Chap. 2. Of the sufficiencie of the Scripture 232. Chap. 3. Of the originall text of Scripture of the certainty and truth of the originals and of the authority of the vulgar translation 238. Chap. 4. Of the translating of the Scripture into vulgar languages and of the necessitie of hauing the publique liturgie and prayers of the Church in a tongue vnderstood ibid. Chap. 5. Of the three supposed different estates of meere nature grace and sinne the difference betweene a man in the state of pure and meere nature and in the state of sinne and of originall sinne 250. Chap. 6. Of the blessed virgins conception 264. Chap. 7. Of the punishment of originall sin and of Limbus puerorum 270. Chap. 8. Of the remission of originall sinne and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate 272. Chap. 9. Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne 277. Chap. 10. Of free will 279. Chap. 11. Of iustification 290. Chap. 12. Of merit 324. Chap. 13. Of workes of supererogation and Counsels of perfection 331. Chap. 14. Of Election and Reprobation depending on the foresight of something in the parties elected or reiected ibid. Chap. 15. Of the seauen Sacraments 332. Chap. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time ibid. Chap. 17. Of transubstantiation 333. Chap. 18. Touching orall Manducation 334. Chap. 19. Of the reall sacrificing of Christs body on the Altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and dead 335. Chap. 20. Of remission of sinnes after this life ibid. Chap. 21. Of Purgatory 336. Chap. 22. Of the Saints hearing of our prayers 337. Chap. 23. Of the superstition and idolatrie committed formerly in the worshipping of Images 338. Chap. 24. Of Absolution ibid. Chap. 25. Of Indulgences and Pardons 339. Chap. 26. Of the infallibility of the Popes iudgment 340. Chap. 27. Of the power of the Pope in disposing the affaires of Princes and their states ibid. The fourth Booke is of the Priuiledges of the Church CHAP. 1. OF the diuerse kindes of the priuiledges of the Church and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church 343. Chap. 2. Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church 344. Chap. 3. Of the meaning of certaine speaches of Caluine touching the erring of the Church 345. Chap. 4. Of their reasons who thinke the present Church free from all error in matters of faith 346. Chap. 5. Of the promises made vnto the Church how it is secured from errour of the different degrees of the obedience wee owe vnto it 348. Chap. 6. Of the Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth and of their errour who thinke the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith and that shee may make new articles of faith 350. Chap. 7. Of the manifold errors of Papists touching the last resolution of our faith and the refutation of the same 351. Chap. 8. Of the last resolution of true faith and whereupon it stayeth it selfe 355. Chap. 9. Of the meaning of those words of Augustine that he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him 358. Chap. 10. Of the Papists preferring the Churches authority before the Scripture ibid. Chap. 11. Of the refutation of their errour who preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture 359. Chap. 12. Of their errour who thinke the Church may make new articles of faith 361. Chap. 13. Of the Churches authority to iudge of the differences that arise touching matters of faith 362. Chap. 14. Of the rule of the Churches iudgment 364. Chap. 15. Of the Challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture charging it with obscurity and imperfection 365. Chap. 16. Of the interpretation of Scripture and to whom it pertaineth 366. Chap. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers and how farre wee are bound to admit it 368. Chap. 18. Of the diuerse senses of Scripture 369. Chap. 19. Of the rules we are to follow and the helpes wee are to trust to in interpreting the Scriptures 372. Chap. 20. Of the supposed imperfection of Scriptures and the supply of Traditions 373. Chap. 21. Of the rules whereby true Traditions may be knowne from counterfeit 378. Chap. 22. Of the difference of bookes Canonicall and Apocryphall ibid. Chap. 23. Of the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes of Scripture 379. Chap. 24. Of the vncertainty and contrariety found amongst Papists touching books Canonicall and Apocryphall now controuersed 382. Chap. 25. Of the diuerse editions of the Scripture and in what tongue it was originally written 385. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke 387. Chap. 27. Of the Latin translations and of the authority of the vulgar Latine 388. Chap. 28. Of the trueth of the Hebrew Text of Scripture 390. Chap. 29 Of the supposed corruptions of the Greeke text of Scripture ibid. Chap. 30. Of the power of the Church in making Lawes 393. Chap. 31. Of the bounds within which the the power of the Church in making lawes is contained and whether shee may make lawes concerning the worship of God 394. Chap. 32. Of the nature of Lawes and how they binde 397. Chap. 33. Of the nature of Conscience and how the conscience is bound ibid. Chap. 34. Of their reasons who thinke that humane Lawes do binde the Conscience 399. The fifth booke is concerning the diuers degrees orders and callings of those men to whom the gouernment of the Church is committed CHAP. 1. OF the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the liuing and the gouernement of same 409. Chap. 2. Of the dignity of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Adam and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest 410. Chap. 3. Of the diuision of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Iacob when they came out of Aegypt and the Church of God became Nationall 411. Chap. 4. Of the separation of Aaron and his sonnes from the rest of the sonnes of Leui to serue in the Priests office and of the head or chiefe of that company 412. Chap. 5. Of the Priests of the second ranke or order 413. Chap. 6. Of the Leuites 414. Chap. 7. Of the sects and factions in religion found amongst the Iewes in latter times ibid. Chap. 8. Of Prophets and Nazarites 416. Chap. 9. Of Assemblies vpon extraordinary occasions 417. Chap. 10. Of the set Courts amongst the Iewes their authority and continuance 418. Chap. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh the causes thereof and the reason why the second Person in the Trinity rather tooke flesh then either of the other 423. Chap. 12. Of the manner of the vnion that is between the Person of the Sonne of God and our nature in Christ and the similitudes brought to expresse the same 429. Chap. 13. Of the communication of the properties of eyther nature in Christ consequent vpon the vnion of them in his Person
concurreth with grace not as precedent vnto it but as following after it and as a handmaide attending on it is most false For hee approoueth the saying of Augustine but reproueth the Master of sentences for misseunderstanding and misseapplying it That which followeth that Caluine dissenteth from Augustine in the matter of iustification is of the same nature For he saith only that though nothing be to bee disliked in the matter it selfe deliuered by Augustine for that it is plaine that acknowledging the imperfection of inherent iustice and thinking it our greatest perfection to know our owne imperfections and seeke remission of our sinfull defects he cannot but acknowledg the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to be that in confidence whereof we stand in the sight of God yet his manner of deliuering this article is not so full perfect and exact as wee are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists For that when hee speaketh of grace hee seemeth for the most part to vnderstand nothing else thereby but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth vs to become newe creatures seldome mentioning the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. That which Bellarmine chargeth Caluin with in the next place argueth his intollerable impudencie Caluin sayth hee doth thinke that the sonne of God is subiect to the father in respect of his Deitie which because all the Fathers deny he pronounceth they all erred and that their errour cannot be excused Let the Reader peruse the place and he shall finde that Calvin saith no such thing but the cleane contrary Indeed Hugo de S. Victore in his questions on the 1 Epist. to the Corinth 15. saith that CHRIST is subject to his Father according to his divine nature and sheweth that many haue beene of that opinion But Caluin saith no such thing neither doth hee charge the Fathers with any errour touching the distinction of the Natures of God and Man in Christ or the vnity of his Person but saith onely that some of them applying those things distinctly to one of the natures of Christ which are applyable to the whole Person of the Mediatour entangle themselues in some doubts which otherwise might easily be cleared which will easily appeare by that place of Hugo before mentioned The kingdome saith Hugo which Christ shall deliuer to his Father so become subject vnto him either was giuen vnto him in that he was God and then he cannot resigne it nor become subject to his Father because in that respect he is equal vnto him whence we say equalis Patri secundùm diuinitatem minor Patre secundum humanitatem Or in that he was man and that seemeth not conceiuable For the nature of man is not capable of that infinite power that is implyed in the Kingdome which God gaue his Sonne He answereth that he may be said to be subject to his Father in that he is God because though he haue the same essence with him yet he hath receiued it from him How aptly this may be said I will not now examine but how in this sense he may be said to giue vp his kingdome to his Father is yet more hard to conceiue Ambrose saith he may be said to giue it vp not by reall resigning of that he had but by bringing vs to his Father and shewing vs that Fountaine whence he receiued it and all that fulnesse whereof we are partakers These are doubts which Calvin saith that the Fathers doe not cleare attributing the Kingdome of Christ vnto him distinctly in respect of this or that nature But he affirming that the Kingdome of Christ doth not agree vnto him distinctly or seuerally in respect of this or that nature but to the whole person considered in both natures easily expresseth himselfe For saith he God gaue to his Sonne by eternall generation the same essence he had in himselfe and with it the same power and kingdome and this he shall neuer resigne Secondly he gaue to the nature of man not by formall transfusion but in the Person of his Sonne which in the admirable worke of the Incarnation he bestowed on it to support and sustaine it all that power he had originally in himselfe and eternally gaue his Sonne so that the Sonne of God after the taking of our nature into the vnity of his person administreth not his Kingdome without the vnion knowledge assent and cooperation of the nature of man which he shall continue to doe while wee neede mediation and till he haue brought vs to his Fathers presence and to the cleare view and sight of his Majestie Then shall hee cease to rule in this sort any more his humane nature shall not neede to bee interposed any longer but he shall appeare in the glory of his Godhead then shall he be subject to his Father in the nature of man in more speciall sort then now he is because though now he be inferiour vnto God in that he is man and so subject to him yet that nature of man intermeddleth with the administration of the Kingdome in such sort as then it shall cease to doe though it shall neuer lose that power and kingdome which in the Person of the Son of God it is honoured with CHAP. 16. Of Limbus patrum concupiscence and satisfaction touching which Caluine is falsely charged to confesse that hee dissenteth from the Fathers THe next imputation is touching Limbus patrum supposed to be a place below in the earth neere hell if not a part of hell which Caluin pronounceth to bee but a fable though it haue great authours and patrons as if this were so strange a thing that a fable and meere fancie should finde approbation among some of the Fathers The opinion of the Millenaries I suppose Bellarmine thinketh but a meere fancie yet had it great and reuerend patrons If hee say that all the Fathers did hold the opinion of Limbus and that Caluin opposeth himselfe against them all hee is cleerely refuted by Augustine who doubted of it Besides that their popish Limbus supposed to haue beene a receptacle for the soules of the Patriarches but only till the death and resurrection of Christ as being then emptied by him is a meere priuate conceite of their owne wanting the testimonies of the most auncient Fathers For Tertullian Irenaeus and others did thinke the soules of all men to bee holden in hell till the last day And if it were resolued that there was such a Limbus as they fancie yet their Schoolemen are not agreed of the place neither dare they affirme that it was below in the earth though they seeme most inclineable to that opinion The next false reporte that Bellarmine maketh of Caluin is that he opposeth himselfe against all Antiquitie in the question whether concupiscence in the regenerate be sinne or not This hee endeauoureth to make good in this sorte Calvin saith he professeth that Augustine hath truely and
which they are found and so leaue him in a state wherein hee hath nothing in himselfe that can or wil procure him pardon and other which though in themselues considered and neuer remitted they bee worthy of eternall punishment yet do not so farre preuaile as to banish grace the fountaine of remission of all misdoings All sinnes then in themselues considered are mortall a as Gerson doth excellently demonstrate First because euery offence against God may iustly bee punished by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgments with eternall death yea with annihilation which appeareth to be most true for that there is no punishment so euill and so much to be avoided as the least sin that may be imagined so that a man should rather choose eternall death yea vtter annihilation than committe the least offence in the world Secondly the least offence that can be imagined remaining eternally in respect of the staine and guilt of it though not in act as do all sinnes vnremitted must bee punished eternally for else there might some sinnefull disorder and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remaine not ordered by diuine iustice But wheresoeuer is eternity of punishment men are repelled from eternall life and happinesse and consequently euery offence that eternally remaineth not remitted excludeth from eternall glorie and happinesse and is rightly iudged a mortall and deadly sinne All sinnes then are mortall in them that are strangers from the life of God because they haue dominion and full command in them or are ioyned withsuch as haue and so leaue no place for grace which might cry vnto God for the remission of them But the elect and chosen seruants of God called according to purpose doe carefully indevour that no sinnes may haue dominion ouer them therefore notwithstanding any degree of sinne they runne into they retaine that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences Thus all sinnes in themselues considered and neuer repented of forsaken nor remitted are mortall All sinnes that against the Holy Ghost excepted are veniall ex eventu that is such as may bee and oftentimes are forgiuen through the mercifull goodnes of God though there be nothing in the parties offending while they are in such state of sinne that either can or doth cry for remission The sinnes of the just not done with full consent and therefore not excluding grace the property whereof is to procure the remission of sinnes are said to be veniall because they are such and of such nature as leaue place in that soule wherein they are for grace that may and will procure pardon By that which hath beene said I hope it doth appeare that we teach nothing touching the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes that Bellarmine himselfe can except against and that wee differ very much from the Pelagians who thought that no sinfull defect can stand with grace or a state of acceptation and fauour with God For we reject this their conceit as impious and hereticall doe confesse that all sinnes not done with full consent may stand with grace and so be rightly named veniall CHAP. 33. Of the heresie of Nestorius falsely imputed to Beza and others THe next heresie it pleaseth this heretical Romanist to charge vs with is that of the Nestorians Let vs see how he indeauoureth to fasten this impiety vpon vs. First saith he the Nestorians contemned the Fathers and so doe the Protestants therefore they are Nestorians The consequence of this argument we will not now examine But the Minor proposition is most false For we reverence and honour the Fathers much more then the Romanists doe who pervert corrupt and adulterate their writings but dare not abide the tryall of their doctrines by the indubitate writings of antiquity Secondly saith he the Nestorians affirmed that there were two persons in Christ and so divided the vnity of his Person But the Protestants thinke so likewise Therefore they are Nestorians The assumption we deny and he doth not so much as indeavour to proue it but proceedeth particularly to proue Beza a Nestorian heretique in which hee hath as ill successe as he had in the rest of his slanderous imputations Beza saith he teacheth that there are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ Ergo two hypostases or persons which was the heresie of Nestorius The consequence of this argument is too weak to inforce the intended conclusion For when Beza saith There are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ the one of the body and soule the other of the nature of God and man hee doth not conceiue that the vnion of the body and soule doe in Christ make a distinct humane person or subsistence different from that of the Sonne of God for hee euery-where confesseth that the humane nature of Christ hath no subsistence but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it but hee therefore calleth it an hypostaticall vnion because naturally it doth cause a finite distinct humane person or subsistence and so would haue done here if the nature flowing out of this vnion had not beene assumed by the sonne of God and so prevented and stayed from subsisting in it selfe and personally sustained in the person of the sonne of God This doctrine is so farre from heresie that he may justly be suspected of more then ordinarie malice that will traduce it as hereticall Yet hath Beza to stop the mouthes of such clamorous aduersaries long since corrected and altered this forme of speech which hee had sometimes vsed CHAP. 34. Of the heresies of certaine touching the Sacrament and how our men denie that to bee the body of Christ that is carried about to bee gazed on THe sixteenth heresie imputed to vs is the heresie of certaine who what they were the Iesuite knoweth not nor what their heresie was as it should seeme by his doubtfull and vncertaine manner of speaking of it This vnknowen heresie defended by he knoweth not whom he sayth Caluine Bucer Melancthon and other worthy and renowned Diuines with whom he is no way matchable either in pietie or learning though hee weare a Cardinals hatte doe teach But what monster of heresie is it that these men haue broached Surely that Christs body is not in the Sacrament or sacramentall elements but in reference to the vse appointed by Almighty God nor longer than the Sacrament may serue for our instruction and the working of our spirituall vnion with Christ and that therefore it is not the body of Christ that dogs swine and mice doe eate as the Romanists are wont to blaspheme and that it is not fit to dispute as their impious Sophisters doe of the passage of it into the stomacke belly and draught of vomiting it vp againe and resuming it when it is vomited with infinite other like fooleries which euery modest man loatheth and shameth to heare mentioned Secondly that it is not the body of Christ which the Popish Idolaters carrie about in their pompous solemne and pontificall Processions to be
meant well then in the thing it self That Caluin erred not in the thing it selfe he deliuered he proueth at large specially out of the doctrin of Caluins followers for Beza in axiom de trin in the 14 axiom affirmeth that the Son is frō the Father by ineffable cōmunication of the whole diuine Essence Iosias Simlerus in his epistle to the Polonians defendeth the opinion of Calvine and expresseth his owne opinion Calvins in this sort Non negamus filium habere essentiam à patre sed essentiam genitam negamus that is we doe not deny the Son to haue receiued his Essence from the Father but that his Essence is generated This doctrine of Simlerus why it should not be Catholique Bellarmine professeth he cannot see yet his fellowes in all their Pamphlets traduce Calvins Autotheisme as an execrable heresie and muster the Autotheani as they call them amongst the damned Heretickes of this time which is not to bee marvailed at for the manner of these men is odiously to object things againe and againe that haue beene often cleared both by themselues and vs litle regarding whether it bee true or false they say so they may fasten some note of disgrace vpon them whose persons and professions they hate One memorable example of hellish impudencie in this kinde worthy neuer to bee forgotten but to be remembred and recorded to the shame and reproofe of the slaundering Sect of Papists we haue in Mathew Kellison his late Survey of the new Religion who to proue that the Protestants contemne the Fathers affirmeth that Beza called Athanasius that worthy Champion of the Catholique faith Sathanasius and judged the Fathers of the Nicene Councell to haue beene blinde Sophisters ministers of the Beast and slaues of Antichrist whereas Beza esteemeth of Athanasius as one of the worthiest Divines that the World for many ages had in whose lap and bosome our wearied Mother the Church in her greatest distresses forsaken of her owne children was forced to repose and lay her head in those restlesse and confused turmoyles during the time of the Arrian heresie and professeth that he thinketh the Sunne in Heauen neuer beheld a more sacred and diuine assembly or meeting then that of the Nicene Fathers since the Apostles times yea he pronounceth that there was neuer any found to resist against the proceedings and decrees of that Councell but their wofull and vnhappy ends made it appeare to all the World they were fighters against God and condemneth the Arrians as execrable miscreants to the pit of hell for vsing those words wherewith this Surveyour chargeth him Wherefore let the Reader beware how without due examination he giue credite to the sinister reports of these lewde companions who haue sold themselues not onely to speake lies but to write them and leaue them vpon record to all posterity But let vs see whether Caluin haue not erred at least in the forme of words and ill expressed that he meant well as Bellarmine chargeth him Surely we shall finde if wee take a view of that which Caluin hath written that the Cardinals reprehension of him in this behalfe is most vnjust for Epiphanius a worthy Bishop and great Diuine writing against heresies and therefore endeavouring to be most exact in his formes of speech calleth the Sonne of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as Caluine doth It is true saith Bellarmine he doth so but when he saith Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth onely that hee is truely God whereas Caluin affirmeth that he is so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee is God of himselfe which is false for neither the Father nor the Son is God of himselfe the Sonne being of the Father and the Father of none because he receiueth being from none as if it were so strange a thing to say God is of himselfe or as if it were all one for a thing to be of it selfe and to be produced or to receiue being of or from it selfe Omne ens saith Scaliger aut est à se aut ab alio that is euery thing that hath being either is of it selfe or of another Cuius rationi saith Scotus simpliciter repugnat esse ab alio illud si potest esse potest esse â se sed rationi primi effectiui repugnat esse ab alio ergo potest esse à se ergo est à se quia quod non est à se non potest esse à se quia tunc non ens produceret aliquid ad esse idem causaret se ita non erit incausabile omnino That thing with the nature and condition whereof it cannot stand to be of or from another if it may be at all it may be of it selfe but it standeth not with the nature and condition of the first efficient cause to be of or from another therefore it may be nay therefore it is of it selfe because that which is not of it selfe cannot afterwards be of it selfe For then a thing not being might cause a thing to be yea the same might be the cause of it selfe and soe the highest and first cause of all things might haue a cause giuing beeing vnto it which is impossible These men feared not to speake as Caluine speaketh and yet I thinke Bellarmine dareth not reprehend them also as he doth Caluine but if hee do I suppose the world will thinke they knewe how to speake as properly as hee Thus then we see the Son of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God of himselfe that yet he receiued his essence frō the Father but the same that was in the Father not another caused made or produced by him and that soe he was a Mediator in the state of creation between God and his Creatures in that hee was of a middle condition betweene him that no way was of any other and those things that by another were made and produced out of nothing knitting and ioyning them together in an indissoluble band and that in this respect he was fittest to become Man and to be a Mediator of reconciliation when betweene God and his creatures there was not onely a great distance as before but a great diuision difference and breach also CHAP. 12. Of the manner of the vnion that is betweene the Person of the Sonne of God and our nature in Christ and the similitudes brought to expresse the same WHerefore let vs proceede to see how the natures of God and Man were vnited in Christ and what kinde of vnion it was that made God to become Man Man God For the clearing hereofthe Diuines do note that there is Vnum per vnitatē Vnū per vnionē that is that sometimes a thing is said to be one by vnity or Onenes sometimes by vniō Vnum per vnitatē est illud in quo non est multitudo quod scilicet nō est in multis nec ex multis that is That thing is
for one of the diuine Persons of the blessed Trinity So that as one drop of water that formerly subsisted in it selfe powred into a vessell containing a greater quantity of water by continuitie becommeth one in subsistence with that greater quantity of water as a braunch of a tree which being set in the ground left to itselfe would bee an entire independent tree becommeth one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graffed they both lose their own bounds within which contayned they were distinctly seuered from other things the relation of being totall things so the individuall nature of man assumed into the vnity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity loseth that kinde of being that naturally left to it selfe it would haue had which is to bee in for it selfe not to depend of any other getteth a new relation of dependance being in another And as it is continuitie that maketh the former things one with them to which they are joyned so here a kinde of spirituall contact betweene the Diuine Person the nature of man maketh GOD to be Man For as situation and position is in things corporall so is order and dependance in things spirituall There are many similitudes brought by Diuines to expresse this vnion of the Natures of God Man in the same Christ as of the soule body of a flaming fierie sword of one man hauing two accidentall formes lastly of a tree a braunch or bough that is graffed into it The similitude of the soule body making but one man is very apt vsed by the Ancient yet is it defectiue imperfect first for that the soule body being imperfect natures concurre to make one full perfect nature of a man secondly for that the one of them is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of the other but both depend of a third subsistence which is that of the whole whereas in Christ both natures are perfect so that they cannot concurre to make a third nature or subsistence but the Eternall Word subsisting perfectly in it selfe draweth vnto it personally sustaineth in it the nature of man which hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Son of God communicated vnto it Touching the similitude of a fiery flaming sword it most liuely expresseth the vnion of the two Natures in Christ in that the substances of fire of the sword are so nearely cōjoyned that the operations of thē for the most part concurre there is in a sort a cōmunication of properties from the one of them to the other For a fiery sword in cutting dividing wasteth burneth in wasting and burning cutteth and diuideth and we may rightly say of this whole thing wherein the nature of the fire and the nature of the Steele or Iron whereof the sword is made doe concurre meete that it is fire that it is steele or Iron that this fiery thing is a sharpe piercing sword and that this sharpe piercing sword is a fiery devouring thing But this similitude is defectiue because the nature of Iron is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of fire nor the fire of Iron so that we cannot say this fire is steele or Iron or this steele or Iron is fire The third similitude of one man hauing two qualities or accidentall formes as the skill of Physicke and Law hath many things in it most aptly expressing the personall vnion of the two Natures of God Man in Christ. For first in such a man there is but one person and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in the same the qualities are different and the things had not the same But hee that hath and possesseth them is the same Secondly the person being but one is denominated from either or both of these different formes qualities or accidentall natures and doth the workes of them both and there is a communication of properties consequent vpon the concurring of two such formes in one man For wee may rightly say of such a one This Physitian is a Lawyer and this Lawyer is a Physitian This Lawyer is happy in curing diseases and this Physitian is carefull in following his Clients causes Scotus especially approueth the similitude of the subject and accident first taking away that which is of imperfection in the subject as that it is potentiall in respect of the accident to be informed of it and in a sort perfected by it Secondly that which is of imperfection in the accident as that it must be inherent for otherwise the nature of man is joyned to the Person of the Son of God per modum accidentis for that advenit enti in actu completo that is it commeth to a thing already complete and perfect in it selfe In which sort one thing may bee added and come to another either so as not to pertaine to the same subsistence as the garments that one putteth on or so as to pertaine to the same subsistence but by inherence or thirdly so as to pertaine to the same subsistence without the inherence of the one in the other by a kind of inexistence as the branch is in the tree into which it is graffed which is the fourth similitude and of all other most perfect For there are but two things wherein it faileth and commeth too short whereof the first is for that the branch hath first a seperate subsistence in it selfe and after looseth it and then is drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted the second for that it hath no roote of it owne and soe wanteth one part pertaining to the integrity of the nature of each tree But if a branch of one tree should by diuine power bee created and made in the stocke of another this comparison would faile but onely in one circumstance and that not very important seeing though the humane nature want noe part pertaining to the integrity and perfection of it as the implanted branch doth of that pertaineth to the integrity of the nature of a tree in that it hath no roote of it owne yet the humane nature in Christ hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it and therefore in that respect it is in some sort like to the branch that hath noe roote of it owne but that of the tree into which it is implanted communicated vnto it This comparison is vsed by Alexander of Hales and diuers other of the Schoole-men and in my opinion is the aptest and fullest of all other For as betweene the tree and the branch there is a composition not Huius ex his but huius ad hoc that is not making a tree of a compound or middle nature and quality but causing the branch though retaining it owne nature and bearing it owne fruite to pertaine to the vnity of the
