nature of Christ obtained to bee in such sort the nature of the Sonne of God that the Man Christ should be truely and really in the glory of God the Father filling both heauen and earth Againe he saith those places All things are giuen me of my Father and All power is giuen me both in heauen and earth may bee vnderstood first of diuine power which the Sonne of God receiued of the Father by eternall generation and secondly of diuine power which the nature of Man receiued by personall vnion and in another place speaking of sundry things proper to God he saith All those things may be sayd to be communicated and giuen to the humane nature not formally in it selfe but in the Person of the Sonne of God by the grace of vnion The Diuines distinguish the properties of God and make them to be of two sorts communicable and incommunicable Communicable properties they define to be those perfections that are called perfectiones simpliciter which are found without mixture of imperfection in God and in a more imperfect sort in the creatures These they name perfectiones simplicitèr that is simply and absolutely perfections because it is better for any thing to haue them then not to haue them and because those things are better that haue them then those that haue them not as likewise for that they imply in them no imperfection though they bee mingled with imperfection defect in the creatures Of this sort is life which it is betrer to haue then not to haue and it includeth in it no imperfection though it bee accompanied with defect imperfection in many of the things wherein it is found for that life that is in trees is an imperfect life the life of men who in truth then begin to die when they begin to liue is imperfect yea the life of Angels is imperfect because if they be not continually sustained they returne to that nothing out of which they were made Of the same kinde are Truth Goodnesse Iustice Mercie Wisdome Knowledge Vnderstanding And therefore all these separated from that imperfection that cleaueth vnto them elsewhere are found in God may truely bee attributed vnto him Incommunicable properties are nothing else but the negation and remouing of all that imperfection that is in the Creatures of which sort are Immortality Eternity Immensitie Infinitie the like all importing a negation of imperfection The former of these two sorts of diuine properties which are named Communicable are communicated to meere creatures in some degree and sort though in highest degree they are no where found but in God with the addition of words expressing such eminency they may bee attributed to none but to God for hee onely is Almighty most wise most just and most mercifull But both these with addition of highest degree and the other which are named Incommunicable are by all Diuines confessed to bee in such sort communicated in the Person of the Son of GOD to the nature of man assumed into the vnity of the same that the Man CHRIST and the Son of Mary is not in title onely but really indeede most wise most just omnipotent incomprehensible eternall and infinite And this is all as I thinke that the Diuines of Germany the followers of Luther meane when they speake of the reall communication of divine properties to the humane nature in Christ. If any man say that they may justly bee thought to proceede farther to vnderstand some other communication of properties then that by vs expressed in that they doe not onely say concretiuely that the Man Christ is omni-present but the Humanity also It may be answered that when we speake of the Humanity of Christ sometimes we vnderstand onely that humane created essence of a man that was in him sometimes all that that is implyed in the being of a Man as well subsistence as essence In the former sort it is absurd and impious to thinke that the Humanity of Christ that is the created Essence of a Man in him is omnipotent omni-present or infinite neither doe they so thinke but they affirme that the subsistence of the Man Christ implyed in his being a Man is infinite and omni-present as being the subsistence of the Sonne of GOD communicated to the nature of Man in steade of that finite subsistence which left to it selfe it would haue had of it owne Much contention there hath beene betweene them other touching the vbiquitary presence of the humanity of Christ but I verily thinke it hath beene in a great part vpon mistaking because they vnderstood not one another For the followers of Luther confesse that the Body of Christ is onely in one place locally doe not thinke it to bee euery-where in Extent of Essence diffused into all places but say onely that it is euery-where in the infinitenesse of the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to it If we aske them saith Zanchius whether Christs Body be euery-where they answere that locally it is but in one place but that personally it is euery-where If they meane saith he that in respect of the being of Essence it is finite and confined to one certaine place but that the being of subsistence which it hath is infinite contained within the straites of no one place they say the truth contradict not them whom they seeme to doe Now that this is their meaning which this worthy learned Diuine acknowledgeth to bee true Catholique not contradicted by them that seeme to bee their opposites they constantly professe and therefore I am perswaded that howsoeuer some of them haue vsed harsh doubtfull dangerous and vnfitting formes of speech yet they differ not in meaning and judgment from the Orthodoxe and right beleeuers For they do not imagine if wee may beleeue their most constant protestations any essentiall or naturall communication of diuine properties but personall onely in that the Person of the sonne of God is really communicated to the nature of man in which Person they are Neither do they define the personall vniō by the communication of properties but say onely that it is implied in it touching the co-operation of the two natures of God and Man in Christ they teach noe other but that which wee described when wee spake of the Theandricall actions of Christ. The infinite obiections that are made on either side to the multiplying of needles fruitlesse contentions may easily be cleared and the seeming contradictions reconciled by the right vnderstanding of the point about which the difference hath growne CHAP. 16. Of the worke of Mediation performed by Christ in our nature THus hauing spoken of the abasing of the Sonne of God to take our nature and of the gifts and graces he bestowed on it when he assumed it into the vnity of his Person it remaineth that we speake of the things hee did and suffered for vs in the same The thing in generall which
of them Fourthly that the deity and humanity of Christ are not all one Fiftly they confesse that it may truely bee said the Diuinity of Christ is aliud natura that is a thing of different condition and nature from his humanity Sixtly that they are not of the same nature and substance Seaventhly that their properties are not the same the one being finite and the other infinite So that this is it which they say that the 2 natures which were vnited in Christ remaine after the vnion without mixtion confusion or conuersion in their distinct being of essence and properties but are become one first in the being of subsistence 2 in respect of mutuall inexistence and 3 in communion of mutuall operation in that the one doth nothing without the communion and concurrence of the other And in this sort is that saying of Cyrill to be vnderstood when hee sayth there are not 2 natures in Christ but one nature of the Word incarnate that is the 2 natures vnited are not 2 and distinct but one in subsistence For the nature of man hath no subsistence but that of the Word communicated vnto it in which they are one And so it is expounded in the 8 Canon of the fifth generall Councell Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth that when hee conferred with the Patriarch of the Iacobites to this purpose hee cleerely accursed Eutyches confounding the natures of God and man in Christ but yet affirmed that they are so vnited that there is one personated nature arising out of 2 natures not personated Professing that they thinke as the Latines doe touching the thing it selfe but differ from them in forme of words more aptly expressing the thing as they suppose Tecla Abissen saith the Aethiopians thinke there is but one nature in Christ. Being asked whether they thinke there is one nature resulting out of the two natures that were vnited Hee answereth that they say no such thing but that they professe simply that there is one nature and that is the diuine nature meaning as it seemeth that the diuine nature onely subsisteth in its owne subsistence and that the humanity is drawne into the vnity of the same Thomas à Iesu reporteth that in the time of Gregorie the 13th there were certaine learned men sent into Aegypt to winne the Christians of those parts to joyne in communion with the Roman Church And that in the yeare 1582 a Synod was holden at Cair where at the third meeting after six houres disputation touching the 2 natures of Christ all with one consent by Gods happy direction decreed as the truth is touching the thing it selfe anathematizing all them that should spoile him of either nature who being God and man receiued his deity from the Father and his humanity from his mother And though the Christians of Aegypt refuse to say there are 2 natures in Christ yet they confesse him to bee God and man Nicetas sayth the Armenians are Monophysits and that Immanuell the Emperour in the yeare 1170 sent Theorianus to conferre with their Catholicke or chiefe Bishop and to reclaime them if it might bee from that heresie The disputation betweene them hee setteth downe at large But Genebrard feareth not to censure him pronouncing that both hee and Theorianus were deceiued if that bee indeede the answere of the Armenian Bishop to the objections of Theorianus as is there put downe For nature beeing sometimes taken for a part sometimes for the whole consisting of the severall parts as in Aristotle sometimes it importeth the whole sometimes the parts of which the whole consisteth the Armenian Bîshop sayd truely the things whereof Christ consisteth are of different nature or difference in nature and that they are but one nature in that they are so joyned put together that they are one in the being of subsistence that one of them inexisteth in the other and either of them hath a communion of operation with the other But hee in no sort imagineth that they are so one as if a compounded nature did arise out of the putting of them together in such sort as the nature of man is a compound nature arising out of the putting together of the soule and body So that these Christians are vnjustly charged with the heresie of the Monophysits aunciently condemned For they imagined that the two natures vnited in Christ are become one in the being of essence and property but these confesse them to remaine distinct in both these respects and to become one onely in respect of the being of subsistence mutuall inexistence and the communion the one hath with the other in action and operation comparing this vnion to that of the iron and fire Neither is it to bee marvailed at that they are thus wronged For as Genebrard noteth the Greekes often thus wrong the orientall Christians laying an imputation of heresie vpon them out of sinister respects So that they are to bee suspected as often as writing of the Syrians Maronits Aetbiopians Persians Indians Georgians Aegyptians they call them Iacobits or Nestorians For they that travell into these parts finde them to bee orthodoxe and right beleeuers differing from other parts of the true Church rather in certaine ceremonies then in substance Hauing thus cleered these Christians from the imputation of heresie vndeservedly layd vpon them let vs proceed more particularly to consider of the specialties of religion professed by them and first of the religion of the Iacobits The Iacobits haue their name from one Iacobus of Syria surnamed Zanzalus liuing about the yeare of our Lord 530. Who amongst others that rejected the Councell of Chalcedon laboured greatly to perswade the people of Syria to refuse the same and taught them to beleeue that the two natures which were vnited in Christ after the vnion are become one not in such sort as Eutiches imagined who confounded them into one but as Dioscorus taught who made them to bee one by adunation without mixtion or confusion That this was his opinion it is evident by his followers Who honour Dioscorus as a Saint and condemne Eutyches as an hereticke These as Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth are dispersed thoroughout the câ—…ties regions and townes of Syria Mesopotamia and Babylon mixt with other sects and their number is so great that there are fifty thousand families of them They chiefely inhabite in Aleppo of Syria and in Caramit They haue and long haue had a Patriarch of their owne to whom they yeeld obedience For wee reade of the Patriarch of the Iacobits in the time of Heraclius the Emperour This Patriarth resideth in Caramit but the Patriarchicall Church is in the monastery of Zafra without the city Moradin in Mesopotamia They were before the breach subject to the Patriarch of Antioch but when they fell off from other Christians in opinion they departed from the Patriarch that then was and entitled one of their owne making to that honour supposing the other to be in errour and themselues right
gazed on and adored to driue away diuels to still tempests to stay the ouerflowing of waters to quench and extinguish consuming and wasting fires But that the body of Christ is present in and with the sanctified elements onely in reference to the vse appointed that is that men should be made partakers of it This participation according to the auncient vse was first and principally in the publike assembly secondly in the primitiue Church the maner of many was to receiue the Sacrament and not to be partakers of it presently but to carrie it home with them and to receiue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian and others doe report Thirdly the maner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death This reseruation was not generally obserued as may appeare by the Canon of Clemens prescribing that so much onely should be prouided for the outward matter of the Sacraments as might suffice the Communicants and that if any thing remained it should presently be receiued by the Clergie Neither could there be any place for or vse of reseruation where there was a daily Communion as in many places there was nor in any place for such reseruation as is vsed in the Church of Rome for weekes and moneths seeing there was generally in auncient times in all places twise a weeke or at least once euery weeke a Communion from whence they might bee supplied that were absent The Romanists consecrate euery day but make their reseruations from some solemne time of communicating as Easter or the like and this not only or principally for the purpose of communicating any in the mysteries of the Lords body and blood but for circumgestation ostentation and adoration to which end the Fathers neuer vsed it Neither is that which is thus vnto this purpose reserued the body of Christ as our Diuines doe most truely pronounce The maner of the primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated elements remained so long as to be musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body no longer than they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them But the Romanists at this day as the same Rhenanus fitly obserueth would thinke it a great and horrible impietie to doe that which the Fathers then prescribed and practised So then Caluine doth thinke that the Romish reseruation doth not carry about with it the body of Christ as the Papists foolishly fancie and yet I hope is in no heresie at all Neither doeth hee any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them are not the body of Christ but saith onely that there were long since great abuses in reseruation and greater in that euery one was permitted to take the Sacrament at the hand of the publike Minister in the Church and carry it home with him which I thinke this Cardinall will not denie if hee aduisedly bethinke himselfe CHAP. 35. Of the heresie of Eutiches falsely imputed to the Diuines of Germany THe next heresie imputed vnto vs is Eutichianisme which is directly opposite and contrary to the former errour of Nestorius This hee chargeth first vpon Zuinck feldius whom wee reiect as a franticke seduced miscreant and do in no wise acknowledge him to be a member of our Churches Secondly vpon Brentius Iacobus Smidelinus and other learned Diuines of the German Churches The heresie of Eutiches was that as before so after the incarnation there was but one only nature in Christ for that the nature of God was turned into man that there was a confusion of these natures Doe any of the Germane Diuines teach this blasphemous doctrine No sayth Bellarmine not directly and in precise tearmes but indirectly and by consequent they doe If wee demaund of him what that is which they teach whence this impiety may by necessary consequence be inferred hee answereth the vbiquitary presence of the body and humane nature of Christ. For sayth he vbiquity being an incommunicable property of God it cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the diuine and humane natures But he should remember that they whom he thus odiously traduceth are not so ignorant as to thinke that the body of Christ which is a finite and limited nature is euery where by actuall position or locall extension but personally only in respect of the coniunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where This is it then which they teach That the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite limited and bounded and is locally in one place but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery-where in which sense they thinke it may truely bee said to be euery-where For the better clearing of this point we must remember that it is agreed vpon by all Catholike Divines that the humane nature of Christ hath two kindes of being the one naturall the other personall The first limited and finite the second infinite and incomprehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite subsistence and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently euery-where Thus then the body of Christ secundum esse naturale is contained in one place but secundum esse personale may rightly bee said to be euery-where It were easie to reconcile all those assertions of our Divines touching this part of Christian faith in shew so opposite one to another and to stop the mouthes of our prattling adversaries who so greedily seeke out our verball seeming differences whereas their whole doctrine is nothing else but an heap of vncertainties and contrarieties if this were a fit place But let this briefly suffice for the repelling of Bellarmines calumniation and let vs proceed to examine the rest of his objections CHAP. 36. Of the supposed heresie of Zenaias Persa impugning the adoration of Images THe next heresie hee imputeth vnto vs is the impugning of the adoration and worshipping of Images the first authour of which impiety as this impious Idolater is pleased to name it was Zenaias Persa as Nicephorus reports But whatsoeuer the Iesuite thinke Nicephorus credite is not so good
one by vnity wherein there are not many things foūd which neither cōsisteth in many things nor of many things in which sort God only is most properly sayd to be One in whom there is neither diuersity of natures nor multiplicity of parts nor composition of perfection and imperfection being and not being as in all creatures One by vnion is that which either consisteth in many things or of many things and is either in a sort only or simply One. In a sort onely a thing consisting in or of many things is sayd to be one three waies First when neither the one of the things whereof it consisteth hath denomination from the other nor the property of it as when stones are layd together to make one heape 2ly When the one hath the property of the other but no denomination from it as is the vnion betweene the hand and those sweete spices it holdeth in it Thirdly when the one hath denomination from the other but no property of the other as a man is sayd to be apparelled from his apparell but noe property thereof passeth from it vnto him as the sauour of the sweete spices doth into the hand Vnion simply is of diuerse sorts First when one of the things vnited is turned into the other this falleth out soe often as there is a repugnance betweene the things vnited and one is predominant and preuailing as when a drop of water is poured into a whole vessell of wine Secondly when both the things vnited are changed in nature and essence and that commeth to passe so often as the the things vnited haue a repugnance betweene themselues and yet no preuailing of one ouer the other In this sort the elements are vnited to make mixt or compound bodies Thirdly when there is no transmutation of the things vnited but the constitution of a third nature out of them because they haue no repugnance but mutuall dependance Of this sort is the vnion of the soule and body Fourthly when there is neither transmutation of the natures vnited nor constitution of a third out of them but onely the founding setling and staying of the one of the things vnited in the other and the drawing of it into the vnity of the personall being or subsistence of the other this commeth to passe when there is neither repugnance nor mutuall dependance of one of the things vnited vpon the other but a dependance of another kinde so the braunch of a tree being put vpon the stocke of another tree is drawne into the vnitie of the subsistence of that tree into which it is put and whereas if it had beene set in the ground it would haue growne as a separate tree in it selfe now it groweth ◅n the tree into which it is grafted and pertayneth to the vnitie of it Here is neither mixture of the natures of these trees nor constitution of a third out of them but only the drawing of one of them into the vnity of the subsistence of the other so that here is not Compositio huius ex his but Huius ad hoc that is not a composition of a third thing out of the things vnited but an adioyning of one of the things vnited to the other And this kinde of vnion doth of all other most perfectly resemble the personall vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ wherein the nature of man that would haue beene a person in it selfe if it had been left to it selfe is drawen into the vnity of the diuine person and subsisteth in it being preuented from subsisting in it selfe by this personall vnion and assumption This that wee may the better conceiue we must consider what the difference is betweene nature and person and what maketh an indiuiduall nature to bee a person Some thinke that nature and person differ as that Quod est and Quo est that is as the thing that is and that whereby it is Other that the condition of personall being addeth to an indiuiduall nature a negation of dependance or beeing susteined by another but to leaue all vncertainty of opinions to bee this or that is indiuiduall to bee this or that in and for it selfe is personall being to be this or that in and for another is to pertaine to the person or subsistence of another so that euery thing that is in or for it selfe is a subsistence or thing subsisting and euery such rationall indiuiduall nature is a person Amongst those created things which naturally are apt to make a subsistence or to subsist in and for themselues there is very great difference for some naturally may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kinde as wee see in all those things wherein euery part hath the same nature and name that the whole hath as euery droppe of water is water and being left to it selfe is a subsistence in it selfe and hath that beeing quality and nature that is in it in and for it selfe but being joyned to a greater quantity of water it hath now no beeing quality or operation but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is powred Other things there be that cannot naturally or by the working of naturall causes put themselues into the vnity of any other thing but by the helpe of some forreine cause they may be made to pertaine to the vnity of another thing different in nature kind So the braunch of a tree of one kinde which put into the ground would bee an entire distinct tree in it selfe growing mouing and bearing fruite in and for it selfe may by the hand of man be put into the vnity of the subsistence of a tree of another kind and sort and so grow moue and beare fruite not distinctly in and for it selfe but joyntly in and for that tree into which it is implanted A third sort of things there are which being left to themselues become subsistences and cannot by force of naturall causes nor the helpe of any forreine thing euer become parts of any other created thing or pertaine to the vnity of the subsistence of any such thing such is the nature of all liuing things and such is the nature of man which cannot be brought by force of any cause to pertaine to the vnity of any created subsistence because it cannot haue such dependance on any created thing as is required to make it pertaine to the subsistence thereof yet by diuine and supernaturall working it may bee drawen into the vnitie of the subsistence of any of the Persons of the blessed Trinitie wherein the fulnesse of all being and the perfection of all created things is in a more eminent sort then in themselues For though all created things haue their owne being yet seeing God is nearer to them then they are to themselues and they are in a better sort in him then in themselues there is no question but that they may be preuented and stayed from being in for themselues caused to bee in
for one of the diuine Persons of the blessed Trinity So that as one drop of water that formerly subsisted in it selfe powred into a vessell containing a greater quantity of water by continuitie becommeth one in subsistence with that greater quantity of water as a braunch of a tree which being set in the ground left to itselfe would bee an entire independent tree becommeth one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graffed they both lose their own bounds within which contayned they were distinctly seuered from other things the relation of being totall things so the individuall nature of man assumed into the vnity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity loseth that kinde of being that naturally left to it selfe it would haue had which is to bee in for it selfe not to depend of any other getteth a new relation of dependance being in another And as it is continuitie that maketh the former things one with them to which they are joyned so here a kinde of spirituall contact betweene the Diuine Person the nature of man maketh GOD to be Man For as situation and position is in things corporall so is order and dependance in things spirituall There are many similitudes brought by Diuines to expresse this vnion of the Natures of God Man in the same Christ as of the soule body of a flaming fierie sword of one man hauing two accidentall formes lastly of a tree a braunch or bough that is graffed into it The similitude of the soule body making but one man is very apt vsed by the Ancient yet is it defectiue imperfect first for that the soule body being imperfect natures concurre to make one full perfect nature of a man secondly for that the one of them is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of the other but both depend of a third subsistence which is that of the whole whereas in Christ both natures are perfect so that they cannot concurre to make a third nature or subsistence but the Eternall Word subsisting perfectly in it selfe draweth vnto it personally sustaineth in it the nature of man which hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Son of God communicated vnto it Touching the similitude of a fiery flaming sword it most liuely expresseth the vnion of the two Natures in Christ in that the substances of fire of the sword are so nearely cōjoyned that the operations of thē for the most part concurre there is in a sort a cōmunication of properties from the one of them to the other For a fiery sword in cutting dividing wasteth burneth in wasting and burning cutteth and diuideth and we may rightly say of this whole thing wherein the nature of the fire and the nature of the Steele or Iron whereof the sword is made doe concurre meete that it is fire that it is steele or Iron that this fiery thing is a sharpe piercing sword and that this sharpe piercing sword is a fiery devouring thing But this similitude is defectiue because the nature of Iron is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of fire nor the fire of Iron so that we cannot say this fire is steele or Iron or this steele or Iron is fire The third similitude of one man hauing two qualities or accidentall formes as the skill of Physicke and Law hath many things in it most aptly expressing the personall vnion of the two Natures of God Man in Christ. For first in such a man there is but one person and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in the same the qualities are different and the things had not the same But hee that hath and possesseth them is the same Secondly the person being but one is denominated from either or both of these different formes qualities or accidentall natures and doth the workes of them both and there is a communication of properties consequent vpon the concurring of two such formes in one man For wee may rightly say of such a one This Physitian is a Lawyer and this Lawyer is a Physitian This Lawyer is happy in curing diseases and this Physitian is carefull in following his Clients causes Scotus especially approueth the similitude of the subject and accident first taking away that which is of imperfection in the subject as that it is potentiall in respect of the accident to be informed of it and in a sort perfected by it Secondly that which is of imperfection in the accident as that it must be inherent for otherwise the nature of man is joyned to the Person of the Son of God per modum accidentis for that advenit enti in actu completo that is it commeth to a thing already complete and perfect in it selfe In which sort one thing may bee added and come to another either so as not to pertaine to the same subsistence as the garments that one putteth on or so as to pertaine to the same subsistence but by inherence or thirdly so as to pertaine to the same subsistence without the inherence of the one in the other by a kind of inexistence as the branch is in the tree into which it is graffed which is the fourth similitude and of all other most perfect For there are but two things wherein it faileth and commeth too short whereof the first is for that the branch hath first a seperate subsistence in it selfe and after looseth it and then is drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted the second for that it hath no roote of it owne and soe wanteth one part pertaining to the integrity of the nature of each tree But if a branch of one tree should by diuine power bee created and made in the stocke of another this comparison would faile but onely in one circumstance and that not very important seeing though the humane nature want noe part pertaining to the integrity and perfection of it as the implanted branch doth of that pertaineth to the integrity of the nature of a tree in that it hath no roote of it owne yet the humane nature in Christ hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it and therefore in that respect it is in some sort like to the branch that hath noe roote of it owne but that of the tree into which it is implanted communicated vnto it This comparison is vsed by Alexander of Hales and diuers other of the Schoole-men and in my opinion is the aptest and fullest of all other For as betweene the tree and the branch there is a composition not Huius ex his but huius ad hoc that is not making a tree of a compound or middle nature and quality but causing the branch though retaining it owne nature and bearing it owne fruite to pertaine to the vnity of the
