. Nay rather I thinke there can be no perfect cōsociation vnion of the whole Church without them For the Latine Church alone cānot be takē for the vniversall Church that which is but a part cānot be the whole But some man happily will say whatsoeuer we think of these differēces touching the power authority of the B. of Rome yet in the article of the proceeding of the holy ghost they erre damnably so are hereticks that Azorius was deceived when hee thought otherwise Wherefore for the cleering of this poynt first I will make it evident that not onely Azorius but sundry other great and worthy Divines thinke the difference about the proceeding of the holy Ghost to bee meerely verball Secondly I will shew how the seeming differences touching this poynt may bee reconciled Thirdly I will note the beginnings and proceedings in this controversie The Grecians sayth Peter Lombard affirme that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father onely not from the Sonne yet wee must know that the Greekes doe acknowledge the holy Ghost to bee the spirit of the Son aswell as of the Father because the Apostle sayth the spirit of the Son And trueth it selfe in the Gospell the spirit of trueth Now seeing it is no other thing to bee the spirit of the Father and the Son then to bee from the Father the Son they seeme to agree with vs in judgement touching this article of faith though they differ in words Grosthed the famous and renowned Bishop of Lincolne writing vpon a part of Damascen deliuereth his opinion touching this controuersie
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
that is fatherly guides of Gods Church and people that only for orders sake and the preseruation of peace there is a limitation of the vse and exercise of the same Heerevnto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists themselues freely confessing that that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter is â—…t a distinct higher order or power of order but a kind of dignity office 〈◊〉 imployment onely Which they proue because a Presbyter ordained persaltum that neuer was consecrated or ordained Deacon may notwithstanding doe all those actes that pertaine to the Deacons order because the higher order doth alwaies imply in it the lower and inferiour in an eminent and excellent sort But a Bishoppe ordained per saltum that neuer had the ordination of a Presbyter can neither consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lords body nor ordaine a Presbyter himselfe being none nor doe any acte peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters Whereby it is most euident that that wherein a Bishoppe excelleth a Presbyter is not a distinct power of order but an eminencie and dignity onely specially yeelded to one aboue all the rest of the same ranke for order sake and to preserue the vnitie and peace of the Church Hence it followeth that many things which in some cases Presbyters may lawfully doe are peculiarly reserued vnto Bishops as Hierome noteth Potius ad honorem Sacerdotij quam ad legis necessitatem Rather for the honour of their Ministery then the necessity of any lawe And therefore wee reade that Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands and confirme such as were baptized which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly haue forbidden there was soe great exception taken to him for it that he left it free againe And who knoweth not that all Presbyters in cases of necessity may absolue reconcile Penitents a thing in ordinary course appropriated vnto Bishops and why not by the same reason ordaine Presbyters Deacons in cases of like necessity For seing the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts is because to Bishops ordinarily the care of all churches is committed and to them in all reason the ordination of such as must serue in the Church pertaineth that haue the chiefe care of the Church and haue Churches wherein to imploy them which only Bishops haue as long as they retaine their standing and not Presbyters being but assistants to bishops in their Churches If they become enmies to God and true religion in case of such necessity as the care and gouerment of the Church is deuolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholique being of a better spirit so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeede them in the work of the Ministrie pertaines to them likewise For if the power of order and authority to intermedle in things pertaining to Gods seruice bee the same in all Presbyters and that they be limited in the execution of it onely for order sake so that in case of necessity euery of theÌ„ may baptise confirme them whom they haue baptized absolue reconcile Penitents doe all those other acts which regularly are appropriated vnto the Bishop alone there is no reason to be giuen but that in case of necessity wherein all Bishops were extinguished by death or being fallen into heresie should refuse to ordaine any to serue God in his true worship but that Presbyters as they may do all other acts whatsoeuer speciall challenge Bishoppes in ordinary course make vnto them might do this also Who then dare condemn all those worthy Ministers of God that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry Churches of the world at such times as Bishops in those parts where they liued opposed themselues against the truth of God and persecuted such as professed it Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to