those The third fraud to wit that this remission of sinnes is obtayned by faith onely without all those meanes that are necessary to attaine the same is but his owne imagination for howsoeuer faith onely apprehend this remission yet other things necessarily concurre as fitting to the receiuing of the same Hitherto wee haue strongly proued that no man can liue in this world without veniall sinne and consequently that no man fulfilleth the law exactly Wee haue likewise shewed that the best learned in the Roman Church doe thinke that the iustified doe so fulfill the law as that they haue need of continuall remission of sinnes Onely onething may be alleadged against this that wee haue hitherto insisted vpon that veniall sinnes are not against but besides the law that they are improperly sinnes and that they doe not offend nor displease God and that therefore the committing of those no way hindereth but that the fulfilling of the law may bee accounted perfect But Andreas Vega learnedly refuteth this fancie and sheweth at large that they are properly and absolutely sinne for that they are actus mali simpliciter quippe qui voluntarij circa materiam indebitam à rectâ ratione deviant ac dissentiunt poenâ ac reprehensione digni iure apud omnes censentur And sundry others agree with him in the same So that it is cleere that though the gift of righteousnes be giuen to the iustified and they inclined to doe the things the law requireth yet it doth not make them to decline all euill or to doe all good that the lawe requireth but so to decline euill as not to suffer it to bee predominant and so to doe good as principally to delight in well doing and aboue all things to desire to please God Onely one thing remaineth that is questionable whether the good workes of the iustified bee sinne or not That they are wee haue the testimony of Gregory Sanctus vir omne meritum virtutis nostrae vitium esse conspicit si ab interno arbitro districtè iudicetur ideo recte subiungit si voluerit contendere cum eo non poterit ei respondere vnum pro mille et 9. Moral c. 28. Quamvis lamentis supernae compunctionis infundar quamvis per studia rectae operationis exeâ—…cear in tuâ tamen munditiâ video quia mundus non sum Intentam quippe in Deum animam ipsam adhuc corruptibilis caro diuerberat eiusque amoris pulchritudinem obscaenis illicitis cogitationum motibus faedat Et 9. Moral c. 14. Omnis humana iustiua iniustitia conuincitur si districtè iudicetur prece ergo post iustitiam indiget vt quae succumbere discussa poterat ex solà iudicis pietate convalescat And Vega confesseth that not onely the life of all the holiest in this world is stayned with many veniall sinnes but also that the good workes of the most perfect come short of that goodnes with which it were fit wee should worshippe prayse and honour God they are not so pure so holy so fervent as the greatnes of God and of his benefits bestowed on vs might iustly require and exact of vs. Stapleton sayth Non est tanta eorum iustitia vt vel sine peccato semper sit vel nihil illi addi queat August contra Coelestium In illâ plenitudine charitatis praeceptum illud implebitur Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo ex totâ animâ tuâ c Nam cum est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae quod vel continendo fraenetur non omnimodo ex totâ animâ diligitur Deus Propter concupiscentiam minuitur distrahitur impeditur illa dilectio Non amatur Deus perfectè ex tota anima in hac vita non quia avertitur à Deo sed quia avocatur non quia à Deo abstrahitur sed quia distrahitur Denique non quia charitas Dei per hunc conflictum tollitur sed quia vsus ipsius charitatis impeditur vt scitè distinguit Thomas 2. 2 q. 44. ar 4. ad 2. Fit autem haec avocatio haec distractio haec diminutio delectationis sanctae in ipsà animâ quia sine animâ caro non concupiscit quamvis caro concupiscere dicatur quia carnaliter anima coÌ„cupiscit ConcupisceÌ„tia inquantum inest nocet non quidem ad perdendum de sorte sanctorum nisi ei consentiatur tamen ad minuendam spiritualem delectationem sanctarum mentium illam scilicet de quâ dicit Apostolus Condelector legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem There is an imperfection in our loue of God and wee come short of that which the Law requireth of vs for we should loue him so as to loue or desire nothing more nothing so much nothing but for him nothing that he would not haue loued nothing otherwise then he would haue vs but this wee doe not therefore we breake this law Their answere is that these lawes doe onely teach vs what we are to desire and what we are hereafter to attaine but doe not binde vs vnder the paine of sinne If wee aske them why they answere because our nature is so corrupted that we cannot fulfill them and thus doth Stapleton answere this question but himselfe presently sheweth the insufficiency of this answere for he telleth vs out of August that the righteousnes of the first man was such as to obey God and to haue no lawe of concupiscence De peccat merit remission lib. 2. cap 23. And out of the same August De Ciuitate Deil. 14. c. 10 Erat amor eius imperturbatus in Deum that is he was wholly carried vnto God without distraction or perturbation And addeth that this primitiue righteousnes which the law of nature bound man to haue the law was to prescribe and require quia ideo data est vt extinctam propemodum naturae legem in hominibus restauraret August qu in vetus testiment q. 4. And that the rule of the lawe which is a perpetuall and immutable lawe of iustice in God was not to be altered or any way bowed and iuclined in respect of the deprauation of our nature He sayth therefore that the rule without any change remaineth the same and commandeth all manner of perfection and that not to haue the perfection it requireth is a transgression of the law in all them that by Adams sinne are so corrupted vnlesse this corruption be remitted So then this law bindeth the vnregenerate and do the regenerate owe lesse to God It remaineth therefore a cleare truth that the most iust do not performe the workes of vertue with that purity and fervencie of affection that the lawe requireth according to that of S. Paul who confesseth that what he would do that he did not and what he would not that he did that to will was present with him but that he found no ability to performe Ambrosius de fugâ saeculi citatus ab August
that others whom Augustine refuteth in his booke De fide operibus were of opinion that all Christians how damnably soeuer they liue holding the trueth of Christian profession may and shall be saued This he saith is the doctrine of the Protestants If any of vs euer wrote spake or thought any such thing let GOD forget euer to doe good vnto vs and let our prayers bee rejected from his presence but if this bee as vile a slaunder as euer Satanist devised the Lord reward them that haue beene the Authours devisers of it according to their workes But let vs see doth he make no shew of proofe doubtlesse he doeth Luther saith he pronounceth that there is no way to haue accesse vnto God to treate with him touching reconciliation acceptation into his fauour but by faith that God regardeth not workes that a true Christian is so rich in faith that he cannot perish though he would nor how wickedly soeuer he liue vnlesse he refuse and cease to beleeue For the cleering of these places of Luther wee must remember that which Illyricus hath fitly noted to this purpose that there are two Courts of Gods Iudgements most righteous proceeding towards the sons of men the one he calleth forum iustificationis the other novae obedientiae In the first hee saith God requireth perfect righteousnesse fully answering that his Law prescribeth which being no where to bee found but in Christ no way apprehended but by faith in this respect sitting in this Court of exact tryall he regardeth no workes vertues or qualities finding nothing of worth or worthy to be respected but looketh to our faith onely for Christs sake onely at the sole and onely suite of Faith forgiueth sin imputeth righteousnesse Notwithstanding because he neuer saith to any sinner Thy sinnes are remitted but that he addeth goe and sinne no more that vpon perill of forfeiting the benefite receiued and that some worse thing should betide vnto him therefore there is another Court wherein he sitteth giueth commaundement for new obedience and workes of righteousnes though not requiring so strictly that perfection which formerly hee did but accepting our weake indevours study of well doing and in this sort it is that hee will judge vs in the last Day according to our workes Thus then wee see how that though Faith be neuer alone yet in procuring vs acceptation with God it is alone and that though God regard none of our vertues actions qualities as being of any worth in the strictnes of his Iudgment but reject them as vnpure vncleane respect nothing but the humble sute petition of Faith for the purpose of justification yet when we are justified he requireth of vs a new obedience judgeth vs according to it crowneth vs for it That which Luther addeth that a man cannot perish though hee would and how wickedly soeuer hee liue vnlesse he cease to beleeue may seeme hard at the first sight but not to them that doe knowe that Luther is farre from thinking that men may bee saued how wickedly soeuer they liue for he constantly teacheth that Iustifying faith cannot remaine in that man that sinneth with full consent nor be found in that soule wherein are peccata vastantia conscientiam as Melancthon speaketh following Augustine that is raging ruling preuailing laying wast and destroying the integrity of the conscience which should resist against euill and condemne it This is all then that Luther saith that no wickednesse with which faith may stand can hurt vs soe long as faith continueth but if sinne once become regnant and so exclude faith wee are in the state of damnation Against this doctrine of Luther or any part thereof neither Bellarmine nor the gates of hell shall euer be able to prevaile Wee see then how iustly wee are charged with the heresies of the Simonians Eunomians and the like monsters surely as iustly as Bellarmine may be charged with true and honest dealing in this imputation and other that follow CHAP. 23. Of the heresie of Florinus making God the author of sinne falsely imputed to Caluine and others THe next heresie which they say wee are fallen into is the heresie of Florinus who taught that God is the cause and author of sinne This he sayth Caluin Luther Martyr and sundry other of the greatest Diuines of the reformed churches haue defended in their writings Of this sinfull wicked and lying report wee are sure GOD is not the Author but the diuell and therefore wee doe not fully accord with Florinus But that it may appeare how truly these men write and speake of things of soe great moment I will onely positiuely lay downe what wee thinke of this matter and the adversaries slaunders will bee sufficiently refuted For the clearing of our opinion touching this poynt I will first set downe the different kinds of sinne Secondly what God may be sayd to will or decree touching the first entrance thereof And thirdly what when it is entred Sinne as wee know is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the law The law is partly affirmatiue requiring partly negatiue forbidding the doing of a thing Hence it followeth that all sinne is either of omission or commission Sinne of omission is the not doing of that the Creature is bound to do Sinne of Commission is the doing of that the creature is bound not to doe The not doing of that the creature is bound to doe God may be sayd to will and decree foure wayes First by effectuall opposing against the doing of it in this sort it is impious to thinke that God decreed the omission or not doing of that the creature stands bound to doe Secondly by discouraging and disswading from the doing of it which is no lesse absurd and impious then the former Thirdly by deniall of that grace concurrence and assistance without which it cannot be done this cannot bee imagined in respect of the state of mans first creation but wee must make God the Author of sin and therefore there is none of vs that doth attribute any such thing vnto God But contrarywise Caluin whom Bellarmine seemeth most to challenge noteth fitly to this purpose out of Augustine that God gaue Adam posse si vellet sed non velle quod potuit power to stand and continue in his vprightnesse if he would though hee did not inseparably hould him to it but left him to his owne choice whence followed that euill we now complaine of Fourthly by deniall of that grace assistance and concurrence without which he seeth the creature will not be moued nor wonne to doe it though it haue other more then sufficient graces motiues and encouragements to induce it therevnto In this fourth sense many feare not to say that God negatiuely or privatiuely decreed the sinne of omission or the not doing of that the creature was bound to doe in that he decreed the deniall of
Iesabel which called her selfe a Prophetesse to deceiue the people of God make thē cōmit fornication eate things sacrificed vnto Idols c. yet it is not to be thought that all that were of these Churches with one consent denied the resurrection fell into al the errours euils aboue mentioned For then doubtlesse these societies had ceased to be the true and Catholicke Churches of God so though sundrie dangerous and damnable errours were broached in the midst of the Church and house of God in the dayes of our Fathers which did fret as a canker as Gerson confesseth yet were they not with full approbation generally receiued but doubted of contradicted refuted and rejected as vncertaine dangerous damnable and hereticall And as in the reformation of those Churches of Corinth Galatia Pergamus and Thyatira if some had still persisted in the maintenance of those errours and abuses reproued by the Spirit of God and the blessed Apostles of our Sauiour Christ whiles other moued by the admonition of the Spirit of God and the wordes of the holy Apostles reformed themselues and so a diuision or separation had growen it had beene a vaine challenge for the stiffe maintainers of errours and abuses to challenge the reformed part for noueltie to aske of them where their Church was before this reformation began seeing it was euen the same wherein in one communion they formerly liued together with toleration of all those euills which the one part still retained and the other justly rejected So when many Princes Prelates and great States of the Christian world haue in our dayes shaken off that yoke of miserable bondage whereof our fathers complayned remooued those superstitious abuses they disliked condemned those errours in matters of doctrine which they acknowledged to bee daungerous and damnable fretting as a canker and insnaring the consciences of many It is no lesse vaine and friuolous for the Patrons of errour to aske vs which and where our Church was before the reformation beganne for it was that wherein all our Fathers liued longing to see things brought backe to their first beginnings againe in which their predecessours as a daungerous and wicked faction tyrannized ouer mens consciences and peruerted all things to the endlesse destruction of themselues and many others with whom they prevayled If they shall further reply that that Church wherein our fathers liued was not ours because there were many things found in it which wee haue not who seeth not that this reason stands as strong against them as against vs For there are many errours and superstitions which they haue reiected and doe not retaine at this day which were in being in the dayes of our Fathers And besides this obiection would haue serued the Patrons of errour in the Church of Corinth Galatia and the rest For they might haue sayd after those Churches were reformed that they were new and not the same that were before For that in the former the resurrection of the dead was denied circumcision vrged and practised discipline neglected and the Apostles of Christ contemned which things afterwards were not found in them As therefore this had beene a shamelesse objection of those erring miscreants against the godly and well-affected in those times so it is in ours And as those errours were not generall in those Churches so were not they which we haue condemned in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued As those errours and heresies were not the doctrines of the Churches of Corinth Galatia and the rest but the lewde assertions of some perverting and adulterating the doctrine of the Churches so likewise the errours which wee condemne at this day whereupon the difference groweth betweene the Romish faction and vs were neuer generally receiued nor constantly deliuered as the doctrines of the Church but vncertainly and doubtfully disputed and proposed as the opinions of some men in the Church not as the resolued determinations of the whole Church CHAP. 7. Of the seuerall points of difference betweene vs and our adversaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church FOr neither did that Church wherein our Fathers liued and died holde that Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now vrge nor that insufficiencie they now charge it with nor corruption of the originals nor necessitie of following the vulgar translation nor the heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certaine barbarous Schoolemen as that there are three different estates of men the first of pure nature without addition of grace or sinne and two other the one of grace the other of sinne That all those euils that are found in the nature of man since his fall as ignorance concupiscence contrariety betweene the better and meaner faculties of the soule difficulty to doe well and pronenesse to doe euill were all naturall the conditions of pure nature that is of nature as considered in it self it would come foorth from God That these euils are not sinfull nor had their beginnings from sinne that they were the consequents of Nature in the state of creation but restrained by addition of supernaturall grace without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect That men in the state of pure nature that is as they might haue beene created of GOD in the integritie of Nature without addition of grace and in the estate of originall sinne differ no otherwise but as they that neuer had and they that haue lost rich and precious cloathing so that originall sinne is but the losse of that without which natures integrity may stand that no euils are brought in by the fall but Nature left to her selfe to feele that which was before but not felt nor discerned while the addition of grace bettered Nature None of these errours touching the estate of mans creation were the doctrines of the Church but the private fancies and conceits of men So likewise touching originall sinne there were that taught that it is not inherent in each particular man borne of Adam but that Adams personall sinne is imputed onely that the propagation of sinne is not generall Mary being conceiued without originall sinne That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart or positiue euill but privatiue onely and that therefore there is a third place neither hell nor heauen named Limbus puerorum which is a place where as some thinke they who are condemned thither though they bee excluded from the kingdome of Heauen and all possibility of euer comming thither yet are in a state of naturall happinesse and doe enioy the sweet content of eternall life These Pelagian heresies were taught in the Church of God but they were not the doctrines of the Church being condemned rejected and refuted as contrary to the Christian verity by many worthy members and guides of the Church who as they neuer receiued these parts of false doctrine so likewise the Church wherein they liued neither knew nor approved that distinction and difference of veniall and mortall sinnes