tree into which it is implanted and to beare fruite in and for it and not for it selfe soe the Person of Christ is sayd to bee compounded of the nature of God and Man not as if there were in him a mixt nature arising out of these but as hauing the one of these added vnto the other in the vnity of the same person And as this tree is one and yet hath two different natures in it and beareth two kinds of fruite soe Christ is one and yet hath two different natures and in them performeth the distinct actions pertaining to either of them Lastly as a man may truly say after such implanting this Vine is an Oliue tree and this Oliue tree is a Vine and consequently this Vine beareth Oliues and this Oliue tree beareth Grapes so a man may say this Sonne of Mary is the Sonne of God and on the other side this Sonne of God and first borne of euery creature is the Sonne of Mary borne in time the Sonne of God and Lord of life was crucified and the Sonne of Mary layd the foundations of the earth stretched out the Heauens like a curtaine CHAP. 13. Of the Communication of the properties of either nature in Christ consequent vppon the vnion of them in his Person and the two first kindes thereof HAuing spoken of the assuming of our nature by the Sonne of God into the vnity of his diuine Person it remaineth that we speake of the consequents of this vnion and the gifts and graces bestowed vpon the nature of Man when it was assumed The first and principall consequent of the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ is the Communication of their properties of which there are three kindes or degrees The first is when the properties of either nature considered singly and apart as the properties of this or that nature are attributed to the person from whichsoeuer of the natures it be denominated The second is when the different actions of two natures in Christ concurre in the same works and things done The third when the diuine attributes are cōmunicated vnto the humane nature and bestowed vpon it Vsually in the Schooles only the first degree or kinde of communication is named the communication of properties Which that wee may the better vnderstand we must obserue that there are abstractiue concretiue words the former whereof do precisely note the forme or nature of each thing the latter imply also the person that hath the same nature or forme as Humanitas and Homo Sanctitas and Sanctus Manhood and Man Holinesse Holy 2ly Wee must obserue that abstractiue words noting precisely the distinct natures cannot be affirmed one of the other nor the properties of one nature attributed to the other abstractiuely expressed For neither can we truly say that Deity is Humanity or Humanity Deity nor that the Deity suffered or the Humanity created the world but we may truly say God is Man and Man is God God died vpon the Crosse and Maries babe made the world Because the person which these concretiue words imply is one all actions passions and qualities agree really to the Person though in and in respect sometimes of one nature and sometimes of another When wee say God is Man and Man is God wee note the conjunction that is between the natures meeting in one person and therefore this mutuall conuersiue predication cannot properly be named communication of properties but the communication of properties is when the properties of one nature are attributed to the Person whether denominated from the other as some restraine it or from the same also as others enlarge it This communication of properties is of diuers sorts first when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the whole Person of Christ subsisting in two natures but denominated from the diuine nature as when it is sayd Those things which the Father doth the Sonne doth also Secondly when the properties of the humane nature are attributed to the person denominated from the diuine nature as when it is sayd They crucified the Lord of glory They killed the Lord of life Thirdly when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the person denominated from the nature of man as when it is sayd No man ascendeth into Heauen but the Son of man that came downe from Heauen euen that Son of man that is in Heauen 4ly When those things that agree to both natures are attributed to the person denominated from one of them as when the Apostle sayth There is one God one Mediatour betweene God man which is the man Christ Iesus Fiftly when the properties of one nature are attributed to the person neither denominated precisely from the one nature nor from the other but noted by a word indifferently expressing both as when we say Christ was borne of Mary If any man list to striue about words not admitting any communication of properties but when the properties of one nature are attributed to the person denominated from the other as when wee say the Son of God died on the Crosse the Son of Man made the world besides that he is contrary to the ordinary opinion he seemeth not to consider that it is a person consisting in two natures that is noted by what appellation soeuer we expresse the same and that therefore the attributing of the properties of any one of the natures unto it may rightly be named a communication of properties as being the attributing of the properties of this or that nature to a person subsisting in both though denominated from one For the better vnderstanding of that hath bin said touching this first kind of communication of properties the diuers sorts thereof there are certaine obseruations necessary which I will here adde The first is that the cōmunication of properties wherein the properties of the one nature are affirmed of the person denominated of the other is reall and not verball onely The second that the properties of the humane nature are not really communicated to the diuine nature The third is that the properties of the diuine nature are in a sort really communicated to the humane nature whereof wee shall see more in the third kind of communication of properties The fourth obseruation is that in the sacred and blessed Trinity there is Alius Alius but not Aliud Aliud diuersity of persons but not of being nature but that in Christ there is aliud aliud and not alius alius that is diuersity of natures but so that he that hath them is the same whence it cōmeth that the properties of either nature may be affirmed of the person from which soeuer of them it be denominated yet so that more fully to expresse our meaning it is necessary sometimes to adde for distinction sake that they are verified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum aliud that is according vnto the other nature and
not according vnto that whence the person is denominated This explication or limitatioÌ„ is theÌ„ specially to be added wheÌ„ such properties of one nature are attributed to the persoÌ„ denominated from the other as seeme to exclude the properties of the other so when we say Christ the Son of God is a creature we must adde that wee neither scandalize them that heare vs nor giue any occasion of errour that hee is a creature in that hee is man Now it followeth that wee speake of the second kinde or degree of communication of properties which is in that the actions of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deiuiriles Divinely-humane humanely-Humanely-diuine each Nature so worketh it owne worke according to the naturall propertie thereof that it hath a kinde of communion with the other But lest we fall into errour touching this point we must obserue that the actions of Christ may bee said to bee Theandricall that is Diuinely-humane three wayes First so as if there were one action of both Natures and so we must not vnderstand the actions of Christ to be Diuinely-humane for this is to confound the Natures whereas we must vndoubtedly beleeue that Omnia in Christo sunt duplicia naturae proprietates voluntates operationes solâ exceptâ subsistentiâ quae est una that is that all things in Christ are twofold or double as his Natures properties wils actions his subsistence only or Person excepted which is but one Secondly the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandricall that is Diuinely-humane for that both the actions of Deitie Humanity though distinct yet concurre in one work to which purpose Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his which we read in the â—…6 t generall Councell doth distinguish 3 kinds of the works of Christ making the first meerely diuine as to create all things the second meerely humane as to eate drink sleep the third partly diuine partly humane as to walke vpoÌ„ the waters in which worke vvalking vvas so humane that the giuing of firmnes soliditie to the vvaters to beare the vveight of his Body vvas an action of Deitie Thirdly the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandrical that is Diuinely-humane in respect of the Person that produceth bringeth theÌ„ forth which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man In either of these two latter senses the actions of Christ may rightly be vnderstood to be Theandricall that of Leo is most true coÌ„cerning Christ. In Christo utraque forma operatur cum alterius coÌ„munione quod propriuÌ„ est that is in Christ both natures do work that which is proper vnto them with a kind of coÌ„munioÌ„ the one hath with the other for this saying is true first in respect of the Person the coÌ„munion which either nature hath with other therein Secondly in respect of the work effect wherunto by their seuerall proper actions they coÌ„curre though in different sort as in healing of the sick not only the force of Deity appeared shewed it self but the humane nature also did coÌ„curre in respect of the body in that he touched those that were to be healed laid his hands vpon theÌ„ spake vnto theÌ„ in respect of the soul in that he desired applauded rejoiced in that which by diuine power he brought to passe thirdly in that the actions of humane nature in Christ haue in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions of any meere man from the assistance of the Deity that dwelleth bodily in him CHAP. 14. Of the third kind of communication of properties and the first degree thereof NOw let vs come to the third kind of coÌ„municatioÌ„ of properties which is that whereby diuine precious things are really bestowed on the nature of man The things which are thus coÌ„municated bestowed are of 2 sorts The first finite created as qualities or habites formally habitually subjectiuely inherent in the humane nature the 2â— the essentiall attributes of the diuinity it self coÌ„municated to the humane nature not formally by physicall effusion or essentiall confusioÌ„ but by dispensatioÌ„ of personal vnioÌ„ Touching the things of the first sort there is no questioÌ„ but that they vvere bestovved vpon the nature of man in all perfectioÌ„ vvhen it vvas vnited to the Person of the Sonne of God so that in it vvas found the fulnesse both of grace vertue according to that of S. Iohn The word was made flesh dwelt amoÌ„gst vs. we saw the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten Son of God full of grace truth The fulnes of grace as the Schoolemen excellently note is of tvvo sorts first in respect of grace it selfe and secondly in respect of him that hath it The fulnesse of grace in respect of grace it selfe is then vvhen one attaineth to the highest and vttermost of grace both quoad essentiam virtutem intensiuè extensiuè in the Essence and vertue of it intensiuely and extensiuely that is vvhen he hath it as farre forth as it may be had and vnto all effects and purposes wherevnto grace doth or can extend it selfe as he is said to haue life perfectly or the fulnesse of life that hath it not onely in the essence but according to all the operations and acts of life sensible rationall intellectuall spirituall and naturall in which sort man onely hath the perfection and fulnesse of life in him and no other thing of inferior condition This kinde of fulnesse of grace is proper to Christ onely Of whose fulnesse wee all receiue The fulnesse of grace in respect of the subiect or him that hath it is then when one hath grace fully and perfectly according to his estate and condition both intensiuely to the vttermost bound that God hath prefixed to them of such a condition and extensiuely in the vertue of it in that it extendeth to the doing and performing of all those things that may any way pertaine to the condition office or estate of such as are of his place and Ranke In this sort Stephen is said to haue beene full of the holy Ghost who is the fountaine of grace and Marie the blessed Virgine the mother of our Lord is by the Angell pronounced Blessed amongst women and full of grace for that shee had grace in respect of the Essence of it intensiuely in as perfect sort as any mortall creature might haue it and in respect of the vertue of it extending to all thinges that might any way pertaine to her that was chosen to bee the sacred vessell of the incarnation of the Sonne of God So that there was neuer any but Christ whose graces were no way stinted and to whom the spirit was not giuen in measure that was absolutely full of grace which fulnesse of grace in Christ the Diuines doe declare and cleare vnto vs wherein it consisted by distinguishing a double grace in Christ the one of
afterwards he knew it when he was risen and appointed of his Father King and Iudge which words of his admitte no such glosse Wherefore Iansenius saith there are two principall interpretations of those words of Christ when he saith Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Sonne the one that he sayd hee knew it not because he knew it not to reueale it and because his body the Church knew it not the other that he knew it not as man and this interpretation hee sheweth to bee likewise two-fold For saith he if we follow the common opinion that Christ had the perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first then we must vnderstand that Christ sayd hee knew not the day of judgement because hee knew it not by naturall and acquisite knowledge but by vertue of that knowledge that was infused into him but if wee follow the other opinion that Christ had not perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first but grew in it then as Origen among other senses deliuereth the meaning of the words is that hee knew it not till after his resurrection And surely Cyrill a worthy Bishop and one that had many conflicts with the Nestorian heretiques who diuided the person of Christ feareth not directly to say that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement when he vsed the words before mentioned Neither is this the heresie of the Agnoêtae as some ignorantly affirme for their errour was that the Deitie of Christ was ignorant of some thing or that Christ in his humane nature was properly ignorant that is knew not such things and at such time as he should haue knowen and that he is still ignorant of sundry things in the state of his glorification as it appeareth by that Epistle of Gregorie in which one of them alledgeth that as Christ tooke our nature so hee tooke our ignorance to free vs from the same and therefore Maldonatus vpon the 24. of Matthew saith that the Themistians called also Agnoetae were accounted heretiques not for saying Christ knew not the day of iudgement as Damascene de haeresibus testifieth but that as may be gathered out of the same Damascene they simply without all distinction of the diuine or humane nature said Christ was ignorant thereof because they thought the Diuinitie was turned into the Humanitie CHAP. 15. Of the third kind of Communication of properties and the second degree thereof THus hauing spoken of those finite and created things that were bestowed on the nature of man when it was assumed into the vnitie of the diuine person let vs come to those things that are infinite Where first we are certainely to resolue that as the nature of man was truely giuen and communicated to the Person of the Sonne of God so that he is indeede and really Man so the Persont of the Sonne of God was as truly communicated to the nature of man that it migh subsist in it and that that which was fashioned in the wombe of the blessed virgine borne of her might not onely be holy but the holiest of all euen the Sonne of God Secondly that in this sense the fulnesse of all perfection and all the properties of the diuine Essence are communicated to the nature of man in the Person of the Sonne For as the Father communicated his Essence to the Sonne by eternall generation who therefore is the second Person in Trinitie and God of God so in the Person of the Sonne hee really communicated the same to the nature of man formed in Maries wombe in such sort that that Man that was borne of her is truely God And in this sense the Germane Diuines affirme that there is a reall Communication of the diuine properties to the nature of man in the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ not by physicall communication or effusion as if the like equall properties to those that are in God were put inherently into the nature of man in such sort as the heate transfused from the fire into the water is inherent in it whence would follow a confusion conuersion and equalling of the natures and naturall properties but personall in the Person of the Son of God For as the Person of the Son of God in whom the nature and Essence of God is found is so communicated to the nature of Man that the Man Christ is not onely in phrase of speech named God but is indeede and really God so he is as really omnipotent hauing all power both in heauen in earth There is one Christ saith Luther who is both the Son of God and of the Virgine By the right of his first birth not in time but from all eternity he receiued all power that is the Deitie it selfe which the Father communicated to him eternally but touching the other nature of Christ which began in time euen so also the eternall power of God was giuen vnto him so that the Son of the Virgine is truely really eternall God hauing eternall power according to that in the last of Matthew All power is giuen vnto me both in heauen and in earth And of this power a litle after he bringeth in Christ speaking in this sorte Although this power was mine eternally before I assumed the nature of man notwithstanding after I began to be man euen according to the nature of man I receiued the same power in time though I shewed it not during the time of my infirmitie and crosse Bonauentura saith the very same in effect that Luther doth when it is sayd saith he speaking of the Man Christ This Man is euery where this may either note out the Person of Christ or the singular and indiuiduall nature of a man if the Person of Christ there is no doubt but the proposition is true if the indiuiduall nature of a Man yet still it is true not by proprietie of nature but by communication of properties because that which agreeth to the Sonne of God by nature agreeth vnto this Man by grace Cardinall Cameracensis agreeth with Bonauentura affirming that the diuine attributes and properties are more really communicated to the Man Christ then the humane are to the Sonne of God and that therefore a man may most truely and properly say speaking of the Man Christ This Man is immortall almighty and of infinite power and maiestie because he is properly the diuine Person so consequently truely really immortall and omnipotent Yea Bellarmine though he impugne the errours of the Lutherans as he calleth them with all bitternesse yet confesseth all that hitherto hath beene sayd to be most true I say saith he as before that the glorie of God the Father was giuen to the humanitie of Christ non in ipsa not to be formally or subiectiuely inherent in it but in the diuine Person that is that by grace of vnion the humane
nobis nostram naturam vt eam sibi sociaret per vnionem in personâ quae sociata non erat per vnitatem in naturâ vt per id quod de nostro vnum secum fecerat nos sibi vniret vt cum ipso vnum essemus per id quod nostrum sibi vnitum erat per ipsum vnum essemuâ—… cum patre qui cum ipsa vnum erat That is The Word which was one with God the Father by ineffable vnity became one with man assumed by admirable vnion The vnity was in nature the vnion in Person With God the Father it was one in Nature not in Person with man assumed it was one in Person not in nature It tooke of vs our nature to joyne it to it selfe by vnion in Person which had no societie with it by vnity of nature that by that which taken from us it made one with it selfe it might unite vs to it selfe that wee might bee one with it by that of ours which was vnited to it by it wee might be one with the Father who is one with it Thus hauing shewed in what sort Christ is a meane betweene the two extreames God Man it remaineth that we seeke out how according to which nature he is a Mediatour That he is a Mediatour according to the concurrence of both Natures in the vnitie of his Person it is confessed by all for if he were not both God Man hee could not mediate betweene God Men. But whether hee be a Mediatour according to both Natures concurring in the worke of Mediation there be some that make question For the clearing whereof the Diuines distinguish the workes of Mediation making them to be of two sorts Of Ministery of Authority Of Ministery as to pray to pay the price of Redemption by dying to satisfie for sin Of Authority as to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the Holy Ghost Touching the workes of Ministery it is agreed on by all that the Person of the Son of God performed them in the nature of Man for we must distinguish Principium quod Principium quo that is the Person which doth and suffereth and that wherein it doth and suffereth such things as are necessary to procure our reconciliation with God It was the Son of God Lord of Life that died for vs on the Crosse but it was the nature of Man not of God wherein he died it was the nature of God and infinite excellencie of the same whence the price value worth of his passion grew The workes of Authority and Power as to giue life to giue the Spirit to raise the dead to make the blinde see the dumbe to speake were all performed by the Diuine Nature yet not without an instrumentall concurrence of the Nature of Man in sort as hath beene before expressed when I shewed how the Actions of Christ were diuinely-humane If it be alledged that Opera Trinitatis ad extra are indivisa that is that there is nothing that one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity doth towards the Creatures but they all doe it and consequently that those things which Christ did in his Diuine Nature pertained not to the office of a Mediatour being common to all the Persons we answer that as the Persons of the Blessed Trinity though they be one the same God yet differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in subsistence the manner of hauing possessing the Deitie Diuine Nature so though their action be the same the worke done by them yet they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner of doing it for the Father doth all things authoritatiuè and the Son subauthoritatiuè as the Schoolemen speake that is the Father as he from whom of whom all things are the Son as he by whom all things are not as if hee were an instrument but as Principium à Principio that is a cause beginning of things that hath receiued the Essence it hath and power of working from another though the very same that is in the other And in this sort to quicken giue life and to impart the spirit of sanctification to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature meriting desiring and instrumentally assisting is proper to the Son of God manifested in our flesh not common to the whole Trinity and therefore notwithstanding the objection taken from the vnity of the Workes of the Diuine Persons may be a worke of mediation Bellarmine the Iesuite bringeth many reasons to proue that Christ is not a Mediatour according to both Natures but that which aboue all other he most vrgeth is this If Christ saith he be a Mediatour according to both Natures then either according to both jointly or seuerally not seuerally because not according to his Diuine Nature seuerally considered being the party offended Not according to both jointly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God Man and from the sonnes of men who are meerely men yet hee differeth not from the Son of God who was to be pacified by the Mediatour as well as the Father the Holy Ghost neither in nature nor in person This surely is is a silly kind of reasoning for it is not necessary that a thing should differ from both the extreames according to all that in respect whereof it is of a middle condition but it is sufficient if it differ in some thing from one and in some thing from another The middle colour differeth from the extreames not in the whole nature of it but from white in that it hath of blacknesse and from blacke in that it hath of whitenesse but it is medium in that it hath something of either of them Soe the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not onely 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 hee is GOD and therefore may mediate not onely betweene the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men Wherefore to conclude this point wee say that some of the workes of Christ the mediatour were the workes of his Humanity in respect of the thing done and had their efficacie dignity and value from his Diuinity in that they were the workes of him that had the Diuinity dwelling bodily in him and some the workes of his Diuinitie the humane nature concurring only instrumentally as the giuing sight to the blinde raising the dead remitting of sinnes and the like Neither doe wee imagine one action of both natures nor say that Christ died offered himselfe on the Altar of the Crosse or payed for vs in his Diuinity as some slanderously report of vs and therefore all the objections that are mustered against vs proceeding from the voluntary mistaking of our sense and meaning which some
it is to bee maruailed at that I distill the religion and profession of Protestants out of Catholickes is to bee laughed at as most ridiculous for out of whom else should I distill it but if hee thinke they were all Papists whom I cite for proofe of our cause because they liued vnder the Papacie hee is deceiued for a great difference is to be put betweene the Church and faction in the Church wee deriuing our selues from the one and they from the other The second Chapter §. 1. WHerefore now let vs returne to see what Master Higgons hath further to say hee will conuince Mee he saith of singular vanity in that I say there is no materiall difference betweene those whom hee and his consorts call Lutherans and Zuinglians That the reader may the better bee able to discerne how ignorantly Higgons excepteth against Mee I will set downe at large what I haue written touching this matter Answering the calumniation of Papists traducing vs for our diuisions my wordes are these I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquitary presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers Ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries And in my third booke answering the obiection of Bellarmine charging the Germane Diuines with the heresie of Eutiches in that they say the humanity of Christ is euery where Vbiquity being an incommunicable property of the Deity that cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the Diuine and Humane natures I haue these wordes he should remember that they whom he thus odiously traduceth are not so ignorant as to thinke that the body of Christ which is a finite limited nature is euery where by actuall position or locall extension but personally onely in respect of the conjunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where This is it then which they teach that the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite limited and bounded and is locally but in one place but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally to that God that is euery where In which sence they thinke it may truely be said to be euery where This construction of their sayings who defend the Vbiquitary presence is no priuate or singular device of mine as Master Higgons would make men beleeue but Master Hooker a man so farre excelling Theophilus Higgons in learning iudgment that hee is not worthy to bee named the same day hath the same precisely in the very same wordes and alloweth it as Catholicke and good and indeed who but an ignorant Nouice that hath not learned the principles of the Catechisme would impugne it Yet Maister Higgons sayth I haue fayled exceedingly in two poyntes the first in saying there is no place where the body of Christ is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery where and that it doth subsist euery where the second in saying the humane nature of Christ may rightly be sayd to be euery where in as much as it is vnited personally to that which is euery where This second saying is none of mine for I haue no such words as the reader will soone perceiue if he peruse the place but my words are these The body of Christ is not euery where by locall extension but personally only in respect of the vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no way seuered from God who is euery where and againe there is noe place where it is not vnited personally to that God that is euery where in which sence the Germane Diuines thinke it may be sayd to be euery where Wherefore let vs see what Maister Higgons can say against any thing deliuered by Mee touching this point he sayth I haue fayled for that though the Diuine person wherein the humane nature subsisteth bee euery where yet the humane nature subsisteth therein finitely and in one determinate place the Vnion it selfe being a created thing For the better clearing of this point and the vnderstanding of the Doctrine of the Church resolued on by the best learned in the Schooles wee must obserue that there is a beeing of essence and a beeing of existence or subsistence the beeing of essence which the humane nature of Christ hath is finite and limited as is the essence of all other men but beeing of existence it hath none of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and Diuine Deus in incarnatione verbi sayth Picus Mirandula fecit essentiam humanitatis sine suo esse vt dicitur á multis Doctoribus That is Almighty God in the incarnation of the eternall word produced the essence of the humanity without that finite and created actuall existence which left to it selfe it would haue had as many Doctours doe affirme and the person of the Sonne of God hauing in it the fulnesse of all beeing drew the nature of man to the vnity of that infinite beeing it had in it selfe and communicated the same vnto it so that the humanity of Christ neuer had any other beeing of actuall existence or subsistence but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it And farther the same Picus sayth Esse corporis Christi substantiale est increatum Diuinum quod est suppositi Diuini cum in Christo non sit nisi vnum esse actualis existentiae substantialis That is the substantiall actuall beeing of the body of CHRIST is the increated beeing of the Sonne of GOD seeing in CHRIST there is but one beeing of actuall existence This which Picus Mirandula hath deliuered is the resolution of Thomas Aquinas Caietan and all the best learned in the Romane Schooles whence it followeth ineuitably that the humanity of Christ in the being of actuall existence and subsistence which it hath is not limited or contained within any bounds of place but is euery where howsoeuer in respect of the being of essence which is created finite it be shut vp within the straites of one place at one time and therefore it is noe better then Heresie that Higgons hath that the humanity of Christ subsisteth finitely in the person of the Sonne of God for if it subsist finitely the subsistence it hath is finite and if it haue a finite subsistence then are there two subsistences in Christ the one finite the other infinite and consequently two persons which is flat Nestorianisme But sayth Higgons the vnion it selfe in Christ is a created thing therefore the beeing of actuall existence or subsistence which the humanity hath is finite Truely it had beene fitte the poore Nouice had beene set to Schoole for a time before hee had beene permitted to write for he bewrayeth grosse ignorance in
