so much as the Councell of Florence had not only defyned that the Father and the Sonne are one origen or beginning of the Holy Ghost but also as Alâ—isiodorensis Gregory of Arimini Valentia affirme that they are not aliter atque aliter principium After a distinct and seuerall sort a beginning not breathing the holy Ghost in a different manner one from the other But Scotus excellently proueth out of S. Augustine that as the Father the Son are one beginning in respect of the Holy Ghost so all Aug. l. 5. de Trin. c. 14. three are one in respect of creatures The reason is because the * Molina in 1. par q. 45 art 6. Bannes ibidem Molina in 1. part q. 36. art 2. Disput 3. Deuines tell you that the Relations of themselues are of no actiuity their only function is in wardly to distinguish the persons among themselues and not outwardly to worke but only as they are identifyed with the Almighty working nature of God 19. Moreouer it is an approued principle amongst the learned that in the Trinity all thinges are one Vbi non obuiat relationum oppositio Where no opposition of relations is interposed But in manner of producing outward actions there is no opposition of relations no diuersity of notions therefore all vnity conformity and no difference at al. Which the Prophet Moyses denoted in the beginning Gen. â— of Genesis by these two Hebrew words Elohim bara Creauit Dij wher to shew the vnity of the diuine essence and Identity of action togeather with the Plurality of the PersoÌ„s he coupleth the singular number Bara Creauit with the plurall Elohim And yet if they had created in a distinct manner it had beene as needfull to haue vsed the plurall number Creauerunt to expresse their variety of working as the plurall number Elohim to betoken the diuersity of persons neuertheles if contrary to the Holy Prophet I should yield vnto M. Field what he requireth it serueth not his turne For suppose the persons did worke in a different manner yet the Sonne hath no different manner of working from himselfe and therefore it still implyeth that he as God should mediate and be also he to whome mediation is made which are the only thinges controuerted betweene vs and the only points which alwayes remayne vnanswered 20. These are I grant profound deep mysteryes these of the Trinity too deep M. Field for you to treate of they are able to dazell the wits of Angells it is not strange that they haue wholy darkened and eclipsed yours Yet strang it is you neuer heard what the Fathers write against you Strange me thinkes you neuer read these wordes of S. Gregory Nissen Not deuidedly for the number Nisâ—â—â— ad Ablabium Aug. l. 1. de Trin. c. 4. 5. Later Con. c. Firmiter Tolâ— 6. c. 1. vndecimum in conf fid 10. 5. v. â—9 Damascen l. 3. de fide ortho c. 14. 15. Maldonat in c. 5. Io. Nazian orat 2. de Filio Tho. 3. p q. â—9 art 2. Damâ—s l. 3. cap. 14. of persons doth the holy Trinity worke euery action Nor those of S. Augustine The three diuine persons inseparably worke Not the like in the Lateran the like in the 6. and 11. Toleâ—an Councell But most strange of all so great a Preacher and expounder of the word could neuer cal to mind that saying of S. Iohn What thinges soeuer the Father doth those the Sonne also doth in like manner and not in a different manner as S. Iohn Damascen vpon this sentence excellently discourseth and confirmeth with the testimony of S. Gregory Nissen And Maldonate solidly obserueth out of Leontius that the Euangelist addeth Similiter In like manner to signify that the Sonne doth worke all thinges in the same sort with the Father with the same power with the same auctority sayth the same Leontius and S. Gregory Nazianzen The reason is as S. Thomas and S. Damascen declare because Operatio sequitur naturam The operation followeth the nature And where that is one and the same without any distinction no distinction can there be in manner of action 21. Neuertheles M. Field goeth forward In this sort to quicken giue life c. to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature meriting desiring and instrumentally assisting is proper to the Sonne of God manifested Field in his â— book c. 16. fol. 52. in our flesh c. Therefore notwithstanding the obiection taken from the vnity of the workes of the Diuine persons may be a worke of mediation See what errours spring out of heretical pride first he would haue the diuers manner of working in the Sonne from the Father wholy to arise out of their seuerall manner of subsisting now that not sufficient he seemeth partly to draw it from the instrumentall concurrence of Christs humane nature As though either the vnion of his manhood with the person of the Sonne or the workes it produceth should cause some alteration or diuersity in the workes of his Godhead And he who is in himselfe vnchangeable should be altered and changed by the cooperation of his humanity But what change can that cause in the actions of God the Sonne as they proceed from his diuine Nature which it causeth not in the actions of the Father in the actions of the Holy Ghost Chiefly seeing S. Leo speaking in the person of S. Leo homilia de Transfiguratione God the Father to our Sauiour Christ sayth This is my beloued Sonne c. who all thinges that I do doth in like manner and whatsoeuer I worke he without any separation or difference worketh with me If all thinges If whatsoeuer Then those thinges which he worketh with the concurrence of his manhood those he accomplisheth without separation without difference from the workes of his Father and so cannot possibly by them mediate vnto him 22. To explicate my selfe more clearely Touching the action of quickening or giuing life which M. Field tearmeth a worke of mediation we speake not heer precisely of it as it meritoriously issueth from the humanity of Christ but as it is efficiently produced by the Godhead of the Sonne with a kind of concurring for so he speaketh of the humane nature In which respect either M. Field distinguisheth two agentes God on whome the action of quickening principally dependeth and Man who instrumentally concurreth thereunto or he distinguisheth them not Say he distinguish them then that worke of authority as it proceedeth from God equally floweth from all the persons of Holy Trinity in regard whereof they are all mediatours as well as the Sonne because the nature which principally causeth it is common to all Say he distinguish them not but make one sole agent of both on which the worke of mediation indifferently and inseparably dependeth then he confoundeth with Eutyches the two natures of Christ and with Macharius Tho. 3. p q. 18. art 1.
stirreth vp his appâ—â—â—â— to rauenous gluttony the Iust man heareth this and he is sensed from * Note that Catbolikes abstaine not from meat of any superstition as the Iewes Manichees but for the chastisment of concupisâ—â—ce or exercise of vertue Aug. hom 8. tract 18. in Ioan. the superstition of discerning 〈◊〉 And in another place S. Augustine writeth Neither haue heresies or certaine doctrines 〈◊〉 the mind strong from other hâ—â—d then from good Scriptures not well vnderstood To specifie some particulers 12. a Aug. contra aduers lig et Prophet l. 1. 2. c. 4. Ioan 10. Marcian despised Moyses the Prophets their liues and writings what pretended he Scripture How many soeuer haue come before me are theeues and robbers The b Guido dâ— error ib a Armen Ephes 4. ver 11. Armenians taught we should all rise in the day of Iudgment in the state of mankind and that the femal sexe of women should be wholy extinct What ground had they Scripture Vntill we all meete in a perfect man What was cited by the c Iraen l. 2. cap. 14. Tertul. lib. de anima cap 35. Matth. 5. Carpocratians contending the soule of man to be vnited to the body to perpetrate sinne and not to be diuorced from it vntill it achieue all kind of wickednes Scripture Thou shalt not depart from thence vntill thou defray the last farthing The d Aug. tract 34. in Ioan. Ioan. 8. Manichees affirmed our Sauiour Christ to be this materiall sinne which compasseth the earth and affoardeth light to our corporall eyes What colour had they Scripture I am the light of the world By Scripture the e Alphonsus de Castr. 110 aduer haer verbo Occidere Exod. 20. Waldenses taught that no maÌ„ could be put to death no not by the lawfull authoritie of a Iudge Thou shall not kill By Scripture the f August tract 53. in Ioan. Ioan. 12. v. 25. Mat. 16. v. 25 Luth. con Art Louanien Thes 27. l. de Caena dom To. 2 Ger. fol. 17. 4. VVhitak in his answere to Campians 8. reason pag. 259. Vincent Lyr. c. 35. Genna in catalogo Eccl. Scri. Circumcellians held that euery Christian might not only murther his fellow but lay violent hands also on himself He that hateth his soule in this life preserueth it to euerlasting life And not to be ouer tedions in a matter perspicuous by Scripture Luther excommunicateth all Sacramentaries as arrant Heretikes and already damned to the pit of hell By the same Scripture our Protestants make both Lutherans and Sacramentaries faithfull Christians and if they once beleeue sure of saluation What hath Scripture bene in this sort the origine of these foule Contradictions horrible Blasphemies and a thousand more and yet must it be the soueraigne and only meanes to end and suppresse them When they who are silenced by it make greatest shew and ostentation of it When you shall see sayth Vincentius Heretikes so abound with Scripture as they fly through all the volumes of the holy Law through Moyses the bookes of the Kings the Psalmes and Prophets c. Read the workes of Paulus Samosatenus Priscillian Eunomius c. You shall not find a page which is not coloured painted with the sentences of old and new Testament Nestorius to support his priuat heresy gloried as Gennadius reporteth in the euideÌ„ce of threescore testimonies which he produced 13. Arius likewise boasted of the patronage of Scripture yea of the collation of places our Sectaries chiesest refuge And when the Prelates of the first Councell of Nice proued the Essentiall Equality of the Sonne of God with his Father which he denied out of those words of S. Iohn I and my Father am all one he answered They were all one in the vnity of wlll and affection not in the vnity Io. ca. 10 vers 30. of nature and essence which by Conference of places he bolstered in this manner Christ prayed for his disciples Ioh. 17. v. 21. that they might be one with him as he and his Father were one But he demaunded not neither was it possible for them to be one in substance with God the Father Therfore the Sonne himself was not the same in substance but only in will loue and obedience as he desired his Disciples to be In so much as the Fathers could neuer haue vanquished that wicked heresie if they had not beaten it downe by the authority of the Church more then by testimony of Scripture as appeareth by S. Athanasius a chiefe Atha ep decres con Arian haer impugner of that impious heresy 14. Yet because our new Ghospellers build the tower of their Babell will climbe to the knowledge of all heauenly truth by this collation of places and diligent recourse to the originall fountaines let them tell me when the Reader doubteth of any particular passage of Scripture how the Collatour knoweth by what other sentence that ought to be interpreted The darke and obscure places as Whitaker and Reynolds instruct vs are to VVhitak contro 1. q. 5. ca. 23. Rein. c. 1. diuis 2. p. 60. be lightned by the plaine and perspicuous Graunt it be so How shall I be certaine whether the hard place I doubt of ought to be explained by the cleare and euident text I choose to that purpose or by some other What certaine rule set you downe I may not erre in my choyce Eutiches doubted of the meaning of those words Verbum caro factum The word was made flesh which you suppose I Ioan. 1. v. 14. See Suarez in 3 p. d. 7. ses 2. fol. 132. Ioan 2. v. 9. 1. 10. 3. v. 9. Aug l. de haer ad Quoduult haer 82. doubt not a point requisite to be beleeued And by reason of the propinquity and alliance of speach he expounded them by those of S. Iohn Aquam vinum factum The water was made wine and fell into his detestable blasphemie that the Deity of God was changed into the flesh of man as the water was turned and conuerted into wine Iouinian doubted of the intelligence of an hard saying he read in the first epistle of S. Iohn to wit He that is borne of God doth not sinne Where by the connexion of the text by the conference of other places he framed this desperate and hatefull exposition That a Christian once regenerated and purified by the water of Baptisme cannot after receaue any tainture of sin or offend God any more althogh he would neuer so faine A thousand such errours in matters of importance necessary to saluation haue enemies sucked out of the cleare brooks of holy writ by the deceauable search weighing of places 15. I might vrge That the sentences which are plaine and open to some seeme darke and obscure to others What text more cleare then that of S. Matthew Mat. 26 Mark 14. Luc. â—2 1. Cor. 11. This is my Body repeated againe by S. Marke recorded by