should follow his example but to beginne the new law as Moses did the old and therefore to take it as imposed vpon vs by Christs example in the nature of a precept and to be done in imitation of Christ and as being in it selfe a thing pleasing vnto GOD for that it is an imitation of his Sonnes action is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Caluin rightly noteth and not voide of superstition and errour Now that the Fathers either erred themselues in this sort or sought to abuse others neither Calvine nor wee euer thought For they neuer imagined that the principall reason that mooued the authours and beginners of this fast to prescribe it was the onely imitation of Christs fast or because they thought it it in it owne nature a thing respected by God meerely as an imitation of his Sonnes action but that whereas it is very fit there bee a solemne time at least once in the yeare wherein men may call themselues to an account for all their negligences repent them of all their euill doings and with prayers fastings and mournings turne vnto the Lord this time was chosen as fittest both because that heerein wee remember the sufferings of Christ for our sinnes which is the strongest and most prevailing motiue that may bee to make vs hate sinne and with teares of repentant sorrow bewaile it which could no otherwise bee taken away but by the bloud shed of the Sonne of GOD as also for that after this meditation of the sufferings of Christ and conforming our selues to them his joyfull resurrection for our justification doth immediatly present it selfe vnto vs in the dayes following in the solemnities whereof men were wont with great devotion to approach to the Lords Table and they which were not yet baptized were by Baptisme admitted into the Church Thus then it was not without great consideration that men made choice of this time wherein to recount all their negligences sinnes and transgressions and to prepare themselues by this solemne act of Fasting both for the better performance of their owne dueties in those ensuing dayes of joyfull solemnitie as also to obtaine at Gods handes the gracious acceptance of such as they offered vnto him to bee entred into his couenant For the manner was in the Primitiue Church neuer to present any vnto Baptisme vnlesse it were in the case of necessity and danger but onely in the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost Thus then these being the reasons mouing to institute a set and solemne Fast and to appoint it at this time and season of the yeare rather than any other for the limitation of the number of dayes men had an eye as to a convenient direction to Christs Fast of forty dayes in the dedication of the new Covenant which number also Moses as being the giuer and Elias as being the restorer of the olde Law kept and obserued before him not as if they had beene precisely and absolutely tyed by force of these examples for then they would precisely haue kept that number which yet they did not for the Saturdayes and Sundayes deducted which were not aunciently fasted neither in the Greeke Church nor in some of the Latine Churches there remaine not forty dayes and if onely the Sondayes bee deducted as in the Latine Church there will want of the number for those in capite Ieiunii which being added to the rest make vp the number of 40. were not obserued from the beginning but added afterwards Our Divines therefore doe teach that Fasting is commaunded by Almighty GOD not as a thing in it selfe regarded but respectiuely to those ends before mentioned that GOD hath set no certaine times of Fasting but that the Church may appoint vpon set and ordinary or speciall and extraordinary occasions and causes times of fasting and that men are bound to obey The Fast of Lent they doe not dislike but thinke it may be kept as a convenient tradition of Antiquity dispensable by authority of the Church vpon due consideration of times and persons so that no false nor superstitious opinions bee added but the practise of the Romanists they condemne for that whereas they pretend to follow the ancient custome of fasting to be tyed vnto it they retaine no shew of the auncient fast but make a meere mocke of God man as their own best friends are forced to confesse besides their erronious opinions of merit satisfaction grosse superstition in the difference of meates Thus then we did not put down the true right vse exercise of fasting but the mockery of it do wish that in the ful establishment of the Churches the ancient discipline of fasting due coÌ„sideratioÌ„ had of times conditioÌ„s of men may be restored again If any of our Diuines seeme to dislike that there should be any set fasts as being Iewish it is not the generall resolution of the reformed Churchs but the priuate opinion only of some particular mâ—… who were carried with the hate of Romish errours and superstition in the set fasts to dislike them wholly which aduisedly I see not how they could doe and I am well assured many of very great esteeme do allow and approue the vse of them The next obiectioÌ„ is most friuolous Caluin saith Lay men long since presumed in times of necessity to baptize werein whether they did well or not the Fathers in those times wherein they were suffered thus to do could not nor did not resolue what can be inferred of this Whether they did well or not Caluin saith the Fathers were not resolute and hee think eth their doing can hardly be excused from vsurpation of that which no way pertained to them therefore saith Bellarmine he dissenteth from all antiquity confesseth the doctrine of the Romish Church to be most ancient Let Bellarmine giue vs leaue to reason from his speeches in the same sort he will soone perceiue he hath wronged Caluine Bellarmine saith the Fathers were doubtfull whether if men not yet baptized should attempt to baptize it were baptisme or not he pronounceth peremtorily it is therefore he dissenteth from all antiquity As likewise they doubted whether baptisme administred sportingly were true baptisme or not he his consorts make no question of it therefore they dissent from all antiquitie But let vs proceed to the next allegation Caluin saith it is most certaine that all antiquity is clearely against the Romish doctrine of the reall sacrificing of Christ in the blessed Sacrament that the Fathers did most rightly conceiue of this sacred mystery without derogating any way from the sufficiencie and plenitude of Christs sacrifice A man would hardly thinke any man would allcage this place to proue that Caluin confesseth the doctrine of the Fathers and the opinion of the Romanists are all one and yet this doth the Iesuite so forcible and powerful he is in reasoning that what a man most constantly denieth he can
what time and against what persons he pleaseth and no otherwise and is author ordinis in malo though not mali When we say he openeth the way passage for wickednesse to break forth wee must vnderstand that he doth this in two sorts either by not hindring it from breaking forth in some one kinde which hee suffereth no otherwise to shew it selfe or in that he positiuely inclineth it hither rather then thither not by way of cause but of occasiō offered In which sense it is that Dauid saith God commanded Shemei to curse him not as if God had eyther inwardly or outwardly perswaded him so to do But because finding him full of malice against Dauid he so prospered Dauid before that he durst not reuile him not had no cause to insult vpon him But now he presented him to his eyes in such a miserable estate forsaken of many and pursued by his owne sonne as he knew would occasion these words of insultation and bitter malediction Thus then God commanded Shemei to curse Dauid not by precept outwardly requiring him so to do nor by perswasiō inwardly inclining him to so vile an actiō but by direction inclining him by words of malediction to expresse his bitter affection which long before desired to vent it selfe now at this time and for the punishment of Dauids sinnes rather then at an other time and in another sort So when wicked men had spoyled Iob he sayd The Lord hath giuen the Lord hath taken away imputing it to God not as if he had made them to become Robbers but for that being such hee directed their wickednesse and vsed it to the triall of his servant opening a passage for their wickednesse and presenting to them such things as hee knew would occasion this outrage As lakewise the Iewes in crucifying Christ are said to haue done nothing but that which God had before resolutely determined not as if God had purposed their wickednesse but only because knowing what was in them he was pleased to direct guide and turne their wickednesse and furious malice to the effecting of his owne purposes The third action that wee attribute vnto God is that hee punisheth one sin by an other In punishments Hugo de sancto victore noteth three things The matter with which a man is punished the contrariety betweene it and the party punished and the order of consequence that where such an offence went before such an euil shall follow to make the party offending feele the smart of it In those punishments which be punishments onely not sinnes God is the author and cause of all these three things implyed in the nature of punishments in those which be punishments and sinnes God is author only of the order of consequence the contrariety between them the nature of the parties punished not of the matter wherwith they are afflicted punished As for exāple Pride is punished by envie Enuie is not of God but the contrarietie betweene it and the soule of man which maketh it bitter and afflictiue is And the order of consequence that where pride went before enuy must follow Neither doth God only punish one sinne with another when there is such a dependance of one vpon the other that where one goeth before the other must follow But oftentimes when there is no such necessary dependance yet he withdraweth his grace and for the punishment of one sinne letteth men runne into another In this sense there are three things attributed to God in the punishment of wicked and godlesse men The blinding of their vrderstanding The hardning of their hearts and the giuing of them vp vnto a reprobate sense These things God is said to doe three wayes First by subtraction and deniall of that grace which should lighten the vnderstandings and soften and mollifie the hearts of men Secondly by giuing leaue to Sathan to work vpon them no way either strengthning them against him or weakning his force Thirdly occasionally and by accident when God doth that which is good which yet hee knoweth through the euill disposition that is in men will increase their wickednesse and make it greater then it was before CHAP. 24. Of the heresies of Origen touching the Image of God and touching hell falsely imputed to Caluin IN the third place the Iesuite fearing that men should thinke hee were neere driuen and wanted store hee chargeth Caluin at once with two heresies of Origen The first concerning the Image of God the second touching Hell and the punishments of it Touching the first it is true that Epiphanius chargeth Origen with heresie For saying that Adam lost the Image of God by his disobedience and sinne but how iustly it is very doubtfull Seeing neither Hierome nor Theophilus Alexandrinus most diligently noting his errours make any mention of it And therefore it may bee probably thought as Alphonsius à Castro noteth that if any such thing was found in the workes of Origen it was so deliuered by him as that it might carrie a good construction and free from heresie But leauing it vncertain what it was that Origen meant by the losse of Gods Image For the cleering of Caluin wee must note that which Thomas Aquinas no hereticke I hope in Bellarmines iudgment beeing a Canonized Saint of the Romish Church hath fittely obserued to this purpose Hee noteth first that the Image of God consisteth in the eminent perfection which is found in men expressing the nature of God in an higher degree then any excellencie of other creatures doth Secondly that this perfection is found principally in the soule Thirdly that it is threefold First naturall which is the largenesse of the naturall faculties of vnderstanding and will not limitted to the apprehension or desire of some certaine things only but extending to all the conditions of beeing and goodnesse whose principall obiect is God So that they neuer rest satisfied with any other thing but the seeing and enioying of him The second kind of this perfection is supernaturall when the soule actually or at the least habitually knoweth and loueth God aright though not so perfectly as hee may and shall bee loued hereafter The third is when the soule knoweth and loueth God in fulnesse of happinesse The first is of nature the second of grace and the third of glory The first of these is neuer lost no not by the damned in hell The second Adam had but lost it and it is renued in vs by grace The third wee expect in heauen To thinke the Image of God considered in the first sort to be lost is heresie but Caluin is free from it To thinke it lost in the second sort is the Catholique doctrine of the Church for who knoweth not that man hath lost all right knowledge and loue of God by Adams fall Some restraine the name of the Image of God to the excellency of the soules nature framed to know all things and neuer to rest
satisfied in any thing vnder God And so generally and absolutely denie that the Image of God can bee lost or blotted out These make a difference betweene the Image of God thus restrained to the largnesse and and admirable perfection of the naturall faculties of the soule and the similitude or likenesse of God which appeareth in the qualities and vertues of it making him that possesseth them partaker of the diuine nature which they confesse to be lost Now this similitude is all one with the Image of God in the second consideration set down by Aquinas and therefore in this matter Caluin erreth not but writeth that which is consonant vnto the truth Touching the second part of this imputation it is true that Origen erred thinking hell to be nothing else but horror of conscience But he that looketh in the place in Caluin cited by the Iesuite shall see that he saith no such thing but the cleane contrary So that the Reader shall finde Bellarnne to be constant and stil like himselfe adding one calumniation to another CHAP. 25. Of the heresie of the Peputians making women Priests THe fourth Heresie imputed vnto vs by our adversaries is that of the Peputians who gaue women authoritie to intermeddle with the sacred ministerie of the Church That we doe so likewise they indeavour to proue by misreporting the words of Luther There are two things therefore which Luther saith in the place alleadged by them First that in absolution and remission of sinnes in the supposed Sacrament of Penance a Bishop or ordinary Presbyter may doe as much as the Pope himselfe which Alphonsus à Castro writing against Heresies confesseth to bee true The second that when and where no Presbyter can be found to performe this office a Lay man yea or a woman in this case of necessitie may absolue which our adversaries neede not to thinke so strange seeing themselues giue power to women to baptise in case of necessitie which I thinke is as much a ministeriall acte as to absolue the penitent in such sort as absolution is giuen in the Church of Rome And yet they would thinke themselues wronged if from hence it should bee inferred that they make women Priests and Bishoppes But Bellarmine reporteth the wordes of Luther as if hee should say absolutely that a woman or childe hath as much power and authority from God in these things as any Presbyter or Bishop wherein hee is like himselfe Absolution in the Primitiue Church was the reconciling and restoring of penitents to the peace of the Church and to the Communion of the Sacraments from which during the time of their penitencie they were excluded This in reason none could doe but they to whom the dispensation of the Sacraments was committed and who had power to deny the Sacraments The Popish absolution is supposed to bee a Sacramentall acte Sacramentally taking away sinne and making the party absolued partaker of the remission of it This is a false and erronious conceite LVTHER thinketh it to bee a comfortable pronouncing and assuring of good to the humble penitent and sorrowfull sinner which though ordinarily and ex officio the Minister bee to doe yet may any man doe it with like effect when none of that ranke is or can be present Thus when the matter is well examined it is meerely nothing that Bellarmine can proue against Luther But that which hee addeth touching our late dread Soueraigne ELIZABETH of famous memorie that shee was reported and taken as chiefe Bishop within her dominions of England c. is more then a Cardinall lye and might beseeme the father of lyes better then any meaner professour of that facultie For the Kings and Queenes of England neither doe nor haue power to doe any ministeriall act or act of sacred order as to preach administer Sacraments and the like But that power and authority which we ascribe vnto them is that they may by their princely right take notice of matters of Religion and the exercise of it in their kingdomes That they may and in duty stand bound to see that the true Religion bee professed and God rightly worshipped That God hath giuen them the sword to punish all offenders against the first or second Table yea though they be Priests or Bishops That neither the persons nor the goods of Churchmen are exempted from their power That they holde their Crownes immediatly from God and not from the Romish Antichrist That it was the Lucifer-like pride of Antichrist which appeared in times past in the Popes wheē they shamed not to say that the Kings of England were their villanes vassalls and slaues Thus then the fourth supposed heresie we are charged with proueth to be nothing but a diuelish slander of this shamelesse Iesuite Wee say therefore to silence this slanderer that we all most constantly hold the contrary of that he imputeth vnto vs And that wee thinke there is no more daungerous or presumptuous wicked boldnesse then for any man not called set a part and sanctified therevnto to intermeddle with any part of the sacred ministerie of the Church CHAP 26. Of the supposed heresie of Proclus and the Messalians touching concupiscence in the regenerate THe fift heresie which hee endevoureth to fasten vpon vs is he saith the heresie of Proclus of whom Epiphanius maketh mention But what was the heresie of Proclus Let Bellarmine tell vs for our learning It was sayth he that sin doth alwayes continue and liue in the Regenerate for that concupiscence is truely and properly sin which is not taken away by Baptisme but only allaied stilled and brought as it were into a kind of rest and sleepe by force thereof and the working of faith In this Bellarmine sheweth his intolerable either ignorance or impudence or both For Epiphanius in the place cited by him refuteth the heresie of Origen who denied the resurrection of the bodies of men as thinking such bodily substances which we see are continually subject to alteration here in this world not capable of immortality And that God did put these bodies vpon Adam and Eue after their sin at that time when he is said to haue made them coates of skinnes This Epiphanius refuteth shewing that God who only hath immortality made man though out of the earth yet by the immediate touch of his owne hands that he breathed into him the breath of life for that he meant he should be immortall that man had flesh and blood and a true bodily substance before his fall as is prooued by that of Adam concerning Eue This is now flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone that there was no euill found in the World such as death is in the beginning that man voluntarily sinned against God and therevpon God brought in death that euen as the Schoolemaster vseth correction not for any delight he hath in it but for that thereby he intendeth to bring his Schollers to forsake their negligent and disordered courses and to
