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
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
in these words The Grecians are of opinion that the holy Ghost is the spirit of the Sonne but that hee proceedeth not from the Son but from the Father onely yet by the Son and this opinion seemeth to bee contrary to ours For wee say the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father the Son But happily if two wise and vnderstanding men the one of the Greeke Church the other of the Latine both true louers of the trueth and not of their owne sayings because they are their owne might meete to consider of this seeming contrariety it would in the end appeare that this difference indeede and in trueth is not reall but verball onely For otherwise either the Grecians or wee that are of the Latine Church are truely Heretickes But who dares charge this Authour Iohn Damascen or those blessed ones Basil Gregorie the Diuine or Gregorie Nazianzen Cyril and other Greeke Fathers of like esteeme with heresie And again on the other side who dares brand blessed Hierome Augustine Ambrose Hilarie and other like Latine Fathers with the note of heresie Therefore it is likely that though there be contrariety in the words of these fathers so that they seem to bee contrary one to another yet in judgement meaning they agree Stanislaus Orichovius as Andreas Fricius reporteth a man renowned for wit eloquence profound science in divers kinds hath written of the opinions of the Russians and in an epistle to Peter Gamrat an Archbishoppe in Polonia he sheweth how the differences touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost where they seeme especially to bee contrary vnto vs may bee agreed and composed Thomas à Iesu resolueth cleerely that this question touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost is onely de modo loquendi and that the difference is not reall which hee sheweth to be true in this sort The Greekes who deny the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne acknowledge that hee is the spirit of the Sonne and that hee is given vnto vs by the Sonne Wee doe not say sayth Damascen that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne but wee name him the spirit of the Son If any man sayth the Apostle haue not the spirit of Christ hee is none of his And wee affirme that hee appeared by the Sonne was given vnto vs by him for hee breathed vpon his disciples sayd vnto them receiue the holy Ghost but wee neuer say that the Sonne is the son of the holy Ghost or proceedeth from him They teach therefore that the spirit is proceedeth from the Father by the Son as the brightnesse is from the Sun by the beame And that as wee may say the brightnesse is the brightnesse of the Sun-beame aswell as of the Sun but not that the beame is the beame of that brightnesse so the spirit is the spirit of the Son but the Son is not the son of the spirit So then they say the holy Ghost proceedeth or receiueth essence being from the Father onely as from the originall fountaine but by the Son as a middle person in order of subsistence betweene them receiving being immediatly from the Father so mediately deriving cōmunicating it to him Neither Greekes nor Latines therefore deny the holy Ghost to receiue being essence from the Sonne and consequently to proceede from him as from a middle person in order of subsistence betweene the Father him in such sort as the brightnesse that floweth from the sun is from the sun-beame betweene the sun and it Neither of them deny the Father to be the fountaine and the originall as the sunne is the fountaine whence floweth both the beame brightnesse of light And both agree that the Father from whom the Sonne by whom the spirit receiueth being are one cause or one beginning and that by one eternall breathing the spirit receiueth essence or subsistence from them both in such sort as the sonne and beame are one cause and doe by one action send forth that shining brightnesse that floweth from them By that which hath beene spoken sayth Thomas à Iesu it is easie to vnderstand that those Greekes which seeme to differ from the Latines differ but in words only and that the Churches may easily be brought to a reconciliation and agreement if they will but endeavour to vnderstand each the other But the Latines and those Greekes that agree with them speake more fitly expresse the thing whereof they speake better then the other Howsoever it is certaine that some of the Fathers expressed that they conceiued of this mystery in one sort and some in another Tertullian sayth the holy spirit is from the Father by the Son his words are Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium Hilarie sayth he is from the Father and the Son His words are de patre filio authoribus confitendus est c. When the holy spirit is sent sayth Hierom he is sent of the Father and the Son and in Scripture hee is called sometimes the spirit of the Father sometimes of the Son And again Spiritus à Patre egreditur propter naturae societatem à filio mittitur That is the spirit proceedeth from the Father and in that he is of the same nature and essence with the Son he is sent of him Why should wee not beleeue sayth Augustine that the holy spirit proceedeth from the Sonne also seeing hee is the spirit of the Sonne The Greekes say not expressely that hee proceedeth from the Father and the Sonne for in the creede of Athanasius as it is found in the Greeke the words are the spirit is of the Father not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding without the addition of the Sonne But some of them say he is or receiued being from the Father that he appeared by the Son and is a perfect image of the Son Others that not only the Father but the Son also sendeth the holy spirit Some that hee proceedeth from the Father and receiueth of the Sonne And others that hee is from the Father by the Sonne In all which diversitie of words and formes of speaking there was one the same meaning and therefore no exception was taken by one against another But the controversie that now is touching this point began in this sort The first publishers of the Gospell of Christ deliuered a rule of faith to the Christian Churches which they founded comprehending all those articles that are found in that epitome of Christian religion which wee call the Apostles creed But in processe of time when Arrius and his complices questioned the deity of Christ and denied him so to bee the sonne of God as to bee coequall coeternall and coessentiall with the father Constantine called a Councell and assembled the Bishops of the Christian world at Nice a city in Bithinia these Bishops cleared the poynt in controversie and with vnanimous consent composed a
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
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
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
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
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
booke in explication and defence of this one decree of the councell and telleth vs the councell neuer meant simply to condemne the certainety of grace but onely that kinde of certainety that heretickes imagine which is without all examination of themselues their estate the trueth of their profession their dislike of sinnefull evills and desire of reconciliation and grace to decline euill and to doe good to perswade themselues they are justified And whereas most men conceiue the meaning of the councell to bee that hee is accursed that thinketh it necessary for the attayning of remission of sinnes that every man should perswade himselfe without any doubting in respect of his owne indisposition that his sinnes are remitted that thus to perswade himselfe procureth remission hee maketh the meaning of it to be that whosoeuer without consideration of his estate whether hee be rightly disposed or otherwise presumeth of Gods grace fauour is worthily anathematized but if a man hauing examined himselfe finde a disposition in dislike of former euills to returne vnto God to seeke remission grace not to offend in like sort any more he may notwithstanding the decree of the councell nay he ought to assure himselfe of remission and grace And there vpon bringeth forth a cloude of witnesses for confirmation of the certainety of grace But whatsoeuer wee thinke of the construction he maketh of the wordes of the decree he resolueth that a man may bee as certaine that his sinnes are remitted and he receiued to grace as that twise two are foure twise foure eight and that euery whole is greater then his part or as a man is resolued touching the things hee seeth with his eyes and handleth with his hands Gaspar Casalius a Bishoppe of Portugall that was present in the councell of Trent writeth largely against that kinde of imagined certainety which Eisingreinius sayth the councell meant to condemne And then goeth forward An non licet homini unquam credere firmiter se esse iustum á peccatis saltem á mortalibus Quidem in eâ formâ nunquam licet vt ex dictis patet quia est illa fides siue confidentia superba imprudentissima An licet in aliâ formâ Vtique licet In quâ formâ licet habendo respectum ad divinas promissiones conditionales ad conditiones quas requirunt Etenim omnes tenemur firmiter credere fide diviná cui non potest subesse falsum tam de nobis ipsis quam de aliis omnes Adae filios de facto iustos esse aut iustificari quotquot habent eas conditiones quas diuina promissio sive diuina lex conditionalis ad id requirit in nobis Hoc constat quia omnes tenemur tali fide credere Deum veracem in omnibus dictis suis pertinentibus ad doctrinam promissiones cunctis aliis adhibito autem diligenti in nobis de nobis examine dum quis seipsum probat ad iudicium rationis ac legis trahit licet vnicuique iudicare de se prudenter tamen procedendo cum examine discretione quòd eas conditiones requisit as habet vel non habet Si enim hoc non liceret nobis non diceret Paulus 1 Cor. 11. Probet autem seipsum homo sic de pane illo edat de calice bibat Nec diceret Apostolus Ioannes 1 Ioh. 4. Nolite omni spiritui credere sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint quoniam multi Pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum Ecce committitur nobis probatio adhibitis his quae ad rem ipsam adhiberi debent tum nostritum spirituum Licet ergo nobis iudicare de nobis benè vel malè prout in nobis invenerimus dummodo prudenter agamus cum prudentiâ intuentes discurrentes concludentes Mox vero prout quis cum prudentiâ de se iudicaverit quod conditiones á Deo requisitas habeat potest etiam iudicare de seipso quod iustus sit si certò certò si cum formidine cum formidine firmae enim praestant divinae promissiones iuxta suas conditiones ex parte illarum nullus est defectus nec esse potest So that according to this opinion a man certainely finding in him the performance of the condition required may assure himselfe of his justification acceptation with God and this assurance is an act of faith No man liuing sayth Vega should euer draw mee to doubt neither indeede could I doubt if I would of my being in the state of grace if I might inferre it out of two propositions the one beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto mee For there are many propositions de fide which can no otherwise bee proved to be de fide but because they cleerely follow vpon things beleeued some proposition evident in the light of nature As Scotus sheweth that this proposition the father differeth really from the sonne is a proposition of faith because it is inferred out of these two The father begat and the sonne was begotten and this other evident in the light of nature Omnis generans realiter differt à genito Qui pertinaciter dubitaret de propositione illatâ evidenter ex vnâ—… creditâ—… alia evidenti esset haereticus hic enim cum non posset dubitare de consequentiâ nec de euidenti dubitaret de credita It will bee sayd that graunting such a proposition to bee de fide as followeth out of two propositions whereof one is beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto vs yet it will not follow that wee may bee certaine that wee are in the state of grace Because that cannot bee inferred out of two such propositions seing one of them must depend on experience and the knowledge of our inward actions which as some thinke cannot be certainely knowen by vs. Let vs see therefore whether a man may certainely discerne the quality and condition of his soule and the motions actions and desires of the same There are that thinke that our inward actions are vnknowen vnto vs and that the nature of the heart is such as is knowen onely to God But Saint Paul sayth 1 Cor. 2. that the spirit of a man knoweth the things that are in him And besides if wee could not knowe our inward actions wee should not bee commaunded or forbidden to doe such actions neither should wee bee required to confesse our inward sinnes if wee could not know them All which things are absurde and hereticall It is cleere therefore that wee may know and discerne our inward actions that wee may know what we do what wee will and in what sort and to what end wee will it Wee may know therefore whether we sorrow for sinnes because wee haue thereby displeased God or for some other reason whether wee esteeme the losse of Gods favour the greatest euill whether wee would rather regaine it then haue all things without it whether wee would not bee willing to