tree into which it is implanted and to beare fruite in and for it and not for it selfe soe the Person of Christ is sayd to bee compounded of the nature of God and Man not as if there were in him a mixt nature arising out of these but as hauing the one of these added vnto the other in the vnity of the same person And as this tree is one and yet hath two different natures in it and beareth two kinds of fruite soe Christ is one and yet hath two different natures and in them performeth the distinct actions pertaining to either of them Lastly as a man may truly say after such implanting this Vine is an Oliue tree and this Oliue tree is a Vine and consequently this Vine beareth Oliues and this Oliue tree beareth Grapes so a man may say this Sonne of Mary is the Sonne of God and on the other side this Sonne of God and first borne of euery creature is the Sonne of Mary borne in time the Sonne of God and Lord of life was crucified and the Sonne of Mary layd the foundations of the earth stretched out the Heauens like a curtaine CHAP. 13. Of the Communication of the properties of either nature in Christ consequent vppon the vnion of them in his Person and the two first kindes thereof HAuing spoken of the assuming of our nature by the Sonne of God into the vnity of his diuine Person it remaineth that we speake of the consequents of this vnion and the gifts and graces bestowed vpon the nature of Man when it was assumed The first and principall consequent of the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ is the Communication of their properties of which there are three kindes or degrees The first is when the properties of either nature considered singly and apart as the properties of this or that nature are attributed to the person from whichsoeuer of the natures it be denominated The second is when the different actions of two natures in Christ concurre in the same works and things done The third when the diuine attributes are cōmunicated vnto the humane nature and bestowed vpon it Vsually in the Schooles only the first degree or kinde of communication is named the communication of properties Which that wee may the better vnderstand we must obserue that there are abstractiue concretiue words the former whereof do precisely note the forme or nature of each thing the latter imply also the person that hath the same nature or forme as Humanitas and Homo Sanctitas and Sanctus Manhood and Man Holinesse Holy 2ly Wee must obserue that abstractiue words noting precisely the distinct natures cannot be affirmed one of the other nor the properties of one nature attributed to the other abstractiuely expressed For neither can we truly say that Deity is Humanity or Humanity Deity nor that the Deity suffered or the Humanity created the world but we may truly say God is Man and Man is God God died vpon the Crosse and Maries babe made the world Because the person which these concretiue words imply is one all actions passions and qualities agree really to the Person though in and in respect sometimes of one nature and sometimes of another When wee say God is Man and Man is God wee note the conjunction that is between the natures meeting in one person and therefore this mutuall conuersiue predication cannot properly be named communication of properties but the communication of properties is when the properties of one nature are attributed to the Person whether denominated from the other as some restraine it or from the same also as others enlarge it This communication of properties is of diuers sorts first when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the whole Person of Christ subsisting in two natures but denominated from the diuine nature as when it is sayd Those things which the Father doth the Sonne doth also Secondly when the properties of the humane nature are attributed to the person denominated from the diuine nature as when it is sayd They crucified the Lord of glory They killed the Lord of life Thirdly when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the person denominated from the nature of man as when it is sayd No man ascendeth into Heauen but the Son of man that came downe from Heauen euen that Son of man that is in Heauen 4ly When those things that agree to both natures are attributed to the person denominated from one of them as when the Apostle sayth There is one God one Mediatour betweene God man which is the man Christ Iesus Fiftly when the properties of one nature are attributed to the person neither denominated precisely from the one nature nor from the other but noted by a word indifferently expressing both as when we say Christ was borne of Mary If any man list to striue about words not admitting any communication of properties but when the properties of one nature are attributed to the person denominated from the other as when wee say the Son of God died on the Crosse the Son of Man made the world besides that he is contrary to the ordinary opinion he seemeth not to consider that it is a person consisting in two natures that is noted by what appellation soeuer we expresse the same and that therefore the attributing of the properties of any one of the natures unto it may rightly be named a communication of properties as being the attributing of the properties of this or that nature to a person subsisting in both though denominated from one For the better vnderstanding of that hath bin said touching this first kind of communication of properties the diuers sorts thereof there are certaine obseruations necessary which I will here adde The first is that the cōmunication of properties wherein the properties of the one nature are affirmed of the person denominated of the other is reall and not verball onely The second that the properties of the humane nature are not really communicated to the diuine nature The third is that the properties of the diuine nature are in a sort really communicated to the humane nature whereof wee shall see more in the third kind of communication of properties The fourth obseruation is that in the sacred and blessed Trinity there is Alius Alius but not Aliud Aliud diuersity of persons but not of being nature but that in Christ there is aliud aliud and not alius alius that is diuersity of natures but so that he that hath them is the same whence it cōmeth that the properties of either nature may be affirmed of the person from which soeuer of them it be denominated yet so that more fully to expresse our meaning it is necessary sometimes to adde for distinction sake that they are verified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum aliud that is according vnto the other nature and
not according vnto that whence the person is denominated This explication or limitatioÌ„ is theÌ„ specially to be added wheÌ„ such properties of one nature are attributed to the persoÌ„ denominated from the other as seeme to exclude the properties of the other so when we say Christ the Son of God is a creature we must adde that wee neither scandalize them that heare vs nor giue any occasion of errour that hee is a creature in that hee is man Now it followeth that wee speake of the second kinde or degree of communication of properties which is in that the actions of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deiuiriles Divinely-humane Humanely-diuine each Nature so worketh it owne worke according to the naturall propertie thereof that it hath a kinde of communion with the other But lest we fall into errour touching this point we must obserue that the actions of Christ may bee said to bee Theandricall that is Diuinely-humane three wayes First so as if there were one action of both Natures and so we must not vnderstand the actions of Christ to be Diuinely-humane for this is to confound the Natures whereas we must vndoubtedly beleeue that Omnia in Christo sunt duplicia naturae proprietates voluntates operationes solâ exceptâ subsistentiâ quae est una that is that all things in Christ are twofold or double as his Natures properties wils actions his subsistence only or Person excepted which is but one Secondly the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandricall that is Diuinely-humane for that both the actions of Deitie Humanity though distinct yet concurre in one work to which purpose Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his which we read in the â—…6 t generall Councell doth distinguish 3 kinds of the works of Christ making the first meerely diuine as to create all things the second meerely humane as to eate drink sleep the third partly diuine partly humane as to walke vpoÌ„ the waters in which worke vvalking vvas so humane that the giuing of firmnes soliditie to the vvaters to beare the vveight of his Body vvas an action of Deitie Thirdly the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandrical that is Diuinely-humane in respect of the Person that produceth bringeth theÌ„ forth which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man In either of these two latter senses the actions of Christ may rightly be vnderstood to be Theandricall that of Leo is most true coÌ„cerning Christ. In Christo utraque forma operatur cum alterius coÌ„munione quod propriuÌ„ est that is in Christ both natures do work that which is proper vnto them with a kind of coÌ„munioÌ„ the one hath with the other for this saying is true first in respect of the Person the coÌ„munion which either nature hath with other therein Secondly in respect of the work effect wherunto by their seuerall proper actions they coÌ„curre though in different sort as in healing of the sick not only the force of Deity appeared shewed it self but the humane nature also did coÌ„curre in respect of the body in that he touched those that were to be healed laid his hands vpon theÌ„ spake vnto theÌ„ in respect of the soul in that he desired applauded rejoiced in that which by diuine power he brought to passe thirdly in that the actions of humane nature in Christ haue in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions of any meere man from the assistance of the Deity that dwelleth bodily in him CHAP. 14. Of the third kind of communication of properties and the first degree thereof NOw let vs come to the third kind of coÌ„municatioÌ„ of properties which is that whereby diuine precious things are really bestowed on the nature of man The things which are thus coÌ„municated bestowed are of 2 sorts The first finite created as qualities or habites formally habitually subjectiuely inherent in the humane nature the 2â— the essentiall attributes of the diuinity it self coÌ„municated to the humane nature not formally by physicall effusion or essentiall confusioÌ„ but by dispensatioÌ„ of personal vnioÌ„ Touching the things of the first sort there is no questioÌ„ but that they vvere bestovved vpon the nature of man in all perfectioÌ„ vvhen it vvas vnited to the Person of the Sonne of God so that in it vvas found the fulnesse both of grace vertue according to that of S. Iohn The word was made flesh dwelt amoÌ„gst vs. we saw the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten Son of God full of grace truth The fulnes of grace as the Schoolemen excellently note is of tvvo sorts first in respect of grace it selfe and secondly in respect of him that hath it The fulnesse of grace in respect of grace it selfe is then vvhen one attaineth to the highest and vttermost of grace both quoad essentiam virtutem intensiuè extensiuè in the Essence and vertue of it intensiuely and extensiuely that is vvhen he hath it as farre forth as it may be had and vnto all effects and purposes wherevnto grace doth or can extend it selfe as he is said to haue life perfectly or the fulnesse of life that hath it not onely in the essence but according to all the operations and acts of life sensible rationall intellectuall spirituall and naturall in which sort man onely hath the perfection and fulnesse of life in him and no other thing of inferior condition This kinde of fulnesse of grace is proper to Christ onely Of whose fulnesse wee all receiue The fulnesse of grace in respect of the subiect or him that hath it is then when one hath grace fully and perfectly according to his estate and condition both intensiuely to the vttermost bound that God hath prefixed to them of such a condition and extensiuely in the vertue of it in that it extendeth to the doing and performing of all those things that may any way pertaine to the condition office or estate of such as are of his place and Ranke In this sort Stephen is said to haue beene full of the holy Ghost who is the fountaine of grace and Marie the blessed Virgine the mother of our Lord is by the Angell pronounced Blessed amongst women and full of grace for that shee had grace in respect of the Essence of it intensiuely in as perfect sort as any mortall creature might haue it and in respect of the vertue of it extending to all thinges that might any way pertaine to her that was chosen to bee the sacred vessell of the incarnation of the Sonne of God So that there was neuer any but Christ whose graces were no way stinted and to whom the spirit was not giuen in measure that was absolutely full of grace which fulnesse of grace in Christ the Diuines doe declare and cleare vnto vs wherein it consisted by distinguishing a double grace in Christ the one of
afterwards he knew it when he was risen and appointed of his Father King and Iudge which words of his admitte no such glosse Wherefore Iansenius saith there are two principall interpretations of those words of Christ when he saith Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Sonne the one that he sayd hee knew it not because he knew it not to reueale it and because his body the Church knew it not the other that he knew it not as man and this interpretation hee sheweth to bee likewise two-fold For saith he if we follow the common opinion that Christ had the perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first then we must vnderstand that Christ sayd hee knew not the day of judgement because hee knew it not by naturall and acquisite knowledge but by vertue of that knowledge that was infused into him but if wee follow the other opinion that Christ had not perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first but grew in it then as Origen among other senses deliuereth the meaning of the words is that hee knew it not till after his resurrection And surely Cyrill a worthy Bishop and one that had many conflicts with the Nestorian heretiques who diuided the person of Christ feareth not directly to say that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement when he vsed the words before mentioned Neither is this the heresie of the Agnoêtae as some ignorantly affirme for their errour was that the Deitie of Christ was ignorant of some thing or that Christ in his humane nature was properly ignorant that is knew not such things and at such time as he should haue knowen and that he is still ignorant of sundry things in the state of his glorification as it appeareth by that Epistle of Gregorie in which one of them alledgeth that as Christ tooke our nature so hee tooke our ignorance to free vs from the same and therefore Maldonatus vpon the 24. of Matthew saith that the Themistians called also Agnoetae were accounted heretiques not for saying Christ knew not the day of iudgement as Damascene de haeresibus testifieth but that as may be gathered out of the same Damascene they simply without all distinction of the diuine or humane nature said Christ was ignorant thereof because they thought the Diuinitie was turned into the Humanitie CHAP. 15. Of the third kind of Communication of properties and the second degree thereof THus hauing spoken of those finite and created things that were bestowed on the nature of man when it was assumed into the vnitie of the diuine person let vs come to those things that are infinite Where first we are certainely to resolue that as the nature of man was truely giuen and communicated to the Person of the Sonne of God so that he is indeede and really Man so the Persont of the Sonne of God was as truly communicated to the nature of man that it migh subsist in it and that that which was fashioned in the wombe of the blessed virgine borne of her might not onely be holy but the holiest of all euen the Sonne of God Secondly that in this sense the fulnesse of all perfection and all the properties of the diuine Essence are communicated to the nature of man in the Person of the Sonne For as the Father communicated his Essence to the Sonne by eternall generation who therefore is the second Person in Trinitie and God of God so in the Person of the Sonne hee really communicated the same to the nature of man formed in Maries wombe in such sort that that Man that was borne of her is truely God And in this sense the Germane Diuines affirme that there is a reall Communication of the diuine properties to the nature of man in the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ not by physicall communication or effusion as if the like equall properties to those that are in God were put inherently into the nature of man in such sort as the heate transfused from the fire into the water is inherent in it whence would follow a confusion conuersion and equalling of the natures and naturall properties but personall in the Person of the Son of God For as the Person of the Son of God in whom the nature and Essence of God is found is so communicated to the nature of Man that the Man Christ is not onely in phrase of speech named God but is indeede and really God so he is as really omnipotent hauing all power both in heauen in earth There is one Christ saith Luther who is both the Son of God and of the Virgine By the right of his first birth not in time but from all eternity he receiued all power that is the Deitie it selfe which the Father communicated to him eternally but touching the other nature of Christ which began in time euen so also the eternall power of God was giuen vnto him so that the Son of the Virgine is truely really eternall God hauing eternall power according to that in the last of Matthew All power is giuen vnto me both in heauen and in earth And of this power a litle after he bringeth in Christ speaking in this sorte Although this power was mine eternally before I assumed the nature of man notwithstanding after I began to be man euen according to the nature of man I receiued the same power in time though I shewed it not during the time of my infirmitie and crosse Bonauentura saith the very same in effect that Luther doth when it is sayd saith he speaking of the Man Christ This Man is euery where this may either note out the Person of Christ or the singular and indiuiduall nature of a man if the Person of Christ there is no doubt but the proposition is true if the indiuiduall nature of a Man yet still it is true not by proprietie of nature but by communication of properties because that which agreeth to the Sonne of God by nature agreeth vnto this Man by grace Cardinall Cameracensis agreeth with Bonauentura affirming that the diuine attributes and properties are more really communicated to the Man Christ then the humane are to the Sonne of God and that therefore a man may most truely and properly say speaking of the Man Christ This Man is immortall almighty and of infinite power and maiestie because he is properly the diuine Person so consequently truely really immortall and omnipotent Yea Bellarmine though he impugne the errours of the Lutherans as he calleth them with all bitternesse yet confesseth all that hitherto hath beene sayd to be most true I say saith he as before that the glorie of God the Father was giuen to the humanitie of Christ non in ipsa not to be formally or subiectiuely inherent in it but in the diuine Person that is that by grace of vnion the humane
nature of Christ obtained to bee in such sort the nature of the Sonne of God that the Man Christ should be truely and really in the glory of God the Father filling both heauen and earth Againe he saith those places All things are giuen me of my Father and All power is giuen me both in heauen and earth may bee vnderstood first of diuine power which the Sonne of God receiued of the Father by eternall generation and secondly of diuine power which the nature of Man receiued by personall vnion and in another place speaking of sundry things proper to God he saith All those things may be sayd to be communicated and giuen to the humane nature not formally in it selfe but in the Person of the Sonne of God by the grace of vnion The Diuines distinguish the properties of God and make them to be of two sorts communicable and incommunicable Communicable properties they define to be those perfections that are called perfectiones simpliciter which are found without mixture of imperfection in God and in a more imperfect sort in the creatures These they name perfectiones simplicitèr that is simply and absolutely perfections because it is better for any thing to haue them then not to haue them and because those things are better that haue them then those that haue them not as likewise for that they imply in them no imperfection though they bee mingled with imperfection defect in the creatures Of this sort is life which it is betrer to haue then not to haue and it includeth in it no imperfection though it bee accompanied with defect imperfection in many of the things wherein it is found for that life that is in trees is an imperfect life the life of men who in truth then begin to die when they begin to liue is imperfect yea the life of Angels is imperfect because if they be not continually sustained they returne to that nothing out of which they were made Of the same kinde are Truth Goodnesse Iustice Mercie Wisdome Knowledge Vnderstanding And therefore all these separated from that imperfection that cleaueth vnto them elsewhere are found in God may truely bee attributed vnto him Incommunicable properties are nothing else but the negation and remouing of all that imperfection that is in the Creatures of which sort are Immortality Eternity Immensitie Infinitie the like all importing a negation of imperfection The former of these two sorts of diuine properties which are named Communicable are communicated to meere creatures in some degree and sort though in highest degree they are no where found but in God with the addition of words expressing such eminency they may bee attributed to none but to God for hee onely is Almighty most wise most just and most mercifull But both these with addition of highest degree and the other which are named Incommunicable are by all Diuines confessed to bee in such sort communicated in the Person of the Son of GOD to the nature of man assumed into the vnity of the same that the Man CHRIST and the Son of Mary is not in title onely but really indeede most wise most just omnipotent incomprehensible eternall and infinite And this is all as I thinke that the Diuines of Germany the followers of Luther meane when they speake of the reall communication of divine properties to the humane nature in Christ. If any man say that they may justly bee thought to proceede farther to vnderstand some other communication of properties then that by vs expressed in that they doe not onely say concretiuely that the Man Christ is omni-present but the Humanity also It may be answered that when we speake of the Humanity of Christ sometimes we vnderstand onely that humane created essence of a man that was in him sometimes all that that is implyed in the being of a Man as well subsistence as essence In the former sort it is absurd and impious to thinke that the Humanity of Christ that is the created Essence of a Man in him is omnipotent omni-present or infinite neither doe they so thinke but they affirme that the subsistence of the Man Christ implyed in his being a Man is infinite and omni-present as being the subsistence of the Sonne of GOD communicated to the nature of Man in steade of that finite subsistence which left to it selfe it would haue had of it owne Much contention there hath beene betweene them other touching the vbiquitary presence of the humanity of Christ but I verily thinke it hath beene in a great part vpon mistaking because they vnderstood not one another For the followers of Luther confesse that the Body of Christ is onely in one place locally doe not thinke it to bee euery-where in Extent of Essence diffused into all places but say onely that it is euery-where in the infinitenesse of the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to it If we aske them saith Zanchius whether Christs Body be euery-where they answere that locally it is but in one place but that personally it is euery-where If they meane saith he that in respect of the being of Essence it is finite and confined to one certaine place but that the being of subsistence which it hath is infinite contained within the straites of no one place they say the truth contradict not them whom they seeme to doe Now that this is their meaning which this worthy learned Diuine acknowledgeth to bee true Catholique not contradicted by them that seeme to bee their opposites they constantly professe and therefore I am perswaded that howsoeuer some of them haue vsed harsh doubtfull dangerous and vnfitting formes of speech yet they differ not in meaning and judgment from the Orthodoxe and right beleeuers For they do not imagine if wee may beleeue their most constant protestations any essentiall or naturall communication of diuine properties but personall onely in that the Person of the sonne of God is really communicated to the nature of man in which Person they are Neither do they define the personall vniō by the communication of properties but say onely that it is implied in it touching the co-operation of the two natures of God and Man in Christ they teach noe other but that which wee described when wee spake of the Theandricall actions of Christ. The infinite obiections that are made on either side to the multiplying of needles fruitlesse contentions may easily be cleared and the seeming contradictions reconciled by the right vnderstanding of the point about which the difference hath growne CHAP. 16. Of the worke of Mediation performed by Christ in our nature THus hauing spoken of the abasing of the Sonne of God to take our nature and of the gifts and graces he bestowed on it when he assumed it into the vnity of his Person it remaineth that we speake of the things hee did and suffered for vs in the same The thing in generall which
nobis nostram naturam vt eam sibi sociaret per vnionem in personâ quae sociata non erat per vnitatem in naturâ vt per id quod de nostro vnum secum fecerat nos sibi vniret vt cum ipso vnum essemus per id quod nostrum sibi vnitum erat per ipsum vnum essemuâ—… cum patre qui cum ipsa vnum erat That is The Word which was one with God the Father by ineffable vnity became one with man assumed by admirable vnion The vnity was in nature the vnion in Person With God the Father it was one in Nature not in Person with man assumed it was one in Person not in nature It tooke of vs our nature to joyne it to it selfe by vnion in Person which had no societie with it by vnity of nature that by that which taken from us it made one with it selfe it might unite vs to it selfe that wee might bee one with it by that of ours which was vnited to it by it wee might be one with the Father who is one with it Thus hauing shewed in what sort Christ is a meane betweene the two extreames God Man it remaineth that we seeke out how according to which nature he is a Mediatour That he is a Mediatour according to the concurrence of both Natures in the vnitie of his Person it is confessed by all for if he were not both God Man hee could not mediate betweene God Men. But whether hee be a Mediatour according to both Natures concurring in the worke of Mediation there be some that make question For the clearing whereof the Diuines distinguish the workes of Mediation making them to be of two sorts Of Ministery of Authority Of Ministery as to pray to pay the price of Redemption by dying to satisfie for sin Of Authority as to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the Holy Ghost Touching the workes of Ministery it is agreed on by all that the Person of the Son of God performed them in the nature of Man for we must distinguish Principium quod Principium quo that is the Person which doth and suffereth and that wherein it doth and suffereth such things as are necessary to procure our reconciliation with God It was the Son of God Lord of Life that died for vs on the Crosse but it was the nature of Man not of God wherein he died it was the nature of God and infinite excellencie of the same whence the price value worth of his passion grew The workes of Authority and Power as to giue life to giue the Spirit to raise the dead to make the blinde see the dumbe to speake were all performed by the Diuine Nature yet not without an instrumentall concurrence of the Nature of Man in sort as hath beene before expressed when I shewed how the Actions of Christ were diuinely-humane If it be alledged that Opera Trinitatis ad extra are indivisa that is that there is nothing that one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity doth towards the Creatures but they all doe it and consequently that those things which Christ did in his Diuine Nature pertained not to the office of a Mediatour being common to all the Persons we answer that as the Persons of the Blessed Trinity though they be one the same God yet differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in subsistence the manner of hauing possessing the Deitie Diuine Nature so though their action be the same the worke done by them yet they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner of doing it for the Father doth all things authoritatiuè and the Son subauthoritatiuè as the Schoolemen speake that is the Father as he from whom of whom all things are the Son as he by whom all things are not as if hee were an instrument but as Principium à Principio that is a cause beginning of things that hath receiued the Essence it hath and power of working from another though the very same that is in the other And in this sort to quicken giue life and to impart the spirit of sanctification to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature meriting desiring and instrumentally assisting is proper to the Son of God manifested in our flesh not common to the whole Trinity and therefore notwithstanding the objection taken from the vnity of the Workes of the Diuine Persons may be a worke of mediation Bellarmine the Iesuite bringeth many reasons to proue that Christ is not a Mediatour according to both Natures but that which aboue all other he most vrgeth is this If Christ saith he be a Mediatour according to both Natures then either according to both jointly or seuerally not seuerally because not according to his Diuine Nature seuerally considered being the party offended Not according to both jointly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God Man and from the sonnes of men who are meerely men yet hee differeth not from the Son of God who was to be pacified by the Mediatour as well as the Father the Holy Ghost neither in nature nor in person This surely is is a silly kind of reasoning for it is not necessary that a thing should differ from both the extreames according to all that in respect whereof it is of a middle condition but it is sufficient if it differ in some thing from one and in some thing from another The middle colour differeth from the extreames not in the whole nature of it but from white in that it hath of blacknesse and from blacke in that it hath of whitenesse but it is medium in that it hath something of either of them Soe the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not onely from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is Man and from Men and himselfe as man in that hee is GOD and therefore may mediate not onely betweene the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men Wherefore to conclude this point wee say that some of the workes of Christ the mediatour were the workes of his Humanity in respect of the thing done and had their efficacie dignity and value from his Diuinity in that they were the workes of him that had the Diuinity dwelling bodily in him and some the workes of his Diuinitie the humane nature concurring only instrumentally as the giuing sight to the blinde raising the dead remitting of sinnes and the like Neither doe wee imagine one action of both natures nor say that Christ died offered himselfe on the Altar of the Crosse or payed for vs in his Diuinity as some slanderously report of vs and therefore all the objections that are mustered against vs proceeding from the voluntary mistaking of our sense and meaning which some
