them into his true and proper flesh that the body of life may be in vs as a certaine quickening seed Eusebius Emissenus The inuisible Euseb Emiss ser de cor Domi. Cyp. de coens Dom. Priest Christ Iesus turneth by his word with a secret power the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud saying Take and eate for this is my body S. Cyprian who liued before any of these This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples not in outward apparence but in nature changed by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh The like he hath in other places In so much as a famous * Vrsin in commonef cuiusdam Theol. de sacra Coen Aug. ser citato à Bedain c. 10. â— Cor. Humfrey Iesu pâ— 2â— ca. 5. pag. 626. Matth. 4. v. â— ProtestaÌ„t confesseth That in Cyprian are many sayings which seeme to conforme TraÌ„substantiation S. Augustine and sundry others euidently also graunt our Reall mutation or Transubstantiation of the elements Which doctrine Gregory the Great and Augustin our Apostle brought into England as D. Humphrey teacheth and the Diuell himselfe acknowledged to be possible when he sayd vnto Christ Dic vt lapides isti panes fiant Commande that these stones be made bread 18. Secondly if we respect the conueniency it was meet we should really eate and really drinke of the reall victime truly slaine and offered for vs. It was meet that he who became our companion in the manger our teacher in the Temple our Priest at the Altar our price sacrifice and ransome on the Crosse should likewise be our food and sustenance at the table It was most meet that he who imparted his owne diuine person and all the riches of his Godhead by Hypostaticall vnion to the flesh and bloud of a pure and vnspotted man should also coÌ„municate the same flesh and bloud and all the treasures of his diuine and human nature to the soules and bodyes of As our first Parents were not infected by a Metaphoricall but by a true eating of the accursed Tree so we cannot be healed by a Metaphoricall but by a tru eating of the Tree of life NisseÌ„ orat catech ca. 37. Ignatius Ep. ad Ephes Athan. de huâ—â—atur suscep Cyril in Io. â—p ad Calosy â—re 1. 4. c. â—4 l. 5. c. 2 alibi Cyr. Alex. 1. 10. in â—o c. 13. Spaâ—kes in his answer to M. Iohn d'Albins pag. no. 257. his faithfull seruants The wisedome of God requireth that as our Forefathers and we were first impoisoned not by the desire but by the true and real eating of the forbidden apple so we should be cured by the true and substanciall feeding of this blessed fruit For S. Gregory Nissen proueth After the manner of the poyson so likewise the medicine must enter into our bowells the vertue therof be traÌ„sfused into all partes of the body 19. Againe the poyson which Adam receaued was a venemous fountaine of a double contagion ioyntly infecting both body and soule two wounds it inflicted it defiled our soule with sinne our body it enthralled to death and corruption What could be more behoofull for our Redeemer then to prepare a medicine against both these wounds A medicine to wash our soules from sin and rayse our body from dust to beautify the one with grace and cloath the other with incorruptioÌ„ And what could sooner worke this admirable cure then the glorious flesh of this holy Sacrament Which is not only the Ocean of Grace but the medicine of immortality the preseruatiue as S. Ignatius calleth it against death The first fruites of glory as Athanasius writeth The liuely and reuiuing seed of our bodyes as S. Cyrill sayth The pledge the earnest the hope or expectation of Immortall life as Irenaeus affirmeth According to that of Christ He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him at the later day The body then must eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that it may partake the benefit of Resurrection our soule by fayth might enioy the dowryes of blisse But this terrestriall nature of our body cannot as S. Cyrill of Alexandria teacheth be aduanced to immortality except the body of naturall life be conioyned vnto it 20. Yet D. Sparkes maugre S. Cyril or whosoeuer els obstinatly persisteth that the body of Christ cannot be really conioyned with ours Because Christ is ascended into heauen sitting at the right hand of his Father and the heauens must Bils 4. par pag. 788. 789. c. Ioan. 20. Read S. Aug. ep 3. ad Volus Amb. l. 10. in cap. 24. Luc. Hila. l. 3 de Tri. Iustin q. 117. Cyril l. 12. in Io. c. 53. Bede Theoph. Euthym. Ruper boc loco whoproue Christs entrance the dores being shut containe him vntill the restitution of all thinges As though good Syr he could not be at the same tyme in diuers places to wit in heauen sitting on the right hand of his Father and heere vpon earth in euery consecrated hoast not naturally as the Fathers copiously quoted by M. Bilson constantly teach but supernaturally by the power of him vnto whome nothing is impossible For so he hath wrought many wonderfull workes aboue the course of nature He came forth of the Virgins wombe preseruing her virginity rose out of the sepulcher not remouing the stone entred into his Disciples the dore being shut ascended to his Father not deuiding the heauens when he penetrated them But as in these examples diuers bodyes were supernaturally in one place so by the same supernaturall power one body may likewise be at the same tyme in diuers places for it is a common Axiome approued by Philosophers that Contrariorum eadem est ratio Amongst contraryes the same reason holdeth on both sides Moreouer we are instructed by fayth that the single person of Christ is vnited to most distinct diuers natures to the nature of God and to the nature of man that the sole essence of God is in three persons really distinct that one and the selfe same moment of eternity is answerable correspondent to most different and contrary tymes to tyme past tyme present and tyme to come But as one person sustaineth diuers natures one nature is communicated to diuers persons one moment coexisteth to diuers Amb. orat in Auxen Aeges l. 3. de exid vrbis Hieros cap. 2. â—o Dams orat de B. Virgine tymes why cannot one body be resident in diuers places 21. Els how could our Sauiour after his Ascension haue met S. Peter flying the persecution of Rome as S. Ambrose and Aegesippus record How could he haue descended to honour the funeralls of our B. Lady as S. Iohn Damascen and Nicephorus witnesse How could he appeare to S. Paul as in the 9. Chap. of the Actes of the Apostles in the 22. and 23. For in none of these apparitions could he Calu. in c. 9. act l. 4. Instit c. 17. §.
â— Tim. 2. v. 5. Aug. l. 2. de pecca orig c. 28. Aug. praefat in Eâ—ar 2. Psa 29. Aug. de Ciuit. Dei â— 10. c. 20. Cyr. in Apol pro 12. Capitibus Chrys in c. 6. ad Haeb. Fulgent l. de incarna gratia Christi Amb. l. 3. de fide c. 5. Idem inquit Sacerdos idem hostia SacerdotiuÌ„tamen sacrifiâ—um humanae conditionis officium est c. Nemo ergo vbi ordineÌ„ cernit humaâ—â— conditionis ibi ius diuinitatis asâ—ribat a Physitian yet you cannot say he ministreth physike by his skill in law but by the art of physike so our high Bishop our mercifull Redeemer who sacrificed himselfe vpon the Altar of the Crosse was as I say both God and man If you inquire according to what nature he offered this Sacrifice or vsed mediation in our behalfe then we reply he accomplished them in his humane nature and not in his diuine which S. Paul by the instinct of the holy Ghost and the Fathers with him manifestly declare 6. S. Paul auerreth There is one God one also Mediatour of God and men man Christ Iesus He did not say as S. Augustine here obserueth Christ Iesus but Man Christ Iesus to denote the nature by which he was mediatour expressely inferring By this therefore a Mediatour by which he was man and a litle before Not by that by which he was equall to his Father In his explications vpon the Psalmes What is it to be a Mediatour betwene God and men Not betweene the Father and men but betweene God and men What is God The Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost What are men sinners wicked mortall Between that Trinity and mens infirmity iniquity a man is made Mediatour not wicked but yet infirme In his booke of the Citty of God Christ is a true mediatour in as much as he assumed the forme of a seruant whereas in the forme of God he receiueth the Sacrifice with his Father with whom he is one God S. Cyril S. Chrysostome Fulgentius I let passe S. Ambrose only I ioyne with S. Augustine the Father with the Sonne the ornament of Italy with the glory of Afrike who affirmeth The same is the Priest and the same the Host Neuertheles the Priestood and the Sacrifice is the office of humane condition And a litle after Let no man therefore where he seeth the course of humane property there ascribe the right of diuinity 7. But you will say the knot of his Maiesties difficulty is not yet vnloosed For suppose he prayed sacrificed and satisfyed for our sinnes according to his manhood how could his prayer his sacrifice his satisfaction amount to such infinit value the nature of man being finit and all his actions finit I answere that this proceeded from the dignity of our Sauiours person which being not the person of man as Nestorius wickedly held but the sole sacred diuine person of the Sonne of God it dignified and ennobled the actions of his humane nature which it sustayned and made euery one of such Rom 5. 20 inestimable price as they farre surpassed the summe of our trespasses that where sinne abounded grace might more abounde For as the basenes of the person who iniureth another increaseth the nature of the wronge so the worthines of him that satisfyeth enhaunceth the valour of satisfaction Hence it commeth that the recompence made by a Prince is more esteemed then that which is exhibited by a priuate person and the outrage attempted by a base companion against a Prince more hainous then the iniury which a Prince committeth against one of meane condition Therefore Aristotle in his Ethicks sayth Arist. 5. Ethic. c. 8. Arist 1. Metaph. c. 1. If a Magistrate strike another he is not to be stroken againe but if any man strike him he is not only to be stroken againe but seuerly also to be punished Where by the basenes of the offender and worthines of him that is offended he exaggerateth the grieuousnes of the crime and greater desert of punishment So on the other side in the way of recompence and satisfaction the excellency of him that satisfyeth and submitteth in our behalfe maketh the submission farre more acceptable because Aristotle saith The Clem. 6. in extra vnigenitus de paeniten remis Proclus hom de Chri. natiuitate in Concil Ephe. c. 7. â—om 6. Amb. praf in Ps 35. Leo epist 83. Vniuersitatem captiuoruÌ„ Cyp. ser de rat cir cuÌ„cisionis 1. Tim. 2. v. 6. Ephes 5 v. 2. Philip. 2. v. 8. Chrys ho. 7. in eum loc Cyr. cate cheâ—i 13. Haeb. 5. v. 7. actions are to be attributed to the persons that worke Wherefore seeing it was the diuine person of the Sonne of God which by the operations of his humanity prayed sacrificed and humbled himselfe to his Father he aduanced his prayers his sacrifice his humble submission and euery action he atchieued in his manhood to be in morall estimation truly accounted of infinit and vnspeakable worth 8. He purchased for vs by his merits and satisfaction as Clement defineth an infinite treasure He payed sayth Proclus such a price as did equall the debt of sinne euen in the axact nor me or rule of iustice He disbursed as S. Ambrose auerreth gold so pretious a ransome so rich as it was able to wash away al sinne able to redeeme sayth S. Leo the whole multitude of cap. iues Not through the benignity only of Gods fauourable acceptation but by the worthynes as S. Cyprian writeth of our Redeemers oblation who with so great authority entred the holy places c. Where he deriueth the excellency of his oblation from the great preheminence of his person who offering and submitting in our behalfe not only the actions of his humanity but himselfe also his owne diuine and sacred person morally deriued as much worthinesse to his workes as there was true reuerence and dignity in himselfe Which maketh S. Paul so often repeate He gaue himselfe a redemption for vs He deliuered himself for vs an oblatioÌ„ and hoast to God He humbled himselfe being made obedient Where S. Chrysostome sayth As much highnes and dignity as he had so much humility likewise did he vndergo And S. Cyrill Iesus offering himselfe the price shall he not appâ—ase the wrath of God conceaued against men Yes yes The Apostle againe auerreth it He was * Our ProtestaÌ„ts perniciously corrupt those words say ing He was heard in that which he feared to proue that he feared the payns of hell O horrible blasphemy S. Chrys the rest in eum lolum â—uar in 3. par disp 4. sect â— heard for his reuerence That is for the reuerence which was due vnto him being the Sonne of God as S. Chrysostome S. Anselme Hugo de Sancto Victore and Theophilact interprete it And S. Paul seemeth to insinuate immediatly adding And truly whereas he was the Son of God for that great dignity of his person
so much as the Councell of Florence had not only defyned that the Father and the Sonne are one origen or beginning of the Holy Ghost but also as Alâ—isiodorensis Gregory of Arimini Valentia affirme that they are not aliter atque aliter principium After a distinct and seuerall sort a beginning not breathing the holy Ghost in a different manner one from the other But Scotus excellently proueth out of S. Augustine that as the Father the Son are one beginning in respect of the Holy Ghost so all Aug. l. 5. de Trin. c. 14. three are one in respect of creatures The reason is because the * Molina in 1. par q. 45 art 6. Bannes ibidem Molina in 1. part q. 36. art 2. Disput 3. Deuines tell you that the Relations of themselues are of no actiuity their only function is in wardly to distinguish the persons among themselues and not outwardly to worke but only as they are identifyed with the Almighty working nature of God 19. Moreouer it is an approued principle amongst the learned that in the Trinity all thinges are one Vbi non obuiat relationum oppositio Where no opposition of relations is interposed But in manner of producing outward actions there is no opposition of relations no diuersity of notions therefore all vnity conformity and no difference at al. Which the Prophet Moyses denoted in the beginning Gen. â— of Genesis by these two Hebrew words Elohim bara Creauit Dij wher to shew the vnity of the diuine essence and Identity of action togeather with the Plurality of the PersoÌ„s he coupleth the singular number Bara Creauit with the plurall Elohim And yet if they had created in a distinct manner it had beene as needfull to haue vsed the plurall number Creauerunt to expresse their variety of working as the plurall number Elohim to betoken the diuersity of persons neuertheles if contrary to the Holy Prophet I should yield vnto M. Field what he requireth it serueth not his turne For suppose the persons did worke in a different manner yet the Sonne hath no different manner of working from himselfe and therefore it still implyeth that he as God should mediate and be also he to whome mediation is made which are the only thinges controuerted betweene vs and the only points which alwayes remayne vnanswered 20. These are I grant profound deep mysteryes these of the Trinity too deep M. Field for you to treate of they are able to dazell the wits of Angells it is not strange that they haue wholy darkened and eclipsed yours Yet strang it is you neuer heard what the Fathers write against you Strange me thinkes you neuer read these wordes of S. Gregory Nissen Not deuidedly for the number Nisâ—â—â— ad Ablabium Aug. l. 1. de Trin. c. 4. 5. Later Con. c. Firmiter Tolâ— 6. c. 1. vndecimum in conf fid 10. 5. v. â—9 Damascen l. 3. de fide ortho c. 14. 15. Maldonat in c. 5. Io. Nazian orat 2. de Filio Tho. 3. p q. â—9 art 2. Damâ—s l. 3. cap. 14. of persons doth the holy Trinity worke euery action Nor those of S. Augustine The three diuine persons inseparably worke Not the like in the Lateran the like in the 6. and 11. Toleâ—an Councell But most strange of all so great a Preacher and expounder of the word could neuer cal to mind that saying of S. Iohn What thinges soeuer the Father doth those the Sonne also doth in like manner and not in a different manner as S. Iohn Damascen vpon this sentence excellently discourseth and confirmeth with the testimony of S. Gregory Nissen And Maldonate solidly obserueth out of Leontius that the Euangelist addeth Similiter In like manner to signify that the Sonne doth worke all thinges in the same sort with the Father with the same power with the same auctority sayth the same Leontius and S. Gregory Nazianzen The reason is as S. Thomas and S. Damascen declare because Operatio sequitur naturam The operation followeth the nature And where that is one and the same without any distinction no distinction can there be in manner of action 21. Neuertheles M. Field goeth forward In this sort to quicken giue life c. to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature meriting desiring and instrumentally assisting is proper to the Sonne of God manifested Field in his â— book c. 16. fol. 52. in our flesh c. Therefore notwithstanding the obiection taken from the vnity of the workes of the Diuine persons may be a worke of mediation See what errours spring out of heretical pride first he would haue the diuers manner of working in the Sonne from the Father wholy to arise out of their seuerall manner of subsisting now that not sufficient he seemeth partly to draw it from the instrumentall concurrence of Christs humane nature As though either the vnion of his manhood with the person of the Sonne or the workes it produceth should cause some alteration or diuersity in the workes of his Godhead And he who is in himselfe vnchangeable should be altered and changed by the cooperation of his humanity But what change can that cause in the actions of God the Sonne as they proceed from his diuine Nature which it causeth not in the actions of the Father in the actions of the Holy Ghost Chiefly seeing S. Leo speaking in the person of S. Leo homilia de Transfiguratione God the Father to our Sauiour Christ sayth This is my beloued Sonne c. who all thinges that I do doth in like manner and whatsoeuer I worke he without any separation or difference worketh with me If all thinges If whatsoeuer Then those thinges which he worketh with the concurrence of his manhood those he accomplisheth without separation without difference from the workes of his Father and so cannot possibly by them mediate vnto him 22. To explicate my selfe more clearely Touching the action of quickening or giuing life which M. Field tearmeth a worke of mediation we speake not heer precisely of it as it meritoriously issueth from the humanity of Christ but as it is efficiently produced by the Godhead of the Sonne with a kind of concurring for so he speaketh of the humane nature In which respect either M. Field distinguisheth two agentes God on whome the action of quickening principally dependeth and Man who instrumentally concurreth thereunto or he distinguisheth them not Say he distinguish them then that worke of authority as it proceedeth from God equally floweth from all the persons of Holy Trinity in regard whereof they are all mediatours as well as the Sonne because the nature which principally causeth it is common to all Say he distinguish them not but make one sole agent of both on which the worke of mediation indifferently and inseparably dependeth then he confoundeth with Eutyches the two natures of Christ and with Macharius Tho. 3. p q. 18. art 1.