those things which euery one that hath saluted the Schooles doth know The vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ sayth Cardinall Caietan is to be considered vel quantum ad relationem quam significat vel quantū ad coniunctionem in personâ ad quam consequitur quoniam plus differunt haec duo quam caelum terra Vnio enim pro relatione est ens reale creatum Vnio antem pro coniunctione naturae humanae in personâ diuina cum consistat in vnitate que est inter naturam humanam personam filij Dei est in genere seu ordine Substantia non est aliquid Creatum sed Creator quod ex eo constat quòd Vnum non addit supra Ens naturam aliquam vnumquodque per illudmet per quod est Ens est Vnum c. Bc per hoc natura humana in Christo quia per esse substantiale subsistentia filii Dei est iuncta naturae divinae oportet quod illud unum esse in quo indivisae sunt natura diuina humana in Christo sit esse unum substantiale divinum verè sic est quia esse subsistentiae filii Dei in quo non distinguuntur ambae naturae Substantia est Deus est quia verbum Dei est Vnà eâdem quippe Subsistentiâ subsistit filius Dei in natura Divina in natura humana consequenter natura divina et humana in Christo sunt indivisae in illa subsistentiautrique communi quamvis inter se valdè distinguantur The summe of that he saith is this for I will not stand exactly to English his wordes that the vnion betweene the nature of God and Man in CHRIST in respect of that being of actuall existence and subsistence wherein they are conioyned which is the same and common to them both to wit the subsistence of the Sonne of God communicated to the nature of man prevented that it should not haue any created or finite subsistence of it owne is no finite or created thing but infinite and diuine but in respect of the attaining of the same in time and the relation of dependance the humane nature hath vpon the Eternall Word it is finite and therefore whereas there are two kindes of grace in Christ the one of vnion the other habituall the latter is absolutely a finite and created thing but the former in respect of the thing giuen which is the personall subsistence of the Son of God bestowed vpō the nature of man is infinite though the passiue mutatiō of the nature of man lifted vp to the personal being of the Son of God the relation of dependance it hath on it be finite in the number of created things From that which hath beene said it may be concluded vnavoydably that the humanity of Christ in respect of personall vnion and in that being of actuall existence or subsistence which it hath which is infinite and diuine is euery-where as God himselfe is euery-where But saith Higgons there is an vnion Hypostatical betweene the soule body all the parts of it yet is not the foot or hand euery where where the soule is which is whole intire in euery part because it is not in the head The poore fellow I see hath yet learned but a little Diuinity and that maketh him thus to talke at randome For howsoeuer the comparison of the soule and body be brought to expresse the personall vnion in Christ yet it is very defectiue as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth First because the body and soule are imperfit natures Secondly because they concurre to make one nature Thirdly because neither of them draweth the other into the subsistence it hath but both depend on a third subsistence which is that of the whole but in the mysterie of the Incarnation the Eternall Word subsisting perfitly in it selfe draweth vnto it the nature of man so that the humanity of Christ hauing the same actuall existence that the Eternall Word hath must needes bee in respect of the same being whore-soeuer the Word is But there is no necessitie that each part of the body should be where-soeuer the soule is which is intirely in the whole body and intirely in euery part because the body and the parts of it haue neither the same being of essence nor existence that the soule hath But saith Higgons the properties of the diuine nature are by vertue of the personal vnion attributed to the persō in concreto not to the humane nature in abstracto so that though the Man Christ may be said to be euery-where yet the humanity cannot For answere to this obiection wee must note that the communication of properties is of two sorts the first is the attributing of the properties of either nature to the person from which nature soeuer it be denominated The second is the reall communication of the properties of the Deity to the nature of man not formally and in it selfe but in supposito in the person of the Sonne of GOD bestowed on it in which sense Bellarmine confesseth that the glory of GOD and all power both in Heauen and in earth are giuen to the humane nature of CHRIST Non in ipsa sed in supposito id est per gratiam unionis And so the Diuines of Germany doe say the humanity of CHRIST is euery-where in the being of subsistence cōmunicated to it the Man CHRIST properly and formally By this which hath beene said the intelligent reader I doubt not will easily perceiue the folly of silly Higgons who being ignorant of the very principles and rudiments of Christian Doctrine traduceth that as a pseudo-theologicall determination and heresie which is the resolued determination of all the principall Schoole-men and best Diuines that euer treated distinctly of the personall vnion of the two natures in Christ. Yet as if all were cleare for him and against Mee encouraged by his good successe in this particular hee proceedeth to the matter of the Sacrament perswading himselfe hee shall be able to find such and so many essentiall differences therein as neither I nor any man else shall euer be able to reconcile whereas notwithstanding if he had beene so much conuersant in the workes of Zanchius as hee pretendeth hee might haue found in him a most godly and learned discourse touching this point wherein all that hee or any of his companions can say is answered already and the Diuines of Germany and those other in shew opposite in such sort reconciled that our Aduersaries if any thing would satisfie them might lay their handes on their mouthes and be silent In this discourse first hee sheweth that there is no question touching the preparation of them that desire to bee worthy partakers of this heauenly banquet neither concerning the vse of this blessed Sacrament Secondly that it is agreed that the very body and blood of Christ are to be receiued by such as desire to be
and iustification 861. Of the things required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of the Scripture 863. Of the meanes whereby wee may know that the Scriptures are of God 868. Of the differences that haue bin amongst protestants 869. That there remained a true Church vnder the papacie when Luther began 880. The Romane Church is not the same now that it was when Luther began 881. That we haue not departed from the Church wherein our Fathers liued and dyed but onely from the faction that was in it 883. Errata Pag. Line  10. 8. Negleing for neglecting 27. 50. either sort for either God   marg respicio te for respicio 36. 1. which is that society for which is the true Church we aske which is that society 81. marg ep 161. for ep 162. 92. 41. vndoubtfully for vndoubtedly 102. 30. lacis for lacus leonus for leonis 107. marg Alcuâ—…io for Alcuino 189. marg immediatly it for immediatly after it 191. 2. nothing of for nothing for 201. 55. which for with 244. 22. Crocouia for Crâ—…couia 289. 4. and effect for an effect 292. 2. nor to be for nor be  39. not only in a twofold for not only a two fold 322. 45. fortitudinem for formidinem 338. marg Rational diuinorum l. 2. for Rational diuinorum l. 1.  36. obtaineth for obtaineth grace 340. 24. vt for vs 345. 47. Church for the Church  50. to erre for or erre 348. 46. Thus he for This he 349. 14. euious for enuious 353. marg Câ—…nus lib. 1. for Câ—…us l. 2. 357. 24. dubium for dubiam 358. 31. of deltatur 359. 5. definition for definitions 360. marg lect for lect 2. 362. marg Canonum for Canonem 363. marg certa veridica for certa veridica 364. 24. generalily for generality 372. 27. For for Fiftly 375. 55. is was for it was 377. 11. in the matter for in matter 380. 27. Helenists for Hellenists 479. 38. for for forth 495. 4. as deleatur 496. 23. writing for writeth 520. 12. Anâ—…tolius for Anatolius 532. 〈◊〉 Byzâ—…zenus for Byzâ—…zenus 541. 32. ar for or 551. 52. as deleatur 554. 12. fearing for fearing not 593. 20. toherwise for otherwise 729. 34. non deleatur 752. marg fide for fine 779. 54. say for shall say  55. sitteth for sitteth 792. 24. take for taketh 81â—… 52. the for him and the 820. 55. Bc. for 〈◊〉 THE FIRST BOOKE CONCERNING THE NAME NATVRE AND DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH CHAP. 1 Of the Church consisting of men and Angels in the day of their Creation WHatsoeuer commeth within the compasse of mans conceit and apprehension is either the vniversall perfection of being it selfe wherein there is nothing intermingled of not being nothing of possibilitie to bee that which already it is not which is the nature of God whose name is Iehoua Which is which was and is to come or else it is finite limited and restrained to a certaine degree measure and kind of being which is the condition of all things vnder God So that as wee cannot thinke aright of God but with resolued and vndoubted assurance that he is For what can be if being it selfe be not that he is infinite and hath noe limitation of his perfections for within what bounds or limits shall we compasse that wherein the fulnesseof being is found that hee is from everlasting to everlasting and knoweth neither beginning nor end of his continuance For how should that haue either beginning or end wherein there is nothing intermingled of not being and so no time nor moment can be imagined wherein it was not or shall cease to bee so wee cannot thinke of any thing else but as finite and limitted hauing certaine bounds set vnto it within the compasse whereof all the perfection it possesseth and enioyeth is contained as hauing being after not being and so receiuing it from another as limited in continuance aswell as in measure and kinde of perfections hauing set and certaine termes before which it was not and a necessitie of ceasing to be if the hand that vpholdeth it withdraw it selfe but for a moment Hence it followeth that such is the nature and condition of all things vnder God that they are mixed and compounded of being and not being perfection and imperfection fullnesse and want For howsoeuer they want nothing which to the perfecting of their owne kinde is required yet they faile and come infinitely short of that perfection which is found in God the fountaine of all being yea much is denied to euery of them which is bestowed on others and euen in respect of themselues they are oftentimes that in possibility which actually they haue not attained vnto Seeing therefore the imperfection of each thing presupposeth perfection before it out of which it is taken whereunto it tendeth and endeauoureth to attaine and whereof it faileth all things vnder God hauing imperfection found in them and hauing some part of his Diuine perfections committed vnto them but not in sort answerable to that whence they are taken and wherein they are origanally found looke backe and hasten to returne to that beginning whence they came foorth and with fixed eyes bowed knees and hands lifted vp present themselues before him that liueth for ever which is which was and which is to come with great ioy and exultation powring foorth and returning thankefull praises to him for whose sake they were created desiring continuance of that they are supplie of that they want and thinking it their greatest happinesse to haue but the least resemblance of his Diuine perfections The proceeding of each thing from the first is like to a straight line drawne out in length which of all other is the weakest neither can it bee strengthened but by being redoubled bowed backe again whereby it draweth nigh to the nature of a circular line which of all other is the stroÌ„gest as wherein each part yeeldeth stay and support to other All things therefore after they are come forth from the presence of God taking view of themselues and finding their owne imperfect and defectiue nature fearing to remoue too farre flie backe vnto him that made them for support comfort and stay and like a reflected line returne towards the presence of him for whose sake they are and haue beene created yet is there nothing found in degree of nature inferiour vnto man that returneth so farre and approcheth so neere as to know see and delight in God as he is in himselfe but all rest contented and seeke to discerne know and enjoy no more of his Divine perfections than in themselues they possesse and partake of him So that they expresse not the nature of a perfect circle in which the lines drawne forth in length are in such sort reflected and bowed backe againe that in their returne they stay not till they come to the very same poynt whence they beganne This is peculier to men and Angels which are carried backe with
perpetually proper CHAP. 2. Of the divers kindes of notes whereby the true Church is discerned from other societies of men in the world THere are presently and were formerly but three maine differences of religion in the world Paganisme Iudaisme and Christianity Paganisme is and was that state of religion and diuine worship wherein men hauing no other light than that of nature and the vncertaine traditions of their erring fathers to guide them did and doe change the trueth of God into a lie and worship and serue the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed for ever Iudaisme is that state of religion wherein men imbrace the Law which God gaue to the children of Abraham and sonnes of Iacob reforming heathenish impietie teaching saluation to bee looked for through one whom God would send in the last dayes and exalt to bee Lord ouer all Christianitie is the religion of them that beleeue Iesus Christ to be that Sauiour promised to the Iewes and acknowledge him to bee the sonne of the liuing God They which hold this profession are called the Church of Christ neither is there any other society or company of men in the world that professe so to beleeue but they only If we take a view of this Church respectiuely considered seeking onely to difference and distinguish it from the society of Pagan Infidels the profession of Diuine supernaturall and revealed verities is so found in the Church that not amongst any of these and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respectiuely it is proper to the Church may serue as a note of difference distinguishing it from these profane and heathenish companies but from the Iewes it doeth not seuer it for it is common to it with them both holding the sacred profession of many heauenly and reuealed verities So that if we will distinguish Christians from Iewes we must finde out that which is so proper and peculiar to the companies and societies of Christians that it is not communicated to the Iewes Such is the profession of diuine verities reuealed in Christ whom onely these societies acknowledge to bee the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world But for that when neither heathenish superstition nor the Iewes perfidious impietie could any longer prevaile or resist against the knowledge and glory of Christ but that all the whole world went after him Sathan the enemie of mankinde stirred vp certaine turbulent wicked and godlesse men who professing themselues to bee Christians vnder the name of Christ brought in damnable doctrines of errour no lesse dangerously erring than did the Pagans and Iewes This profession of the faith of Christ though it distinguish the Christian Church from the Iewes and Pagans and is so farre proper vnto it that it is not found in any of them yet doth it not separate the multitude of right beleeuing Christians which is the sound part of the Christian Church and is named the Orthodoxe Church from seduced miscreants being common to both We must therefore further seeke out that which is so peculiarly found in the more speciall number of right beleeuing Christians that not in any other though shadowed vnder the generall name of Christianitie Such is the entire profession of diuine verities according to the rule of faith left by Christ and his first disciples and schollers the holy Apostles This entire profession of the trueth reuealed in Christ though it distinguish right beleeuers from Heretikes yet it is not proper to the happy number and blessed company of Catholike Christians because Schismatikes may and sometimes doe hold an entire profession of the trueth of God revealed in Christ. It remaineth therefore that wee seeke out those things that are so peculiarly found in the companies of right beleeuing and Catholike Christians that they may serue as notes of difference to distinguish them from all both Pagans Iewes Heretikes and Schismatikes These are of two sorts for either they are such as onely at sometemes and not perpetually or such as doe perpetually and euer seuer the true Church from all conuenticles of erring and seduced misereants Of the former sort was multitude largenesse of extent and the name of Catholike esteemed a note of the Church in the time of the Fathers The notes of the later sort that are inseparable perpetuall and absolutely proper and peculiar which perpetually distinguish the true Catholike Church from all other societies of men and professions of religions in the world are three First the entire profession of those supernaturall verities which God hath reuealed in Christ his sonne secondly the vse of such holy ceremonies sacraments as hee hath instituted and appointed to serue as prouocations to godlinesse preseruations from sinne memorialls of the benefits of Christ warrants for the greater securitie of our beleefe and markes of distinction to separate his owne from strangers thirdly an vnion or connexion of men in this profession and vse of these sacraments vnder lawfull pastours and guides appointed authorised sanctified to direct and leade them in the happy wayes of eternall saluation That these are notes of the Church it will easily appeare by consideration of all those conditions that are required in the nature of notes They are inseparable they are proper and they are essentiall and such things as giue being to the Church and therefore are in nature more cleare and evident and such as that from them the perfect knowledge of the Church may and must be deriued Notwithstanding for that our aduersaries take exception to them I will first examine their obiections and secondly proue that neither they nor any other that know what they write or speake can or doe assigne any other And because Bellarmine and Stapleton haue taken most paines in this Argument I will therefore propose the obiections I finde in them assuring my selfe that there are not any other of moment to be found in the writings of any other of that side CHAP. 3. Of Bellarmines reasons against the notes of the Church assigned by vs. BEllarmine his first obiection is By these notes we know not who are elect therefore by these we doe not certainely know which is the true Church The consequence of this reason we denie as being most fond and false He proveth it in this sort The Church according to the doctrine of the Protestants is onely the number of the elect and therefore if the elect be not knowen and discerned by these from the reprobate and castawayes the Church cannot bee knowen by them But the Antecedent of this argument is likewise false as appeareth by that which I haue formerly delivered touching the nature and being of the Church for we doe not say that the Church consisteth onely of the elect but principally intentionally and finally For otherwise it consisteth of all that partake in the outward calling of grace and enjoying of the meanes of saluation and so may be knowen by these notes For that society doubtlesse hath enioyeth the meanes of saluation
the Christian Church to wit the Bishop of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem and amongst these they yeeld a primacy of order and dignity to the Bishop of Rome So that in all Councels and meetings hee is to haue the first place in sitting or giving voyce in subscribing or defining and determining things concerning the faith and state of the Church but not any power or commaunding authority over them Wee sayth Marcus Ephesinus thinke the Pope to bee one of the fiue Patriarches if hee bee Orthodoxe But they that mette in the Florentine Councell and subscribed to the vnion there made do teach that hee is the Vicar of Christ the father and teacher of all Christians Secondly in the ministring of baptisme they differ much from the Roman Church For first the words of forme with them are let the servant of the Lord be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost and not I baptize thee as in the Latine Church 2ly they dippe the baptized thrice in the water whereas many among the Latines doe onely powre water vpon the top of the head 3ly they vse not salt spittle and the like as the Latinos doe 4l l they anoynt them with chrisom or holy oyle in the forehead so as in the Latine Church they are anoynted in confirmation And in some other parts also saying sigillum obsignatio donispiritus sancti that is the seale and obsignation of the gift of the holy Ghost and vse no other confirmation Whereas the Latines make it a sacrament to bee ministred by none but a Bishop 5ly According to the old custome vsed in the Primitiue Church they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist to children when they baptize them 3ly They differ much more from the Latines touching the sacrament of the eucharist For first they vse leavened bread and some of them proceede so farre as that they thinke it no sacrament if it bee ministred in vnleavened bread 2ly They consecrate one loafe which they devide into many parts and giue to the communicants 3ly They keepe the bread and wine covered vntill they come to blesse and then drawing aside the curtaine they bring them into sight and lift them vp from the mysticall table that the people may see what heavenly foode is prepared for them And to this purpose with them serveth the elevation 4ly They thinke the consecration is made by the prayers and blessing and that the reciting of the words of Christ this is my body c. serveth onely to put vs in minde what was then done when he first instituted this Sacrament and to giue a power or aptnesse to the sacramentall elements to be chaunged mystically into his body and blood whereas the Latines thinke the bare recitall of the words of Christ doe worke the consecration 5ly They pronounce the words of Christ aloud that all may heare and vnderstand the Latines so that they are not heard 6ly They giue the sacrament to the hands of the communicants the Latines put it in their mouthes 7ly They condemne private masses as appeareth by Marcus Ephesinus who sayth the Priest in the Latine Church eateth all and drinketh all himselfe giving no part to any that are present no not to the Deacon that assisteth him and yet cryeth aloud take and eate So doe they many things sayth he in the celebration of this holy mystery contrary to the tradition receiued from the fathers contrary to the words of Christ and contrary to themselues and their owne words 8ly They minister the communion in both kinds to all communicants and thinke it necessary so to doe the Latines minister it onely in one kinde to the lay people and such Priests and cleargie men as consecrate not but are present onely to communicate 9ly They teach that there is a cōversion of the bread wine into the body blood of Christ. But such as that is whereby the iron is turned into fire or rather into a fiery nature being whence it becōmeth burning iron In which there is no abolishing of the substance but such a change that it is no longer meerely iron but the nature and properties of fire appeare in it rather then of iron So that as iron is turned into fire not by an absolute ceasing to be or loosing of former properties but by a suspension of them for a time so that they appeare not and by becomming one in such sort with the fire that it hath all the properties and actiōs of it so the bread is turned into the body of Christ not by an absolute ceasing to bee but by becomming one in such sort with Christs body thorough the presence of the spirit descending and comming downe vpon it as that the communicating in the one is the partaking in the other and an imparting of all such graces as may or doe flow from any vnion with the same The bread and wine sayth Damascen are so chaunged into the body blood of Christ by the presence of the spirit descending and comming downe vpon them as that they are no longer two but one and the same thing And as the coale is no longer meere wood or iron but so vnited to the fire that it is become one with it so the bread wherein wee communicate is no longer meere bread but vnited vnto the deity Hee doth not say the bread ceaseth to bee or is abolished but that it ceaseth to be that it was meere bread What kind of conversion this is we may learne out of Cyrill Vosvncti estis sayth he vnguento facti participes consortes Christi caeterum vide ne illud putes vnguentum tantum Quemadmodum enim panis eucharistiae post sancti spiritus invocationem non amplius est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed corpus Christi sic sanctum hoc vnguentum non amplius est vnguentum nudum post invocationem neque siquis it a malit appellare commune sed donum Christi Heere wee see hee maketh the consecrated and holy oyntment to bee the gift of Christ as the bread is the body of Christ and so to cease to be meere oyle or oyntment as the bread which wee breake ceaseth to bee meere bread whereas yet no man imagineth any such transubstantiation of the oyle or holy oyntment as to abolish the nature and substance of it But that the Greckes neuer dreamed of any such conversion of the bread and wine as should vtterly abolish the former substance it is evident by Theodoret in his dialogues For whereas the Eutichian hereticke objects that as the outward signes in the Sacrament of the eucharist are chaunged after they are consecrated so the body of Christ after it was assumed was changed into the divine substance The Orthodoxe and right beleeuer answereth that he is taken in that snare which he layd for others For the mysticall signes doe not chaunge their nature after consecration but remaine and continue in the same
substance figure and shape and are visible and may be handled as before but they are conceiued and beleeued to be that which now they are made and are adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee Heere wee see is no such change of the mysticall signes as to abolish their substance and former being for then the conversion in the Sacrament had beene such as the Hereticke imagined it to be in the body of Christ assumed and so Theodoret could not truely haue sayd hee was taken in the snare which he layd for others Wherefore to conclude this poynt the Crecians teach that there is a conversion of the sacramētall elements but of that kinde which I haue before shewed that abolisheth not the things which were but maketh them to bee that they were not Which may farther appeare in that they say likewise there is a chaunge of the communicants into the being of Christ and make the end of the Sacrament to be nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transubstantiation into Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the making of them that communicate partakers of the diuine nature according to that of the Apostle who saith Wee are made the body of Christ and yet is not our former being abolished but wee are made to bee that which wee were not in a divine and supernaturall sorte according to that of Damascen Let vs come and receiue the body of him that was crucified let vs partake of that divine burning coale that the fire of desire being kindled in vs by that coale may burne vp our sinnes and lighten our hearts and that being changed into that devine fire wee may become fire and bee in a sort deified and made partakers of the divine nature All which changes neither abolish nor confound substances For as Cyprian sayth well nostra ipsius contunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confaederat voluntates That is the vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and vs neither causeth any mixture of the persons nor maketh them to be substantially the same but joyneth affections and confederateth the wills Lastly touching the sacrament of the Lords boby and blood they teach that it is a sacrifice and that wee may the better conceiue what they meane they lay downe these propositions First that vnder the Law two sorts of things were presented vnto God gifts and sacrifices Giftes as vessels of gold or silver and things of like nature which were dedicated vnto God and set apart from prophane and ordinary vses Sacrifices as sheepe oxen and the like things when they were slaine and their blood powred out and generally all such things as were consumed in the fire The second proposition is that the body of Christ was both a gift and a sacrifice for he was dedicated to God from his first entrance into the world as the first fruites of our nature as the first borne of Mary his mother and afterwards he became a sacrifice when he was crucified The third that bread and wine are presented vnto God in the holy sacrament in the nature of gifts before they are consecrated The fourth that the bread and wine are consecrated and so chaunged as to become the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. The fifth that it may be truely sayd that there is not only an oblation in the holy eucharist but a sacrifice also in that the body of Christ which was once sacrificed is there The sixt that the bread cannot be sayd to be sacrificed for then the sacrifices of the new Testament should not excell those of the old The seaventh that in the sacrificing of a liuing thing the killing of it is implied The eight that the body of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee sacrificed in the eucharist because hee can die no more but is immortall and impassible The ninth that Christ may be sayd to be newly sacrificed and slaine commemoratiuely in that the sacrificing of him on the altar of the crosse is there commemorated liuely expressed and the benefits of it communicated to them that are made partakers of those holy mysteries according to that of Lyra Si dicas sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in ecclesia dicendum quod non est ibi sacrificij reiteratio sed vnius sacrificij in cruce oblati quotidiana commemoratio Secundum illud Lucae 22. hoc facite in meam commemorationem That is If thou say the sacrifice of the altar is daily offered the answere is cleare and easie that the body of Christ is not newly sacrificed on the altar but whereas Christ once offered himselfe as a sacrifice on the crosse the same is daily commemorated according to that Luk. 22 Doe this in remembrance of mee And therefore Chrysostome writing vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes hauing named it a sacrifice addeth by way of explication or correction that it is a sacrifice or rather the commemoration of a sacrifice So that heerein they differ from the Romanists who teach that there is a new reall sacrificing of Christ. In the doctrine of freewill they doe not so clearely expresse themselues as S. Augustine others that follow him For they teach that we must first will the things that are right and good and that God then helpeth confirmeth and setteth vs forward so that they suppose hee followeth our wils and goeth not before them least the liberty thereof might be prejudiced Their meaning I thinke is that no good can be wrought in vs without our consent which S. Augustine also confesseth to bee true but it is Gods grace that winneth inclineth and boweth vs to consent to that good which it selfe suggesteth in which respect it may be truely sayd to goe before our will and yet not to prejudice our liberty If they speake not so distinctly touching this poynt as some others doe it is not to be marvailed at seeing the Greeke fathers are not so cleare in this point as the Latines are Wherevpon Aloisius Lippomannus in catena aurea in his preface to the reader hath these words I haue thought good to admonish thee that if in this whole worke thou shalt any where finde any such sayings of Chrysostome as that when man endeavoureth and doth that which pertayneth to him God will abundantly giue grace thou wisely and warily reade that holy Doctour least thou fall into any such errour as to beleeue that Gods grace is given for our merits For if out of merit it is not grace But farre be it from vs so to thinke seeing wee cannot so much as endeavour or doe any thing that pertayneth to vs without Gods grace preventing vs. According to that in the Psalme His mercie shall prevent mee and againe his mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my life And that of holy Church Let thy grace O Lord wee beseech thee prevent and follow vs. Sixtly touching Iustification they lay downe these propositions The first that wee
for him before he came yet hee cast him into prison and would never release him though the Great Turke wrote vnto him on his behalfe Since this time the Moscovites seeke no confirmation of their metropolitan from the patriarch of Constantinople The Russians that are vnder the King of Polonia in the yeare 1595 finding they could not haue recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople liuing vnder the tyranny of the Turke in such sort as was fitt fell from that jurisdiction and submitted themselues to the Roman Bishop yet not without reservation of the Greeke religion and sundry limitations in subjecting them selues to that goverment as wee may see at large in Thomas à Iesu. With these Christians that presently are or lately were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople the Melchits of Syria and the Georgians hold communion and are of the same religion with them Touching the Melchites were must obserue that after the ending of the Counsell of Chalcedon there grew a very great distraction in the East part of the world for many disliked and questioned the proceedings in that Councell and would not consent to the decrees of it Amongst those that thus refused to admit the Councell some ranne into dangerous errours and heresies the Emperour Leo therefore for the remedying and preventing of evills of this kind required the Bishs of those parts by their subscription to confirme the faith established in that Councell and they that so did at the Emperours command were by the rest in scorne and contempt called Melchites as if you would say men of the Kings religion of Melchi which in the Syrian tongue signifieth a King but they were indeede and were reputed right beleivers by all the sounder parts of the Church throughout the world These fell from the Communion of the Roman Church when the Greekes did and are wholy of the same religion yet were they never subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople but of Antioch These for their number are reputed the greatest sort of Christians in the Orient Their Patriarch resideth at Damascus whither the patriarchall seate vvas traslated Antioch it selfe where they that belieued in Christ were first called Christians and which was therefore named Theopolis the Cittie of God lying in a manner wast or broken and dissevered into small villages of which onely one of about threescore houses with a small temple belongeth to Christians but in Damascus there are aboue a thousand houses of Christians The Maronites which inhabit mount Libanus haue a Patriarch of their owne whom they honour as Patriarch of Antioch as likewise the Iacobites of Syria haue a Patriarch of their owne residing in Mesopotamia whom they account patriarch of Antioch But the Melchites who retaine the auncient religion of Syria acknowledge none for Patriarch but their owne chiefe Bishop residing at Damascus and reject the other as hauing departed from the faith obedience and Communion of the true Patriarch The Georgians inhabit Iberia they are saith Volateran great warriers and cruell to their bordering neighbours They are named Georgians as some thinke from S. George whose banner they carry when goe to war against Infidels But he rather inclineth to thinke they were the same that were named Georgians by Pliny before Saint George was borne and that it is not a name of sect but of their Country named Georgia and Iberia They follow the opinions of the Grecians touching matters of Religion and in their divine seruice writings they partly vse the Greeke tongue and partly the Chaldee They haue an Archbishop residing in mount Sina in a Monasterie of S. Katherin whom they obey without any further relation or dependance Betweene these and the riuer Tanais along the coast of Meotis and the Euxine sea lye the Mengrellians and the Circassians who are not onely of the Greeke Religion but subject also to the Patriarch of Constantinople Thus hauing spoken of the Christians of the Greeke Religion it remaineth that wee come to the rest Amongst whom the first that offer themselues to our consideration are the Assyrians commonly named Nestorians What the Heresie of Nestorius was is knowne to all For hee professed to beleeue that the Sonne of Mary is a divine Man and that GOD is with him but would not acknowledge that he is GOD and therefore would not yeeld that it may bee truely said that Mary is the Mother of GOD. But they that are now named Nestorians acknowledge that Christ was perfect GOD and perfect Man from the first moment of his conception and that Mary may rightly bee saide to bee the Mother of the Sonne of GOD or of the Eternall Word but thinke it not fit to call her the Mother of GOD left they might bee thought to imagine that shee conceiued and bare the Divine Nature of the three Persons the Name of GOD containing Father Sonne and Holy Ghost This scruple might bee tolerated in them but they haue another leauen that sowreth the whole lumpe For they are said to affirme that the nature of man is imperfect without personalitie and therefore that the Sonne of God who assumed not an imperfect humane nature assumed the nature of man together with the personalitie of the same Whence it seemeth to follow that there are two persons in Christ. For the clearing of this point it is to bee noted that personalitie is nothing but the existence of nature in it selfe which is in two sorts potentally or actually The humane nature which the Sonne of GOD assumed potentially existeth in it selfe and would haue existed actually if it had beene left vnto it selfe And in this sense they say the Sonne of GOD assumed the nature of man together with the personalitie of the same that is with a potentiall aptnesse to exist in it selfe But it was not left but prevented before it might actually exist in it selfe and assumed into the Divine Person and so suspended from actuall existing in it selfe In which sense we rightly say the Sonne of God assumed the nature of man without the personalitie of the same and that it must not be granted that there are two persons in Christ as there are two natures Neither doe these Christians so say there are two persons in Christ as if the humane nature did actually exist in it selfe but onely to imply that there is a potentiall aptnesse in it so to exist if it were left vnto it selfe Yet the forme of words which they vse is not to be allowed for it savoureth of Heresie and tooke beginning from Heresie But that they haue no hereticall meaning it is more then probable because otherwise they should contrarie and ouerthrow their former true Confession that Christ was perfect GOD and perfect Man from the first moment of his conception And that Mary that conceiued and bare him may truely bee said to bee the Mother of the Sonne of GOD. And also because the Archbishop of the Indians was permitted to retaine his auncient Religion when first he submitted