mission and the second for the second Secondly who was fitter to be cast out into the Sea to stay the tempest then that Ionas for whose sake it arose Almighty God was displeased for the wrong offred to his Sonne in desiring to be like vnto God and to know all things in such sort as is proper to the onely begotten Sonne of the Father therefore was he the fittest to pacifie all againe Thirdly who was fitter to become the Son of man then he that was by nature the Sonne of God Patrem habuit in coelis Matrem quaesiuit in terris Hee had a Father in heauen he sought onely a mother on earth Who could bee fitter to make vs the Sonnes of God by adoption grace then he that was the Sonne of God by nature who fitter to repaire the Image of God decayed in vs then hee that was the brightnesse of glory and the engrauen forme of his Fathers Person Lastly who was fitter to bee a Mediator then the middle Person who was in a sorte a Mediator in the state of creation and before the fall Wherevpon Hugo de Sancto victore bringeth in Almighty God speaking to the Sonnes of men concerning Christ his Sonne in this sort Nolite putare quòd ipse tantùm sit Mediator in reconciliatione hominum quia per ipsum etiam commendabilis placita fit aspectui meo conditio omnium creaturarum that is thinke not that he is a Mediator onely in the reconciliation of men for by him the condition of all creatures is gratefull vnto me and pleasing in my sight Magni consilii Angelus sayth Hugo nobis mittitur vt qui conditis datus fuit ad gloriam idem perditis veniat ad medelam that is the Angell of the great Counsell is sent vnto vs that hee who was giuen vnto vs when we were made to bee the crowne of our glory and Prince of our excellency might relieue helpe and restore vs when we were lost Yet our aduersaries take I knowe not what exceptions against Caluin for saying that Christ was a Mediator in the state of creation but they should know that there is a Mediator of reconciliation of parties at variance and a Mediator of coniunction of them that are farre asunder and remote one from another and that in this later sort betweene the Father that no way receiueth any thing from another and the creatures that so receiue their being from another that they are made out of nothing hee may rightly be sayd to mediate that receiueth being from another but the same that is in him from whom he receiueth it If any man shall say that the holy Ghost also in this sort commeth betweene him in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found and the creatures that are made of nothing as well as the Sonne and that therefore in this sence he also may be said to be a Mediator it is easily answered that the Sonne onely commeth betweene the Father in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found the creatures made of nothing as he by whom all things were made the holy Ghost as he in whom all things doe consist and stand and that therefore he hath not the condition of a Mediator being not considered as he by whom all things are bestowed vpon vs but as that gift in which all other things are giuen vnto vs so that the Sonne onely is the Mediator because by him from the Father in the holy Ghost we receiue all that which we haue and enjoy Neither needeth there any Mediator to conjoyne him to vs and vs to him for the medium conjoyneth both the extremes first with it selfe and then within themselues in that it hath something of one of them and something of another in something agreeing with and in something differing from either of the extremes So the Sonne of God agreeth with vs in that hee receiueth the beeing and Essence he hath from another in which respect he is distinguished though not diuided from the Father but in that the nature he receiueth from the Father is not another but the same which the Father hath he is vnlike vnto vs but agreeth with the Father And here we may see the malice and ignorance of them that charge Caluine with heresie for affirming that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe as if hee denyed the eternall generation of the Sonne of God and were contrary to the decree of the sacred Nicene Councell which defineth that he is Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine for these men should know that Christ may be sayd to be from another in two sortes either by production of Essence or by communication of Essence the Nicene Councell defined that Christ the Sonne of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is consubstantiall with the Father is notwithstanding God of God that is hath his Essence Deitie communicated vnto him by eternall generation from the Father euen the same the Father had originally in himselfe All which Caluine most willingly acknowledgeth to be true and therefore denyeth not but that it may bee truely sayd according to the sacred decree and definition of that worthy Councell that Christ the Sonne of God is God of God and light of light but to imagine as Valentinus Gentilis and other damnable heretickes did that he is from the Father by production of Essence whence it will follow that he hath not the same essence with the Father but another different from it inferior to it and dependant on it is impious and hereticall and in opposition to this impious conceit of these Hereticks and in the sense intended by them Caluine rightly denied Christ to bee God of God For this their conceipt was euer detested by all Catholiques as wicked blasphemous yea so farre are they from approuing any such impiety that no axiome is more common in all their Schooles then that Essentia nec generat nec generatur that is the diuine Essence neither generateth nor is generated and surely howsoeuer Kellison in his Suruey saith the contrary and opposeth his affirmatiue against the negatiue of all the most famous and renowned Schoole-men yet I am perswaded he did so rather out of ignorance then any reason leading him so to doe do thinke it more then improper and hard to say that the diuine Essence doth either generate or is generated Thus then Christ is truly sayd by Caluine to be God of himselfe by way of opposition to that kinde of being from another which is by production of Essence and yet is rightly acknowledged by him with the Nicene Fathers to be from another to wit the Father and to be God of God in that he receiueth the eternall Essence by communication from him This Bellarmine saw and acknowledged to bee true pronouncing that touching this point Calvin erred not in judgment that his opinion is rather an error in forme of words expressing ill that he
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
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
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
But concerning the Generall Councels of this sort that hitherto haue beene holden wee confesse that in respect of the matter about which they were called so neerely and essentially concerning the life and soule of the Christian Faith and in respect of the manner and forme of their proceeding and the euidence of proofe brought in them they are and euer were expresly to bee beleeued by all such as perfectly vnderstand the meaning of their determination And that therefore it is not to bee maruailed at if Gregory professe that hee honoureth the first foure Councels as the foure Gospels and that whosoeuer admitteth them not though hee seeme to bee a Stone elect precious yet hee lyeth beside the foundation and out of the building Of this sort there are onely sixe the first defining the Sonne of GOD to be co-essentiall co-eternall co-equall with the Father The second defining that the holy Ghost is truely God co-essentiall co-eternall and co-equall with the Father and the Sonne The third the vnity of Christs person The fourth the distinction and diuersity of his natures in and after the personall vnion The fifth condemning some remaines of Nestorianisme more fully explaining thinges stumbled at in the Councell of Chalcedon and accursing the Heresie of Origen and his followers touching the temporall punishments of Diuells and wicked Cast-awayes and the Sixth defining and clearing the distinction of operations actions powers and wils in Christ according to the diuersity of his natures These were all the lawfull Generall Councells lawfull I say both in their beginning and proceeding and continuance that euer were holden in the Christian Church touching matters of Faith For the Seauenth which is the second of Nice was not called about any question of Faith but of manners In which our Aduersaries confesse there may be something inconueniently prescribed and so as to bee the occasion of great grieuous euils and surely that is our conceit of the Seauenth Generall Councell the second of Nice for howsoeuer it condemne the religious adoration and worshipping of Pictures and seeme to allow no other vse of them but that which is Historicall yet in permitting men by outward signes of reuerence respect towards the Pictures of Saints to expresse their loue towards them and the desire they haue of enioying their happie society and in condemning so bitterly such as vpon dislike of abuses wished there might be no Pictures in the Church at all it may seem to haue giuen some occasion and to haue opened the way vnto that grosse Idolatrie which afterwards entered into the Church The Eigth Generall Councell was not called about any question of Faith or Manners but to determine the question of right betweene Photius Ignatius contending about the Bishopricke of Constantinople So that there are but seauen Generall Councels that the whole Church acknowledgeth called to determine matters of Faith and Manners For the rest that were holden afterwardes which our Aduersaries would haue to bee accounted Generall they are not onely reiected by vs but by the Grecians also as not Generall but Patriarchicall onely because either they consisted onely of the Westerne Bishoppes without any concurrence of those of the East or if any were present as in the Councell of Florence there were they consented to those thinges which they agreed vnto rather out of other respects then any matter of their owne satisfaction And therefore howsoeuer we dare not pronounce that lawfull Generall Councels are free from danger of erring as some among our Aduersaries doe yet doe wee more honour esteeme more fully admit all the Generall Councels that euer hitherto haue beene holden then they doe who feare not to charge some of the chiefest of them with errour as both the Second and the Fourth for equalling the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome which I thinke they suppose to haue beene an errour in Faith CHAP. 52. Of the calling of Councells and to whom that right pertaineth FROM the assurance of Trueth which lawfull Generall Councells haue let vs proceede to see by whom they are to bee called The state of the Christian Church the good thinges it enioyeth and the felicity it promiseth being spirituall is such that it may stand though not onely forsaken but grieuously oppressed by the great men of the world and doth not absolutely depend on the care of such as manage the great affaires of the World and direct the outward course of thinges here below and therefore it is by all resolued on that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that beare the Sword and that there is in the Church a power of conuocating these her Spirituall Pastours to consult of thinges concerning her wel-fare though none of the Princes of the World doe fauour her nor reach forth vnto her their helping handes neither need wee to seeke farre to find in whom this power resteth for there is no question but that this power is in them that are first and before other in each company of spirituall Pastors and Ministers seeing none other canne be imagined from whom each action of consequence each common deliberation should take beginning but they who are in order honour and place before other and to whom the rest that gouerne the Church in common haue an eye as to them that are first in place among them Hereupon we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synodes pertaineth to the Bishop of Prouinciall to the Metropolitane of Nationall to the Primate and of Patriarchicall to the Patriarch in that they are in order honour and place before the rest though some of these as Bellarmine truely noteth haue no commanding authority ouer the rest Touching Diocesan Synodes I shewed before that the Bishop is bound once euery yeare at least to call vnto him the Presbyters of his Church and to hold a Synode with thē and the Councell of Antioch ordaineth that the Metropolitane shall call together the Bishops of the Prouince by his letters to make a Synode And the Councell of Tarracon in Spaine decreeth that if any Bishoppe warned by the Metropolitane neglect to come to the Synode except hee be hindered by some corporall necessity he shall be depriued of the communion of all the Bishops vntill the next Councell The Epaunine Councell in like sort ordereth that when the Metropolitane shall thinke good to call his Brethren the Bishops of the same Province to a Synode none shall excuse his absence without an evident cause Touching Nationall Councels and such as consist of the Bishops of many Provinces such as were the Councels of Africa the calling of them pertained vnto the Primate as it appeareth by the second councell of Carthage in that the Bishop of Carthage being the Primate of Africa by vertue of particular canons concerning that matter by his Letters called together the rest of the Metropolitanes and their Bishops And concerning Patriarchicall councels the eighth
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
fast were Synonymies in the Primitiue Church but in the Romish Church they did dine on their Fasting-dayes and therefore said their Euensong betweene tenne and eleuen a clocke in the morning I thinke it hard to note precisely the time when this alteration beganne Thus then we see there may be haue beene many alterations in the state of Religion and matters of Faith in the Church of Rome though all those circumstances they vrge vs to shew cannot bee noted in them And therefore the first reason brought to proue that the Romish Church is not departed from the first and originall purity is found too weake CHAP. 15. Of the second reason brought to proue that they hold the auncient faith because our men dissenting from them confesse they dissent from the Fathers where sundry instances are examined LEt vs see the other The other way whereby they indeuour to prooue the antiquity of their faith and religion is by shewing the agreement and consent betweene it and the doctrine of the Primitiue Fathers This they say they cannot do but either by proposing the seuerall parts of Christian doctrine deliuered by the Fathers and comparing the doctrine of their Church with it or out of our owne confession The first course they thinke would be too tedious and therefore they indeauour to prooue by oâ—… owne confession that the doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the auncient Fathers is all one The greatest Diuines say they of the reformed Chuches when they impugne the assertions of the Romanists confesse they go against the streame of all Antiquity Therefore they are forced to confesse the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Church of Rome to bee all one This is a vile and wicked calumniation neither are they able to iustifie it But let vs see what they say Caluine they say in the article of free will condemning the Romane Church of errour is forced to reiect and refuse the iudgment of all Antiquity For the clearing of this wee must obserue that the will of man may bee sayd to bee free in divers sorts First from necessity of seeking and hauing diuine support helpe and assistance secondly from diuine direction and ordering thirdly from sinne fourthly from misery fiftly limitation of desire naturall necessity and constraint These being the diuerse kinds that may be conceiued of the freedome of mans will Caluine denyeth the will of man to bee or euer to haue beene free from the necessity of seeking and hauing diuine support helpe and generall assistance without which it hath no force or faculty at all Secondly hee denyeth it to be free from diuine direction ordering and guidance for in this sort neither the willes of men nor Angells were so free in the day of their creation as to exempt themselues from the ordering of the diuine prouidence which most sweetely disposeth all things Thirdly from misery there is no freedome in this world nor from the bondage of sinne without the benefit of grace making free Habemus sayth Bernard liberum arbitrium sed nec cautum a peccato nec tutum a miseria Wee haue sayth Bernard free will but neither so wary as to avoid sinne nor so safe as to be free from danger From limitation of desire naturall necessity and constraint he confesseth the will to bee free though it bee subiect to a condicionall or morall necessity which by Bernard