speaking to their harts By which All Heretikes according to S. Augustine who receaue the authority of the Scriptures perswade themselues they follow them whereas they rather follow their owne errours 27. Hence it also proceedeth that if no other ground or foundation be assigned no heretike could be noted or condemned of heresy nay as Suarez that great Suarez l. 1. defens fid cap. 11. Deuine heereupon inferreth No heretike should be or heresy at all no man ought to be compelled to the vnity of sayth and fellowship of one Religion to which the Scripture so often exhorteth and God requireth as necessary to saluation For if it be inough for euery one to appeale to the tribunall of his owne as he deemeth inspired conscience who can decline from the rule of Fayth Who can swarue from his owne particuler iudgment forsake that guide foundation of beliefe which himselfe broacheth and boldly vaunteth to come from God Who then can be an heretike or what heresy be vented If that be the square of fayth who ought to be compelled by forsaking that rule to conforme himselfe to another profession Euery one may safely remaine in his owne religion as long as they verily thinke which all men easily do that they haue receaued the riches of the spirit in as great measure as any other For this reason D. Whitguift alleadged why the Church of England need VVhitg in his defens against Cartâ—r not submit it selfe to the Church of Geneua The same reason may the Brownist alleadge why he should not yield to the Puritan the Puritan for not conforming himselfe to the Protestant and one Protestant why he should not subscribe to the iudgment of another Therefore besides the inward inspiration there must be some other outward vndeceauable and ouer-ruling Iudge or els God hath not sufficiently prouided for the necessityes of his Church not for her peace concord and stability not for her vnity in fayth certainty of beliefe not for the obedience and submission of her children not for the ending of quarrells decision of doubts and rooting out of errours But of this againe in the next chapter where my Aduersary might haue read this very obiection answered if he had not heere importunly vrged it out of due order time and place 28. The shew of reason which this Respondent Obiections The first bringeth to proue the iudgment of the secret spirit is to this effect First sayth he the Church receaueth from God inspiring her the right sense of Scripture he must first decide the coÌ„trouersy in her mind before she can exteriourly decide what they are bound to belieue therefore the spirit of God speaking in her hart is the supreme Iudge of Controuersyes euen in the opinion of vs Catholikes Secondly he proueth that the same spirit speaking The second in the diuine word to euery particuler man was likewise iudge in the law of Nature because at that tyme there were no other ordinations then such as did necessarily follow out of the eleuating of mankind to a supernaturall end but out of that it no way followes that al the faythfull were to obey one supreme Pastour Thirdly The third in the law written there was not one Gouernour the faythfull among the Iewes being without any subordination to any one among the Gentills And the Gentils had no subordination to the high Priest of the Iewes The fourth Fourthly it must be acknowledged sayth he by the aduerse part that the spirit of God as speaking in particular to euery man decideth which company of the professors of Christianity is the true Church and by consequence Answers To the first the same spirit determineth in the same manner all other controuersies Thus he To the first I answere that the motions inwardly inspired to the pastours of the church are no iudiciall sentences nor finall decisions of matters controuerted they are not any infallible rules neither to others to whom they are vnknowen nor to themselues to whome they are vncertaine vntill they be outwardly decreed and iointly subscribed vnto by the suffrages of all both head and members For vntill then they be not made one common voice one publik law one generall consent or definitiue sentence pronounced by them all they are not the last and highest Tribunal of the Church to which euery one is bound to submit himselfe without further appeale To the second I reply with D. Sanders other learned Deuines It is false that To the second Sander de visib Monar l. 4. c. 3. 4. there was no other ordinary Iudge in the law of Nature then Gods priuate instruction for Adam during his life was the chiefe head supreme directour of Gods people in points of fayth Then Seth after Enos c. And so in succeeding ages the first borne or eldest among the faithfull by the prerogatiue of his primogeniture or some other by Gods speciall election discharged that office which did also necessarily follow out of the eleuation of mankind to a supernaturall end supposing the sweetnes of diuine prouidence after mans fall and want of fayth To the third I answere that God himmselfe in the written To the third Deut. 17. vers 12. law appointed one high Priest and supreme Iudge among the Iewes He that shall be proude refusing to obey the Commandment of the Priest which at that tyme ministreth to our Lord thy God and the decree of the Iudge that man shall dye To whome notwithstanding the faithfull amongst the Gentils were not subiect because they had no such positiue precept imposed vpon them they were then separated and diuided from that chosen company by which the lineall and visible succession of the Church was propagated and continued Yet if they liued according to the prescript of reason and light of nature the necessary mysteryes of fayth were reuealed vnto them either by God himselfe or by an Angell or by some other inuiolable tradition Which being an extraordinary course can neither be a warrant for particular men to challeng the like nor preiudice the ordinary way which the diuine wisdome vseth in instructing his seruants especially now in the law of grace in which he hath subiected both Iew and Gentile to the obedience of one head supreme pastour according to that which our sauiour said Other sheepe I haue which are not of this fold them also must I bring and they shall heare my voice and there Ioan. 10. 16. shall be made one fold and one pastour Which cannot be vnderstood of Christ as he inuisibly feedeth and gouerneth his flocke for so there was alwayes one fold Cyprian l. 1. ep 6. ad Magnum and one pastour but of his visible headship and of his secondary also and visible pastour who now succeedeth him of whome S. Cyprian interpreteth those words 27. To the fourth I deny the Antecedent for that which first decideth what society of Christians is the To the Fourth true
to the multitude of externall seales Not the same least one and the selfe same thing which you abhorre should be at the same tyme in sundry places Not seuerall vnlesse you make many seuerall and distinct Communions not all to partake as S. Paul sayth of the 1. Cor. â—oâ— Bils 4. par pag. 7â—0 711 712. c. same bread And therfore when neyther of these retraites will serue M. Bilsons last craft and subtilty is That Christ is present in the Sacrament not mixing his substance with the elements but entring the harts of the faithfull Then tell me I beseech you how doth he enter Accidentally by some supernaturall quality infused into our soules Or Substantially by the entrance of his substance it selfe What Accidentally Then the Holy Eucharist is not as S. Paul waiteth The Communion of the bloud and participation of the body of our Lord but the participation only of your 1. Cor. 10. new created accident Of which I likewise demand whether the same or distinct accidents be produced in euery soule and so entangle you in all the former briars What Substantially How then doth the substance enter Whole or deuided into parts If by parts the glorious body of Christ should be mangled disfigured and remayne imperfect If whole the whole substance should be at the same tyme in diuers places cherishing the soules of diuers persons Besides how is he who sitteth at the right hand of his Father substantially vnited with vs vpon earth Can he enter our soules as M. Bilson dreameth not departing from the heauens and can he not enter the Hoast as Catholikes teach not departing from thence 4. M. Sparkes perchance will be more dexterous and expert in auoyding these difficulties As intricate and perplexed euery whit For he not contented with Christs spirituall Sparks p. â—16 presence only by faith auoucheth him to be also truly and really present to the harts of the faithfull Yet with such a strang and hidden presence as no tearmes can expresse no wit conceaue For answere M. Sparkes in what sort is Christ really present Withall his locall dimensions or without dimension Without is to destroy * Sparkes pag. 110. Vvhitaker cent 2. q. 5. c. 7. fol. 389 Spark pag 114. 115. 116. as you vrge against vs the nature of his body With all his dimensioÌ„s is impossible without penetration of Christs body with the body of his Communicant without multiplication rarefaction condensation and many other in your Shoole condemned absurdities Also how conioyne you Christ with vs Are our harts by the communion aduanced to heauen to be really vnited to him aboue or doth he descend to be personally conioyned with vs vpon earth Without a reall coniunction no Reall Presence by fayth can be framed much lesse such a Reall Presence as you imagine of Christs body broken and bloud shed of his passible and crucified body and bloud shed long since vpon the Crosse and not of his glorified and impassible body which now existeth Especially when you affirme in the same place That the body once broken and bloud shed haâ—h not beene really at any tyme iterated nor can be Are you not heere entrapped in your owne discourse Do not these words imply most palpable contradiction Is it possible for that which neyther really is nor really can be to be really present Doth not Aristotle and all Philosophers accord that Prius est esse quà m esse praesens A thing must first be before it can be present What leuity then what ignorance is this M. Sparkes in you and your fellows who auouch Christs body broken to be really present and not to be at all 5. Poore deceaued soules I lament your misery who in no trifling matters credit such triflers as mind not what they say nor how they write so they dazell the eyes and inueigle the harts of their vnhappy followers Yet least their hideous outcries fright the simple from imbracing the truth I will make answer to the residue of their pretended Calumnies Bils 4. par p. 731. c. Exod. 7. Matth. 11. Gen. 18. Aug. epist 23. Amb. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 3. 4. Orig. in 15. Matth. Ioan. 6. Gen. 49. Psal 77. Matth. 6. The greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrew Segula 6. First M. Bilson and his Sect-mates often argue That the Eucharist is called by S. Paul and the ancient Fathers bread the Chalice wine euen after Consecration I graunt that for diuers causes the elements retaine these names First because they were bread and wine before as Araons rod was sayd to deuour the rods of the Aegyptians when they were Serpents The men healed by Christ were termed Blind Lame Deafe and Dead when they Saw Walked Heard and were Reuiued because such they had byn before Secondly because they reserue the outward formes of bread and wine as the Three that appeared to Abraham in humaine shape were called men whereas they were Angels Thus S. Augustine is to be vnderstood thus S. Ambrose thus Origen in the places cited in the margent where they attribute vnto the sacrament the name of bread Thirdly it is termed Bread for that it coÌ„teyneth the Bread of life The true Bread which came downe from heauen Christ Iesus And therfore called in Scripture Fat bread Bread of Angels Supersubstantiall bread according to the Greeke Hebrew copies S. Hierome nameth it Egregious and most singuler Hier. in c. 6. Matth. Iere. 11. v. 19. Aug. l. 1. loquutio in Gen. n. 138. 178. 172. quaest 34. in Exod. bread And Ieremy the Prophet alluding hereunto calleth his true body Bread without any Epithete saying Mittamus lignum in panem eius Let vs fasten the wood on his Bread Lastly it is called Bread after the Hebrew phrase which stileth all sorts of meats by the name Lechem Bread as in the 34. of Genesis 4. Regum 6. Witnesse also S. Augustine in his speaches vpon Genesis and Exodus 7. But M. Bilson produceth some ancient writers who do not only giue vnto the Eucharist the name of bread but determinately auow the nature and substance of bread to abide after consecration Among whome Gelas coÌ„t Eutichen Gelasius leadeth the way writing thus against Eutiches The Sacraments which we receaue of the body bloud of Christ are a diuine thing and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine to be Then Theodoret The mysticall signes do not after Theod. dialog 2. sanctification depart from their owne nature For they remaine in their former substance figure and shape I answere They are sayd to remaine because they perseuer still in vertue power and efficacy For the outward formes and qualities which continue haue the same operations and worke the same effects which the substances before performed Or because the accidents which abide haue a miraculous yet substantiall manner of being not stayed not