so to whom Flavianus replied that not they but the fathers required him so to professe and therefore if he did so beleeue hee should anathamatize all that thought otherwise To whom Eutiches answered he had never hitherto professed so to beleiue yet would now for their sakes but would never be induced to anathematize them that thinke otherwise for that if hee should he must as he supposed accurse the holy Fathers and Scriptures which doe so speake that they deny Christs body to be of the same substance with ours When Flavianus heard him thus speake hee put him out of the order of Presbyters and remoued him from his office and dignity of an Abbot Eutiches thus degraded and depriued resorted oft to the Emperour complaining that he was wronged by Flauianus wherevpon Theodosius then Emperour called a Councell at Ephesus that it might be there examined whether Eutyches were duely proceeded against or not and made Dioscorus Bish. of Alexandria president of the Councell who caused the proceedings of Flauianus to be read but suffered him not to say any thing in his owne defence neither would he giue him leaue to aske any question if any doubt arose for Eusebius who was to accuse Eutiches he would not so much as suffer him to speake The conclusioÌ„ was he deposed Flavianus restored Eutiches Things being thus violeÌ„tly carried they that supplied the place of the B. of Rome returned home and made all known to Leo the Bish. He preseÌ„tly went to Valentinian who wrote to Theoâ—…osius to call another Councell but he refused so to do thinking Dioscorus had duely proceeded But after his death Martianus called a Councell at Chalcedon In the first Session of this Councell Dioscorus appeared where he clearely anathematized those that bring in either a confusion conversion or commixtion of the Natures of God and man vnited in Christ. So condemning Eutyches whom out of partiality and sinister respect he had formerly acquitted But yet professed that after the vnion wee must not say there are two Natures but one Nature of the Sonne of God incarnate and told them he had to this purpose sundry testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Gregory and Cyrill For confirmation of this his saying Eustathius Bishop of Beretum produced an Epistle of Cyrill to Acacius Bishop of Melitinum Valerianus of Iconium and Successus Bishop of the Province of Diocaesarea wherein more fully explaining certaine things contained in his former Epistles he saith expressely wee must not say there are two natures in Christ but one nature of the Sonne of God incarnate Which when they of the East disliked he brought forth the booke reade the very same words vnto them and after the reading of them brake forth into these wordes Whosoeuer saith there is one nature to deny the flesh of Christ which we beleeue to be consubstantiall with ours let him be anathema and whosoeuer saith there are two natures to make a division in Christ let him be accursed also adding that Flavianus admitted this doctrine of Cyrill and therefore that he was vnjustly condemned by Dioscorus But Dioscorus answered that he condemned him because he affirmed that there are two natures in Christ after the vnion whereas the Fathers tell vs wee must not say there are two natures after the vnion but one of the Word incarnate And after this time he refused to appeare any more in the Councell Wherevpon for his former violent and sinister proceedings and for his present contumacie he was condemned and deposed and not for heresie as is expressely deliuered by Anatolius in the Councell For whereas there was a forme of Confession composed which Asclepiades recited in the Councell wherein was contained that Christ consisted of two natures there arose presently a great doubt amongst the Bishops the Nobles and great men therefore that moderated spake vnto them in this sort Dioscorus saith that Christ consisteth of two natures Leo that he consisteth in two natures without mutation confusion or division whom follow yee to whom the Bishops rising vp answered with one voice as Leo so we all beleeue accursed bee Dioscorus At the hearing hereof Anatolius said Dioscorus was not deposed for erring in faith but because he excommunicated Leo Bishop of Rome and refused to come into the Councell when as hee was required so to doe Neither was the forme of Confession recited by Asclepiades rejected as ill but as imperfect That which some alledge that Dioscorus had beene condemned as an Hereticke if he had appeared is childish For if the Fathers there assembled had judged his sayings hereticall they might and no doubt would haue condemned him as an hereticke though absent aswell as the Councell of Ephesus condemned Nestorius though absenting himselfe and asmuch as in him lay declining their judgment So the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches as an Hereticke and deposed Dioscorus for his contumacie and other sinister violent and disordered proceedings in that second Councell wherein he was President so ended But after the ending thereof there arose woful distractions divisions in the Christian world For besides those that followed Eutyches in his Heresie there were many found who though they were far froÌ„ adhering to cursed Eutyches yet disliked the proceedings against Dioscorus and stifly maintained that forme of Confession that was published by Asclepiades not only as good but as perfect sufficient Affirming that 2 natures were vnited in Christ without mutatioÌ„ conversioÌ„ coÌ„mixtion or confusioÌ„ but that being vnited they are no longer two but one So that we may say Christ coÌ„sisted of 2 natures but wee must not say hee consisteth in 2 natures as Leo and the councell Vrging to this purpose that authority of Cyrill That wee must not say there are 2 natures in Christ but one of the Word incarnat His words are Post vnionem sublata in duo diuisione vnam esse credimus filij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nestorianus agnoscit Verbum incarnatum sed dum duas nominat naturas diuidit seiungit ab invicem This opinioÌ„ prevailed mightily in those times continueth in many Christian Churches till this day For the Christians of Aegypt Aethiopia Armenia the Iacobites of Syria defend the same accursing Eutiches as an Hereticke and acquitting Dioscorus yea honouring him as a good and holy man Wherefore seeing it is against the law of charity to condemne so many millions of soules to hell vnlesse they bee cleerely convinced of heresie let vs more exactly consider what it is they say First therefore they teach that Christ is truely God and truely man that hee receiued his diuine nature of his Father before all eternity his humane nature from his mother in the fulnesse of time Secondly they accurse all them that spoile him of either of these natures Thirdly they say that these natures were so vnited that there was no confusion mixtion or conuersion of one of them into another nor such composition as that a third nature might arise out
the yeare 17 From Easter till Whitsontide they fast not any Friday but freely eate flesh 18 They know not the ember fasts 19 They solemnize not Christmas day on the 25th of December but fast that day and in steede of it keepe the day of the Epiphany as Christ birth day according to an auncient Custome as we may read in Epiphanius and Chrysostom 20 On Saturday before Easter they eate egges and cheese in the euening saying that Christ rose in the euening 21 They eate not of such beasts as are iudged vncleane in the Law 22 They admitt not the Sacrament of auricular confession as it is in the Roman Church neither of confirmation or extreame vnction 23 They deny the supremacy of the Pope Lastly they are charged to deny originall sinne but vniustly as it seemeth seing they teach that the children of infidells not baptized goe to hell with their vnbeleeuing parents Hauing spoken of the Iacobites and Armenians it remayneth that wee come to take a view of the religion and rites of the Cophti and Abyssens or Aethiopians The word Cophti is not a name of sect but of countrie importing no more then an Aegyptian Christian. The particulars of the religion of the Cophti are these First they reject the Councell of Chalcedon they condemne Leo Bishop of Rome they accurse Eutyches and honour Dioscorus and Iacobus Syrus as holy men and touching the incarnation teach as the Iacobites Armenians doe refusing to acknowledge two natures in Christ and yet confessing him to be truely God and truely man and accursing them that spoile him of either nature or deny that they remaine in him distinct and vnconfounded in being and property in sort before expressed Secondly they adde to the Trisagium as the former but in the same sense and without all touch of heresie Thirdly they permit none to baptize but a Priest in what necessity soeuer nor any where else but in the Church nor before the fortieth day Fourthly they dip the baptized into the water after the manner of the Greekes but pronouncing the words as the Latines doe Fiftly they presently anoynt the baptized and minister the Eucharist to them in both kinds They sometimes vsed Circumcision but now haue abrogated that custome at least in Alexandria and Cair happily since the Synod there holden whereof I spake before Sixtly they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kindes the Priests neuer celebrate without the assistance of the deacons and the subdeacons and these alwayes communicate with the Priest but the saypeople seldome but onely at Easter Seaventhly they consecrate in leavened bread Eightly they neither minister extreame vnction nor the Eucharist to the sicke Ninthly they giue the inferiour holy orders euen to children so soone as they are baptized 10 They acknowledge that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne yet leaue out those words and from the Sonne in the creed 11 They contract marriage in the presence of the Priest and in the face of the Church after the manner of the Roman Church but with more ceremonies 12 They sometimes dissolue marriage and permit a second marriage 13 They admit married Priests 14 They admit not purgatory nor prayer for the dead 15 They reade in the Churches certaine fabulous things as the booke called secreta Petri and the gospell of Nicodemus 16 They deny the supremacy of the Pope and thinke him no lesse subject to errour than other Bishops They condemne the Latine Church as erring in sundry poynts of religion and therevpon refuse to communicate with the Christians of these parts And though Baronius haue a large narration of an embassage sent from the Church of Alexandria to Clement the eight wherein is reported that Marke the Patriarch and with him all the Bishops and people subject to that jurisdiction submitted themselues to the Bishop of Rome as to the head of the Church yet afterwards it was found to be a meere imposture and cousenage as Thomas à Iesu reporteth But Casaubone telleth vs that the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote a most pious letter to the now Lord Archbishop of Canterbury desiring to joyne in communion with the Churches of England c. Which letter vnder his Patriarchicall seale is to bee seene besides another letter to the same purpose from a Bishop of Asia To this Patriarch are subject all the Christians of Aegypt the Christians of Habassia that small remainder of Christians that are found about the Bay of Arabia and in mount Sina Eastward or in Afrique as farre as the greater Syrtes Westward And vnder this jurisdiction the Nubians also were as some thinke before their defection from Christianity Nubia being a part of Habassia which was put vnder the Bishop of Alexandria by the Nicen Councell The number of Christians in Aegypt is greatly diminished For whereas Burchardus reporteth that in his time about 320 yeares since there were found in Cair alone aboue fortie Christian temples now there are but three in Cair and no more in Alexandria And the number of Christians is esteemed to bee about fiftie thousand in that great and populous Countrie But in Habassia almost innumerable For the kingdome of Habassia subject to that great Monarch whom wee by errour call Praester Iohn they Iohn Encoe or Belul is as large in circuit and compasse of ground as Italy Germany France and Spaine but nothing so populous nor without mixture of Mahumetans and Pagans in some parts of it The Habassines haue a Patriarch of their owne whom in their Language they call Abuna that is our father This Patriarch was to haue the seuenth place in sitting in generall Councels next after the Bishop of Seleucia as appeareth by the Arabique Booke of the Nicene Councell translated by Pisanus but hee is subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and being elected by the Habassine Monkes of S. Antonies order residing at Hierusalem he is consecrated confirmed by him and so sent to Habassia And answereably hereunto in their Liturgie they pray for the Patriarch of Alexandria before their owne Patriarch terming him the Prince of their Archbishops Wherefore let vs descend to take a view of their Religion First touching the Holy Trinity they are orthodoxe professing as we doe Concerning the Incarnation of the Sonne of God they thinke as the Iacobites Armenians and Aegyptians before-mentioned teaching that two natures were vnited in Christ but that after the vnion they are become one not by mixtion conversion confusion or such a composition as that a third should arise and result out of them but by coadvnation only in sort before expressed So that they may be said to be one nature not in the being of essence or propertie which cannot be conceiued without confusion but in respect of the being of subsistence the mutuall inexistence of one of them in another and the Communion of action or operation one of them doing nothing without the other Thirdly they reject the Councell
posterity not by imitation only but by propagation and descent subjecting all to curse and malediction yet not without possibilitie and hope of mercifull deliuerance Thirdly wee must beleeue that for the working of this deliuerance the Sonne of God assumed the nature of man into the vnity of his diuine person so that hee subsisteth in the nature of God and man without all corruption confusion or conuersion of one of them into another that in the nature of man thus assumed hee suffered death but being God could not be holden of it but rose againe and triumphantly ascended into Heauen that hee satisfied the wrath of his father obtayned for vs remission of sinnes past the grace of repentant conuersion and a new conuersation joyned with assured hope desire and expectation of eternall happinesse Fourthly wee must constantly beleeue that God doth call and gather to himselfe out of the manifold confusions of erring ignorant and wretched men whom hee pleaseth to be partakers of these precious benefits of eternall saluation the happy number and joyfull society of whom wee name the Church of God whether they were before or since the manifestation of Christ the sonne of God in our flesh For both had the same faith hope and spirit of adoption whereby they were sealed vnto eternall life though there bee a great difference in the degree and measure of knowledge and the excellencie of the meanes which God hath vouchsafed the one more then the other Fiftly wee must know and beleeue that for the publishing of this joyfull deliverance and the communicating of the benefits of the same the Sonne of God committed to those his followers whom hee chose to bee witnesses of all the things hee did and suffered not onely the word of reconciliation but also the dispensation of sacred and sacramentall assurances of his loue set meanes of his gracious working that those first messengers whom hee sent with immediate commission were infallibly led into all trueth and left vnto posterities that summe of Christian doctrine that must for euer be the rule of our faith that these blessed messengers of so good and happy tidings departing hence left the ministerie of reconciliation to those whom they appoynted to succeede them in the worke so happily begun by them Lastly wee must know and be assuredly perswaded that seeing the renouation of our spirites and mindes is not perfect and the redemption of our bodies still remaining corruptible is not yet therefore God hath appointed a time when Christ his sonne shall returne againe raise vp the dead and giue eternall life to all that with repentant sorrow turne from their euill and wicked wayes while it is yet the accepted time and day of saluation and contrary wayes cast out into vtter darkenesse and into the fire that neuer shall bee quenched all those that neglect and despise so great saluation That all these things and these onely doe directly concerne the matter of eternall saluation is euidently proued by vnaunswerable demonstration For how should they attaine euerlasting happinesse that know not God the originall cause and end of all things the object matter and cause of all happinesse that know not of whom they were created of what sorte to what whereof capable and how enabled to it how farre they are fallen from that they originally were and the hope of that which they were made to be whence are those euills that make them miserable and whence the deliuerance from them is to be looked for by whom it is wrought what the benefits of it are the meanes whereby they are communicated to whom and what shall bee the end both of them that partake and partake not in them Wee see then that all these things and these onely essentially and directly touch the matter of eternall saluation Other things there are that attend on them as consequents deduced from them or some way appertayning to them whereof some are of that sorte that a man cannot rightly be perswaded of these but hee must needes see the necessary consequence and deduction of them from these if they bee propounded vnto him as that there are two wils in Christ that there is no saluation remission of sinnes or hope of eternall life out of the Church that the matrimoniall societie of man and wife is not impure as the Marcionites Tatianus and other supposed nor any kinde of meates to bee rejected as vncleane by nature as the Manichees and some other Heretickes fondly and impiously dreamed other things there are that are not so clearely deduced from those indubitate principles of our Christian faith as namely concerning the place of the Fathers rest before the comming of our Sauiour Christ concerning the locall descending of Christ into the hell of the damned In the first sorte of things which are the principles that make the rule of faith a man cannot be ignorant and bee saued In the second which are so clearely deduced from those principles that who so aduisedly considereth them cannot but see their consequence from them and dependance of them a man cannot erre and be saued because if he beleeue those things which euery one that will bee saued must particularly know and beleeue he cannot erre in these The third a man may be ignorant of and erre in them without danger of damnation if errour bee not joyned with pertinacie The principall grounds of Christian doctrine aboue mentioned are the whole platforme of all Christian Religion The rule of faith so often mentioned by the Auncient by the measure of which all the holy Fathers Bishops and Pastours of the Church made their Sermons Commentaries and Interpretations of Scripture This rule euery part whereof is prooued so neerely to concerne all them that looke for saluation we make the rule to trie all doctrines by and not such platformes of doctrine as euery Sect-master by himselfe canne deduce out of the Scriptures vnderstood according to his owne private fancie as the Rhemists falsely charge vs. This rule is deliuered by Tertullian Irenaeus and other of the Fathers and with addition of conclusions most easily clearely and vnavoydably deduced hence by Theodoret in his Epitome Dogmatum CHAP. 5. Of the nature of Schisme and the kindes of it and that it no way appeareth that the Churches of Greece c. are hereticall or in damnable schisme OVt of this which hath beene deliuered it is easie to discerne what is Heresie and what errours they are that exclude from possibility of saluation It remaineth to speake of Schisme and the kindes and degrees of it Schisme is a breach of the vnity of the Church The vnity of the Church consisteth in three things First the subjection of people to their lawfull Pastours Secondly the connexion and communion which many particular Churches and the Pastours of them haue among themselues Thirdly in holding the same rule of faith The vnity of each particular Church depends of the vnity of the Pastour who is one to whom an
concurreth with grace not as precedent vnto it but as following after it and as a handmaide attending on it is most false For hee approoueth the saying of Augustine but reproueth the Master of sentences for misseunderstanding and misseapplying it That which followeth that Caluine dissenteth from Augustine in the matter of iustification is of the same nature For he saith only that though nothing be to bee disliked in the matter it selfe deliuered by Augustine for that it is plaine that acknowledging the imperfection of inherent iustice and thinking it our greatest perfection to know our owne imperfections and seeke remission of our sinfull defects he cannot but acknowledg the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to be that in confidence whereof we stand in the sight of God yet his manner of deliuering this article is not so full perfect and exact as wee are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists For that when hee speaketh of grace hee seemeth for the most part to vnderstand nothing else thereby but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth vs to become newe creatures seldome mentioning the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. That which Bellarmine chargeth Caluin with in the next place argueth his intollerable impudencie Caluin sayth hee doth thinke that the sonne of God is subiect to the father in respect of his Deitie which because all the Fathers deny he pronounceth they all erred and that their errour cannot be excused Let the Reader peruse the place and he shall finde that Calvin saith no such thing but the cleane contrary Indeed Hugo de S. Victore in his questions on the 1 Epist. to the Corinth 15. saith that CHRIST is subject to his Father according to his divine nature and sheweth that many haue beene of that opinion But Caluin saith no such thing neither doth hee charge the Fathers with any errour touching the distinction of the Natures of God and Man in Christ or the vnity of his Person but saith onely that some of them applying those things distinctly to one of the natures of Christ which are applyable to the whole Person of the Mediatour entangle themselues in some doubts which otherwise might easily be cleared which will easily appeare by that place of Hugo before mentioned The kingdome saith Hugo which Christ shall deliuer to his Father so become subject vnto him either was giuen vnto him in that he was God and then he cannot resigne it nor become subject to his Father because in that respect he is equal vnto him whence we say equalis Patri secundùm diuinitatem minor Patre secundum humanitatem Or in that he was man and that seemeth not conceiuable For the nature of man is not capable of that infinite power that is implyed in the Kingdome which God gaue his Sonne He answereth that he may be said to be subject to his Father in that he is God because though he haue the same essence with him yet he hath receiued it from him How aptly this may be said I will not now examine but how in this sense he may be said to giue vp his kingdome to his Father is yet more hard to conceiue Ambrose saith he may be said to giue it vp not by reall resigning of that he had but by bringing vs to his Father and shewing vs that Fountaine whence he receiued it and all that fulnesse whereof we are partakers These are doubts which Calvin saith that the Fathers doe not cleare attributing the Kingdome of Christ vnto him distinctly in respect of this or that nature But he affirming that the Kingdome of Christ doth not agree vnto him distinctly or seuerally in respect of this or that nature but to the whole person considered in both natures easily expresseth himselfe For saith he God gaue to his Sonne by eternall generation the same essence he had in himselfe and with it the same power and kingdome and this he shall neuer resigne Secondly he gaue to the nature of man not by formall transfusion but in the Person of his Sonne which in the admirable worke of the Incarnation he bestowed on it to support and sustaine it all that power he had originally in himselfe and eternally gaue his Sonne so that the Sonne of God after the taking of our nature into the vnity of his person administreth not his Kingdome without the vnion knowledge assent and cooperation of the nature of man which he shall continue to doe while wee neede mediation and till he haue brought vs to his Fathers presence and to the cleare view and sight of his Majestie Then shall hee cease to rule in this sort any more his humane nature shall not neede to bee interposed any longer but he shall appeare in the glory of his Godhead then shall he be subject to his Father in the nature of man in more speciall sort then now he is because though now he be inferiour vnto God in that he is man and so subject to him yet that nature of man intermeddleth with the administration of the Kingdome in such sort as then it shall cease to doe though it shall neuer lose that power and kingdome which in the Person of the Son of God it is honoured with CHAP. 16. Of Limbus patrum concupiscence and satisfaction touching which Caluine is falsely charged to confesse that hee dissenteth from the Fathers THe next imputation is touching Limbus patrum supposed to be a place below in the earth neere hell if not a part of hell which Caluin pronounceth to bee but a fable though it haue great authours and patrons as if this were so strange a thing that a fable and meere fancie should finde approbation among some of the Fathers The opinion of the Millenaries I suppose Bellarmine thinketh but a meere fancie yet had it great and reuerend patrons If hee say that all the Fathers did hold the opinion of Limbus and that Caluin opposeth himselfe against them all hee is cleerely refuted by Augustine who doubted of it Besides that their popish Limbus supposed to haue beene a receptacle for the soules of the Patriarches but only till the death and resurrection of Christ as being then emptied by him is a meere priuate conceite of their owne wanting the testimonies of the most auncient Fathers For Tertullian Irenaeus and others did thinke the soules of all men to bee holden in hell till the last day And if it were resolued that there was such a Limbus as they fancie yet their Schoolemen are not agreed of the place neither dare they affirme that it was below in the earth though they seeme most inclineable to that opinion The next false reporte that Bellarmine maketh of Caluin is that he opposeth himselfe against all Antiquitie in the question whether concupiscence in the regenerate be sinne or not This hee endeauoureth to make good in this sorte Calvin saith he professeth that Augustine hath truely and
satisfied in any thing vnder God And so generally and absolutely denie that the Image of God can bee lost or blotted out These make a difference betweene the Image of God thus restrained to the largnesse and and admirable perfection of the naturall faculties of the soule and the similitude or likenesse of God which appeareth in the qualities and vertues of it making him that possesseth them partaker of the diuine nature which they confesse to be lost Now this similitude is all one with the Image of God in the second consideration set down by Aquinas and therefore in this matter Caluin erreth not but writeth that which is consonant vnto the truth Touching the second part of this imputation it is true that Origen erred thinking hell to be nothing else but horror of conscience But he that looketh in the place in Caluin cited by the Iesuite shall see that he saith no such thing but the cleane contrary So that the Reader shall finde Bellarnne to be constant and stil like himselfe adding one calumniation to another CHAP. 25. Of the heresie of the Peputians making women Priests THe fourth Heresie imputed vnto vs by our adversaries is that of the Peputians who gaue women authoritie to intermeddle with the sacred ministerie of the Church That we doe so likewise they indeavour to proue by misreporting the words of Luther There are two things therefore which Luther saith in the place alleadged by them First that in absolution and remission of sinnes in the supposed Sacrament of Penance a Bishop or ordinary Presbyter may doe as much as the Pope himselfe which Alphonsus à Castro writing against Heresies confesseth to bee true The second that when and where no Presbyter can be found to performe this office a Lay man yea or a woman in this case of necessitie may absolue which our adversaries neede not to thinke so strange seeing themselues giue power to women to baptise in case of necessitie which I thinke is as much a ministeriall acte as to absolue the penitent in such sort as absolution is giuen in the Church of Rome And yet they would thinke themselues wronged if from hence it should bee inferred that they make women Priests and Bishoppes But Bellarmine reporteth the wordes of Luther as if hee should say absolutely that a woman or childe hath as much power and authority from God in these things as any Presbyter or Bishop wherein hee is like himselfe Absolution in the Primitiue Church was the reconciling and restoring of penitents to the peace of the Church and to the Communion of the Sacraments from which during the time of their penitencie they were excluded This in reason none could doe but they to whom the dispensation of the Sacraments was committed and who had power to deny the Sacraments The Popish absolution is supposed to bee a Sacramentall acte Sacramentally taking away sinne and making the party absolued partaker of the remission of it This is a false and erronious conceite LVTHER thinketh it to bee a comfortable pronouncing and assuring of good to the humble penitent and sorrowfull sinner which though ordinarily and ex officio the Minister bee to doe yet may any man doe it with like effect when none of that ranke is or can be present Thus when the matter is well examined it is meerely nothing that Bellarmine can proue against Luther But that which hee addeth touching our late dread Soueraigne ELIZABETH of famous memorie that shee was reported and taken as chiefe Bishop within her dominions of England c. is more then a Cardinall lye and might beseeme the father of lyes better then any meaner professour of that facultie For the Kings and Queenes of England neither doe nor haue power to doe any ministeriall act or act of sacred order as to preach administer Sacraments and the like But that power and authority which we ascribe vnto them is that they may by their princely right take notice of matters of Religion and the exercise of it in their kingdomes That they may and in duty stand bound to see that the true Religion bee professed and God rightly worshipped That God hath giuen them the sword to punish all offenders against the first or second Table yea though they be Priests or Bishops That neither the persons nor the goods of Churchmen are exempted from their power That they holde their Crownes immediatly from God and not from the Romish Antichrist That it was the Lucifer-like pride of Antichrist which appeared in times past in the Popes wheē they shamed not to say that the Kings of England were their villanes vassalls and slaues Thus then the fourth supposed heresie we are charged with proueth to be nothing but a diuelish slander of this shamelesse Iesuite Wee say therefore to silence this slanderer that we all most constantly hold the contrary of that he imputeth vnto vs And that wee thinke there is no more daungerous or presumptuous wicked boldnesse then for any man not called set a part and sanctified therevnto to intermeddle with any part of the sacred ministerie of the Church CHAP 26. Of the supposed heresie of Proclus and the Messalians touching concupiscence in the regenerate THe fift heresie which hee endevoureth to fasten vpon vs is he saith the heresie of Proclus of whom Epiphanius maketh mention But what was the heresie of Proclus Let Bellarmine tell vs for our learning It was sayth he that sin doth alwayes continue and liue in the Regenerate for that concupiscence is truely and properly sin which is not taken away by Baptisme but only allaied stilled and brought as it were into a kind of rest and sleepe by force thereof and the working of faith In this Bellarmine sheweth his intolerable either ignorance or impudence or both For Epiphanius in the place cited by him refuteth the heresie of Origen who denied the resurrection of the bodies of men as thinking such bodily substances which we see are continually subject to alteration here in this world not capable of immortality And that God did put these bodies vpon Adam and Eue after their sin at that time when he is said to haue made them coates of skinnes This Epiphanius refuteth shewing that God who only hath immortality made man though out of the earth yet by the immediate touch of his owne hands that he breathed into him the breath of life for that he meant he should be immortall that man had flesh and blood and a true bodily substance before his fall as is prooued by that of Adam concerning Eue This is now flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone that there was no euill found in the World such as death is in the beginning that man voluntarily sinned against God and therevpon God brought in death that euen as the Schoolemaster vseth correction not for any delight he hath in it but for that thereby he intendeth to bring his Schollers to forsake their negligent and disordered courses and to