But concerning the Generall Councels of this sort that hitherto haue beene holden wee confesse that in respect of the matter about which they were called so neerely and essentially concerning the life and soule of the Christian Faith and in respect of the manner and forme of their proceeding and the euidence of proofe brought in them they are and euer were expresly to bee beleeued by all such as perfectly vnderstand the meaning of their determination And that therefore it is not to bee maruailed at if Gregory professe that hee honoureth the first foure Councels as the foure Gospels and that whosoeuer admitteth them not though hee seeme to bee a Stone elect precious yet hee lyeth beside the foundation and out of the building Of this sort there are onely sixe the first defining the Sonne of GOD to be co-essentiall co-eternall co-equall with the Father The second defining that the holy Ghost is truely God co-essentiall co-eternall and co-equall with the Father and the Sonne The third the vnity of Christs person The fourth the distinction and diuersity of his natures in and after the personall vnion The fifth condemning some remaines of Nestorianisme more fully explaining thinges stumbled at in the Councell of Chalcedon and accursing the Heresie of Origen and his followers touching the temporall punishments of Diuells and wicked Cast-awayes and the Sixth defining and clearing the distinction of operations actions powers and wils in Christ according to the diuersity of his natures These were all the lawfull Generall Councells lawfull I say both in their beginning and proceeding and continuance that euer were holden in the Christian Church touching matters of Faith For the Seauenth which is the second of Nice was not called about any question of Faith but of manners In which our Aduersaries confesse there may be something inconueniently prescribed and so as to bee the occasion of great grieuous euils and surely that is our conceit of the Seauenth Generall Councell the second of Nice for howsoeuer it condemne the religious adoration and worshipping of Pictures and seeme to allow no other vse of them but that which is Historicall yet in permitting men by outward signes of reuerence respect towards the Pictures of Saints to expresse their loue towards them and the desire they haue of enioying their happie society and in condemning so bitterly such as vpon dislike of abuses wished there might be no Pictures in the Church at all it may seem to haue giuen some occasion and to haue opened the way vnto that grosse Idolatrie which afterwards entered into the Church The Eigth Generall Councell was not called about any question of Faith or Manners but to determine the question of right betweene Photius Ignatius contending about the Bishopricke of Constantinople So that there are but seauen Generall Councels that the whole Church acknowledgeth called to determine matters of Faith and Manners For the rest that were holden afterwardes which our Aduersaries would haue to bee accounted Generall they are not onely reiected by vs but by the Grecians also as not Generall but Patriarchicall onely because either they consisted onely of the Westerne Bishoppes without any concurrence of those of the East or if any were present as in the Councell of Florence there were they consented to those thinges which they agreed vnto rather out of other respects then any matter of their owne satisfaction And therefore howsoeuer we dare not pronounce that lawfull Generall Councels are free from danger of erring as some among our Aduersaries doe yet doe wee more honour esteeme more fully admit all the Generall Councels that euer hitherto haue beene holden then they doe who feare not to charge some of the chiefest of them with errour as both the Second and the Fourth for equalling the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome which I thinke they suppose to haue beene an errour in Faith CHAP. 52. Of the calling of Councells and to whom that right pertaineth FROM the assurance of Trueth which lawfull Generall Councells haue let vs proceede to see by whom they are to bee called The state of the Christian Church the good thinges it enioyeth and the felicity it promiseth being spirituall is such that it may stand though not onely forsaken but grieuously oppressed by the great men of the world and doth not absolutely depend on the care of such as manage the great affaires of the World and direct the outward course of thinges here below and therefore it is by all resolued on that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that beare the Sword and that there is in the Church a power of conuocating these her Spirituall Pastours to consult of thinges concerning her wel-fare though none of the Princes of the World doe fauour her nor reach forth vnto her their helping handes neither need wee to seeke farre to find in whom this power resteth for there is no question but that this power is in them that are first and before other in each company of spirituall Pastors and Ministers seeing none other canne be imagined from whom each action of consequence each common deliberation should take beginning but they who are in order honour and place before other and to whom the rest that gouerne the Church in common haue an eye as to them that are first in place among them Hereupon we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synodes pertaineth to the Bishop of Prouinciall to the Metropolitane of Nationall to the Primate and of Patriarchicall to the Patriarch in that they are in order honour and place before the rest though some of these as Bellarmine truely noteth haue no commanding authority ouer the rest Touching Diocesan Synodes I shewed before that the Bishop is bound once euery yeare at least to call vnto him the Presbyters of his Church and to hold a Synode with thē and the Councell of Antioch ordaineth that the Metropolitane shall call together the Bishops of the Prouince by his letters to make a Synode And the Councell of Tarracon in Spaine decreeth that if any Bishoppe warned by the Metropolitane neglect to come to the Synode except hee be hindered by some corporall necessity he shall be depriued of the communion of all the Bishops vntill the next Councell The Epaunine Councell in like sort ordereth that when the Metropolitane shall thinke good to call his Brethren the Bishops of the same Province to a Synode none shall excuse his absence without an evident cause Touching Nationall Councels and such as consist of the Bishops of many Provinces such as were the Councels of Africa the calling of them pertained vnto the Primate as it appeareth by the second councell of Carthage in that the Bishop of Carthage being the Primate of Africa by vertue of particular canons concerning that matter by his Letters called together the rest of the Metropolitanes and their Bishops And concerning Patriarchicall councels the eighth
it is to bee maruailed at that I distill the religion and profession of Protestants out of Catholickes is to bee laughed at as most ridiculous for out of whom else should I distill it but if hee thinke they were all Papists whom I cite for proofe of our cause because they liued vnder the Papacie hee is deceiued for a great difference is to be put betweene the Church and faction in the Church wee deriuing our selues from the one and they from the other The second Chapter §. 1. WHerefore now let vs returne to see what Master Higgons hath further to say hee will conuince Mee he saith of singular vanity in that I say there is no materiall difference betweene those whom hee and his consorts call Lutherans and Zuinglians That the reader may the better bee able to discerne how ignorantly Higgons excepteth against Mee I will set downe at large what I haue written touching this matter Answering the calumniation of Papists traducing vs for our diuisions my wordes are these I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquitary presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers Ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries And in my third booke answering the obiection of Bellarmine charging the Germane Diuines with the heresie of Eutiches in that they say the humanity of Christ is euery where Vbiquity being an incommunicable property of the Deity that cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the Diuine and Humane natures I haue these wordes he should remember that they whom he thus odiously traduceth are not so ignorant as to thinke that the body of Christ which is a finite limited nature is euery where by actuall position or locall extension but personally onely in respect of the conjunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where This is it then which they teach that the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite limited and bounded and is locally but in one place but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally to that God that is euery where In which sence they thinke it may truely be said to be euery where This construction of their sayings who defend the Vbiquitary presence is no priuate or singular device of mine as Master Higgons would make men beleeue but Master Hooker a man so farre excelling Theophilus Higgons in learning iudgment that hee is not worthy to bee named the same day hath the same precisely in the very same wordes and alloweth it as Catholicke and good and indeed who but an ignorant Nouice that hath not learned the principles of the Catechisme would impugne it Yet Maister Higgons sayth I haue fayled exceedingly in two poyntes the first in saying there is no place where the body of Christ is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery where and that it doth subsist euery where the second in saying the humane nature of Christ may rightly be sayd to be euery where in as much as it is vnited personally to that which is euery where This second saying is none of mine for I haue no such words as the reader will soone perceiue if he peruse the place but my words are these The body of Christ is not euery where by locall extension but personally only in respect of the vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no way seuered from God who is euery where and againe there is noe place where it is not vnited personally to that God that is euery where in which sence the Germane Diuines thinke it may be sayd to be euery where Wherefore let vs see what Maister Higgons can say against any thing deliuered by Mee touching this point he sayth I haue fayled for that though the Diuine person wherein the humane nature subsisteth bee euery where yet the humane nature subsisteth therein finitely and in one determinate place the Vnion it selfe being a created thing For the better clearing of this point and the vnderstanding of the Doctrine of the Church resolued on by the best learned in the Schooles wee must obserue that there is a beeing of essence and a beeing of existence or subsistence the beeing of essence which the humane nature of Christ hath is finite and limited as is the essence of all other men but beeing of existence it hath none of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and Diuine Deus in incarnatione verbi sayth Picus Mirandula fecit essentiam humanitatis sine suo esse vt dicitur á multis Doctoribus That is Almighty God in the incarnation of the eternall word produced the essence of the humanity without that finite and created actuall existence which left to it selfe it would haue had as many Doctours doe affirme and the person of the Sonne of God hauing in it the fulnesse of all beeing drew the nature of man to the vnity of that infinite beeing it had in it selfe and communicated the same vnto it so that the humanity of Christ neuer had any other beeing of actuall existence or subsistence but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it And farther the same Picus sayth Esse corporis Christi substantiale est increatum Diuinum quod est suppositi Diuini cum in Christo non sit nisi vnum esse actualis existentiae substantialis That is the substantiall actuall beeing of the body of CHRIST is the increated beeing of the Sonne of GOD seeing in CHRIST there is but one beeing of actuall existence This which Picus Mirandula hath deliuered is the resolution of Thomas Aquinas Caietan and all the best learned in the Romane Schooles whence it followeth ineuitably that the humanity of Christ in the being of actuall existence and subsistence which it hath is not limited or contained within any bounds of place but is euery where howsoeuer in respect of the being of essence which is created finite it be shut vp within the straites of one place at one time and therefore it is noe better then Heresie that Higgons hath that the humanity of Christ subsisteth finitely in the person of the Sonne of God for if it subsist finitely the subsistence it hath is finite and if it haue a finite subsistence then are there two subsistences in Christ the one finite the other infinite and consequently two persons which is flat Nestorianisme But sayth Higgons the vnion it selfe in Christ is a created thing therefore the beeing of actuall existence or subsistence which the humanity hath is finite Truely it had beene fitte the poore Nouice had beene set to Schoole for a time before hee had beene permitted to write for he bewrayeth grosse ignorance in
those things which euery one that hath saluted the Schooles doth know The vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ sayth Cardinall Caietan is to be considered vel quantum ad relationem quam significat vel quantū ad coniunctionem in personâ ad quam consequitur quoniam plus differunt haec duo quam caelum terra Vnio enim pro relatione est ens reale creatum Vnio antem pro coniunctione naturae humanae in personâ diuina cum consistat in vnitate que est inter naturam humanam personam filij Dei est in genere seu ordine Substantia non est aliquid Creatum sed Creator quod ex eo constat quòd Vnum non addit supra Ens naturam aliquam vnumquodque per illudmet per quod est Ens est Vnum c. Bc per hoc natura humana in Christo quia per esse substantiale subsistentia filii Dei est iuncta naturae divinae oportet quod illud unum esse in quo indivisae sunt natura diuina humana in Christo sit esse unum substantiale divinum verè sic est quia esse subsistentiae filii Dei in quo non distinguuntur ambae naturae Substantia est Deus est quia verbum Dei est Vnà eâdem quippe Subsistentiâ subsistit filius Dei in natura Divina in natura humana consequenter natura divina et humana in Christo sunt indivisae in illa subsistentiautrique communi quamvis inter se valdè distinguantur The summe of that he saith is this for I will not stand exactly to English his wordes that the vnion betweene the nature of God and Man in CHRIST in respect of that being of actuall existence and subsistence wherein they are conioyned which is the same and common to them both to wit the subsistence of the Sonne of God communicated to the nature of man prevented that it should not haue any created or finite subsistence of it owne is no finite or created thing but infinite and diuine but in respect of the attaining of the same in time and the relation of dependance the humane nature hath vpon the Eternall Word it is finite and therefore whereas there are two kindes of grace in Christ the one of vnion the other habituall the latter is absolutely a finite and created thing but the former in respect of the thing giuen which is the personall subsistence of the Son of God bestowed vpō the nature of man is infinite though the passiue mutatiō of the nature of man lifted vp to the personal being of the Son of God the relation of dependance it hath on it be finite in the number of created things From that which hath beene said it may be concluded vnavoydably that the humanity of Christ in respect of personall vnion and in that being of actuall existence or subsistence which it hath which is infinite and diuine is euery-where as God himselfe is euery-where But saith Higgons there is an vnion Hypostatical betweene the soule body all the parts of it yet is not the foot or hand euery where where the soule is which is whole intire in euery part because it is not in the head The poore fellow I see hath yet learned but a little Diuinity and that maketh him thus to talke at randome For howsoeuer the comparison of the soule and body be brought to expresse the personall vnion in Christ yet it is very defectiue as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth First because the body and soule are imperfit natures Secondly because they concurre to make one nature Thirdly because neither of them draweth the other into the subsistence it hath but both depend on a third subsistence which is that of the whole but in the mysterie of the Incarnation the Eternall Word subsisting perfitly in it selfe draweth vnto it the nature of man so that the humanity of Christ hauing the same actuall existence that the Eternall Word hath must needes bee in respect of the same being whore-soeuer the Word is But there is no necessitie that each part of the body should be where-soeuer the soule is which is intirely in the whole body and intirely in euery part because the body and the parts of it haue neither the same being of essence nor existence that the soule hath But saith Higgons the properties of the diuine nature are by vertue of the personal vnion attributed to the persō in concreto not to the humane nature in abstracto so that though the Man Christ may be said to be euery-where yet the humanity cannot For answere to this obiection wee must note that the communication of properties is of two sorts the first is the attributing of the properties of either nature to the person from which nature soeuer it be denominated The second is the reall communication of the properties of the Deity to the nature of man not formally and in it selfe but in supposito in the person of the Sonne of GOD bestowed on it in which sense Bellarmine confesseth that the glory of GOD and all power both in Heauen and in earth are giuen to the humane nature of CHRIST Non in ipsa sed in supposito id est per gratiam unionis And so the Diuines of Germany doe say the humanity of CHRIST is euery-where in the being of subsistence cōmunicated to it the Man CHRIST properly and formally By this which hath beene said the intelligent reader I doubt not will easily perceiue the folly of silly Higgons who being ignorant of the very principles and rudiments of Christian Doctrine traduceth that as a pseudo-theologicall determination and heresie which is the resolued determination of all the principall Schoole-men and best Diuines that euer treated distinctly of the personall vnion of the two natures in Christ. Yet as if all were cleare for him and against Mee encouraged by his good successe in this particular hee proceedeth to the matter of the Sacrament perswading himselfe hee shall be able to find such and so many essentiall differences therein as neither I nor any man else shall euer be able to reconcile whereas notwithstanding if he had beene so much conuersant in the workes of Zanchius as hee pretendeth hee might haue found in him a most godly and learned discourse touching this point wherein all that hee or any of his companions can say is answered already and the Diuines of Germany and those other in shew opposite in such sort reconciled that our Aduersaries if any thing would satisfie them might lay their handes on their mouthes and be silent In this discourse first hee sheweth that there is no question touching the preparation of them that desire to bee worthy partakers of this heauenly banquet neither concerning the vse of this blessed Sacrament Secondly that it is agreed that the very body and blood of Christ are to be receiued by such as desire to be
for him before he came yet hee cast him into prison and would never release him though the Great Turke wrote vnto him on his behalfe Since this time the Moscovites seeke no confirmation of their metropolitan from the patriarch of Constantinople The Russians that are vnder the King of Polonia in the yeare 1595 finding they could not haue recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople liuing vnder the tyranny of the Turke in such sort as was fitt fell from that jurisdiction and submitted themselues to the Roman Bishop yet not without reservation of the Greeke religion and sundry limitations in subjecting them selues to that goverment as wee may see at large in Thomas à Iesu. With these Christians that presently are or lately were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople the Melchits of Syria and the Georgians hold communion and are of the same religion with them Touching the Melchites were must obserue that after the ending of the Counsell of Chalcedon there grew a very great distraction in the East part of the world for many disliked and questioned the proceedings in that Councell and would not consent to the decrees of it Amongst those that thus refused to admit the Councell some ranne into dangerous errours and heresies the Emperour Leo therefore for the remedying and preventing of evills of this kind required the Bishs of those parts by their subscription to confirme the faith established in that Councell and they that so did at the Emperours command were by the rest in scorne and contempt called Melchites as if you would say men of the Kings religion of Melchi which in the Syrian tongue signifieth a King but they were indeede and were reputed right beleivers by all the sounder parts of the Church throughout the world These fell from the Communion of the Roman Church when the Greekes did and are wholy of the same religion yet were they never subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople but of Antioch These for their number are reputed the greatest sort of Christians in the Orient Their Patriarch resideth at Damascus whither the patriarchall seate vvas traslated Antioch it selfe where they that belieued in Christ were first called Christians and which was therefore named Theopolis the Cittie of God lying in a manner wast or broken and dissevered into small villages of which onely one of about threescore houses with a small temple belongeth to Christians but in Damascus there are aboue a thousand houses of Christians The Maronites which inhabit mount Libanus haue a Patriarch of their owne whom they honour as Patriarch of Antioch as likewise the Iacobites of Syria haue a Patriarch of their owne residing in Mesopotamia whom they account patriarch of Antioch But the Melchites who retaine the auncient religion of Syria acknowledge none for Patriarch but their owne chiefe Bishop residing at Damascus and reject the other as hauing departed from the faith obedience and Communion of the true Patriarch The Georgians inhabit Iberia they are saith Volateran great warriers and cruell to their bordering neighbours They are named Georgians as some thinke from S. George whose banner they carry when goe to war against Infidels But he rather inclineth to thinke they were the same that were named Georgians by Pliny before Saint George was borne and that it is not a name of sect but of their Country named Georgia and Iberia They follow the opinions of the Grecians touching matters of Religion and in their divine seruice writings they partly vse the Greeke tongue and partly the Chaldee They haue an Archbishop residing in mount Sina in a Monasterie of S. Katherin whom they obey without any further relation or dependance Betweene these and the riuer Tanais along the coast of Meotis and the Euxine sea lye the Mengrellians and the Circassians who are not onely of the Greeke Religion but subject also to the Patriarch of Constantinople Thus hauing spoken of the Christians of the Greeke Religion it remaineth that wee come to the rest Amongst whom the first that offer themselues to our consideration are the Assyrians commonly named Nestorians What the Heresie of Nestorius was is knowne to all For hee professed to beleeue that the Sonne of Mary is a divine Man and that GOD is with him but would not acknowledge that he is GOD and therefore would not yeeld that it may bee truely said that Mary is the Mother of GOD. But they that are now named Nestorians acknowledge that Christ was perfect GOD and perfect Man from the first moment of his conception and that Mary may rightly bee saide to bee the Mother of the Sonne of GOD or of the Eternall Word but thinke it not fit to call her the Mother of GOD left they might bee thought to imagine that shee conceiued and bare the Divine Nature of the three Persons the Name of GOD containing Father Sonne and Holy Ghost This scruple might bee tolerated in them but they haue another leauen that sowreth the whole lumpe For they are said to affirme that the nature of man is imperfect without personalitie and therefore that the Sonne of God who assumed not an imperfect humane nature assumed the nature of man together with the personalitie of the same Whence it seemeth to follow that there are two persons in Christ. For the clearing of this point it is to bee noted that personalitie is nothing but the existence of nature in it selfe which is in two sorts potentally or actually The humane nature which the Sonne of GOD assumed potentially existeth in it selfe and would haue existed actually if it had beene left vnto it selfe And in this sense they say the Sonne of GOD assumed the nature of man together with the personalitie of the same that is with a potentiall aptnesse to exist in it selfe But it was not left but prevented before it might actually exist in it selfe and assumed into the Divine Person and so suspended from actuall existing in it selfe In which sense we rightly say the Sonne of God assumed the nature of man without the personalitie of the same and that it must not be granted that there are two persons in Christ as there are two natures Neither doe these Christians so say there are two persons in Christ as if the humane nature did actually exist in it selfe but onely to imply that there is a potentiall aptnesse in it so to exist if it were left vnto it selfe Yet the forme of words which they vse is not to be allowed for it savoureth of Heresie and tooke beginning from Heresie But that they haue no hereticall meaning it is more then probable because otherwise they should contrarie and ouerthrow their former true Confession that Christ was perfect GOD and perfect Man from the first moment of his conception And that Mary that conceiued and bare him may truely bee said to bee the Mother of the Sonne of GOD. And also because the Archbishop of the Indians was permitted to retaine his auncient Religion when first he submitted
himselfe to the Church of Rome Which hee might not haue beene suffered to doe if hee had erred in the article of the incarnation These Nestorians inhabite though mixed with Mahumetanes and Infidels a great part of the Orient For besides the countries of Babylon Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia and Media where very many of them are found they are scattered in the East Northerly to Cataia and Southerly to India So that in the histories wee finde mention of them and no other sort of Christians in sundry regions of Tartary These haue a Patriarch residing in Muzall on the riuer Tigris in Mesopotamia This Muzall either is the citie of Seleucia so honoured in times past that the government of those parts was committed to the Bishop thereof with the name of a Catholicke and place of Session in Councells next the Patriarch of Hierusalem or if that were destroied the Patriarchall seat was thence translated to Muzal In this citie though subject to Mahumetans the Iacobites haue three temples the Nestorians fifteene beeing esteemed to bee about forty thousand soules In the time of Iulius the third certaine of these Nestorians fell from the Bishop of Muzal and tooke for their head Simon Sulaca of the order of Saint Basil. Who submitted himselfe to the Bishop of Rome exhibited an orthodoxe confession of his faith and was by him confirmed bishop of Muzal in title name but the other held the place still So that when hee returned he was forced to abide in Caramit This Simon Sulaca made certaine Archbishops and Bishops and caused the memory of Nestorius to bee put out of their liturgies and in the end hee was slaine by the Turkes ministers But Abdesu of the same order succeeded him and after him Aatalla after him the Archbishop of Gelu and Salamas renouncing the obedience of the Bishop of Muzal was elected Patriarch and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome So that there were foure Patriarches successiuely following one another that held communion with the Church of Rome but no one of them euer possessed that citie but resided either in Caramit Serit or Zeinalbach in the confines of Persia. All these were vndoubtedly orthodoxe touching the article of the incarnation of the Sonne of God And Elias one amongst the Bishops that held the seat at Muzal desired to be joyned in communion with the Church of Rome sent his confession which was found to be orthodoxe and right so that they of that faction also seeme not to haue differed much in judgement touching any article of faith The Nestorians are subject to these two Patriarches to this day The Patriarch of Muzal hath vnder him 22 Bishops more then 600 territories in which there are at the least 22 rich and flourishing cities and in euery of them 500 families in Muzal 1000 whereof euery one contayneth about fortie persons And other-lesser territories contayning about 200 or 300 families a piece and thirty monasteries In India also there are many families subject to this Patriarch by the name of Patriarch of Babylon to whom he was wont to assigne Bishops There were in India before the Portugals comming about some 15 or 16 thousand families About some thirtie yeares since their Archbishop fell from the Patriarch of Muzal or Babylon to the Bishop of Rome by the perswasion of the Portugals yet retayning the auncient religion which was permitted But his successor in another Synod holden at Diamper not farre from Maliapur by the Archbishop of Goa in the yeare 1599 receiued the religion of Rome also and suffered their liturgie so to bee altered as wee finde it in Bibliotheca patrum But let vs proceede to take a view of the particular poynts of their religion First all cleargie men amongst the Chaldeans and also all lay men that excell in devotion receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood in their own hands vnder both kinds The rest receiue into their mouths the bodie of the Lord dipt into the blood They contract marriages within the degrees prohibited marrying in the second degree without dispensation Their Priests are marryed and after the death of the first wife haue libertie to marry the second or third time or oftner They minister the communion in leavened bread They vse not auricular confession nor confirmation They deny the supremacie of the Pope The specialties of the religion of the Indians or Christians of S. Thomas before they admitted any alteration were these First they distributed the sacraments in both kinds Secondly they vsed bread seasoned with salt and in steade of wine India affording none the juice of raisons softned one night in water and so pressed forth Thirdly they baptized not their children till they were forty dayes old except in danger of death Fourthly their priests were married but excluded from the second marriage Fifthly they had no images in their Churches but the crosse onely Sixtly they denyed the supremacie of the Pope From the Assyrians and Indians vniustly named Nestorians let vs passe to those Christiās that are supposed to be Monophysits as the Iacobites Armenians Cophti or Christians of Aegypt the Aethiopians or Abissens These beleeue that the nature of God and man were so vnited in the person of Christ that hee is truly God and truly man and that after the vnion they remaine distinct in their being of essence and property so that the diuinity is not of the same essence substance and nature with the humanity for the diuinity is infinite incomprehensible and increated and the humanity is finite and a created essence yet because they are vnited and conioyned in the vnity of the same person they say they are but one nature and will not acknowledge as wee do that there are two natures in Christ. That we may the better know what we are to thinke of these Christians differing thus from us I will first historically shew how this difference grew Secondly more largely refute their opinion And thirdly make it appeare that in respect of this difference they are not to be reiected as heritickes There liued at Constantinople a certaine man whose name was Eutiches a priest and an abbat This Eutiches in opposition to Nestorius who divided the person of Christ proceeded so farre that he confounded the natures imagining a conversion of the divinity into the humanity or of the humanity into the divinity or a kind of mixtion of them This Eutiches was well acquainted with Eusebius Bish. of Dorilaeum who vnderstanding by conference with him that he was fallen into such a damnable haerisie made the matter knowne to Flauianus the B. of Constantinople wishing him to call Eutiches vnto him and sharply to rebuke him least the faith might be indangered Flavianus assoone as he vnderstoode thus much called together 30 of his Bish. and in their presence asked of Eutiches whether he did beleiue that Christs body is of the same substance with ours He answered he had never said so hitherto but would seing they would haue it