is most aptly named malè libera necessitas The will of man being thus ouer ruled by diuine providence and in so diuerse sorts inthralled to sinne and misery Caluine thinketh the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and liberum arbitrium taken from the Philosophers and vsed by the Fathers to bee too glorious to expresse a thing so weake and miserable and that in his opinion it is not safe to vse these words vnlesse wee adde for the clearing of our meaning the limitations with which the Fathers doe restraine them which yet many will not so carefully obserue as they will vnadvisedly sucke the poyson of errour out of the words themselues Thus then wee see Caluine confesseth the Fathers vsed these words in a good and godly sort But sayth Bellarmine hee feareth not to pronounce that all the Fathers Augustine excepted are so vncertaine perplexed and doubtfull in the deliuering of this point that a man can gather no certainty out of them Surely it is most true that he saith of them they are doubtfull vncertaine in this point yet so that it appeares that in this ambiguitie ascribing little or nothing to the power of mans will they giue all the praise of well doing to the holy Spirit of God To this purpose he alleageth sundry excellent sentencesout of Cyprian Eucherius and Chrysostome and concludes that it was the drift of these Fathers howsoeuer they seeme sometimes too much to amplifie the power of mans will yet wholly to driue men from the confidence in their own strength to seeke their strength in God This then is all that Caluine sayth that before Augustine was stirred by the Pelagians exactly to examine these things that concerne the grace of God and power of nature the Fathers delivered not this point soe distinctly as afterwardes it was nor so fully but that some things were found in their writings not soe fitte as was to bee wished That this is most true the writings of the Fathers themselues will witnesse and the Testimonies alleaged out of them by the Pelagians against Augustine will sufficiently prooue it which are no otherwise answered by him than they are by Caluine that their drift was to deiect the pride of sinfull flesh and extoll the greatnesse of Gods mercy and goodnesse That if they spake some things not so distinctly and fully as men did afterwards it is not to bee marvelled at seeing they did not purposely enter into the examination of these things before the Pelagian heretickes whose heresie was in these things were knowne in the world For the farther iustifying of Caluines censure let the Reader consulte Sixtus Senensis alleaging many testimonies out of the Fathers affirming that men are elected to eternall life for the foresight of some thing in themselues And surely this should not seeme incredible that many of the Fathers were in this errour seeing Augustine himselfe was of this opinion before he entred into conflict with the Pelagians which errour when he corrected most men disliked his doctrine touching election the grace of God and power of nature as it appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hilarius for that he seemed vnto them to ascribe so much vnto the grace of God and detract so much from the power of mans will that they greatly feared his doctrine would weaken that carefullnesse that should bee in men to arise from sinne discourage them from all good indeauours and giue an occasion of negligence and carelesse slouthfullnesse That which Bellarmine addeth that Caluin disliketh that saying of Augustine that mans will
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
doth appeare to be true that Calvin saith that they did ill deserue of the Church that forced her Ministers to single life and that the speech of Pope Pius the second was most true that what reason soeuer they had that forbade marriage in former times there were more reason in our times to leaue it free againe Now let vs proceed to consider his next exception against Caluine in proposing whereof he reasoneth thus Caluine thinketh that all the Fathers were of opinion that after the remission of sinne men must suffer the punishment their sinnes deserue to satisfie Gods Iustice and that therefore they were so seuere in imposing penance on them that had offended but this is the opinion of the Romanists which Caluine so much disliketh therefore hee confesseth the doctrine of the Romanists to haue beene the doctrine of all the Fathers The Maior or first proposition of this reason is a most vile calumniation for Caluine denieth that the Fathers were of that opinion the Romanists are of touching the punishments of sinne after remission of them as hath beene sufficiently cleared already Neither doth hee dislike the Fathers severity vpon that ground for then he should condemne their imposing of penance absolutely as a thing wholy vnlawfull which he doth not but most highly commendeth it onely whereas the end of these penitentiall corrections was and is to remooue and take away ill examples to provide that neither Gods name be blasphemed nor others provoked and incouraged to do euill by seeing them that offend to escape without condigne punishment and that the sinner may be brought to a right sense knowledge dislike and forsaking of his sinne when it appeareth that the sinner is truely penitent and carefully indeavoureth to satisfie the Church which was scandalized by him there must be great consideration had least he be swallowed vp with ouermuch heauinesse and so fall into desperation In this respect Caluine thinketh those courses of auncient discipline in putting men from the communion of the Church for the space of three foure or seaven yeares and sometimes for the whole time of their life to haue beene very daungerous vnlesse they were wisely moderated by the discretion of the Pastours as he confesseth they were without which moderation who doth not see they were carnificina conscientiarum a cruell bloody and mercilesse tormenting and murthering of the soules of men Now as the severity of the Primitiue Fathers was very great in the prescription of these Canons yet mixed tempered and sweetened with good moderation in the execution of them and therefore not to be disliked so their extreame seuerity towards those that fell after penitencie whom they eiected and cast out of the Church without hope of a second reconciliation cannot well be excused This denying of reconciliation to such as fell after they had once before done open and publique penance the Papists restraine to solemne penitencie which they distinguish from publike and open as being imposed for sinnes of the highest nature otherwise confessing that the Fathers seuerity connot be excused But this distinction of publike and solemne penitency is a meere devise of their owne without any ground of authority or shew of proofe For how doth Bellarmine proue the difference of these two kinds of penitencie Surely he saith solemne penitencie is imposed onely for the most greeuous crimes publike for those that are not so grieuous but proueth it not Further hee addeth that solemne penitencie could not be twise imposed publike might and they that had done it bee admitted into the Clergie that solemne penitencie could not be imposed vpon married folkes without consent nor vpon yong folkes publike might that none but Bishops might reconcile those that were enjoyned solemn penitencie but those that had beene enioyned publike penitencie others of meaner conditiō might absolue These fained distinctions of theirs betweene solemne publike penitencie haue no testimonie of Antiquitie but it is cleare and euident they were all one and therefore seeing they mislike the denying of reconciliation generally to such as fell after publike penitencie they cannot justifie the Fathers who did so deny it CHAP. 19. Of the Lent fast of Lay-mens Baptisme and of the sacrifice of the Masse THe next allegation is touching the Lent fast wherein as in the former Caluin is charged to condemne the iudgement and practice of all antiquitie That the falsehood of this allegation may the better appeare wee will lay downe what Caluin liketh or disliketh in the matter offasting in generall and particularly in the sette Fast of fortie dayes aunciently obserued in the Church before the ioyfull solemnities of the resurrection of Christ. First therefore he acknowledgeth the vse and necessity of fasting to be continued amongst Christians to the end of the world as well as formerly it was amongst the Iewes Secondly hee sheweth that fasting is not a thing that God requireth in respect of it selfe but respectiuely to certaine ends and as seruing to expresse and set forward the inward affections of the heart Thirdly he sheweth what those ends are namely to tame the flesh to giue a greater edge vnto our prayers to testifie expresse and set forward what may be our dislike of sinne and of our selues for sinne to testifie our humiliation and dolour proceeding from the fearefull apprehension of Gods displeasure to make it appeare we take no pleasure in any thing till God be reconciled to vs to amerce and punish our selues for our manifold abuses of Gods good creatures and lastly to shew that in holy meditations and contemplations we foretaste the sweetenesse of that heauenly Manna which maketh vs for a time to forebeare to taste of any sweetenesse of corporall meates thereby shewing the excellencie of that spirituall life which we shall liue in heauen without any of these outward nourishments beeing filled with the happy fruition vision and enioying of him that is the fountaine of life The faults hee findeth are when men seuer this outward exercise from the inward affection when they thinke it a thing for it selfe respected and coommanded by almighty God and a matter of rare and speciall vertue merit in it owne nature The Fathers hee confesseth did rightly and truely deliuer the nature of religious fasting yet so that by their exceeding great admiration and commendation of it they may seeme to haue giuen some occasion of that erronious perswasion that it is in it selfe highly pleasing to God This sayth Calvine I doe the rather thinke for that there was and appeared superstition euen in their times in the obseruing of that principall fast of fortie dayes in that both the common people thought the keeping thereof in it owne nature a thing highly pleasing God whereas no fast is accepted but respectiuely to the ends aboue mentioned and the Fathers commended it vnder the name of an Imitation of Christ whereas it is plaine that Christ did not fast principally for that end that wee
proue hee affirmeth But he will say that Caluin in the same place doth except against the Fathers Surely he saith hee thinketh they cannot be altogether excused in that they soe much vrged the mysticall sacrificing of Christs body in the Sacrament and thereby made it carry a kinde of shew of a new and newly repeated sacrifice for that by misconstruction of that they meant well others turned the Sacrament into a new offering of the Sonne of God for the quicke and dead The reason doubtlesse that mooued the Fathers so much to vrge that mysticall sacrificing of CHRIST in the blessed Sacrament was for that they liued in the middest of Iewes and Gentiles both whose religion consisted principally in sacrifice the Fathers therefore to shew that Christian Religion is not without sacrifice that of a more excellent nature than theirs were did much vrge that Christ once offered for the sinnes of the World vpon the aulter of his Crosse is dayly in mystery offered slaine and his blood powred out on the holy Table and that this sacrifice of Christ slaine for the sins of the world thus continually represented and liuing in our memories is the sacrifice of Christians If any man shall alleage that these were reasons sufficient to moue the Fathers to speake as they did notwithstanding any occasions of errour that might by ignorant men bee taken Caluine doth not pertinaciously resist for he sayd only what hee thought not peremptorily iudging or condemning those whom so iust and good causes haue made honourable in the Church for ever CHAP. 20 Of the inuocation and adoration of Saints touching which the Century-writers are wrongfully charged to dissent from the Fathers THus then I hope it appeareth that Caluine doth not confesse that the doctrine of the Romanists hath any testimonie or approbation of Antiquity Bellarmine therefore passeth from him to the writers of the Centuries in whom hee hopeth to find something for his purpose but they steade him as little as Caluine did Let vs therefore take a view of that hee sayth Touching free-will iustification merits and the like there is nothing in them but that which hath bin sufficiently I hope cleared in Caluine the things they say being the same Only two things I find imputed to them by Bellarmine and not to Caluine For first they are supposed to acknowledge the Popish invocation of Saints to haue beene in the time of the Fathers and allowed by them Secondly they are charged to blame the Fathers for magnifying too much the excellency of Martyrdome the praises whereof Bellarmin saith they dislike because they will not admit that Martyrdome is a kind of baptisme seruing for the expiation washing away of sin Touching the inuocation of Saints it is euident it was not known in the first ages of the Church nor approoued by the Primitiue Fathers but because it hath mightily preuailed in these later times the superstition and idolatry there in committed hath beene such as cannot be excused therefore for the better answering of Bellarmines cauils and the satisfying of our selues and others let vs consider from what grounds and by what degrees it entred into the Church First there was in the Church from the beginning a true and certaine resolution that the Saints departed do in generall tender respect and wish well vnto their brethren and fellow seruants whom they haue left behind them in the warfare of Christ in this worlde Secondly men grew afterwards to thinke that men departing out of this world carry with them the remembrance of the state of things wherein departing hence they leaue them and that out of their loue which neuer falleth away they do most carefully recommend vnto God the particular necessities of their brethren made knowen vnto them while they liued there Thirdly from hence it came that men entreated their friends yet liuing that if they preuented them and came before them into Christ their maisters ioyfull and happie presence being freed from the daungers miseries and euils of this present life they would not forget to recommend them vnto God that are in them still Fourthly whereas by an auncient custome they did remember the names of the departed at the LORDS table giuing thankes vnto GOD that had made them soe glorious in their life and death through his goodnesse and praying him by their examples to frame them to the like and besides kept the anniuersarie remembrances of the dayes of their death as if they had beene their birth dayes with all tokens of ioy in the orations they made to sett forth the goodnesse of GOD towards them and to propose their example for imitation they did sometimes by way of Apostrophe speake vnto them as if they had beene present and had sense and apprehension of that they spake whereof yet they were doubtfull as appeareth by Gregory Nazianzen Hierome others and not contented thus to commune with them they entreated them if they had any sense or knowledge of things in this world to be remembrancers for them and the Church here below This was a kinde of doubtfull compellation soliciting of them If their state were such as that they could take notice of these things that they would not forget to procure the good of their brethren but was no invocation which is a retyring of our selues in all our needes necessities and distresses with assured hope of helpe to him that wee know can stede vs in what distresse soeuer wee bee Thus then though the Fathers did sometimes when they had particular occasions to remember the Saints and to speake of them by way of Apostrophe turne themselues vnto them and vse wordes of doubtfull compellation praying them if they haue any sense of these inferiour things to bee remembrancers to God for them yet shall our adversaries neuer proue that they did prostrate their bodies bow their knees or make prayers to them in a set course of devotion but this both adoration and invocation of Saints and Angels was directly condemned by them We honour the Saints saith Ierome but doe not worship or adore any creature neither Angels Archangels nor any name that is named in this world or that which is to come The Councell of Laodicea reported by Theodoret directly condemneth this kinde of adoration and invocation not of Saints onely but of Angels also The Popish distinction of Latria and Doulia doth not answere these authorities and testimonies of Antiquity for those erring miscreants mentioned by Paul the Councell of Laodicea Theodoret Epiphanius and others did not thinke the Angels to be God or equall to the Most High neither did they worship them in such sort as to ascribe infinite greatnesse vnto them which the Papists meane by their Latria but they gaue spirituall worship and adoration vnto them in an inferiour and lower degree such as the Papists call Doulia because they thought them to mediate betweene God and mortall men in very high and