inherent in any other thing Somewhat like to that which the former substances enioyed Thus Gelasius ought and no otherwise can he be expounded Gelasius answered for he doth not say yet ceaseth not in substance and nature c. but vsing first the word substance as a tearme ouer strict he corecteth and enlargeth it with this addition or nature and after explicating of what nature he meant he calleth the same proprietas naturae the property or quality of nature Then he affirmeth the Eucharist to be made a diuine thing and we by it partakers of the diuine nature a little after he addeth The elements are changed by the Holy Ghost into a diuine substance which confirmeth our and wholy subuerteâ—h the aduersaryes doctrine therefore M. Bilson very warily leâ—t it forth 8. As touching Theodoret the Greeke in which he Theodoret answered wrote explaineth his meaning for in the first place insteed of nature he vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which compriseth as all Grecians know the accidentall nature as well as the substantiall and signifyeth sometymes the vertue or quality of nature In the second place in lieu of substaÌ„ce Vide dicti Graecolat Conradi Gesneri Thesaurling graecae H. Stephani he hath the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essence as Quinâ—ilian and Budaeus out of Philo or nature also as Tully translateth it And so we graunt that the true nature essence of the accidents still remaine Neither can the word nature essence no nor substance which the translatour vseth be vnderstood as it is diuided against accident For Theodoret sayth The signes depart not from their owne nature they remaine in their former essence But they neuer had nor could haue any other then an accidentall nature an accidentall essence or substance if you will so call it Because the nature and substance of bread and Wine was not their owne nature not their former substance but really distinct from theirs Therefore Theodoret could not truly affirme That they remained in their former substance which formerly they had not but in the accidentall essence which they formerly had and in which they still perseuere Nor yet can any Cauiller say that remaine is heere taken for inhere because then the accidents should also inhere in their figure inhere in their shape to which the verbe remaine is as necessarily referred as it is to their substance 9. Although this answere fully satisfyeth and taketh Another answer to Theodoret away all manner of cauillations yet I will not omit another which Reuerend Father Cotton gaue at a disputation in France to wit that the three Genitiues in Greeke should not all be turned into Ablatiues in Latin but two into Ablatiues the first into the Genitiue case thus Manent enim mystica Symbola 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in prioris essentiae seu substaÌ„tiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figura specie videri tangi pessunt sicut priùs that is The mystical signes remaine in the figure and shape of their former substance The reall presence and TransubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ proued by Theodorets owne wordes in the very same place whom the CeÌ„turistes also reiect for the same Cent. 5. c. 4. col 517. 1008. and may be seene and touched as before Which answere somwhat varieth in wordes but is the same substance with the former both are notably strengthened and our TraÌ„substantiation established by this ensuing sentence which immediatly followeth But they are vnderstood to be those thinges which are made and belieued and adored as being those thinges which are belieued Now what are the thinges belieued what adored Not the outward signes barely of themselues they are seene not belieued they cannot without Idolatry be adored The thinges beleeued euen in our and in the Sacramentaryes opinion are the body and bloud of Christ those they apprehend those they adore by fayth yet they belieue and adore them absent we present but Theodoret auoucheth that the misticall signes Are made those thinges which are belieued which are adored therfore they are made the body and bloud of Christ And how are they made By representation by signification only No but truly and really As being sayth he those thinges which are belieued Can we deuise to speake more plainely for our selues then this Father speaketh in our behalfe whome quarreling enemyes would wrest against vs. The rest of M. Bilsons allegations I let passe because some of them make nothing against vs others may be answered as these before others are plainly of no account as the authority of Bertram a late suspected authour and of the false impious and sacrilegious CouÌ„cell of Constantinople vnder Constantinus Copronymâ—s so alleadged in the 2. Nicen Synod euen in the place quoted by M. Bilson howbeit his conscience serued him to produce their testimonyes for want of better 10. M. Bilson vrgeth againe The Lord tooke bread Bils pag. 730. 731. brake bread But that which he tooke that which he brake he gaue to his disciples therfore he gaue bread The same fallacy might I returne vpon him That he tooke prophane and common bread Therfore he gaue prophane and not Sacramentall bread With the same collusion any heathen Matth. 9 v. 26. might depraue the most famous miracles of Christ That of the Gouernous daughter raised by him he might say for example That Christ was inuited to the maid dead that he entred to her dead held her by the hand dead spake to her dead but she to whom he entred she to whom he spake arose Therfore she arose not aliue but dead He might after the same manner delude the resuscitation of Lazarus For vpon whom did Christ call when he sayd Lazarus come forth Did he call vpon the liuing Ioan. 1â— v. 43. or vpon the dead I know you wil grant that he called vpon the dead and yet as you must needs confesse by the power of his God-head and force of his voyce he came forth aliue So I answere vnto you That Christ tooke bread blessed bread c. yet by the power and efficacy of his words when he sayd This is my body the bread was changed and transubstantiated into his body Perhaps you will cauill that the beholders saw the actions of life in the fornamed parties Whà t then Will you credit the eyes of men which might be deceaued witnessing them to liue and will you not belieue the words of Christ who cannot beguile vs auouching this his body No sayth M. Bilson for Christ vseth these words I am the dore I am the vine and yet he is not really eyther dore Chrys ho. 83. in Mat. Bils 4. par pag. 717. c. or vine Is this your guise of arguing from a Liâ—erall to a figuratine speach Heere the things themselues the connection of the text fayth reason and whatsoeuer els inforceth a figure In the words of our Lords Supper all things plead the property of the letter The Collation of places the
in testimony of the innocency of his Vicegerents when they were most hoatly pursued and most wrongfully condemned of the deepest crymes in abusing of them that none hereafter may presume to stand against a witnes produced from heauen or returne them as faulty who are so euidently acquited by the sentence of God 19. To conclude therfore and briefly recapitulate what hath byn sayd in these two former Chapters 1. I haue proued out of Scripture that the fault of sinne being pardoned some punishment may after remayne 2. I haue proued out of Scripture that we our selues or some other in our behalfe may satisfy God for that dept of punishment 3. I haue proued out of Scripture that diuers perfect men haue more Satifactory workes then the punishment of their sinnes require 4. I haue proued out of Scripture that this surplufsage of SatisfactioÌ„s is appliable vnto others Therefore seing the whole ground of Indulgences coÌ„sisteth in this communication of superabundant Satisfactions the whole ground of Indulgences is strongly fortifyed by the infallible authority of holy Scripture The end of the first Booke THE SECOND BOOKE THE NINTH CONTROVERSY MANIFESTETH How Christ our Sauiour performed not the office of Mediation according to both his natures against D. Fulke and D. Field CHAP. I. I HANDLE this Controuersy chiefly to declare a doubt of no small importance in which my Gratious Soueraigne King Iames desired once to be resolued as I my selfe heard a Noble man comming from Courr deliuer A deepe and learned question proposed by King Iames. in the presence of many great personages The doubt was this How our Sauiour sussered and in what manner he satisfyed for the multitude of our sinnes Whether as God or as man or partly as God and partly as man If as God his Godhead was passible his Godhead corruptible which is impossible If as man his manhood being finite and all the actions of his humanity finite they could not be of infinite valew to ransome the iniquityes of men If partly as God and partly as man the Godhead is diuided into parts and some part made passible both which destroy the Nature of God A learned question and worthy so Noble a Prince if it may please him as willingly to giue eare to the answere as he hath wisely propounded the difficulty The resolution whereof wholy dependeth on this matter which I now discusse according to what Nature Christ did mediate in our behalfe For according to that he prayed according to that he sacrificed dyed and purchased the price of our redemption 2. Two contrary opinions or rather impious heresyes Cyr. ep ad Eulog patet ex quater Nest tomo 2. ope Cyr. Euag. l. 1. c. 2. Theo. l. 4. haer fabu Gelas l. de duab â—at cont Eutych Theod. vt supra c. vlt. Greg. de Valent. in 3. p. disp 1. q. 2. punct 10. Luth. in confess de coen Dom. Luth. l. de concil par 2. p. 276. Zuing. in resp ad Conf. Luth I find touching this point First Nestorius mantaining our Sauiour Christ who was borne of the Virgin to be a meere man both in nature and person did obstinately teach that he only prayed as man suffered as man and exercised his function of mediation as a meere man witnesse S. Cyril Euagrius and Theodoret Eutyches on the other side vnconstaÌ„tly affirming that either the deity of Christ was changed into his humanity as Gelasius reporteth or his humanity into his Diuinity as Theodoret mentioneth and that after this conuersion the Diuine nature only remayned did consequently defend sayth Gregorius de Valentia that he suffered in his Godhead and died also according to his Godhead albeit in the outward shew and semblance of man Both these wicked and diabolicall opinions brewed by Sathan haue byn broached of late by our new reformers Luther and Caluin 3. Luther vented the Eutychian blasphemy in the Confession he made of the supper of our Lord saying If I belieue the humane nature only suffered for me Christ is a simple or infirme Sauiour and then he himselfe needeth another Sauiour Therfore he supposed with Eutyches that his diuinity suffered as appeareth by his inuectiue speaches against the Zuinglians calling them Nestorians for denying it and by Zuinglius Apology or defence of his brethren in refuting Luther who sayth If Christ according to his Deity be passible certes he is no God 4. Iohn Caluin in his booke of Institutions wholy seemeth to fauour Nestorius distinguishing with him Two persons Calu. insti c. â—3 §. 9. 23. 24 in Christ the person of the Sonne of God and the person of the Mediatour Who howsoeuer he may striue to gloze that manner of speach yet neyther he nor Melancthon nor M. Fulke nor M. Field nor any Protestant who imbraceth their doctrine can from the blot of Arianisme or Eutychianisme Calu. ep â—â— Polonos inâ—er tracta p. 682. 683 printed Geneuae anno 16 11. Melanct. â—â— locis edit 1545. Fulke in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect 4. Field in his 5. booke of the Church â—â— 16. Dan. cap. 2. Haeb. 7. v â—6 Leo ser â— de natali Domini Basiâ— in illud Psal 48. Frater noâ— redimit Nazian orat 2. dâ—â—aschate be any way excused for explicating how Christ payed the forfait of our sinnes or made mediation to his Father Caluin auoucheth that he was our mediatour According to his diuine nature in respect of which his Father was greater then he And that he was mediatour Before his Incarnation before Adams fall euen from the beginning Melancthon The diuine nature was obedient to the Father It yeelded to the diuine anger M. Fulke Christ as God offered Sacrifice He was a Priest according to his Deity He was our Mediatour sayth M. Field according to both his natures Thus the Southsayers delude his Maiesties wise demaund who might find many Daniels in the Church of God able to vnfold the mystery and resolue him in the truth 5. We therefore reply to the question propounded that our innocent and impolluted Priest our Mediatour and Redeemer Christ Iesus satisfyed the wrath of his Father for our manyfold transgressions according to his manhood and not according to his Godhead For albeit he were both God and man yea perfect God and perfect man answerable to that of S. Leo vnlesse he were true God he could not affoard vs remedy vnlesse he were true man he could not shew an example which S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen and many others in like manner affirme Yet if you demand how and by what meanes he discharged the office of mediation the function of Priesthood then we answere He performed them by the means of his humanity and not by any worke of his deity which I illustrate by this familiar example Take one and the same man who is an excellent Physitian and a singular Lawyer When he ministreth holsome physicke to his patient it is true to say he who mynistreth physicke is both a Lawyer and
he was heard and reuerenced of his Father 9. Heere some learned Protestant may obiect That the person of the Sonne of God was the party offended therfore it could not satisfy but must be satisfyed by the submission of another I answere with Suarez the person of the Sonne of God may be considered two wayes either as it is all one by Identity with the nature of God or as it supporteth the nature of man In the former sense he is the party offended and must be pacifyed in the latter he is our Priest Mediatour and he that pacifyeth because the operations he worketh by his humanity are only capable of merit and apt to satisfy and not these he produceth by his Diuinity Which maketh M. Fields M. Fulkes and their followers assertion the more detestable who faygne Christ to mediate by both his natures As though he could either merit or satisfy in respect of his Deity or without merit satisfaction discharge his office of Mediation the mistery of our redemption Many other such inuincible reasons may be brought against them 10. For he that mediateth to another vseth some submission and intreaty vnto him to obtaine that he cannot himselfe performe which argueth want and impotency in the mediatour and power or authority in him to whome mediation is made So that if Christ as God sueth and supplicateth to his Father he is as the Arians sayd more impotent then his Father according to his God-head he is a Creature and not God Againe he that maketh mediation must be distinguished from him to whom mediation is made but the diuine nature of Christ is the party offended he that ought to be pacifyed he to whome mediation is made Therefore it cannot be he that maketh mediation For this cause Cardinal Bellarmin inferreth that Christ could not be our Mediatour neither Bellar. l. 5. cap. 5. de Chri. Mediatore according to both his natures seuerally nor ioyntly Not seuerally for the reasons alleadged not ioyntly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God and man and from the Sonnes of men who are meerly men yet he differeth not from the Sonne of God who was to be pacifyed neither in nature nor in person 11. D. Field taxeth this as a silly kind of reasoning And he like a silly nouice impertinently or impiously replyeth Field in his 5. booke c. 16 fol. 53. That the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not only from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is man and from men and himselfe as man in that he is God And therefore may mediate not only between the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men How idle how impertinent is this Do not we graunt Doth not Bellarmine in the same place confesse this difference Bellar. l. 5. c. 3. Do not we acknowledg that Christ doth mediate betweene his Father and vs yea betweene himselfe as God and vs wretched sinners But the question is according to what nature he performes it And you who affirme him to execute it according to both natures should shew how the Diuine nature of Christ which maketh mediation differeth from it selfe to whome mediation is made Assigne no difference and you confound the party satisfying with the party offended you make no satisfaction no mediation at all Assigne a difference you diuide the vnity of God-head you impiously deny the Blessed Trinity The Sonne say you assumed the nature of man which the Father did not True But what Did the Incarnation or assumption of man make any distinction any mutation in the essence of God Is not the diuine nature of the Sonne notwithstanding his Hypostaticall vnion the same with the Fathers the same with the