which they are found and so leaue him in a state wherein hee hath nothing in himselfe that can or wil procure him pardon and other which though in themselues considered and neuer remitted they bee worthy of eternall punishment yet do not so farre preuaile as to banish grace the fountaine of remission of all misdoings All sinnes then in themselues considered are mortall a as Gerson doth excellently demonstrate First because euery offence against God may iustly bee punished by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgments with eternall death yea with annihilation which appeareth to be most true for that there is no punishment so euill and so much to be avoided as the least sin that may be imagined so that a man should rather choose eternall death yea vtter annihilation than committe the least offence in the world Secondly the least offence that can be imagined remaining eternally in respect of the staine and guilt of it though not in act as do all sinnes vnremitted must bee punished eternally for else there might some sinnefull disorder and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remaine not ordered by diuine iustice But wheresoeuer is eternity of punishment men are repelled from eternall life and happinesse and consequently euery offence that eternally remaineth not remitted excludeth from eternall glorie and happinesse and is rightly iudged a mortall and deadly sinne All sinnes then are mortall in them that are strangers from the life of God because they haue dominion and full command in them or are ioyned withsuch as haue and so leaue no place for grace which might cry vnto God for the remission of them But the elect and chosen seruants of God called according to purpose doe carefully indevour that no sinnes may haue dominion ouer them therefore notwithstanding any degree of sinne they runne into they retaine that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences Thus all sinnes in themselues considered and neuer repented of forsaken nor remitted are mortall All sinnes that against the Holy Ghost excepted are veniall ex eventu that is such as may bee and oftentimes are forgiuen through the mercifull goodnes of God though there be nothing in the parties offending while they are in such state of sinne that either can or doth cry for remission The sinnes of the just not done with full consent and therefore not excluding grace the property whereof is to procure the remission of sinnes are said to be veniall because they are such and of such nature as leaue place in that soule wherein they are for grace that may and will procure pardon By that which hath beene said I hope it doth appeare that we teach nothing touching the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes that Bellarmine himselfe can except against and that wee differ very much from the Pelagians who thought that no sinfull defect can stand with grace or a state of acceptation and fauour with God For we reject this their conceit as impious and hereticall doe confesse that all sinnes not done with full consent may stand with grace and so be rightly named veniall CHAP. 33. Of the heresie of Nestorius falsely imputed to Beza and others THe next heresie it pleaseth this heretical Romanist to charge vs with is that of the Nestorians Let vs see how he indeauoureth to fasten this impiety vpon vs. First saith he the Nestorians contemned the Fathers and so doe the Protestants therefore they are Nestorians The consequence of this argument we will not now examine But the Minor proposition is most false For we reverence and honour the Fathers much more then the Romanists doe who pervert corrupt and adulterate their writings but dare not abide the tryall of their doctrines by the indubitate writings of antiquity Secondly saith he the Nestorians affirmed that there were two persons in Christ and so divided the vnity of his Person But the Protestants thinke so likewise Therefore they are Nestorians The assumption we deny and he doth not so much as indeavour to proue it but proceedeth particularly to proue Beza a Nestorian heretique in which hee hath as ill successe as he had in the rest of his slanderous imputations Beza saith he teacheth that there are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ Ergo two hypostases or persons which was the heresie of Nestorius The consequence of this argument is too weak to inforce the intended conclusion For when Beza saith There are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ the one of the body and soule the other of the nature of God and man hee doth not conceiue that the vnion of the body and soule doe in Christ make a distinct humane person or subsistence different from that of the Sonne of God for hee euery-where confesseth that the humane nature of Christ hath no subsistence but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it but hee therefore calleth it an hypostaticall vnion because naturally it doth cause a finite distinct humane person or subsistence and so would haue done here if the nature flowing out of this vnion had not beene assumed by the sonne of God and so prevented and stayed from subsisting in it selfe and personally sustained in the person of the sonne of God This doctrine is so farre from heresie that he may justly be suspected of more then ordinarie malice that will traduce it as hereticall Yet hath Beza to stop the mouthes of such clamorous aduersaries long since corrected and altered this forme of speech which hee had sometimes vsed CHAP. 34. Of the heresies of certaine touching the Sacrament and how our men denie that to bee the body of Christ that is carried about to bee gazed on THe sixteenth heresie imputed to vs is the heresie of certaine who what they were the Iesuite knoweth not nor what their heresie was as it should seeme by his doubtfull and vncertaine manner of speaking of it This vnknowen heresie defended by he knoweth not whom he sayth Caluine Bucer Melancthon and other worthy and renowned Diuines with whom he is no way matchable either in pietie or learning though hee weare a Cardinals hatte doe teach But what monster of heresie is it that these men haue broached Surely that Christs body is not in the Sacrament or sacramentall elements but in reference to the vse appointed by Almighty God nor longer than the Sacrament may serue for our instruction and the working of our spirituall vnion with Christ and that therefore it is not the body of Christ that dogs swine and mice doe eate as the Romanists are wont to blaspheme and that it is not fit to dispute as their impious Sophisters doe of the passage of it into the stomacke belly and draught of vomiting it vp againe and resuming it when it is vomited with infinite other like fooleries which euery modest man loatheth and shameth to heare mentioned Secondly that it is not the body of Christ which the Popish Idolaters carrie about in their pompous solemne and pontificall Processions to be
thing and to bee but verball vpon mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men than any thing else Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference foūd touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall that Hosiander held no private opinion of Iustification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue And this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all But sayth Bellarmine your Churches are so torne and rent with dangerous diuisions that not onely one of you dissenteth from another but the same man often times from himselfe and herein giueth instance in Luther whose judgement varied in divers things of great consequence Touching Luther we answere that he was a most worthy Diuine as the world had any in those times wherein he liued or in many ages before that for the clearing of sundry poynts of greatest moment in our Christian profession much obscured intangled before with the intricate disputes of the Schoolemen and Romish Sophisters as of the power of nature of free will grace iustification the difference of the Law and the Gospell faith and workes Christian libertie and the like all succeeding ages shall euer be bound to honour his happie memory In all these things hee was euer constant yea all these things he perfectly apprehended and to the great joy of many mens hearts deliuered both by word and writing before he departed from the Romish Synagogue and out of these and more diligent search of the Scripture and Fathers then was vsuall in those times by degrees saw and descried those Popish errours which at first hee discerned not That herein he proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approoue is not so strange a thing as our aduersaries would make it seeme to be Did not Augustine the greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times write a whole booke of Retractations Doe we not carefully obserue what things he wrote when he was but a Presbyter and what when hee was made a Bishop what before he entred into conflict with the Pelagians and what afterwards Did hee not formerly attribute the election of those that were chosen to eternall life to the foresight of faith which afterward he disclaimed as a meere Pelagian conceit So that his aduersaries as appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hillarius did not only charge him to be contrary to the Fathers but to himselfe also Did not Ambrose in his time complaine that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many things that should neede and require a second review Doth not their Angelicall Doctor in his Summe of Theologie correct and alter many things that he had written before Let not our aduersaries therefore insult vpon Luther for that he saw not all the abominations of Popery at the first but let them rather consider of and yeeld to the reasonablenesse of the ◠request which in the preface of his workes hee maketh to all Christian and well minded readers to wit that they would reade his bookes and writings with iudgment and with much commisseration and remember that he was sometimes a Frier nourished in the errors of the Romish Church so that it was more painefull to him to forget those things hee had formerly ill learned than to learne anew that which is good But say they Luther himselfe witnesseth that contrariety and cotradiction is a note of falshood and therefore his writings being contradictory the later to the former his whole doctrine must needes be false euen in his owne iudgement Let them that thus reason against Luther know that his meaning is not that whosoeuer retracteth and correcteth that he formerly taught is thereby conuinced of falshood and his whole doctrine prooued to bee erroneous but that those assertions that doe implie contradicton and contrarietie that stand wholly vpon doubtfull vncertaine perplexed disputes and so ouerthrow themselues doe thereby appeare to be false Of which nature are all the principall parts of the Romish doctrine For example Transubstantiation is one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion and all Papists at this day do firmely hold and beleeue it yet it is demonstratiuely prooued by their owne best Diuines that such a totall conuersion or transubstantiation of the Sacramentall elements into the body bloud of Christ is impossible implieth in it sundry contradictions consequences of horrible impieties For is it not implyed in the nature of the transubstantiation or totall conuersion of one substance into another that the one must succeed the other in being and that the former must cease to be the later therevpon begin to be whence it will followe that the later of the two substances into which the conuersion is made was not nor had no being before Now vvhat greater blasphemie can there be than to thinke Christs body had no beeing till the Massing Priests had wrought this miraculous Transubstantiation It is true that one substance may be changed into another as was Lots wife into a pillar of salt but that one substance should passe and be totally transubstantiated into another hauing the same beeing without all difference before the supposed Transubstantiation that after it hath and nothing beeing new in it in respect of substance or beeing implieth a contradiction and therefore the sacramentall elements cannot be transubstantiated into Christs body bloud That which Bellarmine hath out of Scotus of Transubstantiatio productiua and adductiua is the most childish folly that euer was For this is that he saith The substance of the sacramentall elements is annihilated and they returne into that nothing out of vvhich they vvere formerly taken and then Christs body commeth into the place where they vvere before Therefore the one substance may be sayd to be changed into the other If this reason be good when one man remooueth out of his place into which another vpon his remooue doth enter the former may be sayd to be transubstantiated into the later For as the former of the two supposed men goeth out of his place into some other vvhereupon the other succeedeth him not in being but in place so the sacramentall elements goe out of their place and returne to that nothing out of vvhich they vvere created and the body of Christ succeedeth them not in being vvhich it had the very same vvhile they vvere but in place ◠Neither can this supposed conuersion of the elements into the body of Christ be the cause of Christs being in the Sacrament but rather of
of infidels and the like we oppose this proposition That no state of pure or meere nature can be conceiued but that either a man must be lifted aboue himselfe by grace or fall below himselfe by sin And this proposition is proued by vnanswerable reasons For if the principall powers of the soule cannot performe their owne proper actions by any naturall facultie nor without the addition of grace and a kinde of divine force and helpe then can there be no conceipt of a state of pure or meere nature seeing the nature of a thing implieth the powers pertaining to it and a possibility to bring forth the actions of such powers But it is evident that the principall powers of mans soule cannot by any naturall facultie performe their proper actions because the first trueth and chiefest good are the obiects of the reason and the will and these are infinite and the naturall capacitie of reason and the will is finite so that whatsoeuer we vnderstand and conceiue concerning God is so much lesse and commeth so much short of his infinite perfection as the capacitie of our vnderstanding is lesse then the infinite being of God But how then will some man say can man attaine his good beeing so high excellent farre remoued from him and so infinitely beyond without the cōpasse of his naturall facultie The answer hereunto is that though nothing can be lifted vp to be any thing aboue the nature of it yet by forrain helpe a thing may bee carried or lifted aboue it selfe or aboue the nature of it that is aboue that to which the naturall facultie of it extendeth it selfe as a stone may by the hand of man be cast vp on high whether it hath no facultie to moue it selfe so the soule may be raysed and lifted by grace in the acts of her powers aboue that to which by any naturall facultie they can extend themselues For though by nature men cannot know God as he is in himselfe but onely so farre forth as by his effects and glorious workes he may be knowne yet God may present himselfe vnto them in the light of grace as he is in himselfe and make his infinite greatnesse to appeare vnto them and so he must or else man can neuer attaine that which is is his proper good Actus rationalis creaturae sayth Alensis p 3 q 61 memb 1. oportet quod ordinetur ad bonum quod est supra naturam quod est summum bonum infinitum quia ergo non est possibilis extensio rationalis creaturae supra seipsam ideo non est eipossibile per naturā vt ordinet suum actū siue perueniat in suum finem ideo necesse est quod iuuetur à gratiâ The act of a reasonable creature must be directed to a good aboue nature which is the chiefe good and infinite because therefore a reasonable creature cannot raise it selfe aboue it selfe therefore it is not possible that by the power of nature it should order its act or attaine its end and therefore it must be holpen by grace So then there is no immediate knowledge of God as hee is in him selfe no knowledge that in time for his owne sake he made all things of nothing no knowledg how and in what sort wee depend on him how his prouidence reacheth to vs how hee guideth us in all our wayes and consequently how wee should loue him feare him and trust in him and depend vpon him And if within the compasse of nature there bee no such knowledge of God then is there no right loue of God For no man can rightly loue God vnlesse hee rightly know him And if we doe not rightly loue God wee can do nothing well nay wee cannot but continually doe evill For euery thing that a man willeth and affecteth is either God or some other thing besides God If a man loue God not for himselfe but for some other thing this act is sinfull and culpable and not morally good If a man loue any other thing besides God and loue it not finally for God the act of his loue resteth finally in some other thing that is not God and hee loueth it for it selfe without any further reference and soe inioyeth some other thing besides God as if it were the vttermost and most principall good which act is culpable Now if a man remaining within the compasse of nature withour addition of grace cannot but doe euill then can there bee noe state of nature that is not sinnefull without grace and consequently there can bee no state of pure or meere nature seeing euerie thing that is culpable and faulty in any kind is contrary to the nature of the thing wherein it is found and a corruption of nature But that all the principall actions of men without grace are culpable and faulty it is euident because they loue God for some other thing and not for himselfe neuer coming to any knowledge of him as hee is in himselfe and they loue other things for themselues and finally without any reference to God So that grace is necessarily required in man for the performance of his actions so as not to sinne And it is true that Gregorius Ariminensis hath that Adam in the state of his creation was not sufficiently inabled to performe any act morally good or soe to doe any good thing as not to sinne in doing it by any thing in nature if hee had not had speciall grace added Whence it will follow that there is no power to doe good or not to sinne in the nature of a man but from grace that when grace is lost there is an impossibility of doing good and a necessity of doing euill The Papists and wee agree that originall sinne is the privation of original righteousnesse but they suppose there was in nature without that addition of grace a power to doe good and that it was not giuen simply to make man able to do good but constantly and so as to merit heauen so that it being taken away a man may decline each particular sinne and doe the seuerall workes of vertue though neither so as neuer to sinne nor soe as to merit heauen thereby But wee say there neither was nor could be any power in nature as of it selfe to doe any act morally good or not sinnefull that grace was giuen to inable men to performe the actions of their principall powers about their principall obiects and to do good and that it being taken away there is found in them an impotencie to doe any act of vertue and a necessity of sinning in all their morall actions till they be restored again to the state of grace that the difficulty to do good pronenesse to euill contrariety betweene the powers and faculties of the soule and the rebellion of the meaner against the superiour and better are not the conditions of nature as it was or might haue beene in it selfe before the entrance of sinne but that all
not of sense and that they are subiect to no dolour or greife inward or outward this he saith is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas and some other Schoolemen The third opinion is that they are in a sorte subiect to the punishment of sense that is to greife and dolour which floweth out of the consideration of their great and inestimable losse of eternall happines but because they cannot haue remorse not hauing lost that eternall good by their owne negligence and contempt therefore they are not subiectto that dolour that is properly named the worme that neuer dieth whereof wee reade in the ninth of Marke Their worme dieth not and their fire neuer goeth out There is a fourth opinion which is that of Augustine who sayth Wee must firmely beleeue and no way doubt that not onely men that haue had the vse of reason but infants also dying in the state of originall sinne shall bee punished with the punishment of eternall fire because though they had no sinne of their owne proper action yet they haue drawne to themselues the condemnation of originall sinne by their carnall conception To this opinion Gregorius Ariminensis inclined fearing exceedingly to depart from the doctrine of the Fathers and yet dareth not resolue any thing seeing the moderne doctours went another way And to the same opinion Driedo inclineth likewise Thus then wee see that Pelagianisme was taught in the midst of the Church wherein our Fathers liued and that not by a few but many For was not this the doctrine of many in the Church that there are foure mansions in the other world of men sequestred from God and excluded out of his presence The first ofthem that sustaine the punishment as well of sensible smart as of losse and that for euer which is the condition of them that are condemned to the lowest hell The second of those that are subiect to both these punishments not eternally but for a time onely as are they that are in purgatory The third of them that were subiect onely to the punishment of losse and that but for a time named by them Limbus patrum The fourth of such as are subiect onely to the punishment of losse but yet eternally and this named by them Limbus puerorum nay were there not that placed these in an earthly paradise and was not this Pelagianisme Surely August telleth vs that the Pelagians excluded such as were not made pertakers of Gods grace out of the kingdome of heaven and from the life of God which is the vision of God and yet supposed that they should be for euer in a kind of naturall felicity so that they imagined a third state and place betweene the kingdome of heauen and hell where they are that endure not onely the punishment of losse but of sensible smart also where they are whose worme neuer dieth and whose fire neuer goeth out and this is the opinion of Papists against which Saint Austine mightily opposeth himselfe The vnregenerate is excluded out of the kingdome of heauen where Christ remaineth that is the fountaine of the liuing Giue mee besides this another place where there may bee a perpetuall rest of life the first place the faith of Catholiques by diuine authoritie beleeueth to bee the kingdome of heauen the second Hell where euery apostata and such as are aliens from the faith of Christ shall suffer everlasting punishment but that there is any third place we are altogether ignorant neither shall wee finde in the holy Scripture that there is any such place There is the right hand of him that sitteth to iudge and the left the kingdome and hell life and death the righteous and the wicked On the right hand of the Iudge are the iust and the workers of iniquity on the left There is life to the ioy of glory and death to weeping and gnashing of teeth The just are in the Kingdome of the Father with Christ the vnrighteous in eternall fire prepared for the divell and his Angels By which words of Augustine it is euident that there is no such place to bee admitted as the Papistes imagine their Limbus puerorum to bee neither did the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died beleeue any such thing though many embraced this fancie And therefore Gregorius Ariminensis hauing proued out of Augustine and Gregory that infants that die in the state of originall sinne not remitted shall not onely suffer the punishment of losse but of sense also concludeth in this sort Because I haue not seene this question expressely determined either way by the Church and it seemeth to me a thing to be trembled at to deny the authorities of the Saints and on the contrary side it is not safe to goe against the common opinion and the consent of our great Masters therefore without peremptorie pronouncing for the one side or the other I leaue it free to the Reader to judge of this difference as it seemeth good vnto him CHAP. 8. Of the remission of originall sinne and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate IN the remission of all sinne there are two things implyed the taking away of the staine or sinfulnesse and the remouing of the punishment that for such sinfulnesse justice would bring vpon the sinner In actuall sinne there are three things considerable First an act or omission of act Secondly an habituall aversion from God and conversion to the creature remaining after the act is past till we repent of such act or omission of act and this is the staine of sinne remaining denominating the doers sinners and making them worthie of punishment And thirdly a designing to punishment after the act is past In remission therefore of actuall sinne there must bee first a ceasing from the act or omission secondly a turning to God and from the creature and thirdly for Christs sake who suffered what we deserued a taking away of the punishment that sin past made vs subject to In originall sinne there are onely two things considerable the staine or sinfulnesse and the designing of them that haue it to punishment The staine of originall sinne consisteth of two parts the one privatiue which is the want of those divine graces that should cause the knowledge loue and feare of God the other positiue and that is an habituall inclination to loue our selues more then God and inordinately to desire whatsoeuer may be pleasing to vs though forbidden and disliked by God and is named concupiscence This sin first defileth the nature and then the person in that it so misinclineth nature as that it hath the person at commaund to be swayed whether it will The remission of this sinne implieth a donation of those graces that maycause the knowledge loue and feare of God a turning of vs from the loue of our selues to the loue of God and forChrists sake a remouing of the punishment we were justly subiect to in that we had such want and inordinate inclination The donation of grace maketh
state of grace And this is proued against him by the authority of such mē liuing in the Church in the dayes of our fathers as he must not except against Thomas Aquinas saith eternity of punishment answeareth not to the grieuousnesse of sinne but to the eternall continuance of it without remission and that therefore eternity of punishment is due to every sinne of the vnregenerate so continuing ratione conditionis subiecti in respect of the condition and state of him that committeth it in whom grace is not found by which only sinne may be remitted Whence it will follow that euery sinne of the vnregenerate so continuing is worthy of eternall punishment and shall soe be punished and therefore is mortall And on the contrary side euery sin of the regenerate that may stand with grace and not exclude it is rightly sayd to be veniall that is such as leaueth place for that grace that can and will procure remission of which sort are all the sins of the elect of God called according to purpose which are not cōmitted with full consent Cardinall Caietan writing vpon those words of Thomas Aquinas cleareth this point exceeding well Grace onely saith hee is the fountaine whence floweth remission of sinne nothing therefore positiuely maketh sin veniall or remissible but to be in grace nor nothing maketh a sin positiuely irremissible or not veniall but the being out of the state of grace for to be in the state of grace is to haue that which will procure remission of sin to bee out of the state of grace is to be in a state wherein remission cannot be had So that that which positiuely maketh sin veniall or not veniall is the state of the subiect wherein it is found if we respect therefore the nature of sin as it is in it selfe without grace it will remaine eternally in staine guilt and so will subject the sinner to eternall punishment so that euery sin in it selfe deserueth eternall punishment and is mortall but yet such is the nature of some sinnes either in respect of the matter wherein they are conversant or their not being done with full consent that they doe not necessarily imply an exclusion of grace out of the subiect in which they are found so doe not necessarily put the doers of them into a state positiuely making them not veniall by remouing grace the fountaine of remission So that to conclude no sin is positiuely veniall as hauing any thing in it that may claime remission for no sinne implyeth or hath any thing in it of grace the fountaine of remission but some sin either ex genere or ex imperfectione actus in respect of the matter wherein a man offendeth or in that it is not done with full consent to the exclusion of grace may bee saide to bee remissible or veniall negativè per non ablationem principii remissionis in that it doeth not necessarily imply the exclusion of grace the fountaine of remission and some sinnes either in respect of the matter or manner doe imply such exclusion and are therefore named mortall Richardus de Sancto Victore agreeth with the former and more clearely confirmeth our opinion then they doe The circumstances of that wee finde in him touching this point are these One had written vnto him desiring to be resolued in a certaine doubt the doubt was this how it could bee true that hee had learned of his teachers that veniall sinnes deserue onely temporall punishments mortall eternall whereas yet in those that goe to hell if any of those sinnes that they call veniall bee found they must bee punished and euery punishment sustained in hell is eternall seeing out of hell there is no redemption whence it will follow that euen those sinnes that are named veniall deserue eternall punishment for they are punished eternally in the damned and it must not bee thought that the punishment inflicted for them is more then they deserue All this concerning the eternity of the punishment of euery sinne of the reprobate hee acknowledgeth to bee true and therefore sheweth that some sinnes are said to bee veniall and mortall but for other considerations then some supposed His resolution therefore of the doubt proposed is expressed in these words That sinne seemeth vnto mee to bee veuiall which found in the regenerate in Christ of it selfe alone neuer bringeth vpon them eternall punishment though they repent not particularly of the same that is mortall which though it be alone bringeth eternall death vpon the doers of it without particular repentance that therefore is a veniall sin which of it selfe alone if there be nothing else to hinder is euer sure to be pardoned and remitted in the regenerate so as neuer to bring condemnation vpon them that is mortall that of it selfe alone putteth the doer into a state of condemnation and death Here we see sins are distinguished some are said to be veniall some mortal but none are said to be veniall without respect had to a state of regeneration as Bellarmiue imagineth To these we may adde Almain and Fisher Bishop of Rochester and sundry other but it needeth not for howsoeuer our Adversaries make shew to the contrary they all confesse that to bee true that wee say for every sinne eternally punishable deserueth eternall punishment but euery the least and lightest sin that wee can commit without grace and remission remaineth eternally in staine and guilt and is eternally punishable whence it will follow that euery sinne deserueth eternall punishment and so is by nature mortall So that in this poynt as in the former the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died is found to haue bin a Protestant Church CHAP. 10. Of free will CArdinall Contarenus hath written a most diuine and excellent discourse touching free will wherein hee sheweth the nature of free will how the freedome of will is preserued or lost in this discourse First hee sheweth what it is to be free and then 2◠what that is which wee call free will What it is to be free he sheweth in this sort As he is a servant that is not at his owne dispose to do what he will but is to do what another will haue him to do so he is sayd to be free who is at his own dispose so as to do nothing presently because another will haue him but what seemeth good vnto himself he hath a liking to do The more therefore that any thing is moued by of it self the more free it is So that in naturall things we shal find that accordingly as they are moued by any thing within or without themselues in their motions they come neerer to liberty or are farther from it so that a stone is in a sort free when it goeth downeward because it is carried by something within but it suffereth violence and is moued by something from without when it ascendeth yet doth it not moue it selfe when it goeth downward but