he was heard and reuerenced of his Father 9. Heere some learned Protestant may obiect That the person of the Sonne of God was the party offended therfore it could not satisfy but must be satisfyed by the submission of another I answere with Suarez the person of the Sonne of God may be considered two wayes either as it is all one by Identity with the nature of God or as it supporteth the nature of man In the former sense he is the party offended and must be pacifyed in the latter he is our Priest Mediatour and he that pacifyeth because the operations he worketh by his humanity are only capable of merit and apt to satisfy and not these he produceth by his Diuinity Which maketh M. Fields M. Fulkes and their followers assertion the more detestable who faygne Christ to mediate by both his natures As though he could either merit or satisfy in respect of his Deity or without merit satisfaction discharge his office of Mediation the mistery of our redemption Many other such inuincible reasons may be brought against them 10. For he that mediateth to another vseth some submission and intreaty vnto him to obtaine that he cannot himselfe performe which argueth want and impotency in the mediatour and power or authority in him to whome mediation is made So that if Christ as God sueth and supplicateth to his Father he is as the Arians sayd more impotent then his Father according to his God-head he is a Creature and not God Againe he that maketh mediation must be distinguished from him to whom mediation is made but the diuine nature of Christ is the party offended he that ought to be pacifyed he to whome mediation is made Therefore it cannot be he that maketh mediation For this cause Cardinal Bellarmin inferreth that Christ could not be our Mediatour neither Bellar. l. 5. cap. 5. de Chri. Mediatore according to both his natures seuerally nor ioyntly Not seuerally for the reasons alleadged not ioyntly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God and man and from the Sonnes of men who are meerly men yet he differeth not from the Sonne of God who was to be pacifyed neither in nature nor in person 11. D. Field taxeth this as a silly kind of reasoning And he like a silly nouice impertinently or impiously replyeth Field in his 5. booke c. 16 fol. 53. That the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not only from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is man and from men and himselfe as man in that he is God And therefore may mediate not only between the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men How idle how impertinent is this Do not we graunt Doth not Bellarmine in the same place confesse this difference Bellar. l. 5. c. 3. Do not we acknowledg that Christ doth mediate betweene his Father and vs yea betweene himselfe as God and vs wretched sinners But the question is according to what nature he performes it And you who affirme him to execute it according to both natures should shew how the Diuine nature of Christ which maketh mediation differeth from it selfe to whome mediation is made Assigne no difference and you confound the party satisfying with the party offended you make no satisfaction no mediation at all Assigne a difference you diuide the vnity of God-head you impiously deny the Blessed Trinity The Sonne say you assumed the nature of man which the Father did not True But what Did the Incarnation or assumption of man make any distinction any mutation in the essence of God Is not the diuine nature of the Sonne notwithstanding his Hypostaticall vnion the same with the Fathers the same with the Holy Ghosts Is it not as far distant from vs in the Son Aug. li. 2. de pec orig c. 28. Fulke vbi supra Aug. in Psal 109. Theod. in eumdem Psal Iero. in Psal 109. as it is in the Father As farre distant since as before the incarnation Therefore I conclude with S. Augustine Quomodo erit medietas vbi eadem distantia est How can there be a meane where the same distance still remayneth 12. The like forces we bring against M. Fulke who maketh Christ a Priest in respect of his Godhead For besides the Fathers who directly affirme the contrary besides S. Augustine who sayth As he was man he was Priest as God he was not Priest Theodoret As man he did offer Sacrifice but as God he did receaue Sacrifice S. Hierome Our Lord swore c. Thou art a Priest for euer He swore not to him who before Lucifer was begotten but to him who after Lucifer was borne of the Virgin Besides these authorityes if Christ be a Priest and offer Sacrifice as M. Fulke holdeth according to his Diuinity he is both distinct from his Father and inferiour to him according to his diuinity He doth homage to him as his Lord and supreme soueraigne and sitteth not as the Scripture teacheth on his right hand equall with him in dignity equall in glory power maiesty as the * Atha ser 1. con Arian Bâ—sil l. de Spir. sanct cap. 6. Ambr. l. 1. defide c. 4. c. Doctours commonly interprete that place Nay he is as the †August â—om 6. propos 33. Fulk in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect 4. Field 5. ca. 16. Arians affirmed the Priest and Minister of his Father and not his true and consubstantiall Sonne M. Fulke and M. Field with him seeke to auoyd these blasphemyes by distinguishing the workes of mediation and Priesthood into two sortes into workes of ministery workes of authority Of ministery as to pray to pay the price of our Redemption and by dying to satisfy for sinne Of authority as to enter into the helyest place to reconcile vs vnto God which two D. Fulke expresseth Or to quicken giue life impart the spirit of sanctification to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the holy Ghost which M. Field specifyeth And then they will haue the workes of ministery to be performed by Christ in his manhood the works of authority in his God-head Such maskes they prepare to hide the face of their monstruos assertion notwithstanding the vgly shape appeareth 13. For heere they first intermingle the ministeriall function of man with the powerfull actions of God To enter into the holyest place to penetrate the heauens which M. Fulke vbi supra Fulke recounteth as a work of authority was if we speak of the action not of the power by which it was done a locall motion and worke of ministery proceeding from man and not from God who is vnchangeable immoueable not entring any place but filling all places with his infinite immensity In like manner the reconciliation which Christ as Mediatour made was the action of his humanity in which sense S.
Paul sayd God was in Christ 2. Cor. â— v. 19. reconcyling the World to himselfe because he reconciled it to himselfe by Christ by the obedience and labours of his manhood Or if he take this reconciliation as made by God without the interposing of a third person as one may by himselfe reconcile his enemy vnto him then I say this was no act of mediation but an act of Gods mercy as much belonging to the Father as to the Son So I acknowledge the workes of authority which M. Field loco citato Field mentioneth to be the workes of Christs Diuinity but not the workes of mediation not proper to the Son of God but common to all the persons of Holy Trinity agreable to that principle ratifyed by all Deuines Indiuisa sunt opera Trinitatis ad extra The workes of the Trinity outwardly Field in his 5. book of the Church c. 16. f. 52. M. Fields reply sauoureth too much of Arianisme produced indiuisibly proceed from euery person 14. D. Field replyeth Though their action be the same workedone by them yet they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner of doing For the Father doth all things auctoritatiuè and the Sonne subauctoritatiuè as the Schoolemen speake Thus he writeth and still dippeth his pen in Arian poyson For yield that the diuine nature of the Sonne of God worketh in a different manner from the nature of the Father there must needes ensue some difference in nature some diuersity of wills otherwise it cannot be conceaued how the Tho. 1. p. â— 19. art 4. same indiuisible essence how the same vnchaÌ„geable wil which is the cause of all thinges should change and alter in manner of working 15. Secondly if the Father and the Sonne differ in manner of doing these outward actions towardes vs their Creatures then they are not both as the Deuines tearme The three persons of holy Trinity are but one beginning or author of thinges them Vnum principium One sole origen or beginning of thinges but the Father causeth and willeth them one way the Sonne another the one createth quickneth and giueth life in this sort the other in that Which is nothing els but to rake vp the ashes of old dead and buryed heresyes to giue way to the Manichees and other followers to maâ—â— diuers Creatours and Beginners of thinges Yet because you affirme the Schoolemen bolster this errour name I beseech you what Schoolemen they are Who vnles he were an Arian presumed to write that the essentiall and externall actions for of them we now speake which the Father and the Sonne essentially produce are different in manner of doing Who in respect of these workes euer vttered those wordes which I quake againe to repeate the one did them auctoritatiuè the other subauctoritatiuè What Is the Sonne according to his God-head an inferiour instrument or vnderling to his Father The Oracle of S. Paul recordeth Christ Iesus when he was in the forme of God thought it no robbery to be equall vnto God and shall this Phil. 2. 6. Sectmates blasphemy take place that he hath power and authority to worke vnder God He answereth his meaning is not the sonne should be an instrument or vnderling Field ibi to his Father but that he receiueth the essence he hath and power of working from the Father though the very same that is in the Father only differing as he noteth before in subsistence 16. Is this M. Field the part of a Christian to sprinkle your writings with words of blasphemy and powder them ouer with a holesome meaning Hath not our learned Soueraigne King Iames worthily condemned Conradus Vorstius that egregious Hereticke for the like abuse K. Iames in his declaration concerning his proceedings in the cause of D. Contradus Vorstius pag. 36. Gen. 19. 24 doth not he teach it vnlawfull to vse in these great mysteries any other phrase or manner of speach then such as the Church hath alwaies vsed How dare you then in his kingdome vnder the sheild of his protection how dare you diuulge in Print such venemous speeches such pestiferous words howbeit you seeke as Vorstius did to strow and couer them with a sugred sense For I confesse the sonne of God receiueth his essence as begotten of his Father and so may sometime by denomination or appropriation of speech be said to work by power receiued from his Father as in Genesis it is written Our Lord raigned from our Lord. But for one person to mediate to another is not only required a different denomination but a reall and substantiall difference a distinction an inferiority in the very essence it selfe in such manner as I haue often inculcated Also I confesse the persons of holy Trinity differ in Subsistence differ to vse the termes of Art in Personall Notions or Notionall Relations Yet hereof to infer an vnder-power or different manner of producing outward and essentiall workes this I say is either to make some diuersity of natures with the accursed Arians or giue scope to the Manichees to establish not a double only but a triple God or threefold cause of things created Now if you tremble to support such wickednes as your words enforce to what purpose was that sacriledge breathed forth How answere you the obiection of the vnity of the works of the Diuine Persons how make you the same action a worke of mediation in one and not in the other 17. For you ought to know good Syr if you dare vsurpe the title or challeng the dignity of a Deuine that albeit the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost ioyntly cooperate and accomplish the workes of authority you mentioned as they are perfectly subsisting in three Persons really distinct yet they performe them not primarily or formally by their personall properties by which they differ but by their will and vnderstanding in which Hâ—â—r de Gandauo quodl 6. q 2. they agree and not by them if we speake precisely as they are Notionally but as they are essentially taken that is as they are one absolute and the same in euery person It was I confesse the errour of Henry de Gandauo that the Nationall knowledge and loue of God did practically Molina in 2. par q. 36. â— 4. disp 2. 5. 6. Altifiod l. 1. summ c 30. Greg. Arimin 1. dist 22. q. vnica Valenâ— in 1. par disp 2. q. 10. punct 5. de person Spiritus Sancti Sâ—oc l. 2. â—st 1. q. 1. produce all outward creatures yet far was he from your impiety far from imagining so maine a difference as to attribute thereby a worke of submission subiection mediation to one person which is not in the other 18. The holy Ghost as the Deuines teach proceedeth from the Father and from the Sonne as they incoÌ„municably subsist by their different relations yet not according to their difference but according to one single or common vertue of spiration which is the same in both In