Holy Ghosts Is it not as far distant from vs in the Son Aug. li. 2. de pec orig c. 28. Fulke vbi supra Aug. in Psal 109. Theod. in eumdem Psal Iero. in Psal 109. as it is in the Father As farre distant since as before the incarnation Therefore I conclude with S. Augustine Quomodo erit medietas vbi eadem distantia est How can there be a meane where the same distance still remayneth 12. The like forces we bring against M. Fulke who maketh Christ a Priest in respect of his Godhead For besides the Fathers who directly affirme the contrary besides S. Augustine who sayth As he was man he was Priest as God he was not Priest Theodoret As man he did offer Sacrifice but as God he did receaue Sacrifice S. Hierome Our Lord swore c. Thou art a Priest for euer He swore not to him who before Lucifer was begotten but to him who after Lucifer was borne of the Virgin Besides these authorityes if Christ be a Priest and offer Sacrifice as M. Fulke holdeth according to his Diuinity he is both distinct from his Father and inferiour to him according to his diuinity He doth homage to him as his Lord and supreme soueraigne and sitteth not as the Scripture teacheth on his right hand equall with him in dignity equall in glory power maiesty as the * Atha ser 1. con Arian Bâ—sil l. de Spir. sanct cap. 6. Ambr. l. 1. defide c. 4. c. Doctours commonly interprete that place Nay he is as the †August â—om 6. propos 33. Fulk in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect 4. Field 5. ca. 16. Arians affirmed the Priest and Minister of his Father and not his true and consubstantiall Sonne M. Fulke and M. Field with him seeke to auoyd these blasphemyes by distinguishing the workes of mediation and Priesthood into two sortes into workes of ministery workes of authority Of ministery as to pray to pay the price of our Redemption and by dying to satisfy for sinne Of authority as to enter into the helyest place to reconcile vs vnto God which two D. Fulke expresseth Or to quicken giue life impart the spirit of sanctification to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the holy Ghost which M. Field specifyeth And then they will haue the workes of ministery to be performed by Christ in his manhood the works of authority in his God-head Such maskes they prepare to hide the face of their monstruos assertion notwithstanding the vgly shape appeareth 13. For heere they first intermingle the ministeriall function of man with the powerfull actions of God To enter into the holyest place to penetrate the heauens which M. Fulke vbi supra Fulke recounteth as a work of authority was if we speak of the action not of the power by which it was done a locall motion and worke of ministery proceeding from man and not from God who is vnchangeable immoueable not entring any place but filling all places with his infinite immensity In like manner the reconciliation which Christ as Mediatour made was the action of his humanity in which sense S.
Paul sayd God was in Christ 2. Cor. â— v. 19. reconcyling the World to himselfe because he reconciled it to himselfe by Christ by the obedience and labours of his manhood Or if he take this reconciliation as made by God without the interposing of a third person as one may by himselfe reconcile his enemy vnto him then I say this was no act of mediation but an act of Gods mercy as much belonging to the Father as to the Son So I acknowledge the workes of authority which M. Field loco citato Field mentioneth to be the workes of Christs Diuinity but not the workes of mediation not proper to the Son of God but common to all the persons of Holy Trinity agreable to that principle ratifyed by all Deuines Indiuisa sunt opera Trinitatis ad extra The workes of the Trinity outwardly Field in his 5. book of the Church c. 16. f. 52. M. Fields reply sauoureth too much of Arianisme produced indiuisibly proceed from euery person 14. D. Field replyeth Though their action be the same workedone by them yet they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner of doing For the Father doth all things auctoritatiuè and the Sonne subauctoritatiuè as the Schoolemen speake Thus he writeth and still dippeth his pen in Arian poyson For yield that the diuine nature of the Sonne of God worketh in a different manner from the nature of the Father there must needes ensue some difference in nature some diuersity of wills otherwise it cannot be conceaued how the Tho. 1. p. â— 19. art 4. same indiuisible essence how the same vnchaÌ„geable wil which is the cause of all thinges should change and alter in manner of working 15. Secondly if the Father and the Sonne differ in manner of doing these outward actions towardes vs their Creatures then they are not both as the Deuines tearme The three persons of holy Trinity are but one beginning or author of thinges them Vnum principium One sole origen or beginning of thinges but the Father causeth and willeth them one way the Sonne another the one createth quickneth and giueth life in this sort the other in that Which is nothing els but to rake vp the ashes of old dead and buryed heresyes to giue way to the Manichees and other followers to maâ—â— diuers Creatours and Beginners of thinges Yet because you affirme the Schoolemen bolster this errour name I beseech you what Schoolemen they are Who vnles he were an Arian presumed to write that the essentiall and externall actions for of them we now speake which the Father and the Sonne essentially produce are different in manner of doing Who in respect of these workes euer vttered those wordes which I quake againe to repeate the one did them auctoritatiuè the other subauctoritatiuè What Is the Sonne according to his God-head an inferiour instrument or vnderling to his Father The Oracle of S. Paul recordeth Christ Iesus when he was in the forme of God thought it no robbery to be equall vnto God and shall this Phil. 2. 6. Sectmates blasphemy take place that he hath power and authority to worke vnder God He answereth his meaning is not the sonne should be an instrument or vnderling Field ibi to his Father but that he receiueth the essence he hath and power of working from the Father though the very same that is in the Father only differing as he noteth before in subsistence 16. Is this M. Field the part of a Christian to sprinkle your writings with words of blasphemy and powder them ouer with a holesome meaning Hath not our learned Soueraigne King Iames worthily condemned Conradus Vorstius that egregious Hereticke for the like abuse K. Iames in his declaration concerning his proceedings in the cause of D. Contradus Vorstius pag. 36. Gen. 19. 24 doth not he teach it vnlawfull to vse in these great mysteries any other phrase or manner of speach then such as the Church hath alwaies vsed How dare you then in his kingdome vnder the sheild of his protection how dare you diuulge in Print such venemous speeches such pestiferous words howbeit you seeke as Vorstius did to strow and couer them with a sugred sense For I confesse the sonne of God receiueth his essence as begotten of his Father and so may sometime by denomination or appropriation of speech be said to work by power receiued from his Father as in Genesis it is written Our Lord raigned from our Lord. But for one person to mediate to another is not only required a different denomination but a reall and substantiall difference a distinction an inferiority in the very essence it selfe in such manner as I haue often inculcated Also I confesse the persons of holy Trinity differ in Subsistence differ to vse the termes of Art in Personall Notions or Notionall Relations Yet hereof to infer an vnder-power or different manner of producing outward and essentiall workes this I say is either to make some diuersity of natures with the accursed Arians or giue scope to the Manichees to establish not a double only but a triple God or threefold cause of things created Now if you tremble to support such wickednes as your words enforce to what purpose was that sacriledge breathed forth How answere you the obiection of the vnity of the works of the Diuine Persons how make you the same action a worke of mediation in one and not in the other 17. For you ought to know good Syr if you dare vsurpe the title or challeng the dignity of a Deuine that albeit the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost ioyntly cooperate and accomplish the workes of authority you mentioned as they are perfectly subsisting in three Persons really distinct yet they performe them not primarily or formally by their personall properties by which they differ but by their will and vnderstanding in which Hâ—â—r de Gandauo quodl 6. q 2. they agree and not by them if we speake precisely as they are Notionally but as they are essentially taken that is as they are one absolute and the same in euery person It was I confesse the errour of Henry de Gandauo that the Nationall knowledge and loue of God did practically Molina in 2. par q. 36. â— 4. disp 2. 5. 6. Altifiod l. 1. summ c 30. Greg. Arimin 1. dist 22. q. vnica Valenâ— in 1. par disp 2. q. 10. punct 5. de person Spiritus Sancti Sâ—oc l. 2. â—st 1. q. 1. produce all outward creatures yet far was he from your impiety far from imagining so maine a difference as to attribute thereby a worke of submission subiection mediation to one person which is not in the other 18. The holy Ghost as the Deuines teach proceedeth from the Father and from the Sonne as they incoÌ„municably subsist by their different relations yet not according to their difference but according to one single or common vertue of spiration which is the same in both In
In 6. Syn. gen act 4. 9. â—6 with Sergius with the Monothelites their wills and operations who for this cause are enrolled in the rancke of heretikes and aboue 1000. yeares ago condemned by Pope Agatho in the sixt generall Councell 23. Wherefore to draw to an end I intreate you all who peruse this Treatise if the filth sucked out these miry puddles haue not dammed vp the passage of truth if these dregges of heresyes haue not quenched in you all sparkes of grace renounce the Patrons of such iniquity beware the infection of their folly the fury of them who proclaime Christ a Priest Christ a Mediatour according to his Deity and acknowledge with vs how he dischargeth these dutyes only as man notwithstanding how his actions his Sacrifice his prayers and teares were all of infinite and incomparable merit through the excellency of his diuine person Which I would to God his Royall Maiesty would also vnderstand for whose worthy satisfaction I haue diligently laboured to decide this question THE TENTH CONTROVERSY DEMONSTRATETH The Primacy of S. Peter against D. Bilson and D. Reynoldes CHAP. I. ARISTOTLE the chiefe and Prince Arist â— 3. polit â— 5. 6. 7 of Philosophers assigneth three seuerall manners of gouerning a Common-Wealth For eyther many of the meaner sort beare sway or some few of the Nobility or only one as absolute Soueraigne If many it is called Democracy if few Aristocracy if one a Monarchy The first is often ruined with the tumults and garboyles of the vnconstant and diuersly-headed multitude The second commonly deuided with the strifes and factions of the ambitious Peeres The third as it is lesse subiect S. Thom. de regim principum l. 1. cap. 1. 23. â— to diuision so most conuenient as S. Thomas learnedly noteth to order guide and keepe many in peace and vnity the finall scope to which all gouernments should be directed and all rulers ayme 2. Whereupon Plato Aristotle Isocrates and diuers other affirme in peace in warre in managing al affaires Plato in polit Arist l. 3. polit c. 11. 12. l. 4. cap. 2. Isocrates oratione 3. this to be the most diuine forme of a Common-Wealth where one most singular man hath the supreme power and administration of things which both God and Nature confirmeth For in the mystery of the most holy Trinity there is the Father from whom the Sonne and the Holy Ghost who from the Father and the Sonne as from one only origen or beginning proceedeth They euery way equall in properties distinct in Persons three are only one in ouer-ruling and disposing all things Amongst the immortall spirits and quires of Angels there is one illuminated by God who giueth light to the rest In the Heauens there is one first moueable by which the inferiour orbes and planets are moued One Sunne from whence the light of the Stars is borrowed and influence of the signes in the Zodiacke determined In earthly thinges in this little world of man there is one hart from which the arteryes and vitall spirits one braine from whence the sinewes one lyuer from which the veines channels of bloud haue their head or of-spring in euery element there is one predominate quality Amongst the birdes the Eagle among the beasts the Lyon among the fishes the Whale doth also dominier In Trees Cyprian tract do Idolorum â—anitate Hearbes and Plants in Townes Villages Families priuate Houses the like head-ship or Monarchy might be shewed if it were not too long for my professed breuity in so much as S. Cyprian writeth The very Bees haue their guide and captaine whome they follow Apo. 2â— 2. Cant. 6. 3. Mat. 13. v. 38. 41. Ioan. 10. 16. Luc. 10. 34. 1. Tim. 3. â—â— 3. Now sith the Church of Christ militant vpon earth is a perfect yet spirituall Common-wealth sith it is An holy Citty A campe well ordered and established by the wisest Captaine Gouernour and Law-maker that euer was Who doubteth but that he placed in it the most worthy Regiment of all others that Monarchicall preheminence which in all his other creatures so perfectly raigneth especially for that he resembleth it to A kingdome to A sheepefold to An Inne to An House in which one King one Pastour one Host one Maister beareth sway For that it ought to be correspondent to the ancient Mat. 16. 18. 19. Synagogue in which one High-priest answerable to the celestiall hierarchies and orders of Angels among whom one Seraphim is chief And who was this visible Monarch this Ministeriall head of the Church vnder Christ but S. Peter To whom our Sauiour said Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it And I will giue to thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth it shall be bound also in the Heauens and whatsoeuer thou shall loose in Earth it shall be loosed also in the Heauens In which seÌ„tence foure rare prerogatiues are promised vnto Peter and by euery one of them his supereminent dignity aboue the rest of the Apostles manifestly declared 4. For first he calleth him Rocke by which Metaphore he doth insinuate that he as a Rocke or Stone vnmoueable Amb. ser 47. Orig. hom 5. in Exod. saith S. Ambrose vpholdeth the whole weight and fabrike of Christian worke That he saith Origen is the great foundation or most solide stone vpon which Christ builded his Church Secondly he addeth To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen by which words is signified all power to enact or repeale Lawes sommon or confirme Councels appoint or displace offices consecrate or degrade Bishops all power and authority which is requisite for the rule gouernment or instruction of the Church For euen as when the keyes of a Citty are giuen vp to the Magistrate the administration and rule of the State is surrendred into Greg. l. 4. epi. 32. Luc. 11. 52. Apoc. 1. v. 18. his hands so now when the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen are imparted to Peter The whole charge and principality of the Church as S. Gregory writeth is committed vnto him And whereas there be two sorts of Keyes the Key of knowledge to teach and instruct of which S. Luke You haue taken away the Key of knowledge and the Key of authority and iurisdiction to guide and gouerne whereof S. Iohn speaketh I haue the Keyes of death and of Hell and Esay I will giue the Key of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulder Both these Keyes were here delegated vnto Peter by Isa 21. v. 22. It was vsuall amongst the Hebrewes to giue power and authority by the Keyes vid. Azor. Insti mor. p. 2. c. 9. the one he had the Chaire of infallible doctrine to decide all controuersies and define all matters of faith by the other the scepter of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to rule order correct and