quae in suo genere sunt bona sed ex affectu sunt mala But he sayth there are others of another opinion making the actions of men to be of three sorts denying all the actions of infidels to be sinne Opera cunsta quae ad naturae subsidium siunt semper bona esse astruunt Sed quod Augustinus mala esse dicit si malas habeant causas non ita accipiendum est quasi ipsa mala sint sed quia peccant mali sunt qui ea malo fine agunt Thomas Bradwardin in his summe against the Pelagians of his time cleerely resolueth that the will of man since the fall hath noe power to bring forth any good action that may bee morally good ex fine circumstantiâ—…s And Aluarez though hee thinke that all the actions of infidels are not sinne yet sayth that none of them is truly an act of vertue noe not in respect to the last naturall end CASSANDER sayth that the article of the Augustane confession touching originall sinne agreeth with the doctrine of the Church when as it teacheth that the will of man hath some kinde of liberty to bring forth a kinde of ciuill iustice and to make choyce in things subiect to reason but that without the spirit of God it hath no power to doe any thing that may bee just before God or anything spiritually iust And all orthodoxe divines agree against the Pelagians that it is the worke of grace that wee are made iust of vnjust truely and before God that this grace createth not a new will nor constraineth it against the liking of it but correcteth the depravation of it and turneth it from willing ill to will well drawing it with a kinde of inward motion that it may become willing of vnwilling and willingly consent to the divine calling The Pelagians the enemies of Gods grace being vrged with those texts of Scripture wherein mention is made of grace sought to avoyde the evidence of them affirming that by grace the powers faculties and perfections of nature freely given by God the Creator at the beginning are vnderstood when this would not serue the turne they vnderstood by grace the remission of sins past and imagined that if that were remitted wherein wee haue formerly offended out of that good that is in nature wee might hereafter so bethinke our selues as to doe good decline euill Thirdly When this shift failed likewise they began to say that men happily will not bethinke themselues of that duety they are bound to doe or will not presently and certainely discerne what they are to doe without some instruction or illumination but that if they haue the helpe of instruction and illumination they may easily out of the strength of nature decline evill and doe that they discerne to be good Against this it is excellent that Saint Bernard hath Non est eiusdem facilitatis scire quid faciendum sit facere Quoniam diversa sunt caeco ducatum ac fesso praebere vehiculum Non quicunque ostendit viam praebet etiam viaticum itineranti aliud illi exhibet qui facit ne deviet aliud qui praestat ne deficiat in viâ Itanec quivis doctor statim dator erit boni quodcunque docuerit Porro duo mihi sunt necessaria doceri ac iuvari tu quidem homo rectè consulis ignorantiae sed si verum sentit Apostolus spiritus adiuvat infirmitatem nostram Immo vero qui mihi per os tuum ministrat consilium ipse mihi necesse est ministret per spiritum suum adiutorium quo valeam implere quod consulis When they were driven from this device also they betooke themselues vnto another to vvit that the helpe of grace is necessary to make vs more easily more constantly and vniuersally to doe good then in the present state of nature vve can and to make vs so to doe good as to attaine eternall happines in heauen And this is and vvas the opinion of many in the Roman Church both aunciently and in our time For many taught that men in the present state of nature as now it is since Adams fall may decline each particular sinne doe vvorkes truely vertuous good fulfill the severall precepts of Gods law according to the substance of the vvorke commaunded though not according to the intention of the lavv-giver that they may loue God aboue all as the authour and end of nature So that to these purposes there vvas no necessity of the gift of grace but that grace is added to make vs more easily constantly vniversally to doe good and to merit heaven And therefore Stapleton confesseth that many vvrote vnaduisedly aswell amongst the Schoolemen heretofore as in our time in the beginnings of the differences in religion but that novv men are become vviser I vvould to God it vvere so but it vvill bee found that hovvsoeuer they are in a sort ashamed of that they doe yet they persist to doe as others did before them for they teach still that men may decline each particular sinne doe the true vvorkes of morall vertue doe things the lavv requireth according to the substance of the things commaunded though not so as to merit heauen or neuer to breake any of them Bellarmine indeede denyeth that vvee can loue God aboue all in any sorte vvithout the helpe of grace But Cardinall Caietan saith that though vvee cannot so loue God aboue all as to doe nothing but that vvhich may be referred to God as the last end yet so as to doe many good things in reference to him as the last end And Bellarmine if he deny not his owne principles must say so for first he defendeth that man may doe a worke morally good without grace and doe it to obey God the author of nature And elsewhere he proueth that man cannot perpetually doe well in the state of nature without grace because it is so turned away from God to the creature by Adams sinne specially to himselfe that actually or habitually or in propension hee placeth his last end in the creature not in God so cannot but offend if he bee not watchfull against this propension Whence it followeth that seeing a man must place his chief good in God if he doe good that naturally he can doe good he can naturally place the same in God That which he some-where hath that it is enough to intend the next end explicitè that it will of it selfe be directed to GOD the last end seeing euery good end moueth virtute finis ultimi is idle for it moueth not but virtute finis ultimi amati nam finis non movet nisi amatus ergo amat finem ultimum So that many formerly almost all presently in the Church of Rome are more then Semipelagians not acknowledging the necessitie of grace to make vs decline euill doe good but to doe so constantly
vniversally so as to merite heauen But Augustine Prosper Fulgentius Gregory Beda Bernard Anselme Hugo many worthy Divines mentioned by the Master of Sentences yeaâ—…he Master himselfe Grosthead Bradwardine Ariminensis the Catholique Divine that Stapleton speaketh of those that Andradius noteth Alvarez and other agree with vs that there is no power left in nature to avoide sin to doe any one good action that may be truely an action of vertue therefore they say grace must change vs and make vs become new men Cardinall Contarenus noteth that the Philosophers perceiuing a great inclination to euill to be found in the nature of mankind thinking it might bee altered put right by inuring them to good actions gaue many good precepts directions but to no purpose for this euill being in the very first spring of humane actions that is the last end chiefly desired which they sought not in God but in the creature no helpe of Nature or Art was able to remedie it as those diseases of the body are incurable which haue infected the fountaine of life the radicall humiditie GOD onely therefore who searcheth the secret most retired turnings of our soule spirit by the inward motion of his holy spirit changeth the propension inclination of our will and turneth it vnto himselfe And in another place he hath these wordes Wee must obserue that at this present the Church of God by the craft of the diuell is divided into two sects which rather doing their owne busines then that of Christ seeking their owne glory more then the honour of GOD the profite of their neighbours by stiffe pertinacious defence of contrary opinions bring them that are not wary and wise to a fearefull downefall For some vaunting themselues to be professours of the Catholique Religion enemies to the Lutherans while they goe about too much to maintaine the libertie of mans will out of too much desire of opposing the Lutherans oppose themselues against the greatest lights of the Christian Church and the first principall teachers of Catholique verity declining more then they should vnto the heresie of Pelagius Others when they haue beene a little conversant in the writings of S. Augustine though they haue neither that modestie of minde nor loue towards God that he had out of the pulpit propose intricate things such as are indeed meere paradoxes to the people So that touching the weakenes of nature the necessitie of grace we haue the consent of all the best and worthiest in the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died The nextthing to be considered is the power of freewill in disposing it selfe to the receipt of grace Durandus is of opinion that a man by the power of free will may dispose and fitte him selfe for the receipt of grace by such a kind of disposition to which grace is to be giuen by pact and diuine ordinance not of debt Amongst the latter diuines there are that thinke that as one sinne is permitted that it may be a punishment of another soe God in respect of almes and other morall good workes done by a man in the state of sinne vseth the more speedily and effectually to helpe the sinner that hee may rise from sinne and that God infallibly and as according to a certaine lawe giueth the helpes of preuenting grace to them that doe what they can out of the strength of nature this is the merit of congruence they are wont to speake of in the Roman Schooles But as I noted before Gregorius Ariminensis resolutely rejects the conceipt of merit of congruence Stapleton saith it is exploded out of the Church And Aluarez that S. Augustine Prosper whom Aquinas the Thomists follow reiect the same August l. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelagii c. 8. Si sine Dei gratià per nos incipit cupiditas boni ipsum caeptum erit meritum cui tanquam ex debito gratiae veniat adiutorium ac sic gratia Dei non gratis donabitur sed meritum nostrum dabitur c. 6. lib. 4. lib. de praedest sanctorum de dono perseuerantiae Et Prosper lib de gratiâ libero arbitrio ad Ruffinum ait Quis ambigat tunc liberum arbitrium cohortationi vocantis obedire cum in illo gratia Dei affectum credendi obediendique generauerit Alioquin sufficeret moneri hominem non etiam in ipso nouam fieri voluntatem sicut scriptum est Praeparatur voluntas à domino Neque obstat sayth Aluarez quod idem Salomon Prouerb cap. 16. inquit hominis est praeparare animam Intelligit enim hominis esse quia libere producit consensum quo praeparatur ad gratiam sed tamen id efficit supposito auxilio speciali Dei inspirantis bonum interius mouentis sic explicat istum locum August lib. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelag. cap. 8. And so those words are to be vnderstood If any one open the doore I will enter in Reuela 3 and Isaâ—… 30. The Lord expecteth that he may haue mercy on you for he expecteth not our consent as comming out of the power of nature or as if any such consent were a disposition to grace but that consent hee causeth in vs. Fulgentius lib de incarnatione cap. 19. Sicut in nativitate carnali omnem nascentis hominis voluntatem praecedit operis diuini formatio sic in spirituali natiuitate quâ veterem hominem deponere incipimus Bernard de gratiâ libero arbitrio in initio Ab ipsâ gratiâ me in bono praeuentum agnosco provehi sentio spero perficiendum Neque currentis neque volentis sed dei miserantis est Quid igitur agit ais liberum arbitrium breuiter respondeo saluatur tolle liberum arbitrium non erit quod saluetur tolle gratiam non erit vnde saluetur opus hoc sine duobus effici non potest uno á quo fit altero cui vel in quo fit Deus author est salutis liberum arbitrium tantum capax nec dare illam nisi Deus nec capere valet nisi liberum arbitrium quod ergo a solo Deo soli datur libero arbitrio tam absque consensu esse non potest accipientis quam absque gratiâ dantis ita gratiae operanti salutem cooperari dicitur liberum arbitrium dum consentit hoc est dum saluatur consentire enim saluari est Yet must we not thinke that God moueth vs and then expecteth to see whether wee will consent Concilium Arausicanum Can. 4. Si quis vt a peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram Deum expectare contendit non autem vt etiam purgari velimus per sancti spiritus infusionem operationem in nos fieri confitetur resist it ipsi spiritui sancto per Salomonem dicenti praeparatur voluntas a domino Apostolo salubriter praedicanti Deus est qui operatvr in nobis
as if we had merited it and that to these purposes it is imputed to vs as if it were ours And farther he addeth that as God doth nothing in nature but by his sonne as God so he will do nothing pertaining to our iustification and restauration but for him as he is man and that there is no benefit bestowed on vs or good done vnto us but it presupposeth a newe application and imputation of the merits of Christ. Soe that euery one is newly made partaker of Christs merits and oweth newe thankes to him soe often as new gifts and benifittes are conferred and bestowed vpon him and he feareth not to pronounce that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto vs not only when wee are baptized as he sayth a man excellently learned vnaduisedly affirmeth but in other sacraments and as often as men receiue any newe gift from God yea that a new imputation of Christs righteousnesse is necessarily required for the remission of those veniall sinnes into which the iustified fall and the freeing of vs from temporall punishments Bernar Nemo leuia peccata contemnat impossibile est enim cum iis saluari impossibile est ea dilui nisi per Christum à Christo August tam de eo qui leuioribus peccatis obnoxius est quam de eo qui grauioribus pronunciat quod si sibi relinquerentur interirent All therefore acknowledge as he thinketh that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed but there are as he telleth vs 2 opinions in the Church of Rome touching this point the one that Christs righteousnes is no otherwise communicated or imputed to us but in that for the merit of it wee are accepted all things necessary to fitte vs for iustification are giuen vnto us righteousnesse making vs formally iust that is inclining vs to decline euill do good is infused into vs and what soeuer is profitable to set vs forward and to make us continue in the same is bestowed on vs. Others renowned for learning and piety do thinke that for the attaining of heauen happinesse not only in a twofold righteousnesse is necessary the one inherent the other imputed as to the former but that this imputed righteousnes of Christ is twise offered and presented by Christ to God the Father First that we may be iustified that is that our sinnes may be remitted we accepted and renewing grace may be giuen vnto vs. And secondly that we may avoyd and decline the extremity and seuerity of Gods iudgment that he may accept our weake indeauours and admitte vs to heauen notwithstanding the imperfection and defects thereof that for his sake the imperfection impurity of our righteousnesse may be couered This opinion is clearely deliuered by Cardinall Contarenus he tellethus it was allowed in the conference at Ratisbon by the diuines of both sides his words are these Seeing we haue affirmed that we artaine a twofold righteousnesse by faith a righteousnesse inherent in vs as charity and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature and the iustice of Christ giuen and imputed vnto vs as being graft into Christ and hauing put on Christ it remaineth that wee enquire vppon which of these wee must stay and relie and by which wee must thinke our selues iustified before GOD that is to be accepted as holy and just hauing that justice which it beseemeth the sonnes of God to haue I truely thinke that a man very piously and Christianly may say that wee ought to stay to stay I say as vpon a firme and stable thing able vndoubtedly to sustaine vs vpon the justice of Christ giuen imputed to vs and not vpon the holinesse and grace that is inherent in vs. For this our righteousnes is but imperfect and such as cannot defend vs seeing in many things we offend all c. But the justice of Christ which is giuen vnto vs is true perfect justice which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God in which there is nothing that offendeth God Vpon this therefore as most certaine stable wee must stay our selues beleeue that wee are justified by it as the cause of our acceptation with God this is that precious treasure of Christians which whosoeuer findeth selleth all that he hath to buy it Ruard Tapper followeth the other opinion and saith that whereas according to Bernard our righteousnesse is impure though sincere and true we must not conceiue that this impurity defileth our righteousnesse as if it selfe were stayned or any thing were wanting in it for so it should not bee true and right but that it is saide to bee impure because there are certaine staines and blemishes together with it in the operations of the soule for GOD onely is absolutely free from sinne and in many things wee sinne all our righteousnesse therefore according to his opinion is imperfect in vertue and efficacie because it cannot expell and keepe out all sinne out of the soule wherein it is by reason of the infirmity of the flesh but the good workes of the just doe abide the severity of Gods judgment neither can they bee blamed though tryed most exactly and discussed in all their circumstances yea though the divell should be permitted to say what he can against them for they haue no fault nor deformitie Here for the better clearing of this point it is to bee obserued that it is confessed by all that the most righteous liue not without sinne consequently that they haue need continually of remission of sinnes It is resolued amongst all Catholiques saith Andreas Vega that there was neuer any found amongst the Saints the blessed Virgin onely excepted that in the whole course of their liues avoided all veniall sinnes Iob asketh who shalll be cleane from filthinesse and answereth himselfe according to the translation which the ancient Doctors followed namely Cyprian Ambrose Augustine Gregory and others no one though he liue but one day vpon earth And Dauid saith generally no man liuing shall bee justified in thy sight and in another place for this impiety of sinne shall euery holy one pray vnto thee hee saith not euery sinner but euery holy one saith Saint Augustine for it is the voice of the Saints If we say wee haue no sinne we deceiue our selues there is no trueth in vs and Solomon saith there is no man righteous on earth that doth good and sinneth not and those sayings of the Apostles are well knowne in many things wee sinne all If wee say wee haue no sinne wee deceiue our selues c. And who is hee that neuer needed in his whole life to say that part of the Lords Prayer forgiue vs our trespasses And all this is strongly proued in that if wee looke on the liues of all the Saints which are marvailously commended in Scripture we shall finde none of them that had not some blemish as in the most beautifull body Let vs begin with
performe 2. Because no profit coÌ„meth vnto God froÌ„ any thing we can do the good saluation of our soules he accounteth his gaine and out of his goodnesse so esteemeth of our good workes as if they were profitable unto him 3. Because though our workes were profitable vnto God and though we were able to do them of our selues yet wee could neuer repay vnto him so much good as wee haue already do dayly receiue from him but now it is so that he first bestoweth on us one gift which he may afterwards reward with another 4 Because in many things we offend all so haue neede of pardon so farre are wee from meriting any thing at Gods hands 5 Because no meritorious act is so great a good as eternall life so not equiualent vnto it and therefore so great a reward cannot in strictnesse of justice be due vnto it Actus secundum se consideratus sayth â— Scotus absque acceptatione diuinâ secundum strictam justitiam non fuisset dignus tali praemio ex intrinseca bonitate quam haberet ex suis principiis quod patet quia semper praemium est majus bonum merito justitia stricta non reddit melius pro minus bono ideo bene dicitur quod semper Deus praemiat vltra meritum condignum vniuersaliter quidem vltra dignitatem actus qui est meritum quia quod ille actus sit condignum merituÌ„ hoc est vltra naturam bonitateÌ„ actus intrinsecaÌ„ ex mera gratuita acceptatione diuina Et forte adhuc vltra illud ad quod de coÌ„muni lege esset actus acceptandus quandoque Deus praemiat ex mera liberalitate And againe Lib. 4. dist 49. q. 6. de tertio dubio De praemio quod est aeterna beatitudo dico quod loquendo de stricta justitia Deus nulli nostrum propter quaecunque merita est debitor perfectionis reddendae tam intensae quam est beatitudo propter immoderatum excessum illius perfectionis vltra illa merita sed esto quod ex liberalitate sua determinasset meritis conferre actum tam perfectum tanquam praemium tali quidem justitia qualis decet eum scilicet supererogantis in praemijs tamen non sequitur ex hoc necessario quòd per illam justitiam sit reddenda perfectio perennis tanquam praemium imo abundans fieret retributio in beatitudine vnius momenti 6. To merit is to make a thing due that was not due before whence it followeth that no man can merit eternall life For they that define merit do say that no man can merit soe great a good as eternall life ex condigno vnlesse he be first justified reconciled to God and made partaker of the diuine nature but whosoeuer is soe justified reconciled to God and made partaker of the diuine nature hath right to eternall life in that hee is justified reconciled and made partaker of the diuine nature Therefore seeing to merit is to make that due that was not due before noe man can merit eternall life And Bellarmine confesseth that many thinke eternall life cannot be merited but onely some degrees in the same and for this reason as it appeareth by the epistle of Cardinall Contarenus to Cardinall Farnesius the diuines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon thought good to omitte and suppresse the name of merit 1 For that it might be thought a derogation to the goodnesse and bounty of God that giueth vs freely eternall life to say that wee meritte it And secondly for that it might be conceiued that it was not due before in respect of free gift and that our working could merit it though it were not due to vs by gift Let vs see therefore what the Church of God hath taught touching merit The Author of the answere to Bells challenge named by him the downefall of Popery article the fift chapt 3. pag. 220. protesteth that Bell doth greatly wronge the Romanists in saying it is a part of their faith and that it was defined in the councell of Trent that good workes done in Gods grace are coÌ„dignely meritorious of eternall life for the councell defined no such thing and they that hold it hold it not as a point of faith but as an opinion onely Whereupon Vega who was one of the duines of the councell of Trent writeth de fide operibâ—… quaest 4. that some noble Schoole diuines being moued with no light arguments and vsing a certaine sober and prudent moderation haue denied that there is any condigne merit of eternall happinesse and hee sayth quest 5. that Gregory Durand Marsil Walden Burgensis and Eckius doe deny condigne merit Sotus also another diuine of the sayd councell lib. 3. de naturâ gratiâ cap. 7. sayth that there is some difference amongst catholiques about condigne merit and chap 8. after he had proued condigne merit out of the councell and otherwaies yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith but onely calleth it conclusionem probatissimam a most approued conclusion And Bellarmine lib 5 de iustificatione cap 16 after hee had rehearsed two opinions of catholiques whereof the one seemeth to deny condigne merit the other admitteth it only in a large sense proposeth and defendeth the third opinion which defendeth condigne merit absolutely onely as verissimam communem sententiam theologorum most true and the common opinion of diuines This confession might suffice to proue that the Church neuer admitted of the doctrine of merit of condignity as any point of her faith in the daies of our Fathers seeing euen since these differences grewe that are now afoote betweene those of the reformation and the stiffe maintainers of all confusions formerly found in the state of the Church and religion there are many found amongst the enemies of reformation that reiect the merit of condignity Yet for the better satisfaction of the reader I will more fully and at large sette downe the opinions of them that opposed against the doctrine of meritte properly soe named before LVTHERS time Gregorius Ariminensis besides the reason formerly alleaged that no act of man though done in out of the habite of charity is so great a good as eternall life and equivalent to it consequently that so great a reward as eternall life cannot be due vnto it ex debito iustitiae hath sundry other reasons for proof of the same Intelligendum est saith he etiam ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cum vita aeterna redditur quid aliud nisi gratia pro gratia redditur haec Augustinus Idem Antecedens probatur ratione Nam constat quod animae carenti charitate simul gloriâ Deus quantum ad neutram est illi debitor si dat charitatem gratis donat Nunc autem nullus diceret quod ex eo quod Deus donat aliquod munus alicui fiat ei alterius muneris debitor Ergo non ex
proue the old to him that is perswaded of the new and doubteth of the old but to him that doubteth of both we must not alledge the authority of either of these but some other thing so likewise we may proue the authority of the Scripture by the Church to him that is already perswaded of the Church of the Church by the Scripture to him that is perswaded of the Scripture but to him that doubteth of both we must bring other reasons For no man proveth a thing doubtfull by that which is as much doubted of as it selfe So that to proue the authority infallibility of the Church by the testimony and authoritie of the Church which is the thing doubted of is as if one taking vpon him to be a Lawgiuer whose authority is doubted of should first make a law and publish his proclamation and by vertue there of giue himselfe power to make lawes his authority of making the first lawe being as much doubted of as the second Thus then it being cleare and euident that it is one of the things that are to bee beleeued that the Church is guided by the spirit if Stapleton be asked why he beleeueeth it to bee soe guided hee sayth hee soe beleeueth because the spirit mooueth him so to beleeue But he should knowe that three things concurre to make us beleeue that whereof we are doubtfull The light of Diuine vnderstanding as that whereby wee apprehend the things of God The spirit as the author of this illumination and the reasons and motiues by force whereof the spirit induceth mooueth and perswadeth vs. Euen as in the apprehension of things within the compasse of the light of nature when wee are to be perswaded of a thing seeming doubtfull unto vs not only the actiō of him that perswadeth vs and the light of naturall vnderstanding are required to the effecting of it but also the force of reasons winning vs to assent to that we are to be perswaded of Wee therefore demand not of Stapleton who it is that perswadeth vs to belieue or what that light of vnderstanding is that maketh him capable of such perswasion but what those reasons or motiues are by force whereof the spirit settleth his minde in the perswasion of the truth of those things he formerly doubted of Surely he sayth the highest and last reason that moueth a man to beleeu the things that partaine to faith is the authority of the Church Let vs suppose it to be so touching all other things yet can it not be so in respect of those things we are to beleeue touching the authority of the Church it selfe What is the motiue then whereby the spirit moueth vs to beleeue that the Church hath diuine authority Hee sayth because it is so contained in the Scripture and in the Articles of the Creed See then if he be not forced to runne round in a circle He beleeueth other matters of faith because contained in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the word of God and that it is the word of God because the Church deliuereth it to be so and the Church because it is ledde by the spirit and that it is ledde by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creede This kind of circulation Campian reckoneth amongst the Sophismes he wrongfully imputeth vnto vs but it will euer be found true that the Prophet pronounceth of the wicked Impij ambulant in circuitu The wicked runne round till they be giddie and are in the end where they were when they began Out of this maze Stapleton cannot get himselfe vnlesse hee flye to humane motiues and inducements and make them the highest and last reason of his faith and soe indeede hee doth For fearing that hee hath not sayd well in saying he beleeueth the Church is guided by the spirit because it is contained in the Scripture hee addeth another reason why hee so beleeueth because it is the generall opinion and conceipt of all Christian men that it is so guided and so indeed his perswasion stayeth it selfe vpon humane grounds though hee bee vnwilling that men should so thinke and conceiue Th◅se mazes and labyrinths other Papists seeking to avoyd runne without any such shewe of feare as Stapleton bewrayeth into most grosse absurdities some thinking that the authority of the Church is the reason moouing vs to beleeue all other things and that we beleeue that the Church is ledde and guided by the spirit and that the truth of God which the Church teacheth vs moued thereunto by humane motiues namely for that that must needes be the truth which so many miracles haue confirmed which a few weake and silly men contemptible in the eyes of the world haue wonne all the world to belieue haue holden out the defence of it against all the furies of enemies whatsoeuer which they could not haue done had not the spirit and power of the most high beene with them making them more then conquerours This is the opinion of Durandus who maketh humane motiues and inducements the highest and last reason of his faith to which also Stapleton flyeth though vnwillingly Others thinke that wee beleeue by the sole and absolute commaund of the will either finding nothing or nothing of sufficient force to perswade vs. Both these conceipts are to be examined by vs. Concerning the first wee are to obserue that the Schoolemen make two kindes of faith calling the one fidem infusam an infused faith wrought in vs by the inlightning spirit of God and staying it selfe vpon the truth of God the other fidem acquisitam a humane and naturall faith grounding it selfe vpon humane authoritie and wrought by humane motiues and perswasions So that according to the opinion of these men we beleeue the Articles of our Christian faith and whatsoeuer is contayned in the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles because wee are perswaded that they were revealed by Almighty God and this pertaineth to infused faith as they thinke but that they were reuealed there is nothing that perswadeth vs but the authority of the Church and because wee haue so learned receiued of our forefathers and this pertaineth to humane faith and is meerely a naturall and humane perswasion like that the Saracens haue touching the superstition of Mahomet who therefore beleeue them because their Auncestors haue deliuered them vnto them If this opinion were true as Melchior Canus rightly noteth the finall stay of our infused faith and the first reason moouing vs so to beleeue should not be the truth of God but humane authority For wee should beleeue the Articles of our faith because they were revealed and beleeue they were revealed because our Auncestours so deliuered vnto vs and the Church so beleeueth And from hence it would farther follow that seeing the assent yeelded to the conclusion can be no greater nor more certaine then that which is yeelded to the premisses whence it is deduced inferred