bee void For not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may giue orders and that their ordinations are of force though to do so not being vrged by extreame necessity cannot be excused from ouer great boldnesse and presumption Neither should it seeme so strange to our aduersaries that the power of ordination should at some times be yeelded vnto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that liue in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of discipline do dayly in the Romish Church both confirme Children and giue orders All that may be alledged out of the Fathers for proofe of the contrary may be reduced to two heads For first whereas they make all such ordinations voide as are made by Presbyters it is to bee vnderstood according to the strictnesse of the Canons in vse in their time and not absolutely in the nature of the thing which appeares in that they likewise make all ordinations sine titulo to be voide All ordinations of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane all ordinations of Presbyters by Bishoppes out of their owne Churches without speciall leaue whereas I am well assured the Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be voide though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault Secondly their sayings are to bee vnderstood regularly not without exception of some speciall cases that may fall out Thus then we see that obiection which our adnersaries tooke to bee vnanswerable is abundantly answered out of the grounds of their owne Schoole-men the opinion of many singularly learned amongst them and their owne daily practise in that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters whatsoeuer they pretend and forbidden by all old Canons to meddle in ordination yet doe daily with good allowance of the Romane Church ordaine Presbyters and Deacons confirme with imposition of hands those that are baptized and doe all other Episcopall acts whiles their great Bishops Lord it like princes in all temporall ease and worldly bravery The next thing they object against vs is that our first Ministers what authority soeuer they had that ordained them yet had no lawfull ordination because they were not ordained placed in voide places but intruded into Churches that had lawfull Bishops at the time of those pretended ordinations and consequently did not succeede but encroach vpon other mens right To this wee answere that the Church is left voyde either by the death resignation depriuation or the peoples desertion and forsaking of him that did precede In some places our first Bishoppes and Pastours found the Churches voydby death in some by voluntarie relinquishment in some by depriuation and in some by desertion in that the people or at least that part of 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
and not these for being sent by men that haue authority though abusing the same they haue a true and lawfull Ministery till they be put from it by superiour authority else were all Ministration of Sacraments and other sacred things voyde performed by such as simoniacally or by sinister meanes get into these holy places The fourth are such as neither are sent of GOD nor of men nor by men but of them-selues of whom our Sauiour Christ saith all that came before me were theeues robbers and of whome almighty GOD pronounceth and sayth by the Prophet Ieremy I sent them not they 〈◊〉 I spake not to them they prophecied This euill is carefully to bee declined and therefore CHRIST would not suffer the diuels to speake that which was true least vnder the pretence of trueth errour might creepe in seeing hee that speaketh of him-selfe cannot but speake lyes These are the foure sortes of them that serue in the worke of the Ministery whereof the last haue no calling at all and all they doe is voide the Third haue a lawfull commission though they obtayned it by sinister meanes and bee vnworthy of it so that they could not bee put into it without the faulte of the ordayners The First had a lawfull but extraordinary calling needefull onely in those first beginnings of Christianity and not longer to continue The second haue that calling which is Ordinary and to continue whereof wee are now to speake In this calling there are three things implied Election Ordination and Assignation to some particular Church whereof men elected and ordained are appointed to take charge In ancient times there was no ordination at large without particular Assignation and sine titulo allowed as it appeareth by the Councell of Chalcedon forbidding any such thing to be done and voyding any such Act if it should bee done and therefore in those times the very electing and ordayning was an assigning of the elected ordayned to the place of Charge they were to take and a giuing of them the power of iurisdiction as wel as of order But this Canon in latter times grew out of vse whence ensued great confusions in the state of the Church as Duarenus rightly noteth yet are we not of opinion that all such ordinations are voyde in the nature of the thing whatsoeuer the Ancients pronounced of them according to the strictnesse of the Canons For seeing Ordination which is the sanctifying of men to the worke of the holy Ministery is a diffeernt thing in nature from the placing of them where they shal do that holy worke and a man once ordained needeth not any new Ordination when he is remoued from one Church to another it is