are sinnes and decayes of natures integrity and consequently that concupiscence being a declining from that entire subiection to and conjunction with God is truely and properly sin whatsoeuer our adversaries teach to the contrary Fourthly that originall righteousnesse is said to bee a supernaturall quality because it groweth not out of nature and because it raiseth nature aboue it selfe But that it is naturall that is required to the integritie of nature Neither should it seeme strange to any man that a quality not growing out of nature should be required necessarily for the perfecting of natures integrity seeing the end and object of mans desires knowledge and action is an infinite thing and without the compasse bounds of nature And therefore the nature of man cannot as all other things doe by naturall force and things bred within her selfe attaine to her wished end but must either by supernaturall grace bee guided and directed to it or being left to her selfe faile of that perfection shee is capable of and fill her selfe with infinite euills defects and miseries This may suffice for refutation of the vaine and idle conceits of the Papists concerning three estates of man the one of grace the other of nature and the third of sinne Out of which we may obserue that howsoeuer they indeavour to make shew of the contrary yet indeede they thinke that concupiscence is not sinne neither in the regenerate nor vnregenerate Whereupon it is that Bellarmine speaking of the guilt of concupiscence which the Diuines say is taken away in Baptisme though the infirmity remaine saith it must be vnderstood of that guilt which causeth concupiscence not which is caused of it For saith he originall sinne maketh guilty and subjecteth men to concupiscence but concupiscence doth not make them guilty that haue it and therefore it is not sinne neither before nor after Baptisme But we say with Augustin Sicut caecitas cordis quam removet alluminator deus peccatū est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbū dignâ animadversione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid caeci cordis errore cōmittitur ita concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest ei inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis As the blindnesse of heart which God remooueth when hee lightneth those that were formerly in darkenesse is a sinne in that by reason of it men beleeue not in GOD and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proude hearts of wicked men are iustly punished and a cause of sinne when erring by reason of this blindnesse of heart they doe those things that are euill so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit doth striue and couet is a sinne because there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind and a punishment of sinne in that it falleth out by the iust iudgment of God that they who are disobedient vnto God shall finde rebellious desires in themselues and it is a cause of sinne in that men either by wicked defection consent vnto it or by reason of the generall infection of humane nature are borne in it Wee thinke therefore there should be no question made of concupiscence and other like defects and euils found in the nature of man but that they are in their owne nature sinfull defects And hereof I am well assured none of the Fathers euer doubted but how farre they are washed away and remitted in Baptisme which is the matter about which Bellarmine wrangleth and taketh exception against vs let vs now consider Alexander of Hales the first and greatest of all the Schoolemen noteth diuers things most fitly to this purpose out of which wee may easily resolue what is to bee thought of this matter First therefore hee obserueth that there are two sortes of sinnes some naturall which are in the person from the generall condition of nature some personall that are acted by the person and so defile the nature as all actuall sinnes Secondly that concupiscence is of the first kind being an euill contracted and cleauing to nature not personally acted or wrought by vs. Thirdly that concupiscence may bee considered either as it hath full dominion and is a prevailing thing in them that haue it or as it is weakened and hath lost that strength dominion and command which formerly it had Fourthly that concupiscence while it hath dominion is a sinne defiling and making guilty both the nature person in which it commaundeth all But if it lose this dominion it cleaueth to the nature only and is not imputed to the person for sinne vnlesse hee some way yeelde vnto it bee drawen by it or suffer himselfe to be weakened in well doing by the force of it Fiftly that the benefits of grace are not generall but speciall of priuiledge not freeing the whole nature of man from sin and punishment as sin corrupted and defiled all but that they extend onely personally to some certaine Sixtly that when men are borne anew in baptisme they are freed from all that sin which maketh their persons guilty before God and consequently from all punishments due to them for any thing their persons were chargeable with But because they still remaine in that nature which is of the masse of malediction therefore sin cleaueth to their nature still and they are subject to the common punishment of hunger thirst death and the like Seauenthly that the dominion of that sin which is of nature is taken away by the benefit of regeneration in Baptisme Whence it commeth that the persons of men baptized are not chargeable with it though they remaine still in that nature wherein it is And consequently that the punishments which they are subject vnto because they remaine in the communion of that nature which is not generally free from sin cease to be vnto them in the nature of destroying euils serue to diverse good purposes and turne to their great benefit So then wee say with the Fathers and best learned of the Schoolemen that concupiscence in men not regenerate is a sinne corrupting and making guilty both the nature and the person wherein it is and that in the Regenerate it cleaueth to nature as a sinne still but hauing lost the dominion it had so that it cannot make the person guilty not prevailing with it nor commaunding ouer it Regnum amittit in terra perit in caelo It is driuen from the kingdome it formerly had in the Saints of God while they yet remaine on earth but it is not vtterly destroyed till they goe from hence to heauen Thus then I hope it appeareth that wee are far from the errour of the Messalians and doe fully accord with the Catholike Church of God and that the Romanists are not far from the heresie
that is fatherly guides of Gods Church and people that only for orders sake and the preseruation of peace there is a limitation of the vse and exercise of the same Heerevnto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists themselues freely confessing that that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter is â—…t a distinct higher order or power of order but a kind of dignity office 〈◊〉 imployment onely Which they proue because a Presbyter ordained persaltum that neuer was consecrated or ordained Deacon may notwithstanding doe all those actes that pertaine to the Deacons order because the higher order doth alwaies imply in it the lower and inferiour in an eminent and excellent sort But a Bishoppe ordained per saltum that neuer had the ordination of a Presbyter can neither consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lords body nor ordaine a Presbyter himselfe being none nor doe any acte peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters Whereby it is most euident that that wherein a Bishoppe excelleth a Presbyter is not a distinct power of order but an eminencie and dignity onely specially yeelded to one aboue all the rest of the same ranke for order sake and to preserue the vnitie and peace of the Church Hence it followeth that many things which in some cases Presbyters may lawfully doe are peculiarly reserued vnto Bishops as Hierome noteth Potius ad honorem Sacerdotij quam ad legis necessitatem Rather for the honour of their Ministery then the necessity of any lawe And therefore wee reade that Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands and confirme such as were baptized which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly haue forbidden there was soe great exception taken to him for it that he left it free againe And who knoweth not that all Presbyters in cases of necessity may absolue reconcile Penitents a thing in ordinary course appropriated vnto Bishops and why not by the same reason ordaine Presbyters Deacons in cases of like necessity For seing the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts is because to Bishops ordinarily the care of all churches is committed and to them in all reason the ordination of such as must serue in the Church pertaineth that haue the chiefe care of the Church and haue Churches wherein to imploy them which only Bishops haue as long as they retaine their standing and not Presbyters being but assistants to bishops in their Churches If they become enmies to God and true religion in case of such necessity as the care and gouerment of the Church is deuolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholique being of a better spirit so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeede them in the work of the Ministrie pertaines to them likewise For if the power of order and authority to intermedle in things pertaining to Gods seruice bee the same in all Presbyters and that they be limited in the execution of it onely for order sake so that in case of necessity euery of theÌ„ may baptise confirme them whom they haue baptized absolue reconcile Penitents doe all those other acts which regularly are appropriated vnto the Bishop alone there is no reason to be giuen but that in case of necessity wherein all Bishops were extinguished by death or being fallen into heresie should refuse to ordaine any to serue God in his true worship but that Presbyters as they may do all other acts whatsoeuer speciall challenge Bishoppes in ordinary course make vnto them might do this also Who then dare condemn all those worthy Ministers of God that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry Churches of the world at such times as Bishops in those parts where they liued opposed themselues against the truth of God and persecuted such as professed it Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to bee void For not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may giue orders and that their ordinations are of force though to do so not being vrged by extreame necessity cannot be excused from ouer great boldnesse and presumption Neither should it seeme so strange to our aduersaries that the power of ordination should at some times be yeelded vnto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that liue in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of discipline do dayly in the Romish Church both confirme Children and giue orders All that may be alledged out of the Fathers for proofe of the contrary may be reduced to two heads For first whereas they make all such ordinations voide as are made by Presbyters it is to bee vnderstood according to the strictnesse of the Canons in vse in their time and not absolutely in the nature of the thing which appeares in that they likewise make all ordinations sine titulo to be voide All ordinations of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane all ordinations of Presbyters by Bishoppes out of their owne Churches without speciall leaue whereas I am well assured the Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be voide though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault Secondly their sayings are to bee vnderstood regularly not without exception of some speciall cases that may fall out Thus then we see that obiection which our adnersaries tooke to bee vnanswerable is abundantly answered out of the grounds of their owne Schoole-men the opinion of many singularly learned amongst them and their owne daily practise in that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters whatsoeuer they pretend and forbidden by all old Canons to meddle in ordination yet doe daily with good allowance of the Romane Church ordaine Presbyters and Deacons confirme with imposition of hands those that are baptized and doe all other Episcopall acts whiles their great Bishops Lord it like princes in all temporall ease and worldly bravery The next thing they object against vs is that our first Ministers what authority soeuer they had that ordained them yet had no lawfull ordination because they were not ordained placed in voide places but intruded into Churches that had lawfull Bishops at the time of those pretended ordinations and consequently did not succeede but encroach vpon other mens right To this wee answere that the Church is left voyde either by the death resignation depriuation or the peoples desertion and forsaking of him that did precede In some places our first Bishoppes and Pastours found the Churches voydby death in some by voluntarie relinquishment in some by depriuation and in some by desertion in that the people or at least that part of the