is in himselfe and maketh vs already to beginne to tast the sweetnesse of so great and happy an vnion is not only true but Diuine and Heauenly such as nature could not teach vs but is to be learned onely of God himselfe It being presupposed in the generalily that the doctrine of the Christian faith is of God and containeth nothing but heauenly truth in the next place we are to inquire by what rule wee are to iudge of particular things contained within the compasse of it This rule is first the summary comprehension of such principall articles of this diuine knowledge as are the principles whence all other things are concluded and inferred These are contained in the creed of the Apostles Secondly all such things as every Christian is bound expressely to beleeue by the light direction whereof he iudgeth of other things which are not absolutely necessary soe particularly to be knowne These are rightly sayd to bee the rule of our faith because the principles of euery science are the rule whereby wee iudge of the truth of all things as being better and more generally knowne then any other thing and the cause of knowing them Thirdly the Analogie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuiue knowledge hath with another soe that men cannot erre in one of them without erring in another nor rightly vnderstand one but they must likewise rightly conceiue the rest Fourthly whatsoeuer bookes were deliuered vnto vs as written by them to whom the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer hath been deliuered by all the Saints with one consent which haue left their iudgment and opinion in writing Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformely delivered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiasticall writers be silent and say nothing of it Seuenthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued of them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gainsayers wâ—…re in their beginnings noted for singularity nouelty and diuision and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie These three latter rules of our faith we admit not because they are equall with the former originally in themselues containe the direction of our faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so full consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes bee from those first Authors and founders of our Christian profession The Romanists adde vnto these the decrees of Councels and determinations of Popes making these also to bee the rules of faith but because we haue no proofe of their infallibility we number them not with the rest Thus then we see how many things in seuerall degrees and sorts are said to be rules of our faith The infinite excellency of God as that whereby the truth of the heauenly doctrine is proued The articles of faith and other verities euer expressely knowne in the Church as the first principles are the canon by which we judge of conclusions from thence inferred The Scripture as containing in it all that doctrine of faith which Christ the Sonne of GOD deliuered The vniforâ—…e practice and consenting judgement of them that went before vs as a 〈◊〉 and vndoubted explication of the things contayned in the Scripture The Scripture saith Vincentius Lirinensis is full and sufficient to all purposes but because of the manifold turnings of heretiques it is necessary that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation be drawnâ—…â—…owne and directed vnto vs according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholique sense So then we doe not so make the Scripture the rule of our faith but that other things in their kinde are rules likewise in such sort that it is not safe without respect had vnto them to judge of things by the Scripture alone For without the first rule we cannot know the Scripture to be of God Without the second and third we haue no forme of Christian doctrine by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions without the other rules wee cannot know the authors and number of the Bookes of Scripture nor the meaning of the things therein written For who shal be able to vnderstand them but hee that is settledin these things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of the Scripture We doe not therefore so make the Scripture the rule of our faith as to neglect the other nor so admit the other as to detract any thing from the plenitude of the Scripture in which all things are contained that must bee beleeued CHAP. 15. Of the challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture charging it with obscurity and imperfection THis rule our adversaries least esteeme of charging it with obscurity and imperfection and thereupon rely vpon humane interpretations and vncertaine traditions Touching their first challenge made against this rule of the scripture as being obscure and darke and so not fit to giue direction to our faith vnlesse it borrow light from some thing else wee aunswere there is no question but there are manifold difficulties in the scripture proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the things therein contained which are without the compasse of naturall vnderstanding and so are wholly hidden from naturall men and not knowne of them that are spirituall without much trauaile and studious meditation partly out of the ignorance of tongues and of the nature of such things by the coÌ„parison whereof the matters of divine knowledge are manifested vnto vs. But the difference betweene their opinion and ours concerning this difficultie is first in that they thinke the scripture so obscure and hard to be vnderstood that Heretiques may wrest and abuse it at their pleasures and no man be able to convince their folly by the evidence of the Scripture it selfe Secondly in that they thinke that wee cannot by any helpes bee assured out of the Scripture it selfe and the nature of the things therein contayned that that is the true meaning of it which wee thinke to be but that we rest in it onely for the authority of the Church But wee say that men not neglecting that light of direction which the Church yeeldeth nor other helpes and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the things themselues the conference of places the knowledge of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one part of diuine truth hath with another that they haue found out the true meaning of it and so be able to convince the adversaries and gainesayers CHAP. 16. Of the interpretation of Scripture and to whom it pertayneth TOuching this poynt there are two questions vsually proposed the one to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth the other by what rules and meanes men may finde out tâ—…e true meaning of it Tâ—…ching the first our Adversaries jangle
state But when Herod swaied the Scepter flue all those that he found to be of the bloud royall of Iudah and tooke away all power and authority that the Sanedrim formerly had then the Scepter departed from Iudah and the Law-giuer from betweene his feete so that then was the time for the Shiloh to come CHAP. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh the causes thereof and the reason why the second Person in the Trinitie rather tooke flesh then either of the other GOd therefore in that fulnesse of time sent his Sonne in our flesh to sit vpon the throne of Dauid and to bee both a King and Priest ouer his house for euer concerning whom three things are to bee considered First his humiliation abasing himselfe to take our nature and become man Secondly the gifts and graces he bestowed on the nature of man when he assumed it into the vnitie of his Person Thirdly the things hee did and suffered in it for our good In the Incarnation of the Sonne of God we consider first the necessity that God should become man secondly the fitnesse and conuenience that the second Person rather then any other Thirdly the manner how this strange thing was wrought brought to passe Touching the necessity that God should become man there are two opinions in the Romane schooles For some thinke that though Adam had neuer sinned yet it had beene necessary for the exaltation of humane nature that God should haue sent his Sonne to become man but others are of opinion that had it not beene for the deliuering of man out of sinne and misery the Sonne of God had neuer appeared in our flesh Both these opinions sayth Bonauentura are Catholique and defended by Catholiques whereof the former seemeth more consonant to reason but the later to the piety of faith because neither Scripture nor Fathers doe euer mention the Incarnation but when they speake of the redemption of mankind soe that seeing nothing is to be beleeued but what is proued out of these it sorteth better with the nature of right beliefe to thinke the Sonne of God had neuer become the Sonne of man if man had not sinned then to thinke the contrary Venit filius hominis sayth Augustine saluum facere quod perierat Si homo non perijsset filius hominis non venisset nulla causa fuit Christo veniendi nisi peccatores saluos facere Tolle morbos tolle vuluera nulla est medicinae causa that is The Sonne of man came to saue that which was lost If man had not perished the sonne of man had not come there was no other cause of Christs comming but the saluation of sinners Take away diseases wounds and hurts and what neede is there of the Phisition or Surgeon Wherefore resoluing with the Scriptures and Fathers that there was no other cause of the incarnation of the Sonne of God but mans redemption let vs see whether so great an abasing of the sonne of God were necessary for the effecting hereof Surely there is no doubt but that Almighty God whose wisdome is incomprehensible and power infinite could haue effected this worke by other meanes but not soe well beseeming his truth and justice whereupon the Diuines doe shew that in many respects it was fit and necessary for this purpose that God should become man First ad fidem firmandam to settle men in a certaine and vndoubted perswasion of the truth of such things as are necessary to be beleeued vt homo fidentiùs ambularet ad veritatem sayth Augustine ipsa veritas Dei filius homine assumpto constituit fundauit fidem that is That man might more assuredly and without danger of erring approach vnto the presence of sacred truth it selfe the sonne of God assuming the nature of man setled and founded the faith and shewed what things are to be beleeued Secondly ad rectam operationem to direct mens actions for whereas man that might be seene might not safely be followed and God that was to bee imitated and followed could not be seene it was necessary that God should become man that hee whom man was to follow might shew himselfe vnto man and be seene of him Thirdly ad ostendendam dignitatem humanae Naturae to shew the dignitie and excellencie of humane nature that no man should any more soe much forget himselfe as to defile the same with finfull impurities Demonstrauit nobis Deus sayth Augustine quà m excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura in hoc quòd hominibus in vero homine apparuit that is God shewed vs how high a place the nature of man hath amongst his creatures in that he appeared vnto men in the nature and true being of a man Agnosce sayth Leo O Christiane dignitatem tuam diuinae consors factus naturae noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conuersatione redire that is Take knowledge ô Christian man of thine owne worth and dignity and being made partaker of the diuine nature returne not to thy former basenesse by an vnfitting kind of life conuersation Lastly it was necessary the Sonne of God should become man ad liberandum hominem à seruitute peccati to deliuer man from the slauery and bondage of sinne For the performance whereof two things were to be done For first the justice of God displeased with sinne committed against him was to bee satisfied and secondly the breach was to be made vp that was made vpon the whole nature of man by the same neither of which things could possibly be perforned by man or Angell or by any creature For touching the first the wrath of God displeased with sinne and the punishments which in iustice he was to inflict vpon sinners for the same were both infinite because the offence was infinite and therefore none but a person of infinite worth value and vertue was able to endure the one and satisfie the other If any man shall say it was possible for a meere man stayed by diuine power and assistance to feele smart and paine in proportion answering to the pleasure of sin which is but finite and to indure for a time the losse of all that infinite comfort solace that is to be found in God answering to that aversion from God that is in sinne which is infinite and so to satisfie his justice he considereth not that though such a man might satisfie for his owne sinne yet not for the sinnes of all other who are in number infinite vnlesse his owne person were eminently as good as all theirs and vertually infinite Secondly that though he might satisfie for his owne actuall sin yet he could not for his originall sin which being the sin of nature cannot be satisfied for but by him in whom the whole nature of man in some principall sort is found Thirdly he considereth not that it is impossible that any sinner should of himselfe euer cease from sinning and that therefore seeing
so long as sinne remaineth the guilt of punishment remaineth he must be euerlastingly punished if he suffer the punishment due to his euerlasting sinne and consequently that he cannot so suffer the punishments due to his actuall sinnes as hauing satisfied the vvrath and justice of God to free himselfe from the same If it be said that by grace he may cease from sinning and so suffer the punishment due to sin so ceasing and not eternall it vvill be replyed that God giueth not his grace to any till his justice be first satisfied and a reconciliation procured for hee giueth it to his friends not to his enemies Touching the second thing that vvas to be done for mans deliuerance vvhich vvas the making vp of the breach made vpon the nature of man the freeing him from the impuritie of inherent sinne that so the punishment due to sinne past being felt and suffered he might be reconciled to God it could not bee performed by any meere creature vvhatsoeuer For as all fell in Adam the roote and beginning of naturall being vvho receiued the treasures of righteousnesse and holinesse for himselfe and those that by propagation vvere to come of him so their restauration could not bee vvrought but by him that should be the roote fountaine and beginning of supernaturall and spirituall being in whom the whole nature of mankind should be found in a more eminent sort then it was in Adam as indeed it was in the second Adam of whose fulnesse we all receiue grace for grace And this surely was the reason why it was no injustice in God to lay vpon him the punishments due to our sinnes and why his sufferings doe free vs from the same It is no way just that one man hauing no speciall communion with another should suffer punishment for another mans fault but the whole nature of man being found in him in a more eminent sort then either in Adam or any one of them that came of him he hauing vndertaken to free deliuer it it was just right he should feele the miseries it was subiect vnto that being felt and sustained by him in such sort as was sufficient to satisfie diuine justice they should not be imposed or laid on vs. Hereupon some haue said that Christ was made sin not by acting or cōtracting sin for so to say were horrible blasphemy but by taking on him the guilt of all mens sinnes which yet is wisely to be vnderstood lest we run into errour For whereas the guilt of sin implieth two things a worthines to be punished a destination vnto punishment the former implieth demerite naturall or personall in him that is so worthy to bee punished this could not be in Christ the other which is obligatio ad poenam a being subject vnto punishment may grow from some cōmunion with him or them that are worthy to be punished And in this sense some say Christ took the guilt of our sins not by acting or contracting sin but by communion with sinners though not in sin yet in that nature which in them is sinfull guilty as those good men that are parts of a sinfull City are justly subject to the punishments due to that City not in that they haue fellowship with it in euill but in that they are parts of it being euill as the son of a traitor is justly subject to the grievous punishment of forfeiting the inheritance that should haue descended vpon him from his father though hee no way concurred with him in his treason in respect of his nearenesse cōmunion with him of whom he is as it were a part Wherupon all Divines resolue that men altogether innocent yet liuing as parts of the societies of wicked men are justly subiect to those temporal punishments those societies are worthy of that the reason why one man cannot bee subject to those spirituall punishments which others deserue is for that in respect of the spirit inward man they haue no such derivation frō dependance on or cōmuniō with others as in respect of the outward man they haue Wherefore to conclude this point we may safely resolue that no other could satisfie diuine justice and suffer the punishments due to sinne in such sort as to free vs from the same but Christ the Sonne of God in whom our nature by personall vnion was found in an excellent sort and that it was right and just that hauing taken our nature vpon him vndertaken to free and deliuer the same hee should suffer endure whatsoeuer punishments it was subject vnto For the illustration of this point the learned obserue that when God created Adam he gaue him all excellent precious vertues as Truth to instruct him Iustice to direct him Mercy to preserue him and Peace to delight him with all pleasing correspondence but that when he fell away forgate all the good which God had done for him these vertues left their lower dwellings and speedily returned backe to him that gaue them making report what was fallen out on earth and earnestly mouing the Almighty concerning this his wretched and forlorne creature yet in very different sort and maner For Iustice pleaded for the condemnation of sinfull man and called for the punishment hee had worthily deserued and Truth required the performance of that which God had threatned but Mercy intreated for miserable man made out of the dust of the earth seduced by Satan and beguiled with the shewes of seeming good Peace no lesse carefully sought to pacifie the wrath of the displeased God and to reconcile the Creature to the Creator When God had heard the contrary pleas and desires of these most excellent Orators and there was no other meanes to giue them all satisfaction it was resolued on in the high Councell of the blessed Trinity that one of those sacred Persons should become man that by taking to him the nature of man he might partake in his miseries and be subject to his punishments and by conjoyning his diuine nature and perfection with the same might fill it with all grace and heavenly excellencie Thus were the desires of these so contrary Petitioners satisfied for man was punished as Gods Iustice vrged that was performed which God had threatned as Truth required the offender was pittied as Mercy intreated and God man reconciled as Peace desired and so was fulfilled that of the Psalmist Mercy and Truth are met together Righteousnesse and Peace haue kissed each other Wherefore now let vs proceede to see which of the Persons of the blessed Trinity was thought fittest to be sent into the world to performe this worke Not the Father for being of none he could not be sent Not the holy Ghost for though he proceede yet he is not the first proceeding Person and therefore whereas a double mission was necessary the one to reconcile the other to giue gifts to reconciled friends the first proceeding Person was fittest for the first
vnion the other of vnction or habituall and doe teach that the grace of vnion in respect of the thing giuen which is the personall subsistence of the Sonne of God bestowed on the nature of man formed in Maries wombe whence that which was borne of her was the Sonne of God is infinite howsoeuer the relation of dependance found in the humane nature whereby it is vnited to the person of the Sonne of God is a finite created thing Likewise touching the grace of vnction they teach that it is in a sort infinite also for that howsoeuer it be but a finite and created thing yet in the nature of grace it hath no limitation no bounds no stint but includeth in it selfe whatsoeuer any way pertayneth to grace or commeth within the compasse of it The reason of this illimited donation of grace thus without all stint bestowed on the nature of man in Christ was for that it was giuen vnto it as to the vniuersall cause whence it was to be deriued vnto others Frō the fulnesse of grace in Christ let vs proceed to speake of the perfection of his vertues also Vertue differeth from grace as the beame of light frō light for as light indifferently scattereth it self into the whole aire all those things vpon which it may come but the beame is the same light as it is directed specially to some one place or thing so grace replenisheth filleth perfecteth the whole soule spirit of man but vertue more specially this or that faculty or power of the soule to this or that purpose or effect In respect of both these the soule of Christ was perfect being full of vertue as wel as grace wherevpon the Prophet Esay saith The Spirit of the Lord shall rest vpon the flowre of Ishai the Spirit of wisedome and vnderstanding the Spirit of counsell strength the Spirit of knowledge of the feare of the Lord. Wisedome is in respect of things diuine vnderstanding of the first principles science of conclusions counsell of things to be done feare maketh men decline from that which is ill and strength confirmeth them to ouercome the difficulties wherewith weldoing is beset So that seeing the spirit that is the giuer of all these vertues within the compasse whereof all vertue is confined is promised to rest on our Sauiour Christ we may vndoubtedly resolue that there is no vertue pertayning to man neither including in it imperfection as Faith Hope nor presupposing imperfection in him that hath it as Repentance which presupposeth the penitent to bee a sinner but it was found in Christs humane nature reasonable soule that euen from the very moment of his incarnation How is it then will some man say that the Scripture pronounceth that he increased in the perfections of the mind to wit both in grace wisedome as hee grew in stature of body And here that question is vsually proposed handled whether Christ did truly and indeede profit and growe in knowledge as not knowing all things at the first as he grew in stature of body from weake beginnings or only in the farther manifestation of that knowledge hee had in like degree of perfection from the beginning For the clearing whereof wee must note that there were in Christ two kinds of knowledge the one diuine and increate the other humane and created Touching the first there is no doubt but that being the eternall Wisdome of the Father by whom all things were made hee knew eternally all things that afterwards should come to passe and therefore the Arrians impiously abused those places of Scripture which they brought to proue that Christ grew in knowledge and learned something in processe of time which he knew not before in that they vnderstood them of his diuine knowledge which he had in that he was God and thereby went about to proue that he was not truly and properly God nor consubstantiall with the Father but soe only and in such a sense as that wherein the Apostle sayth There are many Lords and many Gods The later kind of knowlege found in Christ which is humane the Schoolemen diuide into two kinds the one in verbo the other in genere proprio that is the one in the eternall Word wherein he seeth all things the other that whereby he seeth things in themselues for he hath an immediate and cleare vision of the Godhead and in it of all things and hee hath also the knowledge and sight of things in themselues By vertve of the first of these two kinds of humane knowledge the soule of Christ beholding the diuine Essence in it seeth all things in respect of that they are and taketh a perfect view of the Essence and nature of euery thing that is may be or is possible to be as in that sampler according to which God worketh all things but the actuall being of things it cannot know by the vision and sight of Gods Essence but meerely by his voluntary reuelation and manifestation of the same seeing though the Essence of God be naturally a sampler of all things that are or may be according to which all things are wrought yet he produceth things voluntarily and according to the good pleasure of his will not naturally necessarily so that that kind of knowledge which consisteth in the vision of God is more perfect then any other onely maketh men happie because it is in respect of the best and most noble object Yet the other kind of knowledge that maketh vs take a view of things in themselues is more perfect in that it maketh knowne vnto vs the actuall being of things and particular facts which that happie kind of knowledg of things seen in the glasse of the diuine Essence doth not These things thus distinguished it is easie to conceiue how and in what sort Christ grew and increased in grace and wisdome and how hee was full of the same from the moment of his incarnation soe that nothing could bee afterwards added vnto him For concerning his diuine knowledge the perfection of it was such and so infinite from all eternitie that it is impious once to thinke that hee grew and increased in the same Touching the humane knowledge he had of things seene in the eternall word and in the cleare glasse of the diuine Essence it is most probably thought by some of excellent learning that though the soule of Crist had at the first and brought with it into the world a potentiall hability and aptnesse to see all things in God soe soone as it should conuert it selfe to a distinct view of them that yet it did not actually see all things in the Essence of God at once from the beginning but afterwards in processe of time and for the other kind of knowledge and apprehension of things which he had as beholding them in themselues they thinke it was perfect in habit from the first moment of his incarnation but
will not conceiue that they may haue something to say against vs are all easily cleared and answered by this explication of the same By that which hath beene sayd touching Christs being a Mediatour according to both natures wee may easily vnderstand how and according to what nature hee is Head of the Church In a naturall Head Bonauentura obserueth three things the first that it is Conforme caeteris membris the second that it is Principium membrorum and the third that it is Influxiuum sensus motus that is first that it hath conformitie of nature with the rest of the members of the body Secondly that it is the first chiefest and in a sort the beginning of all the members and thirdly that from it influence of sense and motion doth proceede and hee sheweth the same to bee found in Christ the mysticall head of the Church For first hee hath conformitie of nature with them that are members of his body the Church in that he is Man Whereupon S. Augustine sayth Vnius naturae sunt vitis palmites the vine and the branches are of the same nature And secondly as the naturall head is the chiefest and most principall of all the members so is Christ more excellent then they that are Christs Omnia membra faciunt vnum corpus sayth S. Augustine multum tamen interest inter caput caetera membra Etenim in caeteris membris non sentis nisi tactu tangendo sentis in caeteris membris in capite autem vides audis olfacis gustas tangis All the members make one body yet is there great difference between the head and the rest of the members for in the rest a man hath no sense but that of feeling in the rest he discerneth by feeling but in the Head heseeth and heareth and smelleth and tasteth and feeleth So in the members of Christs mysticall body which is the Church there are found diuersities of gifts operations administrations and to one is giuen the word of wisdoâ—… to another the word of knowledge to another faith to another the gift of healing to another the operation of great workes and to another prophesie but to the man Christ the spirit was giuen without stint or measure and in him was found the fulnesse of all grace The third property of a naturall Head which is the iufluence of Senâ—…e and Motion agreeth vnto Christ in respect of his humanity and diuinity both For hee giueth influence of diuine sense and motion two waies per modum praeparantis and per modum impertientis that is by preparing and making men fitte to receiue grace by imparting it to them that are fitted prepared He prepareth and fitteth men to the receipt of Grace by the acts of his humanity in which hee suffered death dying satisfied Gods wrath remoued all matter of dislike meritted the fauour and acceptation of God and soe made men fitte to receiue the grace of God and to enioy his fauour Hee imparteth and conferreth grace by the operation and working of his diuine nature it being the proper worke of God to inlighten the vnderstandings of men and to soften their hearts So that to conclude this point we may resolue that the grace in respect whereof Christ is Head of the Church is of two sorts the one created and habituall the other increate and of Vnion In respect of the one hee giueth grace effectiuè by way of efficiencie in respect of the other dispositiuè by way of disposition fitting vs that an impression of grace may be made in vs. CHAP. 17. Of the things which Christ suffered for vs to procure our reconciliation with God HAuing shewed how Christ as a Mediator interposed himselfe between God and vs when we were his enemies and how he is the Head of that blessed company of them that beleeuing in him looke for saluation let vs see consider first what he suffered for vs to reconcile vs vnto God secondly what he did for vs thirdly what the benefits are that hee bestoweth on vs and fourthly to whom he committed the dispensation of the rich treasures of his graces the word of reconciliation and the guiding and gouerning of the people which hee purchased as a peculiar inheritance to himselfe Touching the first to wit the sufferings of Christ he was by them to satisfie the justice of God his Father displeased with vs for sinne that so wee might bee reconciled vnto him Wherefore that wee may the better conceiue what was necessary to be done or suffered to satisfie the justice of God wee must consider sinne in the nature of a wrong and in the nature of sin In the nature of a wrong and so two things were required for the pacifying of Gods wrath for first he that hath done wrong must restore that he vnjustly tooke away from him whom he wronged and secondly hee must do something in recompence of the wrong he did as if hee tooke away another mans good name by false and lying reports hee must not only restore it to him againe by acknowledging that the things were vntrue which in defamation of him hee had spoken but he must also take all occasions to raise continue and increase a good opinion of him If sinne be considered in the nature of sinne it implyeth in it two things debitum poenae and debitum neglectae obedientiae that is a debt of punishment and a debt of obedience then neglected when it should haue been performed and therefore in the satisfaction that is to reconcile us to God displeased with vs for sinne as sinne two things must be implyed for first the punishment must be sustained that sinne deserued and secondly that obedience must be performed that should haue been yeelded whilest sinne was committed but was neglected For if only the punishment be sustained we may escape the condemnation of death but we cannot inherit eternall life vnlesse the righteousnesse and obedience which Gods law requireth be found in vs also Now the law of God requireth obedience not only in the present time and time to come but from the beginning of our life to the end of the same if wee desire to inherit the promised blessednesse And though the performance of that obedience that was neglected may seeme to be in the nature of merit rather then satisfaction yet in that it is not simply the meriting and procuring of fauour and acceptation but the recouering of lost friendship and the regaining of renewed loue it is rightly esteemed to pertaine vnto satisfaction Touching sinne considered in the nature of an offence wrong and the things required to pacifie Gods wrath in that respect there is no question but that the sinner himselfe that wronged God in sinning must by sorrow of heart disliking and detesting and by confession of mouth condemning former euils restore that glory to God hee tooke from him and seeke and take all occasions the weaknes of his meanes wil affoord