of Pelagius CHAP. 27 Of the heresies of Nouatus Sabellius and the Manichees THe sixt heresie that wee are charged with is that of Nouatus who would not haue those that fell in the time of persecution reconciled and receiued againe to the communion of the Church vpon their repentance But wee receiue all Penitents whatsoeuer and therefore this lying slander may be added to the rest to make vp a number But they will say the Nouatians were condemned for denying penance to be a Sacrament and that therein at least wee agree with the Nouatians This is as false as the rest for it is most certaine that the absolution which was giuen in the Primitiue Church disliked by Nouatus was not taken as a sacramentall acte giuing grace remitting sinnes but as a judiciall acte receiving them to the peace of the Church and the vse of the Sacraments which had beene formerly put from them This the best and most iudicious of the Schoole-men confesse besides the infinite testimonies that might be alleaged out of the Fathers to proue the same It was then an admitting to the vse of the Sacraments not it selfe a Sacrament But Caluin sayth that the speech of Hierome that poenitentia is secunda tabula post naufragium is impious and cannot be excused and therefore it seemeth he inclineth to the Nouatians heresie in denying the benefite of penitencie to distressed and miserable sinners that seeke it Augustine in his booke De mendacio ad Consentium maketh it a disputable question whether a man that vsually lieth speaking trueth at some one time with purpose to make men thinke it like the rest of his lying speaches wherewith they are well acquainted may not be said to lie when hee speaketh trueth because hee intendeth to deceiue and doeth deceiue Surely if this man should speake any trueth I feare the Reader would thinke it a falsehood because his ordinary manner is seldome or neuer to speake any trueth Doeth Caluine say the speach of Hierome is impious and not to bee excused as hee reporteth he doeth Surely no but that if it be vnderstood as the Papists vnderstand it it cannot bee excused For they conceiue thereby that the Sacrament of Penance is implied which Hierome neuer thought of But hee will say the Nouatians refused to haue those that they baptized to receiue imposition of hands with which was joyned in those times the anoynting of the parties with oyle Surely so they did but so doe not wee for we tâ—…inke of the vse of imposition of hands as Hierome doeth in his booke against he Luciferians But touching the vse of oyle though at that time there was no cause for the Nouatians to except much against it yet now that it is made the matter and element of a Sacrament and that by a kinde of consecration the ground whereof wee know not wee thinke we doe not offend in omitting it no more than the Church of Rome in omitting innumerable ceremoniall obseuations of like nature that were in vse in those times The seauenth is the heresie of Sabellius which he sayth was reuiued by Servetus So it was indeede that Seruetus reuiued in our time the damnable heresie of Sabellius long since condemned in the first ages of the Church But what is that to vs How little approbation hee found amongst vs the just and honourable proceeding against him at Geneva will witnesse to all posterity The eighth is the heresie of the Manichees which taught that euills which are found in the World were from an euill beginning so making two originall causes the one good of things good the other euill of things euill It is true that this was the damnable opinion of the Manichees But will the shamelesse companion charge vs with this impiety I thinke hee dareth not for hee knoweth that wee teach that all the euils that are in the World had their beginning and did proceede from the freedome of mans will which while hee vsed ill hee ouerthrewe and lost both himselfe and it that while hee turned from the greater to the lesser good and preferred the creature before the Creatour hee plunged himselfe into innumerable defects miseries perplexities and discomforts and justly deserued that GOD from whome thus wickedly hee departed should make all those things which formerly hee appointed to doe him seruice to become feeble weake vnfit and vnwilling to performe the same But saith he Luther affirmeth that all things fall out by a kinde of absolute necessitie whence the heresie of the Manichees may bee inferred The aunswere to this objection is easie for Luther taketh necessitie for infallibilitie of event thereby meaning that all things fall out infallibly so as God before disposed and determined but doth not imagine a necessitie of coaction enforcing nor a naturall and inevitable necessitie taking away all freedome of choyce as our adversaries injuriously impute vnto him If this of Luther faile as in deede it doeth Bellarmine hath another proofe and demonstration that wee are Manichees for that Calvine denyeth man to haue freedome of choyce in any thing whatsoeuer This is a most false and injurious imputation For though Calvine deny that man can doe any thing in such sort as therein to bee free from the direction and ordering of Almighty GOD yet hee confesseth that Adams will in the day of his creation was free not onely from sinne and miserie but also from limitation of desire and naturall necessitie and left to her owne choyce in the highest matter and of most consequence of all the rest and that man by making an euill choyce did runne into those euills which he is now subject vnto Calvin then is not worse than the Manichees as making God the Authour of those euills which the Manichees attribute to an euill beginning as Bellarmine is pleased to pronounce of him but is farther from that hellish conceit than Bellarmine is from hell it selfe if he repent him not of these his wicked and hellish slanders But sayth hee the Manichees blamed and reprehended the Fathers of the Olde Testament and so also doeth Calvine therefore Calvin is a Manichee This is as if a man should thus reason with Bellarmine Porphyry blamed Paul as an arrogant man for reprehending Peter that was his auncient and before him in the faith of Christ and Bellarmine diliâ—…eth him for persecuting the Church of GOD in the time of his infidility therefore Bellarmine is as bad or worse than Porphyry For the Manichees thought that the Old Testament was from an euill beginning and therefore exaggerated all the faults and sinnes of the Fathers that then liâ—…ed for confirmation and strengthening of this their blasphemie But Calvin hateth this impiety more than the Romanists who imagine a greater difference betwixt the state of the Iewes and the Christians that hee doeth It is therefore an ill consequence Caluine doth not hide nor excuse but condemne the murder and adultery of Dauid the drunkennesse of Noe and the
view or handled with the handes of men and that the burying of them and hiding them from the sight of men is a duty wee owe vnto them wee haue caused Reliques which were wont superstitiously to bee adored and offered to be seene and handled of men to bee honourably buryed If any thing haue beene disorderly done in the confusions of warre and popular tumults they know our aunswere wee cannot excuse it nor could not remedie it Touching the fourth wee say that Bishoppes neither are bound to marry nor abstaine from marriage Touching the last wee say that Christian perfection standeth in this that wee set not our hearts vpon riches that wee bee not proude of them nor trust in them that we be ready if it be for Gods glory or our own soules good to leaue all But for giuing away all at once or retaining to our selues a sufficiency neither the one nor the other is absolutely a matter of more perfection For sometimes and for some men it is better to keepe and retaine a sufficiencie and to giue according to the proportion of their abilitie then to giue away all at once and sometimes for some men vpon some occasion and in some state of things it argueth more perfection to giue away relinquish and forsake all at once Perfection therefore essentially consisteth not in riches or pouerty nor in the refusing to haue any property in any thing as thereby expressing the state of things in the time of mans innocency but in the affection of the minde alwayes ready to forsake all for the glory of God the profession of the faith of Christ and the attaining of eternall saluation See to this purpose Gerson in his booke de consilijs evangelicis wherein hee excellently handleth and cleareth this matter of Christian perfection CHAP. 32. Of the heresies of Pelagius touching originall sinne and the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes THe fourteenth heresie wee are charged with is Pelagianisme which Bellarmine endeuoureth to fasten vpon vs three wayes First because Zuinglius did sometimes seeme to deny originall sinne as did the Pelagians Secondly because Calvine and others teach that the children of the faithfull are holy by the right of their birth Thirdly because wee say that all sinnes are by nature mortall To the first of these obiections wee say there is no more reason to charge vs with the priuate opinion of Zuinglius which himselfe afterwards corrected and none of his followers euer in the Heluetian Church defended then for vs to charge them with the errour of Pighius and Catharinus who taught more peremptorily the same errour that Zuinglius did if not a worse more dangerous For whereas he acknowledged most greeuous euils to be found in the nature of man since Adams fall which no way could haue beene in the integrity of nature though hee will not call them by the name of sinne They hold that originall sinne is not subiectiuely inherent in euery of vs but that Adams sinne is imputed to vs and wee punished for his offence that all the euils the sonnes of Adam are subiect to are the conditions of nature consequently not newly brought in by Adams sinne with sundry other erroneous conceits of the like nature Touching the second obiection that Bucer and Calvine deny originall sinne though not generally as did Zuinglius yet at least in the children of the faithfull If hee had said that these men affirme the earth doth moue and the heauens stand still he might haue as soone iustified it against them as this he now saith For they most constantly defend the contrary of that he imputeth to them But sayth hee they teach that the children of the faithfull are borne holy or are holy by the right of their birth O inconsiderate Iesuite is this the ground of that vile and vniust imputation Doth not Paul say so in expresse words and wilt thou make him a Pelagian like wise But sayth hee Calvin and Bucer teach that the children of Christians by the right of their birth are comprehended in the couenants of grace and so vnderstand the holinesse attributed to them whence it will follow that they are borne without originall sinne To this wee answere that the children of beleeuing parents may bee vnderstood to bee comprehended in the couenants of mercy and grace by the right of their birth either as beeing already in the couenants by actuall admission in that they are borne of such parents or for that in the couenant betweene God and their parents their parents offering them vnto God and his admission of them and taking them to bee his children vpon such offer made are couenanted and agreed vpon If Caluin and Bucer did teach that the children of beleeuing parents are already in the couenant by actuall admission in that they are borne of such parents it would follow that they were the children of grace by nature and not of wrath and consequently not borne in sinne But they teach no such thing but vnderstand the comprehension in the couenants in the other sense namely that the offering of them vnto God by their parents and his acceptation of them vpon such offer made are couenanted and agreed vpon in the couenants betweene God and their parents Now then as beleeuing parents haue good assurance that God will receiue their children as his owne children by adoption and forgiue them the sinne they are borne in if they present and offer them to Baptisme as they are bound by couenant to doe as much as in them lyeth So if by ineuitable impossibility they be hindred and cannot they hope of Gods goodnes in this behalfe are moued so to hope by sundry Rules of equity whereof Gerson and diuerse others do speake whom I hope Bellarmine will not pronounce to bee Pelagian heretickes The second thing wherin Bellarmine supposeth wee agree with the Pelagians is the deniall of the difference or distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes That the Pelagians did expressely and directly deny this distinction of sinnes there is no auncient writer that reporteth Bellarmine therefore prooueth it to bee consequent vpon that which they taught concerning the perfection of righteousnes supposed by them to be so full absolute as not to admit any imperfectiō or any the lightest sins to be where it remaineth How good this consequence is how well he proueth that he intendeth I referre to the iudgmēt of the Reader will not now examine But whether the Pelagians were in an error touching the difference of sins or no I will make it cleare euident that wee are not For wee do not deny the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes but do thinke that some sinnes are rightly said to bee mortall and some veniall not for that some are worthy of eternall punishment therefore named mortall others of temporall only and therefore iudged veniall as the Papists imagine but for that some exclude grace out of that man in
darke the length breadth and other dimensions of a thing but not whether it be faire or foule white or blacke So men in this obscurity of discerning may finde out that there is a God and that he is the beginning and cause of all things but they cannot know how faire how good how mercifull and how glorious hee is that so they may loue him feare him honour him and trust in him as God vnlesse they haue an illumination of grace The difference therefore betweene those of the Church of Rome and vs touching originall sinne consisteth in two points First In that they make the former defects of ignorance difficultie to doe good pronenesse to euill contrarietie betweene the powers of the soule and the rebellion of the meaner and inferiour against the better and superiour consequents of nature as it might and would be in it selfe simply considered without all defection and falling from God that originall righteousnesse was giuen to prevent and stay the effects that these naturally would haue brought forth and that these are not the consequents of Adams sinne but that onely the leauing of them free to themselues to disorder all is a consequent of the losse of that righteousnesse which was giuen to Adam and by him forfaited and lost that they proceede from the guilt of sinne but that they make not them guilty in whom they are But we say that these are no conditions of nature simply considered that they cannot bee found but where there is a falling from God that they are the consequents of Adams sinfull aversion from God his Creator that they are a part of original sinne and that they make men guilty of grieuous punishment so long as they remaine in them The second thing is that originall sin is indeed according to their opinion the privation of originall righteousnes but as original righteousnes was not giuen simply to inable men to decline euill and do good but collectiuely constantly and meritoriously to decline euill doe good so the privation of it doth not depriue men of all power of declining euill doing good but only of the power of declining all euill and doing all good collectiuely meritoriously But we say that originall righteousnes was given simply to inable men to decline euill to doe good and that without it the nature of man could not performe her proper and principall actions about her principall obiects So that the privation of it depriveth a man of all power of knowing loving fearing honouring or glorifying God as God and of all power of doing any thing morally good or not sinfull and putteth him into an estate wherein hee cannot but loue and desire things that God would not or so as hee would not haue him yea of louing other things more than God and and so as to dishonour God in any kind rather than not to enjoy the things he desires So that if wee speake of originall sinne formally it is the privation of those excellent gifts of diuine grace inabling vs to know loue feare serue honour and trust in God and to doe the things he delighteth in which Adam had lost If materially it is that habituall inclination that is found in men averse from God carrying them to the loue and desire of finite things more then of God and this also is properly sin making guilty of condemnation the nature and person in which it is found This habituall inclination to desire finite things inordinately is named concupiscence and this concupiscence is two fold as Alensis noteth out of Hugo for there is