obiections to the contrary answered against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Field and Maister Abbot pag. 20. The Seauenteenth Controuersy DEmonstrateth that our Iustice is inherent in vs and not imputed only against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 38. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the former doctrine is confirmed by more reasons authorities and other obiections of our aduersaries refuted pag. 54. The Eighteenth Controuersy IN which it is proued that Fayth Hope Feare Loue Sorrow c. precede as dispositions to Iustification in such as are arriued to the vse of Reason against D. Fulke and Maister Abbot pag. 69. The Nineteenth Controuersy DEclareth how faith alone doth not iustify against D. Whitaker D. Field D. Abbot and all Sectaries pag. 83. The Twentith Controuersy IN which it is concluded that our Iustification consisteth in the habit of Charity against D. Abbot D. Whitaker and D. Fulke pag. 10â— The one Twentith Controuersy IN which it is discussed how good Workes do iustify against Doctour Abbot Doctour Whitaker and D. Fulke pag. 116. THE FIFTH BOOKE The two and Twentith Controuersy DIsproueth the Protestants Certainty of Saluation against D. Whitaker and D. Abbot pag. 140. The second Chapter of this Controuersy VVHerein the former Presumption is refuted by Reason and whatsoeuer the Aduersary obiecteth against vs is remoued pag. 151. The three and Twentith Controuersy DEclareth that true Fayth or Iustice once had may be lost against D. Whitaker D. Fulke and D. Abbot pag. 165. The foure and Twentith Controuersy A Voweth Freewill against D. Fulke and D. Whitaker pag. 177. The fiue and Twentith Controuersy SHeweth the cooperation of Free-wil to our conuersion and to workes of Piety against D. Whitaker D. Fulke and M. White pag. 191. The six and Twentith Controuersy VVHerein is taught that the Fayth uâ—l by the help of Gods grace do some workes so perfect entterly god as they truly please the diuine Maiesty against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 206. The seauen Twentith Controuersy VVHerein our good workes are acquitted from the spottes of sinne against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 216. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the same is warrâ—ntâ—d by the Fatherâ— the obiections answered and the vnâ—oluntary motions of Concupiscence discharged of sinne pag. 227. The eight and Twentith Controuersy EStablisheth the possibility of keeping Gods Law against Doctour Whitaker Doctour Fulke and Doctour Abbot pag. 336. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the possibility of keeping the Law is maintained by other reasons and objections answered p. 243. The nine and Twentith Controuersy DEfendeth God from being Authour of siane against Doctour Fulke and his Companions pag. 355. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which some other Heresies are comprehended our Sectaries cheifâ— obiections fully answered pag. 372. The Thirtith Controuersy IN which the merit of Good workes is supported against Doctour Abbot and Doctour Fulke pag. 386. The second Chapter of this Controuersy IN which the same is strenghned by other reasons authorities and the Obiections satisfied pag. 296. THE FOVRTH BOOKE THE SIXTEENTH CONTROVERSY MAINTAINETH Originall sinne to be abolished by Baptisme and Concupiscence remaining to be no sinne against D. Whitaker D. Field D. Abbot CHAP. I. IT is the proper badge and common custome of such as wander from the truth sometymes to stray in the extremity of one errour sometyme of another one while by excesse to ouerflow the bankes of truth other while to sticke in the sandes by want or defect Thus a Ambr l. 1. de fide cap. 1. 2â— Sabellius erring by defect gaine-sayd the distinction of Persons in the mistery of the holy Trinity and b Nazi orat 5. de Theolog. Arius by excesse multiplyed or rather deuided the vnity of their Essence c Euâ—gr l. 2. cap. 2. Nestâ—rius would haue no Hypostaticall or Substantiall vnâ—â—â— betwixt the diuine and humane nature of Christ and d Theod. l 4. hâ—ret fab c. vlâ— Eutiches would admit no diuision betweene them e Aug. l. de haeres haer 81. 82. Iouinian so highly commended Matrimony as he equaled it with virginity f Iren. l. 1. c. 22 30. Saturninus Tatian and others misprized it so much as they wholy condemned it as an execrable and vnlawfull thing The g Alfon. de Cast. v. Imago Carpocratians Gnostickes and Collyridians honoured Images with sacrifices and diuine worship The h in Alcoran c. 15. 17. Bilson 4. par p 545. sequent Turkes Image-breakers and our Protestants depriue them of all religious worship i Aug. ep 109. 107. Pelagius the enemy of Gods grace attributed too much k Hier. in praef dial aduer Pelag. Manichaus with our late Ghospellers too little to the liberty of Free-will And to come to my purpose the same l Aug. l. 4. cont 2. ep Felag c. 2. 4. libris cont Iul. Castro l. 12. her verbo Peccat Melanth in loc com de baptis infant Pelagius Iulian the Armentians Anabaptists of our dayes extenuate the fault of Originall sinne deny it to be infectious to the soules of Infants or any thing necessary for the cleansing of it M. Luther Caluin Field Abbot Whitaker and all other Protestants exaggerate it so farre and make it so contagious to the whole of spring of Adam as it can neuer be purged or washed from them 2. But the Church of God and spouse of Christ by the guide of his holy spirit shunning the gulfe of both extremes and still sayling in the middst or meane of truth neither confoundeth the Persons of the Blessed Trinity with Sabellius nor deuideth their essence with Aâ—ius She defendeth the Hypostaticall vnion of God and Man in the persons of Christ against Nestorius and alloweth not the mixture of natures with Eutiches She honoureth Marriage as an holy Sacrament against Tattan yet doth notequall it to virginity with Iouinian with Whitaker and the rest of his crew She condemneth the sacrilegious honour which the Carpocratians allow to Images and yet bereaueth them not of all externall worship with Turkes m Luth. in assert art 2. Caluin l. 2. inst c. 10. parag 8. 9. Field in his booke of the Church c. â—6 Abbot in his defence cap. 2. VVhitaker in his answere to the 8. reason of M. Campian and in his 8. booke aduers Duraum VVhitaker Contro 2. q. 5 cap. 7. fol. 384. Images-breakers and Protestants She requireth the supply and assistance of grace to flye all sinne and to do good pleasing to God against Pelagius and excludeth not the cooperation of Free-will with Manichaeus She auoucheth that all mankind contracted the spot of Originall infectioÌ„ Calu. l. 2. instit c. 1. §. 8. 9. Abbot in his defence of the reformed Cathol c. 2. sol 198. Calu. ibi §. 9. Calu. ibid against the Anabaptists and houldeth also that by fayth in
Christ by water and the holy Ghost in the regenerate it is wholy cleansed and washed away against our Protestants who stifly contend Originall sinne to be an inheritable peruersnes an vniuersall corruption spread ouer the whole man and defiling him in all parts powers both of body and soule Whereby from the head to the foote he is so ouerwhelmed as with an ouerflowing of water that no part of him is free from sinne Neither doth this prauity in their opinion euer cease but like as a burning fornace bloweth out flame and sparkles or as a spring doth without ceasing cast out water So that peruersnes neuer ceaseth in vs but continually bringeth forth the works of the flesh In so much as whatsoeuer we thinke speake or labour to effect is stayned with the floud of this infectious streame and which is worst of al they affirme this cankred corruption to cleaue so fast vnto vs as it can neuer be scoured forth not by the oyle of grace not by the strength of fayth not by the pretious bath of Christs sacred bloud not by any help of vertue or fauour from aboue as long as coÌ„cupiscence the law of the flesh which perseuereth vntill death according to them is formally sinne inordinatly resisteth or stubbornely rebelleth against Greg. de valent 12. disp 6. q. 12. tom 1. Field in his 3. booke of the Church c. 26. f. 131. Feild ibid. Abbot in his defence cap. 2. VVhitaker l. de pecca origin the law of the mind 3. Whose grosse absurdityes concerning this point chiefly spring from these three heades of falshood first that Originall sinne doth nor formally consist in the losse or depriuation of any iustice grace or perfection euer restored by the merits of Christ in this earthly warfare as we maintaine but in the defect and want of the whole righteousnes which Adam enioyed before his fall The property whereof according to M. Field is to subiect all vnto God and leaue nothing voyd of him Not any inordinate appetite not any contrariety betweene the flesh and the spirit which still abyding Originall sinne also remayneth Secondly that this Originall righteousnes was essentially required to the integrity of Nature Thirdly that all declinings and swaruings from that perfect subiection vnto God and entyre coniunctioÌ„ with him which grace worketh are sinnes and decayes of natures integrity and consequently that concupiscence being a declyning from that entier subiection c. is truely and properly sinne Thus they We againe otherwise teach that the former disorders be defects woundes and decayes of Nature but not properly sinnes which that I may more clearely demonstrate I will briefly declare from whence our concupiscence or rebellion naturally ariseth what Originall sin is and what was the originall Iustice of our first Parents before they fell or felt in themselues those dangerous coÌ„flicts 4. Great was the felicity and thrice happy was See S. Iohn Damas l. 2. de fide ortho cap. 11. S. Greg. in prol 3 psal Poenit. Pererius l. 5. in Genes the state and condition of Adam at his first creation when being framed in the terrestriall Paradise by the immediate hand of God he had his soule beautifyed with grace or inherent iustice his vnderstanding endued with the perfect knowledge of all naturall and supernaturall misteryes his will rectifyed by the loue of God and strong bias of his owne inclination directly carryed to the mark of vertue he had the inferiour powers of his soule the motions of his flesh subiect vnto reason the sterne of reason pliable to the spirit the spirit alwayes obedient vnto God he had no ignorance no errour no perturbation of passions in his mind no inordinate concupiscence no Aug. l. 14. de ciuit Dei c. 26. rebellion in his flesh no propension to euill no difficulty to good No corruption sayth S. Augustine in his body no trouble or distemper by his body bred or ingendred in his senses no Read Pererius in Genes l. 5. de statu innocentiae and Gab. Vas quez in 2. 2. q. 8. dis 131. c. 7. intrinsecall disease could breake from within no extrinsecall hurt was feared from abroad perfect health in his flesh and all peace tranquility raigned in his soule There were the admirable effects this the sweet harmony which Original iustice caused betweene the flesh and the spirit Now whether these extraordinary priuiledges flowed from iustifying grace which was formally all one as the best Deuines accord with Originall Iustice or whether they were caused by the seuerall habits of sundry vertues infused to this purpose or whether some of them proceeded from the sweetnes of diuine contemplation or from the speciall care and prouidence of God I will not heere dispute only I say they could not be any naturall propertyes springing from the roots of nature because in some thinges they eleuated and perfected nature far aboue her naturall course in others they stooped bridled and restrained the maine current of her naturall desires and sensuall appetites as God supernaturally suspended the heat Originall iustice no naturall property but a gift supernaturall of fire in the furnace of Babylon or as he tempered and asswaged the naturall and irreconciliable fiercenes of the wild and sauage beastes in the Arke of Noë neither of which could proceed from nature the one being as I say aboue the other repugnant thereunto for who can think that the dowry of grace is the right of nature or that the gift of immortality is essentially due to a morall body or that contrary qualityes should not naturally resist and oppositely fight the one against the other Who can think that Adam and Eue our first progenitours were essentially iust a prerogatiue only due vnto God or dismantled of that iustice were impayred yea changed in their essence And so not the same after as before their fall in parts essentiall The righteousnes therefore which they lost especially the chiefe and formal part was a diuine accident or heauenly quality not essentially required Feild in his 3. booke of the Church chap. 26. which M. Field misdeemeth to the integrity of nature for that implyeth if nature be taken as it ought to be distinct from that which surmounteth nature but supernaturally added to the perfection thereof and with this couenant imparted to Adam that if he had not trespassed it should haue beene perpetually propagated and transfused Augu. de peccat merit remis l. 2. c. 22. l. 13 de ciuit Dei cap. 13. to his posterity But he transgressing and disobeying the Commandment of his Lord and Maister was iustly plagued with the disobedience of his flesh his hand-mayd vnto him a reciprocall punishment so S. Augustine tearmeth it of his disobedience vnto God Hence proceedeth the rage of concupiscence the commotions of the inferiour and baser parts rebelling against the superiour the auersion from good the proâ—esse to euill hence the disorder of passions the infirmityes of the mind