the Emperor cōcerning the necessary reformation of the Church one was that Happily it were to be permitted that in some places prayers faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue might be intermingled with those things that are sung in latine Likewise in the articles of reformation exhibited to the councell of Trent by Charles the 9◠In sacrificio paraecialibus Euangelium apertè dilucidè pro populi captu copiose ex suggestu exponatur quo in loco quae plebano praeeunte fient preces linguâ fiant vernaculâ peractâ autem re diuinâ latine mysticis precibus lingua etiam vernacula publicae ad Deum preces fiant ibidem plura Which thing if it had bin granted by the councell no new nor strang thing had bin brought in for as Hosius testifieth the Church neuer forbad to sing in the Churches in the vulgar tongue in time and place It were to be wished sayth Erasmus that the whole service of God might be celebrated and performed in a tongue vnderstood of the whole people as in auncient times it was wont to bee and that all things should bee soe plainely and distinctly sounded out that they might bee vnderstood of all that list to attend And Cassander fully agreeing with Erasmus and alleadging to this purpose the Popes permitting of it to the Slauonians vpon the hearing of a voice frō heauen the authority of Caietan sayth It were to be desired that according to the mandate of the Apostle and the auncient custome of the Church consideration might be had of the people in the publike praiers of the Church and in the hymnes and lessons which are there read and sung for the peoples sake and that the ordinary and vulgar sort of beleeuers might not for ever bee wholly excluded from all communion of prayers and diuine readings and hee addeth that vnlesse there bee a reformation in this and other things there is no hope of any durable peace or consent of the Church and professeth hee cannot see but that they to whom the government of the Church is committed shall one day giue an account why they suffered the Church to bee thus miserably disquieted and rent in sunder and neglected to take away the causes whence heresies schismes do spring as in duety they should haue done So that in this poynt as in the former we see the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died was a true Protestant Church CHAP. 5. Of the three supposed different estates of meere nature grace and sinne the difference betweene a man in the state of pure and meere nature and in the state of sinne and of originall sinne THey of the Church of Rome at this day imagine that God might haue created a man in the state of pure nature or nature onely aswell without grace as sinne and that in this state of pure or meere nature without any addition of grace hee might haue loued God aboue all and haue kept all the commaundements of God collectiuely so as to breake none of them at the least for a short time though happily hee could not haue holden on constantly so to keepe them all as neuer to breake any of them seeing there would haue beene a contrariety betweene reason and that appetite that followeth the apprehension of sense in that state of pure or meere nature So that according to this conceipt grace was added not to inable man to loue God aboue all to keepe the severall cōmaundements which hee hath giuen to doe the workes of morall vertue For all these hee might haue beene able to performe out of the power of nature without any such addition but to make him able constantly to keepe all the commaundements of God collectiuely so as neuer to breake any one of them and to keepe them so as to merit eternall happines in heauen Hence they inferre diverse things First that the losse of grace or originall righteousnes that was given to Adam doth not depriue those of his posterity of the power of louing God their Creator aboue all of keeping his commaundements divisiuely and doing the seuerall workes of morall vertue though happily not with that facilitie that in the state of grace hee might haue done them Secondly That Infidels and such as haue no fellowship with the Saints people of God nor any part in his grace may decline sinne and doe the workes of morall vertue Thirdly That all the contrariety that is found in the powers of the soule the rebellion of the inferiour faculties against the superiour the pronenesse to euill and difficultie to doe good would haue beene the conditions of meere nature without addition of grace or sinne and consequently that they are not sinne in the state wherein wee are that these evills are not newly brought into the nature of man by the fall that as man would haue beene mortall in the state of meere nature because compounded of contraries so out of the contrariety of sensitiue and rationall desire hee would haue found a rebellion in himselfe of the inferiour faculties against the superiour that as a heauy thing falleth not downeward while it is stayed but falleth so soone as the stay is taken away by reason of the same nature it had while it was stayed and as a ship that lay quietly while it was stayed with an anchor vpon the remouing of the same is driuen with the windes yet in no other sort then it would haue beene before if it had not beene stayed so all these contrarieties differences and pronenesse to desire things contrary to the prescript of right reason would haue beene in meere nature as the conditions of it would haue shewed themselues if grace had not hindered them and that there is no other difference betweene a man in the state of pure or meere nature and in the state of originall sinne then there is betweene a man that neuer had any cloathing and him that had but by his owne fault and folly is stript out of all betweene whom there is no difference in the nature of nakednesse but all the difference standeth in this that the one is in fault for not hauing cloathes the other not so For they suppose man would haue beene carried as strongly to the desire of sinfull things in the state of pure nature as now that freewill is not made more weake then in that state it would haue beene nor the flesh become more rebellious then it would haue beene without grace before the entrance of sinne This opinion ◠Bellarmin followeth and professeth that though some of excellent learning thinke that both Thomas and the best and most approued of the schoolmen were of a contrary iudgment yet they are deceiued in so thinking and that this is the opinion of them all Against these erroneous conceipts that are indeede the ground of all the points of difference betweene them and vs touching originall sinne freewill the power of nature the workes
darke the length breadth and other dimensions of a thing but not whether it be faire or foule white or blacke So men in this obscurity of discerning may finde out that there is a God and that he is the beginning and cause of all things but they cannot know how faire how good how mercifull and how glorious hee is that so they may loue him feare him honour him and trust in him as God vnlesse they haue an illumination of grace The difference therefore betweene those of the Church of Rome and vs touching originall sinne consisteth in two points First In that they make the former defects of ignorance difficultie to doe good pronenesse to euill contrarietie betweene the powers of the soule and the rebellion of the meaner and inferiour against the better and superiour consequents of nature as it might and would be in it selfe simply considered without all defection and falling from God that originall righteousnesse was giuen to prevent and stay the effects that these naturally would haue brought forth and that these are not the consequents of Adams sinne but that onely the leauing of them free to themselues to disorder all is a consequent of the losse of that righteousnesse which was giuen to Adam and by him forfaited and lost that they proceede from the guilt of sinne but that they make not them guilty in whom they are But we say that these are no conditions of nature simply considered that they cannot bee found but where there is a falling from God that they are the consequents of Adams sinfull aversion from God his Creator that they are a part of original sinne and that they make men guilty of grieuous punishment so long as they remaine in them The second thing is that originall sin is indeed according to their opinion the privation of originall righteousnes but as original righteousnes was not giuen simply to inable men to decline euill and do good but collectiuely constantly and meritoriously to decline euill doe good so the privation of it doth not depriue men of all power of declining euill doing good but only of the power of declining all euill and doing all good collectiuely meritoriously But we say that originall righteousnes was given simply to inable men to decline euill to doe good and that without it the nature of man could not performe her proper and principall actions about her principall obiects So that the privation of it depriveth a man of all power of knowing loving fearing honouring or glorifying God as God and of all power of doing any thing morally good or not sinfull and putteth him into an estate wherein hee cannot but loue and desire things that God would not or so as hee would not haue him yea of louing other things more than God and and so as to dishonour God in any kind rather than not to enjoy the things he desires So that if wee speake of originall sinne formally it is the privation of those excellent gifts of diuine grace inabling vs to know loue feare serue honour and trust in God and to doe the things he delighteth in which Adam had lost If materially it is that habituall inclination that is found in men averse from God carrying them to the loue and desire of finite things more then of God and this also is properly sin making guilty of condemnation the nature and person in which it is found This habituall inclination to desire finite things inordinately is named concupiscence and this concupiscence is two fold as Alensis noteth out of Hugo for there is concupiscentia spiritus and concupiscentia carnis there is a concupiscence of the spirit or superiour faculties of the flesh or inferiour the former is sinne the latter sinne and punishment For what is more iust then that the will refusing to bee ordered by God and desiring what hee would not haue it should finde the inferiour faculties rebellious and inclined to desire things the will would haue to bee declined It remaineth therefore that wee proceede to proue that this doctrine was receiued taught continued in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued died till after Luthers time I haue shewed already that Gregorius Ariminensis professeth that Adam in the state of his creation was not inabled to perform any acte morally good or so to doe any good thing as not to sin in doing it by any thing in nature without addition of grace which thing he proveth out of the master of the sentences whose words are these speaking of the first man before his fall Egebat itaque homo gratiâ non vt liberaret voluntatem suam quae peccati serva non fuerat sed vt praepararet ad volendum efficaciter bonum quod per se non poterat That is The first man needed grace not to free his will for it neuer had been in bondage but to prepare and fit it effectually to will that which is good which of it selfe it could not doe And he confirmeth the same out of Saint August his words are these Istam gratiam non habuit homo primus quâ nunquam vellet esse malus sed habuit in qua si permanere vellet nunquam malus esset sine quâ etiam cum libero arbitrio bonus esse non posset sed eam tamen per liberum arbitrium deserere posset nec ipsum ergo Deus esse voluit sine suâ gratiâ quem reliquit in eius libero arbitrio quoniam liberum arbitrium ad malum sufficit ad bonum auâ—…m parumest nisi adiuuetur ab omnipotenti bono quod adiutorium si homo ille per liberum non deseruisset arbitrium semper esset bonus sed deseruit et desertus est that is The first man had not that grace that might make him so will good as neuer to become euill but truely hee had that wherein if hee would haue continued hee should neuer haue bin euill and without which notwithstanding all the freedome of his will he could not be good yet by the freedome of his will he might loose it wherefore God would not haue him to be without his grace whom he left in the freedome of his will because free will is sufficient of it selfe to doe evill but it is of litle force or rather as the true reading is of no force nothing to do good vnlesse it be holpeÌ„ of the omnipotent good which helpe if maÌ„ had not forsakeÌ„ by his free will he had ever beene good but he forsooke it and was forsaken Thirdly he proueth the same in this sort Si Adam ante peccatum potuisset per suas vires naturales praecise agere actum moraliter bonum ipse potuisset facere se de non bono bonum posito quod aliquando fuisset sine omni actu voluntatis cum suis taÌ„tum naturalibus aut de bono meliorem deo illum non specialiter adiuvante that is If Adam had power before the
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