He loueth vs maketh his aboad with vs as in his holy temple In this we know that he abydeth in vs by his spirit which he hath giuen vs. He that abydeth in charity abydeth in God and God in him where he speaketh not of weake or impure but of complete and perfect charity For it followeth in the next verse In this is charity perfected with vs that we may haue confidence in the day of iudgment Besides Thinke you also that you are dead truly to sinne but aliue to God in Christ Iesus our Lord. Therefore S. Augustine often calleth the Holy Ghost dwelling in vs or his charity diffused into our harts the Life of our soule by which we truely liue to God 11. Fiftly it aduanceth vs to the dignity of Gods children You haue receaued the spirit of adoption of sonnes wherin we cry Abba Father Againe See what manner of Charity the Rom. S. v. 15. â— Ioan. c. 3. v. 1. Father hath giuen vs that we should be named and be the sonnes of God To which end S. Iohn Damascen declareth how God infuseth into our soules certaine diuine and supernaturall qualityes wherby we receaue a diuine and supernaturall kind of being are partakers of the diuine nature preferred to be Gods and children of the highest Neither is there any former Ioan. Damas l. 4. de fide c. 4. Rom. 8. v. 9. Ephes 1. v. 14. Rom. 8. v. 17. Tit. 3 v. 5. 6. 7. cause of our vnion with God whereof this spirit of adoption may be tearmed an effect for S. Paul sayth If any man haue not the spirit of Christ the same is not this by any thing whatsoeuer going before Hence we deduce the sixth prerogatiue of this inward renouation that is our clayme to the kingdome of heauen therefore it is tearmed pignus haereditatis the pledge of our inheritance because the sanctity grace which the holy Ghost worketh in vs affoardeth a certaine hope and morall assurance of our future glory as the Apostle by way of gradation excellently argueth in this manner If sonnes heires also heires truely of God and coheirs of Christ. Likewise God according to his mercy hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the Holy Ghost whome he hath powred vpon vs abundantly by Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustifyed by his grace we may be heyres according to hope of life euerlasting 12. Peruse these wordes O yee Sectaryes ponder the sense and meaning of them and stoop at length to the voice of truth so often sounded forth by this great Apople and trympet of heauen for he sayth 1. That we are Ahundâ— Grecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieron saued by this benefit of renouation but nothing can be the formall cause of our saluation but true and perfect iustice Therefore we are made by the grace of Baptisme perfectly iust 2. Not outwardly by imputation but inwardly by the holy Ghost powred vpon vs. 3. And that not sparingly by peece-meale but abundantly richely or bountifully as the Greeke largly or copiously as S. Hierome readeth 4. And to no other effect then that iustifyed by his inward grace we may be heires in hope of life euerlasting And S. Iohn concludeth that without this renouation No man can enter the Kingdome of heauen signifying thereby that it is Ioan. 3. â— 5. not the effect or signe without which we might enter but the true cause of our entrance not weake and halting but true and entiere iustice because it is true iustice sayth S. Augustine to which eternall life is due 13. The last priuiledge ariseth from the former that Augu. ep 205. paulo ante medium ui debetur vita aeternaver a iustitia est Rom. 8. v. 20. 11. Aug. l. de spir lit cap. 29. it purchaseth also the resurrection of our bodyes and crowne of our eternall felicity If Christ be in you the body indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit liueth because of iustification And he that rayseth vp Iesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortall bodyes because of his spirit dwelling in you Note this causall addition because of the spirit dwelling in you which S. Augustine aduisedly obserueth and accounteth our Resurrection in flesh to immortality meritum spiritus a deseruing of the spirit which goeth before it in iustification as in a meete conuenient and congruous resurrection So that two wayes it doth properly merit the glory of immortality both for that it is giuen before hand as a pledge earnest Ioan. 4. v. 14. Cyril in â—um loc Theoph. ibid. or right thereunto supposing the benignity and promise of God as also because it doth produce good workes which do condignely deserue and augment the same therefore called by S. Iolm according to S. Cyrils and Theophilacts interpretation a fountaine of water spriging vp to life euerlasting that is a celestiall fountaine of purifying grace copious in it selfe and ouer flowing with the riuers VVhitaker in his answere to 8. â—â—ason of M. Campâ—on and in his â— booke against Iâ—â—raus Abbos in â—is defence â— 4. sect 3. of sundry vertues which wafte vs to the haueÌ„ of eternal rest But if all this be not sufficient to iustify vs before God what is required to atchieue that happines heere vpon earth if the diuine grace and supernaturall quality which worketh in vs all the forenamed effects be not gratefull and pleasing in the eyes of our Soueraigne What I pray you is acceptable vnto him Marry sayth Whitaker and M. Abbot that which is so perfect as satisfyeth the law of God I see your windings first you answered that the grace which inhabiteth in vs is defiled Then that it is not perfect not iustifying grace at least not such as iustifyeth vs in the sight of God Now not such as satisfyeth fullfilleth the law Well you trauerse much ground but to little purpose for S. Paul S. Augustine and diuers others manifestly teach that by this grace of Christ by the sweetnes of hiâ— loue we fullfill the law of God which by feare and terror we neuer could do whose testimonyes I shall alleadge in the Controuersy of keeping the Commandments intreating my Reader to peruse them there whilst I pursue my victory and follow the chased enemy retyring now for succour to the castle of holy Scripture where Whitaker VVhitak in his answere to 8. reason of M. Camp fol. 224. 2. ad Cor. 5. vers â—1 Calu. l. 3. instit c. â—◠§. 230. seeketh to fortify himselfe with that saying of S. Paul Christ was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him Heerupon he inferreth that seeing Christ was not truly really made sin for vs but by imputatioÌ„ so we are no otherwise made righteousnes in him which argument Caluin also most eagerly presseth reserueth as his vnconquerable or last refuge in the Rereward of his obiections yet it is preseÌ„tly at
them into his true and proper flesh that the body of life may be in vs as a certaine quickening seed Eusebius Emissenus The inuisible Euseb Emiss ser de cor Domi. Cyp. de coens Dom. Priest Christ Iesus turneth by his word with a secret power the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud saying Take and eate for this is my body S. Cyprian who liued before any of these This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples not in outward apparence but in nature changed by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh The like he hath in other places In so much as a famous * Vrsin in commonef cuiusdam Theol. de sacra Coen Aug. ser citato à Bedain c. 10. â— Cor. Humfrey Iesu pâ— 2â— ca. 5. pag. 626. Matth. 4. v. â— ProtestaÌ„t confesseth That in Cyprian are many sayings which seeme to conforme TraÌ„substantiation S. Augustine and sundry others euidently also graunt our Reall mutation or Transubstantiation of the elements Which doctrine Gregory the Great and Augustin our Apostle brought into England as D. Humphrey teacheth and the Diuell himselfe acknowledged to be possible when he sayd vnto Christ Dic vt lapides isti panes fiant Commande that these stones be made bread 18. Secondly if we respect the conueniency it was meet we should really eate and really drinke of the reall victime truly slaine and offered for vs. It was meet that he who became our companion in the manger our teacher in the Temple our Priest at the Altar our price sacrifice and ransome on the Crosse should likewise be our food and sustenance at the table It was most meet that he who imparted his owne diuine person and all the riches of his Godhead by Hypostaticall vnion to the flesh and bloud of a pure and vnspotted man should also coÌ„municate the same flesh and bloud and all the treasures of his diuine and human nature to the soules and bodyes of As our first Parents were not infected by a Metaphoricall but by a true eating of the accursed Tree so we cannot be healed by a Metaphoricall but by a tru eating of the Tree of life NisseÌ„ orat catech ca. 37. Ignatius Ep. ad Ephes Athan. de huâ—â—atur suscep Cyril in Io. â—p ad Calosy â—re 1. 4. c. â—4 l. 5. c. 2 alibi Cyr. Alex. 1. 10. in â—o c. 13. Spaâ—kes in his answer to M. Iohn d'Albins pag. no. 257. his faithfull seruants The wisedome of God requireth that as our Forefathers and we were first impoisoned not by the desire but by the true and real eating of the forbidden apple so we should be cured by the true and substanciall feeding of this blessed fruit For S. Gregory Nissen proueth After the manner of the poyson so likewise the medicine must enter into our bowells the vertue therof be traÌ„sfused into all partes of the body 19. Againe the poyson which Adam receaued was a venemous fountaine of a double contagion ioyntly infecting both body and soule two wounds it inflicted it defiled our soule with sinne our body it enthralled to death and corruption What could be more behoofull for our Redeemer then to prepare a medicine against both these wounds A medicine to wash our soules from sin and rayse our body from dust to beautify the one with grace and cloath the other with incorruptioÌ„ And what could sooner worke this admirable cure then the glorious flesh of this holy Sacrament Which is not only the Ocean of Grace but the medicine of immortality the preseruatiue as S. Ignatius calleth it against death The first fruites of glory as Athanasius writeth The liuely and reuiuing seed of our bodyes as S. Cyrill sayth The pledge the earnest the hope or expectation of Immortall life as Irenaeus affirmeth According to that of Christ He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him at the later day The body then must eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that it may partake the benefit of Resurrection our soule by fayth might enioy the dowryes of blisse But this terrestriall nature of our body cannot as S. Cyrill of Alexandria teacheth be aduanced to immortality except the body of naturall life be conioyned vnto it 20. Yet D. Sparkes maugre S. Cyril or whosoeuer els obstinatly persisteth that the body of Christ cannot be really conioyned with ours Because Christ is ascended into heauen sitting at the right hand of his Father and the heauens must Bils 4. par pag. 788. 789. c. Ioan. 20. Read S. Aug. ep 3. ad Volus Amb. l. 10. in cap. 24. Luc. Hila. l. 3 de Tri. Iustin q. 117. Cyril l. 12. in Io. c. 53. Bede Theoph. Euthym. Ruper boc loco whoproue Christs entrance the dores being shut containe him vntill the restitution of all thinges As though good Syr he could not be at the same tyme in diuers places to wit in heauen sitting on the right hand of his Father and heere vpon earth in euery consecrated hoast not naturally as the Fathers copiously quoted by M. Bilson constantly teach but supernaturally by the power of him vnto whome nothing is impossible For so he hath wrought many wonderfull workes aboue the course of nature He came forth of the Virgins wombe preseruing her virginity rose out of the sepulcher not remouing the stone entred into his Disciples the dore being shut ascended to his Father not deuiding the heauens when he penetrated them But as in these examples diuers bodyes were supernaturally in one place so by the same supernaturall power one body may likewise be at the same tyme in diuers places for it is a common Axiome approued by Philosophers that Contrariorum eadem est ratio Amongst contraryes the same reason holdeth on both sides Moreouer we are instructed by fayth that the single person of Christ is vnited to most distinct diuers natures to the nature of God and to the nature of man that the sole essence of God is in three persons really distinct that one and the selfe same moment of eternity is answerable correspondent to most different and contrary tymes to tyme past tyme present and tyme to come But as one person sustaineth diuers natures one nature is communicated to diuers persons one moment coexisteth to diuers Amb. orat in Auxen Aeges l. 3. de exid vrbis Hieros cap. 2. â—o Dams orat de B. Virgine tymes why cannot one body be resident in diuers places 21. Els how could our Sauiour after his Ascension haue met S. Peter flying the persecution of Rome as S. Ambrose and Aegesippus record How could he haue descended to honour the funeralls of our B. Lady as S. Iohn Damascen and Nicephorus witnesse How could he appeare to S. Paul as in the 9. Chap. of the Actes of the Apostles in the 22. and 23. For in none of these apparitions could he Calu. in c. 9. act l. 4. Instit c. 17. §.