We contrary wise teach that actual concupiscence much lesse habituall is no sin at all vnles the allowance and approbation of our will concurre thereunto which S. Iames auoucheth in his Catholike Epistle Euery one is tempted of his owne concupiscence abstracted and allured afterward concupiscence when it hath conceaued bringeth forth sinne Iac. 1. v. 14. 15. Lo heere the act of concupiscence first tempting to sinne before it be formally sinne therefore of it selfe it is no sinne neither are the suddayne motions and suggestions therof culpable except we some way yield vnto them which our thrice learned and euer worthy admired S. Augustine of set purpose inculcateth in diuers places in his Aug. l. 5. cont Iul. c. 5. fift booke against Iulian and cyting that very text of S. Iames he sayth Truly in these wordes the brood is distinguished from that which breedeth or bringeth forth for concupiscence is that which breedeth the brood is sinne but concupiscence begetteth not vnles is conceaue it conceaueth not vnles it induce that is gayneth the assent of the willer to perpetuall euill When therefore it is striuen against this commeth to passe that it may not conceaue Augu. de ciuit Dei l. 1. c. 25. Idem ep 200. ad Asel Iâ—em l 2. de Gen cont Maâ—i c. 4. Cyril l. 4. c. 5â— Chrys ho. 13. in ep ad Rom. Basil l. de virg l. const Monast c. 2. Ambr. l. de Sacram. regen Hier. ep ad Ocea or trauell with sinne In his booke of the Citty of God That rebellion of concupiscence which dwelleth in our dying members c. how much lesse is it without fault in the body of him that consenteth not if it be without fault in the body of him that sleepeth In his epistles If we consent not to those disordered motions we need not say to our Father which is in heauen forgiue vs our trespasses In his second booke of Genesis against the Manichees Sometyme reason doth stoutly resist and bridle concupiscence euen stirred vp which when it is performed we fall not into sinne but with some wrastling are crowned With S. Augustine accord S. Cyrill S. Chrysostome S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Hierome and all the ornaments both of the Greeke and Latin Church as Caluin the Proto-sectary of this our vnfortunate age fully witnesseth writing of Concupiscence in these wordes Neither is it needfull to labour much in searching what old writers haue thought heerein for as much as only Augustine may be sufficient for it who hath faythfully and with great diligence gathered all their iudgments therefore let the Readers gather out of him such certainty as they shall desire to learne of the opinion of antiquity And then immediatly setting downe what S. Augustine taught of this matter and wherein he dissented from him There may seeme sayth he to be this difference betweene him and vs that he when he graunteth that the faythfull so long as they dwell in a mortall body are so holden bound with lusts Calu. l. 3. instit c. 3. §. 10. that they cannot but lust yet dareth not call that disease sinne but being content to expresse it by the name of weaknes he teacheth that then only it becommeth sinne when either worke or consent is added to corruption or apprehension that is when will yieldeth to the first desire but we account the very same for sinne that man is tickled with any desire at all against the law of God I need no more The opinion and iudgment of all antiquity touching concupiscence by Caluins confession is to be taken out of Augustine Augustine auoucheth it no sinne without the consent of the will as himselfe also confesseth Augustine therefore and all antiquity agree with vs in this point against himselfe and his confederates by Caluins owne confession 3. But I will not only beare downe my aduersaryes by Caluins testimony and authority of Ancient Fathers Concupiscence without consent proued by reason to be no sin I will wage also reasons with them I aske what sinne the instigation of coÌ„cupiscence is if it vnwillingly inuade vs or be checked and restrained by vs Originall or Actuall Not Originall because that equally infecteth all this is more violent more exorbitaÌ„t in some theÌ„ others according to the various coÌ„plexion disposition of the persoÌ„s that is of one essence and nature in euery sinner this of diuers one of wrath another of lust the third of reueng c. that neither is nor can be any act but a defect or priuatioÌ„ only this is a personall act in him that coueteth therfore it is not Original sinne distilled from another Nor Actuall Aug. l. 3 de lib. arb c. 18. for we cannot sinne actually against our will No man as S. Augustine teacheth is sayd to sinne in that which he cannot auoyd Therfore the vnuoluntary motions which maugre our will often assault vs cannot be truly sins Our opponents reply it is sufficient they were once voluntary in their origen that is in Adam But it is false that Adam euer voluntarily consented to the personal motions of coÌ„cupiscence which arise in vs neither was our will coÌ„prehended in him as head of his posterity in any other thing then in keeping or casting of the armour of original iustice from himselfe and vs therin only his will was our assent his perseuerance our crown his reuolt our fall his transgressioÌ„ our sin in other acts or desirs of ours which are not of their owne nature faulty though free his voluntary disobedience cannot make them faulty And although I should graunt that they willingly proceed from him as the voluntary cause of all our euills yet that is not inough to make vs now guilty of the outrage committed to say we once sinned in the cause wheron it depended for you may be faulty in the cause and yet incurre no sin when the effect falleth out For example the Maister commandeth his seruant or solliciteth his friend to murder his enemy without doubt he grieuously offendeth when he giueth that charge or vseth such wicked perswasions yet if after he hartily repent before it be atchieued and do his vttermost to recall and hinder the effect although the Lesâ—â—â—â— l. 2. de iure iust c. 13. â—ub 3. Molits de Restit tract 2. disp 73â— censure of excommunication and irregularity sometyme may yet the guilt of sinne neuer can be incurred when the slaughter is committed contrary to his mind the reason is because he hauing recouered the grace and fauour of God by his sorrow and repentance cannot be depriued of it against his will If this be true in the effectes once caused by our owne counsayle or aduise how true is it in the motions caused in vs by the consent of another And if actuall coÌ„cupiscence may be without sinne much more habituall which is nothing so ill as that for the euill habits of mortall and deadly sinne may comply with grace the euill acts can neuer
He loueth vs maketh his aboad with vs as in his holy temple In this we know that he abydeth in vs by his spirit which he hath giuen vs. He that abydeth in charity abydeth in God and God in him where he speaketh not of weake or impure but of complete and perfect charity For it followeth in the next verse In this is charity perfected with vs that we may haue confidence in the day of iudgment Besides Thinke you also that you are dead truly to sinne but aliue to God in Christ Iesus our Lord. Therefore S. Augustine often calleth the Holy Ghost dwelling in vs or his charity diffused into our harts the Life of our soule by which we truely liue to God 11. Fiftly it aduanceth vs to the dignity of Gods children You haue receaued the spirit of adoption of sonnes wherin we cry Abba Father Againe See what manner of Charity the Rom. S. v. 15. â— Ioan. c. 3. v. 1. Father hath giuen vs that we should be named and be the sonnes of God To which end S. Iohn Damascen declareth how God infuseth into our soules certaine diuine and supernaturall qualityes wherby we receaue a diuine and supernaturall kind of being are partakers of the diuine nature preferred to be Gods and children of the highest Neither is there any former Ioan. Damas l. 4. de fide c. 4. Rom. 8. v. 9. Ephes 1. v. 14. Rom. 8. v. 17. Tit. 3 v. 5. 6. 7. cause of our vnion with God whereof this spirit of adoption may be tearmed an effect for S. Paul sayth If any man haue not the spirit of Christ the same is not this by any thing whatsoeuer going before Hence we deduce the sixth prerogatiue of this inward renouation that is our clayme to the kingdome of heauen therefore it is tearmed pignus haereditatis the pledge of our inheritance because the sanctity grace which the holy Ghost worketh in vs affoardeth a certaine hope and morall assurance of our future glory as the Apostle by way of gradation excellently argueth in this manner If sonnes heires also heires truely of God and coheirs of Christ. Likewise God according to his mercy hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the Holy Ghost whome he hath powred vpon vs abundantly by Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustifyed by his grace we may be heyres according to hope of life euerlasting 12. Peruse these wordes O yee Sectaryes ponder the sense and meaning of them and stoop at length to the voice of truth so often sounded forth by this great Apople and trympet of heauen for he sayth 1. That we are Ahundâ— Grecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieron saued by this benefit of renouation but nothing can be the formall cause of our saluation but true and perfect iustice Therefore we are made by the grace of Baptisme perfectly iust 2. Not outwardly by imputation but inwardly by the holy Ghost powred vpon vs. 3. And that not sparingly by peece-meale but abundantly richely or bountifully as the Greeke largly or copiously as S. Hierome readeth 4. And to no other effect then that iustifyed by his inward grace we may be heires in hope of life euerlasting And S. Iohn concludeth that without this renouation No man can enter the Kingdome of heauen signifying thereby that it is Ioan. 3. â— 5. not the effect or signe without which we might enter but the true cause of our entrance not weake and halting but true and entiere iustice because it is true iustice sayth S. Augustine to which eternall life is due 13. The last priuiledge ariseth from the former that Augu. ep 205. paulo ante medium ui debetur vita aeternaver a iustitia est Rom. 8. v. 20. 11. Aug. l. de spir lit cap. 29. it purchaseth also the resurrection of our bodyes and crowne of our eternall felicity If Christ be in you the body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit liueth because of iustification And he that rayseth vp Iesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortall bodyes because of his spirit dwelling in you Note this causall addition because of the spirit dwelling in you which S. Augustine aduisedly obserueth and accounteth our Resurrection in flesh to immortality meritum spiritus a deseruing of the spirit which goeth before it in iustification as in a meete conuenient and congruous resurrection So that two wayes it doth properly merit the glory of immortality both for that it is giuen before hand as a pledge earnest Ioan. 4. v. 14. Cyril in â—um loc Theoph. ibid. or right thereunto supposing the benignity and promise of God as also because it doth produce good workes which do condignely deserue and augment the same therefore called by S. Iolm according to S. Cyrils and Theophilacts interpretation a fountaine of water spriging vp to life euerlasting that is a celestiall fountaine of purifying grace copious in it selfe and ouer flowing with the riuers VVhitaker in his answere to 8. â—â—ason of M. Campâ—on and in his â— booke against Iâ—â—raus Abbos in â—is defence â— 4. sect 3. of sundry vertues which wafte vs to the haueÌ„ of eternal rest But if all this be not sufficient to iustify vs before God what is required to atchieue that happines heere vpon earth if the diuine grace and supernaturall quality which worketh in vs all the forenamed effects be not gratefull and pleasing in the eyes of our Soueraigne What I pray you is acceptable vnto him Marry sayth Whitaker and M. Abbot that which is so perfect as satisfyeth the law of God I see your windings first you answered that the grace which inhabiteth in vs is defiled Then that it is not perfect not iustifying grace at least not such as iustifyeth vs in the sight of God Now not such as satisfyeth fullfilleth the law Well you trauerse much ground but to little purpose for S. Paul S. Augustine and diuers others manifestly teach that by this grace of Christ by the sweetnes of hiâ— loue we fullfill the law of God which by feare and terror we neuer could do whose testimonyes I shall alleadge in the Controuersy of keeping the Commandments intreating my Reader to peruse them there whilst I pursue my victory and follow the chased enemy retyring now for succour to the castle of holy Scripture where Whitaker VVhitak in his answere to 8. reason of M. Camp fol. 224. 2. ad Cor. 5. vers â—1 Calu. l. 3. instit c. â—◠§. 230. seeketh to fortify himselfe with that saying of S. Paul Christ was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him Heerupon he inferreth that seeing Christ was not truly really made sin for vs but by imputatioÌ„ so we are no otherwise made righteousnes in him which argument Caluin also most eagerly presseth reserueth as his vnconquerable or last refuge in the Rereward of his obiections yet it is preseÌ„tly at
his spirit which secretly he powreth into Infants also as they then so likewise we are iustifyed not by actuall and imputatiue but by habituall and inhabtant Iustice inwardly cleansing and adorning our soules 8. Sixtly as no man can be truly accounted the obiect of Gods hatred and worthy of damnation by the meere imputation of fault vnles he be faulty indeed and guilty of crime so as Gabriel Vasquez solidly disputeth none can be reputed the obiect of his loue and worthy Gab. Vasquez in 1. 2. disp 206. cap. 3. of heauen by the extrinsecall will of God not imputing sinne or imputing Iustice vnles he be truely free from sin and endowed with Iustice Againe as no man can be made truly and formally wise by the wisdom which is in another or liue by the life which another enioyeth so neither formally iust by the iustice which is in another Abbot in his defence c. 4. fol. 423. 