so to whom Flavianus replied that not they but the fathers required him so to professe and therefore if he did so beleeue hee should anathamatize all that thought otherwise To whom Eutiches answered he had never hitherto professed so to beleiue yet would now for their sakes but would never be induced to anathematize them that thinke otherwise for that if hee should he must as he supposed accurse the holy Fathers and Scriptures which doe so speake that they deny Christs body to be of the same substance with ours When Flavianus heard him thus speake hee put him out of the order of Presbyters and remoued him from his office and dignity of an Abbot Eutiches thus degraded and depriued resorted oft to the Emperour complaining that he was wronged by Flauianus wherevpon Theodosius then Emperour called a Councell at Ephesus that it might be there examined whether Eutyches were duely proceeded against or not and made Dioscorus Bish. of Alexandria president of the Councell who caused the proceedings of Flauianus to be read but suffered him not to say any thing in his owne defence neither would he giue him leaue to aske any question if any doubt arose for Eusebius who was to accuse Eutiches he would not so much as suffer him to speake The conclusioÌ„ was he deposed Flavianus restored Eutiches Things being thus violeÌ„tly carried they that supplied the place of the B. of Rome returned home and made all known to Leo the Bish. He preseÌ„tly went to Valentinian who wrote to Theoâ—…osius to call another Councell but he refused so to do thinking Dioscorus had duely proceeded But after his death Martianus called a Councell at Chalcedon In the first Session of this Councell Dioscorus appeared where he clearely anathematized those that bring in either a confusion conversion or commixtion of the Natures of God and man vnited in Christ. So condemning Eutyches whom out of partiality and sinister respect he had formerly acquitted But yet professed that after the vnion wee must not say there are two Natures but one Nature of the Sonne of God incarnate and told them he had to this purpose sundry testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius Gregory and Cyrill For confirmation of this his saying Eustathius Bishop of Beretum produced an Epistle of Cyrill to Acacius Bishop of Melitinum Valerianus of Iconium and Successus Bishop of the Province of Diocaesarea wherein more fully explaining certaine things contained in his former Epistles he saith expressely wee must not say there are two natures in Christ but one nature of the Sonne of God incarnate Which when they of the East disliked he brought forth the booke reade the very same words vnto them and after the reading of them brake forth into these wordes Whosoeuer saith there is one nature to deny the flesh of Christ which we beleeue to be consubstantiall with ours let him be anathema and whosoeuer saith there are two natures to make a division in Christ let him be accursed also adding that Flavianus admitted this doctrine of Cyrill and therefore that he was vnjustly condemned by Dioscorus But Dioscorus answered that he condemned him because he affirmed that there are two natures in Christ after the vnion whereas the Fathers tell vs wee must not say there are two natures after the vnion but one of the Word incarnate And after this time he refused to appeare any more in the Councell Wherevpon for his former violent and sinister proceedings and for his present contumacie he was condemned and deposed and not for heresie as is expressely deliuered by Anatolius in the Councell For whereas there was a forme of Confession composed which Asclepiades recited in the Councell wherein was contained that Christ consisted of two natures there arose presently a great doubt amongst the Bishops the Nobles and great men therefore that moderated spake vnto them in this sort Dioscorus saith that Christ consisteth of two natures Leo that he consisteth in two natures without mutation confusion or division whom follow yee to whom the Bishops rising vp answered with one voice as Leo so we all beleeue accursed bee Dioscorus At the hearing hereof Anatolius said Dioscorus was not deposed for erring in faith but because he excommunicated Leo Bishop of Rome and refused to come into the Councell when as hee was required so to doe Neither was the forme of Confession recited by Asclepiades rejected as ill but as imperfect That which some alledge that Dioscorus had beene condemned as an Hereticke if he had appeared is childish For if the Fathers there assembled had judged his sayings hereticall they might and no doubt would haue condemned him as an hereticke though absent aswell as the Councell of Ephesus condemned Nestorius though absenting himselfe and asmuch as in him lay declining their judgment So the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches as an Hereticke and deposed Dioscorus for his contumacie and other sinister violent and disordered proceedings in that second Councell wherein he was President so ended But after the ending thereof there arose woful distractions divisions in the Christian world For besides those that followed Eutyches in his Heresie there were many found who though they were far froÌ„ adhering to cursed Eutyches yet disliked the proceedings against Dioscorus and stifly maintained that forme of Confession that was published by Asclepiades not only as good but as perfect sufficient Affirming that 2 natures were vnited in Christ without mutatioÌ„ conversioÌ„ coÌ„mixtion or confusioÌ„ but that being vnited they are no longer two but one So that we may say Christ coÌ„sisted of 2 natures but wee must not say hee consisteth in 2 natures as Leo and the councell Vrging to this purpose that authority of Cyrill That wee must not say there are 2 natures in Christ but one of the Word incarnat His words are Post vnionem sublata in duo diuisione vnam esse credimus filij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nestorianus agnoscit Verbum incarnatum sed dum duas nominat naturas diuidit seiungit ab invicem This opinioÌ„ prevailed mightily in those times continueth in many Christian Churches till this day For the Christians of Aegypt Aethiopia Armenia the Iacobites of Syria defend the same accursing Eutiches as an Hereticke and acquitting Dioscorus yea honouring him as a good and holy man Wherefore seeing it is against the law of charity to condemne so many millions of soules to hell vnlesse they bee cleerely convinced of heresie let vs more exactly consider what it is they say First therefore they teach that Christ is truely God and truely man that hee receiued his diuine nature of his Father before all eternity his humane nature from his mother in the fulnesse of time Secondly they accurse all them that spoile him of either of these natures Thirdly they say that these natures were so vnited that there was no confusion mixtion or conuersion of one of them into another nor such composition as that a third nature might arise out
posterity not by imitation only but by propagation and descent subjecting all to curse and malediction yet not without possibilitie and hope of mercifull deliuerance Thirdly wee must beleeue that for the working of this deliuerance the Sonne of God assumed the nature of man into the vnity of his diuine person so that hee subsisteth in the nature of God and man without all corruption confusion or conuersion of one of them into another that in the nature of man thus assumed hee suffered death but being God could not be holden of it but rose againe and triumphantly ascended into Heauen that hee satisfied the wrath of his father obtayned for vs remission of sinnes past the grace of repentant conuersion and a new conuersation joyned with assured hope desire and expectation of eternall happinesse Fourthly wee must constantly beleeue that God doth call and gather to himselfe out of the manifold confusions of erring ignorant and wretched men whom hee pleaseth to be partakers of these precious benefits of eternall saluation the happy number and joyfull society of whom wee name the Church of God whether they were before or since the manifestation of Christ the sonne of God in our flesh For both had the same faith hope and spirit of adoption whereby they were sealed vnto eternall life though there bee a great difference in the degree and measure of knowledge and the excellencie of the meanes which God hath vouchsafed the one more then the other Fiftly wee must know and beleeue that for the publishing of this joyfull deliverance and the communicating of the benefits of the same the Sonne of God committed to those his followers whom hee chose to bee witnesses of all the things hee did and suffered not onely the word of reconciliation but also the dispensation of sacred and sacramentall assurances of his loue set meanes of his gracious working that those first messengers whom hee sent with immediate commission were infallibly led into all trueth and left vnto posterities that summe of Christian doctrine that must for euer be the rule of our faith that these blessed messengers of so good and happy tidings departing hence left the ministerie of reconciliation to those whom they appoynted to succeede them in the worke so happily begun by them Lastly wee must know and be assuredly perswaded that seeing the renouation of our spirites and mindes is not perfect and the redemption of our bodies still remaining corruptible is not yet therefore God hath appointed a time when Christ his sonne shall returne againe raise vp the dead and giue eternall life to all that with repentant sorrow turne from their euill and wicked wayes while it is yet the accepted time and day of saluation and contrary wayes cast out into vtter darkenesse and into the fire that neuer shall bee quenched all those that neglect and despise so great saluation That all these things and these onely doe directly concerne the matter of eternall saluation is euidently proued by vnaunswerable demonstration For how should they attaine euerlasting happinesse that know not God the originall cause and end of all things the object matter and cause of all happinesse that know not of whom they were created of what sorte to what whereof capable and how enabled to it how farre they are fallen from that they originally were and the hope of that which they were made to be whence are those euills that make them miserable and whence the deliuerance from them is to be looked for by whom it is wrought what the benefits of it are the meanes whereby they are communicated to whom and what shall bee the end both of them that partake and partake not in them Wee see then that all these things and these onely essentially and directly touch the matter of eternall saluation Other things there are that attend on them as consequents deduced from them or some way appertayning to them whereof some are of that sorte that a man cannot rightly be perswaded of these but hee must needes see the necessary consequence and deduction of them from these if they bee propounded vnto him as that there are two wils in Christ that there is no saluation remission of sinnes or hope of eternall life out of the Church that the matrimoniall societie of man and wife is not impure as the Marcionites Tatianus and other supposed nor any kinde of meates to bee rejected as vncleane by nature as the Manichees and some other Heretickes fondly and impiously dreamed other things there are that are not so clearely deduced from those indubitate principles of our Christian faith as namely concerning the place of the Fathers rest before the comming of our Sauiour Christ concerning the locall descending of Christ into the hell of the damned In the first sorte of things which are the principles that make the rule of faith a man cannot be ignorant and bee saued In the second which are so clearely deduced from those principles that who so aduisedly considereth them cannot but see their consequence from them and dependance of them a man cannot erre and be saued because if he beleeue those things which euery one that will bee saued must particularly know and beleeue he cannot erre in these The third a man may be ignorant of and erre in them without danger of damnation if errour bee not joyned with pertinacie The principall grounds of Christian doctrine aboue mentioned are the whole platforme of all Christian Religion The rule of faith so often mentioned by the Auncient by the measure of which all the holy Fathers Bishops and Pastours of the Church made their Sermons Commentaries and Interpretations of Scripture This rule euery part whereof is prooued so neerely to concerne all them that looke for saluation we make the rule to trie all doctrines by and not such platformes of doctrine as euery Sect-master by himselfe canne deduce out of the Scriptures vnderstood according to his owne private fancie as the Rhemists falsely charge vs. This rule is deliuered by Tertullian Irenaeus and other of the Fathers and with addition of conclusions most easily clearely and vnavoydably deduced hence by Theodoret in his Epitome Dogmatum CHAP. 5. Of the nature of Schisme and the kindes of it and that it no way appeareth that the Churches of Greece c. are hereticall or in damnable schisme OVt of this which hath beene deliuered it is easie to discerne what is Heresie and what errours they are that exclude from possibility of saluation It remaineth to speake of Schisme and the kindes and degrees of it Schisme is a breach of the vnity of the Church The vnity of the Church consisteth in three things First the subjection of people to their lawfull Pastours Secondly the connexion and communion which many particular Churches and the Pastours of them haue among themselues Thirdly in holding the same rule of faith The vnity of each particular Church depends of the vnity of the Pastour who is one to whom an
state But when Herod swaied the Scepter flue all those that he found to be of the bloud royall of Iudah and tooke away all power and authority that the Sanedrim formerly had then the Scepter departed from Iudah and the Law-giuer from betweene his feete so that then was the time for the Shiloh to come CHAP. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh the causes thereof and the reason why the second Person in the Trinitie rather tooke flesh then either of the other GOd therefore in that fulnesse of time sent his Sonne in our flesh to sit vpon the throne of Dauid and to bee both a King and Priest ouer his house for euer concerning whom three things are to bee considered First his humiliation abasing himselfe to take our nature and become man Secondly the gifts and graces he bestowed on the nature of man when he assumed it into the vnitie of his Person Thirdly the things hee did and suffered in it for our good In the Incarnation of the Sonne of God we consider first the necessity that God should become man secondly the fitnesse and conuenience that the second Person rather then any other Thirdly the manner how this strange thing was wrought brought to passe Touching the necessity that God should become man there are two opinions in the Romane schooles For some thinke that though Adam had neuer sinned yet it had beene necessary for the exaltation of humane nature that God should haue sent his Sonne to become man but others are of opinion that had it not beene for the deliuering of man out of sinne and misery the Sonne of God had neuer appeared in our flesh Both these opinions sayth Bonauentura are Catholique and defended by Catholiques whereof the former seemeth more consonant to reason but the later to the piety of faith because neither Scripture nor Fathers doe euer mention the Incarnation but when they speake of the redemption of mankind soe that seeing nothing is to be beleeued but what is proued out of these it sorteth better with the nature of right beliefe to thinke the Sonne of God had neuer become the Sonne of man if man had not sinned then to thinke the contrary Venit filius hominis sayth Augustine saluum facere quod perierat Si homo non perijsset filius hominis non venisset nulla causa fuit Christo veniendi nisi peccatores saluos facere Tolle morbos tolle vuluera nulla est medicinae causa that is The Sonne of man came to saue that which was lost If man had not perished the sonne of man had not come there was no other cause of Christs comming but the saluation of sinners Take away diseases wounds and hurts and what neede is there of the Phisition or Surgeon Wherefore resoluing with the Scriptures and Fathers that there was no other cause of the incarnation of the Sonne of God but mans redemption let vs see whether so great an abasing of the sonne of God were necessary for the effecting hereof Surely there is no doubt but that Almighty God whose wisdome is incomprehensible and power infinite could haue effected this worke by other meanes but not soe well beseeming his truth and justice whereupon the Diuines doe shew that in many respects it was fit and necessary for this purpose that God should become man First ad fidem firmandam to settle men in a certaine and vndoubted perswasion of the truth of such things as are necessary to be beleeued vt homo fidentiùs ambularet ad veritatem sayth Augustine ipsa veritas Dei filius homine assumpto constituit fundauit fidem that is That man might more assuredly and without danger of erring approach vnto the presence of sacred truth it selfe the sonne of God assuming the nature of man setled and founded the faith and shewed what things are to be beleeued Secondly ad rectam operationem to direct mens actions for whereas man that might be seene might not safely be followed and God that was to bee imitated and followed could not be seene it was necessary that God should become man that hee whom man was to follow might shew himselfe vnto man and be seene of him Thirdly ad ostendendam dignitatem humanae Naturae to shew the dignitie and excellencie of humane nature that no man should any more soe much forget himselfe as to defile the same with finfull impurities Demonstrauit nobis Deus sayth Augustine quà m excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura in hoc quòd hominibus in vero homine apparuit that is God shewed vs how high a place the nature of man hath amongst his creatures in that he appeared vnto men in the nature and true being of a man Agnosce sayth Leo O Christiane dignitatem tuam diuinae consors factus naturae noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conuersatione redire that is Take knowledge ô Christian man of thine owne worth and dignity and being made partaker of the diuine nature returne not to thy former basenesse by an vnfitting kind of life conuersation Lastly it was necessary the Sonne of God should become man ad liberandum hominem à seruitute peccati to deliuer man from the slauery and bondage of sinne For the performance whereof two things were to be done For first the justice of God displeased with sinne committed against him was to bee satisfied and secondly the breach was to be made vp that was made vpon the whole nature of man by the same neither of which things could possibly be perforned by man or Angell or by any creature For touching the first the wrath of God displeased with sinne and the punishments which in iustice he was to inflict vpon sinners for the same were both infinite because the offence was infinite and therefore none but a person of infinite worth value and vertue was able to endure the one and satisfie the other If any man shall say it was possible for a meere man stayed by diuine power and assistance to feele smart and paine in proportion answering to the pleasure of sin which is but finite and to indure for a time the losse of all that infinite comfort solace that is to be found in God answering to that aversion from God that is in sinne which is infinite and so to satisfie his justice he considereth not that though such a man might satisfie for his owne sinne yet not for the sinnes of all other who are in number infinite vnlesse his owne person were eminently as good as all theirs and vertually infinite Secondly that though he might satisfie for his owne actuall sin yet he could not for his originall sin which being the sin of nature cannot be satisfied for but by him in whom the whole nature of man in some principall sort is found Thirdly he considereth not that it is impossible that any sinner should of himselfe euer cease from sinning and that therefore seeing
so long as sinne remaineth the guilt of punishment remaineth he must be euerlastingly punished if he suffer the punishment due to his euerlasting sinne and consequently that he cannot so suffer the punishments due to his actuall sinnes as hauing satisfied the vvrath and justice of God to free himselfe from the same If it be said that by grace he may cease from sinning and so suffer the punishment due to sin so ceasing and not eternall it vvill be replyed that God giueth not his grace to any till his justice be first satisfied and a reconciliation procured for hee giueth it to his friends not to his enemies Touching the second thing that vvas to be done for mans deliuerance vvhich vvas the making vp of the breach made vpon the nature of man the freeing him from the impuritie of inherent sinne that so the punishment due to sinne past being felt and suffered he might be reconciled to God it could not bee performed by any meere creature vvhatsoeuer For as all fell in Adam the roote and beginning of naturall being vvho receiued the treasures of righteousnesse and holinesse for himselfe and those that by propagation vvere to come of him so their restauration could not bee vvrought but by him that should be the roote fountaine and beginning of supernaturall and spirituall being in whom the whole nature of mankind should be found in a more eminent sort then it was in Adam as indeed it was in the second Adam of whose fulnesse we all receiue grace for grace And this surely was the reason why it was no injustice in God to lay vpon him the punishments due to our sinnes and why his sufferings doe free vs from the same It is no way just that one man hauing no speciall communion with another should suffer punishment for another mans fault but the whole nature of man being found in him in a more eminent sort then either in Adam or any one of them that came of him he hauing vndertaken to free deliuer it it was just right he should feele the miseries it was subiect vnto that being felt and sustained by him in such sort as was sufficient to satisfie diuine justice they should not be imposed or laid on vs. Hereupon some haue said that Christ was made sin not by acting or cōtracting sin for so to say were horrible blasphemy but by taking on him the guilt of all mens sinnes which yet is wisely to be vnderstood lest we run into errour For whereas the guilt of sin implieth two things a worthines to be punished a destination vnto punishment the former implieth demerite naturall or personall in him that is so worthy to bee punished this could not be in Christ the other which is obligatio ad poenam a being subject vnto punishment may grow from some cōmunion with him or them that are worthy to be punished And in this sense some say Christ took the guilt of our sins not by acting or contracting sin but by communion with sinners though not in sin yet in that nature which in them is sinfull guilty as those good men that are parts of a sinfull City are justly subject to the punishments due to that City not in that they haue fellowship with it in euill but in that they are parts of it being euill as the son of a traitor is justly subject to the grievous punishment of forfeiting the inheritance that should haue descended vpon him from his father though hee no way concurred with him in his treason in respect of his nearenesse cōmunion with him of whom he is as it were a part Wherupon all Divines resolue that men altogether innocent yet liuing as parts of the societies of wicked men are justly subiect to those temporal punishments those societies are worthy of that the reason why one man cannot bee subject to those spirituall punishments which others deserue is for that in respect of the spirit inward man they haue no such derivation frō dependance on or cōmuniō with others as in respect of the outward man they haue Wherefore to conclude this point we may safely resolue that no other could satisfie diuine justice and suffer the punishments due to sinne in such sort as to free vs from the same but Christ the Sonne of God in whom our nature by personall vnion was found in an excellent sort and that it was right and just that hauing taken our nature vpon him vndertaken to free and deliuer the same hee should suffer endure whatsoeuer punishments it was subject vnto For the illustration of this point the learned obserue that when God created Adam he gaue him all excellent precious vertues as Truth to instruct him Iustice to direct him Mercy to preserue him and Peace to delight him with all pleasing correspondence but that when he fell away forgate all the good which God had done for him these vertues left their lower dwellings and speedily returned backe to him that gaue them making report what was fallen out on earth and earnestly mouing the Almighty concerning this his wretched and forlorne creature yet in very different sort and maner For Iustice pleaded for the condemnation of sinfull man and called for the punishment hee had worthily deserued and Truth required the performance of that which God had threatned but Mercy intreated for miserable man made out of the dust of the earth seduced by Satan and beguiled with the shewes of seeming good Peace no lesse carefully sought to pacifie the wrath of the displeased God and to reconcile the Creature to the Creator When God had heard the contrary pleas and desires of these most excellent Orators and there was no other meanes to giue them all satisfaction it was resolued on in the high Councell of the blessed Trinity that one of those sacred Persons should become man that by taking to him the nature of man he might partake in his miseries and be subject to his punishments and by conjoyning his diuine nature and perfection with the same might fill it with all grace and heavenly excellencie Thus were the desires of these so contrary Petitioners satisfied for man was punished as Gods Iustice vrged that was performed which God had threatned as Truth required the offender was pittied as Mercy intreated and God man reconciled as Peace desired and so was fulfilled that of the Psalmist Mercy and Truth are met together Righteousnesse and Peace haue kissed each other Wherefore now let vs proceede to see which of the Persons of the blessed Trinity was thought fittest to be sent into the world to performe this worke Not the Father for being of none he could not be sent Not the holy Ghost for though he proceede yet he is not the first proceeding Person and therefore whereas a double mission was necessary the one to reconcile the other to giue gifts to reconciled friends the first proceeding Person was fittest for the first
one by vnity wherein there are not many things foūd which neither cōsisteth in many things nor of many things in which sort God only is most properly sayd to be One in whom there is neither diuersity of natures nor multiplicity of parts nor composition of perfection and imperfection being and not being as in all creatures One by vnion is that which either consisteth in many things or of many things and is either in a sort only or simply One. In a sort onely a thing consisting in or of many things is sayd to be one three waies First when neither the one of the things whereof it consisteth hath denomination from the other nor the property of it as when stones are layd together to make one heape 2ly When the one hath the property of the other but no denomination from it as is the vnion betweene the hand and those sweete spices it holdeth in it Thirdly when the one hath denomination from the other but no property of the other as a man is sayd to be apparelled from his apparell but noe property thereof passeth from it vnto him as the sauour of the sweete spices doth into the hand Vnion simply is of diuerse sorts First when one of the things vnited is turned into the other this falleth out soe often as there is a repugnance betweene the things vnited and one is predominant and preuailing as when a drop of water is poured into a whole vessell of wine Secondly when both the things vnited are changed in nature and essence and that commeth to passe so often as the the things vnited haue a repugnance betweene themselues and yet no preuailing of one ouer the other In this sort the elements are vnited to make mixt or compound bodies Thirdly when there is no transmutation of the things vnited but the constitution of a third nature out of them because they haue no repugnance but mutuall dependance Of this sort is the vnion of the soule and body Fourthly when there is neither transmutation of the natures vnited nor constitution of a third out of them but onely the founding setling and staying of the one of the things vnited in the other and the drawing of it into the vnity of the personall being or subsistence of the other this commeth to passe when there is neither repugnance nor mutuall dependance of one of the things vnited vpon the other but a dependance of another kinde so the braunch of a tree being put vpon the stocke of another tree is drawne into the vnitie of the subsistence of that tree into which it is put and whereas if it had beene set in the ground it would haue growne as a separate tree in it selfe now it groweth ◅n the tree into which it is grafted and pertayneth to the vnitie of it Here is neither mixture of the natures of these trees nor constitution of a third out of them but only the drawing of one of them into the vnity of the subsistence of the other so that here is not Compositio huius ex his but Huius ad hoc that is not a composition of a third thing out of the things vnited but an adioyning of one of the things vnited to the other And this kinde of vnion doth of all other most perfectly resemble the personall vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ wherein the nature of man that would haue beene a person in it selfe if it had been left to it selfe is drawen into the vnity of the diuine person and subsisteth in it being preuented from subsisting in it selfe by this personall vnion and assumption This that wee may the better conceiue we must consider what the difference is betweene nature and person and what maketh an indiuiduall nature to bee a person Some thinke that nature and person differ as that Quod est and Quo est that is as the thing that is and that whereby it is Other that the condition of personall being addeth to an indiuiduall nature a negation of dependance or beeing susteined by another but to leaue all vncertainty of opinions to bee this or that is indiuiduall to bee this or that in and for it selfe is personall being to be this or that in and for another is to pertaine to the person or subsistence of another so that euery thing that is in or for it selfe is a subsistence or thing subsisting and euery such rationall indiuiduall nature is a person Amongst those created things which naturally are apt to make a subsistence or to subsist in and for themselues there is very great difference for some naturally may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kinde as wee see in all those things wherein euery part hath the same nature and name that the whole hath as euery droppe of water is water and being left to it selfe is a subsistence in it selfe and hath that beeing quality and nature that is in it in and for it selfe but being joyned to a greater quantity of water it hath now no beeing quality or operation but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is powred Other things there be that cannot naturally or by the working of naturall causes put themselues into the vnity of any other thing but by the helpe of some forreine cause they may be made to pertaine to the vnity of another thing different in nature kind So the braunch of a tree of one kinde which put into the ground would bee an entire distinct tree in it selfe growing mouing and bearing fruite in and for it selfe may by the hand of man be put into the vnity of the subsistence of a tree of another kind and sort and so grow moue and beare fruite not distinctly in and for it selfe but joyntly in and for that tree into which it is implanted A third sort of things there are which being left to themselues become subsistences and cannot by force of naturall causes nor the helpe of any forreine thing euer become parts of any other created thing or pertaine to the vnity of the subsistence of any such thing such is the nature of all liuing things and such is the nature of man which cannot be brought by force of any cause to pertaine to the vnity of any created subsistence because it cannot haue such dependance on any created thing as is required to make it pertaine to the subsistence thereof yet by diuine and supernaturall working it may bee drawen into the vnitie of the subsistence of any of the Persons of the blessed Trinitie wherein the fulnesse of all being and the perfection of all created things is in a more eminent sort then in themselues For though all created things haue their owne being yet seeing God is nearer to them then they are to themselues and they are in a better sort in him then in themselues there is no question but that they may be preuented and stayed from being in for themselues caused to bee in
vnion the other of vnction or habituall and doe teach that the grace of vnion in respect of the thing giuen which is the personall subsistence of the Sonne of God bestowed on the nature of man formed in Maries wombe whence that which was borne of her was the Sonne of God is infinite howsoeuer the relation of dependance found in the humane nature whereby it is vnited to the person of the Sonne of God is a finite created thing Likewise touching the grace of vnction they teach that it is in a sort infinite also for that howsoeuer it be but a finite and created thing yet in the nature of grace it hath no limitation no bounds no stint but includeth in it selfe whatsoeuer any way pertayneth to grace or commeth within the compasse of it The reason of this illimited donation of grace thus without all stint bestowed on the nature of man in Christ was for that it was giuen vnto it as to the vniuersall cause whence it was to be deriued vnto others Frō the fulnesse of grace in Christ let vs proceed to speake of the perfection of his vertues also Vertue differeth from grace as the beame of light frō light for as light indifferently scattereth it self into the whole aire all those things vpon which it may come but the beame is the same light as it is directed specially to some one place or thing so grace replenisheth filleth perfecteth the whole soule spirit of man but vertue more specially this or that faculty or power of the soule to this or that purpose or effect In respect of both these the soule of Christ was perfect being full of vertue as wel as grace wherevpon the Prophet Esay saith The Spirit of the Lord shall rest vpon the flowre of Ishai the Spirit of wisedome and vnderstanding the Spirit of counsell strength the Spirit of knowledge of the feare of the Lord. Wisedome is in respect of things diuine vnderstanding of the first principles science of conclusions counsell of things to be done feare maketh men decline from that which is ill and strength confirmeth them to ouercome the difficulties wherewith weldoing is beset So that seeing the spirit that is the giuer of all these vertues within the compasse whereof all vertue is confined is promised to rest on our Sauiour Christ we may vndoubtedly resolue that there is no vertue pertayning to man neither including in it imperfection as Faith Hope nor presupposing imperfection in him that hath it as Repentance which presupposeth the penitent to bee a sinner but it was found in Christs humane nature reasonable soule that euen from the very moment of his incarnation How is it then will some man say that the Scripture pronounceth that he increased in the perfections of the mind to wit both in grace wisedome as hee grew in stature of body And here that question is vsually proposed handled whether Christ did truly and indeede profit and growe in knowledge as not knowing all things at the first as he grew in stature of body from weake beginnings or only in the farther manifestation of that knowledge hee had in like degree of perfection from the beginning For the clearing whereof wee must note that there were in Christ two kinds of knowledge the one diuine and increate the other humane and created Touching the first there is no doubt but that being the eternall Wisdome of the Father by whom all things were made hee knew eternally all things that afterwards should come to passe and therefore the Arrians impiously abused those places of Scripture which they brought to proue that Christ grew in knowledge and learned something in processe of time which he knew not before in that they vnderstood them of his diuine knowledge which he had in that he was God and thereby went about to proue that he was not truly and properly God nor consubstantiall with the Father but soe only and in such a sense as that wherein the Apostle sayth There are many Lords and many Gods The later kind of knowlege found in Christ which is humane the Schoolemen diuide into two kinds the one in verbo the other in genere proprio that is the one in the eternall Word wherein he seeth all things the other that whereby he seeth things in themselues for he hath an immediate and cleare vision of the Godhead and in it of all things and hee hath also the knowledge and sight of things in themselues By vertve of the first of these two kinds of humane knowledge the soule of Christ beholding the diuine Essence in it seeth all things in respect of that they are and taketh a perfect view of the Essence and nature of euery thing that is may be or is possible to be as in that sampler according to which God worketh all things but the actuall being of things it cannot know by the vision and sight of Gods Essence but meerely by his voluntary reuelation and manifestation of the same seeing though the Essence of God be naturally a sampler of all things that are or may be according to which all things are wrought yet he produceth things voluntarily and according to the good pleasure of his will not naturally necessarily so that that kind of knowledge which consisteth in the vision of God is more perfect then any other onely maketh men happie because it is in respect of the best and most noble object Yet the other kind of knowledge that maketh vs take a view of things in themselues is more perfect in that it maketh knowne vnto vs the actuall being of things and particular facts which that happie kind of knowledg of things seen in the glasse of the diuine Essence doth not These things thus distinguished it is easie to conceiue how and in what sort Christ grew and increased in grace and wisdome and how hee was full of the same from the moment of his incarnation soe that nothing could bee afterwards added vnto him For concerning his diuine knowledge the perfection of it was such and so infinite from all eternitie that it is impious once to thinke that hee grew and increased in the same Touching the humane knowledge he had of things seene in the eternall word and in the cleare glasse of the diuine Essence it is most probably thought by some of excellent learning that though the soule of Crist had at the first and brought with it into the world a potentiall hability and aptnesse to see all things in God soe soone as it should conuert it selfe to a distinct view of them that yet it did not actually see all things in the Essence of God at once from the beginning but afterwards in processe of time and for the other kind of knowledge and apprehension of things which he had as beholding them in themselues they thinke it was perfect in habit from the first moment of his incarnation but