29. Act. 9. v. 17. Act. 23. v. 11. 1. Cor 15. v. 5. Act. 23. v. 11. Act. 22. v. 78. 15. depart from the right hand of his Father as Scripture teacheth and Protestants do confesse He must needes therefore be at the same tyme in heauen and vpon earth in most remote and separate places For if M. Sparkes answere with Caluin and his consortes that Christ appeared either in the heauens to S. Paul or that these were not true but imaginary apparitions S. Luke himselfe reproueth them saying That Christ appeared to S. Paul not in the heauens but in via in the way Not a farâ—e off but neere at hand assistens ei standing by him Not as to S. Steuen but as to Cephas to Iames to the fifty brethren Not aboue the cloudes in any vnknowne place but vpon the earth in the Castle of Claudius Lysias Tribune of the souldiers Not in a traunce or illusion by night but in a cleare vision in a plaine conference at noone day so as he might see the iust one and heare his voyce out of his owne mouth Lastly not by any imaginary reprâ—sentation but by such a true and perfect apparition as the Resurrection of Christ is proued therby 1. Cor. 15. Chrys hom 38. in c 15. 1. Cor. Tho. 3. p. 4. 57. art 6. ad 3. Bils 4. par pag. 793. Chrys lib. 3. de Sacer. For which cause either at some of these tymes he appeared truly to S. Paul as S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas conclude euen in his owne proper person and with his naturall body or S. Paul deceiptfully proueth Christs Resurrection by his apparition vnto him To accuse S. Paul is to appeach the holy Ghost of fraud and deceipt to graunt he truly appeared is to subscribe to his being in many places And consequently that of S. Chrysostome which M. Bilson phraseth an Hyberbolicall vehemency is an absolute verity In the tyme of our Sacrifice he that sitteth aboue with his Father at that very instant and moment of tyme is handled with the hands of all 22. Another repugnance against which M. Bilson Bils 4. par pag. 794. 795. c. mightily inueygheth is That we make the body of Christ in the Eucharist without the propertyes of humane shape length extension c. because we defend it to be wholy and indiuisible in euery part of the Blessed Host as the soule of man is wholy in the head wholy in the feet and wholy in euery part of the body But this likewise by the Almighty hand of God may easily be effectuated For to be corporally or locally confined to any determinate place is no such absolute and inherent necessity no essentiall Bils locis citatis property as M. Bilson how diligent soeuer in other points not diuing in this into depth of Philosophy inconsideratly mantayneth but only an accidental quality relation or sequell which naturally followeth euery bodily substance as heate floweth from the nature of fire and grauity or weight from the condition of any earthly or heauy thing Yet as God supernaturally suspended Dan. 3. v. â—0 Matth. 14. v. 26. the actioÌ„ of heate in the Furnace of Babylon froÌ„ burning the three Children the poyse of his earthly body when he walked vpon the waters so he may also separate and seclude all locall extension from the quantity of his flesh and bloud whose essence only consisteth in the inward proportion of shape extension of parts in respect of themselues wherby one part is truely distinguished and immediatly conioyned to this and not to that other which inward extension distinction and proportion the body of Christ retayneth albeit it be wholy in the whole and wholy in euery part of the consecrated Host Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople Euty apud Nic. lib. 3. â—nnal about one thousand yeares agoe expressed this by the voice of man which being one only collision or beating of the ayre is wholy notwithstanding heard of many hundred togeather and wholy receaued into the Organ of euery particuler mans hearing as the body of Christ is wholy contayned vnder euery particle of the sacred host 23. The third false supposed implicancy by our Aduersaryes is the separation we affirme of the externall formes of bread and wine and making them abide without their substances for therein we destroy as they imagine the Nature it selfe of accidents whose innate and essentiall property is in their conceite to inhere in their subiects But heere in they bewray the like ignorance as before Because all the best Philosophers deny inherency to be any essentiall condition of an accident and the chiefe of Peripatetickes Aristotle himselfe Arist lib. 3. de anima tex 9. sayth greatnes is one thing and the existency of greatnes another Now if the existency be different much more the inherency which is the quality and manner of existency Basil in Hexam ho. 6. The same is taught and proued by S. Basil who affirmeth that the accident of light was first created in the beginning and remained without a subiect and that the spheare or globe of the Sunne was after made as a waggon or chariot for that original light Then meeting with this our Protestants cauillation that an accident caÌ„not be without a subiect he addeth Say not vnto me it is impossible that the light should be separated from the body of the Sunne For neither do I affirme this separation possible to thee or me but I iudge it auoucheable that such thinges as by the thought and cogitation of the mind may be seuered the power of him that created both can actually and indeed part and disseuer The adustine and burning force of the fire thou truly canst not separate from the gloming brightnes thereof but God diuided them in the fiery bush wherin he appeared to his seruant Moyses Yea and the like strange anatomy his mighty hand will make as that great Doctour goeth forward of the whole element of fire when in the later day he will separate according to him The hoat and scorching violence from the cleare light or Basil ibid. splendour thereof and depute that to hell for the due punishment of the reprobate aduance this to heauen for the comfort of his elect Besides al learned deuines auer the personality of Christ S. Thom. â— part q. 4 art 2. Cyril epist ad Nestor 5. Synod can 5. â—ulg lib. de incar c. 4. which is a substantiall mode or manner of being alike intrinsecal to substaÌ„ce as inherency is to any accident to be secluded froÌ„ his humane nature the humane nature to subsist without his proper person which although it be a greater and deeper mistery theÌ„ that we haue now in hand yet this parity I find betweene them that as the humane nature of Christ doth efficiently subsist supported by the person of the word without the formal effect of subsistency so the accidents of bread and wine doe heer remaine efficiently preserued by the
sayth before he adore it That body sayth S. Chrysostome we adore on the Altar which the Sages did in the Cribbe All impregnable proofes of our Reall Presence as pregnant reproofes of M. Bilsons forgery Yet some thing he must say because he will not yield And to S. Augustine he answereth That he taketh adoring for eating because eating is belieuing As if S. Augustine had foolishly said No man eateth before he eateth or belieueth before he belieueth A like miserable shift is he faine to vse to auoid S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome and S. Gregory Nazianzen as all may see who haue leasure to peruse them 20. I will not heere offend my Reader with the filth of Caluins Sutclifâ— and Sparks reuiling quil who defame vs Calu. l. 4. instit c. 17 Sutclife in his Suruey cap. 8. Sparks in his answer to M. Iohn Albins p. 219. 220. Sap. â— v. â—1 with the Antichristian heresy of the Valentinians Manichies Eutychians and Marcionits as though we denyed with them the solidity and other properties of Christs naturall body which all men know to be a most shameles calumny Awake then awake you beguiled soules and vncharme your harts of these dangerous enchantments you that are bewitched with the tounges and pens not of one venemous Sparke but of many vile CaluÌ„niators Awake I beseech you in the behalfe of God and your owne eternall good Remember the words of King Salomon The mouth which rageth with lyes killeth the soule It ruineth the soule of the detractor and soules of those that listen vnto him Remember that these slanderous speaches chase you from the table of God from the food of Angels feast of heauen They depriue you of your daintyest repast of your cheifest banquet of the pledge of your saluation of Ioan. 6. v. 53. the medicine of immortality of the tree of life of which our Sauiour sayth Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you THE FOVRTH CONTROVERSY WHEREIN â—s vpholden the Sacrifice of the Masse against D. Bilson D. Reynolds and D. Sparkes CHAP. I. IT is a foule yet common fault of our Aduersaries when they espie the names and words of holy Write to bewray their errours they cauill as in the precedent Chapter about the seÌ„se meaning and construction of them when the meaning and thing questioned is playne and vnauoidable they contend at least for the precise words tearmes and names themselues as for the name Purgatory the name Transubstantiation c. and M. Bilson in this present Controuersy striueth much for the Bils 4. paâ— pag. 70â— name Sacrifice demanding Where it is expressed by the Apostle in playne words others for the name Masse To whom we reply as S. Augustine did to Pascenâ—ius the Arrian Nothing Aug. â—p 174. is more contentious then to quarell about the name when the thing it selfe is apparantly knowne We grant that as the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was first defined by the Councell of Nice against Arrius the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the CouÌ„cell of Ephesus against Nestorius so the name Sacrifice the name Masse hath byn frequently vsed by the ancient Fathers The Scripture indeed mentioneth not the wordss but the sense and meaning of them it fully conteineth Yea Christian Religion necessarily requireth some externall Sacrifice our duty to God exacteth it the very instinct of nature teacheth it against all which our aduersaries make warre when they labour to impugne this holy mystery 2. If we suruey forraine Countries and search the customes of all ages past we can neuer find any nation so barbarous any people at all as Plato noteth so rude and Plato de leg dial â—0 sauage who with vowes victimes and outward Sacrifices haue not acknowledged the soueraignty of some God or other For which Plutarch aduersus Coloâ— cause Plutarch sayth If you passe ouer all the world you may find Citties without wales Characters Kings c. without Riches Coyne Schooles and Theaters but a towne without Temples and Gods to whom Sacrifices are offered you shall neuer find Neyther could this continued practise and generall agrement Tul. l. 1. Tuscu q. of all nations which Tully calleth The voyce of nature proceed from any other fountaine then the secret worke and instinct of God All people as Xenophon obserueth could neuer meete by common consent to agree Xenoph. de dict fact Socrat 4. in this point or if they did meete could they impart their minds or being of diuers languages vnderstand one another We must needs therfore conclude with him in the like case that it floweth from the cheife cause and authour Aug. epist 49 ad Deo gra quaest 3. of nature And with S. Augustine That this is not to be blamed in the rites of Pagans that they builded Temples ordined Priests offered Sacrifice but that these were exhibited to Idols and Diuels that was to be condemned Wherfore except our Auersaries after such plenty of grace will wholy extinguish in vs the liuely sparks and fruits of nature we caÌ„not but allow some outward oblation in honour of God 3. Againe the act it selfe of Sacrificing in which by the change and * Note that the body of Christ is consumed according to his sacramentall manner of beeing which sufficeth the nature of an vnbloudy Sacrifice Aug. l. 10 de ciuit Dei cap. 4. consumption of some sensible Host by a lawfull Minister with solemne rite consecrated to God we make protestation of our dependancy seruice and submission vnto him the supreme and soueraigne gouernour and moderatour of all things is so proper and peculiar to the highest Maiesty that whereas the Religious worship of adoration prayer kneeling lifting vp hands haue byn often challenged and attributed to men to Amon Assuerus Nabuchodonozor and the like Yet the diuine worship of Sacrifice as S. Augustine witnesseth No man liuing euen presumed to say it was due to any but only to the true or supposed God So that to despoile him with M. Reynolds of this externall homage soly principally allotted vnto him is to robbe him of his especiall right dignity and preheminency it is to make vs Christians who aboue all nations are most obliged vnto our Lord aboue all others by denying him his chiefest honour to remaine most vngratefull 4. Moreouer euery Religion euery law and gouernment of Gods Church is so inwardly linked with some outward forme of Priesthood with some visible manner of Gen. 4. v. 4. 8. 20. 14. 18. Exod. 12. Num. 28. Leuit. 4. Cyp. de coena Dom. Bils 4 par pag. 699. Reyn. c. 8. diuis 4. Sacrifice as they can neyther stand flourish or perseuere without them In the law of Nature there were the Sacrifices of Abel Noe Melchisedech c. In the law written diuers prescribed by Almighty God In the law of grace what Sacrifice grant you by which it standeth in which it consisteth by