concupiscentia spiritus and concupiscentia carnis there is a concupiscence of the spirit or superiour faculties of the flesh or inferiour the former is sinne the latter sinne and punishment For what is more iust then that the will refusing to bee ordered by God and desiring what hee would not haue it should finde the inferiour faculties rebellious and inclined to desire things the will would haue to bee declined It remaineth therefore that wee proceede to proue that this doctrine was receiued taught continued in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued died till after Luthers time I haue shewed already that Gregorius Ariminensis professeth that Adam in the state of his creation was not inabled to perform any acte morally good or so to doe any good thing as not to sin in doing it by any thing in nature without addition of grace which thing he proveth out of the master of the sentences whose words are these speaking of the first man before his fall Egebat itaque homo gratiâ non vt liberaret voluntatem suam quae peccati serva non fuerat sed vt praepararet ad volendum efficaciter bonum quod per se non poterat That is The first man needed grace not to free his will for it neuer had been in bondage but to prepare and fit it effectually to will that which is good which of it selfe it could not doe And he confirmeth the same out of Saint August his words are these Istam gratiam non habuit homo primus quâ nunquam vellet esse malus sed habuit in qua si permanere vellet nunquam malus esset sine quâ etiam cum libero arbitrio bonus esse non posset sed eam tamen per liberum arbitrium deserere posset nec ipsum ergo Deus esse voluit sine suâ gratiâ quem reliquit in eius libero arbitrio quoniam liberum arbitrium ad malum sufficit ad bonum auâ—…m parumest nisi adiuuetur ab omnipotenti bono quod adiutorium si homo ille per liberum non deseruisset arbitrium semper esset bonus sed deseruit et desertus est that is The first man had not that grace that might make him so will good as neuer to become euill but truely hee had that wherein if hee would haue continued hee should neuer haue bin euill and without which notwithstanding all the freedome of his will he could not be good yet by the freedome of his will he might loose it wherefore God would not haue him to be without his grace whom he left in the freedome of his will because free will is sufficient of it selfe to doe evill but it is of litle force or rather as the true reading is of no force nothing to do good vnlesse it be holpeÌ„ of the omnipotent good which helpe if maÌ„ had not forsakeÌ„ by his free will he had ever beene good but he forsooke it and was forsaken Thirdly he proueth the same in this sort Si Adam ante peccatum potuisset per suas vires naturales praecise agere actum moraliter bonum ipse potuisset facere se de non bono bonum posito quod aliquando fuisset sine omni actu voluntatis cum suis taÌ„tum naturalibus aut de bono meliorem deo illum non specialiter adiuvante that is If Adam had power before the
entrance of sin precisely by the strength of his naturall faculties to do an act morally good then hee might haue made him selfe good of not good supposing that sometimes in the state of meere nature he had no act of will or at the least he might haue made himselfe of good better without the speciall helpe of God but this consequent must not be admitted for if Adam might thus haue done the good Angels might haue done soe but that is contrary to St Augustine his words are these Si boni Angeli fuerunt prius sine bonâ voluntate eamque in seipsis deo non operante fecerunt ergo meliores à seipsis quam ab illo facti sunt Absit At si non potuerunt seipsos facere meliores quaÌ„ eos ille fecerat quo nemo melius quic quam facit profecto bonam voluntatem quà meliores essent nisi operante adiutorio creatoris habere non possent that is If the good Angells were first without any good motion of will or the goodnesse of the will and afterwards God not working wrought it in themselues then they made themselues better then they were made of him which God forbid wee should euer thinke But if they could not make themselues better then he made them then whom no man can do any thing better truly vnles the helpe of their Creator wrought them to it they could not haue that goodnesse of wil whereby they might become better then they were before That which hee thus proueth touching the state of man before the fall is vndoubtedly true in the state of the fall and therefore all the most pious and iudicious men in euery age haue taught as wee now do that since the fall of Adam there is no power left in any of his posterity before they be renewed by grace to decline sinne or to doe any worke morally good and that may be truly named a worke of vertue And these cannot but farther agree with Ariminensis and vs touching the impotencie of nature before the entrance of sin to do any good act or act of vertue of it selfe without the addition of grace For if grace had not bin giuen in the state of the creation simply to inable to do good but that there had bin a power of doing good in nature without and before the addition of grace then vpon the losse of it there had followed no such impotencie in the present state as these men affirme there did and they that hold the other opinion denie All these affirme that all the posterity of Adam are plunged into such an estate of ignorance by this fall that without speciall illumination of grace they know not sufficiently concerning any thing that is to bee done or committed that it is to be done or committed and wherefore in what sort into such an estate of infirmity impotencie in respect of the will that they cannot will any thing that is to be willed for such cause and in such sort as it is to be willed and withsuch circumstances as are required to make an act to be morally good and truly vertuous St Austine sayth that Adam and Eue so soone as they had sinned were cast headlong into error misery and death that it was most iust they should soe be for what sayth hee is more iust then vt amittat quisque quo bene vti noluit cum sine vlla posset difficultate si vellet id est vt qui sciens rectè non facit aâ—…ittat scire quid rectuÌ„ sit qui rectè facere cum posset noluit amittat posse cuÌ„ velit that euery one should loose that which when with ease he might hee would not vse well that is that he that hauing knowledge doth not right should loose the knowledge of that which is right that he that would not do well when he might should loose the power of doing well when hee would And elsewhere speaking of the first sinne of the Angells and men hee sayth that when they fell Subintrauit ignorantia rerum agendarum concupiscentia noxiarum that is there entred in ignorance of things to bee done and desire of things hurtfull that are to be declined Prosper in his booke in defence of the preachers of grace against Cassian reprehendeth him because he had said in his collation de protectione Dei that Adam gained the knowledge of euill after his fall but lost not the knowledge of good which he had receiued telleth him that both these propositions are vntrue so that hee thinketh that Adam lost the knowledge of good Hugo de sancto Victore saith the first man was indued with a threefold knowledge cognitione scilicet creatoris sui ut cognosceret à quo factus erat cognitione sui ut cognosceret quid factus erat quid sibi faciendum erat deindè cognitione quoque illius quod secum factum erat quid sibi de illo in illo faciendum erat That is he was indued with knowledge of his Creator that he might know of whom he was made with knowledge of himself that he might know what he was made and what he was to doe lastly with knowledge of that which was made together with him what he was to doe with in it For no man is to doubt but that man had perfect knowledge of all those visible things that were made for him with him as much as pertained either to the instruction of his soule or the necessity of bodily vse This knowledge man hath not lost by the fall neither that whereby hee was to prouide things necessarie for the flesh and therefore God was not carefull afterwards to instruct him touching these things by the Scriptures but he was to bee taught that knowledge that concerneth the soule onely when hee was to be restored because he had lost that only by sinning And in the same place hee excellently describeth the knowledge of God that Adam had to haue bin not by hearing only from without as now but by inspiration within not that whereby now beleeuers by faith seeke after God as absent but that whereby by presence of contemplation he was more manifestly seene of him as knowing him And concludeth it is hard to expresse the manner of the diuine knowledge the first man had but that onely this is certaine that being taught visibly by inward inspiration he could no way doubt of his Creator In like sort the same Hugo sheweth most excellently that man hath lost all rectitude of will for whereas there was giuen to man a double desire iusti commodi of that which is just and that which is pleasing the one voluntary the other necessary that by the one he might merite or demerite by the other he might be punished or rewarded for if he had no desire of that is pleasing hee could neither be rewarded by hauing nor punished by being depriued He hath lost the one
the virgin in the councell of Lateran But Cardinall Caietan writeth a learned discourse touching the same matter and offereth it to Leo praying him to be well aduised and in this tract for proofe of her conception in sin he produceth the testimonies of 15 canonized Saints For first S. Augustine writing vppon the 34 Psalme sayth that Adam died for sin that Mary who came out of the loynes of Adam died for sinne but that the flesh of the Lord which hee tooke of the virgin Mary died for to take away sin And in his 2d booke de baptismo parvulorum Hee only who ceasing not to be God became man neuer had sinne neither did he take the flesh of sin or sinfull flesh though hee tooke of the flesh of his mother that was sinfull And in his tenth booke de Genesi ad litteram he sayth Though the body of Christ were taken of the flesh of a woman that was conceiued out of the propagation of sinnefull flesh yet because hee was not soe conceiued of her as shee was conceiued therefore it was not sinnefull flesh but the similitude of sinnefull flesh And Saint Ambrose vppon those words Blessed are the vndefiled hath these words The Lord Iesus came and that flesh that was subiect to sinne in his mother performed the warrefare of vertue And Crhysostome vpon Mathew sayth Though Christ was no sinner yet hee tooke the nature of man of a woman that was a sinner And Eusebius Emissenus in his second sermon vpon the natiuity which beginneth Yee know beloued c. hath these words There is none free from the tie and bond of originall sinne no not the mother of the redeemer Saint Remigius vppon those words of the Psalme O God my God looke vpon mee sayth The blessed virgin Mary was made cleane from all staine of sinne that the man Christ Iesus might bee conceiued of her without sinne Saint Maximus in his sermon of the assumption of the blessed virgin sayth The blessed and glorious virgin was sanctified in her mothers wombe from all contagion of originall sinne before shee came to the birth and was made pure and vndefiled by the holy Ghost Saint Beda in his sermon vppon missus est and the same is in the ordinary glosse sayth that The holy spirit comming vpon the virgin freed her minde from all defiling of sinnefull vice and made it chast and purified her from the heate of carnall concupiscence tempering and cleansing her hart Saint Bernard in his epistle to them of Lyons sayth It is beleeued that the blessed virgin after her conception receiued sanctification while shee was yet in the wombe which excluding sinne made her birth holy but not her conception Saint Erardus a Bishoppe and a martyr in his sermon vpon the natiuity of the virgin crieth out O happie damsell which being conceiued in sinne is purged from all sinne and conceiueth a sonne without sinne Saint Anthony of Padua in his sermon of the natiuity of the blessed virgin sayth The blessed virgin was sanctified from sinne by grace in her mothers wombe and borne without sinne Saint Thomas Aquinas for he also was a canonized Saint in the third part of his summe quaest 27. art 2. sayth that the blessed virgin because shee was conceaued out of the commixtion of her parents contracted originall sinne Saint Bonauenture vppon the third of the sentences distinct 3. p. 1. artic 1. quaest 1. sayth Wee must say the blessed virgin was conceiued in originall sinne and that her sanctification followed her contracting of originall sinne this opinion is the more common the more reasonable and more secure More common for almost all hold it The more reasonable because the being of nature precedeth the being of grace The more secure because it better agreeth with the piety of faith and the authority of the Saints then the other Saint Bernardine in sermonum suorum opere tertio in his tract of the blessed virgin sermon the fourth sayth There was a third sanctification which was that of the mother of God and this taketh away originall sinne conferreth grace and remoueth the pronenesse to sinne mortally or venially Saint Vincentius the Confessor in sermone de conceptione virginis sayth The blessed virgin was conceaued in originall sinne but that the same day and houre she was purged by sanctification from sinne contracted so soone as euer shee had receiued the spirit of life And besides all these holden to bee Saints in the Church of Rome hee sayth there were a great multitude of auncient doctors who speaking particularly and distinctly of the virgin say shee was conceiued in originall sinne whose sayings who pleaseth may find in the originalls or may find them in the bookes of Iohannes de Turrecremata and Vincentius de Castro Nouo writing vpon the conception of the virgin whence they are taken Thus farre Caietan Bonauentura professeth that the opinion of the blessed virgins spotlesse conception was so new in his time that he had neuer read it in any author neither did he finde it to be holden by any one that he had euer seene or heard speak And Adam Angelicus sayth If the sayings of the Saints be to be beleeued wee must hold that the blessed virgin was conceiued in originall sin and none of the Saints is found to haue sayd the contrary Yet in time some beganne to bring in this opinion and to make it publike as Scotus and Franciscus de Maironis but very doubtfully and fearefully for Scotus hauing spoken of both opinions touching the conception of the virgin sayth in the conclusion that God onely knoweth which of them is the truer but if it be not contrary to the authority of the Church or of holy Scripture it seemeth probable to attribute that to the virgin that is more excellent And that indeede hee had reason to feare least hee should contrary the Fathers and holy men that went before it will easily appeare by that of the master of Sentences It may truely bee said and wee must beleeue according to the consenting testimonies of the Saints that the flesh which CHRIST tooke was formerly subiect to sinne as the rest of the flesh of the virgin but that it was soe sanctified and made pure and undefiled by the operation of the holy Ghost that free from all contagion of sinne it was vnited to the word But see how strangely things were carried this opinion which was vnknowne to the Church for more then a thousand yeares and at the first broaching of it had fewe patrons yet in time grewe to be so generally approued that almost all they of the Latine Church thought they did God good seruice in following this opinionâ—… many visions reuelations and miracles were pretended in fauour of it and the Councell of Basil decreed for it Bridget canonized for a Saint professed it had beene particularly revealed to her but Catharina Senensis a Prophetesse also and more authentically canonized then the former professed that the contrary
was revealed to her as the Arch-bishop of Florence reporteth in his summe And Caietan saith if miracles be pretended for proofe great caution is to bee vsed both in respect of the strange workes and in respect of the illusions that may fall out in things of this kinde In respect of the strange workes that are done because the Angell of Satan transformeth himselfe into an Angell of light and can doe many great and strange things which wee would thinke to bee true miracles and such things as God onely can doe as the workes of healing strange mutations in the Elements and the like Whence it is that it is said Antichrist shall doe so many miracles in the sight of men that if it were possible the very elect should bee deceiued Moreouer as the Apostle testifieth 1 Cor. 14 and blessed Gregory in his tenth Homilie miracles were giuen to Infidels not to beleeuers but to the Church as faithfull and not faithlesse the propheticall and Apostolicall revelation was giuen for her direction So that though that course of proofe that is by miracles was appointed by Christ Marke the last in respect of Infidels and though it bee allowed by the Church to make good the personall condition of some man as when one pretendeth to bee sent extraordinarily of God yet vnlesse most clearely a true and vndoubted not wonder but miracle were done in the sight of the Gouernours of the Romane Church expressely to testifie that this particular is true the Roman Bishops ought not to determine any doubtfull thing in matter of faith vpon the doing of a miracle And the reason is because God hath appointed an ordinary course for the resoluing of points of faith so that if an Angell from Heauen should say vnto vs any thing contrary to this way wee were not to beleeue him as the Apostle saith in the first to the Galathians Adde hereunto that the miracles which the Church admitteth in the canonization of Saints which yet are most authenticall are not altogether certaine seeing the credite of them dependeth vpon the testimonie of men and euery man is a lyar And hee concludeth that these things being so wise men thinke that pretended miracles and revelations in this kinde contrary to so many Saints and auncient Doctours argue rather that the Angell of Satan is transformed into an Angell of light and that whatsoeuer things are alleadged in this kinde are meere fancies and counterfeite stuffe then that they prooue the trueth of this conceipt and that proofes in this kinde are fitter for silly women then councels to take notice of It appeareth by Saint Bernard that in his time they of Lyons in France out of a superstitious conceipt as he rightly censureth it beganne to celebrate the Feast of the Conception of the blessed Virgin supposing that she was conceiued without sinne but he opposeth himselfe against this innovation and saith the observation of the Church hath no such thing reason inferreth it not nor ancient tradition commendeth it that wee are not more learned devout then our Fathers that in like sort others may bring