euident that in the nature of the thing Ordination doth not so depend on the title and place of Charge the Ordayned entereth into as that Ordinations at large should bee voyd yet are they not to bee permitted neither are they in our Church For the Ordinations of Ministers in Colledges in our Vniuersities are not within the compasse of those prohibited Ordinations at large and sine titulo and none other by the order of our Church may bee Ordayned vnlesse he be certainly prouided of some definite place of charge imployment And as the Auncient were thus precise in admitting none into the holy Ministery but with assignation of the particular place of his imployment so they tooke as strict order that men once placed should not sodainly be remoued and translated to any other church or charge In the Councell of Sardica Hosius the President of that Councell sayd That same ill custome and pernicious corruption is wholy to be plucked vp by the rootes that it may not be lawfull for a Bishoppe to passe from his citie to any other city For the cause why they doe so is knowne to all seeing none is found to passe from a greater citie to a lesser whence it appeareth that they are inflamed with ardent desires of couetousnesse and that they serue their owne ambitious designes that they may exercise dominion and grow great If therefore it seeme good to you all that such an euill as this is may be more seuerely punished lette him that is such a one bee reiected from all communion euen such as Lay-men inioy To whom all the Bishoppes answered it pleaseth vs well To whom Hosius replyed Though any shall bee found so ill aduised as haply in excuse of himselfe to affirme that hee receiued letters from the people to draw him from his owne city to another yet I thinke seeing it is manifest that some few not sincere in the Faith might be corrupted by reward and procured to desire his translation all such fraudes should altogether bee condemned So that such a one should not bee admitted so much as to the communion which Lay-men enioy no not in the end which thing if it seeme good vnto you all confirme and settle it by your Decree And the Synode answered it pleaseth vs well Leo to the same purpose writeth thus If any Bishoppe despising the meanenesse of his owne citie shall seeke to gette the administration gouernment of some more noted and better respected place and shall by any meanes translate remoue himselfe to a greater People and more large and ample charge let him bee driuen from that other chaire which hee sought and lette him bee depriued also of his owne So that hee bee neither suffered to rule ouer them whom out of a couetous desire hee would haue subiected to himselfe nor ouer them whom g in pride hee contemned and scorned And the like is found in other but as Theodoret sheweth it was ambition and such other like euils that these Holy Fathers sought to stoppe and preuent rather then generally to condemne all Translation of Bishops from one Church and cittie to another For these changes may sometimes bring so great and euident vtility that they are not to be disliked And therefore the same Theodoret sheweth that notwithstanding this Canon Gregory Nazianzen was remoued from his Church and constituted Bishop of Constantinople And Socrates reporteth that Proclus was remoued thither from Cyzicum Wherefore passing by these matters as cleare and resolued of Let vs proceed to see first to whom it pertaineth to Elect Secondly to whom it belongeth to ordaine such as are duly elected and chosen to the worke of the Ministery Touching Election wee thinke that each Church and People that haue not by lawe custome or consent restrayned themselues stand free by Gods law to admitte maintaine and obey no man as their Pastor without their liking and that the peoples election by themselues or their rulers dependeth on the first principles of humane fellowships and assemblies for which cause though Bishops by Gods lawe haue power to examine and ordaine before any may be placed to take charge of soules yet haue they no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their
made partakers of the life of grace or being already partakers of it to be strengthned confirmed and continued in the same Thirdly that the elements of bread and wine presenting to our consideration the spirituall nourishing force that is in the body blood of Christ are not a bolished in their substances as the Patrons of Transubstantiation imagine but onely changed in vse in that they doe not onely signifie but exhibite and communicate vnto vs the very body and blood of Christ with all the gracious working of the same Fourthly that the meaning of Christs wordes when hee said this is my body this is my blood is This which outwardly and visibly I giue vnto you is in substance bread and wine and in mysterie and exhibitiue signification my body and blood but this which invisibly together with the visible element I giue vnto you is my very body that was crucified and my blood that was shed for the remission of your sinnes Fifthly that the body and blood of Christ which the Sacraments doe not signifie only but exhibite also and whereof the faithfull are to be partakers are truely present in the blessed Sacrament but the one part denieth that they are present secundum suum esse naturale that is in the naturall beeing or beeing of essence because the body of Christ being finite and hauing finite dimensions cannot be in many places