for euer He that belieueth and is baptized shall be saued Euery one that shall inuocate the name of the Lord shal be saued to wit if he inuocate and call vpon him in fayth and charity as he ought if he belieue aright and doth not finally loose his fayth nor the grace of Baptisme and water of the holy Ghost once receaued as I shall proue heereafter he may Therefore this argument of theirs maketh no more against the corporal then spirituall feeding for as euerlasting life is promised to the faythfull and pious belieuer so to the reall and worthy Receauer and as the one may fall from his worthy dignity so the other make shipwracke of his liuely fayth and eternally perish Perchance you will obiect that this answere suteth not with the prerogatiue which our Sauiour giueth to the holy Eucharist aboue Manna That Ioan. 6. v. 49. 50. the Fathers did eate Manna in the desert and they dyed this is the bread that descendeth froÌ„ heauen that if any man eat of it he dye not For whosoeuer did worthily feed on that dainty Manna and continued in the same state neuer tasted the bitternes of spirituall death therefore according to this construction it is not inferiour to the blessed Sacrament I answere first that such as then liued for euer enioyed not the priuiledges of life by the vertue and force of Manna but by their loue of God and fayth in Christ their true Messias and yet they that worthily receaue the Eucharist truely liue by the vertue power and efficacy of Christs reall presence the spring of life and fountaine of grace therein contained 9. Secondly I reply that Christ doth not only compare the Eucharist with Manna in respect of the life and death of the soule but of the body also after this sort Manna could not affoard to your Fathers life of body much lesse of soule during their short passage through the desert This bread affoardeth life to the soule much more to the body during the length of all eternity They that eate Manna dyed in body a temporall death they that eate this bread shall not dye the eternall death neither of the body nor soule And heerein consisteth as Maldonate commenteth vpon this text the singular grace elegancy of our Sauiours comparison in passing from Maldonatâ— in hunc loeum Matt. 8. v. 22. Ioan. 4. v. 13. one kind of life and death to another which plesant digression he often vseth as the same Author discourseth in other places In S. Matthew Let the dead bury the dead The first he calleth dead in soule the next in body In S. Iohn Euery one that drinketh of this water shall thirst againe but he that shall drinke of the water that I will giue him shall not thirst for euer First he speaketh of the corporall Matt. 26. v. 29. water and thirst of the body then of the spirituall water and thirst of the soule Likewise I wil not drinke from hence forth of this fruit of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it with you new in the kingdome of my Father Heere he first mentioneth the naturall wine of the grape then the metaphoricall wine of celestiall ioyes So now he first speaketh of the corporall then of the spirituall and euerlasting life which our Blessed Sacrament of his owne nature yeildeth to all such as daily receaue it although Manna yielded not as much as the corporall if they doe not after by sinne willfully destroy the quickening grace and liuely seed it imparteth vnto them And thus the wordes are of more emphasy the comparison more pithy and the preheminence of the Eucharist aboue Manna more remarkable then if our Sauiour had spoken in both places only of the spirituall Lastly if our Sectaryes expound S. Iohn of the eating by fayth how vncongruously will they make S. Paul to speake writing of the same matter and saying He that eatech vnworthily which 1. Cor. 11. v. 27. cannot be properly attributed to the belieuer because he that belieueth not as he ought doth either falsly or fainedly belieue we cannot with any congruity of speach say that he belieueth vnworthily therefore as S. Paul so likewise S. Iohn ought to be vnderstood not of the spirituall but of the corporall eating of Christs sacred flesh 10. That which M. Bilson alleadgeth out of Gelasius S. Leo condemning the Communion vnder one kind Bils 4. par pag. 684. 685. Gelas can Comperiâ—ê° dist 2. Leo. ser 4. de quadra is of no force at all For they condemne the dry Communion not of the Catholiks but of the Manichees who teaching that Christ brought into this world and walked vpon earth with a meere empty and phantasticall body deuoyd of true and natural bloud they in testimony of this errour abstained from the bloud with great sacriledge as Gelâ—sius writeth deuided one and the selfe same mistery which all Catholikes had iust cause to reprehend in them no Protestant any cause to obiect against vs who neither deuide the mistery nor abstaine from the bloud but constantly teach that by fequele concomitance we receaue it wholy and entirely contained in the body we inioy the full participation of Christ Fulke loco â—itato Bils 4. par pag. 682. as M. Fulke requireth 11. At last both he and D. Bilson ioyntly oppose the Practise of the vniuersall Church which for many ages togeather ministred the Sacrament vnder both kinds euen to the Laity I grant that the Church vsed it as a thing lawfull not as a Aug. epist 23. ad Bonif Tolet. Con. cap. 11. Tho. 3. p. q. 80. art 9. ad 3. Cypr. serm de lapsis thing prescribed or decreed by God or vniuersally without exception in all times and places practised Which manner of receauing the Church might after change when her Communicaâ—ts were so many as wine sufficient could not be fitly consecrated nor without eminent perill of shedding or danger of abusing be conueniently ministred It was an vsuall custome both in the Greeke and Latine Church for many ages to communicate with the Chalice young sucking babes of which S. Augustine the x j. Toletan Councell and S. Thomas make mention And S. Cyprian writeth of the consecrated Bloud powred into the mouth of an Infant But as the Church vpon iust cause abrogated that custome leauing the children the benefit of neither kind without any wrong vnto them and Protestants allow hereof why write they so bitterly against debarring the people vpon as many important reasons from the vse of the Chalice where notwithstanding the whole fruit and benefit thereof to their comfort remayneth 12. Besides in many things you your selues who count it in vs a crime so damnable stray from that which Christ practised in the institution of the Sacramenâ— for example Christ communicated only men you women also he in a priuate house you in a publike Temple he at night you in the morning he with * For
vrget Tertul lianus lib. de poenit vsitatâ—s fuisse priuatam confessionem qua delicta cogitata quoque prauâ— confesst sunt ex aliquot Cyp. locis apparet vt exsâ—ron 5. de lapsi l. 3. ep 14. 16. vbi disertè ait in minoribus etiam peccatis c. necesse esse ad exomologesin venire Deuter. 32. v. 31. Exod 8. v. 19. Cyprian that priuate Confession was vsed of deeds thoughts and lesser sinnes that Satisfaction was enjoyned c. and the penitents were absolued with the ceremony of imposing hands 17. Thus thou seest Gentle Reader according to the prediction of the Prophet Moyses in al Controuersyes our enemyes are judges in our behalfe Thou seest how strange our Aduersaryes pretenses against Priests absolution haue seemed to antiquity thou hast heard both Fathers and Councells maintaine our Confession thou hast heard all Christian people imbrace and practise it And can it sinke into the mind of any Iudicious man a thing so hard and difficult so cumbersome vnto sinners and repugnant to nature could be so vniuersally receaued by Greekes Latins Kings Emperours Princes and Subiects vnles it had beene instituted and ordained by God 18. But if thou couldest passe a little further and discouer the manifold fruits and singuler commodityes which plentifully flow from the obseruation thereof thou shouldest be forced to cry out with the Magicians of Pharao Digitus Deiest hic The finger of God is heere Thou shouldst behold a sinner before he repaire to his Ghostly Father sorrowfull pensiue vexed and grieued with the cumbersome load of sinne and yet so soone as he hath receaued the benefite of absolution depart so cheerefull so full of in ward comfort as if some heauenly ioy dilated his hart Thou shouldest behould another who reuiled and iniured his Neighbour come from the Sacrament of Confession go reconcile himselfe vnto him and craue pardon for the wrong he offered Thou shouldst behould by this meaÌ„es him that robbed restore the goods he embezeled away him that cosened leaue his cheating thou shouldest see the proud man humbled the dissolute reclaimed the lasciuious become chast a thousand such Psal 76. v. 11. alterations thou shouldst be wray in the harts of sinners of which thou must needs pronounce This is the mutation of the right hand of God whose instice goodnes mercy could no way be more manifestly shewed then by this humble Confession 19. His instice chiefly â—â—â—â—eth in making the guilty sinner both plaintiffe witnesse and accuser of himselfe making him who by sin rebelled against God his Lord Bern tract de instabili cordis buma c. 6. and maister by sorrowfull repentance humble his hart to his fellow-seruant which S. Bernard pithily denoteth saying It is conuenient that be who by contumacy sinned against God should by Pennance become suppliant to the Priestes his Ministers and that the man who to preserue his grace needed no Mediatour should for the recouery of it once lost implore of necessity the mediation of man Gods mercy like wise and goodnes are heere apparent in that he wresteth not from vs after the fashion of earthly Iudges this secret accusation as a testimony to punish but as an acquitance to pardon vs and therefore S. Angustine most excellently writeth To this end he exacteth Confesion to free and release the humble to Aug in Psal 66. this end he condemneth the sinner not confessing to chastise the proud 20. What shal I say of infinite other benefits which the discreet Confessour and humble Penitent gleaneth from hence The wife and prudent Confessour sayling in this sea of Conscience discouereth the wonderfull Psal 106. vers 230 workes of God as the Prophet sayth In aquis multis In the Psal 106. vers 23. ebbe and sloate of sundry waters In the calmes of prosperity and stormes of aduersity in the admirable change and alterations of minds And in respect of his ghostly children where could he haue fitter meanes to know their diseases then when they open and disclose them vnto him Where could he more fruitfully correct and rebuke their faults then when they repent and plead guilty of Greg. ho. 26. in Euang. quae est de Octa. Pascha them From whence could the Penitent receaue better aduise and sweerer comfort then from them whom God electeth the Church consecrateth the holy Ghost instructeth to be the spiritual Surgeons heauenly Physitians as S. Gregory calleth them Iudges of our soules 21. I can not stand to dilate vpon the generall coÌ„modityes which by this holsome discipline redoundeth to the whole Common-wealth Many publike abuses which neither by seuerity of Lawes nor vigilancy of Magistrates can be hindred are often redressed by help of ConfessioÌ„ In this Court of Conscience many vnlawfull bargaines are dissolued many wronges satisfyed wicked designements stopped good purposes furthered much vertue aduanced much vice suppressed Which the famous Citty of Norinberge in Germany after the abolishing of this holy Sacrament to her griefe acknowledged Dominicus Sotus l. 4. sent dist 18. q. 1. art 1. sent an Embassage as Dominicus Sotus recordeth to Charles the fifth to haue auriculer Confossion by his Imperiall decree restored againe Because they saw by experience their Common-wealth swarme with sundry vices against iustice and other vertues which were vnknowne vnto them before O England England Happy wert thou if God would giue thee like grace to discerne what an inundatioÌ„ of sin ouerwhelmeth thy Land for want of this law Happy if not forced by Princes Statutes but moued by Gods Commandment thou wouldest returne againe to the discipline of Confession which is as thou seest the Hedge of vertue the Bridle of iniquity the Key of iustice and Locke of good life THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSY Establisheth Satisfaction against D. Field and D. Fulke CHAP. 1. IT sufficeth not we disburden our harts by true Confession to a lawfull Priest of which I spake in the precedent Chapter but to returne into the fauour of God by the benefite of Absolution Contrition also and Satisfaction are necessary Contrition whereby we vtterly detest the offence commited in forsaking God our chiefe and soueraigne good Satisfaction whereby we seeke to recompence the wrong we offered in placing our last end and finall delight in the loue of that we preferred before him For first it is a generall principle amongst all the learned that two thinges are included in the enoâ—mity of mortall sinne a disloyall Scotus in 4 sent dist 46. guaest 4. auersion from Gods vnchangeable goodnes and an inordinate conuersion to his transitory creatures to which a double punishment correspondently belongeth to the auersion that which is called poena damni the paine or penalty of dammage or losle of our chiefest good to the coÌ„uersion paena sensus the paine or punishment of sense By the Tho. 1. 2. q. 76. 87. Gabâ—â—â—l Vasquez ibidem disput 139. 140. former euery sinner incurreth disgrace of God is banished