this immunity And Sixtus Senensis saith that Hierome speaketh not of that tribute which subiects pay to their Princes here in this world but of that which we all owe to CHRIST so that this is that he saith why doe not we wretched men professing our selues to be the servants of Christ yeeld vnto his Maiesty the due tribute of our seruice seeing Christ so great and excellent payde tribute for our sakes S. Austine in his first book of Questions vpon the Gospels saith that Kings sons in this world are free that therefore much more the sonnes of that Kingdome vnder which all kingdomes of the World are should bee free in each earthly Kingdome which words Thomas and Sixtus Senensis vnderstand of a freedome from the bondage of sin but Iansenius rejecteth that interpretation because Austine saith the children of Kings are free from tribute and thinketh that Austines meaning is that if God the King of Heauen Earth had many naturall sonnes as hee hath but one only begotten they should all be free in all the Kingdomes of the world and other apply these words to cleargy-men though there bee nothing in the place leading to any such interpretation But whatsoeuer we thinke of the meaning of Austine Bellarmine saith it cannot bee inferred from these his wordes that cleargy-men by Gods Law are free from the duty of paying tribute because as Chrysostome noteth Christ speaketh only of naturall children and besides prescribeth nothing but onely sheweth that vsually among men Kings sonnes are free from tribute and therefore whereas the authority of Bonifacius the Eighth who affirmeth that the goods persons of Cleargy-men are free from exactions both by the law of God and man is brought to proue the contrary Hee answereth first that haply the Pope meant not that they are absolutely freed by any speciall graunt frō God but only that there is an example of Pharaoh an Heathen Prince freeing the Priests of his Gods mentioned in Scripture which may induce Christian Kings to free the Pastours of Christs Church Secondly that it was but the priuate opinion of the Pope inclining to the iudgment of the Canonistes and that he did not define any such thing So that men may lawfully dissent from him in this point So that we see by the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers and the confession of the best learned among our aduersaries themselues that Almighty God did not by any special exemption free either the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the command of Princes and that in the beginning they were subiect to all seruices iudgements payments burdens that any other are subiect to and required by Christ the Sonne of God and his blessed Apostles to be so But some man happily will say that though Christ did not specially free eyther the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the subiection to Princes yet there are inducements in reason and in the very light of nature such and so great to moue Princes to set them free that they should not do well if they did not so Whereunto wee answere that there is no question to be made but that the Pastors of the Church that watch ouer the soules of men are to bee respected and tendered more then men of any other calling and so they are and euer were where any sence of religion is or was The Apostle Saint Paul testifieth of the Galathians that they receiued him as an Angell of God yea as Christ Iesus himselfe that they would haue euen plucked out their eyes to haue done him good The Emperour Constantine honoured the Christian Bishops with the name and title of Gods acknowledged himselfe subject to their iudgment though he swayed the scepter of the World and refused to see what the complaintes were that they preferred one against another or to read their bils but professed that to couer their faults he would euen cast frō him his purple Robe Whence it came that many priuiledges were anciently graunted vnto them both in respect of their persons goods For first Constantine the Great not onely gaue ample gifts to the Pastors of the Churches but exempted them also from those seruices ministeries and imployments that other men are subiect to His Epistle to Anelinus the Proconsul of Africa wherein this graunt was made to them of Affrica is found in Eusebius Neyther is it to be doubted but that he extended his fauours to the Bishops of other Churches also aswell as to them The words of the Grant are these Considering that the due obseruation of things pertaining to true religion and the worshippe of God bringeth great happinesse to the whole state of the Common-wealth and Empire of Rome For the incouragement of such as attend the holy Ministery and are named Cleargy-men my pleasure is that all such in the Church wherein Caecilianus is Bishop be at once and altogether absolutely freed and exempted from all publicke Ministeries and Seruices Neither did the Emperors only exempt them from these seruices but they freed them also frō secular iudgements vnles it were in certaine kindes of criminall causes Wherein yet a Bishop was not to be cōuēted against his wil before any secular Magistrate without the Emperors cōmand Neyther might the temporall Magistrates condemne any Cleargy-man till hee were degraded by his Bishoppe howsoeuer they might imprison and restraine such vpon complaints made And answerably hereunto the Councell of Matiscon prouideth that no Cleargy-man for any cause without the discussion of his Bishop shall bee wronged imprisoned by any Secular Magistrate that if any Iudge shal presume to doe soe to the Cleargy-men of any Bishoppe vnlesse it be in a criminall cause hee shall bee excommunicated as long as the Bishoppe shall thinke fitte This was all the immunity that Cleargy-men anciently had by any grant of Princes and as much as euer the Church desired to enjoy but that which in latter times was challenged by some and in defence of the claime whereof Thomas Becket resisted the King till his bloud was shedde was of another kinde For whereas it was not thought fitte by the King and State of the Realme at that time that Church-men found in enormous crimes by the kings Iustices should be deliuered ouer to their Bishoppes and so escape ciuill punishment but that confessing such crimes or being clearely conuinced of them before the Bishoppe the Bishoppe should in presence of the Kings Iustices degrade them and put them from all Ecclesiasticall honour and deliuer them to the Kings Court to be punished Becket was of a contrary minde and thought that such as Bishoppes degraded or putte out of their Ministery of the Church should not bee punished by the ciuill Magistrates because as hee sayd one offence was not to be punished twice The occasion of this controuersie betweene the King and the Arch-bishoppe was giuen by one Philip Brocke a Canon of Bedford Who beeing brought before
that the errours condemned by vs were not the doctrines of that auncient Roman church wherein our Fathers liued died we must obserue that the doctrines taught in that Church were of three sorts The first such as were deliuered with so full consent of all that liued in the same that whosoeuer offered to teach otherwise was rejected as a damnable hereticke such was the doctrine of the Triuity the creation fall originall sinne incarnation of the Sonne of God the vnity of his person diuersity of the natures subsisting in the same The second such errours as were taught by many in the midst of the same Church as that the Pope cannot erre and the like The third such contrary true assertions as were by other opposed against those errours The first were absolutely the doctrines of that Church The third may bee sayd to haue beene the doctrines of the Church though al receiued them not because they were the doctrines of such as were so in the church that they were the Church according to that of Augustine Some are in such sort in the house of God that they also are the house of GOD and some are so in the house that they pertaine not to the frame and fabricke of it nor to the society and fellowship of fruitfull and peaceable righteousnesse The second kinde of doctrines were not at all the doctrines of that church because they neither were taught with full consent of all that liued in it nor by them that were so in the church and house of God that they were the church and house of God but by such as though they pertained to the church in respect of the profession of some parts of heauenly truth yet in respect of many other wherein they were departed from the same seeking to subuert the faith once deliuered were but a faction in it Hence it followeth which is the third thing I promised to shew that howsoeuer wee haue forsaken the communion of the Romane Diocesse yet wee haue not departed from the Romane Church in the later sense before expressed wherein our Fathers liued died but onely from the faction that was in it First because wee haue brought in no doctrine then generally and constantly condemned nor reiected any thing then generally and constantly consented on Secondly because wee haue done nothing in that alteration of thinges that now appeareth but remoued abuses then disliked and shaken off the yoake of tyranny which that Church in her best parts did euer desire to bee freed from howsoeuer shee had brought forth and nourished other children that conspired against her that taught otherwise then we now doe would willingly for their aduantage haue retayned many things which wee haue remoued Thus then I hope it doth appeare that howsoeuer I confesse that the Latine or West Churches oppressed with Romish tyrāny cōtinued the true Churches of God held a sauing profession of heauenly truth turned many to God and had many Saints that died in their communion euen till the time that Luther began yet I neither dissent from Luther Caluine Beza or any other Protestant of iudgement nor any way acknowledge the present Romish Church to be that true Church of God whose communion wee must embrace whose directions wee must follow and in whose judgement we must rest But will some man say is the Romane Church at this day no part of the Church of God Surely as Augustine noteth that the societies of heretickes in that they retaine the profession of many parts of heauenly truth and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptisme are so farre forth still conjoyned with the Catholicke Church of God and the Catholick Church in and by them bringeth forth children vnto God so the present Romane church is still in some sort a part of the visible Church of God but no otherwise then other societies of heretickes are in that it retayneth the profession of some parts of heauenly trueth and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptisme to the saluation of the soules of many thousand infants that die after they are baptized before shee haue poysoned them with her errours Thus having spoken sufficiently for the cleering of my selfe touching this point I will passe from this chapter to the next CHAP. 3. IN the third chapter he endeauoureth to shew that the Protestants doe now teach the necessity of one supreame Spirituall head and commaunder in the Church of Christ. His words are these Whereas heretofore some vnchristian Sermons and Bookes haue termed the Bishop of Rome to bee the great Antichrist wee shall now receiue a better doctrine and more religious answere That there euer was and must bee one chiefe and supreame spirituall Head and Commander of the Church of Christ on earth c. D Field citeth and approueth this as a generall and infallible rule Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet c. The health of the Church dependeth on the dignity of the high Priest whose eminent authority if it be denyed there will be as many schismes in the Church as there be Priests Then of necessity one chiefe supreme and high Priest must be assigned in his iudgement These are his words The place he meaneth is not page one hundred thirty eight as he quoteth it but page 80. Let the Reader how partiall soeuer peruse it and if he finde that I haue written any thing whence it may be concluded that I acknowledge there euer was and must bee one chiefe and supreme spirituall Head and Commaunder of the whole Church of Christ in earth I will fall prostrate at the Popes feete and be of the Romish religion for euer But if it appeare vnto him that the author of these pretended proofes hath cited this place to proue that which in his conscience he knew it did not let him beware of such false cozening companions My words are The vnity of each particvlar Church depends on the vnity of the Pastor who is one to whom an eminent and particular power is giuen and whom all must obey Heere is no word of one chiefe Pastor of the whole vniuersall church of Christ vpon earth but of one chiefe Pastor in each particular Church VVho would not detest the impudencie false dealing of these Romish writers But he saith I approue the saying of Hierome before mentioned therefore I must assigne one chiefe Pastour of the whole Church of Christ on earth How will he make good this consequence Doth Hierome speake in that place cited approued by mee of one supreame Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on earth Surely this Pamphletter knoweth he doth not but of the Bishop of each particular Church or Diocesse If saith Hierome thou shalt aske why he that is baptized in the church doth not receiue the Holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop which we say is giuen in baptisme know that this obseruation commeth from that authority that the Spirit descended vpon the
substance figure and shape and are visible and may be handled as before but they are conceiued and beleeued to be that which now they are made and are adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee Heere wee see is no such change of the mysticall signes as to abolish their substance and former being for then the conversion in the Sacrament had beene such as the Hereticke imagined it to be in the body of Christ assumed and so Theodoret could not truely haue sayd hee was taken in the snare which he layd for others Wherefore to conclude this poynt the Crecians teach that there is a conversion of the sacramētall elements but of that kinde which I haue before shewed that abolisheth not the things which were but maketh them to bee that they were not Which may farther appeare in that they say likewise there is a chaunge of the communicants into the being of Christ and make the end of the Sacrament to be nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transubstantiation into Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the making of them that communicate partakers of the diuine nature according to that of the Apostle who saith Wee are made the body of Christ and yet is not our former being abolished but wee are made to bee that which wee were not in a divine and supernaturall sorte according to that of Damascen Let vs come and receiue the body of him that was crucified let vs partake of that divine burning coale that the fire of desire being kindled in vs by that coale may burne vp our sinnes and lighten our hearts and that being changed into that devine fire wee may become fire and bee in a sort deified and made partakers of the divine nature All which changes neither abolish nor confound substances For as Cyprian sayth well nostra ipsius contunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confaederat voluntates That is the vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and vs neither causeth any mixture of the persons nor maketh them to be substantially the same but joyneth affections and confederateth the wills Lastly touching the sacrament of the Lords boby and blood they teach that it is a sacrifice and that wee may the better conceiue what they meane they lay downe these propositions First that vnder the Law two sorts of things were presented vnto God gifts and sacrifices Giftes as vessels of gold or silver and things of like nature which were dedicated vnto God and set apart from prophane and ordinary vses Sacrifices as sheepe oxen and the like things when they were slaine and their blood powred out and generally all such things as were consumed in the fire The second proposition is that the body of Christ was both a gift and a sacrifice for he was dedicated to God from his first entrance into the world as the first fruites of our nature as the first borne of Mary his mother and afterwards he became a sacrifice when he was crucified The third that bread and wine are presented vnto God in the holy sacrament in the nature of gifts before they are consecrated The fourth that the bread and wine are consecrated and so chaunged as to become the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. The fifth that it may be truely sayd that there is not only an oblation in the holy eucharist but a sacrifice also in that the body of Christ which was once sacrificed is there The sixt that the bread cannot be sayd to be sacrificed for then the sacrifices of the new Testament should not excell those of the old The seaventh that in the sacrificing of a liuing thing the killing of it is implied The eight that the body of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee sacrificed in the eucharist because hee can die no more but is immortall and impassible The ninth that Christ may be sayd to be newly sacrificed and slaine commemoratiuely in that the sacrificing of him on the altar of the crosse is there commemorated liuely expressed and the benefits of it communicated to them that are made partakers of those holy mysteries according to that of Lyra Si dicas sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in ecclesia dicendum quod non est ibi sacrificij reiteratio sed vnius sacrificij in cruce oblati quotidiana commemoratio Secundum illud Lucae 22. hoc facite in meam commemorationem That is If thou say the sacrifice of the altar is daily offered the answere is cleare and easie that the body of Christ is not newly sacrificed on the altar but whereas Christ once offered himselfe as a sacrifice on the crosse the same is daily commemorated according to that Luk. 22 Doe this in remembrance of mee And therefore Chrysostome writing vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes hauing named it a sacrifice addeth by way of explication or correction that it is a sacrifice or rather the commemoration of a sacrifice So that heerein they differ from the Romanists who teach that there is a new reall sacrificing of Christ. In the doctrine of freewill they doe not so clearely expresse themselues as S. Augustine others that follow him For they teach that we must first will the things that are right and good and that God then helpeth confirmeth and setteth vs forward so that they suppose hee followeth our wils and goeth not before them least the liberty thereof might be prejudiced Their meaning I thinke is that no good can be wrought in vs without our consent which S. Augustine also confesseth to bee true but it is Gods grace that winneth inclineth and boweth vs to consent to that good which it selfe suggesteth in which respect it may be truely sayd to goe before our will and yet not to prejudice our liberty If they speake not so distinctly touching this poynt as some others doe it is not to be marvailed at seeing the Greeke fathers are not so cleare in this point as the Latines are Wherevpon Aloisius Lippomannus in catena aurea in his preface to the reader hath these words I haue thought good to admonish thee that if in this whole worke thou shalt any where finde any such sayings of Chrysostome as that when man endeavoureth and doth that which pertayneth to him God will abundantly giue grace thou wisely and warily reade that holy Doctour least thou fall into any such errour as to beleeue that Gods grace is given for our merits For if out of merit it is not grace But farre be it from vs so to thinke seeing wee cannot so much as endeavour or doe any thing that pertayneth to vs without Gods grace preventing vs. According to that in the Psalme His mercie shall prevent mee and againe his mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my life And that of holy Church Let thy grace O Lord wee beseech thee prevent and follow vs. Sixtly touching Iustification they lay downe these propositions The first that wee
of them Fourthly that the deity and humanity of Christ are not all one Fiftly they confesse that it may truely bee said the Diuinity of Christ is aliud natura that is a thing of different condition and nature from his humanity Sixtly that they are not of the same nature and substance Seaventhly that their properties are not the same the one being finite and the other infinite So that this is it which they say that the 2 natures which were vnited in Christ remaine after the vnion without mixtion confusion or conuersion in their distinct being of essence and properties but are become one first in the being of subsistence 2 in respect of mutuall inexistence and 3 in communion of mutuall operation in that the one doth nothing without the communion and concurrence of the other And in this sort is that saying of Cyrill to be vnderstood when hee sayth there are not 2 natures in Christ but one nature of the Word incarnate that is the 2 natures vnited are not 2 and distinct but one in subsistence For the nature of man hath no subsistence but that of the Word communicated vnto it in which they are one And so it is expounded in the 8 Canon of the fifth generall Councell Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth that when hee conferred with the Patriarch of the Iacobites to this purpose hee cleerely accursed Eutyches confounding the natures of God and man in Christ but yet affirmed that they are so vnited that there is one personated nature arising out of 2 natures not personated Professing that they thinke as the Latines doe touching the thing it selfe but differ from them in forme of words more aptly expressing the thing as they suppose Tecla Abissen saith the Aethiopians thinke there is but one nature in Christ. Being asked whether they thinke there is one nature resulting out of the two natures that were vnited Hee answereth that they say no such thing but that they professe simply that there is one nature and that is the diuine nature meaning as it seemeth that the diuine nature onely subsisteth in its owne subsistence and that the humanity is drawne into the vnity of the same Thomas à Iesu reporteth that in the time of Gregorie the 13th there were certaine learned men sent into Aegypt to winne the Christians of those parts to joyne in communion with the Roman Church And that in the yeare 1582 a Synod was holden at Cair where at the third meeting after six houres disputation touching the 2 natures of Christ all with one consent by Gods happy direction decreed as the truth is touching the thing it selfe anathematizing all them that should spoile him of either nature who being God and man receiued his deity from the Father and his humanity from his mother And though the Christians of Aegypt refuse to say there are 2 natures in Christ yet they confesse him to bee God and man Nicetas sayth the Armenians are Monophysits and that Immanuell the Emperour in the yeare 1170 sent Theorianus to conferre with their Catholicke or chiefe Bishop and to reclaime them if it might bee from that heresie The disputation betweene them hee setteth downe at large But Genebrard feareth not to censure him pronouncing that both hee and Theorianus were deceiued if that bee indeede the answere of the Armenian Bishop to the objections of Theorianus as is there put downe For nature beeing sometimes taken for a part sometimes for the whole consisting of the severall parts as in Aristotle sometimes it importeth the whole sometimes the parts of which the whole consisteth the Armenian Bîshop sayd truely the things whereof Christ consisteth are of different nature or difference in nature and that they are but one nature in that they are so joyned put together that they are one in the being of subsistence that one of them inexisteth in the other and either of them hath a communion of operation with the other But hee in no sort imagineth that they are so one as if a compounded nature did arise out of the putting of them together in such sort as the nature of man is a compound nature arising out of the putting together of the soule and body So that these Christians are vnjustly charged with the heresie of the Monophysits aunciently condemned For they imagined that the two natures vnited in Christ are become one in the being of essence and property but these confesse them to remaine distinct in both these respects and to become one onely in respect of the being of subsistence mutuall inexistence and the communion the one hath with the other in action and operation comparing this vnion to that of the iron and fire Neither is it to bee marvailed at that they are thus wronged For as Genebrard noteth the Greekes often thus wrong the orientall Christians laying an imputation of heresie vpon them out of sinister respects So that they are to bee suspected as often as writing of the Syrians Maronits Aetbiopians Persians Indians Georgians Aegyptians they call them Iacobits or Nestorians For they that travell into these parts finde them to bee orthodoxe and right beleeuers differing from other parts of the true Church rather in certaine ceremonies then in substance Hauing thus cleered these Christians from the imputation of heresie vndeservedly layd vpon them let vs proceed more particularly to consider of the specialties of religion professed by them and first of the religion of the Iacobits The Iacobits haue their name from one Iacobus of Syria surnamed Zanzalus liuing about the yeare of our Lord 530. Who amongst others that rejected the Councell of Chalcedon laboured greatly to perswade the people of Syria to refuse the same and taught them to beleeue that the two natures which were vnited in Christ after the vnion are become one not in such sort as Eutiches imagined who confounded them into one but as Dioscorus taught who made them to bee one by adunation without mixtion or confusion That this was his opinion it is evident by his followers Who honour Dioscorus as a Saint and condemne Eutyches as an hereticke These as Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth are dispersed thoroughout the câ—…ties regions and townes of Syria Mesopotamia and Babylon mixt with other sects and their number is so great that there are fifty thousand families of them They chiefely inhabite in Aleppo of Syria and in Caramit They haue and long haue had a Patriarch of their owne to whom they yeeld obedience For wee reade of the Patriarch of the Iacobits in the time of Heraclius the Emperour This Patriarth resideth in Caramit but the Patriarchicall Church is in the monastery of Zafra without the city Moradin in Mesopotamia They were before the breach subject to the Patriarch of Antioch but when they fell off from other Christians in opinion they departed from the Patriarch that then was and entitled one of their owne making to that honour supposing the other to be in errour and themselues right
the yeare 17 From Easter till Whitsontide they fast not any Friday but freely eate flesh 18 They know not the ember fasts 19 They solemnize not Christmas day on the 25th of December but fast that day and in steede of it keepe the day of the Epiphany as Christ birth day according to an auncient Custome as we may read in Epiphanius and Chrysostom 20 On Saturday before Easter they eate egges and cheese in the euening saying that Christ rose in the euening 21 They eate not of such beasts as are iudged vncleane in the Law 22 They admitt not the Sacrament of auricular confession as it is in the Roman Church neither of confirmation or extreame vnction 23 They deny the supremacy of the Pope Lastly they are charged to deny originall sinne but vniustly as it seemeth seing they teach that the children of infidells not baptized goe to hell with their vnbeleeuing parents Hauing spoken of the Iacobites and Armenians it remayneth that wee come to take a view of the religion and rites of the Cophti and Abyssens or Aethiopians The word Cophti is not a name of sect but of countrie importing no more then an Aegyptian Christian. The particulars of the religion of the Cophti are these First they reject the Councell of Chalcedon they condemne Leo Bishop of Rome they accurse Eutyches and honour Dioscorus and Iacobus Syrus as holy men and touching the incarnation teach as the Iacobites Armenians doe refusing to acknowledge two natures in Christ and yet confessing him to be truely God and truely man and accursing them that spoile him of either nature or deny that they remaine in him distinct and vnconfounded in being and property in sort before expressed Secondly they adde to the Trisagium as the former but in the same sense and without all touch of heresie Thirdly they permit none to baptize but a Priest in what necessity soeuer nor any where else but in the Church nor before the fortieth day Fourthly they dip the baptized into the water after the manner of the Greekes but pronouncing the words as the Latines doe Fiftly they presently anoynt the baptized and minister the Eucharist to them in both kinds They sometimes vsed Circumcision but now haue abrogated that custome at least in Alexandria and Cair happily since the Synod there holden whereof I spake before Sixtly they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kindes the Priests neuer celebrate without the assistance of the deacons and the subdeacons and these alwayes communicate with the Priest but the saypeople seldome but onely at Easter Seaventhly they consecrate in leavened bread Eightly they neither minister extreame vnction nor the Eucharist to the sicke Ninthly they giue the inferiour holy orders euen to children so soone as they are baptized 10 They acknowledge that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne yet leaue out those words and from the Sonne in the creed 11 They contract marriage in the presence of the Priest and in the face of the Church after the manner of the Roman Church but with more ceremonies 12 They sometimes dissolue marriage and permit a second marriage 13 They admit married Priests 14 They admit not purgatory nor prayer for the dead 15 They reade in the Churches certaine fabulous things as the booke called secreta Petri and the gospell of Nicodemus 16 They deny the supremacy of the Pope and thinke him no lesse subject to errour than other Bishops They condemne the Latine Church as erring in sundry poynts of religion and therevpon refuse to communicate with the Christians of these parts And though Baronius haue a large narration of an embassage sent from the Church of Alexandria to Clement the eight wherein is reported that Marke the Patriarch and with him all the Bishops and people subject to that jurisdiction submitted themselues to the Bishop of Rome as to the head of the Church yet afterwards it was found to be a meere imposture and cousenage as Thomas à Iesu reporteth But Casaubone telleth vs that the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote a most pious letter to the now Lord Archbishop of Canterbury desiring to joyne in communion with the Churches of England c. Which letter vnder his Patriarchicall seale is to bee seene besides another letter to the same purpose from a Bishop of Asia To this Patriarch are subject all the Christians of Aegypt the Christians of Habassia that small remainder of Christians that are found about the Bay of Arabia and in mount Sina Eastward or in Afrique as farre as the greater Syrtes Westward And vnder this jurisdiction the Nubians also were as some thinke before their defection from Christianity Nubia being a part of Habassia which was put vnder the Bishop of Alexandria by the Nicen Councell The number of Christians in Aegypt is greatly diminished For whereas Burchardus reporteth that in his time about 320 yeares since there were found in Cair alone aboue fortie Christian temples now there are but three in Cair and no more in Alexandria And the number of Christians is esteemed to bee about fiftie thousand in that great and populous Countrie But in Habassia almost innumerable For the kingdome of Habassia subject to that great Monarch whom wee by errour call Praester Iohn they Iohn Encoe or Belul is as large in circuit and compasse of ground as Italy Germany France and Spaine but nothing so populous nor without mixture of Mahumetans and Pagans in some parts of it The Habassines haue a Patriarch of their owne whom in their Language they call Abuna that is our father This Patriarch was to haue the seuenth place in sitting in generall Councels next after the Bishop of Seleucia as appeareth by the Arabique Booke of the Nicene Councell translated by Pisanus but hee is subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and being elected by the Habassine Monkes of S. Antonies order residing at Hierusalem he is consecrated confirmed by him and so sent to Habassia And answereably hereunto in their Liturgie they pray for the Patriarch of Alexandria before their owne Patriarch terming him the Prince of their Archbishops Wherefore let vs descend to take a view of their Religion First touching the Holy Trinity they are orthodoxe professing as we doe Concerning the Incarnation of the Sonne of God they thinke as the Iacobites Armenians and Aegyptians before-mentioned teaching that two natures were vnited in Christ but that after the vnion they are become one not by mixtion conversion confusion or such a composition as that a third should arise and result out of them but by coadvnation only in sort before expressed So that they may be said to be one nature not in the being of essence or propertie which cannot be conceiued without confusion but in respect of the being of subsistence the mutuall inexistence of one of them in another and the Communion of action or operation one of them doing nothing without the other Thirdly they reject the Councell