we were captiues and that spirituall Egypt wherein we were formerly holden in miserable bondage But as there were some of the children of the captiuity that after long continuance abroad forgat Hierusalem and preferred Babylon before Sion neuer desiring to returne into their owne country any more And as many of the Israelites brought out of the house of Pharoahs bondage by God himselfe and conducted by Moses and Aaron to take possession of Canaan the land of promise a land that flowed with milke and honey in their hearts returned backe so are there many that would neuer be induced to come out of the spirituall Babylon and other that are easily perswaded to looke backe and in their hearts to returne into Egypt againe For the winning and gaining of the former and the staying of the latter I haue indeauoured by the true discription of them out of the Scripture the authenticall recordsof antiquity to make it appeare how farre Canaan exceedeth Egypt and Sion Babylon how different the gouernement of Christ is from that of Antichrist how happy the people are that liue vnder the one and how miserable their condition is that are subiect to the other Beseeching God for his mercies sake to enlighten them that sit in darkenes to bring backe them that are gone astray to raise vp them that are fallen to strengthen them that stand to confirme them that are doubtfull to rebuke Sathan to put an end to the manyfold vnhappy contentions of these times to make vp the breaches of Sion to build the walles of Hierusalem and to loue it still R. F. THE FIFT BOOKE OF THE DIVERSE DEGREES ORDERS AND CALLINGS OF THOSE men to vvhom the gouernement of the Church is committed CHAP. 1. Of the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the liuing and the gouernement of the same ALMIGHTIE GOD the fountaine of all being who to manifest the glory of his power and the riches of his goodnesse made all things of nothing disposed and sorted the things hee made into three seuerall rankes For to some hee gaue being without any apprehension or discerning of it Others hee made to feele and sensibly discerne that particular good hee was pleased to doe vnto them And to a third sort of a more eminent degree and qualitie made after his owne image hee gaue generality of knowledge of all things and extent of desire answerable thereunto causing them without all restraint or limitation to take view of all the variety of things that are in the world and neuer to rest satisfied till they come to see inioy and possesse him that made them all These hee seperated from the rest of his creatures causing them to approach and drawe neere vnto himselfe and to compasse about his sacred throne and called them forth to be a joyfull company of blessed ones praising and worshiping him in the glorious Temple of the world to bee vnto him an holy Church in the midst whereof his greatnesse should be knowne and his name called vpon These are of twoe sorts Angells dwelling in heauenly palaces and Men made out of the earth dwelling in houses of clay whose foundation is in the dust The Angels are immortall immateriall and spirituall substances made all at once and immediately after their creation soe many as turned not from God their Creator corfirmed in grace and perfectly established in the full possession of their vttermest good soe that they neede noe guide to leade them to the attaining of the same howsoeuer in the degrees of their naturall or supernaturall perfections and in the actions of their ministery wherein GOD employeth them they are more great and excellent one then another and are not without their order and gouernement But concerning men made out of the earth and compounded of body and spirit it is farre otherwise For God did not create them all at one time but made onely one man and one woman immediatly with his owne hands appointing that the rest should descend and come of them by naturall generation Whereupon wee shall finde that as in the Creation the tree was first and then the seede but in the naturall propagation of things the seed is first and then the tree So the first man whom God made out of the earth and the first woman whom he made of man were perfect at the first as well in stature of body as in qualities of the minde both because whatsoeuer is immediatly from God is perfect as also for that the first things whence all other haue their being must be perfect but afterwards the beginnings of all the sonnes of men are weake and they grow by degrees to perfection of body and minde hauing need to receiue nourishment support guidance and direction from them from whom they receiue their being So that nothing is more naturall then for children to expect these things from their parents nor for parents then to nourish guide and direct their children This care pertaineth as well to the mother that bare them in whose wombe they were conceiued as to the father that begate them and out of whose loynes they came Yet because the man was not of the woman but the woman of the man the man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man the originall disposition and soveraigne direction of all doth naturally rest in the man who is the glory of God the womans head and euery way fittest to be chiefe commaunder in the whole Family and houshold Heereupon Adam the father of all the liuing was appointed by that God that made him to instruct guide and direct those that should come of him euen in the state of natures integritie though without any forcing with terrours or recalling with punishments while there was yet no pronenesse to euill nor difficultie to doe good And when he had broken the Law of his Creator was called to an account made know his sinne and recomforted with the promise that the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head he was to teach his children the same things sanctified to be both a King to rule in the litle World of his owne Family and a Priest as well to manifest the will of God to them of the same as to present their desires vowes and sacrifices vnto him then which course what could be devised more fitting For when there were no more in the World but the first man whom GOD made out of the earth the first woman that was made of man and the children which GOD had giuen them who could bee fitter to rule and direct then the man for whose sake the woman was created and out of whose loynes the children came CHAP. 2. Of the dignity of the first-borne amongst the sonnes of Adam and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest AND seeing nothing is more naturall then that as the Father is to instruct direct and set forward the children that GOD hath giuen
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
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
not in actuall apprehension wherein he did truly increase and and grow as also in experimentall knowledge For the humane knowledge that was in Christ was by conuersion to those Phantasmata sensible representations of things that from without are by the senses presented vnto the Soule was discursiue though not proceeding from things known to find out things altogether vnknowne yet from things actually known to such as he knew but habitually only and not actually before That the humane knowledge Christ had of things in thēselues was discursiue by conuersion to the sensible representations of them from without it is euident in that all perfectiōs are receiued according to the condition capacitie of the receiuer Now the condition of the Soule of man in the state of this life is to know nothing but by conversion to the sensible appearances of the same that not onely in respect of things naturall but mysticall also and supernaturall Quia impossibile est saith Dionysius Areopagita nobis aliter superlucere radium diuinum nisi sacrorū velaminū varietate circumuelatū that is because it is impossible the beame of divine light should shine on vs vnlesse it be vailed on euery side with the variety of sacred vailes Thus then wee see how it may be truely said that Christ grew in wisedome and knowledge as he did in stature of body non quoad habitus essentiam extensionem sed quoad actualem cognitionem experimentum that is not in respect of the essence or extension of the habit but of actuall knowledge experience That which Thomas others haue that Christ knew all things at first by an infused knowledge afterwards attained another kinde of knowledge of the same things which they named acquisite is not so fit for two formes or qualities of one kinde cannot bee in the same subject Now as the sight which is in men naturally that which once lost is restored againe by miracle is of the same nature condition so is that knowledge of things that is by infusion that which is acquisite howsoeuer these men seeme to make them of two kindes Wherefore passing by this conceipt as not probable to conclude this point euen as touching the condition of children which should haue been borne in the state of innocency there are diuerse opinions some thinking they should haue had the vse of reason perfection of knowledge at the very first so that they should haue grown encreased afterwards only in experimētal knowledge others that they should haue had no vse of reason at the first a third sort that so soon as they had bin borne they should haue had the vse of reason so farre forth as to discerne outward things good or euill seeing euen the little lambes by natures instinct doe know the Wolfe fly frō him seeke the dugges of their dammes but not to discerne things concerning morall vertue the worship of God So likewise some thinke that the Babe IESVS euen in his humane soule had the actuall knowledge of all things euen frō the beginning that he grew only in experimentall knowledge but there are other of as good judgment as great learning who think that howsoeuer he had the habit of al knowledge frō the beginning brought it with him out of the womb yet not the act vse of it this is all that either Luther or Calvine say yet we know how clamorously some inveigh against them as if they had broached some damnable heresie But some man will say if we grant that Christ in his Humane Soule knew not all things frō the beginning but in processe of time learned that which before he actually knew not wee fasten on him the disgracefull note of ignorance consequently bring him within the confines cōpasse of sin Hereunto Hugo de S. Vict. answereth sheweth the folly of this silly objection peremptorily resoluing that non omnis qui aliquid nescit aut minus perfectè scit statim ignorantiam habere seu in ignorantiâ esse dicendus est quia ignorantia non dicitur nisi tunc solùm cum id quod ignorari non debuisset nescitur that is we must not say that euery one that knoweth not a thing or doth lesse perfectly know it is ignorant or in ignorance because ignorance is only the not knowing of such things as should haue beene knowne Neither is there any distinction more triuiall or ordinary in the Schooles then that of nescience ignorance and therefore howsoeuer some in the heat of their distempered passions lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety vpō Luther Caluin and others for that they say there were some things which Christ in his humane soule did not actually know from the beginning yet Maldonatus a man as ill conceited of them as any other confesseth that though some say Christ profited in wisdome and knowledge not in his owne person but in his mysticall body which is the Church others that his growing and increasing was onely in the manifestation of that which in all perfection was found in him from the beginning or in experimental knowledge of those things which in generall contemplation he knew before yet many of the ancient Fathers answering the objections of the Arrians and other like heretiques and rejecting as impious their conceit who thought Christ was absolutely ignorant of any thing denied not but that there were some things which Christ in his humane nature did not actually alwaies know This saith Maldonat I suppose Luther Caluin and the rest knew not for had they known that the Fathers taught that Christ did truly grow in humane knowledge and wisdome and that he knew not all things actually frō the beginning to be contrary to the Fathers they would haue been of another mind How charitable this his surmise and conjecture is let the Reader judge Howsoeuer we haue his cleare confession that many of the Fathers were of opinion that Christ in his humane nature did not alwayes actually know all things Yea vpon the 24 of Matthew hee testifieth that many of them sayd plainely that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement of the quicke and dead when he said That day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels nor the Son himselfe but the Father onely It is true indeede that he goeth about notwithstanding this his cleare confession of the truth to construe the words of some of the Fathers in such sort as if they had not meant simply that Christ in his humane soule knew not that houre and time but onely that he knew it not by force of his humane nature but this commentarie I feare will not agree with their texts For Origen in his third tract vpon Matthew saith that Christ knew not the time and day of judgement when he sayd Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Sonne but that
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
the Romanists for confirmation of the vniversality of the Popes iurisdiction and power IT is euident by that which hath beene said that that vniuersality whereof Gregory speaketh in his Epistles and which he so peremptorily condemneth is claimed by the Popes his successours at this day and consequently that they are in his judgment the fore-runners of Antichrist and in pride like Lucifer Yet because there is nothing so absurd that some will not defend nothing so false which some will not endeauour to proue true let vs see what the Romanists can say for proofe and confirmation of the vniuersall Iurisdiction of their Popes Surely as men carefull to vphold the state of the Papacy vnder the shadow of the boughes of which tree they so sweetly rest and repose themselues they haue turned ouer their bookes to see what may bee said and out of them alleage against vs the testimonies of Councels Popes Fathers Greeke and Latine and the practise of Popes whence such a peerelesse power may bee proued and inferred The first testimony that they bring out of any Councell is out of the Epistle written by the Fathers of the second generall Councell to Damasus Bishop of Rome the other Bishops of the west wherein the Fathers say if we beleeue these men that they came together to Constantinople by the mandate of the Pope whose letters the Emperour sent vnto them and confesse that the Romane Church is the head and they the members Truely this is a very ill beginning and may make vs justly feare that we shall find little good dealing in that which followeth For there is no part of this true which in the front of all their proofes is by them so confidently alleaged For thus the matter standeth betweene the Fathers of that Councell and the Bishop of Rome The Bishops assembled at Constantinople writ to the Bishop of Rome and the rest of the Bishops of the West assembled in a Councell at Rome signifying that they had beene invited by them out of their brotherly loue as their owne members to come to their Councell and that they wished nothing more then that they had the wings of doues that they might flye away and rest with them but that the state of their Churches not permitting them to be so long absent and that intending at the time they vnderstood of their letters to come no farther then Constantinople they could not come but had sent notwithstanding certaine vnto them This is all that is contained in the letter of those Fathers written to the Bishop of Rome in all which there is no word of any mandate of the Pope but of a friendly and louing entreatie of the Westerne Bishops desiring the presence of their brethren of the East no word of head and members but of fellow members nor any thing that may proue a commaunding power in the Pope Nay the contrary is most strongly from hence to be proued For it was the Emperour and not the Pope that called them to Constantinople they refused to come to Rome though they had receiued the letters of the Romane Bishop and his colleagues intreating and desiring them to come to Rome they abode at Constantinople and were esteemed to bee the Generall Councell though the Pope held a Councell in the West at the same time which should haue beene accounted generall rather then this if all assurance of finding out the trueth and making good Lawes did rest in the Pope onely And lastly they ordained Bishoppes of the greatest and most famous Churches of the world such and in such sort as the Pope did not greatly like and yet was forced to giue way to their doings and to ratifie that which they had done The 2d allegation to proue the vniversalitie of the Popes jurisdiction is that the Fathers of the 3d general Councell holden at Ephesus professed that they deposed Nestorius by force of