in testimony of the innocency of his Vicegerents when they were most hoatly pursued and most wrongfully condemned of the deepest crymes in abusing of them that none hereafter may presume to stand against a witnes produced from heauen or returne them as faulty who are so euidently acquited by the sentence of God 19. To conclude therfore and briefly recapitulate what hath byn sayd in these two former Chapters 1. I haue proued out of Scripture that the fault of sinne being pardoned some punishment may after remayne 2. I haue proued out of Scripture that we our selues or some other in our behalfe may satisfy God for that dept of punishment 3. I haue proued out of Scripture that diuers perfect men haue more Satifactory workes then the punishment of their sinnes require 4. I haue proued out of Scripture that this surplufsage of SatisfactioÌ„s is appliable vnto others Therefore seing the whole ground of Indulgences coÌ„sisteth in this communication of superabundant Satisfactions the whole ground of Indulgences is strongly fortifyed by the infallible authority of holy Scripture The end of the first Booke THE SECOND BOOKE THE NINTH CONTROVERSY MANIFESTETH How Christ our Sauiour performed not the office of Mediation according to both his natures against D. Fulke and D. Field CHAP. I. I HANDLE this Controuersy chiefly to declare a doubt of no small importance in which my Gratious Soueraigne King Iames desired once to be resolued as I my selfe heard a Noble man comming from Courr deliuer A deepe and learned question proposed by King Iames. in the presence of many great personages The doubt was this How our Sauiour sussered and in what manner he satisfyed for the multitude of our sinnes Whether as God or as man or partly as God and partly as man If as God his Godhead was passible his Godhead corruptible which is impossible If as man his manhood being finite and all the actions of his humanity finite they could not be of infinite valew to ransome the iniquityes of men If partly as God and partly as man the Godhead is diuided into parts and some part made passible both which destroy the Nature of God A learned question and worthy so Noble a Prince if it may please him as willingly to giue eare to the answere as he hath wisely propounded the difficulty The resolution whereof wholy dependeth on this matter which I now discusse according to what Nature Christ did mediate in our behalfe For according to that he prayed according to that he sacrificed dyed and purchased the price of our redemption 2. Two contrary opinions or rather impious heresyes Cyr. ep ad Eulog patet ex quater Nest tomo 2. ope Cyr. Euag. l. 1. c. 2. Theo. l. 4. haer fabu Gelas l. de duab â—at cont Eutych Theod. vt supra c. vlt. Greg. de Valent. in 3. p. disp 1. q. 2. punct 10. Luth. in confess de coen Dom. Luth. l. de concil par 2. p. 276. Zuing. in resp ad Conf. Luth I find touching this point First Nestorius mantaining our Sauiour Christ who was borne of the Virgin to be a meere man both in nature and person did obstinately teach that he only prayed as man suffered as man and exercised his function of mediation as a meere man witnesse S. Cyril Euagrius and Theodoret Eutyches on the other side vnconstaÌ„tly affirming that either the deity of Christ was changed into his humanity as Gelasius reporteth or his humanity into his Diuinity as Theodoret mentioneth and that after this conuersion the Diuine nature only remayned did consequently defend sayth Gregorius de Valentia that he suffered in his Godhead and died also according to his Godhead albeit in the outward shew and semblance of man Both these wicked and diabolicall opinions brewed by Sathan haue byn broached of late by our new reformers Luther and Caluin 3. Luther vented the Eutychian blasphemy in the Confession he made of the supper of our Lord saying If I belieue the humane nature only suffered for me Christ is a simple or infirme Sauiour and then he himselfe needeth another Sauiour Therfore he supposed with Eutyches that his diuinity suffered as appeareth by his inuectiue speaches against the Zuinglians calling them Nestorians for denying it and by Zuinglius Apology or defence of his brethren in refuting Luther who sayth If Christ according to his Deity be passible certes he is no God 4. Iohn Caluin in his booke of Institutions wholy seemeth to fauour Nestorius distinguishing with him Two persons Calu. insti c. â—3 §. 9. 23. 24 in Christ the person of the Sonne of God and the person of the Mediatour Who howsoeuer he may striue to gloze that manner of speach yet neyther he nor Melancthon nor M. Fulke nor M. Field nor any Protestant who imbraceth their doctrine can from the blot of Arianisme or Eutychianisme Calu. ep â—â— Polonos inâ—er tracta p. 682. 683 printed Geneuae anno 16 11. Melanct. â—â— locis edit 1545. Fulke in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect 4. Field in his 5. booke of the Church â—â— 16. Dan. cap. 2. Haeb. 7. v â—6 Leo ser â— de natali Domini Basiâ— in illud Psal 48. Frater noâ— redimit Nazian orat 2. dâ—â—aschate be any way excused for explicating how Christ payed the forfait of our sinnes or made mediation to his Father Caluin auoucheth that he was our mediatour According to his diuine nature in respect of which his Father was greater then he And that he was mediatour Before his Incarnation before Adams fall euen from the beginning Melancthon The diuine nature was obedient to the Father It yeelded to the diuine anger M. Fulke Christ as God offered Sacrifice He was a Priest according to his Deity He was our Mediatour sayth M. Field according to both his natures Thus the Southsayers delude his Maiesties wise demaund who might find many Daniels in the Church of God able to vnfold the mystery and resolue him in the truth 5. We therefore reply to the question propounded that our innocent and impolluted Priest our Mediatour and Redeemer Christ Iesus satisfyed the wrath of his Father for our manyfold transgressions according to his manhood and not according to his Godhead For albeit he were both God and man yea perfect God and perfect man answerable to that of S. Leo vnlesse he were true God he could not affoard vs remedy vnlesse he were true man he could not shew an example which S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen and many others in like manner affirme Yet if you demand how and by what meanes he discharged the office of mediation the function of Priesthood then we answere He performed them by the means of his humanity and not by any worke of his deity which I illustrate by this familiar example Take one and the same man who is an excellent Physitian and a singular Lawyer When he ministreth holsome physicke to his patient it is true to say he who mynistreth physicke is both a Lawyer and
â— Tim. 2. v. 5. Aug. l. 2. de pecca orig c. 28. Aug. praefat in Eâ—ar 2. Psa 29. Aug. de Ciuit. Dei â— 10. c. 20. Cyr. in Apol pro 12. Capitibus Chrys in c. 6. ad Haeb. Fulgent l. de incarna gratia Christi Amb. l. 3. de fide c. 5. Idem inquit Sacerdos idem hostia SacerdotiuÌ„tamen sacrifiâ—um humanae conditionis officium est c. Nemo ergo vbi ordineÌ„ cernit humaâ—â— conditionis ibi ius diuinitatis asâ—ribat a Physitian yet you cannot say he ministreth physike by his skill in law but by the art of physike so our high Bishop our mercifull Redeemer who sacrificed himselfe vpon the Altar of the Crosse was as I say both God and man If you inquire according to what nature he offered this Sacrifice or vsed mediation in our behalfe then we reply he accomplished them in his humane nature and not in his diuine which S. Paul by the instinct of the holy Ghost and the Fathers with him manifestly declare 6. S. Paul auerreth There is one God one also Mediatour of God and men man Christ Iesus He did not say as S. Augustine here obserueth Christ Iesus but Man Christ Iesus to denote the nature by which he was mediatour expressely inferring By this therefore a Mediatour by which he was man and a litle before Not by that by which he was equall to his Father In his explications vpon the Psalmes What is it to be a Mediatour betwene God and men Not betweene the Father and men but betweene God and men What is God The Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost What are men sinners wicked mortall Between that Trinity and mens infirmity iniquity a man is made Mediatour not wicked but yet infirme In his booke of the Citty of God Christ is a true mediatour in as much as he assumed the forme of a seruant whereas in the forme of God he receiueth the Sacrifice with his Father with whom he is one God S. Cyril S. Chrysostome Fulgentius I let passe S. Ambrose only I ioyne with S. Augustine the Father with the Sonne the ornament of Italy with the glory of Afrike who affirmeth The same is the Priest and the same the Host Neuertheles the Priestood and the Sacrifice is the office of humane condition And a litle after Let no man therefore where he seeth the course of humane property there ascribe the right of diuinity 7. But you will say the knot of his Maiesties difficulty is not yet vnloosed For suppose he prayed sacrificed and satisfyed for our sinnes according to his manhood how could his prayer his sacrifice his satisfaction amount to such infinit value the nature of man being finit and all his actions finit I answere that this proceeded from the dignity of our Sauiours person which being not the person of man as Nestorius wickedly held but the sole sacred diuine person of the Sonne of God it dignified and ennobled the actions of his humane nature which it sustayned and made euery one of such Rom 5. 20 inestimable price as they farre surpassed the summe of our trespasses that where sinne abounded grace might more abounde For as the basenes of the person who iniureth another increaseth the nature of the wronge so the worthines of him that satisfyeth enhaunceth the valour of satisfaction Hence it commeth that the recompence made by a Prince is more esteemed then that which is exhibited by a priuate person and the outrage attempted by a base companion against a Prince more hainous then the iniury which a Prince committeth against one of meane condition Therefore Aristotle in his Ethicks sayth Arist. 5. Ethic. c. 8. Arist 1. Metaph. c. 1. If a Magistrate strike another he is not to be stroken againe but if any man strike him he is not only to be stroken againe but seuerly also to be punished Where by the basenes of the offender and worthines of him that is offended he exaggerateth the grieuousnes of the crime and greater desert of punishment So on the other side in the way of recompence and satisfaction the excellency of him that satisfyeth and submitteth in our behalfe maketh the submission farre more acceptable because Aristotle saith The Clem. 6. in extra vnigenitus de paeniten remis Proclus hom de Chri. natiuitate in Concil Ephe. c. 7. â—om 6. Amb. praf in Ps 35. Leo epist 83. Vniuersitatem captiuoruÌ„ Cyp. ser de rat cir cuÌ„cisionis 1. Tim. 2. v. 6. Ephes 5 v. 2. Philip. 2. v. 8. Chrys ho. 7. in eum loc Cyr. cate cheâ—i 13. Haeb. 5. v. 7. actions are to be attributed to the persons that worke Wherefore seeing it was the diuine person of the Sonne of God which by the operations of his humanity prayed sacrificed and humbled himselfe to his Father he aduanced his prayers his sacrifice his humble submission and euery action he atchieued in his manhood to be in morall estimation truly accounted of infinit and vnspeakable worth 8. He purchased for vs by his merits and satisfaction as Clement defineth an infinite treasure He payed sayth Proclus such a price as did equall the debt of sinne euen in the axact nor me or rule of iustice He disbursed as S. Ambrose auerreth gold so pretious a ransome so rich as it was able to wash away al sinne able to redeeme sayth S. Leo the whole multitude of cap. iues Not through the benignity only of Gods fauourable acceptation but by the worthynes as S. Cyprian writeth of our Redeemers oblation who with so great authority entred the holy places c. Where he deriueth the excellency of his oblation from the great preheminence of his person who offering and submitting in our behalfe not only the actions of his humanity but himselfe also his owne diuine and sacred person morally deriued as much worthinesse to his workes as there was true reuerence and dignity in himselfe Which maketh S. Paul so often repeate He gaue himselfe a redemption for vs He deliuered himself for vs an oblatioÌ„ and hoast to God He humbled himselfe being made obedient Where S. Chrysostome sayth As much highnes and dignity as he had so much humility likewise did he vndergo And S. Cyrill Iesus offering himselfe the price shall he not appâ—ase the wrath of God conceaued against men Yes yes The Apostle againe auerreth it He was * Our ProtestaÌ„ts perniciously corrupt those words say ing He was heard in that which he feared to proue that he feared the payns of hell O horrible blasphemy S. Chrys the rest in eum lolum â—uar in 3. par disp 4. sect â— heard for his reuerence That is for the reuerence which was due vnto him being the Sonne of God as S. Chrysostome S. Anselme Hugo de Sancto Victore and Theophilact interprete it And S. Paul seemeth to insinuate immediatly adding And truly whereas he was the Son of God for that great dignity of his person