nescientes that is there are some that are wittingly heretikes some vnwittingly For though no man do or can wittingly erre or be deceiued yet a man may wittingly be an heriticke and though no man thinke that to be true which he knoweth to be false or that to be false which he knoweth to be true which were wittingly to erre yet a man may forsake that which he knoweth to be the profession of Christians iudge it erronious false and impious choose some other kind of religion which is wittingly to be an heriticke Such are Apostates which depart from that which they know to be the Christian faith Heretickes vnwittingly are such as thinke that they do most firmely cleaue to the doctrine of Christ his blessed Apostles and holy Church and will not be induced to thinke the whole profession of Christians to be false and erronious as do Apostates yet doe erre in many particulars that pertaine to the faith and thinke that to be the onely true Christian profession which indeede is not as did the Marcionites Manichees and the rest of that sort The things that pertaine to the Christian faith and religion are of two sorts for there are some things explicitè some things implicite credenda that is there are some things that must be particularly and expressly knowne and beleeued as that the father is God the sonne is God and the holy Ghost God and that yet they are not three Gods but one God And some other which though all men at all times be not bound vpon the perill of damnation to know and beleeue expressely yet whosoever will be saued must beleeue them at least implicitè in generality as that IOSEPH MARIE IESVSâ—…edde â—…edde into Egypt Men are bound to know and beleeue things particularly and expressely either in respect of their office and standing in the Church of God in which consideration the pastors guides of the Church who are to teach others are bound to know many things which others of more private condition are not or else for that they are particularly offered to their consideration and so a Lay-man finding it written in the Scripture that Onesimus was a fugitiue seruant and recommended to Philemon his master by Paul is bound particularly to beleeue it which a great Bishop not obseruing or not remembring is not or lastly because they doe essentially and directly concerne the matter of our saluation Hee that erreth in those things which euery one is bound particularly to beleeue because they doe essentially and directly concerne the matter of our salvation is without any farther enquirie to bee pronounced an Hereticke Neither neede we to aske whether he joyne obstinacie to his errour for the very errour it selfe is damnable as if a man shall deny Christ to be the Son of GOD coessentiall coequall and coeternall with his Father or that we haue remission of sinnes by the effusion of his bloud But other things that doe not so neerely and directly touch the substance of Christian faith and which a man is not bound vpon the perill of damnation expressely to know and beleeue but it sufficeth if he beleeue them implicité and in praeparatione animi that is if he carry a minde prepared and ready to yeeld assent vnto them if once it shall appeare that they are included in and by necessarie consequence to be deduced from those things which expressely he doth and must beleeue as that Moses saw the promised land but entred not into it or that the Queene of the South came from the vttermost endes of the world to heare the wisedome of Salomon A man may bee ignorant of and bee deceiued in them and yet without all touch of heresie or perill of damnation vnlesse hee adde pertinacie vnto errour Neither doth euery pertinacie joyned with errours in this kinde make them Heresies For all they are in some degree to bee judged pertinacious that neglect the censure and judgment of them whom they should reverence and regard and stand in defence of those errours which if they had vsed that carefull diligence which they should in searching out the truth they had not fallen into but that onely when men erring in things of this kinde they are so strongly carried with the streames of misperswasion that rather than they will alter their opinion or disclaime their error they will deny some part of that which euery one that will be saued must know and beleeue So in the beginning Nestorius did not erre touching the vnitie of Christs person in the diuersitie of the natures of GOD and man but only disliked that Mary should be called the Mother of GOD which forme of speaking when some demonstrated to be very fitting and vnavoidable if Christ were GOD and Man in the vnitie of the same person he chose rather to deny the vnitie of Christs person then to acknowledge his temeritie and rashnesse in reprouing that forme of speech which the vse of the Church had anciently receiued and allowed CHAP. 4. Of those things which euery one is bound expressely to know and beleeue and wherein no man can erre without note of heresie SEeing then the things which Christian men are bound to beleeue are of so different sort and kinde let vs see which are those that doe so neerely touch the very life and being of the Christian faith and religion that euery one is bound particularly and expressely to know and beleeue them vpon perill of eternall damnation They may most aptly be reduced to these principal â—…heads First concerning God whom to know is eternall life wee must beleeue and acknowledge the vnity of an infinite incomprehensible and eternall essence full of righteousnesse goodnesse mercie and trueth The trinitie of persons subsisting in the same essence the Father Sonne and holy Ghost coessentiall coeternall and coequall the Father not created nor begotten the Sonne not created but begotten the holy Ghost not created nor begotten but proceeding Secondly wee must know and beleeue that God made all things of nothing that in them hee might manîfest his wisedome power and goodnesse that hee made men and Angels capable of supernaturall blessednesse consisting in the vision and enjoying of himselfe that hee gaue them abilities to attaine therevnto and lawes to guide them in the wayes that leade vnto it that nothing was made euill in the beginning that all euill entred into the world by the voluntary aversion of men and Angels from God their Creator that the sinne of Angels was not generall but that some fell and others continued in their first estate that the sinne of those Angels that fell is irremissible and their fall irrecouerable that these are become diuels and spirits of errour seeking the destruction of the sonnes of men that by the misperswasion of these lying spirits the first man that euer was in the world fell from God by sinfull disobedience and apostasie that the sinne of the first man is deriued to all his
are sinnes and decayes of natures integrity and consequently that concupiscence being a declining from that entire subiection to and conjunction with God is truely and properly sin whatsoeuer our adversaries teach to the contrary Fourthly that originall righteousnesse is said to bee a supernaturall quality because it groweth not out of nature and because it raiseth nature aboue it selfe But that it is naturall that is required to the integritie of nature Neither should it seeme strange to any man that a quality not growing out of nature should be required necessarily for the perfecting of natures integrity seeing the end and object of mans desires knowledge and action is an infinite thing and without the compasse bounds of nature And therefore the nature of man cannot as all other things doe by naturall force and things bred within her selfe attaine to her wished end but must either by supernaturall grace bee guided and directed to it or being left to her selfe faile of that perfection shee is capable of and fill her selfe with infinite euills defects and miseries This may suffice for refutation of the vaine and idle conceits of the Papists concerning three estates of man the one of grace the other of nature and the third of sinne Out of which we may obserue that howsoeuer they indeavour to make shew of the contrary yet indeede they thinke that concupiscence is not sinne neither in the regenerate nor vnregenerate Whereupon it is that Bellarmine speaking of the guilt of concupiscence which the Diuines say is taken away in Baptisme though the infirmity remaine saith it must be vnderstood of that guilt which causeth concupiscence not which is caused of it For saith he originall sinne maketh guilty and subjecteth men to concupiscence but concupiscence doth not make them guilty that haue it and therefore it is not sinne neither before nor after Baptisme But we say with Augustin Sicut caecitas cordis quam removet alluminator deus peccatū est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbū dignâ animadversione punitur causa peccati cùm mali aliquid caeci cordis errore cōmittitur ita concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest ei inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis As the blindnesse of heart which God remooueth when hee lightneth those that were formerly in darkenesse is a sinne in that by reason of it men beleeue not in GOD and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proude hearts of wicked men are iustly punished and a cause of sinne when erring by reason of this blindnesse of heart they doe those things that are euill so the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit doth striue and couet is a sinne because there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind and a punishment of sinne in that it falleth out by the iust iudgment of God that they who are disobedient vnto God shall finde rebellious desires in themselues and it is a cause of sinne in that men either by wicked defection consent vnto it or by reason of the generall infection of humane nature are borne in it Wee thinke therefore there should be no question made of concupiscence and other like defects and euils found in the nature of man but that they are in their owne nature sinfull defects And hereof I am well assured none of the Fathers euer doubted but how farre they are washed away and remitted in Baptisme which is the matter about which Bellarmine wrangleth and taketh exception against vs let vs now consider Alexander of Hales the first and greatest of all the Schoolemen noteth diuers things most fitly to this purpose out of which wee may easily resolue what is to bee thought of this matter First therefore hee obserueth that there are two sortes of sinnes some naturall which are in the person from the generall condition of nature some personall that are acted by the person and so defile the nature as all actuall sinnes Secondly that concupiscence is of the first kind being an euill contracted and cleauing to nature not personally acted or wrought by vs. Thirdly that concupiscence may bee considered either as it hath full dominion and is a prevailing thing in them that haue it or as it is weakened and hath lost that strength dominion and command which formerly it had Fourthly that concupiscence while it hath dominion is a sinne defiling and making guilty both the nature person in which it commaundeth all But if it lose this dominion it cleaueth to the nature only and is not imputed to the person for sinne vnlesse hee some way yeelde vnto it bee drawen by it or suffer himselfe to be weakened in well doing by the force of it Fiftly that the benefits of grace are not generall but speciall of priuiledge not freeing the whole nature of man from sin and punishment as sin corrupted and defiled all but that they extend onely personally to some certaine Sixtly that when men are borne anew in baptisme they are freed from all that sin which maketh their persons guilty before God and consequently from all punishments due to them for any thing their persons were chargeable with But because they still remaine in that nature which is of the masse of malediction therefore sin cleaueth to their nature still and they are subject to the common punishment of hunger thirst death and the like Seauenthly that the dominion of that sin which is of nature is taken away by the benefit of regeneration in Baptisme Whence it commeth that the persons of men baptized are not chargeable with it though they remaine still in that nature wherein it is And consequently that the punishments which they are subject vnto because they remaine in the communion of that nature which is not generally free from sin cease to be vnto them in the nature of destroying euils serue to diverse good purposes and turne to their great benefit So then wee say with the Fathers and best learned of the Schoolemen that concupiscence in men not regenerate is a sinne corrupting and making guilty both the nature and the person wherein it is and that in the Regenerate it cleaueth to nature as a sinne still but hauing lost the dominion it had so that it cannot make the person guilty not prevailing with it nor commaunding ouer it Regnum amittit in terra perit in caelo It is driuen from the kingdome it formerly had in the Saints of God while they yet remaine on earth but it is not vtterly destroyed till they goe from hence to heauen Thus then I hope it appeareth that wee are far from the errour of the Messalians and doe fully accord with the Catholike Church of God and that the Romanists are not far from the heresie
gazed on and adored to driue away diuels to still tempests to stay the ouerflowing of waters to quench and extinguish consuming and wasting fires But that the body of Christ is present in and with the sanctified elements onely in reference to the vse appointed that is that men should be made partakers of it This participation according to the auncient vse was first and principally in the publike assembly secondly in the primitiue Church the maner of many was to receiue the Sacrament and not to be partakers of it presently but to carrie it home with them and to receiue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian and others doe report Thirdly the maner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death This reseruation was not generally obserued as may appeare by the Canon of Clemens prescribing that so much onely should be prouided for the outward matter of the Sacraments as might suffice the Communicants and that if any thing remained it should presently be receiued by the Clergie Neither could there be any place for or vse of reseruation where there was a daily Communion as in many places there was nor in any place for such reseruation as is vsed in the Church of Rome for weekes and moneths seeing there was generally in auncient times in all places twise a weeke or at least once euery weeke a Communion from whence they might bee supplied that were absent The Romanists consecrate euery day but make their reseruations from some solemne time of communicating as Easter or the like and this not only or principally for the purpose of communicating any in the mysteries of the Lords body and blood but for circumgestation ostentation and adoration to which end the Fathers neuer vsed it Neither is that which is thus vnto this purpose reserued the body of Christ as our Diuines doe most truely pronounce The maner of the primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated elements remained so long as to be musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body no longer than they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them But the Romanists at this day as the same Rhenanus fitly obserueth would thinke it a great and horrible impietie to doe that which the Fathers then prescribed and practised So then Caluine doth thinke that the Romish reseruation doth not carry about with it the body of Christ as the Papists foolishly fancie and yet I hope is in no heresie at all Neither doeth hee any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them are not the body of Christ but saith onely that there were long since great abuses in reseruation and greater in that euery one was permitted to take the Sacrament at the hand of the publike Minister in the Church and carry it home with him which I thinke this Cardinall will not denie if hee aduisedly bethinke himselfe CHAP. 35. Of the heresie of Eutiches falsely imputed to the Diuines of Germany THe next heresie imputed vnto vs is Eutichianisme which is directly opposite and contrary to the former errour of Nestorius This hee chargeth first vpon Zuinck feldius whom wee reiect as a franticke seduced miscreant and do in no wise acknowledge him to be a member of our Churches Secondly vpon Brentius Iacobus Smidelinus and other learned Diuines of the German Churches The heresie of Eutiches was that as before so after the incarnation there was but one only nature in Christ for that the nature of God was turned into man that there was a confusion of these natures Doe any of the Germane Diuines teach this blasphemous doctrine No sayth Bellarmine not directly and in precise tearmes but indirectly and by consequent they doe If wee demaund of him what that is which they teach whence this impiety may by necessary consequence be inferred hee answereth the vbiquitary presence of the body and humane nature of Christ. For sayth he vbiquity being an incommunicable property of God it cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the diuine and humane natures But he should remember that they whom he thus odiously traduceth are not so ignorant as to thinke that the body of Christ which is a finite and limited nature is euery where by actuall position or locall extension but personally only in respect of the coniunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where This is it then which they teach That the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite limited and bounded and is locally in one place but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery-where in which sense they thinke it may truely bee said to be euery-where For the better clearing of this point we must remember that it is agreed vpon by all Catholike Divines that the humane nature of Christ hath two kindes of being the one naturall the other personall The first limited and finite the second infinite and incomprehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite subsistence and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently euery-where Thus then the body of Christ secundum esse naturale is contained in one place but secundum esse personale may rightly bee said to be euery-where It were easie to reconcile all those assertions of our Divines touching this part of Christian faith in shew so opposite one to another and to stop the mouthes of our prattling adversaries who so greedily seeke out our verball seeming differences whereas their whole doctrine is nothing else but an heap of vncertainties and contrarieties if this were a fit place But let this briefly suffice for the repelling of Bellarmines calumniation and let vs proceed to examine the rest of his objections CHAP. 36. Of the supposed heresie of Zenaias Persa impugning the adoration of Images THe next heresie hee imputeth vnto vs is the impugning of the adoration and worshipping of Images the first authour of which impiety as this impious Idolater is pleased to name it was Zenaias Persa as Nicephorus reports But whatsoeuer the Iesuite thinke Nicephorus credite is not so good
not of sense and that they are subiect to no dolour or greife inward or outward this he saith is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas and some other Schoolemen The third opinion is that they are in a sorte subiect to the punishment of sense that is to greife and dolour which floweth out of the consideration of their great and inestimable losse of eternall happines but because they cannot haue remorse not hauing lost that eternall good by their owne negligence and contempt therefore they are not subiectto that dolour that is properly named the worme that neuer dieth whereof wee reade in the ninth of Marke Their worme dieth not and their fire neuer goeth out There is a fourth opinion which is that of Augustine who sayth Wee must firmely beleeue and no way doubt that not onely men that haue had the vse of reason but infants also dying in the state of originall sinne shall bee punished with the punishment of eternall fire because though they had no sinne of their owne proper action yet they haue drawne to themselues the condemnation of originall sinne by their carnall conception To this opinion Gregorius Ariminensis inclined fearing exceedingly to depart from the doctrine of the Fathers and yet dareth not resolue any thing seeing the moderne doctours went another way And to the same opinion Driedo inclineth likewise Thus then wee see that Pelagianisme was taught in the midst of the Church wherein our Fathers liued and that not by a few but many For was not this the doctrine of many in the Church that there are foure mansions in the other world of men sequestred from God and excluded out of his presence The first ofthem that sustaine the punishment as well of sensible smart as of losse and that for euer which is the condition of them that are condemned to the lowest hell The second of those that are subiect to both these punishments not eternally but for a time onely as are they that are in purgatory The third of them that were subiect onely to the punishment of losse and that but for a time named by them Limbus patrum The fourth of such as are subiect onely to the punishment of losse but yet eternally and this named by them Limbus puerorum nay were there not that placed these in an earthly paradise and was not this Pelagianisme Surely August telleth vs that the Pelagians excluded such as were not made pertakers of Gods grace out of the kingdome of heaven and from the life of God which is the vision of God and yet supposed that they should be for euer in a kind of naturall felicity so that they imagined a third state and place betweene the kingdome of heauen and hell where they are that endure not onely the punishment of losse but of sensible smart also where they are whose worme neuer dieth and whose fire neuer goeth out and this is the opinion of Papists against which Saint Austine mightily opposeth himselfe The vnregenerate is excluded out of the kingdome of heauen where Christ remaineth that is the fountaine of the liuing Giue mee besides this another place where there may bee a perpetuall rest of life the first place the faith of Catholiques by diuine authoritie beleeueth to bee the kingdome of heauen the second Hell where euery apostata and such as are aliens from the faith of Christ shall suffer everlasting punishment but that there is any third place we are altogether ignorant neither shall wee finde in the holy Scripture that there is any such place There is the right hand of him that sitteth to iudge and the left the kingdome and hell life and death the righteous and the wicked On the right hand of the Iudge are the iust and the workers of iniquity on the left There is life to the ioy of glory and death to weeping and gnashing of teeth The just are in the Kingdome of the Father with Christ the vnrighteous in eternall fire prepared for the divell and his Angels By which words of Augustine it is euident that there is no such place to bee admitted as the Papistes imagine their Limbus puerorum to bee neither did the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died beleeue any such thing though many embraced this fancie And therefore Gregorius Ariminensis hauing proued out of Augustine and Gregory that infants that die in the state of originall sinne not remitted shall not onely suffer the punishment of losse but of sense also concludeth in this sort Because I haue not seene this question expressely determined either way by the Church and it seemeth to me a thing to be trembled at to deny the authorities of the Saints and on the contrary side it is not safe to goe against the common opinion and the consent of our great Masters therefore without peremptorie pronouncing for the one side or the other I leaue it free to the Reader to judge of this difference as it seemeth good vnto him CHAP. 8. Of the remission of originall sinne and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate IN the remission of all sinne there are two things implyed the taking away of the staine or sinfulnesse and the remouing of the punishment that for such sinfulnesse justice would bring vpon the sinner In actuall sinne there are three things considerable First an act or omission of act Secondly an habituall aversion from God and conversion to the creature remaining after the act is past till we repent of such act or omission of act and this is the staine of sinne remaining denominating the doers sinners and making them worthie of punishment And thirdly a designing to punishment after the act is past In remission therefore of actuall sinne there must bee first a ceasing from the act or omission secondly a turning to God and from the creature and thirdly for Christs sake who suffered what we deserued a taking away of the punishment that sin past made vs subject to In originall sinne there are onely two things considerable the staine or sinfulnesse and the designing of them that haue it to punishment The staine of originall sinne consisteth of two parts the one privatiue which is the want of those divine graces that should cause the knowledge loue and feare of God the other positiue and that is an habituall inclination to loue our selues more then God and inordinately to desire whatsoeuer may be pleasing to vs though forbidden and disliked by God and is named concupiscence This sin first defileth the nature and then the person in that it so misinclineth nature as that it hath the person at commaund to be swayed whether it will The remission of this sinne implieth a donation of those graces that maycause the knowledge loue and feare of God a turning of vs from the loue of our selues to the loue of God and forChrists sake a remouing of the punishment we were justly subiect to in that we had such want and inordinate inclination The donation of grace maketh
originall sinne cease so to misincline nature as formerly it did and so as to haue the person at command to be swayed whether it will it maketh it not cease to misincline nature in some sort and so to be a sinne of nature it maketh it cease to be a sinne of the person freeing it from being subiect to it and putting it into an opposition against it so that it is no farther a sinne of the person then it is apt to be ledde by it to be hindred from good or drawne to euill The nature and person are freed from the guilt of condemnation the nature in respect of the sinne that remaineth in it is subiect to punishment the person is not free from those punishments which the remaining sinne of the nature it hath bringeth vpon it as death c The person is freed from being subiect to any punishment farther then it must needes be in respect of nature So that originall sinne or concupiscence remaineth in act in the regenerate mouing to desire things not to be desired and so a sinne of nature making it subiect to punishment but it doth not remaine in act illiciendo abstrahendo mentem eiusque consensu concipiendo pariendo peccata that is it doth not so remaine in act as to allure and draw the minde and to gaine the consent of it to conceiue and bring forth sinne and so remaineth not in the guilt of condemnation nor as a sinne of the person If therefore when the question is proposed whether concupiscence in the regenerate which grace restraineth and opposeth be sinne wee vnderstand by sinne a thing that is not good an euill that is not a pvnishment onely but a vice and fault and such an euill as positiuely and priuatiuely repugneth against the law which the spirit of God writeth in the harts of the beleeuers an iniquitie a thing that God hateth and which wee must hate and resist against by the spirit that it bring not forth euill acts if wee vnderstand by sinne such a disposition of nature as God by the law of creation at first forbad and ceaseth not still to forbidde to be in the nature of man it is undoubtedly sinne a sinne I say of nature though not of person And hereunto Stapleton agreeth for whereas it is obiected out of Augustine to proue that concupiscence in the regenerate is sinne that as blindnesse of hart is a sinne in that men by reason of it beleeue not in God and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proud hart of man is punished and a cause of sinne when men through errour of their blind hart do any euill thing So that concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit opposeth good desires is a sinne in that there is in it disobedience against the minde that should command and a punishment of sinne because it was iustly brought vppon him whose disobedience against God deserued so and a cause of sinne when it obtaineth a consent hee answereth setting aside all other answers as not sufficient that concupiscence in that place is sayd by Augustine not onely to be a punishment and cause of sinne but sinne also not as if it were truly and properly a sinne making God displeased with the regenerate in whom it is but that it is a sinne of nature respecting the first integrity of it and not of the person according to that of the Apostle It is not I that do it but the sinne that dwelleth in mee that is in my flesh For the reason which hee bringeth why it is sinne doth euidently shew this Because sayth hee there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the minde it is therefore a certaine sinne or fault contrary to the integrity of nature in which there was no disobedience of the flesh as it is a fault of the eye to be dimme and of the eare to heare imperfectly And though Sapleton say he had no author to follow in this interpretation yet hee might easily haue found that Alexander of Ales long since was of the same opinion making concupiscence in the regenerate a sinne of nature and not of the person as I haue else where shewed at large If this be soe what then will some man say is the difference betweene the Romanists and those of the reformed Churches surely it is very great for these teach that concupiscence was newly brought into the nature of man by Adams sinne that in the vnregenerate it is properly sinne that it maketh them guiltie and worthy of eternall condemnation that haue it But the Romanists say it was not newly brought in by Adams fall that it is a consequent of nature that it is more free and at liberty to produce the proper effects of it now then it would haue beene if grace had not been lost but not more then it would haue beene in nature simply considered without grace or sinne and that it never made them guilty that had it These say that in the regenerate it is so far weakened as that it hath no power to sway him that is so renewed to what it pleaseth that the guilt of condemnation which it drew vpon man before his regeneration is taken away that yet still it is a sinne of nature making guilty of punishment that yet still it is hated of God and must be hated of vs But the Romanists say the guilt that is taken away is not the guilt whereby concupiscence maketh guilty but out of which it came that man deserved to haue concupiscence free and at libertie And therefore Bellarmine sayth the guilt of concupiscence may be conceiued in three sortes First To be a guilt rising from it and founded in it making him guilty that hath it as the guilt of theft is that whereby he is guilty that hath committed theft Secondly That may bee sayd to bee the guilt of concupiscence not that floweth from it but from which it floweth as if a man should cut off his hand he might be said to be guilty of the hand that is cut off not because it is a sinne making guilty to haue a hand cut off but because he is guilty of the not hauing a hand that hath cut it off himselfe so wee are to vnderstand the guilt of concupiscence not as if the hauing of it did make a man guilty but because Adam by sinne made himselfe guilty of hauing concupiscence at libertie to sollicit him to ill that was formerly restrained Thirdly the guilt of concupiscence is that which it causeth if it obtaine consent to those motions it maketh not for that a man is guilty because he hath concupiscence but because he yeeldeth to it So that according to their opinion when there is a remission of the offence that set concupiscence at liberty it is no guilt to haue it for it is naturall Foure things therefore are to be proved by vs. First That concupiscence was no condition of nature Secondly That it maketh guilty of eternall