in the Feast of her parents Conception that patriae non exilii frequentia haec gaudiorum numerositas festivitatum cives non exules decet That whereas some brought out a certaine pretended writing of divine revelation it was not to be regarded and that another might bring forth the like writing wherein the holy Virgin might bee found to commaund the same thing to be done in honour of her parents according to the commaund of the Lord Honour thy father and thy mother so did hee shew his dislike Yet after this many Churches receiued the same obseruation and in processe of time all were brought to keepe the same day holy yet so that many of them professed that they would keepe it holy not in respect of her preseruation but of her sanctification from sinne So that wee see that this poynt of Romish superstition was neuer admitted by the Church but protested against by all the most worthy members of it which thing besides that which hath already beene alleadged the reader may finde farther confirmed by Ariminensis who not only contradicteth this fancie himself but produceth many authorities for the reproof of it So that herein also the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died is found to haue beene a Protestant Church as in the former But some man will say many of those that we produce for witnesses that she was conceiued in sinne yet thinke that shee was sanctified in the wombe and borne without sinne For answere herevnto we must obserue that which Gregorius Ariminensis hath that many thought shee was sanctified in the wombe and borne without originall sinne as sinne and making guilty of condemnation but not without concupiscence inclining to euill which was wholly taken away or so restrained by the superabundance of grace when the holy spirit overshadowed her that shee might be the mother of God that it should neuer be an occasion of sinne this opinion the master of sentences followeth and this opinion the Schoolemen followe for the most part But August sayth Ista sanctificatio quâ efficimur singuli templa Dei in vnum omnes templum Dei non est nisi renatorum quod nisi nati homines esse non possunt Si homo regenerari per gratiam spiritus in vtero potest quoniam restat illi adhuc nasci renascitur ergo antequam nascitur quod fieri nullo modo potest Seeing therefore none can be sanctified before hee bee borne neither canne any man be cleansed from originall sinne before his birth in asmuch as that is not taken away but by the infusion of grace And the glosse vpon the eigth to the Romans saith Christ was the first that was borne without sinne And Anselme in his second booke cur Deus homo hath these wordes Though Christs conception were pure and without the sinne of carnall delight yet the virgine her selfe of whom he tooke flesh was conceiued in iniquity and her mother conceiued her in sinne and shee was borne with originall sin because shee also sinned in Adam in whom all sinned And diverse of the Fathers feared not to make her subject to actuall sin Origen writing vpon Luke insisting vpon those wordes of Simeon to Mary a sword shall pierce thorough thy soule hath these wordes What is this sword that pierced the heart not only of others but of Mary also It is plainly written that in the time of his passion all the Apostles were scandalized as the Lord himselfe had sayd you shall all be scandalized this night they were all therefore so scandalized that even Peter the prince of the Apostles denyed him thrice What shall we thinke that when the Apostles were scandalized the mother of our Lord was free from being scandalized Surely if shee suffered no scandall in the time of the Lords passion Christ dyed not for her sins but
this body they would all crye out with a loud voice If we say we haue no sinne wee deceiue our selues and there is no trueth in vs. Gregorius Ariminensis noteth that Augustine speaketh not of originall sin but actuall and that this ample grace to ouercome sinne was not giuen her till the spirit ouer-shadowed her and the power of the most High came vpon her that shee might conceiue and beare him that neuer knew sinne so that before shee might commit sinne which yet hee will not affirme because the moderne Doctours for the most part thinke otherwise so intimating that all did not And surely the wordes of Augustin doe not import that shee had no sinne but that shee ouercame it which argueth a conflict neither doth hee say he will acknowledge shee was without sinne but that hee will not moue any question touching her in this dispute of sinnes and sinners So passing by the point and not willing to enter into this dispute with the Pelagian who conceiued it would be plausible for him to pleade for the puritie of the Mother of our Lord and disgracefull for any one to except against her By that which hath beene said it appeareth that the Church of God neuer resolued any thing touching the birth of the blessed Virgin without sinne nor whether shee were free from all actuall sinne or not If happily it bee alleadged that the Church celebrated the Feast of her nativitie and therefore beleeued that shee was borne without sinne First touching the celebration of this Feast it is evident that it was not auncient That it was not in the dayes of Saint Augustine as some imagine because on that day there is read in the Church a Sermon of Saint Augustines touching the solemnitie of that day it is proued out of Saint Augustine himselfe for in his 21 Sermon de sanctis he hath these wordes Wee celebrate this day the birth-day of Iohn the Baptist which honour wee neuer read to haue beene giuen to any of the Saints Solius enim Domini beati Ioannis dies nativitatis in universo mundo celebratur colitur That is For the birth-day of our Lord onely and of Iohn the Baptist is celelebrated kept holy throughout the whole world illum enim sterilis peperit illum virgo concepit in Elizabetha sterilitas vincitur in beatâ Mariâ conceptionis consuetudo mutatur That is A woman that was barren bare the one and a virgin the other in Elizabeth barrennes is ouercome in blessed Mary the ordinary course of conceiuing is changed And in his 20 â—h sermon hee hath these words Post illum sacrosanctum Domini natalis diem nullius hominum nativitatem legimus celebrari nisi solius beati Ioannis Baptistae In aliis sanctis electis Dei novimus illum diem coli quo illos post consummationem laborum devictum triumphatumque mundum in perpetuas aeternitates praesens haec vita parturit In aliis consummata vltimi diei merita celebrantur in hoc etiam prima dies ipsa etiam hominis initia consecrantur pro hac absque dubio causà quia per hunc Dominus adventum suum ne subito homines insperatum non agnoscerent voluit esse testatum That is After that most sacred day of the birth of our Lord wee reade not that the nativity of any one amongst men is celebrated but of Iohn the Baptist onely touching other Saints and other the chosen of God wee know that that day is celebrated in which after the consummation of their labours after their victories and triumphs ouer the world this present life bringeth them forth to begin to liue for euer In others the consummate vertues of the last day are celebrated in this the first day and the beginnings of the man are consecrated for this cause no doubt because the Lord would haue his comming made knowen to the world by him least if his comming had not beene expected and looked for it might happily not haue beene acknowledged Neither doth the reading of the sermon of Saint Augustine on that day pertayning to the solemnity of the day proue that this day was kept holy before his time for as Baronius sheweth the sermon was fitted originally to the solemnity of the feast of the Annunciation the words were these Let our land reioyce illustrated with the solemne day of so great a virgine which are altered and read in the breviarie in this sorte Let our land rejoyce illustrated by the birth day of so great a virgin And it is evident by the councell of Mentz holden in the time of Charles the great in the yeare 813 that this feast was not celebrated in the Church of Germany and France in those times As likewise it appeareth by the constitutions of Charles and Ludovicus Pius Secondly the celebrating of the birth-day of the blessed virgine will no more proue that shee was borne without all sinne then that Iohn the Baptist was so borne concerning whom Bernard sayth hee knoweth he was sanctified before he came out of the wombe but how farre this sanctification freed him from sinne hee dareth not say or define any thing Thus wee see that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died was a Protestant Church in these poynts touching the conception birth of the blessed virgine aswell as in the former CHAP. 7. Of the punishment of originall sinne and of Limbus puerorum BEllarmine sheweth that there are foure opinions in the Roman Church touching the punishment of originall sinne and the state of infants dying vnregenerate for Ambrosius Catharinus in his booke of the state of children dying vnbaptized Albertus Pighius in his first controversie and Savanarola in hâ—…s booke of the triumph of the crosse doe teach that infants dying without baptisme shall after the iudgement enioy a kinde of naturall happinesse and liue happily for euer as it were in a certaine earthly paradise howsoeuer for the present they goe downe into those lower parts of the earth which are called Limbus puerorum These men suppose that infants incurre no staine or infection by Adams sinne but that for his offence being denyed the benefit of supernaturall grace which would haue made them capable of heauen happines they are found in a state of meere nature in which as they cannot come to heauen so they are subiect to no euili that may cause them to sorrow For though they see that happines in heaven whereof they had a possibility yet they no more greiue that they haue not attained it then innumerable men doe that they are not Kings and Emperours as well as others of which honours they were capable as well as they in that they were men The second opinion is that infants dying in the state of originall sinne not remitted are excluded from the sight of God and condemned to the prison house of the infernall dwellings for euer so that they suffer the punishment of losse but
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
condemnation if it bee not remitted Thirdly That God hateth it and that wee must hate it as long as any remaines of it are found in vs. Fourthly That the first motions of it are sin The first of these foure is clearely deliuered by Saint Augustine in his third booke against Iulian his wordes are these An vero cuiuscunque frontis sis audeas suspicari in primâ hominum constitutione priusquam culpam debita damnatio sequeretur istam carnalem concupiscentiam aut extitisse in paradiso aut inordinatis vt eam nunc videmus motibus pugnas adversus spiritum faedissimas edidisse And in his fourth booke where Iulian obiecteth that if wee graunt that that concupiscence of the flesh against which wee resist by continencie was not in paradise before sinne but that it flowed from that sinne which the devill first perswaded the first man to commit it will bee consequent that the senses of seeing hearing tasting smelling and handling are not of God but of the devill hee answereth that Iulian is ignorant or maketh shew to be ignorant per quemlibet corporis sensum aliud esse sentiendi vivacitatem vel vtilitatem vel necessitatem aliud sentiendi libidinem Vivacitas sentiendi quâ magis alius alius minus in ipsis corporalibus rebus pro earum modo atque naturâ quod verum est percipit atque id à falso magis minusve discernit Vtilitas sentiendi est per quam corpori vitaeque quam gerimus ad aliquid approbandum vel improbandum sumendum vel reijciendum appetendum vitandumve consulimus Necessitas sentiendi est quando sensibus nostris etiam quae nolumus ingeruntur Libido autem sentiendi est de quâ nunc agimus quae nos ad sentiendum sive consentientes mente sive repugnantes appetitu carnalis voluptatis impellit Haec est contraria delectationi sapientiae haec virtutibus inimica And in his fifth booke he hath these wordes Dixi inobedientiam carnis quae in carne concupiscente aduersus spiritum apparet diabolico vulnere contigisse And again Hanc legem peccati repugnantē legi mentis á Deo illatam propter vltionem ideo poenam esse peccati But I will no longer insist vpon this poynt hauing sufficiently proved in that part that is of originall sinne that all these evils did flow from Adams transgression were no conditions of nature The next thing that is to be proued is that concupiscence till it be remitted maketh them in whom it is guilty of eternal condemnation This is proued out of Saint Augustine his words are these Iulianus concupiscentiam bonam praedicat Nos autem qui eam malam dicimus manere tamen in baptizatis quamvis reatus eius non quo ipsa erat rea neque enim aliqua persona est sed quo reum hominem originaliter faciebat fuerit remissus atque vacuatus absit ut dicamus sanctificari cum quâ necesse habent regenerati si non in vacuum Dei gratiam susceperunt intestino quodam bello tanquam cum hoste confligere atque ab eâ peste desiderare atque optare sanari And afterwards Et concupiscentia quae manet oppugnanda atque sananda quamvis in baptismo dimissa sint cuncta omninò peccata non solùm non sanctificatur sed potius ne sanctificatos aeternae morti obnoxios possit tenere evacuatur Gregorius Ariminensis fully agreeth with Augustine and contradicteth Bellarmine his wordes are these Originall sinne is in a sort taken away and in a sort remaineth after Baptisme for it is taken away in respect of the guilt not of the essence that is that vice or that qualitie that is named concupiscence and is before Baptisme originall sinne abideth truely in the essence of it after Baptisme but not in the guilt that is it maketh not men guilty of condemnation after Baptisme as it did before and for proofe hereof he alleadgeth the testimony of S. Augustine in his booke de peccato originali his words are these Obesset ista carnalis concupiscentia etiam tantummodo quod inesset nisi peccatorum remissio sic prodesset ut quae in eis est nato renato nato quidem inesse obesse renato autem inesse quidem sed non obesse possit In tantum enim obest natis ut nisi renascantur nihil possit prodesse si nati sunt de renatis Manet quippe in prole ita ut reatum faciat originis vitium etiamsi in parente reatus eiusdem vitii remissione ablutus est peccatorum That is Carnall concupiscence by onely being in a man would vndoe him if remission of sinnes did not so helpe the matter that it being in men borne and borne a new in men as borne into the world it is and is to their hurt and euill in men borne anew it onely is but is not to their hurt For it is so farre forth hurtfull to men borne that vnlesse they bee borne a newe it nothing profiteth them to haue beene borne of such as were new borne For originall sinne doeth so abide in the childe as to make him guilty though the guilt of the same sinne be taken away in the parent by remission of sinnes The Master of sentences in his 2d booke agreeth with Saint Augustine his wordes are these Vnlesse it be by an ineffable miracle of the Creator Baptisme doth not cause the Law of sinne which is in our members to bee extinguished and not to bee it causeth indeede all the euill a man hath thought or done to be abolished and to be accounted as if it had neuer beene done but it suffereth concupiscence the bond of guilt where with the diuell by it held the soule and separated it from God her Creator being loosened to remaine that there may be a continuall fight Bonaventura writing vpon the same place saith Concupiscence importeth in the vnregenerate an immoderate desire of commutable good in such sort as to captivate reason and to pervert the soule so that it must preferre commutable good before that which is incommutable this concupiscence cannot be found in any but it must make him in whom it is guilty of condemnation the strength of this concupiscence is so broken and ouerthrowne by the grace of regeneration that it hath no power to captiuate reason to pervert the soule bring vpon it a necessitie of preferring things finite before infinite and so the guilt of condemnation is taken away but it hath still power to moue and sollicite vs to euill and we by Gods grace haue power to resist ouercome For as the Master of the sentences saith in the same place though concupiscence remaine after Baptisme yet doth it not rule raigne as before but it is diminished weakned made lesse forcible that it may rule no longer vnlesse any man will giue strength vnto his enimy by going after the lusts thereof So that it is euident