excellencyes so we distinguish three kinds of adorations Godly Ciuill Religious 3. There is first in God a supreme infinite and illimited Excellency to which a Godly worship or adoration is due commonly called Latria There is secondly in Men in Kings Magystrats Maysters Fathers c. a humayn and naturall excellency to which our will by the apprehension of their worthinesse inclineth to exhibite an honour tearmed by Aristotle conformable to the nature of their dignity Ciuill or Humane Thirdly there is a meane or midle preheminence betweene these two an higher then the last yet inferiour to the first seated not in the naturall but in the supernaturall giftes and graces of God to which supernatural preheminence a supernaturall worship more then Ciuill lesse then Diuine Aug. ser 58. de verb. Dom. sup Ps 98. ought to be attributed commonly called Religious or Dulia For Hyperdulia is only a more eminent and remarkable degree yet contayned vnder the same kind of reuerence properly belonging to our Blessed Lady as she is mother of God and to the humanity of Christ as considered apart from the diuinity albeit as it is inseparably conioyned and Hypostatically vnited with the Word it ought to be worshiped with the adoration of Latria as the fifth generall Councell of Constantinople defined Rey. l. 1. de ldo Ro. Ec. c. 3. 8. Fulke in c. 4 Matth. sect 3 in Act. 14. sect 2. Aug. de ve reâ—g c 55. Hiero. ep ad Ripa con Vigil Augustquaest 61 supr Gen. Huro aduer Vigil cap. 20. agaynst Theodore the Heretike And S. Augustine answering the Gentils who obiected agaynst the Christians as now the Protestants doe against vs the crime of adoring Christs flesh in the Eucharist I adore sayth he the flesh of Iesus Christ because it is vnited to the Deity euen as one adoreth the King and his Royall robe with the same adoration 4. Notwithstanding these three sorts of honour be ech of them most different in nature the one from the other yet the names are most of them promiscuously vsed and according to the ten our of the discourse sometyme restrayned to one kind of adoration sometyme to another Which if M. Reynolds and M. Fulke had diligently weyghed they would neuer haue cited S. Augustine agaynst vs Affirming the worship of Religion neyther to be due to Angels or men departed but only to God Nor S. Hierome That neyther Angels nor Martyrs Reliques nor any created thing can be worshipped and adored Nor Ep phanius saying God will not haue Angels adored how much lesse Mary Nor S. Cyril nor S. Gregory nor any of the rest who in those places take Quis o insanum caput aliquando Martyres ador auis quis hominem putauit Deum Aug. l. 3. de trin c. 10. the name Religion Adoration and Worship for the supreme and soueraygne worship which is only proper vnto God as S. Augustine explayneth himselfe in his questions vpon Genesis S. Hierome in the same place and agaynst Vigalantius not for that inferiour kind of adoration which is often ascribed vnto creatures and which Abraham exhibited vnto the people of Heth wherupon S. Augustine gathereth That it is not sayd Thou shalt only adore thy Lord thy God as it is sayd Him only thou shalt serue Which in Greeke i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in his â— booke of the blessed Trinity writing of the brasen Serpent and other holy signes he sayth They may haue honour as Religious thinges not admiration Fulke in 4. Matt. sect 3. Aug. l. 10. de Ciui c. 1. as strange thinges So that the Fathers only deny the Religious worship of Latria to Angels and other creatures the Religious worship of Dulia they assigne vnto them Which M. Fulke forced to confesse sayth S. Augustine a meane Grecian imagined a distinction betweene Latria and Dulia c. and that by them which haue interpreted Scripture Latria is taken for that seruice which pertayneth to the Religion of God But Lodouicus Viues in his notes vpon that Chapter telleth you otherwise But Lodouicus Viues O base comparison Was it not inough to disgrace S. Augustine with his meane knowledge in Greeke but must a late Gramarian be compared opposed preferred before him whome D. Couell esteemeth the chiefest Doctour that euer was or shal be excepting the Apostles Let his skill in Greeke be what it was shall his D. Couell in his book against M. Burges doctrine his distinction the diuersity of Religious worships which he and other Interpreters from these Greeke wordes deriue be vtterly exploded and reiected by you Shall Viues be accepted and S. Augustine outcouÌ„tenanced 5. Consider M. Fulke how farre heerein you iniure your cause wrong your conscience dishonour that graue ancient and incomparable Deuine Agayne vve ought to obserue that as the names so likewise the outward actions of kneeling prostrating lifting vp hands the like are generally vsed in euery particular kind of worship yet by the inward acts of the mynd they are wholy different the one from the other For he that kneeleth to God reuerently acknowledgeth by the light of his vnderstanding a certayne supreme incomprehensible and increated excellency authour and cause of all rare and excellent thinges he loueth with his will a bounty vnmatchable and with profound submission humbly adoreth an infinite and vnsearchable Maiesty He who kneeleth to his King or Prince dutifully agnizeth and aflectionatly reuerenceth his naturall or Ciuill dignity He who kneeleth to a Saint to their Tombes Reliques or Pictures deuoutly apprehendeth and piously worshipeth some supernaturall preheminence Three things necessary to the nature of honor quality or relation Wherby it followeth that three thinges concurre to the nature of honour 1. The apprehension of the vnderstanding which acknowledgeth an excellency worthy of adoration 2. The propension and inclination of the will which vnfainedly prosecuteth the same with honour 3. The externall obeysance of capping kneeling or bowing the body which is an outward obsequie of inward reuerence And although the vnderstanding be the root origen or rather motiue which exciteth the will yet the act of the will is the life soule and proper essence of adoration without which the sole notice and apprehension of dignity is no worship at all and the outward and externall action may be as well a sinne of mockery as any marke of honour As it was in the souldiers who adored Christ Matt. 27. Ioa. 19. and sayd All hayle O King of the Iewes 6. By which you may easily discerne the blindnesse of Protestants who distinguish not the outward worship by the inward mynd but seeme to make all externall Bils 4. par pag. 576. 577. honour belong to God whether it proceed from the acknowledgment of naturall supernaturall or intreated excellency Submission sayth M. Bilson of knees hands and eyes parts of Gods honour Agayne The outward honour of eyes hands and knees God requireth of vs as his due Then
hier cap. 4. Concil Agâ—â—hens can 14. Aug. ser 19. de Sanctis Optatus lib. cont Parm. Peter Mart. in his com places in English pag. 227. Cartwrig in his 2. reply p. 264. Centurist Centur. 4. col 409. Centur. 3. cap. 4. colum 83. Greg. Nazi in ep 8. ad Simplician Fulke in his reioynder to Bristowes reply p. 28. Calu. in Haeb. c. 7. v. 9. pag. 9. 4. in tract theolog pag. 389. Neither M. Higgons nor any Catholike writer euer maintained any such intention of helping all The Patriarches Prophets and Martyrs are remembred and not desired to be holpen the damned who dye in mortall sin are neither holpen nor remeÌ„bred as you may often read in S. Augustine and generally in all the rest howbeit you guilfully misconstrue some of their sayings to be meant of the mitigation of their paines But there are some of a middle sort who depart this life neither deadlywounded nor perfectly recouered of the infirmityes of sinne these only they intended to relieue as M. Higgons proueth and you without iugling should haue laboured to disproue 15. Your answeres to his former two differences are as full fraught with vntruth as this with fraudulency and deceit For you reply to the first We haue Altars in the same sort the Fathers had c. To the second We admit the Eucharist to be rightly named a Sacrifice Both cunning escheats You haue spirituall Altars only they had corporall and externall By nature common stones by blessing Holy and immaculate S. Gregory Nissen On which we Sacrifice vnto one God which were consecrated with Chrisme and the signe of the Crosse S. Augustine S. Dionyse and the Councell of Agatho Which were seats and receptacles of the body bloud of Christ Optatus Sayings disliked by Peter Martyr M. Cartwright and the Centurists who also affirme That the Altars erected within the first 400. yeares after Christ from Iewish obseruation crept into the Church 16. Secondly they had true and proper Sacrifices vnbloudy victimes propitiatory Hosts as I haue largely demonstrated in the Controuersy of the Masse They had A Sacrifice offered to God the Father wherin the Priest supplyeth as S. Cyprian according to the Centurists superstitiously writeth the roome of Christ. They had a Sacrifice The name whereof as M. Fulke affirmeth they tooke of Iewes and Gentils and not from Scripture They as Caluin sayth forged a Sacrifice in the Lords supper without his Commandment and so adulterated the supper with adding of Sacrifice And in another treatise The ancients quoth he are not to be excused for it is apparent they haue heerein swarued from the pure and proper institution of Christ. 17. Now M. Field haue you I pray such Altars such Sacrifices as these Such Altars as Crept into your Church from the Iewish custome Such Sacrifices as were forged without our Lords Commandment Such as adulterated his supper Such as swarued from the pure and proper institution of Christ If you haue let your hart abhorre these villanous inuectlues pronounced against them by the principal Captaines of your sect If not let your Pen retract your former asseueratioÌ„ Let it disclaime from the Altars and Sacrifices of the Fathers and be content to haue no society with them in these as your men account Superstitious abuses 18. In fine the chiefe Ring-leaders of the Protestants Centu. loc citat profession do not only reiect the Altars condemne the Sacrifices but they controle also the very manner of prayer the Fathers vsed for the Dead Therefore they practised some other kind then those foure which M. Calu. l. 3. Inst c. 5. §. 10. Bulling Decad. 4. serm 10. Field his consortes allow Caluin sayth About one thousand three hundred years ago it was receaued as a coÌ„mon custom to vse Prayers for the dead c. But they were all I confesse beguiled with errour Bullinger writeth I know â—he Ancients prayed for the dead I know the excellent Doctour S. Augustine the eloquent S. Chrysostome and many other old and renowned men what they haue left written of this matter I know the Fathers affirme prayer for the dead to be a TraditioÌ„ of the Apostls And S. Augustine Aug. ser 32. de verb. Aposto Centu. 3. c. 5. col 138. Osiand Cent. 3. l. 1. c. 5. p. 10 Hosp in hist Sacr. pag. 167. Spark p. 371. 372. Fulke in c. 10. 1. ep ad Cor. sect 8. prope finem Fulke in his Confutation of Purgatory pag. 262. writeth It is obserued in the vniuersal Church that Sacrifice be offered for the dead I know Aerius was condemned because he disauowed these Prayers But I aske whether the Fathers did well heerin or no The Centurists and Osiander blame Tertullian because he approued Oblations for the Dead and Anniuersary-prayers in their Obite-dayes Hospinian affirmeth of S. Cyril He sayd indeed according to the preuailing custome of his tyme that the Sacrifice of the Altar is a great help to soules Of S. Augustine D. Sparkes He was both greatly carryed by the sway and opinions of the multitude in determining the auaylablenes of prayers for the dead Whereupon in the very next page he sayth I may lawfully discent from him in that case M. Fulke auerreth Prayer for the dead was the drosse of Augustine and Chrysostome Tertullian sayth he S. Cyprian S. Augustine S. Hierome and a great many more do witnesse That Sacrifice for the dead is the Tradition of the Apostles 19. Another where he sayth But of memories of the Dead and prayers for the dead also we will not striue but that they were vsed before the tyme of Bede Ephrem Ambrose but without warrant of Gods word or authorityes of Scripture Indeed Is this the cause you reproue a custome so general supported by the greatest Pillers both of the Greeke Latine Church because they want the testimonyes of holy Writ for such is your common excuse repeated in another place We must not belieue Chrysostome without Scripture affirming that mention of the dead in the celebration of the Lords supper was ordained by the Apostles Would not a man thinke this Ghospeller meant to imbrace S. Chrysostome and admit those ancient Writers if they countenanced their assertions with the authority of the Ghospell Would not a man thinke he would then submit his iudgement vnto theirs No other sense I wis can be picked from his wordes notwithstanding farre other is his meaning this is a veile to couer his shame a disguised glosse of speach to pretend the awe and reuerence of Gods word when as neither God nor man neither humane writing nor heauenly Oracles doth he regard vnles they sound very tuneable to his straine Which that you may not condemne as a forgery deuised by me read the sayings of these Fathers and confront with them his answeres 20. S. Augustine first proueth that prayer for the dead disagreeth not from Scripture Not from that of S. Paul We ought all to be summoned before the tribunall