mission and the second for the second Secondly who was fitter to be cast out into the Sea to stay the tempest then that Ionas for whose sake it arose Almighty God was displeased for the wrong offred to his Sonne in desiring to be like vnto God and to know all things in such sort as is proper to the onely begotten Sonne of the Father therefore was he the fittest to pacifie all againe Thirdly who was fitter to become the Son of man then he that was by nature the Sonne of God Patrem habuit in coelis Matrem quaesiuit in terris Hee had a Father in heauen he sought onely a mother on earth Who could bee fitter to make vs the Sonnes of God by adoption grace then he that was the Sonne of God by nature who fitter to repaire the Image of God decayed in vs then hee that was the brightnesse of glory and the engrauen forme of his Fathers Person Lastly who was fitter to bee a Mediator then the middle Person who was in a sorte a Mediator in the state of creation and before the fall Wherevpon Hugo de Sancto victore bringeth in Almighty God speaking to the Sonnes of men concerning Christ his Sonne in this sort Nolite putare quòd ipse tantùm sit Mediator in reconciliatione hominum quia per ipsum etiam commendabilis placita fit aspectui meo conditio omnium creaturarum that is thinke not that he is a Mediator onely in the reconciliation of men for by him the condition of all creatures is gratefull vnto me and pleasing in my sight Magni consilii Angelus sayth Hugo nobis mittitur vt qui conditis datus fuit ad gloriam idem perditis veniat ad medelam that is the Angell of the great Counsell is sent vnto vs that hee who was giuen vnto vs when we were made to bee the crowne of our glory and Prince of our excellency might relieue helpe and restore vs when we were lost Yet our aduersaries take I knowe not what exceptions against Caluin for saying that Christ was a Mediator in the state of creation but they should know that there is a Mediator of reconciliation of parties at variance and a Mediator of coniunction of them that are farre asunder and remote one from another and that in this later sort betweene the Father that no way receiueth any thing from another and the creatures that so receiue their being from another that they are made out of nothing hee may rightly be sayd to mediate that receiueth being from another but the same that is in him from whom he receiueth it If any man shall say that the holy Ghost also in this sort commeth betweene him in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found and the creatures that are made of nothing as well as the Sonne and that therefore in this sence he also may be said to be a Mediator it is easily answered that the Sonne onely commeth betweene the Father in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found the creatures made of nothing as he by whom all things were made the holy Ghost as he in whom all things doe consist and stand and that therefore he hath not the condition of a Mediator being not considered as he by whom all things are bestowed vpon vs but as that gift in which all other things are giuen vnto vs so that the Sonne onely is the Mediator because by him from the Father in the holy Ghost we receiue all that which we haue and enjoy Neither needeth there any Mediator to conjoyne him to vs and vs to him for the medium conjoyneth both the extremes first with it selfe and then within themselues in that it hath something of one of them and something of another in something agreeing with and in something differing from either of the extremes So the Sonne of God agreeth with vs in that hee receiueth the beeing and Essence he hath from another in which respect he is distinguished though not diuided from the Father but in that the nature he receiueth from the Father is not another but the same which the Father hath he is vnlike vnto vs but agreeth with the Father And here we may see the malice and ignorance of them that charge Caluine with heresie for affirming that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe as if hee denyed the eternall generation of the Sonne of God and were contrary to the decree of the sacred Nicene Councell which defineth that he is Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine for these men should know that Christ may be sayd to be from another in two sortes either by production of Essence or by communication of Essence the Nicene Councell defined that Christ the Sonne of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is consubstantiall with the Father is notwithstanding God of God that is hath his Essence Deitie communicated vnto him by eternall generation from the Father euen the same the Father had originally in himselfe All which Caluine most willingly acknowledgeth to be true and therefore denyeth not but that it may bee truely sayd according to the sacred decree and definition of that worthy Councell that Christ the Sonne of God is God of God and light of light but to imagine as Valentinus Gentilis and other damnable heretickes did that he is from the Father by production of Essence whence it will follow that he hath not the same essence with the Father but another different from it inferior to it and dependant on it is impious and hereticall and in opposition to this impious conceit of these Hereticks and in the sense intended by them Caluine rightly denied Christ to bee God of God For this their conceipt was euer detested by all Catholiques as wicked blasphemous yea so farre are they from approuing any such impiety that no axiome is more common in all their Schooles then that Essentia nec generat nec generatur that is the diuine Essence neither generateth nor is generated and surely howsoeuer Kellison in his Suruey saith the contrary and opposeth his affirmatiue against the negatiue of all the most famous and renowned Schoole-men yet I am perswaded he did so rather out of ignorance then any reason leading him so to doe do thinke it more then improper and hard to say that the diuine Essence doth either generate or is generated Thus then Christ is truly sayd by Caluine to be God of himselfe by way of opposition to that kinde of being from another which is by production of Essence and yet is rightly acknowledged by him with the Nicene Fathers to be from another to wit the Father and to be God of God in that he receiueth the eternall Essence by communication from him This Bellarmine saw and acknowledged to bee true pronouncing that touching this point Calvin erred not in judgment that his opinion is rather an error in forme of words expressing ill that he
he did for vs in our nature thus assumed was the mediating betweene God and vs that hee might reconcile vs vnto God For the better vnderstanding whereof wee must obserue what it is to mediate and the diuerse kindes of mediation Mediation is by all sayd then to be performed when one interposeth himselfe betweene such as are at variance to reconcile them or at least betweene such as haue no friendly intercourse to joyne them in a league of friendship and amitie The mediation that is betweene them at variance the end whereof is reconciliation is performed foure wayes First by discerning and iudging the matters of quarrell and dislike that diuide and estrange them one from another Secondly by reporting from one of the parties to the other the conditions vpon which either of them may come to an agreement with the other in which sense Moses sayth vnto the children of Israel I was a mediator at that time betweene God and you and the Apostle sayth in the Epistle to the Galathians The Law was giuen by Angels in the hand of a mediatour Thirdly by intreating one party for another and fourthly by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other All these wayes Christ may be sayd to haue bin a Mediatour between God vs. For first he interposed hiâ—…selfe as an Arbitrator betweene God and vs soe ordering the matters of difference betweene vs that God should accept our repentance faith and purpose of amendment and that we should not only repent vs of the euils past and prostrate at the feete of his Majesty intreate for mercy but make a Couenant also with our selues and bind our selues by a solemne vowe neuer to cast his lawes behinde our backe any more Secondly he put himselfe betweene God and us by reporting Gods pleasure vnto vs and what he requireth of vs and by reporting vnto God our submissiue yeelding of our selues to do that he requireth Thirdly hee performed the worke of a Mediator by intreating the one party to be reconciled to the other in that He makath request for vs as it is in the Epistle to the Romanes and is our Aduocate as it is in the Epistle of S. Iohn Lastly hee mediated by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other and this kind of mediation was proper to Christ alone according to that of the Apostle He was made sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him These being the diuerse kinds wherein Christ mediateth betweene God and vs for the better vnderstanding of the nature and force of his mediation two things are to be obserued First what the nature of Medium that is a meane betweene two extreames is and secondly how and according to which nature Christ was a Mediatour between God and vs. A medium or meane betweene two extrreames is of three sorts The first when two extremes or contraries concurre and meete in a third nature arising and growing out of the mixture of them both as white blacke being contrary colours do meet and concurre in the middle colours in this sort there can be no meane betweene God vs. The second when some qualities or properties of either of the extremes or opposites are found in a third thing and so Christ as Man was a meane between God and Men For in his humane nature was found righteousnes wherein he was like to God miserie wherein he was like to meÌ„ To which purpose that is that S. Aug. hath wheÌ„ he saith Christus est Mediator inter Deum homines Quid est Deus Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus Quid sunt homines Peccatores impii mortales Inter illam Trinitatem hominum infirmitatem iniquitatem Mediator factus est homo non iniquus sed tamen infirmus vt ex eo quòd non iniquus iungeret te Deo in eo quòd infirmus propinquaret tibi that is Christ is a Mediator between God Men What is God but the Father Sonne and holy Ghost What are Men but sinners wicked ones subiect vnto death Betweene that Trinitie therefore and the infirmitie and iniquitie of men that Man became a Mediatour that was not sinfull but infirme that in that he was not sinfull he might joyne thee to God and in that he was infirme hee might draw neare vnto thee The third when both extremes concurre meete in the same person and in this sort Christ is most properly a meane or of a middle condition betweene God and vs in that both the natures of God man do concurre and are conjoyned in his Person And to this purpose excellent is that of Hugo de S. Victore The Apostle saith he saith A Mediatour is not a Mediatour of one Duo enim erant Deus Homo Diuersi Aduersi Deus erat iustus Homo iniustus in hoc nota aduersos Homo erat miser Deus beatus in hoc nota diuersos Sic igitur Homo aduersus Deo erat per iniquitatem diuersus á Deo per miseriam That is For God man were two diuerse and different aduerse contrary one to the other God was just man vniust in this obserue their contrariety Man was miserable God blessed in this note their diuersity and difference So therefore man was both aduerse and contrary vnto God in respect of iniquitie and diuerse and different from God in respect of misery And therefore in this behalfe needed a Mediator vnto God that hee might be reconciled and brought backe vnto him but the dispatch of this businesse of reconciling them that were so greatly at variance no man could conueniently and fitly vndertake who was not nearely conioyned by the bands of friendly Societie peaceable agreement with both the parties For this cause therefore the Sonne of God became Man that he might be a Mediatour of reconciliation and peace between man God Suscepit humanitatem per quam hominibus appropinquaret retinuit Diuinitatem per quam á Deo non recederet factus homo sustinuit poenam vt demonstraret affectum seruauit iustitiam vt conferret remedium that is hee tooke vnto him the nature of a Man that therein he might draw neare vnto men and retained the nature of God that so he might not depart from God Being made Man hee suffered punishment to shew his affection but kept himselfe just and vnworthy of punishment that he might helpe and relieue others Againe the same Hugo proceedeth goeth forward excellently expressing the concurrence of the natures of God man in the vnity of Christs person in this sort Verbum quod cum Patre Deo vnum erat per ineffabilem vnitatem cum homine assumpto vnum factum est per admirabilem vnionem Vnitas in naturâ Vnio in personâ Cum Patre Deo vnum in naturâ non in Personâ Cum homine assumpto vnum in personâ non in naturâ Assumpsit ex
to glorifie God as much as he dishonoured him before and God accepteth weake indeauours as sufficient in this kind CHRIST hauing perfectly satisfied for us as a publicke person may accept of a meane and weake satisfaction for the wrong done to him but must inflict punishment answerable to the fault to satisfie publique justice offended by that wrong Wherefore passing from this kinde of satisfaction let vs speake of that other that God requireth standing in the suffering of punishments due to sinne Some define this kind of satisfaction to be the suffering of the punishments that God inflicteth or wherewith a man voluntarily punisheth himselfe but this is not a good definition For as a thiefe or murtherer may not lay violent hands on himself be his owne executioner when he hath offended to satisfie publique Iustice but must submit himself to that which authority will lay on him so it is so farre frō being any satisfaction to Gods Iustice for a man when he hath sinned to become his own executioner to punish himselfe for his sin to satisfie the Iustice of God that it highly displeaseth God It is true indeede that we may lawfully afflict our selues not to satisfie Gods Iustice but to purge out the drosse of that sinfull impuritie that cleaueth to vs and to cure the wounds of our soules as wee may afflict our selues by fasting watching and abstaining from many things otherwise lawfull for the freeing of our selues from the remaines of our former excessiue and immoderate delight in eating drinking surfeiting and riot other abuses of the good creatures of God So that we must not define satisfaction to bee the suffering of those punishments that God inflicteth or wherewith the sinner punisheth himself for it is only the sustaining of those that God in Iustice doth inflict And in this sort Christ satisfied his Fathers wrath not by punishing himself but by being obedient to his Father euen vnto the death Wherefore let vs proceed more particularly to consider the satisfactory sufferings of Christ see first what punishments Christ suffered to pacifie his Fathers wrath and secondly what the manner of his passion was Touching the punishments that Christ suffered they were not ordinary but beyond measure grievous bitter insupportable yea such as would haue made any meere creature to sinke down vnder the burthen of thē to the bottome of Hell For he suffered grieuous things from all the things in Heauen Earth Hell in all that any way pertained to him He suffered at the hands of God his Father and of Men of Iewes of Gentiles of enemies insulting of friends forsaking of the Prince of darknes all his cruell mercilesse instruments of the elements of the world the Sun denying to giue him light the aire breath the earth supportance Hee suffered in all that pertained to him In his name being condemned as a blasphemer as an enemy to Moses the Law the Temple worship of God to his own Nation to Caesar the Romans a glutton a cōpanion with Publicans sinners a Samaritan one that had a Diuell did all his miracles by the power of Beelzebub In the things he possessed when they stripped him out of his garments cast lots on his seamelesse coate In his friends greatly distressed discomforted with the sight of those things that fell out vnto him according to that which was prophesied before The Shepheard shall be smitten the sheep shall be scattered In his body when his hands feete were nailed his sides goared his head pierced with the crown of thorns his cheeks swollen with buffering his face defiled with spitting vpon his eyes offended with beholding the scornefull behauiour of his proud insulting enemies his eares with hearing the wordes of their execrable blasphemy his taste with the myrrhe gall that they gaue him in his drinke his smell with the stinch and horrour of the place wherein he was crucified being a place of dead mens skuls Lastly in his soule distressed with feares compassed about with sorrowes besetting him on euery side that euen vnto death In so wofull sort did he take on him our defects and suffer our punishments But because we may as well enlarge and amplifie Christs passions and sufferings too much as extenuate them too much let vs see if it bee possible the vttermost extent of that he suffered For the clearing hereof some say that he suffered all those punishments that were beseeming him or behoofefull for vs that hee suffered all those punishments that neither prejudice the plenitude of sanctitie nor science But that wee may the better informe our selues touching this point wee must obserue that the punishments of sinne are of three sorts First Culpa Secondly ex culpa ad culpam Thirdly ex culpa sed nec culpa nec ad culpam that is First sinne Secondly something proceeding from sinne and inducing to sin Thirdly things proceeding from sin that neither are sins nor incline and induce to sinne Examples of the first are Enuie afflicting the mind of the proud man grieuous disorders accompanying the drunkard and a reprobate sense following the contempt of Gods worshippe and seruice Of the second naturall concupiscence pronenesse to euill difficulty to doe good contrariety in the faculties of the soule and repugnance and resistance of the meaner against the better Examples of the third which are things proceeding from sin but neither sinnes nor inclinations to sinne are hunger thirst weakenesse nakednesse and death it selfe The punishments of this last sort onely Christ suffered and neither of the former two for neither was there sin in him nor any thing inclining him to euill or discouraging him from good The punishments of this kinde are of two sorts Naturall and Personall Naturall are such as follow the whole nature of man as hunger thirst labour wearinesse and death it selfe Personall are such as grow out of some imperfection and defect in the vertue and faculty forming the body disorder in diet or some violence offered and these are found but in some particular men and not in all men generally as Leprosies Agues Gowts the like All those punishments that are punishments only that are from without and that are common to the whole nature of Men Christ suffered that came to bee a Redeemer of all without respect of persons but such as flow from sin dwelling within or proceed from particular causes or are proper to some and not common to all hee suffered not The punishments that are punishments onely and not sinne and are common to the whole nature of man are likewise of two sorts for either they are suffered for sinne imputed or sinne inherent For one may bee punished either for his owne fault or the fault of another in some sort imputed to him When a man is punished for his owne fault hee hath remorse of conscience blaming and condemning him as hauing brought such euils vpon himselfe by
bound of all his desires and yet in a sort not being come vnto it because howsoeuer he was perfectly joyned with God affectione iustitiae that is with that affection that yeeldeth vnto God the praise honour and loue that is due vnto him and saw him face to face with cleare and perfect vision yet hee was not so fully joyned to him as he is to be enjoyed affectione commodi that is with that affection that seeketh after pleasing delight but that hee suffered many bitter grieuous and vnpleasant things fasting watching weeping wearying himselfe in all which respects being extra terminū that is not yet come to the vttermost extent bound of that is desired he was in state of meriting But because the enduring of these bitter grieuous afflictiue euils may seem rather to pertain to the nature of satisfactiō then merit therfore they adde that howsoeuer in respect of the perfectiō of his Diuine Heauenly vertues he were in termino that is come to the vttermost bound extent thereof yet in the expressing of the actions of thē he fitted himself to the conditiō of men here below as appeared in the actiōs of his loue obediēce in that he gaue himself for the pacifying of his Fathers wrath the satisfying of his Iustice the promeriting of our good besides he had the actiōs of many vertues that are proper to the conversation of this world whereof there is no vse in Heauen or in Heauen-happinesse but in the way and journey towardes Heauen as Temperance Sobriety Fortitude Patience and the Obseruation of the ceremoniall and judiciall Law in which respect he may very properly be said to haue been in a state of meriting and to haue merited Wherefore presupposing that Christ might and did merite let vs see whether hee merited any thing for himselfe The Papists impute I know not what impiety to Caluine because he saith Christ merited not for himselfe but for vs onely vrge against him that saying of the Apostle when he saith that Christ humbled himselfe was made obedient vnto death euen the death of the Crosse and that therefore God exalted him and gaue him a name aboue euery name Wherefore let vs take a view of that they teach touching this point that so wee may the better discerne whether Caluine be justly blamed by them or not The Schoolemen generally agree that Christ neither did nor could merite the grace of personall vnion the habituall perfections of his humane Soule or the vision of God because hee possessed all these from the beginning it would haue beene a matter of more imperfection to haue wanted any of them at the first then of perfection to haue gotten them by merite afterwards Yet the Master of Sentences others resolue that hee did procure vnto himselfe by his merite the impassibility and glorification of his Body But Scotus very acutely and wittily objecteth against them that so think that Christ cannot be sayd to haue merited the impassibility glorification of his body because they would haue beene found in it from the very first instant of the vnion of the Natures of God and Man in him by vertue of that union before any act of his had not the naturall consequence and flowing of them from that vnion beene stayed and hindered by speciall dispensation for the working of our saluation and therefore he sayth that if we will defend the Ma ster of Sentences from errour in this point we must soe construe his words as that Christ did not directly merit glorification and impassibility but onely the remouing of that miraculous stay of the naturall redundance of glory from his Soule filled with the happy vision of his Deitie into his body But surely this fauourable construction will not helpe the matter for seeing the miraculous stay of the redundance of glory from the Soule of Christ into his body was of it selfe to cease when that should be performed for the effecting whereof such stay was made he could no more merit such remoue of stay then the glory it selfe that in respect of the grace of personall vnion would as naturally haue beene communiated to his body as it was in his Soule had not God for speciall purpose stayed and hindred such redundance So that wee shall find that how soeuer the Papists do presse certaine testimonies of Scripture as if they would proue out of them that Christ meritted the name aboue all names and the fullnesse of all power both in heauen and in earth which hee could no more merit then to be God yet in the end they are forced to confesse soe great is the truth which will euer preuaile that he neither meritted the personall vnion of his two natures the perfection of his habituall graces the vision of God nor the glorification of his body but onely the remouing of that stay and impediment that hindred the flowing of Glory from his soule into his body finding that this stay or hinderance was to cease of it self so soon as the work of our Redēptiō should be wrought consequētly that he could not merit it they flie for helpe to a distinctiō of merits which they make to be of 3 sorts For there is as they say one kind of merit that maketh a thing due which was not due before another that maketh a thing more due thē it was before a 3d that maketh a thing more waies due thē at first it was The 2 first kinds of merit they cōfesse did not agree to Christ there being nothing that was not due vnto him in as high degree in the beginning as euer it was afterwards But they say that he merited in the 3d sort or kind in that he made those things that were due vnto him as consequents of the personall vnion of his 2 natures to be due vnto him as a reward of his passion This truly is a very silly evasiō seeing that cānot be a reward of a mans labors that was due to him in as high degree before as after his work is don He that labouteth in the field or vineyard of another man she that nourisheth a child that is not her owne trauaile both in hope of reward but that reward must of necessity be some thing that was not due to them before such trauaile yea he that dresseth his owne vine she that nourisheth her owne children looke to the recompense of reward but that reward is no other thing but the prosperity and increase of their fields and vineyards and the grouth of their children like the Oliue branches round about their their table which without such paines and trauaile they could not looke for In like sort a Man may say to his child this land shall be the reward of thy dutifull behauiour if he haue power to put it from him if his behauiour be not dutiefull but if he haue not it is ridiculous to promise it as a reward seeing a
gratiâ infinita increata That is Christ merited for all sufficiently on his part in that grace was found in him not as in a particular man but as in the Head of the whole Church for which cause the fruit of his passion might redound to all the members of the same Church and because as Damascene sayth by reason of the vnion of the natures of God and Man in his Person he doth the workes of a man in a more excellent sort then any meere man can do the benefite and force of his working and operation extended to the whole nature of Man which the action of a meere man cannot do The reason of which difference is not to be attributed to any habituall created grace but to that which is increate for that the finite grace that is in Christ that is his vertue and worke of vertue is availeable for the good of many it is from his infinite and increate Grace CHAP. 21. Of the benefits which wee receiue from Christ. HAuing spoken of the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ it remaineth that we speake of the benefites which we receiue from him which are all most fully expressed by the name of redemption which is the freeing of vs from that miserable bondage and captiuity wherein we were formerly holden by reason of Adams sin This bondage was twofold first in respect of sin and secondly in respect of punishment In respect of sinne we were bondmen to Sathan whose will we did according to that of the Apostle His seruants ye are to whom ye obey In respect of punishment we were become bondmen to Almighty God the righteous Iudge of the world who vseth Sathan as an instrument of his wrath and an Executioner of his dreadfull Iudgments against such as do offend him and prouoke him to wrath These being the kinds of captivity and bondage wherein we were holden it will not be hard to see how we are freed and redeemed from the same There is no redemption as the Diuines do note but either by exchange of prisoners by force and strong hand or by paying of a price Redemption by exchange of prisoners is then when wee set free those whom we hold as captiues taken from our Enemies that they may make free such as they hold of ours and this kind of redemption hath no place in the deliuerance of sinnefull men from sinne and misery but their deliuerance is onely wrought by strong hand and paying of a price For Christ redeemed vs from the bondage of sinne in that by the force and working of his grace making vs dislike it hate it repent of it and leaue it he violently tooke vs out of Sathans hands who tyrannically and vnjustly had taken possession of vs but from the bondage of punishment in respect whereof we were become Bondmen to Almighty God hee redeemed vs not by force and strong hand but by paying a price satisfying his justice and suffering what our sinnes had deserued that so being pacified towards vs he migh cease to punishvs and discharge Sathan who was but the Executioner of his wrath from afflicting vs any longer In this sort do wee conceiue of the worke of our redemption wrought for vs by Christ and therefore it is absurdly and vntruely sayd by Matthew Kellison in his late published Suruey of the supposed new religion that we make Christ an absurd Redeemer for we speake no otherwise of Christ the Redeemer then we haue learned in the Church and House of God But for the satisfaction of the Reader let vs see how he goeth about to conuince vs of such absurdity as hee chargeth vs with The Protestants sayth he do teach thē which nothing can be more absurd that Christs passion was our Iustice Merit Satisfactiō that there is no Iustice but Christs no good workes but his workes no merit but his merite no satisfaction but his satisfaction that there is noe justice or sanctitie inherent in man nor none necessary that no Lawes can bind vs because Christs death was the ransome that freed us from all Lawes Diuine Humane that no sinnes nor euil workes can hurt vs because Christs Iustice being ours no sinnes can make vs sinners that no Hell or Iudgment remaineth for vs whatsoeuer wee doe because Christs Iustice being ours sins can neither be imputed to vs in this life nor punished in the next and that herein consisteth Christian liberty A more shamelesse slanderer and trifling smatterer I thinke was neuer heard of For some of these assertions are vndoubted truths against which no man may oppose himselfe vnlesse he will be branded with the marke of impiety and blasphemy as that Christs passion is our justice merite and satisfaction that there is no merite properly soe named but Christs merite no propitiatory and expiatory satisfaction but Christs satisfaction and the other are nothing else but shamelesse and hellish slaunders and meere deuices and fancies of his idle braine without all ground of truth as that there is no justice nor sanctity inherent in Man nor none necessary that good workes are not necessary that noe lawes canne binde vs that noe sinnes nor euill workes canne hurt vs and that no hell nor judgment remaineth for vs whatsoeuer wee doe For we most constantly affirme and teach that there is both justice and sanctity inherent in Man though not so perfect as that hee may safely trust vnto it desire to bee judged according to the perfection of it in the day of Tryall Likewise wee teach that good workes are in such sort necessary to saluation that without Holinesse a desire at the least to performe the workes of sanctification no man shall euer see God Neither doe we say that no Lawes can binde vs as he slaunderously misreporteth vs but wee constantly teach that not to doe the things contained prescribed in the Law of God is damnable damning sinne if God vpon our repentance forgiue it not And therefore Bellarmine though hee wrongeth vs in like sort as Kellison doth yet in the end like an honest man he confesseth ingenuously that he doth wrong vs and sheweth at large that Luther in his booke de votis Monasticis defineth the liberty of a Christian to consist not in being freed from the duty of doing the things prescribed in the Law of God as if at his pleasure he might doe them or leaue them vndone but in that there are no works forbidden in the Law that may stand with Faith so euill that they can condemne vs nor none there prescribed performed by vs so good as to cleare defend justifie vs So making vs free non ab operibus faciendis sed defendentibus accusantibus that is not from the necessitie of doing the things that are commaunded as good but from seeking justification in workes or fearing condemnation for such euil workes as wee consent not fully vnto but dislike resist against and seeke remission of Whereunto Caluin agreeth teaching that Christian