that the Church of God taught as wee do that concupiscence in it owne nature is a sinne making guilty of grieuous punishment that when it is weakned and ceaseth to be so potent as formerly it was yet it ceaseth not to be of the same kind that formerly it was as Gregorius Ariminensis sheweth and therefore seeing it was before a sin it is still in some sort a sin that God hating it before he hateth it still we also are to hate it by all meanes to seeke to weaken and destroy it Cassander sayth that a very worthy and famous diuine affirmeth that it is sin in the regenerate though it be not imputed And he addeth that the difference between them that say it is sin and them that say it was sin properly made guilty of condemnation but now being weake ned the guilt taken away it is not properly sinne is a meere logomachia And therefore in the conference at Wormes the colloquutors agreed touching this point the forme of their agreement is this We confesse with vnanimous consent that all that come of Adam according to the ordinary course are borne in originall sinne and vnder the wrath of God Originall sinne is the priuation and want of originall righteousnes ioyned with concupiscence We agree also that the guilt of originall sinne is remitted in baptisme together with all other sinnes by the merit of Christs passion But we thinke that concupiscence a vice or fault of nature an infirmity and disease remaineth taught soe to thinke not only by the apostolicall scriptures but by experience also And touching this disease wee agree that that which is materiall in originall sinne remaineth in the regenerate that which is formall being taken away by baptisme And wee call that the materiall part of originall sinne that tooke beginning from sin that inclineth vnto sinne and repugneth against the law of God as Paul also calleth it and in this sort it is briefely sayd in the Schooles that the materiall part of originall sinne remaineth in the baptized and that the formall is taken away By the formall part of sinne they vnderstand the priuation or want of those diuine graces that should cause the knowledge loue and feare of God the inordinate inclination to loue ourselues and finite things so as not to regard God and the consequent guilt of condemnation accompanying such priuation and inordinate inclination by the materiall part they vnderstand not concupiscence as it is in strength captiuating all to the sinister loue of our selues and things finite but as weakened it still solliciteth to evill but so that easily it may be resisted if wee make right vse of the grace that God hath giuen vs this remainder of concupiscence is euill inclineth to euill God hateth it and we must hate it c. And therefore it is most absurd that the councell of Trent hath that God hateth nothing in the regenerate and the reason they giue is very weake that therefore he hateth nothing in them because there is no condemnation vnto them for many things may be disliked in them that shall not be condemned It remaineth that wee speake concerning first motions Bonauentura describeth first motions to be the motions of sensuality according to the impulsion of concupiscence impetuously tending to the fruition of a delectable creature First motions saith hee are either primò primi or secundò primi primò primi sunt naturales secundò primi sunt sensualitatis primò primi sequuntur naturalium qualitatum actionem secundò primi imaginationem these first motions hee pronounceth to be sinne for three causes First because they moue to that which they should not and to that which is vnlawfull Secondly because they are in a sort voluntary though not in themselues yet in that they are not hindred by the will or in respect of precedent apprehension Thirdly they are sinne in respect of delight annexed for when the soule is ioyned by delight to the creature it is darkned and made worse as when it is ioyned to God it is inlightened and bettered These sayth he are veniall sinnes because the will hath not a compleate dominion ouer these motions of sensuality as ouer those acts that proceed from the command of the wil but yet it might haue hindered them therefore they are veniall sins so they continue so long as they stay proceed not so farre as to haue the willes consent but if they proceede so farre as that the will consenteth to take delight therein though not to proceede to action it is a mortall sinne This is the opinion of Bonauenture a cardinall and a canonized Saint and with him agree sundry others soe that in this point the Church formerly taught as wee do now CHAP. 9. Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne BEllarmine saith that the Romanists with one consent do teach that some sinnes in their owne nature no respect had to predestination or reprobation to the state of men regenerate or not regenerate are mortall other veniall and that the former make men vnworthy of the fauour of God and guilty of eternall condemnation the other onely subiect them to temporall punishments and fatherly chastisements But wee knowe the Church of God beleeued otherwise For first Gerson proueth that euery offence against God may iustly be punished by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgment with eternall death yea with vtter annihilation because there is no punishment so euill and so much to be auoyded as the least sinne that may be imagined So that a man should rather choose eternall death yea vtter annihilation then committe the least offence in the world Secondly he proueth the same because all diuines do agree that wheresoeuer there is eternity of sinne there must be eternity of punishment now where there is no remission there sinne must of necessity remaine for euer for though sinne soone cease in respect of the act yet euery sinne remaineth after the act is past in respect of the staine and guilt till it be remitted whence it followeth that euery sinne in it owne nature and without grace to remitte it remaineth eternally and deserueth eternity of punishment and is mortall Wee say therefore that some sinnes are mortall and some veniall not because some deserue eternity of punishment and others do not for all deserue eternity of punishment and shall eternally be punished if they remaine without grace and vnremitted eternally but because some sins either in respect of the matter wherein men do offend or ex imperfectione actus in that they are not committed with full consent exclude not grace the roote of remission and pardon out of the soule of him that committeth them whereas other either in respect of the matter wherein they are conuersant or the full consent wherewith they are committed cannot stand with grace Soe that contrary to Bellarmines position no sin is veniall in it owne nature without respect had to the
is moued by an impression of that waight which it put not into it self but the authour of nature moueth but one way so that it is far from freedome liberty euen in this motion also Liuing things moue themselues not one way only as the former but euery way as we see plants trees wherein the first lowest degree of life is discerned moue themselues downewards vpwards on the right hand on the left yet discerne they not whether neither do they moue themselues out of any discerning so are far from liberty Bruite beasts are moued by themselues in a more excellent sort for hauing discerned such things as are fitting to their nature condition there is raised in them a desire of the same so that they may very properly truely be said to moue themselues because they raise in themselues the desire that moueth them yet is there no freedome or liberty in them For there is no liberty truely so called but where there is an apprehensiō not of things of some certaine kind onely but of all things generally of the whole variety of things of the proportion which they haue within themselues of the different degrees of goodnes found in them answerable herevnto a desire of good in general a greater or lesse desire of each good according as it appeareth to be more or lesse good and so a preferr◅ng of one before another a choosing of what it thinketh best So that reason is the roote of all liberty for in that reason discerneth good in generall the will in generall desireth it in that it sheweth there is a good wherein there is all good no defect the will if it haue any action about the same cannot but accept it in that it sheweth that one thing is better then another the will preferreth or lesse esteemeth it in that it sheweth some reasons of good some defects and evils the will chooseth or refuseth when reason finally resolueth a thing now in this particular to bee best the will inclineth to it This generality of knowledge is not found in any thing below the condition of man other liuing creatures haue an apprehension of some certaine things onely they haue no knowledge of good in generall but of certaine good things onely nor no desire of good in generall in the extent of it but of such particular good things as are fitted to them these therefore haue neither free and illimited apprehension nor desire of good but limited restrained and shutte vp within a certaine compasse so that they are like to a man shutte vp in prison who though hee may moue himselfe and walke vp and downe yet cannot goe beyond a certaine limitation and bounds set vnto him But man was made to haue an apprehēsion of all things to discern the nature of each and the different degrees of goodnesse found in them and accordingly to desire good in generall to desire each thing more or lesse as it appeareth more or lesse good neuer to rest satisfied till he come to an infinite good to desire the same for it selfe as originally good and as the last end because aboue or beyond it there is nothing to be desired to desire nothing but in reference vnto it seeing nothing is good but by partaking of it And hence it is easy to see how the liberty of our will is preserued and how and in what sort it is lost for seeing the desire of the chiefe good and last end is the originall of all particular desires if God be proposed vnto vs as our last end and chiefe good in whom from whom and for whom all things are then our will without restraint and without all going aside and intangling or intricating it selfe shall freely loue whatsoeuer is good and each thing more or lesse according as it comes neerer to God and nothing but that which is pleasing to him thus is our liberty preserued and continued But if we depart from God and make any other thing our chief good last end then we seeke that which is infinite within the compasse of that which is finite and soe languish neuer finding that wee seeke because wee seeke it where it is not to be found and besides bring our selues into a strait soe as to regard nothing though neuer so good farther then in reference to this finite thing which wee esteeme as if it were infinite neither doe wee set vp any other thing vnto our selues to be our chiefe good but our selues For as Picus Mirandula noteth the ground of the loue of friendshippe is vnity now first God is more neere to euery of vs then we are to our selues then are wee nearer to our selues then any other thing in the third place there is a nearenesse and coniunction betweene other things and vs. So that in the state of nature instituted wee loued God first and before and more then our selues and our selues no otherwise but in and for him but falling from that loue wee must of necessity decline to loue our selues better then any thing else and seeke our owne greatnesse our owne glory and the things that are pleasing to vs more then any thing else and because the soule vnmindfull of her owne worth and dignity hath demersed herselfe into the body senses is degenerated into the nature and condition of the body she seeketh nothing more thē bodily pleasures as fitting to her declineth nothing more as cōtrary to her then the things that grieue afflict the outward man This is the fountaine of all the euills that are found in our nature this putteth vs into horrible confusions for hauing raised our selues into the throne of God by pride and fancied vnto our selues a peerelesse and incomparable greatnesse wee are no lesse grieued at the good of other men then if it were our evill nay indeede it is become our euill for how can our excellence be pearles and incomparable if any other excell or equall us or haue any thing wherein he is not subordinate to us thus doe wee runne into enuy and all other euills and endleslely disquiet and afflict our selues And secondly wee are hereby depriued of our former liberty for neither do we know all the variety of good things as we did our knowledge being from sense nor their different degrees that so wee might haue power to desire them and to preferre each before other according to the worth of it neither can wee desire any good but as seruing our turne so that what doth not so we cannot esteeme Touching the wil of man since the fall it is resolued by all diuines that it hath lost the freedome it formerly had from sinne and misery but some vnderstand this in one sort and some in another For some affirme that men haue so farre forth lost their liberty from sinne by Adams fall that they cannot but sinne in whatsoeuer morall act they doe which thing I shewed to haue beene
quae in suo genere sunt bona sed ex affectu sunt mala But he sayth there are others of another opinion making the actions of men to be of three sorts denying all the actions of infidels to be sinne Opera cunsta quae ad naturae subsidium siunt semper bona esse astruunt Sed quod Augustinus mala esse dicit si malas habeant causas non ita accipiendum est quasi ipsa mala sint sed quia peccant mali sunt qui ea malo fine agunt Thomas Bradwardin in his summe against the Pelagians of his time cleerely resolueth that the will of man since the fall hath noe power to bring forth any good action that may bee morally good ex fine circumstantiâ—…s And Aluarez though hee thinke that all the actions of infidels are not sinne yet sayth that none of them is truly an act of vertue noe not in respect to the last naturall end CASSANDER sayth that the article of the Augustane confession touching originall sinne agreeth with the doctrine of the Church when as it teacheth that the will of man hath some kinde of liberty to bring forth a kinde of ciuill iustice and to make choyce in things subiect to reason but that without the spirit of God it hath no power to doe any thing that may bee just before God or anything spiritually iust And all orthodoxe divines agree against the Pelagians that it is the worke of grace that wee are made iust of vnjust truely and before God that this grace createth not a new will nor constraineth it against the liking of it but correcteth the depravation of it and turneth it from willing ill to will well drawing it with a kinde of inward motion that it may become willing of vnwilling and willingly consent to the divine calling The Pelagians the enemies of Gods grace being vrged with those texts of Scripture wherein mention is made of grace sought to avoyde the evidence of them affirming that by grace the powers faculties and perfections of nature freely given by God the Creator at the beginning are vnderstood when this would not serue the turne they vnderstood by grace the remission of sins past and imagined that if that were remitted wherein wee haue formerly offended out of that good that is in nature wee might hereafter so bethinke our selues as to doe good decline euill Thirdly When this shift failed likewise they began to say that men happily will not bethinke themselues of that duety they are bound to doe or will not presently and certainely discerne what they are to doe without some instruction or illumination but that if they haue the helpe of instruction and illumination they may easily out of the strength of nature decline evill and doe that they discerne to be good Against this it is excellent that Saint Bernard hath Non est eiusdem facilitatis scire quid faciendum sit facere Quoniam diversa sunt caeco ducatum ac fesso praebere vehiculum Non quicunque ostendit viam praebet etiam viaticum itineranti aliud illi exhibet qui facit ne deviet aliud qui praestat ne deficiat in viâ Itanec quivis doctor statim dator erit boni quodcunque docuerit Porro duo mihi sunt necessaria doceri ac iuvari tu quidem homo rectè consulis ignorantiae sed si verum sentit Apostolus spiritus adiuvat infirmitatem nostram Immo vero qui mihi per os tuum ministrat consilium ipse mihi necesse est ministret per spiritum suum adiutorium quo valeam implere quod consulis When they were driven from this device also they betooke themselues vnto another to vvit that the helpe of grace is necessary to make vs more easily more constantly and vniuersally to doe good then in the present state of nature vve can and to make vs so to doe good as to attaine eternall happines in heauen And this is and vvas the opinion of many in the Roman Church both aunciently and in our time For many taught that men in the present state of nature as now it is since Adams fall may decline each particular sinne doe vvorkes truely vertuous good fulfill the severall precepts of Gods law according to the substance of the vvorke commaunded though not according to the intention of the lavv-giver that they may loue God aboue all as the authour and end of nature So that to these purposes there vvas no necessity of the gift of grace but that grace is added to make vs more easily constantly vniversally to doe good and to merit heaven And therefore Stapleton confesseth that many vvrote vnaduisedly aswell amongst the Schoolemen heretofore as in our time in the beginnings of the differences in religion but that novv men are become vviser I vvould to God it vvere so but it vvill bee found that hovvsoeuer they are in a sort ashamed of that they doe yet they persist to doe as others did before them for they teach still that men may decline each particular sinne doe the true vvorkes of morall vertue doe things the lavv requireth according to the substance of the things commaunded though not so as to merit heauen or neuer to breake any of them Bellarmine indeede denyeth that vvee can loue God aboue all in any sorte vvithout the helpe of grace But Cardinall Caietan saith that though vvee cannot so loue God aboue all as to doe nothing but that vvhich may be referred to God as the last end yet so as to doe many good things in reference to him as the last end And Bellarmine if he deny not his owne principles must say so for first he defendeth that man may doe a worke morally good without grace and doe it to obey God the author of nature And elsewhere he proueth that man cannot perpetually doe well in the state of nature without grace because it is so turned away from God to the creature by Adams sinne specially to himselfe that actually or habitually or in propension hee placeth his last end in the creature not in God so cannot but offend if he bee not watchfull against this propension Whence it followeth that seeing a man must place his chief good in God if he doe good that naturally he can doe good he can naturally place the same in God That which he some-where hath that it is enough to intend the next end explicitè that it will of it selfe be directed to GOD the last end seeing euery good end moueth virtute finis ultimi is idle for it moueth not but virtute finis ultimi amati nam finis non movet nisi amatus ergo amat finem ultimum So that many formerly almost all presently in the Church of Rome are more then Semipelagians not acknowledging the necessitie of grace to make vs decline euill doe good but to doe so constantly