at one time the other part on the contrary side answereth that the body of Christ is finite indeed but that because it is personally ioyned to the Deity it is wheresoeuer the Deity is yet doe not they of this part say it is euery where localitèr but repletiuè personalitèr that is not locally but repletiuely and personally which distinction Zanchius professeth hee doth not well vnderstand but saith if their meaning bee that the body of Christ is present secundum esse personale that is in that being of diuine subsistence communicated to it whereof I haue spoken before they say true and contradict not the other who speake of the naturall beeing of Christes body or beeing of essence and not of existence or subsistence which is infinite and Diuine And though Christs body be euery where in that personall being as well as in the Sacrament yet is it not any where else presented vnto vs in the nature of spirituall food So that there is no difference between these men touching the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament neither will there bee any found touching the eating of it for whereas in eating there is implied a chewing or mastication of that which is eaten a traiection from the mouth into the stomacke and a turning of the substance of the meate into the substance of the eater a bodily eating of Christs body there cannot bee seeing it is impassible and admitteth no such diuision as is made in chewing and besides if it should bee swallowed whole it cannot bee turned into the substance of our bodies but rather turneth vs into the substance of it selfe so that there is onely a spirituall eating of Christ consisting in that chewing that is by meditation vpon the seuerall and distinct thinges that are found in his natures powers actions and sufferings a traiection from the vnderstanding part to the heart and an incorporation of the beleeuer into him Yet it is not to be denyed but that Luther and some other did teach that euen the wicked doe in a sort eat the flesh of Christ not as if they did corporally touch his sacred body much lesse teare rent or diuide it with their teeth or turne it into their substance but for that they may bee said in a sort to eate the flesh of Christ though vnprofitably and to their condemnation in that they truely receiue the body of Christ eating that outward substance of bread with which it is truely present though not locally and to this purpose the same Zanchius reporteth that a man of no vulgar note amongst the followers of Luther did not feare to tell him that hee and his doe not say that we eate the body of Christ corporally in such sort as that our mouth and body should touch his sacred body which is not locally present but that the body of Christ is eaten bodily only in respect of the Sacramentall vnion attributing that to the body of Christ that properly agreeth to the bread with which the body is present These things are found in a discourse of Zanchius intitled Iudicium Hieronymi Zanchii de dissidio caenae dominicae written by him for the satisfaction of a Bishop of Italy at the request and entreaty of Paulus Vergerius and Sturmius By that which hath beene said we see there is no difference in iudgement between them who out of humane frailty are too much diuided in affection Luther vttered many thinges very passionately against Zuinglius and others conceauing that they made the Sacraments to be nothing but onely notes distinctiue seruing to put difference betweene Christians and such as are no Christians as a Monkes Cowle distinguisheth a Monke from him that is no Monke or empty signes without all presence of grace and exhibition of the thinges they signifie But if hee had fully vnderstood the meaning of them hee was so violently opposite vnto hee would not haue censured them so hardly as hee did If Master Higgons had euer read this Tract of Zanchius hee would not haue willed Mee to excogitate or scanne out any reconciliation betwixt Lutherans and Sacramentaries in the matter of the Sacrament The second part of the Chapter §. 1. WHerefore let vs come to the next part of this Chapter wherein hee vndertaketh to demonstrate that the thinges alledged by Mee to take away the offence and scandall of the seeming differences amongst Protestants are but false and empty pretenses The first thing that I alledge is that it is not to bee marvailed at that the Tigurins Gesnerus and others disliked the distempered passions of Luther or that some difference were amongst them seeing the like were in former times betweene Epiphanius and Chrysostome Hierome Ruffinus Augustine and others The second that the Papistes haue their differences also and those farre more materiall and vnreconcileable then any are amongst vs. The third that our differences grow not out of the nature and quality of our doctrine and that wee want not a certaine rule by the direction whereof all controuersies may be ended Against the first of these my allegations first hee opposeth a diuelish vntrueth affirming that Gesnerus and the Tigurins did not onely dislike the distempered passions of Luther but hate him with mortall hatred and accurse and execrate him as possessed of a legion of Diuells which neither Higgons into whom a lying spirit is entred nor any of those diuells hee is growne so familiar with shall euer proue So that there is no cause of trembling but at the fearefull iudgement of God against such as Master Higgons is that forsake the loue of