man the things that are humane without diuision confusion or conuersion of one of thē into another that the differences of these natures remaine inuiolable But in that he denyeth that there are two actions in Christ the one of Deity and the other of Humanity in that he saith it is absurd to thinke that where there are more natures then one there must be more actions then one and alloweth of Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria and Sergius Bishop of Constantinople who were Monothelites rather then of Sophronius Bishoppe of Hierusalem a right worthy and learned Bishop who defended the truth against them both and whose learned Epistle to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople we finde in the sixth generall Councel it cannot be avoided but that he erred in matter of faith in such sort as by consequence it ouerthroweth that distinction of the two natures of God man in Christ which hee seemed to acknowledge Neither can it be cleared from suspition of hereticall bad meaning that he maketh it but a curiosity of philosophers to acknowledge a twofold action in Christ denieth that the fathers euer defined any such thing whereas Pope Martine the first in the Synode of Rome saith it is cleare by the determination of the Fathers that the two natures of Christ remaine vnconfounded in the vnion vndiuided as also his two wills and the two distinct actions naturall properties of them Maximus in his disputation with Pyrrhus found in the second Tome of the Councells cleareth one sentence of Honorius wherein hee seemeth to acknowledge but one will in Christ affirming out of the testimony of him that wrote that Epistle for Honorius that hee meant it of one will of the humane nature of Christ thereby shewing that there was no such contrariety of desires found in him as in vs. But what is that to the other things that are obiected to him Two obiections our Aduersaries haue against them who thinke that Honorius was condemned for heresie The first is that the sixth generall Councell could not condemne him without being contrary to it selfe in allowing the Epistle of Agatho wherein he saith that the faith neuer failed in Peters chaire and that his predecessours did alwayes confirme their brethren The second that some Writers speaking of the Monothelites and naming diuers of them omit him that Maximus in his Dialogue against Pyrrhus Theophanes Isaurus in his History cited by Onuphrius and Emmanuel Chalica in his booke in the defence of the Latines against the Greekes affirme he was euer a catholicke some other as Beda Anastasius Bibliothecarius Blondus Nauclerus Sabellicus Platina doe speake of him as of a Catholicke Bishop The first of these obiections I haue answered else-where shewing that some of Agathoes predecessours might for some short space faile to doe their duty in confirming their brethren swarue from the trueth and yet that be true he saith in that Epistle that in the See it selfe the faith neuer failed and that his predecessours fell not either so many or in such sort but that the Bishoppes of that Church did euer reach forth their helping hands to other either in the beginning of each heresie or before it was vtterly extinct and suppressed as it fell out in this both in respect of Pope Martine and others before and of himselfe now To the second wee say that it doth not seeme to be strongly proved that Honorius was no hereticke by the silence of some few That Maximus doth not cleare Honorius generally but one sentence of Honorius onely That Theophanes Isaurus doth not goe about to cleare Honorius from heresie but saith onely that the Canons of the sixth Councell were not made by the same Fathers that were at first assembled but by others So speaking nothing of Honorius who was condemned in the Councell and not in the canons and that the rest to wit Chalica and some few other liuing long after the time of Honorius are no sufficient proofe against that cloud of witnesses which wee produced in the beginning And therefore there is yet nothing brought to reproue the testimony of onr witnesses or to make good that hee was alwayes a catholicke which is the thing to be proued With Honorius wee may joyne Gregory the third who in his Epistle to Bonifacius giueth leaue to a man whose wife falleth into some such infirmity as maketh her vnfit to company with him to marry another so that hee giue her maintenance And that he speaketh not of any impediment before marriage not knowne which maketh the contract voyde from the beginning but of such infirmities as fall out afterwards it is evident First in that he saith If any mans wife shall be taken with such infirmity c. Secondly in that he prouideth That the husband shall prouide for her maintenance which in case of a voyde contract from the beginning is no way reasonable Thirdly in that he saith He shall thus prouide for her seeing infirmity and not wickednesse driueth him from her Fourthly in that he saith It were better he should containe seeing in case of abuse by vnknowne defect and impediment making the contract void from the beginning there is no more cause why a man so abused should containe and refraine from marriage then any other Now to permit marriage by reason of any defect or infirmity ensuing after the first marriage I thinke our Adversaries will not deny to be erroneous seeing the contrary is defined in the Councell of Trent Neither doth it excuse this errour of Gregory that Bellarmine alleadgeth out of Austin who maketh some doubt whether the wife with her husbands consent yeelding to the wicked desires of him in whose hands he is to saue his life bee excusable from sin seeing he doth but vpon a particular accident propose a disputable question and the other resolueth and giueth warrant for the practise of an vnlawfull thing and that as a Pope in his directions to Bonifacius hauing newly converted certaine barbarous people to the faith of Christ. Wherefore let vs proceede to see whether therebe any moe Popes that may justly be charged with errour or heresie Wee reade in the stories of the Church that one Formosus Bishop of Portua being hardly thought of and suspected by Iohn the Pope left his Bishopricke and fled for feare of him that being called backe by Iohn refusing to returne he was anathematized by him that at last comming into France to satisfie the Pope he was degraded and put into a Lay habite and made to sweare neuer to enter into Rome any more nor euer to communicate but as a Lay man yet afterwards by Martinus Iohns successour he was restored to his Bishopricke absolued from his oath came to Rome and in the end obtained to be Pope contrary to the mindes of many of the Romanes who desired rather to haue had one Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome but prevailed not
French King The Councell of Aruerne by the permission of the King Theodobertus The Fifth of Orleans by Childebert The first of Bracar by Ariamirus or as some will haue it Theodomirus The second of Turon with the conniuence of the King The second of Bracar by Ariamirus The first Cabilon Councell by the mandate of Gunthram as likewise that of Matiscon and Valentia The third of Toledo by Richaredus The Councels of Narbone and Caesar-Augusta by Richaredus King of Sueueland Many other examples might be produced but these suffice to shew what the ancient practise was and what Christian Princes in former times tooke vpon them in this behalfe And that they did lawfully so to intermeddle it appeareth in that S. Gregory writing to Theodoricus exhorteth him by the crowne of life to call Councels and reforme abuses Wherefore let vs proceede to see who called the Generall Councells that haue bin holden in the Christian Church Hauing perused sayth Cusanus the Actes of all the General Councels to the Eighth inclusiuely which Eighth was holden in the time of Basilius the Emperour I find that they were all called by the Emperours Whereupon sayth hee Elias the most holy Presbyter that supplyed the place of the Bishop of Hierusalem sayd openly in the Eighth Generall Councell in the hearing of all that Emperours did euer call Councels and that Basilius was not inferiour to those that went before him in the care of prouiding for the Church by Synodall meetings And Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper in his Glosse vpon the same place saith that the Emperors were wont to call Councells out of the whole world Which thing is so cleare that Hierome writing against Ruffinus and taking exception againsta certaine Councell biddeth him say what Emperour it was that commaunded that Councell to be called and therefore Bellarmine confesseth it and giueth foure reasons why it was so whereof the first is for that there was an Imperiall Law that there should not bee any great Assemblies without the Emperours priuity consent and authority for feare of sedition The second for that all those Cities in which such Councels might bee holden being the Emperours they might not bee holden without his consent The third for that the Councells were holden at the Emperours charges both in respect of carriages and the diet and intertainment of the Bishops during the time of their being in Councell as Eusebius in the life of Constantine doth testifie and Theodoret in his Historie The fourth for that it was fitte the Popes in those times acknowledging the Emperours to bee their Soueraigne Lords should as we reade they did as suppliants beseech them to commaund Councells to be called And surely if wee had neither his confession nor reasons we neede not doubt hereof hauing the testimony of all stories to confirme the same For Ruffinus saith Constantine called the Councell of Bishops at Nice and with him Theodoret agreeth saying expressely that Constantine called the noble Synode of Nice and Eusebius in his booke of the life of Constantine affirming that by his letters most honorably written he drew together the Bishoppes out of all parts marshalling them as a mighty army ofGod to encounter the enemies of the true faith The occasion of calling this Councell was the Heresie of Arrius denying the Sonne ofGod to bee consubstantiall with the Father The next Generall Councell after this was the first at Constantinople called for the suppressing of the Heresie of Macedonius and Eunomius who denied the holy Ghost to be God co-essentiall and co-eternall with the Father and this Councell was called by Theodosius the elder as Theodoret testifieth The third was holden at Ephesus and called by Theodosius the Younger at the suite of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople fearing the proceedings of Cyrill Bishoppe of Alexandria and Caelestinus Bishop of Rome against him The Fourth Councell was holden at Cahlcedon and called by Martian the Emperour The occasion was this In the time of Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople the Heresie of Eutyches beganne about which a Prouinciall Councell was called at Constantinople whereunto vnfortunate Eutyches being called was found to haue vttered horrible blasphemies for hee affirmed that howsoeuer before the personall vnion there were two distinct natures in Christ yet after the vnion there was but one and besides affirmed that his body was not of the same substance with ours Whereupon hee was put from the Ministery of the Church and degree of Priest-hood But not enduring thus to bee depriued of his place and honour he complaineth to Theodosius the Emperour pretending that Flauianus had fained and deuised matters against him and rested not till hee procured a Synode at Constantinople of the neighbour Bishoppes to re-examine the matters who confirming that which was formerly done another by hīs procurement was called at Ephesus by Theodosius and Dioscorus Bishoppe of Alexandria made President of it In which Councell all thinges were carried in a very disordered violent sorte for Dioscorus permitted not the Bishoppes to speake freely neither would hee suffer the letters of the Bishoppe of Rome who was absent to bee read such Bishoppes as he disliked he violently cast out of the Councell retayned none but such as were fitte to serue his turne Hee deposed Flauianus Bishoppe of Constantinople Eusebius of Dorileum Domnus Bishop of Antioch and Theodoret with sundry other The Legates of the Bishop of Rome offended with these violent proceedings protested against them as vnlawfull and Flauianus who was not only depriued but so beaten that not long after hee died appealed to the Bishoppe of Rome other Bishops of the West for helpe and remedy vpon the hearing of which complaints Leo then Bishop of Rome with many other Bishops of the West went to the Emperour and in most humble and earnest manner vpon their knees besought him to call a Councell in Italy which he would not yeeld vnto but called one at Chalcedon commaunding him and all other Bishops to come vnto it The fift Councell was holden at Constantinople and called by Iustinian the Elder as Euagrius testifieth I haue shewed before what the occasion of calling this councell was and that though Vigilius Bishop of Rome and the Westerne Bishops refused to bee present in it together with the rest or to confirme it when it ended yet it was holden a lawfull councell The sixt Generall councell was holden at Constantinople and was called by Constantine the fourth as appeareth by his letters to the Bishopps of Rome Constantinople and the rest prefixed before it The occasion whereof was the Heresie of the Monothelites who denied the diuersity of wills actions and operations in Christ consequently of natures The seuenth was holden at Nice about the vse of Pictures in the church and called by Constantine the Emperour as appeareth by his Epistle to Adrian Bishop of Rome prefixed before it
in appointing some selected men for the visitation of the rest Fourthly in joyning temporall menincommission with the spirituall guides of the church to take view of and to censure the actions of men of Ecclesiasticall order because they are directed not onely by Canons but lawes Imperiall Fifthly when matters of fact are obiected for which the canons and lawes Imperiall judge men depriueable the Prince when hee seeth cause and when the state of things require it either in person if he please or by such other as hee thinketh fitte to appoint may heare and examine the proofes of the same and either ratifie that others did or voyd it as wee see in the case of Caecilianus to whom it was objected that hee was a Traditor and Faelix Antumnitanus that ordayned him was so likewise and that therefore his ordination was voyd For first the enemies of Caecilianus disliking his ordination made complaintes against him to Constantine and hee appointed Melchiades and some other Bishoppes to sitte and heare the matter From their judgement there was a new appeale made to Constantine Whereupon hee sent to the Proconsull to examine the proofes that might bee produced But from his iudgmēt the complainants appealed the third time to Constantine who appointed a Synode at Arle All this hee did to giue satisfaction if it were possible to these men and so to procure the peace of the Church And though he excused himselfe for medling in these businesses and asked pardon for the same for that regularly hee was to haue left these iudge ments to Ecclesiasticall persons yet it no way appeareth that hee did ill in interposing himselfe in such sort as hee did the state of things being such as it was nor that the Bishoppes did ill that yeelded to him in these courses and therefore in cases of like nature Princes may doe whatsoeuer hee did and Bishops may appeare before them and submit themselues to their iudgement though in another case Ambrose refused to present himselfe before Valentinian the Emperour for tryall of an Ecclesiasticall cause Neither is it strange in our state that Kinges should intermedle in causes Ecclesiasticall For Matthew Paris sheweth that the ancient lawes of England prouided that in appeales men should proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishoppe from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop and that if the Arch-bishop should faile in doing iustice the matter should be made knowne to the King that by vertue of his commandement it might receiue an end in the Arch-bishops Court that there might be no further proceeding in appeales without the Kings consent From the power which Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall let vs proceed to the power they haue ouer persons Ecclesiasticall and see whether they be supreame ouer all persons or whether men of the Church bee exempt from their iurisdiction That they are not exempted by GODS law wee haue the cleare confession of Cardinall Bellarmine and others who not onely yeeld so farre vnto the trueth forced so to doe by the cleare euidence thereof but proue the same by Scripture and Fathers The Cardinals wordes are these Exceptio Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona iure humano introducta est non diuino that is The exemption of Cleargy-men in things ciuill as well in respect of their persons as their goods was introduced brought in by mans law and not by the law of God Which thing is proued first out of the precept of the Apostle to the Romanes Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and addeth Therefore pay yee tribute For when the Apostle saith Let euery soule be subiect hee includeth Cleargy-men as Chrysostome witnesseth and therefore when hee addeth for this cause pay yee tribute he speaketh of Cleargy-men also Whence it will follow that Cleargy-men are bound to pay tribute vnlesse they be exempted by the fauour and priviledge of Princes freeing them from so doing which thing Thomas Aquinas also affirmeth writing vpon the same place Secondly the same is proued out of the Ancient For Vrbanus saith The tribute money was therefore found in the mouth of the fish taken by Saint Peter because the Church payeth tribute out of her outward and earthly possessions And Saint Ambrose saith if tribute bee demaunded it is not denyed the Church-Land payeth tribute Now if Vrbanus Bishoppe of Rome and worthy Ambrose Bishop of Millaine then whom there was neuer any Bishoppe found more resolute in the defence of the right of the Church say that tribute is not to bee denyed but payed vnto Princes by men of the Church and in respect of Church-land I thinke it is evident there is no exemption by any Law of GOD that freeth the goods of Church-men from yeelding tribute to Princes For touching that text where our Sauiour sayth vnto Peter What thinkest thou Simon of whom doe the Kings of the Gentiles receiue tribute of their owne children or of strangers And Peter answereth of strangers Whence CHRIST inferreth that the children are free brought by some to proue the supposed immunity of Cleargy-men to bee from GODS owne graunt Bellarmine sufficiently cleareth the matter For first hee sheweth that CHRIST speaketh of himselfe onely making this argument Kings sonnes are free from tribute as beeing neither to pay to their owne fathers seeing their goods are common nor to strangers to whom they are not subiect therefore himselfe being the Sonne of the great King of Kings oweth no Tribute to any mortall man So that when hee saide the children are free hee meant not to signifie that any other are free but onely that himselfe was free Secondly he rightly obserueth that this place would proue that all Christians are free from Tribute if it proued any other then CHRIST to bee so for all Christians are the sonnes of GOD by adoption and grace And Hierome writing vpon this place hath these words Our Lord was the Kings son both according to the flesh and according to the spirit descending of the stocke of Dauid and being the Word of the Almighty Father and therefore as being the Sonne of the Kingdome owed no tribute but because hee assumed the humility of flesh it behooued him to fulfill all righteousnesse but vnhappy men that wee are we are called after the name of Christ doe nothing worthy so great an honour He for the great loue he bare towards vs sustained the crosse for vs and payde tribute but we for his honour pay no tribute and as Kings sons are free from tribute These words are brought by some to proue the imagined freedome we speake of but first they are so far from prouing any such thing that Erasmus thinketh Hierome reprehended it and disliked it as a thing sauouring of arrogancy that cleargymen should refuse to pay tribute which hee saith is contrary to the conceit of men in our time who thinke it the height of all piety to maintaine
contenting themselues with their owne Church left the administration of other Churches free to their owne Bishoppes as rather thinking themselues Bishoppes of that one cittie then of the whole world which thing haply moued a certaine Bishoppe of whom Paulus Aemylius maketh mention to answere somewhat peremptorily to Gregory the Eleuenth asking him why hee went not to his Church for whereas Gregory satte at Auinion and not at Rome hee said vnto him If one should aske thee why thou goest not to Rome that hath beene so long forsaken of her Bishoppes thou wouldest haue much lesse to answere then I haue But the latter Bishoppes of Rome contented not themselues herewith neither did they thinke it enough to bee Bishoppes of Rome and prime Bishoppes amongst before the rest but they would needes bee vniuersall Bishoppes and therefore thought it no robbery to concurre with all other Bishoppes and to preuent them if they could in giuing voyde Benefices before them And because it was not easie to preuent the Bishoppes in this sort in Prouinces and Kingdomes farre remote therefore they found out a more certaine and ready way whereby to take from them their right and power for a custome grew in and preuayled vnknowne to former times of certaine Papall graunts wherein Benefices not voyde were commaunded to bee bestowed and conferred when they should be voyd vpon such as the Pope should thinke fit and specially vpon strangers These were called Gratiae expectatiuae and Mandata de prouidendo and hereof the whole state of England complayned to Innocentius the Fourth affirning that by vertue of these Prouisions there were so many Italians beneficed in England that the reuenues which they had from hence was 60000 markes which was more then the bare reuenue of the Kings and yet as if this had not beene enough there came one Martine with Commission from the Pope to wrong the poore Church of England a little more This man conferred certaine Benefices actually voyd of the value of thirty markes by the yeare vpon strangers and when they dyed hee put in others without the priuity of the Patrons and went about to assure to such as hee pleased the like Benefices not yet voyde whensoeuer they should bee voyde besides many other most vniust exactions wherewith hee vexed the poore English putting all such as resisted against him vnder the sentence of excommunication and interdiction taking more on him then euer any Legate did though he came not as a Legate to the great preiudice of the Crowne of England seeing no Legate was to come hither vnlesse he were desired by the King The Messengers that the State of England sent to the Pope to make knowne their greiuances and complaintes were greatly disliked by the Pope and their message no way acceptable to him and therefore though dissembling the matter hee gaue them some good words as if there should be no more such Prouisions made but onely for some particular persons and they not aboue twelue in number yet such was the good nature of the man as Matthew Paris noteth that he would not suffer the poore English though sore beaten with many stripes once to cry or complaine But because they published these their complaints in the Councell of Lyons which was holden at the time of their comming hee was exceeding angry and dealt with the French King to make warre against the King of England and eyther to depriue him of his Kingdome or to make him wholy to stoope to the pleasure of the pope and the Court of Rome which the French King vtterly refused to do After these things thus past betweene the Pope and the English he did worse then euer before Whereupon there was a new meeting of the States of England wherein these grieuances were made manifest and complained of First that the Pope was not content with his ordinary reuenew of Peter-pence but exacted other contributions without the Kings knowledge Secondly that the Patrons of Churches were not permitted to present Clearkes but Romanes were put into them who neyther vnderstood the Language nor euer meant to liue here but carried away the money out of the Realme So that neyther was the people instructed hospitality kept the Churches repaired nor any good done and beside the Originall Patrons were depriued of their right one Italian succeeding another in the Churches founded by them without their knowledge and that vnwelcome Messenger Non obstante too often sent vnto them These their complaints the King the Bishops Abbots Lords and Commons made knowne by their letters and messengers to the Pope with earnest desire of reformation and redresse but could receiue none other answere from him but that the King of England had his Counsell and so had he that the king began to kicke against him and to play the Fredericke And such was his displeasure that all English were repelled and driuen away as Schismatickes After this new letters were againe written to the Pope and in the end a priuiledge was graunted that noe Prouisions should be made for Italians Cardinalls or the Popes Nephewes before the King were first earnestly intreated to be content with thē only to abuse such as would be abused For the Pope went forward still in his prouisions as formerly hee had done as appeareth by his letters to the Abbot of Saint Albons and by the worthy letters of the Bishoppe of Lincolne written to the pope about these matters and his speeches against the Pope a little before his death And here by the way it is worth the noting that Matthew Paris hath that in the time of Gregory the Ninth vppon complaint of onde Robert Tewing Patron of the Church of Lathune the popes Graunt made in preiudice of his right was reuersed because it was not knowne that the Patrone of that Benefice was a Lay-man when it was giuen by the pope Soe that if it had beene in the gift of a Cleargy-mam it must haue stood so ready was the head of the Church to oppresse Church-men and their possessions of all other were most fitte for spoyle So little respect was there had to religion in those dayes and soe were all things returned to their old Chaos againe Whence it came that the heartes of all men went away from the pope and the Church of Rome whereof the one sought to bee esteemed a Father and the other a Mother to all Churches but the one of them proued a step-father and the other a step-mother Neyther did the pope like a wilde Bore make hauocke only in the Vine-yard of the Lord of Hosts planted in this Island which lay open to be spoyled by all passengers but he playd his part also in all other Kingdomes of the West though some resisted more against his intrusions then others Touching France wee read in the booke intituled Pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicae aduersus Romanam aulam defensio Parisiensis Curiae Ludouico vndecimo Gallorum Regi
knowledge of the tongues may be and is most necessary After all these exceptions taken against the helpes and rules proposed by me for the finding out of the true meaning of Scripture the Treatiser setteth on mee a fresh in fiercer manner then before and requireth me to bring some diuine testimony proofe or argument or some particular reason of the necessity and sufficiency of these helpes and rules Whereunto I briefly answer that if any Papist vnder Heauen can take any exception against any of these helpes and rules proposed by mee or deuise any other I will iustifie the necessity and sufficiencie of them but otherwise I thinke it altogether needlesse to proue that the Sunne shineth at noone 〈◊〉 to shew by reason or authority that spirituall things cannot bee discerned but by spirituall men The Treatiser therefore returneth and taketh new exceptions against the helpes and rules proposed by mee first affirming but most vntruely that the greater part of my brethren will not allow them and secondly labouring to improue them by reason For first that an illumination of the minde is not necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scripture hee goeth about to shew because if such illumination bee necessarie no man can be assured of the truth of another mans interpretation seeing no man can tell whether hee haue an illumination of the vnderstanding and a minde disposed in such sort as is required or not Whereunto I answer that it is true that no man can assure himselfe that another mans interpretation is true good out of any knowledge of such personall things in the interpreter yet may hee know it to bee true out of the nature of the thing it selfe and thence inferre that either hee that so interpreteth or they from whom hee receiued such interpretation had a diuine illumination For even as to discourse of the nature of colours presupposeth that the man that so discourseth hath or had sight if hee speake thereof with any apprehension of that hee speaketh though a blinde man hauing heard the discourses of other may vse like wordes without all sense and apprehension of that hee speaketh So no man can interprete the Scriptures and discourse of the thinges therein contayned with sence and feeling but such a one whose minde is enlightned though prophane persons and such as bee voyde of all diuine illumination may as from others interprete the Scripture and discourse of such diuine thinges as are therein And as a man may assure himselfe that another mans discourse of colours is good out of the nature of the thing it selfe though hee know not whether hee haue or euer had such sence of seeing as is requisite in him that will speake of colours with any apprehension so a man may know that another mans interpretation is true though hee know not whether he haue such an illumination of mind as is necessary for the vnderstanding of the things contayned in the Scripture Secondly hee vndertaketh to shew that no man can eyther assure himselfe that he hath the true meaning of Scripture or conuince the gaine-sayers by following the direction of the former rules because as hee supposeth a man cannot certainely know that hee hath an illumination of minde that hee hath obserued those rules that hee is disposed as hee should bee and furnished with learning in such sort as is requisite Whereunto first I answere briefly that it is as possible for a man to know whether he haue an illumination of the mind or not as it is whether he haue the light of naturall reason Secondly that the obseruation of the rules formerly mentioned and the disposition of a mans mind resolued to embrace the trueth may as easily be knowen as any other motions purposes and resolutions Neither is it more hard for a man that is spirituall to know whether hee bee sufficiently furnished with learning requisite for the vnderstanding of the Scripture then for a naturall man to knowe whether hee haue learning enough to vnderstand Aristotle or any other prophane authour Thirdly in confutation of the former rules hee alledgeth that they may not be admitted as necessary because if they bee all such as haue no illumination of minde nor willing disposition to embrace the truth when it shal be manifested to thē must be excluded out of the number of faithfull ones Which if he thinke to be an absurdity it is no great matter what he saith but he addeth that they that are vnlearned haue not the knowledge of all those arts and sciences that are necessary for the vnderstanding of sundry parts of Scripture nor of those originall tongues wherein they were written without the knowledge whereof they cannot be vnderstood whereas yet they are to build their fayth vpon the Scripture rightly vnderstood whence it will follow that all such must be excluded out of the number of the faythfull This indeed is such a consequence as must not be admitted neither is there any such thing consequent vpon that which we say For though all men haue not that knowledge of arts sciences and tongues that is necessary for the exact vnderstanding of all parts passages of Scripture yet may they vnderstand so much of the same as is necessary to saluation without the knowledge of arts sciences the things that are so precisely necessary being deliuered in very plaine easie and familiar termes Neither is it necessary that if a man will build his faith vpon the Scripture that he must vnderstand euery part of it Onely one scruple remayneth which is that an ignorant man can haue no certaine ground of his faith if he build the same vpon the Scripture because lacking the knowledge of tongues he cannot know whether it be truely translated or not but this scruple may easily be remoued seeing an ignorant man out of the Scripture it selfe duely proposed explayned and interpreted vnto him may know it to be diuine heauenly inspired of God and consequently that in what tongue soeuer it was written it is truely translated touching the substance howsoeuer happily there may be some accidentall aberrations whereof he cannot judge After these exceptions taken against the helpes rules proposed by me as necessary for the finding out of the sence and meaning of the Scripture the Treatiser obseruing no order in his writings addresseth himselfe to proue that we haue no certaine meanes whereby to know that the Scriptures are of God or which they bee and then returneth againe to proue that we haue no certaine rule whereby to be assured we haue the sence of them But all that hee sayth to this purpose may easily bee answered For first the truth of Christian doctrine is diuinely proued vnto vs by the satisfaction wee finde in the same touching things wherein naturall reason left vs vnresolued and the effects wee finde to follow vppon the receiuing of it Secondly that Christian doctrine is reuealed it is euident because staying within the confines of the light of naturall