the more ancient for we intend not to accuse the just but to shew the infirmitie of man and the mercie of GOD vpon and towardes all Enoch as Ecclesiasticus testifieth pleased GOD and was translated into paradise but in that it is written in Genesis hee pleased GOD after he begat Methusalem Basil doth not without cause collect that hee formerly did not so please GOD and the same Basil saith that that great Father of the faithfull is found to haue beene some-where vnfaithfull and not without cause for when God first promised Isaak vnto him though he fell on his face yet he laughed in his heart saying thinkest thou that a sonne shall bee borne to him that is an hundred yeares old and that Sarah who is ninety yeares old shall bring forth Wherevpon Hierome speaketh of Sarah and him in this sort they are reproved for laughing and the very cogitation and thought is reprehended as a part of infidelity yet are they not condemned of infidelity in that they laughed but they receiued the garland of righteousnes in that afterwards they beleeued Besides these the Scripture giueth ample testimony to Noah Daniel Iob who onely in Ezechiel it saith may escape the anger of God ready to come on men yet Noah fell into drâ—…nkennes which is a sinne and Daniel professeth he prayed vnto the Lord and confessed his owne sinne and the sin of his people Iob also is commended in the Scripture and of God himselfe as being a sincere man righteous fearing God and departing from euill and that not in an ordinary sort but so as that none of the most righteous then in the world might be compared vnto him as St Austine rightly collecteth out of the words of God vnto Satan This man though hee were a singular example of innocencie patience and all holines and though hee indured with admirable patience horrible tribulations and trials not for his sinnes but for the manifestation of the righteousnes of God yet as Augustine and Gregorie who as loud sounding trumpets set forth his prayses freely confesse hee was not without veniall sinne Which thing is strongly confirmed in that the same most sincere louer of righteousnes confesseth of himselfe saying I haue sinned what shall I doe vnto thee ô thou â—…eeper of men And being reproued by the Lord and in a most mild sort willed to say what hee could for himselfe hee answered without any circuition that he had spoken foolishly and therefore the Scripture as it were carefully declining the giuing occasion to any one to attribute so great innocencie to Iob as to make him sinles sayd not that he sinned not but that hee sinned not in all those things that hee suffered before that time when he answered his wife if wee haue receiued good things of the hand of the Lord why should we not patiently suffer the evils he bringeth vpon vs Moses beloued of God men and the most meeke of all the inhabitants of the earth doubted something of the promise of the Lord when hee stroke the rocke twise with the rodde to bring out water for the people being distressed for want of water and that his doubting displeased the Lord God and hee let him know so much both by reprouing him and punishing him and therefore presently he sayd to him Aaron because yee beleeued mee not to sanctifie mee before the children of Israel you shall not bring in this people into the land which I will giue them The Scripture also highly commendeth Samuell but as August noteth that neither hee nor Moses nor Aaron were without sin David sufficiently declared when he said thou wast mercifull vnto them and didst punish all their inventions for as August noteth he punisheth them that are appointed to condemnation in his wrath the children of grace in mercy but there is no punishment no correction nor no rod of God due but to sinne Zacharie and Elizabeth are renowmed for eminent righteousnes for they are both sayd to haue beene iust before God walking in all his commandements without reproofe but that Zacharie himselfe was not without fault sinne Gabriel shewed when hee sayd vnto him behold thou shalt be silent and not able to speake And the same may be proved out of Paul who sayth that Christ onely needed not daily as the priests of the law to offer sacrifice first for their owne sinnes and then for the sinnes of the people And it is one thing as the fathers of the councell of Mileuis haue well noted in their epistle to Innocentius to walke without sinne another thing to walke without reproofe for he that walketh so that no man can iustly complaine of him or reprehend him may bee said to walke without reproofe though sometimes thorough humane frailety some lighter sinnes doe seize vpon him because men doe not reproue nor complaine but onely of the more greivous sinnes And to what end should wee runne thorough other examples of the Saints Whereas the lights of the world and salt of the earth the Apostles of Christ that receiued the first fruits of the spirit confessed of themselues that in many things they offended and sinned And therefore the Church taught this euer with great consent Tertullian Quis hominum sine delicto Cyprian proveth by Iob Dauid and Iohn that no man is without sinne and defiling Hilarie vpon those words thou hast despised all them that depart from thy righteousnes If God should despise sinners he should despise all for there is none without sinne Hierome shewing that the Ninivites vpon good ground and for good cause commaunded all to fast both old and young writeth thus The elder age beginneth but the youngger also followeth in the same course for there is none without sinne whether he liue but one day or many yeares for if the starres be not cleane in the sight of God how much lesse a worme rottennes and they that are holden guilty of the sinne of Adam that offended against God And in another place wee follow the authority of the Scripture that no man is without sinne And Saint Augustine whosoeuer are commended in Scripture as hauing a good heart and doing righteously and whosoeuer such after them either now are or shall be hereafter they are all truely great iust and praise worthy but they are not without some sinne nor no one of them is so arrogantly mad as to thinke he hath no need to say the Lords prayer and to aske forgiuenes of his sinnes And in his 31 sermon de verbis Apostoli he hath these words Haehetici Pelagiani Coelestiani dicunt iustos in hac vitâ nullum habere peccatum redi haeretice ad orationem si obsurduisti contra veram fidei rationem Dimitte nobis debita nostra dicis an non dicis Si non dicis etsi praesens fueris corpore foris tamen es ab ecclesiâ Ecclesiae enim oratio est vox est de
him in the way of vertue and well-doing so amongst the children the elder should help the yonger the stronger and more excellent the weaker and more meane none could be fitter to assist him in the Kingly and Priestly office while he liued and to succeed him in the same when he died then the first-borne the beginning of strength the excellencie of dignity and the excellencie of power And heereupon we shall finde that from the beginning the first borne excelled the rest in three things For first he was Lord ouer his brethren according to that of Isaac blessing Iacob the yonger in steed of the elder and thereby preferring him to the dignity of the first-borne Be Lord ouer thy brethren and let thy mothers children bow downe vnto thee Secondly he had a double portion thirdly he was holy vnto God which dignity as it belonged formerly euen frō the beginning to the first-borne as being most worthy excellent so was it confirmed when God striking all the first borne in Egypt spared the first born of the Israelites This praeeminence of the first borne continued the eldest euer succeeding in the Kingly and Priestly office vnlesse for impiety or cause best knowen to God he were reiected by him till the time that Israel came out of Aegypt and the Church of God became nationall For then according to the tenor of Iacobs blessing these priuiledges were diuided Iudah had the Scepter Leui the Priesthood and Ioseph the double portion in that two of his Sonnes Ephraim and Manasses became Patriarches and Heads of tribes and had equall inheritance in the land of promise with the sonnes of Iacob So that in the societies of faithfull and holy ones from the first man that God made till Aaron was sanctified to bee a Priest vnto God in steed of the first borne the eldest alwayes vnlesse for impiety or other cause best knowen to God hee were reiected by him had the Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest So when Cain the eldest Sonne of Adam and first that was borne of a woman to whom the dignity of the first borne did pertaine was for his impiety reiected from that honour and Abel who by fayth offered a better sacrifice then hee was slaine by him God raysed vp Seth who being taught by Adam his father touching the Creation the fall the punishments of sinne and the promised Sauiour assisted him while hee lived in guiding the people and Church of God and succeeded him in the same gouernment after his death In like sorte Enosh assisted and succeeded Seth and dying left that honour to Kenan Kenan to Mahalaleel Mahalaleel to Iered Iered suruiuing Enoch his son whom God translated left it to Methusalem Methusalem to Lamech the father of Noe in whose time the children of God that is the posterity of Seth marying with the daughters of men that is such as came of wicked Cain highly displeased almighty God who therevpon appoynted him to bee a preacher of repentance vnto them whom when they contemned and despised hee brought in the floud and destroyed both them and all the inhabitants of the world Noe and his family onely excepted Noe gouerned the Church before and after the floud and left the same office and dignity to Sem his eldest sonne saying Blessed bee the God of Sem and let Canaan be his servant The Lord perswade Iaphet to dwell in the tents of Sem. Sem begat Arphaxad Arphaxad Sale Sale Heber Heber Phaleg Phaleg Rehu Rehu Serug Serug Nachor Nachor Thare Thare Abraham and Abraham Isaac All these onely Heber and Isaac excepted he suruiued so that dying he left the right of his office dignity to Isaac Heber hauing corrupted his wayes This Sem the Iewes thinke to haue beene Melchizedek that met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings that brought out bread and wine to refresh his wearied troupes and blessed him in the name of the Lord as being a Priest of the high God Thus then Sem gouerned the Church in his time and dying in part left his honour to Isaac soiourning as a stranger in Canaan Isaac to Iacob Iacob to Iudah and his sonnes who liuing in Aegypt in bondage with the rest of their brethren could not freely exercise the Kingly and Priestly office nor performe the things pertayning therevnto So that none of these succeeded Sem in the fulnesse as well of Kingly as Priestly power 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 BVt when it pleased Almighty God who chose vnto himselfe the posteritie of Israel and sonnes of Iacob as his peculiar portion and inheritance aboue all the nations of the world to bring them with a mighty hand and out stretched arme out of the land of Aegypt and the house of bondage to the land which he promised to their fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob to make of them a mighty people then the former kinde of gouernment which was domesticall not so well fitting a people as a houshold he setled another in steed of the first borne which formerly in each family and kindred was both a King and Priest he chose the tribe of Iudah to sway the scepter and to be a lawgiuer to the rest of of his people and the tribe of Leui to attend his Tabernacle and seruice and out of all the families of that tribe tooke Aaron and his sonnes to serue in the Priests office appointing the rest to meaner seruices about the Sanctuary or to bee assistants to the Priests and rulers in the gouernment of the people 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 THE Priests the sonnes of Aaron whom God separated from the rest of their brethren the sonnes of Leui were of two sorts For there was an high Prieste and there were others of an inferiour condition Touching the high Priest foure things are to obserued First his consecration Secondly the things that were required in him that was to be consecrated to so sacred a function Thirdly his imployment and Fourthly his attire The consecration of the high Priest was seauen daies in performing in this sort 1. He that was to be consecrated was brought before the Altar 2. Then he was washed with water and clothed with those sacred garments which God had prescribed holy oyle was poured on his heade sacrifice was offered on the Altar for his sanctification and his garments were sprinkled with the blood of it The things that were required in him that was to serue in the high Priests office were these Hee might not be defectiue nor deformed in body His wife must be a virgin not a widdow not one that had beene diuorced nor that had beene infamous
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
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
many worthies of the world in so diuerse places and at so diuerse times giue testimony to our opinion Touching the creation fall and state of originall sinne there were some and they excellently learned who thought as we doe that man must either be lifted aboue himselfe by grace or fall below himselfe by sinne that there is no middle estate of pure nature that originall righteousnesse was required to the integrity of nature and consequently that being lost nature is corrupted and depriued of all naturall and morall rectitude so that a man after the fall of Adam till grace restore him can do nothing morally good or that is not sin These men defined originall sin to be a priuation of originall righteousnesse that is of that grace without which a man can neither feare loue nor serue God aright And consequently do teach that after Adams fall without grace renewing vs wee cannot keepe the commaundements of God do the workes of morall vertue or any way dispose our selues to a true conuersion and turning vnto God This opinion is lâ—…rnedly defended by Thomas Bradwardin in his discourses against the Pelagians of his time and confirmed by him out of the Scriptures and Fathers and likewise by Gregorius Ariminensis as it was before them by Augustine and Prosper Many there were who thought otherwise whom Cardinall Contaren blameth as inclining too much to the Pelagian heresie but the best men concurred in judgment with these For proofe whereof Cassander citeth an excellent saying of Bonauentura Hoc inquit piarum mentium est vt nil sibi tribuant sed totum gratiae Dei vnde quantumcunque aliquis det gratiae dei a pietate non recedit etiamsi multa tribuendo gratiae Dei aliquid subtrahit potestati naturae vel liberi arbitrij cum vero aliquid gratiae dei subtrahitur naturae tribuitur quod gratiae est ibi potest periculum interuenire That is it is the property of pious and good mindes to attribute nothing to themselues but to ascribe all vnto the grace of God for how much soeuer a man giueth to the grace of God hee offendeth against no rule of piety noe though by giuing much to the grace of God he subtract something from the power of nature or free-will but when any thing that pertaineth to grace is denied vnto it and giuen to nature there may be some danger Concerning iustification there is a very maine difference betweene the Papists and vs for though we deny not but that there is a donation and giuing of the spirit to all them that are iustified changing and altering them in such sort as that they beginne to do the workes of righteousnesse yet we teach that iustification consisteth in such sort in the remission of sinnes and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse that the faithfull soule must trust to no other righteousnesse but that which is imputed the other beeing imperfect and not enduring the triall of GODS seuere judgement Now that this was the faith of the best and worthiest men in the Church in former times it will easily appeare vnto vs. The righteousnesse of another sayth Bernard is assigned to man because he had none of his owne and vppon the Canticles he sayth I also will sing the mercies of the Lord for euer Shall I sing of mine owne righteousnesse noe Lord I will remember thy righteousnesse onely for that is mine seeing thou art made vnto mee of God righteousnesse Is there any cause for mee to feare least it should not suffice vs both it is no short cloake which according to the Prophet cannot couer two With Bernard all other good men agreed who in respect of the imperfection of our inherent righteousnesse pronounced it to be as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman Who is there saith Gerson that shall dare to boast that hee hath a cleane heart and who shall say I am innocent and I am cleane who is hee that will not quake for feare when he shall stand before God to bee iudged who is fearefull in his counsels Hence Iob in his affliction saith vnto God I feared all my workes knowing that thou sparest not the sinner and again if he will contend with me I cannot answere him one of a thousand Whereunto the prayer of the Prophet agreeth enter not into iudgement with thy seruant O Lord for no liuing man shall bee iustified in thy sight And againe if thou shalt obserue iniquities O Lord Lord who shall endure it Furthermore we reade that Esay wrapping vp himselfe with other and waxing vile in his owne eyes in all humility professed that all our righteousnesse is as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman Who therefore in boasting sort shall dare to shew his righteousnesse to God more then a woman dareth shew the ragges of her confusion and shame to her husband There are two kindes of iustice to which faith leadeth vs saith Cardinall Contarenus the one inherent the other imputed it remaineth that wee enquire vpon which of them we are to stay our selues and by which wee are to thinke that wee are iustified before God that is accounted iust and holy as hauing that iustice that pleaseth God and answereth to that his law requireth I truely saith hee thinke that a man very piously Christianly may say that wee ought to stay to stay I say as vpon a firme and stable thing able vndoubtedly to sustaine vs vpon the iustice of Christ giuen and imputed to vs and not vpon the holinesse and grace that is inherent in vs. For this our righteousnesse is but imperfit and such as cannot defend vs seeing in many things we offend all c. But the iustice of Christ which is giuen vnto vs is true and perfect iustice which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God and in which there is nothing that offendeth God Vpon this therefore as most certaine and stable wee must stay our selues and beleeue that wee are iustified by it as the cause of our acceptation with God this is that precious treasure of Christians which whosoeuer findeth selleth all that he hath to buy it With Contarenus agree the Authors of the Enchiridion of Christian religion published in the prouinciall Synod of Collen in the yeare of our Lord 1536. Which as Cassander saith the more learned diuines in Italy and France approued the authours of the booke called Antididagma Coloniense Albertus Pighius and sundry other who if they were now a liue and should thus teach our Iesuited Papists would soone condemne them as Heretickes Touching merits I haue shewed else-where that Scotus Cameracensis Ariminensis and Waldensis doe thinke there is no merit properly so named With whom agreeth Adrian the Pope vpon the fourth of the sentences writing thus like a Protestant as I thinke Our merits are as a staffe of reed vpon which if a man stay himselfe it will breake and pierce the hand of him that