damage It were impious to thinke that Christ suffered the former kinde but that hee suffered this latter kinde of punishment of losse damage many great Diuines are of opinion For though as hee was ioyned to God affectione iustitiae that is by the affection of vertue or justice hee could not be diuided or separated from him no not for a moment because he could not but loue him feare him trust in him giue him the praise and glory that belongeth to him yet as he was to be joyned to him affectione commodi that is by that affection that seeketh pleasing content in enjoying those ineffable delights pleasures that are found in him hee might bee and was for a time diuided from him For as very great graue Diuines do thinke he was destitutus omni solatio that is destitute void of all that solace he was wont to find in God in that fearefull houre of darknesse of his dolefull passion As saith Melchior Canus Christ in the time of his life miraculously restrained kept within the closet of his secret Spirit the happines that he injoyed in seeing God that it should not spread farther communicate it self to the inferior faculties of his Soule or impart the brightnes of it to the body so in the houre of his passion his very Spirit was with-holden from any pleasure it might take in so pleasing an object as is the Essence Majesty and glory of God which euen then he clearely beheld So that Christ neuer wanted the vision of that object which naturally maketh all them happy that beholde it and filleth them with such joy as no heart of mortall man can conceiue or tongue expresse But as it was strange and yet most true in the time of his life that his Soule enjoyed Heauen-happines and that yet neither the inferiour faculties thereof were admitted into any fellowship of the same nor his Body glorified but subject to misery and passion so it fell out by the speciall dispensation of Almighty God in the time of his death and in that fearefull houre of darknes that his Soule seeing God the pleasure delight that naturally commeth from so pleasing an object stayed with-held communicated not it selfe vnto it as a man in great distresse taketh no pleasure in those things that otherwise exceedingly affect him This his conceipt he saith he communicated to very great and worthy Diuines while he was yet but a young man and that they were so farre from disliking it that they approued it exceedingly But some man will say it is not possible in this life to feele extremity of paines answereable to the paines of hell more then on earth to enjoy the happines of Heauen and that therefore it is absurd to grant that Christ in the dayes of his flesh suffered in this World extremity of paine answerable to the paines of hell Hereunto it is answered that in ordinary course it is impossible for any man liuing in this World either to enjoy the happines of Heauen or feele the paines of Hell but that as Christ was at the same time both Viator and Comprehensor that is a manlike vnto vs that journey here in this World towards Heauen-happines and yet happy with that happines that ordinarily is found no where but in Heauen so hee might suffer that extremity of paine haue that apprehension of afflictiue euils that ordinarily is no where to bee found in this World euen while he liued here on earth Luther saith truely that if a man could perfectly see his owne euils the sight thereof would bee a perfect hell vnto him now it is certaine that Christ saw all the euils of punishment before expressed to which he voluntarily subjected himselfe to satisfie diuine Iustice comming fierce and violently vpon him with as cleare a sight and as perfect an apprehension of them as is to be had in the other World CHAP. 18. Of the nature and qualitie of the passion and suffering of Christ. HItherto we haue spoken of the punishments that Christ sustained and suffered to satisfie the justice and pacifie the wrath of his Father Now it remaineth that we come to take a view of the nature and qualitie of his passion and suffering consisting partly in his feare and agonie before and pardy in his bitter sorrow and distresse in the very act of that dolefull tragedy Touching the first the Scripture testifieth that he feared exceedingly and desired the cuppe might passe from him Touching the second that he was beset with sorrowes euen vnto the death and that in his extremitie he cried aloud My God my God why hast thou forsaken me But touching both these passions of feare sorrow it is noted that whereas there are three kindes of faults found in the passions of mens mindes the first that they arise before reason be consulted or giue direction the second that they proceed farther then they should and stay not when they are required and the third that they transport reason judgement it selfe Christ had these passions but in a sort free from all these euils For neither did they arise in him before reason gaue direction wherevpon he is said to haue troubled or moued himselfe in the case of Lazarus for whom he greatly sorrowed neither did they proceede any farther if once reason judgement commanded a stay and retrait wherevpon they are called Propassions rather then Passions not because as Kellison ignorantly supposeth reason preuenteth them and causeth them to arise though it bee true it doth so but because they are but fore-runners to passions at liberty and beginnings of passions to be staied at pleasure rather then full and perfect passions and therefore much lesse had they any power to transport judgement reason it selfe From these generall considerations of the passions of Christ let vs proceede to take a more particular view of the chiefe particulars of his passions to wit Feare Sorrow Feare is described to bee a retiring or flying backe from a thing if it be good because it is too high and excellent aboue the reach and without the extent of our condition power if it be euill because it is hard to bee escaped So that the proper and adequate obiect of feare is not as some suppose future euill but difficulty greatnesse excellency which found in things good makes vs know wee cannot at all attaine them or at least that wee cannot attaine them but with too great difficultie labour in euill that they will not easily be ouer mastered or escaped The difficultie greatnesse and excellency found in things that are good causeth feare of reuerence which maketh vs steppe backe and not to meddle at all with thinges that are too high excellent for vs nor with things hard without good advice and causeth vs to giue place to those of better condition and to acknowledge and professe by all significations of body and
true Bishop againe and in that state dyed Thus doe our Adversaries seeme to carry this matter very fairely as if all were safe well whereas indeed they are in a very great straite for either Liberius was an heretick before his returne home and justly deposed for heresie or else Felix was neuer true Bishop and then their Church hath worshipped a schismaticke as a Pope-Saint for the space of a thousand yrares if he were an hereticke and justly deposed as to iustifie Felix they must be forced to confesse hee could neuer bee restored to the Episcopall office and dignity againe For the Canon of the Church is that no Catholicke becomming an hereticke and being condemned by the Church for such a one shall euer bee receiued to Ecclesiasticall honour againe so that hee could not dye true Pope as our Adversaries dreame he did Let them shew vs how they can cleare themselues from sundry absurd contradictions in this point and we will rest satisfied For wee doe not deny but that hee might repent of his subscribing to heresie and dye a Catholicke though some of the testimonies that Bellarmine bringeth will scarse proue it The next Pope that we finde to haue beene touched with any suspition of heresie is Anastasius the second whom the Author of the Pontificall taxeth First for that he communicated with Photius a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica that had communicated with Achacius Bishop of Constantinople without the counsell of the Bishops and Presbyters of the Catholique Church which his inconsiderate action made many of the Presbyters and Cleargy refuse to communicate with him Secondly for that he sought to restore Achacius whom Felix and Gelasius his predecessours had condemned for which fact hee was suddenly stricken of God in such sort that he dyed To these Gratian addeth another taxation reprehending him for that hee allowed the baptisme and ordination of such as were baptized and ordained by Achacius after he was become an hereticke But because the baptisme and ordination of heretickes is holden good and it appeareth by the Epistle of Anastasius to Anastasius the Emperour that Achacius was dead before he was Bishop and that hee desired to haue the name of Achacius razed out of the Diptickes of the Church after his death I will passe by this censure of the Authour of the Pontificall and Gratian as doubtfull and leauing Anastasius come to Vigilius who as Liberatus reporteth to get the Popedome like a notable dissembling hypocrite pretended at Rome to be a Catholicke but in his letters to Theodora the Empresse who was an hereticke condemned the Catholicke faith and promised that if Syluerius might be thrust out and hee put into his place he would restore Anthemius Bishop of Constantinople reiected by Agapetus for heresie Which being brought to passe by Theodora the Empresse and Syluerius vniustly banished he sate for a while as an Anti-pope and an heritique But when as Syluerius was dead he professed himselfe a Catholique and refused to performe that hee had promised to Theodora Whether this man being an hereticke in his outward profession at his entrance and by such profession getting the Popedome vnjustly schismatically and as an Anti-pope could euer after be true Pope let our Aduersaries giue vs answere when they haue aduisedly thought of it The next Pope that is charged with heresie is Honorius the first whom the Christian world and not a fewe particular men onely condemned as a Monothelite For in the sixth generall Councell his Epistles to Sergius the heretique are publikely read and condemned and he accursed as an hereticke The seauenth generall Councell likewise doth anathematize Honorius Sergius Syrus and the other Monothelites In the eigth generall Councell called about the matter of difference betweene Ignatius and Photius the acts of the Councell of the West vnder Adrian the second are read and allowed wherein Adrian professeth that none of the inferiour Sees may judge the greater and specially Rome vnlesse it be in case of heresie in which case they of the East did anathematize and accurse Honorius which yet he sayth they would not haue aduentured to do if the Romane Church had not gone before them in such condemnation of her owne Bishop Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour which wee finde in the end of the sixth generall Councell accurseth the same Honorius as an heretique and a wicked one that defiled and polluted the Apostolike chaire with heresie With Leo consenteth Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople Theodorus Bishop of Hierusalem Epiphanius in his disputation with Gregory in the sixth Action of the seuenth generall Councell Psellus Beda and the Author of the Pontificall These authorities may seeme very sufficient to proue that Honorius was an heretique yet so well are our aduersaries affected to him that they will rather discredit them all then suffer him to be spotted and disgraced and therefore some of them say that the sixth generall Councel is corrupted likewise the Epistle of Leo the second in the end of it that the Fathers in the 7th Councell were deceiued by the 6th as likewise Pope Adrian with the whole Romane Synode and the other Authors that concurre with them in the condemnation of Honorius Others thinke that indeede the 6th Councell condemned Honorius but vpon false information and so erred in a matter of fact Which conceipt is no way probable For that the Fathers of the Councel proceeded not rashly but caused the Epistles of Honorius written to the heads of the faction of the Monothelites for which he was suspected to be openly read and examined But say they first these Epistles haply were counterfeit 2ly If they were not counterfeit there is nothing in them contrary to the truth Neither of these answeres is sufficient For first that the Epistles were not coūterfeit it appeareth by Maximus who answereth a place brought out of one of thē sheweth the meaning of it as frō the Secretary that wrot it then liuing 2ly If these Epistles had bin coūterfeit the Legates of Agatho present there would haue taken exception to thē not haue cōsented to the condemnation of one of his predecessors vpon coūterfeit euidence Neither is the 2◠answere better thē the 1st for that the Fathers assēbled in a generall Coūcel should not be able to vnderstand the Epistles of Honorius judge whether they were hereticall or not as well as the Iesuites now liuing is very strange But let vs suppose the Iesuites to haue more wit thē all those worthy Bs Fathers that were assembled in the sixt Councel let vs see by taking a view of the Epistles themselues whether they may be cleared frō the error they haue bin charged with or not It is not to be denied but that Honorius in these his Epistles confesseth that the nature of God in Christ worketh the things that are diuine the nature of
made partakers of the life of grace or being already partakers of it to be strengthned confirmed and continued in the same Thirdly that the elements of bread and wine presenting to our consideration the spirituall nourishing force that is in the body blood of Christ are not a bolished in their substances as the Patrons of Transubstantiation imagine but onely changed in vse in that they doe not onely signifie but exhibite and communicate vnto vs the very body and blood of Christ with all the gracious working of the same Fourthly that the meaning of Christs wordes when hee said this is my body this is my blood is This which outwardly and visibly I giue vnto you is in substance bread and wine and in mysterie and exhibitiue signification my body and blood but this which invisibly together with the visible element I giue vnto you is my very body that was crucified and my blood that was shed for the remission of your sinnes Fifthly that the body and blood of Christ which the Sacraments doe not signifie only but exhibite also and whereof the faithfull are to be partakers are truely present in the blessed Sacrament but the one part denieth that they are present secundum suum esse naturale that is in the naturall beeing or beeing of essence because the body of Christ being finite and hauing finite dimensions cannot be in many places at one time the other part on the contrary side answereth that the body of Christ is finite indeed but that because it is personally ioyned to the Deity it is wheresoeuer the Deity is yet doe not they of this part say it is euery where localitèr but repletiuè personalitèr that is not locally but repletiuely and personally which distinction Zanchius professeth hee doth not well vnderstand but saith if their meaning bee that the body of Christ is present secundum esse personale that is in that being of diuine subsistence communicated to it whereof I haue spoken before they say true and contradict not the other who speake of the naturall beeing of Christes body or beeing of essence and not of existence or subsistence which is infinite and Diuine And though Christs body be euery where in that personall being as well as in the Sacrament yet is it not any where else presented vnto vs in the nature of spirituall food So that there is no difference between these men touching the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament neither will there bee any found touching the eating of it for whereas in eating there is implied a chewing or mastication of that which is eaten a traiection from the mouth into the stomacke and a turning of the substance of the meate into the substance of the eater a bodily eating of Christs body there cannot bee seeing it is impassible and admitteth no such diuision as is made in chewing and besides if it should bee swallowed whole it cannot bee turned into the substance of our bodies but rather turneth vs into the substance of it selfe so that there is onely a spirituall eating of Christ consisting in that chewing that is by meditation vpon the seuerall and distinct thinges that are found in his natures powers actions and sufferings a traiection from the vnderstanding part to the heart and an incorporation of the beleeuer into him Yet it is not to be denyed but that Luther and some other did teach that euen the wicked doe in a sort eat the flesh of Christ not as if they did corporally touch his sacred body much lesse teare rent or diuide it with their teeth or turne it into their substance but for that they may bee said in a sort to eate the flesh of Christ though vnprofitably and to their condemnation in that they truely receiue the body of Christ eating that outward substance of bread with which it is truely present though not locally and to this purpose the same Zanchius reporteth that a man of no vulgar note amongst the followers of Luther did not feare to tell him that hee and his doe not say that we eate the body of Christ corporally in such sort as that our mouth and body should touch his sacred body which is not locally present but that the body of Christ is eaten bodily only in respect of the Sacramentall vnion attributing that to the body of Christ that properly agreeth to the bread with which the body is present These things are found in a discourse of Zanchius intitled Iudicium Hieronymi Zanchii de dissidio caenae dominicae written by him for the satisfaction of a Bishop of Italy at the request and entreaty of Paulus Vergerius and Sturmius By that which hath beene said we see there is no difference in iudgement between them who out of humane frailty are too much diuided in affection Luther vttered many thinges very passionately against Zuinglius and others conceauing that they made the Sacraments to be nothing but onely notes distinctiue seruing to put difference betweene Christians and such as are no Christians as a Monkes Cowle distinguisheth a Monke from him that is no Monke or empty signes without all presence of grace and exhibition of the thinges they signifie But if hee had fully vnderstood the meaning of them hee was so violently opposite vnto hee would not haue censured them so hardly as hee did If Master Higgons had euer read this Tract of Zanchius hee would not haue willed Mee to excogitate or scanne out any reconciliation betwixt Lutherans and Sacramentaries in the matter of the Sacrament The second part of the Chapter §. 1. WHerefore let vs come to the next part of this Chapter wherein hee vndertaketh to demonstrate that the thinges alledged by Mee to take away the offence and scandall of the seeming differences amongst Protestants are but false and empty pretenses The first thing that I alledge is that it is not to bee marvailed at that the Tigurins Gesnerus and others disliked the distempered passions of Luther or that some difference were amongst them seeing the like were in former times betweene Epiphanius and Chrysostome Hierome Ruffinus Augustine and others The second that the Papistes haue their differences also and those farre more materiall and vnreconcileable then any are amongst vs. The third that our differences grow not out of the nature and quality of our doctrine and that wee want not a certaine rule by the direction whereof all controuersies may be ended Against the first of these my allegations first hee opposeth a diuelish vntrueth affirming that Gesnerus and the Tigurins did not onely dislike the distempered passions of Luther but hate him with mortall hatred and accurse and execrate him as possessed of a legion of Diuells which neither Higgons into whom a lying spirit is entred nor any of those diuells hee is growne so familiar with shall euer proue So that there is no cause of trembling but at the fearefull iudgement of God against such as Master Higgons is that forsake the loue of
knowledge of the tongues may be and is most necessary After all these exceptions taken against the helpes and rules proposed by me for the finding out of the true meaning of Scripture the Treatiser setteth on mee a fresh in fiercer manner then before and requireth me to bring some diuine testimony proofe or argument or some particular reason of the necessity and sufficiency of these helpes and rules Whereunto I briefly answer that if any Papist vnder Heauen can take any exception against any of these helpes and rules proposed by mee or deuise any other I will iustifie the necessity and sufficiencie of them but otherwise I thinke it altogether needlesse to proue that the Sunne shineth at noone 〈◊〉 to shew by reason or authority that spirituall things cannot bee discerned but by spirituall men The Treatiser therefore returneth and taketh new exceptions against the helpes and rules proposed by mee first affirming but most vntruely that the greater part of my brethren will not allow them and secondly labouring to improue them by reason For first that an illumination of the minde is not necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scripture hee goeth about to shew because if such illumination bee necessarie no man can be assured of the truth of another mans interpretation seeing no man can tell whether hee haue an illumination of the vnderstanding and a minde disposed in such sort as is required or not Whereunto I answer that it is true that no man can assure himselfe that another mans interpretation is true good out of any knowledge of such personall things in the interpreter yet may hee know it to bee true out of the nature of the thing it selfe and thence inferre that either hee that so interpreteth or they from whom hee receiued such interpretation had a diuine illumination For even as to discourse of the nature of colours presupposeth that the man that so discourseth hath or had sight if hee speake thereof with any apprehension of that hee speaketh though a blinde man hauing heard the discourses of other may vse like wordes without all sense and apprehension of that hee speaketh So no man can interprete the Scriptures and discourse of the thinges therein contayned with sence and feeling but such a one whose minde is enlightned though prophane persons and such as bee voyde of all diuine illumination may as from others interprete the Scripture and discourse of such diuine thinges as are therein And as a man may assure himselfe that another mans discourse of colours is good out of the nature of the thing it selfe though hee know not whether hee haue or euer had such sence of seeing as is requisite in him that will speake of colours with any apprehension so a man may know that another mans interpretation is true though hee know not whether he haue such an illumination of mind as is necessary for the vnderstanding of the things contayned in the Scripture Secondly hee vndertaketh to shew that no man can eyther assure himselfe that he hath the true meaning of Scripture or conuince the gaine-sayers by following the direction of the former rules because as hee supposeth a man cannot certainely know that hee hath an illumination of minde that hee hath obserued those rules that hee is disposed as hee should bee and furnished with learning in such sort as is requisite Whereunto first I answere briefly that it is as possible for a man to know whether he haue an illumination of the mind or not as it is whether he haue the light of naturall reason Secondly that the obseruation of the rules formerly mentioned and the disposition of a mans mind resolued to embrace the trueth may as easily be knowen as any other motions purposes and resolutions Neither is it more hard for a man that is spirituall to know whether hee bee sufficiently furnished with learning requisite for the vnderstanding of the Scripture then for a naturall man to knowe whether hee haue learning enough to vnderstand Aristotle or any other prophane authour Thirdly in confutation of the former rules hee alledgeth that they may not be admitted as necessary because if they bee all such as haue no illumination of minde nor willing disposition to embrace the truth when it shal be manifested to thē must be excluded out of the number of faithfull ones Which if he thinke to be an absurdity it is no great matter what he saith but he addeth that they that are vnlearned haue not the knowledge of all those arts and sciences that are necessary for the vnderstanding of sundry parts of Scripture nor of those originall tongues wherein they were written without the knowledge whereof they cannot be vnderstood whereas yet they are to build their fayth vpon the Scripture rightly vnderstood whence it will follow that all such must be excluded out of the number of the faythfull This indeed is such a consequence as must not be admitted neither is there any such thing consequent vpon that which we say For though all men haue not that knowledge of arts sciences and tongues that is necessary for the exact vnderstanding of all parts passages of Scripture yet may they vnderstand so much of the same as is necessary to saluation without the knowledge of arts sciences the things that are so precisely necessary being deliuered in very plaine easie and familiar termes Neither is it necessary that if a man will build his faith vpon the Scripture that he must vnderstand euery part of it Onely one scruple remayneth which is that an ignorant man can haue no certaine ground of his faith if he build the same vpon the Scripture because lacking the knowledge of tongues he cannot know whether it be truely translated or not but this scruple may easily be remoued seeing an ignorant man out of the Scripture it selfe duely proposed explayned and interpreted vnto him may know it to be diuine heauenly inspired of God and consequently that in what tongue soeuer it was written it is truely translated touching the substance howsoeuer happily there may be some accidentall aberrations whereof he cannot judge After these exceptions taken against the helpes rules proposed by me as necessary for the finding out of the sence and meaning of the Scripture the Treatiser obseruing no order in his writings addresseth himselfe to proue that we haue no certaine meanes whereby to know that the Scriptures are of God or which they bee and then returneth againe to proue that we haue no certaine rule whereby to be assured we haue the sence of them But all that hee sayth to this purpose may easily bee answered For first the truth of Christian doctrine is diuinely proued vnto vs by the satisfaction wee finde in the same touching things wherein naturall reason left vs vnresolued and the effects wee finde to follow vppon the receiuing of it Secondly that Christian doctrine is reuealed it is euident because staying within the confines of the light of naturall
I may be as good as my word iustifie it against the proudest Papist liuing that none of the differences between Melancthon Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall Wherefore the Treatiser leaueth Illyricus commeth to Hosiander whom hee will proue to haue holden a priuate opinion touching iustification because Calvine in his Institutions spendeth almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of his conceipt touching the same Article which in the very entrance hee calleth hee wores not what monster of essentiall righteousnesse Conradus Schlusselburge placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of heretickes But this obiection will easily be answered For it is not to be doubted but Caluine the rest iustly disliked that which they apprehended to bee his opinion and condemned it as a monster For they conceiued that heâ—… made Iustification to bee nothing else but a transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a mixture and confusion of it with vs. But Smidelinus sheweth at large that he neuer had any such conceipt but that distinguishing three kinds of righteousnesse in Christ whereof we are made partakers to wit actiue passiue and essentiall in that hee was the Sonne of God he taught that justification is not onely an acceptation and receiuing of vs to fauour vpon the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ but an admission of vs also to the right of the participation of the diuine nature as Peter speaketh and of that essentiall righteousnesse that was in him in that he was the sonne of God that so receiuing of his fulnesse we may be filled with all diuine qualities and graces The reason why hee thus vrged the implying of the communication of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ in our iustification was not as the same Smidelinus telleth vs for that he thought iustification to consist wholy therein or for that hee meant to exclude the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ from being causes of our iustification or receiuing fauour with God but because he saw many mistooke and abused the doctrine of free justification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to the carelesse neglecting of al righteousnesse in themselues therefore he taught there is no remission of sin no receiuing of any man to fauour by vertue of the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnes of Christ vnlesse out of dislike of sin desire of grace to auoid it he be admitted to the right of the participation of that essentiall righteousnes that dwelt in him in all fulnesse that so it may dwell in him that is to be iustified also in some degree sort Neither is this construction of Hosianders words made by Smidelinus onely but by sundry other For Stapleton sayth the followers of Brentius defended the opinion of Hosiander whereas yet neither Brentius nor any of his followers euer dreamed of any transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs any mixture or confusion of it with vs or any other communication of it to vs or in any other sort then is before expressed So that the Treatiser had no reason to write as he doth that my proceedings are rare and singular and that I feare not to affirme things apparantly false and confessed vntrue by all my brethren much lesse to say that euery man may easily perceiue by these my proceedinges that I had a good opinion of mine owne wit and learning For what haue I done that sauoureth of pride or wherein haue I bewrayed such vanitie as he speaketh of Is it a matter of pride not to condemne hastily other opinions to make the fairest and best construction of other mens words especially such as are of the same profession with vs Wherefore if the Treatiser be able to say any thing against this my defence of Illyricus and Hosiander I will heare him otherwise let him not tell me of my schoole distinctions for I am not ashamed of them Neither doe I vse them as the Romane sophisters do to auoid the euidence of that truth that is too mighty for them to encounter but to cleare that which the Romanistes desire to haue wrapped vp in perplexed and intricate disputes But it seemeth the Treatiser will not accept of this condition and therefore hee passeth from the supposed diuisions of our Churches and differences of our Diuines proceedeth to shew their inconstancie instancing particularly in Luther And wheras in my former books I haue answered the obiections of Papistes touching this supposed inconstancie he goeth about to refute that my answer which consisteth of two parts Whereof the first is that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-will iustification the difference of the Law and the Gospell faith and workes Christian liberty and the like Luther was euer constant The second that it is not so strange as our Aduersaries would make it that Luther proceeded by degrees in discerning sundry Popish errours seeing Augustine and their Angelicall Doctour altered their iudgment in diuerse things and vpon better consideration disliked what they had formerly approued The former part of this my answere he pronounceth to containe a manifest vntruth for that amongst other things mentioned by me Luther was not euer constant of one iudgment touching freewil hee endeauoureth to proue because in the defence of his Articles condemned by the Pope he saith Freewil is a forged or fained thing a title without a substance it being in no mans power to think any thing good or euill but all things falling out of absolute necessity and else-where hee saith men of their owne proper strength haue free-will to doe or not to doe externall workes so that they may attaine to secular and ciuill honesty But M. Treatiser should know that between these sayings of Luther there is no contradiction in truth and in deed but in his fancy onely for in the former place two things are deliuered by Luther The first that no man by nature hath power to turne himselfe to God without grace or so much as to prepare himself to the receipt of grace which in the latter place speaking onely of externall workes and ciuill or secular honesty hee doth not contradict The second that though men in outward things and things that are below haue a kinde of freedome of will and choyce and power to doe or not to doe them yet not so free but that they are subject to the providence disposition of Almighty God bowing bending turning them whither he pleaseth and hauing them in such sort in his hand as that they can will nothing vnlesse he permit them which no way preiudiceth that liberty which else-where he attributeth to the will For the will of man is sayd to be free because it doth nothing but on liking and choice and because God permitting it hath power to doe what pleaseth it best and not because it is free and not subiect to diuine disposition and