the mandatory letters of Caelestinus B. of Rome that in their epistle to Caelestinus they say they reserued the judgement of the cause of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch to him as being more doubtfull The former of these two things they endeauour to proue out of Euagrius the later out of the Epistle written by the Fathers of that Councell extant in the Councell it selfe For the clearing of this objection wee must obserue that Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople hauing vttered certaine hereticall and impious speeches touching the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ whereby many were scandalized the first amongst the Patriarches that tooke notice of it was Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt who after he found that Nestorius would not bee reclaimed by admonitions called a Synode of his Bishops and condemned the absurd and hereticall positions of Nestorius and required him to anathematize them otherwise threatning that hee and his Bishops would reiect him from their communion and hold them as brethren who vnder his iurisdiction resisted against him This his proceeding hee signified to the Bishop of Rome who approved and commended the same with his whole Synode of westerne Bishops encouraged him to goe forward wishing him not to doubt of his concurrence with him but as hauing all the authority and power hee and his Bishops had to prouide for the church of Constantinople and to let Nestorius know that he was cut off from the vnity of the body of their Churches if hee should not within a certaine number of dayes anathematize his wicked doctrine and professe the faith touching the generation of Christ the Sonne of God which the Romane Church the Church of Alexandria and Christian religion euery where preacheth Hereupon Nestorius fearing the course that Cyrill would take against him desired the Emperour to summon a generall Councell To this Councell came Nestorius and the Bishops that were vnder him and Cyrill with his Bishops assisted with the concurrence of the resolution and direction of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishoppes of the West though absent But Iohn the Patriarch of Antioche and his Bishops were not come Whereupon after a while the Bishops that were present being wearie of staying there beganne to proceede without him requiring Nestorius to appeare in the Synode and to answere to such things as should bee obiected to him Which when hee refused to doe the Fathers assembled finding by manifest proofe that hee had taught impiously condemned and deposed him compelled so to doe by the Canons and the letters of the Bishop of Rome and his westerne Bishops who had set a time within which if hee submitted not himselfe they would reiect him from their communion Fiue dayes after the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius came Iohn the Patriarch of Antioche with his Bishops excusing himselfe for his long tarrying in respect of the distance of the place from whence he came as also for that his Bishops could not sooner be gathered together Hee was much offended that they who were come before him had
man the things that are humane without diuision confusion or conuersion of one of thē into another that the differences of these natures remaine inuiolable But in that he denyeth that there are two actions in Christ the one of Deity and the other of Humanity in that he saith it is absurd to thinke that where there are more natures then one there must be more actions then one and alloweth of Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria and Sergius Bishop of Constantinople who were Monothelites rather then of Sophronius Bishoppe of Hierusalem a right worthy and learned Bishop who defended the truth against them both and whose learned Epistle to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople we finde in the sixth generall Councel it cannot be avoided but that he erred in matter of faith in such sort as by consequence it ouerthroweth that distinction of the two natures of God man in Christ which hee seemed to acknowledge Neither can it be cleared from suspition of hereticall bad meaning that he maketh it but a curiosity of philosophers to acknowledge a twofold action in Christ denieth that the fathers euer defined any such thing whereas Pope Martine the first in the Synode of Rome saith it is cleare by the determination of the Fathers that the two natures of Christ remaine vnconfounded in the vnion vndiuided as also his two wills and the two distinct actions naturall properties of them Maximus in his disputation with Pyrrhus found in the second Tome of the Councells cleareth one sentence of Honorius wherein hee seemeth to acknowledge but one will in Christ affirming out of the testimony of him that wrote that Epistle for Honorius that hee meant it of one will of the humane nature of Christ thereby shewing that there was no such contrariety of desires found in him as in vs. But what is that to the other things that are obiected to him Two obiections our Aduersaries haue against them who thinke that Honorius was condemned for heresie The first is that the sixth generall Councell could not condemne him without being contrary to it selfe in allowing the Epistle of Agatho wherein he saith that the faith neuer failed in Peters chaire and that his predecessours did alwayes confirme their brethren The second that some Writers speaking of the Monothelites and naming diuers of them omit him that Maximus in his Dialogue against Pyrrhus Theophanes Isaurus in his History cited by Onuphrius and Emmanuel Chalica in his booke in the defence of the Latines against the Greekes affirme he was euer a catholicke some other as Beda Anastasius Bibliothecarius Blondus Nauclerus Sabellicus Platina doe speake of him as of a Catholicke Bishop The first of these obiections I haue answered else-where shewing that some of Agathoes predecessours might for some short space faile to doe their duty in confirming their brethren swarue from the trueth and yet that be true he saith in that Epistle that in the See it selfe the faith neuer failed and that his predecessours fell not either so many or in such sort but that the Bishoppes of that Church did euer reach forth their helping hands to other either in the beginning of each heresie or before it was vtterly extinct and suppressed as it fell out in this both in respect of Pope Martine and others before and of himselfe now To the second wee say that it doth not seeme to be strongly proved that Honorius was no hereticke by the silence of some few That Maximus doth not cleare Honorius generally but one sentence of Honorius onely That Theophanes Isaurus doth not goe about to cleare Honorius from heresie but saith onely that the Canons of the sixth Councell were not made by the same Fathers that were at first assembled but by others So speaking nothing of Honorius who was condemned in the Councell and not in the canons and that the rest to wit Chalica and some few other liuing long after the time of Honorius are no sufficient proofe against that cloud of witnesses which wee produced in the beginning And therefore there is yet nothing brought to reproue the testimony of onr witnesses or to make good that hee was alwayes a catholicke which is the thing to be proued With Honorius wee may joyne Gregory the third who in his Epistle to Bonifacius giueth leaue to a man whose wife falleth into some such infirmity as maketh her vnfit to company with him to marry another so that hee giue her maintenance And that he speaketh not of any impediment before marriage not knowne which maketh the contract voyde from the beginning but of such infirmities as fall out afterwards it is evident First in that he saith If any mans wife shall be taken with such infirmity c. Secondly in that he prouideth That the husband shall prouide for her maintenance which in case of a voyde contract from the beginning is no way reasonable Thirdly in that he saith He shall thus prouide for her seeing infirmity and not wickednesse driueth him from her Fourthly in that he saith It were better he should containe seeing in case of abuse by vnknowne defect and impediment making the contract void from the beginning there is no more cause why a man so abused should containe and refraine from marriage then any other Now to permit marriage by reason of any defect or infirmity ensuing after the first marriage I thinke our Adversaries will not deny to be erroneous seeing the contrary is defined in the Councell of Trent Neither doth it excuse this errour of Gregory that Bellarmine alleadgeth out of Austin who maketh some doubt whether the wife with her husbands consent yeelding to the wicked desires of him in whose hands he is to saue his life bee excusable from sin seeing he doth but vpon a particular accident propose a disputable question and the other resolueth and giueth warrant for the practise of an vnlawfull thing and that as a Pope in his directions to Bonifacius hauing newly converted certaine barbarous people to the faith of Christ. Wherefore let vs proceede to see whether therebe any moe Popes that may justly be charged with errour or heresie Wee reade in the stories of the Church that one Formosus Bishop of Portua being hardly thought of and suspected by Iohn the Pope left his Bishopricke and fled for feare of him that being called backe by Iohn refusing to returne he was anathematized by him that at last comming into France to satisfie the Pope he was degraded and put into a Lay habite and made to sweare neuer to enter into Rome any more nor euer to communicate but as a Lay man yet afterwards by Martinus Iohns successour he was restored to his Bishopricke absolued from his oath came to Rome and in the end obtained to be Pope contrary to the mindes of many of the Romanes who desired rather to haue had one Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome but prevailed not
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
that the errours condemned by vs were not the doctrines of that auncient Roman church wherein our Fathers liued died we must obserue that the doctrines taught in that Church were of three sorts The first such as were deliuered with so full consent of all that liued in the same that whosoeuer offered to teach otherwise was rejected as a damnable hereticke such was the doctrine of the Triuity the creation fall originall sinne incarnation of the Sonne of God the vnity of his person diuersity of the natures subsisting in the same The second such errours as were taught by many in the midst of the same Church as that the Pope cannot erre and the like The third such contrary true assertions as were by other opposed against those errours The first were absolutely the doctrines of that Church The third may bee sayd to haue beene the doctrines of the Church though al receiued them not because they were the doctrines of such as were so in the church that they were the Church according to that of Augustine Some are in such sort in the house of God that they also are the house of GOD and some are so in the house that they pertaine not to the frame and fabricke of it nor to the society and fellowship of fruitfull and peaceable righteousnesse The second kinde of doctrines were not at all the doctrines of that church because they neither were taught with full consent of all that liued in it nor by them that were so in the church and house of God that they were the church and house of God but by such as though they pertained to the church in respect of the profession of some parts of heauenly truth yet in respect of many other wherein they were departed from the same seeking to subuert the faith once deliuered were but a faction in it Hence it followeth which is the third thing I promised to shew that howsoeuer wee haue forsaken the communion of the Romane Diocesse yet wee haue not departed from the Romane Church in the later sense before expressed wherein our Fathers liued died but onely from the faction that was in it First because wee haue brought in no doctrine then generally and constantly condemned nor reiected any thing then generally and constantly consented on Secondly because wee haue done nothing in that alteration of thinges that now appeareth but remoued abuses then disliked and shaken off the yoake of tyranny which that Church in her best parts did euer desire to bee freed from howsoeuer shee had brought forth and nourished other children that conspired against her that taught otherwise then we now doe would willingly for their aduantage haue retayned many things which wee haue remoued Thus then I hope it doth appeare that howsoeuer I confesse that the Latine or West Churches oppressed with Romish tyrāny cōtinued the true Churches of God held a sauing profession of heauenly truth turned many to God and had many Saints that died in their communion euen till the time that Luther began yet I neither dissent from Luther Caluine Beza or any other Protestant of iudgement nor any way acknowledge the present Romish Church to be that true Church of God whose communion wee must embrace whose directions wee must follow and in whose judgement we must rest But will some man say is the Romane Church at this day no part of the Church of God Surely as Augustine noteth that the societies of heretickes in that they retaine the profession of many parts of heauenly truth and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptisme are so farre forth still conjoyned with the Catholicke Church of God and the Catholick Church in and by them bringeth forth children vnto God so the present Romane church is still in some sort a part of the visible Church of God but no otherwise then other societies of heretickes are in that it retayneth the profession of some parts of heauenly trueth and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptisme to the saluation of the soules of many thousand infants that die after they are baptized before shee haue poysoned them with her errours Thus having spoken sufficiently for the cleering of my selfe touching this point I will passe from this chapter to the next CHAP. 3. IN the third chapter he endeauoureth to shew that the Protestants doe now teach the necessity of one supreame Spirituall head and commaunder in the Church of Christ. His words are these Whereas heretofore some vnchristian Sermons and Bookes haue termed the Bishop of Rome to bee the great Antichrist wee shall now receiue a better doctrine and more religious answere That there euer was and must bee one chiefe and supreame spirituall Head and Commander of the Church of Christ on earth c. D Field citeth and approueth this as a generall and infallible rule Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet c. The health of the Church dependeth on the dignity of the high Priest whose eminent authority if it be denyed there will be as many schismes in the Church as there be Priests Then of necessity one chiefe supreme and high Priest must be assigned in his iudgement These are his words The place he meaneth is not page one hundred thirty eight as he quoteth it but page 80. Let the Reader how partiall soeuer peruse it and if he finde that I haue written any thing whence it may be concluded that I acknowledge there euer was and must bee one chiefe and supreme spirituall Head and Commaunder of the whole Church of Christ in earth I will fall prostrate at the Popes feete and be of the Romish religion for euer But if it appeare vnto him that the author of these pretended proofes hath cited this place to proue that which in his conscience he knew it did not let him beware of such false cozening companions My words are The vnity of each particvlar Church depends on the vnity of the Pastor who is one to whom an eminent and particular power is giuen and whom all must obey Heere is no word of one chiefe Pastor of the whole vniuersall church of Christ vpon earth but of one chiefe Pastor in each particular Church VVho would not detest the impudencie false dealing of these Romish writers But he saith I approue the saying of Hierome before mentioned therefore I must assigne one chiefe Pastour of the whole Church of Christ on earth How will he make good this consequence Doth Hierome speake in that place cited approued by mee of one supreame Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on earth Surely this Pamphletter knoweth he doth not but of the Bishop of each particular Church or Diocesse If saith Hierome thou shalt aske why he that is baptized in the church doth not receiue the Holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop which we say is giuen in baptisme know that this obseruation commeth from that authority that the Spirit descended vpon the