424. and so not by the Iustice which is in Christ M. Abbot in his defence answereth That a man may be formally iust two manner of wayes A man is one way formally iust in quality another way formally iust in law And then he graunteth That it were absurd indeed that a man should be formally iust in quality by the iustice of another But he may be sayth he formally iust in law For in the course of Law and iudgment the forme of Iustice is not to be subiect to crime or accusation he is formally iust against whome no action or accusation is lyable by law c. And this is the state of our Iustice and righteousnes in the sight of God Hath not he shaped a fine answere very sutable to Scriptures and much to the credit of Christ his Maister For did he giue Tit. 2. v. 24. himselfe for vs that he might redeeme vs from all antiquity and might cleanse to himselfe a people acceptable Did he shed his pretious bloud to take away our sinnes purging vs by the lauer of water in the word And hath he only performed it by immunity from punishment not by cancelling and purging Ioan. 1. v. 29. z. loan 3. v. 5. ad Ephes 5. v. 26. Ioan. 17. v. 19. Rom. 8. v. 15 2. Petr. 1. v. 3. ad Ephes 4. v. 14. Feild l. 3. c. 44. of the Church fol. 178. our faults The Scriptures manifestly teach That he sanctifyed himselfe that we might also be sanctifyed in truth giueth vs his spirit of adoption most great and pretious promises that by these we may be made partakers of the diuine nature created a new in iustice and holynes of truth And is all this done in the externall proceeding and course of law remaining in our selues still tainted with the inherence of sinne 9. All Philosophers accord that the denomination of a subiect is more truly and properly taken from the inherent quality which abydeth in it then from the outward forme which is referred vnto it as a Black Moore although he be apparelled in a white liuery is properly notwithstanding tearmed blacke of his innate blacknes not white of his outward habit Therefore if vve be truly sinners by invvard infection If the inherence of sin as Field confesseth be acknowledged in euery iustifyed person notwithstanding his iustification howsoeuer the iustice of Christ be Feild ibid. imputed vnto vs to free vs from the processe of the Law yet we cannot be truly tearmed iust holy innocent and imâ—aculate the children of God and heires of heauen as we are often called in holy Write Being as I say in very deed impure defiled channels of sinne by the inherence therof and consequently in our selues slaues to Sathan worthy hell worthy damnation Neither is it inough to say we may be accounted innocent because no inditement can be drawne no accusation heard no attachement take place against vs for as the guilt of sinne and heynousnes of treason goeth before the desert of punishment much more before the action or accusation which is layd to our charge so the exemption or immunity from the executioÌ„ of the law is no acquittance or freedome from the desert much lesse from the guiltynes or treachery of our harts Therefore the holy Ghost who iudgeth of vs as we are indeed should falsly tearme vs holy iust c. once darknes now light in our Lord if we be still darckned with the mists of sinne and are only freed from the punishment thereof 10. Moreouer what if M. Feild the polisher of the rough and crabbed speaches of other Protestants the refiner of their impure doctrine what if himselfe auow that sinne still lurketh in the faythfull not wholy exempted from all action in law but only from dominion and Feild 3. l. c. 44. f. 178. guilt of condemnation Read his wordes once againe and returne your verdict of him The inherence of sinne the iustifyed man acknowledgeth in himselfe notwithstanding his iustification which still subiecteth him to Gods displeasure and punishments Feild ibid accompanying the same Againe in the same page continuing his discourse of the iustifyed he sayth They are not already freed actually from the inherence of sinne and the displeasure of God disliking it But how can he be formally iust by course of law free from all crime action and accusation in whose spotted soule sinne still inhereth lyable to punishments and which is worse obnoxious to the disfauour of God hating and disliking it Shall I not thinke these iarring Ministers like the ancient Southsayers of whome Tully reporteth laugh the people to scorne and make merry among themselues in their secret meetinges when they remember with what contrary tales and lying fables they beguile their Readers For shall not I thinke this a cosening deuise a most exorbitant course that the Father of heauen should not absolutly extinguish but wincke at our faults cloake our iniquityes fauour whome he hateth wrong his Iustice and falsify his word in not punishing sinners according to the rate of their misdeserts for the loue of his Sonne vvho either vvould not or could not offer an equiualent ransome for Cal. 4. v. 6. the cleansing of our soules heere vpon earth 11. The seauenth is that we all participate of the same spirit with Christ our Sauiour Because you are sonnes Ioan. 1. v. 16. God hath sent the spirit of his Sonne into your harts We liue with his spiritual life of his fullnes we all haue receaued We receaue of the same fullnes life of grace in substance although not in perfection that in substance which the Angels enioyed in their state of merit for all the members of one mysticall body partake of one life the members enioy the same property of life with the head the branches are nourished with the sapp or iuyce which springeth from the vyne but the spirituall life and Iustice of Christ both is and was heere vpon earth inherent the Iustice of Angells inherent and pleasing to God therefore ours must of necessity
ad Vitalem and proposed vnto vs. We besides that outward grace and fauour of preaching belieue also an internall grace which inwardly moueth and worketh with vs. For if a way faring man should fall a sleep in a dangerous wood where he were ready to be deuoured and should be so benuÌ„med of his senses or infeebled with trauaile that he could not moue without help it were not inough for another to awake and warne him of the danger to shew him the way by which he may escape vnles he affoard him also his helping hand vnles he succour stay and ayde him to depart so it is not sufficient to heare the word of God thundred in our eares to heare the truth deliuered the examples of Christ of his Saints and followers set before our eyes vnles God himselfe vouchsafe to enlighten our vnderstanding inflame our will touch and open the Act. 1â— vers 14. stringes of our harts as he opened the hart of Lydia to attend â—o those thinges which were sayd by Paul vnles he inwardly inspire moue and cooperate with vs to imbrace the sayth which is outwardly propounded 9. In this therefore and all the former positions of Grace we dissent from the Pelagians as M. Abbot might haue seene in the selfe same places he quoted out of S. Augustine if that passion which ministred to his pen those Aug. l. â— 2. de grat Chri. peccat orig odious comparisons betweene them and vs had not dimmed his sight from discouering these manifold differences of truth from heresy He might moreouer haue read in the foresayd S. Augustine that al beit Pelagius by those ambiguous acceptions of the word Grace deluded many Bishops in the Councell of Palestine yet he neuer could how beit he endeauoured much deceaue or beguile the Roman Church that impregnable rocke against which no heresy can euer preuaile But M. Abbot vbi supra c. 1. fol. 105. 106. 107. Abbot contendeth and struggleth to proue that the RomaÌ„ Church the an cient Fathers and S. Augustine himselfe coÌ„demned Pelagius because he confessed not the habituall quality and guift of renewing grace to be necessary to euery pious and Godly deed although he acknowledged Idem folio 110. the worke of preparation to proceed from the preuenting grace and help which we and the holy Councell of Trent admit yea sayth he this grace of ours the very Heathens Aristotle and Tully allowed saying Neuer any man Arist. de mundo Cicero de natura De orum 1. q. Tuscula proued great and excellent without some diuine instinct I answer he struggleth I confesse and struggleth eagerly to heap vp falshoods and hatefull criminations not to all eadge any grounded proofes or substantiall testimonyes either against vs or that Oecumenicall and venerable Councel For albeit the Heathens acknowledged the diuine concourse or speciall influence of the supreme cause to all heroicall acts yet they still bounded and restrained it within the confines and limites of nature they neuer dreamed of any supernaturall grace of any motion or illumination bestowed vpon vs through the merits of Christ or any speciall succour or inspiration of God ordayned to the remission of sinnes iustification of our soules in this life or to our future glory and felicity in the next For although those heauenly impulses which God gaue to the Pagans were often addressed to that end as S. Augustine affirmeth of the strang mutation made in Polemo by the Aug. ep 230. Araus 2. Can. 5. 7. 15. Aug. ep 105. perswasion of Zenocrates Yet they were not acquainted heerewith they ingulfed in the lake of superstitious infidelity neuer acknowledged the extraordinary benefite of those supernaturall fauours of which we only speake Secondly how falsly we are accused to agree with the Pelagians and how mayne an opposition there is in sundry points betweene vs and them I haue already declared Thirdly that the Roman Church and Ancient Fathers censured Pelagius among the rancke of Heretikes not for his denyall of habituall but chiefly of actual grace Augu. ep 105. 107 l. degra lib. arbi c. 17. l. 1. de praedest Sanctor c. 19. l. 2. de pece merit remis c. 18. in Enchirid c. 32 de nat grat c. 32. l. 1. ad Simpl. q. â— which preuenteth and cooperateth with the consent of our will independent of the merits thereof is so euidently expressed and so often repeated not only in the second Arausican Councell but also by the Pelagians chiefe Antagonist our greatest champion S. Augustine himselfe as M. Abbots paper might haue blushed for him when he wrote the contrary For it is not inough to confesse an habitual or inhabitant grace which S. Augustine calleth the grace of remission of sinnes but we must also sayth he acknowledge a grace precedent which must dispose and prepare vs to obtaine remission styled by him Preuenting and ayding or concomitant grace the one wrought in vs without vs that is without our free consent the other in vs with vs to wit with our free consent 10. But the dust which stopped M. Abbots eyes from behoulding a truth testifyed in so many places was the cause of his mistaking of some of S. Augustines wordes calling Abbot ibid. f. 105. the grace for which he contended with Pelagius the grace whereby we are Christians and the children of God whereby we are iustifyed c. And yet he only graceth with those tearmes the former motioÌ„s or illuminations of the holy Ghost because they moue induce and disspose vs to be iust good and the children of the highest Gab. Vasq 1. 2. disp 18â— c. 1. or because they make increase in the perfection of Iustice already attayned as Gabriel Vasquez solidly interpreteth him And S. Augustine himselfe plainely insinuateth in his epistle to Sixtus a little after the middest saying No man is Aug. ep 105. deliuered and iustifyed from the euills of his transgression or preâ—aâ—ication but by the grace of Iesus Christ our Lord not only by remission of sinnes but first by inspiration of fayth it selfe and feare of God Now in what sort can we by inspired feare by inspired fayth be iustifyed in what sort can we be deliuered from our offences before our offences be forgiuen before remission of sinnes but only by them as by dispositions preparations or certaine merites of congruity to obtaine remission therefore S. Augustine taketh grace by which we are iustifyed for that which moueth or disposeth to iustification in which sense he affirmeth about the beginning of the same Epistle That fayth by some kind of merits August ibid. obtayneth remission and yet that remission is not of merit because fayth is a free guift of God and not proceeding from our selues as the Pelagians boasted of their beliefe S. Augustine also in many other his Treatises cyted aboue speaketh so expresly of preparing preuenting and ayding grace before the infusion of habituall as his wordes can beare no other
ashes no clowd of sinne can depriue the iustifyed person of his right to heauen which do not dismantle him of the robe of Iustice Answere therfore heereunto what you list escape you cannot vnles you leape into some detestable heresy 6. My fourth argument is when the Protestant perswades himselfe or vndoubtedly beleeues the remission of his sinnes either he hath his sinne by that act of fayth remitted before or after he that sayth it is after alloweth his precedent perswasion to be false and deceitfull beleeuing the forgiuenes of his sinnes which then was not he that will haue it before admitteth a remission of sinnes and consequently a true iustification before his beliefe which cannot be for without Fayth it is impossible to please God he who holdeth that his beliefe causeth the remission which it beleeueth will haue his beliefe Gab. Vas in 1. 2. disp 110. c. 3. and knowledge so omnipotent as to make the obiect which it knoweth the mystery it beleueth as if a man by beleeuing himselfe to be a great Lawyer a great Physitian a great Deuine should endow himselfe with the Aug. l. 4. de Genes ad lit c. 32. perfect knowledge of Law Phisicke and Diuinity wherein they seeme to surpasse the nature of God whose knowledge being most efficacious and practicall yet it followeth as Gabriel Vasquez teacheth the obiect it knoweth according to the posteriority of vnderstanding It followeth I say in affirming or knowing it to be true In which sense S. Augustine teacheth that no knowledge can be vnles things knowne precede and we may auow that no fayth can be vnles it first presuppose the article beleeued for as our knowledge is true or false because the obiect we know is such so our beliefe is certaine and vndoubted because the thing is infallible which we beleeue 7. M. Field beholding the ruines this Cannon-shot makes in the walls of their perfidious and faythles perswasion rayseth the engines of his wit to diuert the battery and annoyance thereof and first proposeth the argument thus When men begin to beleeue either they are iust and then their fayth iustifyeth them not being in nature after their iustification Field in his 3. booke of the Church c. 44. or els they are not iust then speciall fayth making a man beleeue he is iust is false and so man is iustifyed by alye To this horned argument we answere sayth he that speciall fayth hath sundry acts but to this purpose specially two the one by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour the other in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a perswasion that that is graunted which was desired Fayth by her first act obtayneth and worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust when we begin to beleeue by her second act she doth not actiuely iustify S. Thom. 1. 2. q. 83. â—â—t 3. but finding the thing done certifyeth assureth vs of it c. So then quoth he fayth in her first act is before the iustification procureth or obtayneth it Hitherto M. Feild and very profoundly without doubt distinguisheth fayth into two acts whereof the first he mentioneth is no act of Fayth but a prayer or petition humbly intreating for acceptatioÌ„ Fulk in c. 2. Iacobi sect 9. circa finem Abbot in his defence cap. 4. fol. 487. and fauour which properly as S. Thomas proueth is an act of Religion as much different from fayth as a man from a Calfe And the second seemeth rather to be an assured confidence of the will then any supernatural assent of the vnderstanding in which Fayth consisteth But these thinges I let passe The opposition heere he maketh against his owne adherents the contradicting of Doctour Fulke the ouertwharting of M. Abbot the impugning of another principall and generall article of Protestancy is more remarkable then a priuate absurdity or ignorance of his For to affirme That fayth by way of petition humbly intreâ—â—eth for fauour obtaineth and worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust is to graunt a certaine kind of preparation congruency merit or disposition to go before the life of grace and iustification of our soules which how earnestly M. Fulke and Doctour Abbot gainesay I haue declared and refuted in the precedent Controuersy Then it is opposite to that common principle which Protestantes maintaine That the captiued will of man concurreth passiuely only to his iustification vntill he be truely iustifyed in Christ. Howbeit M. Field heer teacheth this petition to obtaine to procure to worke our iustification before it be effected which M. Abbot writing against our preparatiue workes of prayer and petition reproueth thus There can be no true prayer without the spirit of grace without the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Abbot c. 4. sect 20. fol. 4 â— Father the spirit of adoption and grace is the spirit of sanctification It followeth then that we pray not but by being first sanctifyed and because sanctification is consequent to iustification it must follow also that iustification must go before prayer Hitherto he warring against M. Feild one Sectary against another as Esay prophesyed of them saying I will make the Aegyptians to run togeather against the Aegyptians a man shall fight against his brother euery man against his friend But I will not further exaggerate these horrible breaches betweene him Isa 29. v. his fellowes I will not intreate M. Field to reconcile his assertion with their other fornamed principles I only desire him to tell me whether the petition which worketh our iustification and doth not find vs iust be in his opinion an act of true iustifying fayth or no Let him answere that it is and he yieldeth that fayth alone doth not iustify he yieldeth this first act to be an act of true fayth and yet that it doth only impetrate and procure iustice and not make vs formerly iust but if the first act of true fayth doth not iustify neither can the second or third or any other ensuing act affoard that benefit for they being all and euery one of the same speciall nature they hauing all the same essentiall forme that effect which in no degree is performed by one cannot be effected by any other except they dreame that one the same vertue should consist of diuers essentiall formes and so by diuers actes yield diuers formall effects which very nature it selfe and euery Puny in Philosophy will condemne of implicancy and contradiction 8. Let him deny it to be an act of iustifying fayth and he denyeth his owne diuision of speciall fayth into sundry acts he deludeth our argument proposed not of any other vertue but of their speciall fayth and of the first act thereof which can be but one and of that one it proceeds whether iustification be before it after it or caused by it as is vrged aboue 9. Againe supposing these two actes into which he brancheth his speciall fayth how is