reason doth he giue of his dislike these words hee saith seeme to pretend a kind of doubting or staggering which must not be allowed especially in such men as are spirituall As if a spirituall man might doubt of nothing nor be ignorant of nothing whereas yet all men know S. Augustine S. Hierome and other holy Fathers who as wee thinke were spirituall doubted of the meaning of sundry passages of holy scriptures and left many questions vnresolued If happily he say men may not doubt of matters of faith and that therefore they must not be said to haue mindes desirous of truth with resolution to embrace it it will be answered that noe man professing himselfe to be a Christian ought to doubt of such things as all Christians are bound expressely to beleeue yet are there many matters of faith that is such as must be beleeued at least implicite that faithfull men may doubt of and enquire after Yea at first when a man beginneth to beleeue hee doubteth of all points of faith and must be setled in the same by the Scriptures interpreted vnto him the diuine illumination of grace making him vnderstand them Thirdly whereas I reckon the knowledge of the rule of faith and the practise of the Saints according to the same amongst the meanes which are necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scripture and define that rule First to bee the summary comprehension of such principall articles of diuine knowledge as are contained in the Creede of the Apostles and are the principles whence all other things are deriued Secondly all such things as all Christians are bound to beleeue expressely which haue bin euer constantly beleeued by all such as haue not beene noted for singularity and nouelty Hee sayth most men will dislike my doctrine and pronounceth this rule to bee verie vncertaine and yet presently forgetting himselfe addeth that hee hath proued in the first part of this Treatise that in very deede the Scriptures ought to bee interpreted according to the rule of faith that is the summe of Christian Religion preserued as a depositum in the Church But some man happily will say that howsoeuer he forgetteth himselfe yet hee hath good aduantage against vs. For first he argueth that if the Scripture be to bee interpreted according to the rule of faith the rule of faith it selfe is not knowne and beleeued through the authority of the Scripture Secondly hee sayth the practise of the Saints from the beginning to which I require men to haue an eye in interpreting Scripture canne very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of Antiquity according to my grounds For answere to which obiections First I say that the particular and seuerall parts of Scripture must bee interpreted according to the rule of fath that is the summe of Christian Doctrine receiued in the Church and that yet the same summe of Christian doctrine is no otherwise to bee receiued by vs but because it hath beene deliuered by the Church as gathered out of the due comparing of one part of Scripture with another and from thence confirmed and proued Neither must wee firmely rest in the direction of it till the Church make vs see and discerne how it is gathered out of seuerall places of Scripture layd together Secondly that the practise of the saints may bee knowne out of the monuments of antiquity soe farre forth as is necessary for the helping of vs to vnderstand the Scriptures without any such difficultie as the Treatiser imagineth For example when Saint Augustine was to interpret certaine places of Scripture touching the deriuation of sinne from Adam and to cleare the point whether it were by naturall propagation or by imitation onely as the Pelagians thought it was not hard for him to know that the Church did euer most carefully present her new borne infants to Baptisme before they could bee mis-led and drawne away to euill by following the example of Adams disobedience thence to infer that she euer beleeued that infants are conceiued and borne in sinne and consequently that the propagation of sinne from Adam is naturall and not by imitation onely The fourth thing that I require in him that will take vpon him to interprete the Scripture is a due consideration what will follow vpon his interpretation agreeing with or contrary to the things generally receiued beleeued amongst Christians against which he hath nothing to say yet that hee might bee thought to say something first hee challengeth Luther for not obseruing this rule And secondly affirmeth that it is insufficient if at any time almost all Christians may erre as I teach But first concerning Luther the good man should know that hee cannot iustly be charged with the breach of this rule seeing he broached no new doctrine in the Church as the Treatiser vntruly affirmeth but such as had the testimony of Antiquity and the allowance of innumerable Christians in his time as well in the West as in the East And secondly that the possibilitie of the erring of the greatest part of the Church prejudiceth not this rule he might if hee pleased learne out of Vincentius Lirinensis who acknowledgeth that sometimes error may ouer-spread almost all the present church prescribeth that in such a case men should looke vp higher into antiquity The two other ensuing rules to wit consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted the occasion of the words the things going before following after the knowledge of all such histories arts sciences as may helpe vs in interpreting the Scripture he passeth ouer as necessary though not sufficient of themselues alone The knowledge of the originall tongues he acknowledgeth to bee profitable but will not admit it to be necessary especially according to the conceipt of the Romanists First because they are sure they haue the Scriptures rightly translated Secondly because they make not the Scripture the propounder of their beleefe but expound it according to the rule of Faith deliuered receiued In which passages he bewrayeth grosse ignorance For first the Romanists are not sure that they haue the Scripture truly translated as it appeareth by that which Andradius hath written who proueth at large that though the vulgar translation were allowed of by the Councell of Trent as containing nothing in it whence any heresie or errour in faith may be inferred yet is it not without many great mistakings And secondly if they were sure yet as Melchior Canus sheweth the knowledge of tongues is needfull for the finding out of the meaning of sundry particular places of Scripture by reason of some ambiguity or obscurity in the translation Thirdly for that though the rule of Faith serue for direction in generality so that following the same we may bee sure not to decline from the truth of doctrine yet will not that rule secure vs from all erring and swaruing from the meaning of each place in particular so that in this respect the
sort was diuided vpon a meere mistaking and that Athanasius by making either part rightly to vnderstand the other procured a reconciliation Neither neede this to seeme strange for oftentimes controversies are multiplied and by ill handling made intricate that in trueth indeede are no controversies and might easily bee cleared if there were a due proceeding in the discussing of the same So that the Treatiser had no reason to say that an indifferent reader will hardly excuse me frō error in this behalfe Wherefore let vs goe forward and see what other proofes hee bringeth to proue that my assertiō cannot be true First whereas I say there is no difference touching the Sacramēt the vbiquitary presence the like between the Lutherans Sacramētaries as he maketh me to speak he saith I may easily be cōvinced of vntruth because Caluin avoucheth that by the vbiquitary presence Marcion an anciēt heretick is raised vp out of hell a thousand bookes are written about the same point shewing how great dissentions there haue beene in the world touching the same But this proofe is easily disproued for though it bee true that Caluine hath that to imagine that the body of Christ hath no finite dimensions but such as are extended as farre as heauen earth and that it is euery where by actuall position or locall extension is to make it a fantasticall body and to raise vppe the old hereticke Marcion out of hell yet to thinke that Christs body is personally euery where 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 neither Calvine nor any other Oxthodoxall Diuine euer condemned So that the Diuines of Germany condemning that kinde of vbiquitary presence that Caluine doth and Caluine allowing that other whereof they speake they must of necessity agree together notwithstanding any thing the Treatiser can say to the contrary but because I haue largely handled this matter touching the vbiquitary presence and the Sacrament in my fifth Booke of the Church and in my answere to Higgons I will no longer infist vpon it but referre the Reader to the former places Secondly whereas I affirme that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall hee sayth whosoeuer readeth the actes of the Synode holden by the Lutherans at Altenberge and the writings of the Flaccians against the Synergists and Adiaphorists shall finde dissentions touching greater matters For the cleering of this objection it must bee obserued that the supposed differences betweene those whom the Treatiser calleth Flaccians and the other whom he nameth Synergists were touching the co-operation of the wil of man with the grace of God in her first conuersion vnto GOD and the necessity of good workes to saluation Concerning the former of these two poynts it was euer agreed on between both these sorts of men that after the first conuersion there is a co-operation of the will of man altered renewed by the worke of Gods Spirit with grace in all ensuing actions of piety and vertue and in this sence both of them as defending a Synergy or co-operation of mans wil with Gods grace might rightly bee named Synergists 2ly It was likewise agreed on by both sorts that man by the fall of Adam and in the state of sinne is not onely wounded in the powers of his soule in respect of things naturall externall and politicall so that hee cannot performe any action so well in any of these kindes of thinges as before hee could but that hee is vtterly spoyled of all power strength and ability to doe any spirituall and supernaturall actions of true vertue and piety and is not onely halfe dead but wholly dead hauing no more power of himselfe to doe any thing that is good then a dead man hath to performe the workes of life Thirdly it was agreed on that there is not left in men corrupted by Adams fall the least sparke of morall or spirituall good desire or inclination which being blowed vpon and stirred may concurre with Gods grace for the bringing forth of any good worke So that neither of them were Synergists in this sense though Illyricus Museus and other supposed that Victorinus and some other did thinke so Fourthly it was with like vnanimous consent agreed on that there remaineth still in man after the fal a desire of good and of that good wherein there is no defect of good no mixture of euill no mutability nor feare of being lost though such be the infelicity of sinfull man that hauing his vnderstanding darkned and his will peruersly inclined he seeketh and supposeth he may finde this good where it is not to be found So that when God commeth to conuert and turne a sinfull man to himselfe he needeth not newly to put a desire of good into him for that is naturally found in him but by inlightning the vnderstanding that it may discerne and see what true good is and where it is to bee found and by turning the will from desiring that as good which is not or not in such degree as is supposed he maketh him a good and happie man that was euill and miserable before Neither doth he create a will in man but changeth the will he findeth in him that it may affect that which it did not and so createth a new will and heart in him that is frameth him to the desire of that from which hee was most averse before There is then no spirituall nor morall good in man when he is to bee conuerted vnto God no knowledge of true and spirituall good nor no desire of the same which being stirred vp may concurre with the grace of God and therefore no synergy or co-operation of any such good knowledge or desire of good with the grace of God in our first conuersion but that confused knowledge of good and naturall inclination to desire it that is found in man before his conuersion when good desires are to be raised in him concurreth with the grace of God directing the vnderstanding to seeke that good where it is to bee found and turning bending and bowing the heart to the loue and liking of it For that man desireth that which seemeth good vnto him he hath of nature that he desireth that which seemeth and is not hee hath from the corruption of nature and it argueth sinfull defect and that hee desireth the true good and rightly it is of grace directing the vnderstanding and turning the will from affecting that which before peruersly it did desire to seeke that which it should and in such sort as it should And so in that hee doth desire and pursue that which he thinketh to be good out of the naturall inclination of his will but that which indeede is and he should thinke to be good out of the motions of the spirit there is a kinde of Synergy or co-operation of the naturall powers of man
and Gods grace euen in his first conuersion Wherefore let vs passe from the question touching the co-operation of mans will with Gods grace to the other concerning the necessity of good workes to saluation Where first it is agreed on that there is necessarily required in all that will be saued a dislike of former euils wherewith God was offended Secondly a ceasing to doe euill Thirdly a desire of grace that may preserue and keepe vs from the like Fourthly a desire to doe things pleasing vnto God in that time that remaineth Fiftly it is acknowledged by all that in them that are justified and haue title to eternall saluation good workes are so farre forth necessary to saluation if they haue time that the not doing of them is sinne which without repentance and remission excludeth from saluation Sixthly that good works are necessary as fruites of faith which all they that are justified and looke for saluation are bound in duty to bring forth Seauenthly that they are not so absolutely necessary that no man can be saued without them for a man may be saued that in the last moment disliketh sinne and desireth pardon for it and grace that he may not fall into it again without the actuall doing of any good workes So that I protest I cannot see wherein there could bee any reall difference betweene these men neither will the Treatiser I thinke be able to shew me any such difference either out of the acts of the Synode of Altenberge or by any other meanes For that men are bound in duty to doe good workes that they necessarily follow faith that no man can be saued without dislike of sinne desire of avoyding it and purpose of doing that which is pleasing vnto God Illyricus made no question and so disliked not the saying of his opposites that good workes are necessary to saluation as thinking them in no sort necessary but because he thought their words did import that no man in any case can bee saued without the actuall doing of good workes no though hee haue them in desire and that no man may assure himselfe farther of the fauour and mercy of God towards him then hee findeth the presence of the workes of vertue in him which thinges vndoubtedly they neuer meant Another opinion there is that is attributed to Illyricus touching the nature of originall sinne which is greatly condemned by many For first hee is charged to haue taught that the substance of mans soule was changed and corrupted by Adams fall whence it will follow that it is mortall Secondly that sinne is a substance sundry other like thinges whence the impious positions of the Manichees may be inferred For the clearing of Illyricus from these impieties first wee must obserue that hee distinguisheth two sorts of corruption naming the one naturall and the other spirituall the one consisting in the abolition of the thing corrupted the other in a transformation of it Secondly that this transformation of the soule is not in respect of her essence and being simply but of her essentiall and substantiall powers faculties Thirdly that this transformation of the soule in her faculties is not in respect of all her faculties but the best and principall only to wit reason and the will Fourthly that there is not any transformation or transuersion of these faculties simply in respect of all obiects for the soule by the light of naturall reason iudgeth rightly of many things still though with some imperfections but in respect of her principall object to wit God his worship and Law So that this is all that Illyricus sayth that the soule of man since Adams fall is so transformed and changed in the best and principall of her essentiall and substantiall faculties that they are not onely turned away from their principall obiect and from tending to the right end whither they should looke but converted also to the desiring of such things as they should not or in such sort as they should not but of the extinguishing or abolishing of any of the essentiall and naturall faculties of the soule much lesse of the essence and being of it simply he hath no word Wherefore let vs come to the other part of the accusation framed against him which is that he maketh sinne to be a substance and let vs heare what he will say vnto it himselfe There are saith Illyricus certaine absurd sayings maliciously attributed vnto me as that sin is a substance that it is in the predicament of substance that it is the reasonable soule of man and that on the contrary side the soule is sin but I neuer vsed any such speeches neither did I euer say any more but that some part of originall sin is the soules essentiall facultie of reason the will corrupted in that they are averted turned away from their right obiect end But for the more full clearing of him from that impious opinion which is imputed to him wee must take notice of certaine good obseruations found in him As first that we may speake of sinne concretiuely or abstractiuely Secondly that if we speake of sin abstractiuely that is sinfulnesse it is nothing but an inconformitie with the Law of GOD. Thirdly that that to which such inconformitie immediatly cleaueth and wherein want of conformitie with Gods Law is found may rightly be named sin concretiuely So that if such inconformitie be found in any action we may safely pronounce it to be sin if in any habite we may pronounce that that habite is sin if in any inclination or desire that that is sinne also if in any the essentiall substantiall faculties of the soule as being turned from the right object end and converted to such obiect and end as they should not wee may safely pronounce that these faculties disordered put out of course are sin euen that originall birth sin which is the fountaine whence all other doe flow So that to conclude this point according to the opinion of Illyricus if wee speake formally abstractiuely originall sin is the disordering of the essentiall substantiall Faculties of the soule consisting in an aversion from the principall obiect and a conversion to other in stead of it But if wee speake concretiuely materially originall sin is the substantiall facultie of the soule which wee call Free-will turned from seeking God to oppose it selfe against him in which passages there is no impiety nothing vnsound or that doeth not stand with the trueth which wee professe but his manner of speaking was such as might giue occasion of dislike therefore himselfe confesseth that hee qualified some formes of wordes which hee had formerly vsed vpon the advice of Simon Museus that his meaning might bee the better knowne no misconstruction made of that hee meant well So that it will bee found that there was no reall difference betweene Melancthon Illyricus about originall sin or any other matter of faith therefore