mâ—…ch with many declamations against priuate interpretations and interpretations of private spirits and make the world beleeue that wee follow no other rule of interpretation but each mans private fancie For answere herevnto we say with Stapleton that interpretations of Scripture may be sayd to be private and the spirits whence they proceede named priuate either Ratione personae modi or finis That is in respect of the person who interpreteth the manner of his proceeding in interpreting or the end of his interpretation A priuate interpretation proceeding from a priuate spirit in the first sense is euery interpretation deliuered by men of priuate condition In the second sense is that which men of what condition soeuer deliuer contemning and neglecting those publike meanes which are knowen to all and are to be vsed by all that desire to finde the trueth In the third sense that which proceeding from men of priuate condition is not so proposed and vrged by them as if they would binde all other to receiue and imbrace it but is intended onely to their owne satisfaction The first kind of interpretation proceeding from a private spirit is not to be disliked if the parties so interpreting neither neglect the common rules meanes of attayning the right sense of that they interpret contemne the judgement of other men nor presumptuously take vpon them to teach others and enforce them to beleeue that which they apprehend for trueth without any authority so to doe But priuate spirits in the second sense that is men of such dispositions as will follow their owne fancies and neglect the common rules of direction as Enthusiasts and trust to their owne sense without conference and due respect to other mens judgements wee accurse This is all we say touching this matter wherein I would faine know what our aduersaries dislike Surely nothing at all as it will appeare to euery one that shall but looke into the place aboue alledged out of Stapleton But say they there must bee some authenticall interpretation of Scripture which euery one must bee bound to stand vnto or else there will be no end of quarrels and contentions The interpretation of Scripture is nothing else but the explication and clearing of the meaning of it This is either true or false The true interpretation of the Scripture is of two sorts For there is an interpretation which deliuereth that which is true and contayned in the Scripture or from thence to bee concluded though not meant in that place which is expounded This is not absolutely and perfectly a true interpretation because though it truely deliuereth such doctrine as is contayned in the Scripture and nothing contrarie to the place interpreted yet it doth not expresse that that is particularly meant in the place expounded There is therefore another kind of true interpretations when not onely that is deliuered which is contayned in the Scripture but that which is meant in the particular places expounded Likewise false interpretations are of two sorts some deliuering that which is vtterly false and contrary to the Scripture some others onely fayling in this that they attaine not the true sense of the particular places expounded An example of the former is that interpretation of that place of Genesis The sonnes of God saw the daughters of men c. which some of the Fathers haue deliuered vnderstanding by the sonnes of God the Angels of Heauen whose fall they suppose proceeded from the loue of women Which errour they confirme by that of the Apostle that women must come vayled into the Church for the Angels that is as they interpret least the Angels should fall in loue with them A false interpretation of the later kind Andradius sheweth some thinke that exposition of the wordes of the Prophet Esaie Quis enarrabit generationem eius Who shall declare his generation deliuered by many of the Fathers vnderstanding thereby the eternall generation of the son of God which no man shall declare Whereas by the name of generation the Prophet meaneth that multitude that shall beleeue in Christ which shall be so great as cannot be expressed An authenticall interpretation is that which is not only true but so clearely and in such sort that euery one is bound to imbrace and to receiue it As before we made 3 kinds of judgment the one of discretion common to all the other of direction common to the Pastors of the Church and a third of jurisdiction proper to them that haue supreame power in the Church so likewise wee make three kindes of interpretation the first private and so euery one may interpret the Scripture that is privately with himselfe conceiue or deliuer to other what hee thinketh the meaning of it to bee the second of publike direction and so the Pastors of the Church may publikely propose what they conceiue of it and the third of jurisdiction and so they that haue supreme power that is the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpret the Scripture and by their authority suppresse all them that shall gainesay such interpretations and subject euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of like nature But for authenticall interpretation of Scriptures which every mans conscience is bound to yeeld vnto it is of an higher nature neither doe wee thinke any of these to be such as proceeding from any of those before named specified to whom wee graunt a power of interpretation Touching the interpretations which the Fathers haue deliuered we receiue them as vndoubtedly true in the generall doctrine they consent in and so farre forth esteeme them as authenticall yet doe wee thinke that holding the faith of the Fathers it is lawfull to dissent from that interpretation of some particular places which the greater part of them haue deliuered or perhaps all that haue written of them and to find out some other not mentioned by any of the Auncient CHAP. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers and how farre wee are bound to admit it THe Fathers sayth Andradius especially they of the Greeke Church being ignorant of the Hebrew tongue following Origen did rather striue with all their wit and learning to devise Allegories and to frame the manners of men then to cleare the hard places of the law and the Prophets Nay euen Hierome himselfe who more diligently then any of the rest sought out the meaning and sense of the Propheticall and diuine Oracles yet often to avoyde the obscurities of their words betaketh himselfe to Allegories In this sense it is that Cardinall Caietan saith hee will not feare to goe against the torrent of all the Doctors for which saying Andradius sheweth that Canus and others doe vnjustly blame him For though wee may not goe from the faith of the Fathers nor from the maine trueth of doctrine which they deliuer in different interpretations yet may wee interpret some parts of the Scripture otherwise then any
of the Auncient euer did weighing the circumstances of places the nature and force of words in the Originall and hauing other helpes necessary Neither is this to contemne the vniforme and maine consent of the Fathers but rather more exactly to illustrate and explaine those things which they did allegorically vnderstand or not so diligently trauaile in as is fit for them that come after to doe It is not then so strange a thing to say that there are many places of Scripture the true literall and natural sense whereof we cannot finde in any of the Ancient Neither is this to charge them with error in faith seeing the sense they giue tendeth to the furtherance of the true faith and the better forming of mens manners to godlinesse Wherefore wee feare not to pronounce with Andradius that whosoeuer denyeth that the true and literall sense of sundry texts of Scripture hath beene found out in this last age wherein as Guido Fabritius rightly noteth all things seeme to bee renewed and all learning to be newly borne into the world that so Christ might bee newly fashioned in vs and wee new borne in him is most vnthankefull vnto God that hath so richly shed out his benefites vpon the children of this generation vngratefull towards those men who with so great paines so happy successe and so much benefit to Gods Church haue travailed therein Neither is Andradius only of this opinion but Iansenius Maldonatus also who both of them do in sundry places professe they rest not satisfied in any interpretation giuen by the Fathers but preferre other found out in this age For example in the explication of that place of Iohn Of his fulnesse we haue all receiued grace for grace Maldonatus refuseth all the interpretations of the Fathers and giueth this of his owne We haue receiued of Christs fulnesse most excellent gifts of grace yet no man hath receiued al but euery one is defectiue yea euery one lacketh something that another hath But he may acknowledge the goodnesse of God towards him in that hee hath some other in stead of it which the other hath not and so may rightly bee saide to haue receiued grace for grace because in stead of that grace he wanteth and another hath hee hath receiued some other which the other wanteth Many other instances might bee giuen out of Caietane Andradius Iansenius Maldonatus and other worthy Divines of the Church of Rome but this may suffice CHAP 18. Of the diuers senses of Scripture THus hauing set downe to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth it remaineth that wee speake of the rules directions and helpes that men haue to leade thē to the finding out of the right meaning of it But because some suppose the Scripture hath many vncertain senses before we enter into the discourse of the rules which must direct vs in interpreting wee must speake something of the multiplicity of senses supposed to be in the words of Scripture which may seeme to contrary all certainety of interpretation There is therefore a double sense of the sacred words and sentences of Scripture for there is a literall sense and a spirituall or mysticall sense The literall sense is either proper or natiue when the words are to be taken as originally in their proper signification they import or figuratiue when the words are translated from their naturall and proper signification to signifie something resembled by those things they do primarily import As when Christ sayth hee hath other sheepe which are not of this fould The spirituall or mysticall sense of the Scripture is when the words either properly or figuratiuely signifie somethings which are figures and significations of other things This is Threefoold Allegoricall Tropologicall Anagogicall The first is when things spoken of in the old Testament are figures of somethings in the Newe So it was literally true that Abraham had two sons the one by a bond-woman the other by a free but these two sonnes of Abraham imported some other thing in the state of the newe Testament to wit two different sorts of men And here wee may obserue the difference betweene an Allegory and a Type A Type is when some perticular person or fact in the old Testament demonstrateth and shadoweth out vnto vs some particular person or fact in the newe An allegory when something in the old Testament in a spirituall and mysticall sort shadoweth out vnto vs in a generality things in some proportion answering in the newe So Dauid ouercomming Goliah was a Type of Christ and allegorically did shadow out that victory which wee obtaine in the state of the newe Testament ouer those ghostly enemies that rise vp against vs. The Tropologicall sense of Scripture is when one thing deliuered and reported in the Scripture signifieth some other thing pertaining to the behauiour and conuersation of men as when God forbade to muzzle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne This prohibition did literally signifie that God would not haue labouring oxen restrained from feeding while they were treading out the corne But this respect which God had vnto these his creatures of inferiour cōdition did signifie that much lesse they which labour for our soules good are to be denied the things of this life Anagogicall when the things literally expressed vnto vs do signifie something in the state of heauen happinesse God sware in his wrath to the Israelites that they should not enter into his rest meaning the land of Canaan but the Apostle from thence concludeth that vnbeleeuers shall not enter into that eternall rest of the Saints in heauen because the rest of the Israelites in the land of Canaan after their manyfold dangers vexations and trauels was a figure of the eternall rest in heauen This diuision of the manifold senses of Scripture is taken out of Eucherius Hierom maketh three kinds of exposition of Scripture Historicall Tropologicall and Spirituall that which he nameth spiritual comprehendeth both those before expressed by Eucherius to wit Allegoricall Anagogicall Augustine maketh the expositiō of the Scripture to be twofold Historical Allegorical The former he maketh to be twofold to wit Analogicall Aetiologicall and the later he maketh to comprehend that which properly is called Allegoricall and the other two to wit Tropologicall and Anagogicall The reason of this diuersity of mysticall senses is because the old Testament was a figure of the new and the new of future glory This multiplicity of senses breedeth no vncertainety in the Scripture nor Aequivocation because the words of the Scripture do not doubtfully signifie so diuers and different things but the things certainly signified by the words are signes significations of diuers things All these are founded vpon one literall certain sense from which onely in matter of question and doubt an argument may be drawen The thing wherein Origen offended was not that hee found out spirituall and mysticall senses of