vs who willfully conculcate his heauenly fauours 11. Heere our Aduersaryes make a new sally out against vs and contest that we being once quickned with the seed of life and throughly soaked with the dew of heauen cannot waxe barren with the sterility of sin cannot renounce or disgorge these waters of life For euery one that is borne of God committeth not sin because his seed in him abydeth A good tree cannot yield euill fruits I will mak an euer lasting couenant with them and will not cease to do them good I wil put my feare into their harts that they shal not depart frōme So M. Abbot aduantagiously readeth it whereas the passage it selfe truly translated hath no difficulty at all For it is either vnderstood of the Church in generall which God will neuer cease to protect or of his forwardnes as much as lyeth in him to affoard sufficient meanes to all the members thereof that they * The Hebrew Lebilti surmehalai ad non recedere à me The Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latin vt non recedant à me That they reuolt not from me Aug. de na gra c. 54. l. 2. de pec mer. rem c. 7. de gra Christ cap. 21. tract 5. in epist Ioan. Hier. l. 1. aduers Pelag 2. ad Iou. l. 1. comm in 7. c. Matt. Dydim Beda in illum locum Ioan. Aug. de nat grat c. 14. Possumus si volumus non peccare propter vim gratiae in quātum in ea manemus Chrys in c. 5. ad Rom. VVhitak in his answere to the 8. reason of M. Campian l. 8. aduers Duraeum fol. 625. reuol◠not from him as the Hebrew Greeke and Latin wordes manifestly betoken To the former two which Iouinian pressed for the bolstering of his heresyes that the faythfull once regenerated could neuer si any more I answere with S. Austine S. Hierome Dydimus Venerable Bede that he who is borne of God cannot sin ne whilest he perseuereth the child of God and retayneth in his soule the fire of Charity which is repugnant to all sinne or rather that he cannot sinne as long as he liueth and worketh according to his new and diuine regeneration receaued from aboue and that the good tree cannot of his owne nature produce euill fruits no more then the sower and vnsauoury crab affoard from his owne naturall iuyce or radicall disposition any other then vnsauoury yet as by some other accidentall quality or forraine graffe the one may yeild sweet fruits the other sower so albeit as S. Augustine sayth We may if we will not sinne through the force of grace as far forth as we abide in it notwithstanding by the infirmity of the flesh malice of will or corruption of nature it is in our power grieuously to offend and slide backe from God 12. That which Whitaker and his fellowes oppose out of S. Chrysostome The grace of God hath no end it knoweth no full point but it maketh progresse vnto greater choaketh an heresy of their owne that true iustice increaseth not but standeth at a stay c. maintaineth the truth of our contrary doctrin that seeing grace iustice are beames participated from the illimited fountaine of Gods iustice they may be dayly augmented by new meritorious deeds with new accesse of grace after which manner it is true that it had no end knoweth no full point still maketh progresse to greater by multiplying greater store of good workes The rest of the Fathers to whome our Reformers lay claime are semblably quitted otherwise they speake of the certaine perseuerance of the election in generall or els they mean that grace fayth and iustice are perpetuall of their owne natures and alwayes flourish with the spring of vertues vnles we blast them in their buds or suffer them to be ouergrowne with the weeds of sinne THE XXIIII CONTROVERSY AVOVVETH Freewill against D. Fulke and D. Whitaker CHAP. I. BEFORE I begin to enter the list and combate with my Aduersaries concerning the liberty of mans Freewill I thinke it expedient exactly to set downe the whole state of this question what Protestants hold and what we in all things vphold against them First then they distinguish with vs a fourfold estate or condition of man 1. The state of Innocency which Adam enioyed before his fall 2. The state of Corruption which he and all his posterity incurred Foure estates of man Perkins in his refor Catho 1. Chapter of freewil by sinne 3. The state of vprising and Entrance into Grace And 4. the state of Iustification which the Righteous enioy by the merits of Christ. Secondly they deuide the actions of men into three sorts Into Naturall or Ciuill as to eate sleepe walke discourse buy sell c. Into Morall as to be temperate iust liberall mercifull c. And into Diuine or Supernaturall which appertaine to the spirituall good of oursoules and gaining of eternall life as to belieue to hope to loue God aboue all thing c. 2. These diuisions premised they all accord about the first estate granting therin at least in shew of words a liberty as they terme it of Nature of which I will not Calu. l. 1. Inst c. 16. §. 8. l 2. c. 4 § 6. Bucer l. de concord art de lib. arbit now dispute About the second they vary amongst themselues For Calum Bucer and their Adherents with the auncient Heretikes a Clem l. 3. Recog Simon Magus b Tert. lib. de anima cap. 10. Marcion Hermogenes c Aug. l de Hares cap. 46. the Manichees and d Wiclisse vtterly deny the liberty of Freewilll to any action whatsoeuer Which Luther and Melacthon defended at the beginning but after forced by our arguments to recant that point of Heresie they grant Freewill to actions Naturall and Ciuill whom Whitaker Perkins White and many of our English Protestants seeme to follow Neuerthelesse they all close againe and comply with Caluin that man in this case hath no freedome to any Morall good worke Man sayth Whitaker lost his freedom by sinne the will of man according to Fulke is bound to Sinne and not free Is thrall and sliue to Sinne It auaileth to b Conc. Const ses 8. art 26. Luth. in as sert art 36. Melancth in loc communib editis an Domini 15 1. VVhitaker l. 1. contra Duraeum p. 77. 78. and in his answere to M. Camp first reasō Perkins in his Reform Catho in the Chap. of Free-will White in the way to the true Church §. 40. fol. 277. Fulke in cap. 6. Ioan sect 3. In ◠10. ad Rom. sect 1. In c. 7. ad Rom. sect 7. in c. 2. ad Philip. sect 4. nothing but to Sinne. In the Regenerate it hath some freedome and strength against Sinne which it hath not at all in them that are not Regenerate Likewise Free-will is seruile Captiue lost vntill by Grace it begin to be enlarged
them to be blinded by Sathan but that solution is too fonde Lastly he concludeth Now I haue shewed plainly inough that God is the author of all those things Calu. in the same place §. 2 Calu. l. 1. Inst c. 18. §. 3. which these iudges would haue to happen only by his idle sufferance You read his words you discouer no doubt the rancour of his hart who disgorgeth such hatred against his creators goodnes which he laboureth to excuse in the same fashion as Fulke is wont that God doth all this as a righteous iudge iustly punishing the wicked with their vngracious blindnes 14. But the Iustice of his person the puritie of his intention as I haue already proued can no way acquit him if his fact be wholy the same with the euill actors Greg. Nyssen l. 7. philos c. 1. For it is not lawfull sayth S. Gregoric Nissen to ascribe vnto God actions dishonest and vniust because the iniquitie and faultines of sinne must needes attend those sinfull actions which the impeccable Piety according to our aduersaries purposeth commandeth and freely executeth not by any generall but by a particular and speciall influence not by bare permission but by actuall concurrence to the very naughty deeds and workes of miscreants Therfore Castalio another principal protestant singularly praysed by Humfred de rat interpret l. 1. pag. 26. Castal in l. aduer Calu. de praedest Doctor Humfrey so much detesteth those diabolical phrēsies of Fulke and Caluin as he affirmeth them to frame the Idoll of a false God directly opposite to our true and soueraigne God Peruse his words The false God to wit Caluins Idoll is slow to merc prone to anger who hath created the greatest part of men to destruction and hath predestinated them not only to damnation but also to the cause of damnation therfore he hath decreed from all eternity and he will haue it so and bringeth to passe that they necessarily sinne So that neyther theftes nor murders nor adulteries are committed but by his constraint and impulsion For he suggesteth vnto men euill and dishonest affections not only by permission sed efficaciter but effectually that is by forcing such affections vpon them and doth harden them in such sort that when they doe euill they do rather the worke of God then their owne he maketh God a lyar So that now not the deuill but the God of Caluin is the father of lyes howbeyt that God which the holy Scriptures describe is altogether contrarie to this God of Caluin c. And a little after For the true God came to destroy the worke of that Caluinian God these two Gods as they are by nature repugnant one to the other so they beget and bring forth children of contrarie dispositions that is to say the vide literas Senat. Bern ad minist c. 1555. God of Caluin children without mercy proud c. Hitherto Castalio a famous Sacramentarie For this cause the Protestant Magistrates of Berna strictly prohibited the preaching of that Caluinian and dānable doctrine throughout their Territories and forbad their people by penal statutes to read any such of his books as conteyned that matter 15. Besides Caluin doth not only attribute vnto God the lewd actions of the wicked but the very deformitie of their faults the malice of their hartes pernicious proiect of their intentions For to these we only assigne the Permission of God yet he acknowledgeth him author of al those things which we say fall out meerly by his sufferance Therfore in them he hath his hand as deeply as the very actors themselues Yea he accounteth the bare sufferance of God in these cases vaine and idle But who vnlesse he were more mischieuous then Sathan would euer hold it a vanity Aug. l. 12. de ciuit dei c. 7. Aug. ep 105. tract 53 in Ioan. Idem l. de pred grat l. de gra llb. arb c. 23 and idlenes not to concurre to sinne For sinne hath no efficient but a deficient cause as S. Augustine well noteth neither is it any action but a defection Then the same renowned Doctor expressly teacheth that God doth not hardē by imparting malice but by not affoarding mercy And so God blindeth so he hardneth by forsaking not by ayding God quoth he is said to indurate him whome he will not mollify to deceiue whome he suffereth to be seduced to blind whome he will not illuminate to repell whome he will not call When you heare I the Lord deceiued that Prophet and whome he will he hardeneth consider his deserts whome he suffred so to be hardened and seduced Aug. ep 89. q. 2. Chrysost in cap. 1. ad Roman Damascen l. 4. c. 20. de fid ortho dox And interpreting that place Lead vs not into temptation Suffer vs not sayeth he by for saking to be lead into temptation S. Chrysostome he deliuered into a reprobate sense is nothing els but he permitted S. Iohn Damascene It is the manner of holy scripture to cal the permissiō of God his act Behold the solutiō which Caluin stileth so idle and fond a deuise Not only the fathers the scriptures themselues doe free almighty God and attribute vnto man his obstinacy and blindnes as Let no man say when he is tempted that he is tempted of God for God is not a tempter of euils and he tempteth no man Gentiles haue giuen Iac. l. 1. 13. Epes 4. v. 19. Ro. 2. v. 4. vp themselues to wantonnes The benignitie of God bringeth thee to pennance but according to thy hardnes and impenitent hart thou heapest to thy selfe wrath God exhorteth vs not to obdurate our harts This day if yee shall heare the voice of our Lord harden not your hartes Why do you harden your hartes as Aegypt and Psal 49. ◠1. Reg. 6 6. Pharao hardened their hart But of this more hereafter in the answer to our aduersaries cheife obiections 16. The fourth heresy lapped in the wrincles of the Caluin l. 2. institut c. 3 sect 10. two last before mentioned is that God hath not a will to saue all neither doth he giue to euery man sufficient grace for his saluation An heresy plainly repugnant to these places of Scripture God will all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of truth Our Lord is not willing that any perish but that al returne to pennance to which end he vseth these generall 1. ad Timoth 2. 4. 2. Pet. 3. 9. Ezechiel 33. Prouerb 1. 22. 23. Matt. 11. 2. 8. Cassian collat 13. c. 7. Chrysost hom 1. al Ephesios Aug. l. 1. de Gen. cont Manich. c. 3. in psal 45. Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. ad Fidum Prosper l. 2. de vocat gent. c. 16. exhortations to all sinners Conuert conuert yee from your most euil wayes and why will yee dye O house of Israel O children how longe do you loue infamy c. turne yee at my correption