vs who willfully conculcate his heauenly fauours 11. Heere our Aduersaryes make a new sally out against vs and contest that we being once quickned with the seed of life and throughly soaked with the dew of heauen cannot waxe barren with the sterility of sin cannot renounce or disgorge these waters of life For euery one that is borne of God committeth not sin because his seed in him abydeth A good tree cannot yield euill fruits I will mak an euer lasting couenant with them and will not cease to do them good I wil put my feare into their harts that they shal not depart frōme So M. Abbot aduantagiously readeth it whereas the passage it selfe truly translated hath no difficulty at all For it is either vnderstood of the Church in generall which God will neuer cease to protect or of his forwardnes as much as lyeth in him to affoard sufficient meanes to all the members thereof that they * The Hebrew Lebilti surmehalai ad non recedere à me The Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latin vt non recedant à me That they reuolt not from me Aug. de na gra c. 54. l. 2. de pec mer. rem c. 7. de gra Christ cap. 21. tract 5. in epist Ioan. Hier. l. 1. aduers Pelag 2. ad Iou. l. 1. comm in 7. c. Matt. Dydim Beda in illum locum Ioan. Aug. de nat grat c. 14. Possumus si volumus non peccare propter vim gratiae in quātum in ea manemus Chrys in c. 5. ad Rom. VVhitak in his answere to the 8. reason of M. Campian l. 8. aduers Duraeum fol. 625. reuol◠not from him as the Hebrew Greeke and Latin wordes manifestly betoken To the former two which Iouinian pressed for the bolstering of his heresyes that the faythfull once regenerated could neuer si any more I answere with S. Austine S. Hierome Dydimus Venerable Bede that he who is borne of God cannot sin ne whilest he perseuereth the child of God and retayneth in his soule the fire of Charity which is repugnant to all sinne or rather that he cannot sinne as long as he liueth and worketh according to his new and diuine regeneration receaued from aboue and that the good tree cannot of his owne nature produce euill fruits no more then the sower and vnsauoury crab affoard from his owne naturall iuyce or radicall disposition any other then vnsauoury yet as by some other accidentall quality or forraine graffe the one may yeild sweet fruits the other sower so albeit as S. Augustine sayth We may if we will not sinne through the force of grace as far forth as we abide in it notwithstanding by the infirmity of the flesh malice of will or corruption of nature it is in our power grieuously to offend and slide backe from God 12. That which Whitaker and his fellowes oppose out of S. Chrysostome The grace of God hath no end it knoweth no full point but it maketh progresse vnto greater choaketh an heresy of their owne that true iustice increaseth not but standeth at a stay c. maintaineth the truth of our contrary doctrin that seeing grace iustice are beames participated from the illimited fountaine of Gods iustice they may be dayly augmented by new meritorious deeds with new accesse of grace after which manner it is true that it had no end knoweth no full point still maketh progresse to greater by multiplying greater store of good workes The rest of the Fathers to whome our Reformers lay claime are semblably quitted otherwise they speake of the certaine perseuerance of the election in generall or els they mean that grace fayth and iustice are perpetuall of their owne natures and alwayes flourish with the spring of vertues vnles we blast them in their buds or suffer them to be ouergrowne with the weeds of sinne THE XXIIII CONTROVERSY AVOVVETH Freewill against D. Fulke and D. Whitaker CHAP. I. BEFORE I begin to enter the list and combate with my Aduersaries concerning the liberty of mans Freewill I thinke it expedient exactly to set downe the whole state of this question what Protestants hold and what we in all things vphold against them First then they distinguish with vs a fourfold estate or condition of man 1. The state of Innocency which Adam enioyed before his fall 2. The state of Corruption which he and all his posterity incurred Foure estates of man Perkins in his refor Catho 1. Chapter of freewil by sinne 3. The state of vprising and Entrance into Grace And 4. the state of Iustification which the Righteous enioy by the merits of Christ. Secondly they deuide the actions of men into three sorts Into Naturall or Ciuill as to eate sleepe walke discourse buy sell c. Into Morall as to be temperate iust liberall mercifull c. And into Diuine or Supernaturall which appertaine to the spirituall good of oursoules and gaining of eternall life as to belieue to hope to loue God aboue all thing c. 2. These diuisions premised they all accord about the first estate granting therin at least in shew of words a liberty as they terme it of Nature of which I will not Calu. l. 1. Inst c. 16. §. 8. l 2. c. 4 § 6. Bucer l. de concord art de lib. arbit now dispute About the second they vary amongst themselues For Calum Bucer and their Adherents with the auncient Heretikes a Clem l. 3. Recog Simon Magus b Tert. lib. de anima cap. 10. Marcion Hermogenes c Aug. l de Hares cap. 46. the Manichees and d Wiclisse vtterly deny the liberty of Freewilll to any action whatsoeuer Which Luther and Melacthon defended at the beginning but after forced by our arguments to recant that point of Heresie they grant Freewill to actions Naturall and Ciuill whom Whitaker Perkins White and many of our English Protestants seeme to follow Neuerthelesse they all close againe and comply with Caluin that man in this case hath no freedome to any Morall good worke Man sayth Whitaker lost his freedom by sinne the will of man according to Fulke is bound to Sinne and not free Is thrall and sliue to Sinne It auaileth to b Conc. Const ses 8. art 26. Luth. in as sert art 36. Melancth in loc communib editis an Domini 15 1. VVhitaker l. 1. contra Duraeum p. 77. 78. and in his answere to M. Camp first reasō Perkins in his Reform Catho in the Chap. of Free-will White in the way to the true Church §. 40. fol. 277. Fulke in cap. 6. Ioan sect 3. In ◠10. ad Rom. sect 1. In c. 7. ad Rom. sect 7. in c. 2. ad Philip. sect 4. nothing but to Sinne. In the Regenerate it hath some freedome and strength against Sinne which it hath not at all in them that are not Regenerate Likewise Free-will is seruile Captiue lost vntill by Grace it begin to be enlarged
Gods sight much lesse pleasing sacrifices to him as in the precedent discourse hath beene shewed if they be defyled with sinne 4. M. Abbot answereth Therefore good works being touched and infected with the contagion of sinne before they can please God must haue some meanes to take away the guilt imputation of the sinne c. which Christ doth perfuming them with the sweet Abbot c. 4 sect 44. fol. 578. 579 incense of his Obedience But how doth Christ take it away By abolishing or not imputing the contagion By not imputing sayth Abbot but thus he taketh away according to them the filth of adultery of murder of sacriledge and all heynous crymes from the beleeuing Protestant And are those sinnefull workes thereby made gratefull hostes and acceptable sacrifices pleasing vnto God No sayth he agayne Our good deedes are not sinnefull workes Are they not What is that guilt then of contagious sinne which must be taken away before they can please God If they be not sinnefull no contagion of sinne is to be pardoned by not imputing if they be sinfull then your sinneful acts inherently in themselues sinnefull by not imputing the guilt of contagion become gratefull pleasing and acceptable vnto God Neyther can M. Abbot any way cuade by his frequent and worm-eaten answere that the action we do is not sinnefull because it is in substance a good Ibid. â—7â— worke and the fruit of the good spirit of God and the default and imperfection is only an accident to the worke Nor Whitaker who to the same purpose replyeth in his answere to Duraeus VVhitk â— in his answere to Duraeus l. 8. pag. 698. We meane not that good workes are sinnes but that they haue some sinne mixed with them For it followeth not that siluer is drosse because it hath some drosse mingled with it Seeing our dispute is not heere of the physicall substance which in euery action euen of murder theft and the like is transcendentally good or in genere Entis to vse the Philosophers tearmes but of the morall bounty or deformity of a worke which if it be tainted with the mixture of any euill how accidenttally soeuer it cannot be good sith it is true which Dionysius teacheth Good ariseth from an entiere cause euill from euery defect So that Whitakers example which Abbot also alleadgeth Dionys de diuin nomin c. 4. par 4. Bonum ex vna tota causa malum ex multis particularibuâ— que proficiscitur defectibus of gold or siluer mingled with drosse is nothing to the purpose because there be two materiall substances really distinct heere we question of one morall act which admitteth no distinction there although one metall be mingled with the other yet by seuerall veynes in seuerall places they are so incorporated as the siluer is not drosse or drosse siluer heere the same act flowing from the same will aymed at the same end must be both good and bad pure and defiled siluer and drosse which is impossible For as it inuolueth contradiction that one and the same assent of vnderstanding should be at the same tyme both true and false in the agreement of all Philosophers and Deuines so likewise it implyeth that one and the same acte of the will should be ioyntly at the same moment good and euill laudable and vituperiall pleasing displeasing vnto God Wherefore if euery action of it owne nature be euil no worke of ours can be in substance good as M. Abbot would haue it none excellent as Whitaker pretendeth but the most excellent must needes in it selfe be wholy marred wholy odious vnto God wholy and substantially naught howsoeuer by outward acceptation it may seeme beautifull and fayre Not so say they for our good workes are not wholy euill not hatefull not sinnes but infected quoth M. Abbot with the contagion of sinne We say not quoth Whitaker to marry a wife is sinne Abbot VVhitak in the places cyted aboue but that they who marry wiues intermixe some sinne in that good action But you say that that intermixed sinne may wholy marre the action make it odious to God if that which is done be weighed in the ballance of diuine iustice Therefore you say that the action of it selfe is wholy euill wholy marred altogeather odious vnto God and hatefull of his owne nature vnles you beleeue that an action weighed in the ballance of diuine iustice becometh thereby worse more odious and abhominable then of it selfe it is and that our supreme highest Iudge who iustly condemneth the wickednes of man maketh it more wicked by the seuerity of his iudgement 5. Moreouer from whence creepeth this spot of sinne into that good and lawfull action of marriage Not from the will of taking a wife for that is laudable no sinne according to the Apostle not from the substance of the act for that M. Abbot also alloweth to be good not from any other accidentall circumstance of end tyme place or person for I suppose they be all guided by the rule of reason How then is sinne intermixed in the good action of marriage By the same act which inseparably draweth the stayne of corruption with it or by some other adioyned The desire of taking a wife for a good end in such as may lawfully marry is free from all sinne as by a wicked intention to which it is ordeyned if by the same one and the same action is both good and euill a sinne and no sinne agreable to reason and disagreable consonant and dissonant to the will of God the often refuted vnauoyded implicancy which you incurre If by some other act or vicious intent either this intention is principall and the cause of marriage as to marry the easier to contriue the murder of his wife or some other then the action of marriage is not good but impious wicked and detestable or it is a secondary intent and followeth the desire of marriage so it cannot vitiate the former good desire nor be termed a sinne intermixed therewith which albeit obstinate and ignorant aduersaryes can hardly be drawn to confesse yet will I make it so cleare as they shall not be able to deny Let vs take for example the act of louing God or dying for his sake what mixture hath it or slyme of euill any stayn that ariseth from the obiect beloued or will which loueth it Not from the obiect for that is infinite goodnes without all spot or blemish therefore no blemish can be intermixed with that act as it tendeth to so pure an obiect nor from the will of louing it for no feare of excesse no danger of impurity can possibly flow from desiring to loue the fountaine it selfe and mayne sea of purity not from the mudd of distraction not from the scumme of vaine glory not from the froath of pride which sometyme may accompany that heauenly loue for as it is impossible the act of loue should be an act of distraction vanity